Errors in the Bible ? True or False

Bible Contradictions Compiled by Donald Morgan:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

Contradictions in the Holy Bible
http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/contradictions.htm

Errors in the Bible - a sample
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13503.htm

The contradicting biographies of Jesus Christ:
http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/gospels.htm

Strange Laws in the Bible:
http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/laws.htm

The Bible as God's Word:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible.htm

Comments please,

Ishaq.

 

Right. As if anyone is going to click on the links, dig up their information, and make a comment. As far as infidels.org goes, they aren't in the debate mood...I have tried and failed.

 

At the beginning of the 20th century there was a publishing company (in New York, I think) that offered a large monetary reward for anyone who could prove conclusively a contradiction in the bible. Nobody collected.

I personally have enjoyed 37 years of regular bible reading and have found remarkable consistency among its several dozen authors, in various countries, writing in three languages (Hebrew, Greek, and a little bit of Aramaic).

 

At least read your own links. Copy paste jobs are easy to find:

 

I agree that the Bible is not exactly correct the way it was changed over the centuries, but I think it's pretty lame that you don't even read what you post...

 

The only "inconsistancies" I'm aware of that have held up are various censuses. One book will say X many people were in the army and another says Y many were in the army.

Considering God told the leaders not to take counts of their armies I don't think it's a stretch to say those numbers are approximations.

The issue with the Bible is not consistancy. It's whether you believe what it says and/or whether you like what it says. Just because something is consistant and without technical flaw does not make it true.

The Koran could be 100% consistent with no contradictions whatsoever. The problem, that keeps people from accepting it as truth, is that it contains some rather rediculous ideas. Same with the Book of Mormon, same with the Satanic Bible.

Rather than having a pointless debate about contradictions, I think it'd be more interesting to discuss some idea that's in the Bible that you don't like.

 

Guys,

I have read the Bible now everyday for a long time. It changed my life. In a manner which no one not of faith could ever understand. It's like arguing with the wind.

But to say there are no inconsistencies is not correct.

Even in the preface of the original King James they mention a large numbers of inconsistencies, or errors, which they could not consensus upon and therefore remain.

I read one the other night, for instance, one which, in other gospelsreads different. And that is when Jesus was baptised and then "immediately" led to the desert with the devil for testing.

The premise of my discussion was that even with Jesus, the closer you get to Him, the more that ol' devil will fight for you. So, at the moment directly after Baptism of Jesus Himself we read in Mark:


Mar 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: v11 And there came a voice from heaven, [saying], Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. v12 ¶ And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

But John confuses me of this account. I am confused. But I have faith that all is true. Period.

Again we read of one King in one book Chronicles I think, who would have had to be twenty years younger in Kings.

So what?

Those who do not believe, or do not want to believe will look after the most miniscule minutia as if to say... here see, it is not the infallable Word of God.

But it is. And if it has touched you just so, you understand... And if it has not, one might just as easily try and sweep back the very tide with a broom.

But it is in the heart where we will find this truth the most. This is what I believe. Praise His name for His Glorious Book.

 

I do agree with your post except for that part... ridiculousness is a matter of opinion...

 

As a young man, I took the message of Christ literally. I believed him to be a revolutionary, both in his time, and in his call through the ages to faith and selflessness residing deeply in the heart over sterile pronouncements and self-aggrandizing speech. I did not believe in accommodations to modernity to make it easier to swallow some of the more radical notions of Christ's message - such as:

So, let's speak plainly. One either believes in the message, or one does not. One either says the above (and below), are Christ's words, or they are not, and one is to follow him, and his word, as a disciple, or one is not. One is not free to pick and choose at will to accomodate one's personal ethos.

I don’t know that I find contradictions in the Bible as much as I see actions made in its name so wholly out of line with what I draw from its message.

Kalvin – for one – please tell me how:

A familiar refrain where you place yourself as judge over Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, (who else is in your blacklist, as Judge?) again, squares with the dictum:

or, anyone, how

(and all that follows on joyfully attending this execution) squares with:

I just don't understand. I am no longer a Christian. But how the message from a man whose call for utter selflessness and unconditional love - agape, in one use of the word, for all humanity, and forgetting putting up the affairs of this world in favor of a return to the Creator's original intent, has been construed as it has become, eludes all my understanding.

 

That's right. We shouldn't judge other religions. We should just give up this silly pursuit of "truth." Saying you can't judge is basically saying you can't use your brain to discern the validity of things.

Who are you to judge Christianity so that you reject it? You should stop thinking and just sit in the pew!

And who are you to judge me for judging other religions based on my foundation of truth?

See, I understand that you rejected Christianity because you don't understand it. That's the judgement you've passed on it. You don't understand it, therefore it's not true.

Fortunatly what I consider truth doesn't depend on your understanding of things.

Of course it is. But it's a more fruitful discussion to talk about what someone sees as rediculous to find out why and if it's a valid judgement.

It's entirely pointless to debate about the technical aspects of a text. Who cares if God exists if you think he's a big jerk and you wouldn't want to be with him anyway?

It's far more interesting to talk about God's personality than to argue that he does or does not exists.

Assume Santa Claus does exist. I think he's a big jerk for only giving toys to the "good" kids. There's not a shred of goodness in Santa at all. A good person would forgive those who do wrong and give them a gift anyway. Anyone can do good things for those they percieve as good. It takes character to do good even for those who do bad.

 

Of course there are places where there are discrepancies and what some perceive to be errors...but quite honestly, if all four gospels were the exact same do you think they would be as believable? The Bible is the work of Humans and the Holy Spirit..while I believe the Holy Spirit is not capable of making mistakes, humans are...why do you think there are many different translations of the Bible? Alot of the discrepancies are mearly linguistic issues.

 

This is your Gospel, and, presumptively, Jesus' words, not mine. I'll repeat that I do not understand how any of this is in keeping with Christ's message.

 

I wasn't aware that we were discussing the Gospel of Northpointaiki. Tell us more about your Gospel that is yours and not ours.

 

We're not, as I already clearly and simply said. Please answer how any of this squares with the words and message of Christ - his words, above. Or do you now wish to go to some other source, the very theological offense you accuse many, many others of in their search for Christian truth?

 

I know. It's really tough for "open minded" people to understand that Jesus taught us to judge righteous judgement. To not be hypocrites.

He didn't teach us to be braindead idiots that don't judge anything.

Even Jesus told a group of people they were a "brood of vipers."

There is nothing wrong with judging a ball to be round. It's rediculous how many people don't get that. But you have to be prepared for that ball to call you fat and you have to accept that is the truth if it is. If you are fat and you point out someone is fat then you need to be prepared to take your criticism for yourself as well.

It's a modern invention that judging things is a bad thing. Are you going to allow someone you love to smoke 10 packs a day because heaven forbid you should "judge them" by telling them that they're going to kill themselves?

I never claimed I was perfect. I've never said "be like me" or "you're wrong because me me me me me." So as soon as I start judging things against myself then everything you've posted Northpoint, will be of any value. Until then, you're just exercising some illconcieved personal vendetta against me.

 

Well, not quite.

And therein lies the problem. I see far too much ascription to Christ of the first paragraph, the Avenging One, or herald of same; and not enough of the second - which, if we accept the message, fulfilled the first. He sought a contrite and humble heart, did he not? Free from judgment, and solitary attention on relation to God? In saying (and I do paraphrase), "it isn't enough to wear the holy garments, and make a show of prayer. One must give over fully, deep in the heart - nothing else means a thing" I think he was very much making a call to arms - but of the heart.

I do not believe it is possible to pick and choose those parts acceptable to one's ethos.

 

North,

I think the point you're not getting here is Grace.

I know why, I think. I was raised Catholic... it's either their way or be damned... it's really down to a science. But while Grace is a theme they touch upon considerably, it is a concept that they do not convey. Not really. And maybe they can't maybe it's one of those things you either get, or, in my case, need so bad, that a light goes off.

North, you know me, I'm just a glorified waiter. Not really a complicated guy... very partial to slapstick.

 

And you know me, Brother - I was raised Methodist but was fasting behind the hills of Ventura as a 12 year old, foregoing all formal schooling, as I believed the Second Coming was imminent...

I understand Grace. But it comes upon a prepared heart, humble in acknowledging "I know nothing, and supplicate because of it." And this is what I find missing in so much of the discourse.

 

Christ is both highly judgemental (calling the pharisees hyprocrites repeatedly) and also merciful. If those very same people repented he would forgive them instantly. But before you can be forgiven you have to be aware of your sin and only then can you repent.

If you allow someone to continue in sin then they may soon decide they are not in sin and never repent and be far worse off.

If you refuse to be judged then you are rejecting mercy. That's the short of it.

Since when does being humble require being braindead? Or even weak?

You are humble because you are aware of your position. Not because you're stupid or weak. Is a servant humble before a master because they are stupid or weak?

 

Kalvin, I am sorry if you feel I have a personal vendetta against you. I don't. My questions are sincere - I don't know how celebrating the death of a human being, or condemning the search for truth of others - be it Mormon, Catholic, Jehovah's Witness, or, yours truly, when you once said something to the effect of "well, let us all know how your self-guided journey to perfection is going," or something to that effect - has anything to do with Christ or his message.