101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible

[erowe1]

So, we're in a thread where the OP states, in part...



...and you beg for one verse you can call in a priest and perform an Exegism on, and I say three does not equal seven, and you accuse me of fallacies, quote previous statements completely out of context, do everything you can to change the subject, then post a lengthy treatise on how you're trying to figure out what people are saying to you but everyone on earth is obtuse but you.

There's not a man, woman or child over five on earth stupid enough to buy all that.

There's a footnote right in the first Bible I grabbed to check 1 Chronicles 21:12 that says "or seven years." This is a humble old New King James Version like any other normal person might grab on their shelf. No fancy Dead Sea Scrolls or anything.

So there's that.

Like Paul said, before you say those verses contradict each other according to what they say in the original Hebrew, first you have to establish what that original Hebrew text is--whether the one in 1 Chronicles really does say three years, or it says seven years, just like the verse in 2 Samuel.

And even then, suppose it does say three years. That doesn't mean there's a contradiction. God could have said both of those things. In either case, it was a threat that God didn't perform. It was God saying something he might have done, but didn't do.

So one book says that God didn't give a 7-year drought. The other says he didn't give a 3-year drought. It doesn't take any word games to see that both can be true.

 

[PierzStyx]

So? The Bible isn't a perfect book. One of my favorite contradictions is from Exodus 33:

V. 11 "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle."

and then just a few verses later, but in the same interview

v.20 "And he [God] said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."

Nothing that has passed through thousands of years of mortal hands could be expected to be a perfect thing. This is why I'm thankful for modern prophets and apostles who, like the ancients of old, have power and authority to speak in the name of God, interpret scripture, and receive modern revelation for modern needs.

 

[Terry1]

So? The Bible isn't a perfect book. Nothing that has passed through thousands of years of mortal hands could be expected to be a perfect thing. This is why I'm thankful for modern prophets and apostles who, like the ancients of old, have power and authority to speak in the name of God, interpret scripture, and receive modern revelation for modern needs.

Even that needs to be questioned and examined because a lot of people want to call themselves "prophets" these days and are teaching false prophecies. Better to trust in the Lord via the Holy Spirit. That way you get it straight from the horse mouth. Bible says there will be tons of false prophets popping up in the last days.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Ah, but there is. Two three year droughts with a break in between is not a seven year drought.

If you don't believe me, ask a farmer.

You can't even introduce reasonable doubt about the first contradiction I picked completely at random.

And you're declaring victory. Geez. By your standards, there's no such thing as a lie...

There's no clear indication that God had suspended the famine. If He had, then you would think somebody would have wrote about it. Regardless, though, that's not the only option. It's possible the prophet Gad came to David twice, offering a different option each time. This is supported by the fact that the wording is different:

Second Samuel 24:13 is a question: “Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land?” First Chronicles 21:12 is a command with alternatives: “Choose for yourself, either three years of famine....” Why would God make such a change in the alternatives He presented David? Perhaps because of David’s confession of sin, contrite heart, and plea for mercy.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1267

Furthermore, there is a third option involving a very small scribal error in which an ancient scribe mistook the Hebrew numeral letters, since they are quite similar. It does not, however, mean that we must assume the original writers were in error and couldn't get their story straight. It certainly makes more sense to try to reconcile this small difference rather than assume it is irreconcilable. The writings of Josephus or Tacitus contain similar small scribal errors (not errors in the original text, mind you), but we don't assume they didn't know what they were talking about because of it. If we applied the same amount of rigor to every ancient text as you do to the Bible, then we would have to throw out all the written accounts of ancient history.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I see it as that you're attempting to prove that the written word is inerrant by and through your own interpretation of only the "Greek manuscripts"--which could all be interpreted differently by someone else to one degree or another depending on what they see as truth.

There's something called "blessed assurance"---that is assumed based upon 1 John 3:19-24. It's something that the Holy Spirit gives a believer that is his or hers alone and a spiritual revelation of understanding which is based upon the knowledge of God's work in our individual lives. What may be truth to you--someone else will see in somewhat a different light. This doesn't mean that they're not a believer--it simply means that God is doing different things in their lives and leading them in a different direction in His own time for them.

There is no perfect inerrant Bible-manuscript or written word that exists--it's all relative to whatever God wants to reveal to that person for whatever reason at that time in their lives. Only the Holy Spirit will reveal the mysteries of His word and only grants that to the true and sincere seekers. What God has given you--may not be what He's shown someone else and for His own good reasons.

I'm not talking about interpretations. I realize mine is not the only good interpretation. There are several good interpretations that don't contradict anything else in the text, but on a purely factual basis, there's no reason to believe that the original writers had any factual errors in their accounts.

Of course I believe my non-factual interpretations are correct, but that's off-topic.

 

[acptulsa]

So one book says that God didn't give a 7-year drought. The other says he didn't give a 3-year drought. It doesn't take any word games to see that both can be true.

It isn't about whether the threat was carried out, it's about what threat was made. And you know it.

If we applied the same amount of rigor to every ancient text as you do to the Bible, then we would have to throw out all the written accounts of ancient history.

We don't have to throw out anything because there are contradictions within it.

You're the one tying yourself in knots because you were raised on dogma that says the Bible must not contain contradictions.

I'm just grateful that my own faith in God isn't contingent upon anything that fragile, meaningless and just generally goofy.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It isn't about whether the threat was carried out, it's about what threat was made. And you know it.



We don't have to throw out anything because there are contradictions within it.

You're the one tying yourself in knots because you were raised on dogma that says the Bible must not contain contradictions.

I'm not tying myself in knots. I answered you and you did not respond. There's no clear indication that the famine was suspended.

Also, I never said there are no scribal errors in the text. I said the original text contains no contradictions, and so far, I see no reason to believe that there are any. You certainly haven't provided a reason why I should believe that. If you don't think this is a problem for the reliability of the original texts of the Bible just as you apparently don't think it was a problem for the reliability of Josephus, then why do you bring it up?

 

[acptulsa]

I'm not tying myself in knots. I answered you and you did not respond.

Bullshit.

There's no clear indication that the famine was suspended.

The lady played human scarecrow until water fell from heaven, David heard what she did--not what she was doing, but what she had done--long before the battle, and if this isn't proof enough you don't believe anything the Bible says.

Also, I never said there are no scribal errors in the text. I said the original text contains no contradictions, and so far, I see no reason to believe that there are any. You certainly haven't provided a reason why I should believe that. If you don't think this is a problem for the reliability of the original texts of the Bible just as you apparently don't think it was a problem for the reliability of Josephus, then why do you bring it up?

I didn't start this thread. Go look at the OP. Is that post mine?

You lied about me posting fallacies, you lied about me saying we have to throw out all ancient texts at the first sign of a contradiction, and you're lying now about me failing to respond.

I think everyone has learned to take what you say about me with a grain--or a pinch, or a pound--of salt. Have fun talking to yourself.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Bullshit.

Remember, all I have to do is provide one possible instance in which it doesn't contradict itself and your claim that there are contradictions in the Bible is without merit.

The lady played human scarecrow until water fell from heaven, David heard what she did--not what she was doing, but what she had done--long before the battle, and if this isn't proof enough you don't believe anything the Bible says.

"Famine" doesn't mean the same thing as "drought."

I didn't start this thread. Go look at the OP. Is that post mine?

I never said you did, but you're agreeing with him, aren't you?

You lied about me posting fallacies, you lied about me saying we have to throw out all ancient texts at the first sign of a contradiction, and you're lying now about me failing to respond.

I did not lie. If you want to say I lied, you have to prove that my intent was to deceive. You did use the fallacy of induction when you said that, because logic exists with or without our minds, therefore it exists with or without any mind at all. You are taking a truth about a particular instance and using it to make a general conclusion. That is the fallacy of induction.

When I see people saying things I didn't say, I don't assume they are lying. I correct them and if they refuse to be corrected, then I end the debate. You never even tried to correct me before you started flinging accusations of me being a liar, which would make you, at the very least, intellectually dishonest.

I think everyone has learned to take what you say about me with a grain--or a pinch, or a pound--of salt. Have fun talking to yourself.

On the contrary, I think everyone has learned that you don't like reasoned discussions. You do, however, like to mislead people by making vague statements and then accusing them of lying when they take your vague statement the wrong way. That tactic isn't going to work on me.

 

[Ronin Truth]

That's not evidence. That's a Google search. I want YOU to present YOUR evidence. I'm not going to have a discussion with a Google search results page.

Is it that hard for you to put forward your best evidence?

Sorry, you are no where near worth the necessary time nor effort. You just get what you get. Leave it or leave it.

Besides requesting evidence of the obvious is both stupid and lazy. You want evidence, then reasearch it yourself if you really care enough, which you don't.

 

[erowe1]

It isn't about whether the threat was carried out, it's about what threat was made. And you know it.

But when you put it that way, there's no contradiction. Since neither threat was carried out, both threats could have been made.

And you know it.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Sorry, you are no where near worth the necessary time nor effort. You just get what you get. Leave it or leave it.

Besides requesting evidence of the obvious is both stupid and lazy. You want evidence, then reasearch it yourself if you really care enough, which you don't.

So you start a thread, but you're not willing to argue the point you're apparently trying to make? If you just want to trade Google results pages, that's fine. You gave me yours and I gave you mine. If that's your whole point in creating this thread, then well, that's just dandy.

And as for the point being "obvious", I think the last few pages of discussion over Gad the prophet's prophecy kind of disproves that. It's not obvious at all.

And I don't get why you're trying to condescend me by saying I'm "not worth" the time or effort. What have I ever done to you?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Ok, here you go:

https://www.google.com/search?safe=...edr...0...1c.1.64.hp..8.23.2598.0.5DOjO4EZV_s

You missed a few hundred.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You missed a few hundred.

A few hundred what? What in the heck are you talking about?

I gave the same thing you did. Did yours "miss a few hundred" as well?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Actually you're very predictable.

What will I say a week from tomorrow.

 

[CPUd]

I didn't make this one, but wow:
http://bibviz.com/

 

[Suzanimal]

What will I say a week from tomorrow.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+will+Ronin+Truth+say+a+week+from+tomorrow?&l=1

 

[Ronin Truth]

A few hundred what? What in the heck are you talking about?

I gave the same thing you did. Did yours "miss a few hundred" as well?

Undoubtedly.

 

[Ronin Truth]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+will+Ronin+Truth+say+a+week+from+tomorrow?&l=1

Well, I certainly won't now.

 

[Ronin Truth]

..