|
|
The Bible Contradicts Itself
#259256
04/05/09 02:10
04/05/09 02:10
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
delerna
OP
Junior Member
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
|
The Bible is full of contradictions and inaccuracies and therefore cannot be the word of God.
I have seen and read that statement over and over.
I agree with the conclusion but I do not agree with the statement.
I have never found or been shown a contradiction or innacuracy that could withstand closer scrutiny.
Therefore, I challenge readers who maintain that statement to show me something that is a "REAL" inaccuracy or contradiction and not somebodies flawed intepretation, that exists in the text and meaning of the bible.
I mean in the text and meaning of the bible and not someones interpretation.
In other words, don't try and tell me that the bible teaches that the earth is flat because It does not.
Sure, it speaks of the four corners of the earth, but it also speaks of the orb or sphere of the earth. Does that mean the bible is inconsistent and confused?
You may interpret that "the four corners of the earth" means that the bible is teaching a flat earth and therefore inaccurate.
Someone else may interpret "the orb or sphere of the earth" as meaning the bible is teaching a round earth
I maintain that both must be true.
Therefor I interpret that neither statement is meant to describe how the earth looks from a scientific standpoint. Instead, they are actually figurative terms meant to teach spiritual principles or spiritual truths.
Neither of those statements show that the bible is confused and inaccurate. What is confused and inaccurate? It is the interpretations! not the bible.
Also, don't try bringing up the miracles. You may not believe them but your disbelief does not prove they are impossible and never happened and my belief does not proove them possible or real. That is a pointless discussion that neither side can win.
So, show me a "REAL" one, one that does not rely totally on interpretation or disbelief or putting human limitations on God.
Last edited by delerna; 04/05/09 02:15.
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Contradicts Itself
[Re: delerna]
#259270
04/05/09 07:49
04/05/09 07:49
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 658
germany
Tiles
User
|
User
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 658
germany
|
And we talk about which bible that is the only true and consistent one? To quote Fastlane 69 I'm sorry, which of these is "perfectly preserved and accurate"?
(AAT) The Complete Bible: An American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, 1939.
(ABT) The Afro Bible Translation
(ATB) The Alternate Translation Bible
(ASV) American Standard Version (purchase ASV)
(AB) The Amplified Bible (editions for sale)
(ALT) Analytical-Literal Translation
(ASL) American Sign Language Translation
(AV) Authorized Version (same as KJV)
(Bar) The New Testament: A New Translation, by William Barclay
(BLB) The Better Life Bible
(BWE) Bible in WorldWide English
The Bible Gateway Translation Information (see BWE description)
(CCB) Christian Community Bible
(CE) The Common Edition: New Testament
(CJB) Complete Jewish Bible
Comparison with NIV
(CV) Concordant Version
(CEV) Contemporary English Version
CEV online
Energion review
Interview: On the Shoulders of King James
Ken Anderson review
Michael Marlow review
Tyndale website overview
(Dar) Darby
(DR) Douay-Rheims
(DRP) David Robert Palmer's translations of the gospels
(EMTV) English Majority Text Version
(ENT) Extreme New Testament (revision of Simple English Bible, below)
Forward, by Tommy Tenney
(ERV) Easy-to-Read Version
(ESV) English Standard Version
(FF) Ferrar Fenton Bible
(GLW) God's Living Word
(GNC) God's New Covenant: A New Testament Translation, by Heinz W. Cassirer
(GNT) Good News Translation [formerly, (GNB) Good News Bible, and (TEV) Today's English Version]
(GW) God's Word
God's Word online
Review of God's Word, by Wayne Leman
(HCSB) Holman Christian Standard Bible (online, see Access Bibles section, below
article
(HNV) Hebrew Names Version
(ICB) International Children's Bible (children's version of the NCV)
(ISB) International Standard Bible (formerly titled The Simple English Bible)
(ISV) The International Standard Version
ISV Naturalness and Comprehension Survey, by Phil Fields
(JBP) New Testament in Modern English, by J.B. Phillips
New Testament in Modern English, Revised, by J.B. Phillips
Student edition
The J. B. Phillips Translation: A Guided Tour
(JNT) Jewish New Testament: A Translation of the New Testament That Expresses Its Jewishness (see Complete Jewish Bible)
(JPS) Jerusalem Publication Society: Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text
(KJV) King James Version and recent revisions
KJV
Translators to the Reader
(DKJB) Defined King James Bible
DKJB reviewed by Joseph Ng
DKJB reviewed by David W. Cloud
(KJII) King James Version II (renamed to Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)
(KJ21) King James for the 21st Century
KJV21 review
(KJ2000) King James 2000
(LITV) The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (formerly named King James II)
LITV download site
The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible Frequently Asked Questions
(MKJV) Modern King James Version
alternate site
MKJV download site
(NKJV) New King James Version
(RAV) Revised Authorised Version (British edition of the NKJV), review
(RKJV) Revised King James New Testament
(TMB) The Third Millennium Bible
(UKJV) Updated King James Version
(LITV) The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (see under KJV and recent revisions)
(LB) Living Bible
(MAEV) Modern American English Vernacular
discussion list for MAEV
(MLB) Modern Language Bible: New Berkeley Version
(Mof) Bible: James Moffatt Translation (amazon.com)
(NAB) New American Bible
"The New American Bible": A Voice From the Past
(NAB) New American Bible (access entire Bible)
(NASB) New American Standard Bible
What is the philosophy of translation set forth by The Lockman Foundation?
New Berkeley Version (see Modern Language Bible)
(NCV) New Century Version
(NEB) New English Bible
(NET) New English Translation
NET Bible online
Try the NET Bible! (a critique)
An Open Letter Regarding The NET Bible, New Testament (a reply to the critique)
(NET) New Evangelical Translation
(NIrV) New Internation Reader's Version
(NIV) New International Version
The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation
(NJB) New Jerusalem Bible
(NKJV) New King James Version (see under KJV and recent revisions)
(NLV) New Life Version
(NLT) New Living Translation
The Living Bible Reborn
Re: New Living Translation (a review)
(NRSV) New Revised Standard Bible
NRSV critiqued by John H. Dobson
(NWT) New World Translation (published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of the Jehovah's Witnesses)
(OBP) The Original Bible Project
(OSB) Orthodox Study Bible
(ONT) The Original New Testament: The First Definitive Translation of the New Testament in 2000 Years, by Hugh Schonfield
(PMB) Postmodern Bible - Amos
(Rec) Recovery Version
(REB) The Revised English Bible (revision of NEB)
(RSV) Revised Standard Version
(RV) Revised Version, 1885
(RYLT) Revised Young's Literal Translation
(Sch) The Schocken Bible
(SEB) The Simple English Bible
(SENT) Spoken English New Testament
(TM) The Message
A Summary Critique: The Message, by John R. Kohlenberger III
(TMB) The Third Millennium Bible
(TEV) Today's English Version [see (GNT) Good News Translation]
Book Review: Today's English Version (TEV)
(TNIV) Today's New International Version
TNIV website
TNIV Debate Between Dr. Wayne Grudem and Dr. Mark Strauss
TNIV links
(Tyn) Tyndale
(Wey) Weymouth
Preface to the First Edition
(WEB) World English Bible
(Wms) The New Testament in the Language of the People, by Charles B. Williams (another website)
(WNT) Wesley's New Testament
(Wuest) The New Testament (An Expanded Translation) purchase
Yes Word (update of Tyndale translation)
(YLT) Young's Literal Translation of the Bible (download entire text)
view Young's Literal Translation of the Bible
Preface to the First Edition The Bible S contradicts themselves 
Last edited by Tiles; 04/05/09 07:50.
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Contradicts Itself
[Re: Tiles]
#259610
04/06/09 21:37
04/06/09 21:37
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
delerna
OP
Junior Member
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
|
Use anyone of them that is a litteral translation.
The bibles contradict themselves
It's easy to make statements when you don't back it up with examples. I have read a few of those and not found any contradiction So back to my question, where ???
Last edited by delerna; 04/06/09 21:42.
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Contradicts Itself
[Re: delerna]
#259618
04/06/09 22:08
04/06/09 22:08
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
delerna
OP
Junior Member
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
|
The only contradictions are in the interpretation.
So the question really should be, which is the one true interpretation?
The answer is the one where you allow the bible to interpret itself!
and it shouldn't matter which translation you use.
In my experience, you can use any or all of them.
That aside, lets not get into interprertation differences, thats not what I am asking.
I am asking, where is the bible inacurate?
Where does the bible contradict itself?
In a way that dosn't rely on interpretation, diselief or putting human limitations on God.
I don't care which bible you use, just use any litteral translation!
They all say essentially the same thing.
I have read and compared enough different versions to feel confident in saying
"The truth is obvious in any and all of them"
Last edited by delerna; 04/06/09 22:53.
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Contradicts Itself
[Re: delerna]
#259619
04/06/09 22:23
04/06/09 22:23
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
delerna
OP
Junior Member
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
|
In fact I will start one off The age old "Where did cain get his wife from" This question comes from the mistaken belief that the bible says that Adam and Eve only had 2 children, Cain and Able. It has been used by many teenagers in scripture at highschool in an attempt to discredit the bible by highlighting its inaccurate and contradictory nature. when in fact
Genesis Gen 5:4
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters
they had sons AND daugters and the exact number is not mentioned. This excerpt is from the King James Version (for those who insist that it is the one true version). That version is fine if you don't mind reading a dead language. I much prefer to read it in modern english myself. Anyway, there is no "REAL" mystery as to where this woman came from. The bible itself tells us, in any litteral translation you care to read.
Last edited by delerna; 04/06/09 23:05.
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Contradicts Itself
[Re: delerna]
#259650
04/07/09 03:53
04/07/09 03:53
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
|
Let's start with a fairly simple one. Please consider the following two passages from the Bible: “And these [are they which] ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they [are] an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.” (Levitcus 11:13-19 King James Version) “[Of] all clean birds ye shall eat. But these [are they] of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, And every raven after his kind, And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan, And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant, And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. And every creeping thing that flieth [is] unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten. [But of] all clean fowls ye may eat.” (Deuteronomy 14:11-20 King James Version) In both passages we find a list of "birds." Included in the list of birds is a bird call a bat. Since when is a bat a bird? Now, in the first passage the word fowl is used and this is because of the Hebrew word used which is different than the Hebrew word behind the word bird in the Deuteronomy passage. The word translated as "fowl" is for a winged creature and, yes, a bat is a winged creature. However, the list consists only of what we call "birds" with the one exception of the bat. The passage in Deuteronomy is a parallel. It also lists birds and incorporates the bat in with this list. However, it begins by saying that all the clean birds you can eat and then lists those which cannot be eaten because they are not clean. The Hebrew word translated "birds" is the word tziporim which literally means birds. The list that follows makes it obvious that the writer intends birds and that he includes the bat as a bird. Being parallel passages it is obvious that the writer of both passages includes the bat as a bird. Bats aren't birds. But let's look a little beyond this one passage. Let's go back to Leviticus for a moment and look at the following verse (which follows the other Leviticus passage I quoted above): “All fowls that creep, going upon [all] four, [shall be] an abomination unto you.” (Levitcus 11:20 King James Version) The Israelites are here commanded to not eat any fowls (winged creatures, according to the Hebrew word used) that creep, going up all four. Please name for me the winged creature that has four legs or four feet? Before you do, the Bible gives you some examples of the four footed flying creatures in its list of the clean ones that can be eaten. Here is the passage: “Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon [all] four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; [Even] these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all [other] flying creeping things, which have four feet, [shall be] an abomination unto you.” (Levitcus 11:21-23 King James Version) Here the writer lists a few "four footed" creatures that fly: the locust, the beetle and the grasshopper. However, the last time I checked, all of these creatures had more than four feet!
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Contradicts Itself
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#259663
04/07/09 06:55
04/07/09 06:55
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 658
germany
Tiles
User
|
User
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 658
germany
|
Use anyone of them that is a litteral translation. But they are different, else there wouldn't be this many different versions. Means they contradict themselves. No matter how hard you try to ignore that. Else there would be just ONE version To repeat my question which is essential before you can go on, WHICH ONE? WHICH IS THE ONLY TRUE AND CONSISTENT? Give me a name 
Last edited by Tiles; 04/07/09 07:00.
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Contradicts Itself
[Re: Tiles]
#259670
04/07/09 08:04
04/07/09 08:04
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
Chief Engineer
|
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
I think the problem is indeed the interpretation. For this reason, there will never be an agreement between believers and skeptics about how many contradictions the bible contains. The bible was written by people of different knowledge and education. Which makes it perfectly understandable that many passages contradict other passages in hundreds of different ways. This link http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.htmllists 418 contradictions, but the bible also contains an even greater amount of plainly wrong statements, for instance a wrong value of the number Pi. However, here comes interpretation: with more or less effort of faith, you can interpret away any contradiction in any possible book. Especially when it's translated from a dead language and you can choose to understand the original words in any way that fits your faith. You can believe in the nonexistence of bible contradictions in exactly the same way as you can believe in the bible miracles.
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Contradicts Itself
[Re: Tiles]
#259691
04/07/09 09:15
04/07/09 09:15
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
delerna
OP
Junior Member
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
|
Dan.
Some interresting points that may indeed be inaccurate.
As you say a bat is not a bird, at least, it is not a bird by todays definition.
You must remember, these commandments were given to a simple people (by todays standards) some 3 to 4 thousand years ago with the intent of relaying Gods instructions in a way that they would understand. Would they have understood If it was said "of the mamals you must not eat the bat"? I don't know and cannot answer.
The insect with 4 legs that have feet is more interesting. Take a look at some pictures of grass hoppers and locusts and you will see 4 legs at the front of their bodies and 2 at the rear that are very different.
What is meant in the text by the statement "which have legs above their feet"?
Could that be refering to the fact that the rear legs have feet that are behind the legs?
Maybe, and with that in mind the rear legs of the beetle also have backwards facing feet. Indeed, maybe the answer is as simple as, the israelites only counted the legs at the front of the body?
Dan, if the fact that we today classify those creatures as having 6 legs is enough of an inaccuracy for you then fine. However, I am not at all convinced that our way is the only way of classifying legs, especially when there is 3 to 4 thousand years separating us from them.
I am not even convinced that ours is the best method of classifing them. Who's to say that in 50 years time science won't change its mind and begin saying that they actually have 4 legs and 2 of something else. It wouldn't be the first time that science has changed its mind.
Then I would be able to say that the bible was accurate all along and todays science was wrong.
That wouldn't be the first time that happened either.
Not so long ago, Archeologists used to deny the existence of the Assyrians.
But now we know they existed, now we know the lived just where the bible said they did
Now we know they were indeed as cruel as they were portrayed in the bible.
And so it goes, time and time again.
Anyway, I am not phased because the bible has not classified them in the same way that we do today.
I will, and have, conceed the fact that the bible is not a science textbook, especially in the light of todays science.
Last edited by delerna; 04/07/09 09:31.
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Contradicts Itself
[Re: delerna]
#259694
04/07/09 09:19
04/07/09 09:19
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
delerna
OP
Junior Member
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 54
Australia , NSW
|
Tiles, Hi. As I have already stated, I have read a few of those that you mentioned in full and I HAVE found them to be incredily consistent. I have also compared key teachings with many others (without reading the whole thing) and they too are consistent in the texts compared. So it is not essential at all. Have you read any of them yourself? or are you merely repeating what you have heard?. If you have read some and found them to be inconsistent, then, of which inconsistencies are you speaking of? One of the reasons that there are so many translations (versions is probably not a good word here) is because language is constantly evolving, therefore the bible must be regularly re-translated into the common language of the day in order for it to be easily read by anyone who has the desire to read it. And thank God for that, I personally find "ye olde english" very difficult to read. However, if you must have one named, then I name the King James Version but only becase there are some who insist that it is the only one. I do not agree with that idea at all.
|
|
|
|
