Bible contradictions

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by w1z4rd, Mar 19, 2007.

  1. w1z4rd Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,539
    New testament contradictions

    The response:

    Since I have problems trusting some people with certain belief structures I decided to put this claim to the test, and found it to be a lie. If the facts were perfect why are there the following contradictions in the new testament?

    We can start with this small few and work our way out from there. Saquist appears to be very wrong.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Geographical contradictions:

    1. The author of Mark states that Jesus cast out demons from a man and into a couple thousand pigs while in Gerasa. The pigs then ran down a steep place and into the Sea of Galilee. Galilee is about 30 miles from Gerasa.

    2. Matthew's author changed the earlier Mark to Gadara, which is still 5 miles from the shore of Galilee. The earliest manuscripts are Mark, which state Gerasa. But even if it were Gadara and Mark's author was wrong (leaving one to wonder why we should trust "as gospel" the word of either since they cannot agree -one is obviously deluded), did Mark's author run to keep up with the pigs for 5 miles just to watch their fate?

    3. The author of Mark also wrote that Jesus traveled from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee, about 30-50 miles (depending on the route) in order to reach Sidon, which was back on the Mediterranean coast, yet another 40-50 miles! The wisest of wise men took a 70 mile journey, on foot, to reach his destination. Talk about taking the scenic route. A more likely explanation is that the gospel was invented by an author that was simply ignorant of Palestinian geography (in other words, had never been there; in other words, wasn't an 'apostle') and thought Sidon was on the coast of the Sea of Galilee.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Is it possible that atheists take the writings in the bible more literally than Christians?

    I would be willing to be that the greatest creators (creative) have allways been theists. Where would we be as a society without them?

    So why the animosity?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    Because of the inability of a certain subset of believers to admit the clear issues within the text they follow.

    Since the bible plays such a large part in modern society, understanding it is important. If when reading it, clear complications appear, questions will (and should) be asked. When a group of people who hold themselves up as the purveyors of the book seem to ignore the contradictions, and keep spouting "it's perfect", instead of answering the questions asked of them, frustration will arise.
     
  8. nds1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    614
    Excellent observations w1z4rd and SkinWalker. Let me add one:

    John 5:46,47
    For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

    Jesus states here that Moses "wrote about him."

    The Contradiciton: If you search the entire writings of Moses in the Old testament from Genesis to Deuteronomy you will find no references to Jesus.

    Ironically, this supports Muslim's beliefs.
     
  9. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Not until we point out the serious errors in that bible, then it goes from literal to "you're not supposed to take that part literally, it's just a story".
     
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046

    Can it be in the interpretation? In the example abover the author claims a contradiction claiming Jesus um...Is it John that is claiming he was written about?

    And if Jesus was not born at the time the OT was written how would he be referred to in name?

    I never read either version but it sound like a misinterpretation by the poster.
     
  11. w1z4rd Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,539
    Doubt it, ancient greek is pretty well understood.
     
  12. nds1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    614
    It's this really interesting concept called........ a prophesy.
     
  13. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I dont mean in the translation, i mean in nds1's interpretation.

    The OT was translated fr. Greek?

    ha ha, your being wrong is a prophecy???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. nds1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    614
    Wrong about what exactly?
     
  15. w1z4rd Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,539
    Sorry, through we were talking NT here. My bad.
     
  16. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I am just repeating what i allready posted.

    Is it John that is claiming he was written about?

    And if Jesus was not born at the time the OT was written how would he be referred to in name?
     
  17. nds1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    614
    It is the author of the book entitled "John" who is claiming that Jesus made this claim.

    I never said he would be referred to by the exact name of "Jesus." Isaiah never included the name "Jesus" in his prophesies, did he?

    I am talking about Moses writing something to the likes of:

    "And the Lord shall send forth to the earth a man who will changeth the world forever. This man shall be called the Son of God, and will be born by the Holy Spirit. This man shall be the King of Kings in heaven and on earth and shall die for the sins of everyone and shall redeem all of man for man's sins."

    Oh, by the way, notice how the term "Holy Spirit" or "Trinity" is never used in the OT.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2007
  18. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I saw this on another forum and pasted this into worpad'cause it is pretty cool:

    4:8 [We are] troubled on every side, yet not distressed; [we are] perplexed, but not in despair;

    4:9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;

    4:10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
     
  19. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    I don't believe the term Trinity is ever used in the NT either.
     
  20. nds1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    614
    You are correct, it isn't. Apparently God created the Holy Spirit after Jesus was born. LOL.
     
  21. nds1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    614
    So I am not wrong then John? Good.
     
  22. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    It is quite apparent to state that as humans we all do find meaning in things slightly differently.

    I remember back in the day when I was a kid in English class. Our teacher gave us some homework to do, (which was to explain the meaning of the poem 'The Pike', by Ted someone or other). The next day I handed in a sheet of paper, blank except for my name on the bottom. My teacher asked me why I had done this to which I explained that it was an impossibility to explain what Ted meant, or more to the point what it meant to Ted when he wrote it. I could offer my own opinion on what it means, but that would be what it means to me, not to him or anyone else.

    You'd think a book of god would differ in that it was universally understood. To me that would give it the value, that would make it something exceptional. Instead us humans are debating, (and have been for millennia), over simple sentences. It is however apparent that we're debating over simple sentences because you can find in that same book another simple sentence that says the exact opposite thing.

    Even Ted no matter how much he could try could never cause such confusion. You can find your own 'meaning' in The Pike, but personal meaning does not change the fact that the bible contradicts itself time and again and nor does "interpretation" explain those errors away.
     
  23. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    Disagreements between Paul and Timothy:
    Thes:God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned.
    Tim: God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved.


    Disagreements between Matthew and Timothy:
    Mat: Take therefore no thought for the morrow.
    Tim: But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

    Mat:But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father in secret shall reward thee openly.
    Tim: I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands.


    disagreements between Paul and Paul:
    Cor: But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
    Rom: O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

    edit: oo, forgot this gem:
    Gal:For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
    Cor:Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2007

Share This Page