Contradictions??? Where at? I don't see any...

ilgwamh · Dec 29, 1999

<html>

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">

I am going to try and refute all the contradictions on this page that can be found in the first section. I'll do the resurrection contradictions next and then the 2nd set of contradictions at a later date as time permits.(http://www.pe.net/~bidstrup/bible2.htm)

Let me know how I do
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ps, its pretty long, don't mind the typos...



paragraph by paragraph breaakdown

One of the bedrock beliefs of most Christian fundamentalists is in the inerrancy of their scripture, the Bible. Indeed, if it can be shown that the Bible is absolutely inerrant, their case that it is the word of God would be greatly strengthened.

Is that it? Just greatly strengthened? A book written over a span of 1500 years by over 40 different authors ranging from a tax collector, a military general, a fisherman, a prime minister, and a cupbearer. Written in a variety of settings ranging from prison to the wilderness. A huge book that talks about a wide variety of subjects that most so called experts today would disagree on. Yet if not none of the 40 authors contradicts each other this guy claims the case for the bible being the divinely inspired word of God will only be greatly strengthened. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. He has won the "Golden Duh Understatement of the Year" award.

But, if, on the other hand, it can be shown that there are clearly and unquestionably errors in the Bible, then the position of the fundamentalist is greatly weakened, and if it is based on inerrancy of the Bible, disproven.



Yeah, if the Bible has lots of errors in it then its pretty hard to believe it is God's word. A good historical book that teaches decent morals is what it will be. Yet historically we can show Christ lived and rose from the dead. You could mix some belief up but the claim that Jesus is God and all that would not have much weight.

The purpose of this essay is to make the latter case, i.e., that when the Bible is examined with dispassion and with objectivity, it soon becomes obvious that it is so hopelessly riddled with errors, impossibilities and contradictions that it is essentially ludicrous to make the claim that it is inerrant.

In utter words, this essay is completely false and I am an athiest who deep down knows God exists but I am to prideful to admit it and need to latch onto something that will justify my unbelief. Hopelessly riddles with errors? Its time for a reality check!

For the purpose of this essay, I'm going to offer the Christian apologists equal time; below you'll see a table showing the problem, the apologist's answer if I have found one or been offered one, and the reasonable explanation, as offered by common sense or modern scholarship.

Equal time? Some of those apologetical answers I see below look like you got them off the back of a cerial box. That or you just worded them really poorly in order to make your claim seem accurate. Try some real apologetics.

In some cases, you won't see an apologists explanation, because an apologetic explanation consistent with reason is simply not possible. If and when I receive an explanation from an apologist that is even half-way reasonable, I'll post it in the table. Until then, those table cells will remain devoid of explanations. You can compare the apologists' answers to those of modern secular scholars, and do so side by side. Ask yourself which is more reasonable, which is more likely to be correct. And so here is my challenge to the fundamentalist Christian who believes in the inerrancy of his scripture: In the light of your claim to biblical inerrancy, how do you explain the following?

Yada. Yada. Yada. Keep rambling about equal time. As I suspected you di not do much work studying biblical contradictions. Seeings how you left some boxes empty when an very brief net search would have filled in those voids.

In this part, I'll show you some of the obvious impossibilities in the Bible. I've left out the impossibilities that could be explained by magic and miracles, and have limited myself to only those things that just simply can't be. No way, no how.

I can't wait to see these impossibilities.

1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chron. 4:2: "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to another: it was round all about and its height was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." 

The circumference of a circle is equal to the diameter times pi, or 3.1415. Therefore the circumference of the "sea" had to have been 31.4 cubits if its diameter was ten cubits

An incorrect number is an incorrect number, regardless of culture. The laws of mathematics are consistent across all cultures and times. If this is God's word, God should certainly have known that the circumference had to be more than 31 cubits if the "sea" was round and 10 cubits in diameter. 

First of all the niv states that this sea was "circular in shape." There is a slight difference between being circular in shape and being a perfect circle. Second, the decimal expansion of pi never ends and never repeats to infinity. Where do you draw the line at rounding it off? Does the bible say it was exactly 10 cubits by 30 cubits? If the circumference were exactly 30 then the diameter would have to be about 9.6 cubits and not 10. If the circumference were 30.3 cubits the diameter would have to be about 9.65 cubits. In the back of my bible it has a cubit being 18 inches. This would make the measurement of the diameter off by about 6 inches and the circumference by about 5 and one half. This assumes 1 cubit equals 18 inches. The exact number is not known for certain. Its the best approximation that we have. The fact that the sea was only circular in shape and the possiblity of rounding off slightly do not leave much room for a contradiction. Its also suggested that maybe the measurement of the circumference was taken a bit below the rim. Verse 26 makes that explanation plausible. But don't tke my word for it. Test it yourself. I have a question. What tools were used to measure the length of stuff at this time?

Describing the same incident, 2 Samuel 8:4 states that King David captured 1700 horsemen, and 1 Chron. 18:4 claims he captured 7,000. 

If God is the author of both accounts, why do they disagree? 

"The first by Keil and Delitzsh (page 360) is a most convincing solution. They maintain that the word for chariotry (rekeb) was inadvertently omitted by the scribe in copying 2 Samuel 8:4, and that the second figure, 7,000 (for the parasim "cavalrymen"
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
, was necessarily reduced to 700 from the 7,000 he saw in his Vorlage for the simple reason that no one would write 7,000 after he had written 1,000 in the recording the one and the same figure. The omission of rekeb might have occurred with an earlier scribe, and a reduction from 7,000 to 700 would have then continued with the successive copies by later scribes. But in all probability the Chronicles figure is right and the Samuel numbers should be corrected to agree with that."



Can you say copyist error? No contradiction here. Study the text. See for yourself.



The authors of Ezra 2:3 and Neh. 7:8 enumerate the tribes that came back from captivity in Babylon. They disagree as to the numbers involved in some clans and tribes: 

The accounts clearly differ in significant details, and by significant amounts. They obviously can't both be right. If this is God's word, He apparently can't get the story straight when telling it twice. 

To save myself some time: (copy and pasted from <A HREF="http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm)<font" TARGET=_blank>http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm)<font</A> size=3>

"In chapter 2 of Ezra and in chapter 7 of Nehemiah there are about thirty-three family units that appear in both lists of Israelites returning from Babylon to Judea. Of these 33 family units listed in Ezra and Nehemiah, nineteen of the family units are identical, while fourteen show discrepancies in the number of members within the family units (though Shabbir only lists six of them). Two of the discrepancies differ by 1, one differs by 4, two by 6, two differ by 9, another differs by 11, another two by 100, another by 201, another differs by 105, a further family differs by 300, and the largest difference is the figure for the sons of Azgad, a difference of 1,100 between the accounts of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7.

How, then, are we to account for the 14 discrepancies? The answer is quite simple, and Shabbir, had he done any study into the history of these two accounts would never have bothered to waste his time in asking these questions. The fact that there are both similarities and discrepancies side-by-side should have pointed him to the solution as well (as you who are reading this are probably even now concluding).

There are two important factors to bear in mind when looking at these discrepancies between the two lists. The first is the probability that though members of the units or families had enrolled their names at first as intending to go; in the interval of preparation, some possibly died, others were prevented by sickness or other insurmountable obstacles, so that the final number who actually went was not the same as those who had intended to go. Anyone who has planned a school-coach trip to the beach can understand how typical a scenario this really is.

A second and more important factor are the different circumstances in which the two registers were taken, an important fact of which Shabbir seems to be acutely unaware. Ezra's register was made up while still in Babylon (in the 450s BC), before the return to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:1-2), whereas Nehemiah's register was drawn up in Judea (around 445 BC), after the walls of Jerusalem had been rebuilt (Nehemiah 7:4-6). The lapse of so many years between the two lists (between 5-10 years) would certainly make a difference in the numbers of each family through death or by other causes.

Most scholars believe that Nehemiah recorded those people who actually arrived at Jerusalem under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Jeshua in 537 or 536 BC (Nehemiah 7:7). Ezra, on the other hand, uses the earlier list of those who originally announced their intention to join the caravan of returning colonists back in Babylon, in the 450s BC.

The discrepancies between these two lists point to the fact that there were new factors which arose to change their minds. Some may have fallen into disagreement, others may have discovered business reasons to delay their departure until later, whereas in some cases there were certainly some illnesses or death, and in other cases there may have been some last-minute recruits from those who first decided to remain in Babylon. Only clans or city-group's came in with a shrunken numbers. All the rest picked up last-minute recruits varying from one to 1,100. 

When we look at the names we find that certain names are mentioned in alternate forms. Among the Jews of that time (as well as those living in the East), a person had a name, title, and surname. Thus, the children of Hariph (Nehemiah 7:24) are the children of Jorah (Ezra 2:18), while the children of Sia (Nehemiah 7:47) are also the children of Siaha (Ezra 2:44).

When we take all these factors into consideration, the differences in totals that do appear in these two tallies should occasion no surprise whatsoever. The same sort of arbitration and attrition has featured every large migration in human history."

The bible wears out yet another hammer... And this was one of his areas that was empty and didn't have a christian response to it. Go figure.



Leviticus 11:13-19 refers to bats as fowl, when in fact they are mammals. He then goes on in 20:21 to declare to be an abomination any fowl that "creep, going on all four..." when there is no such a bird. In 11:6, he declares "...and the hare, because he cheweth the cud." Hares don't chew a cud. Hares are rodents, not ruminants (members of the cattle family). Only ruminants chew cud, rodents do not. 

The author of Leviticus obviously didn't have much of an understanding of the most rudimentary of biological science. A fecal pellet is not a cud. A cud is the product of the rumen, a chamber of the stomach of ruminants. A fecal pellet is a product of the lower intestine. Besides, coprophagy (the eating of excrement) hasn't been observed in hares anyway. Again, if this is God's word, He is displaying a good deal of ignorance of what He allegedly created. 

Go here for cud chewing:

http://www.bible-way.org/turk/e-write/hares.html

http://answersingenesis.org/docs/3725.asp

Not to sure on the accuracy of the cud links. Just answers I've seen. I haven't studied or looked into that subject.

"As to bats being "birds" sensu stricto, I think it would be interesting to 
find out when in history "birds" began to mean something other than flying 
animals. Incidentally, I have associated with scientists, including many 
astronomers and physicists for 30 years, and I have never once had any of 
them suggest that I was witnessing anything other than a sunset or sunrise, 
so "accommodation" is alive and well today!" 


John 12:24 says "except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." 

How can it bring forth any fruit at all if it's dead? 

Niv says this:

23 Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25 The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me. 

The principle of life through death is seen in the plant world. The kernel must perish as a kernal if there is to be a plant. onec agaib there is no contradiction. Try reading the context statements are in. It usually helps solve most apparent contradictions in the bible.

Matthew 13:31-32 states that "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed... is the smallest of all seeds but when it is grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree." 

First, mustard seeds, while small, are hardly the smallest of seeds. Many other seeds, particularly some orchid species, are much, much smaller. Second, it isn't a shrub, but an herb, and isn't particularly large as herbs go, either. There are many herbs that get much, much larger. And third, it doesn't become either a shrub or a tree. Like all other herbs, it stays an herb. It is an annual, and usually dies at the end of a single growing season, so could hardly be mistaken for a shrub. 

The translation of this verse appears to be a little inaccurate. I always use the niv when discussing a passage or an apparent contradiction. The niv reads:

31 He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches." 

Notice the bold print. There aren't any contradictions here. The niv text note states:

The mustard seed is not the smallest seed known today, but it was the smallest seed used by Palestinian farmers and gardeners, and under favorable conditions the plant could reach some ten feet in height. The tree reference is most likely an allusion to Da 4:21, suggesting that the kingom of heaven will expand to world dominion and people from all nations will find rest in it.



Once again the bible escapes without a scratch on it.



Genesis 6:15 states that Noah's ark was 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits in size. We know that a cubit was approximately 18 inches, yielding a volume (if perfectly rectangular, the most voluminous possible shape of three unequal dimensions) of 1,518,750 cubic feet. Into this, you must fit two of each of the 30,000,000 species on earth, plus the food to keep all of them alive for a month. 

If this were true, it would not be physically possible to put two of each animal species on earth, plus months' worth of food for them, in a volume of that size. 

Its highly questionable if the animals were simply piled in that volume, willy-nilly, with no room for bedding or even room to stand, whether there would be adequate room, even without the food. The author of the flood myth simply didn't understand the extent of faunal diversity in the world. As for the volumetric problem, you don't have to try to fit them to see that it won't work. You can simply calculate that it wouldn't fit by adding the volume of the average sized animal's body, multiplied by the number of species. Excluding bacteria, but including all insects, there are more than 30,000,000 species of land animals on earth. Multiply that volume by two, and add in the volume of food required to keep both of each species alive for as much as twenty years (see below), and it's pretty obvious that this isn't going to work. Then there's the time it would take to gather up the 30 million species. If you gathered a male and a female of one species every ten seconds, it would take about ten years to gather up 30 million of them. And mind you, you've got to go to Antarctica to get penguins, the Arctic to get polar bears, Asia to get tigers, Australia to get kangaroos, Africa to get gorillas, South America to get tapirs and agoutis, etc., and you have got to get them back with an adequate supply of their required food and put them in the Ark within ten seconds. Then when the flood's over, you've got to take another ten years to put them all back at the rate of a species every ten seconds. Then there are all kinds of ecological questions; how are many delicate marine species going to survive when the salinity of the oceans is reduced by two thirds, as it would have been if a worldwide flood of nearly five miles in depth had occurred? How are species going to survive that require mature ecosystems which themselves require centuries to mature? Obviously, this story isn't just impossible, it's ludicrous. 

Sorry but not all theologians believe the flood covered the entire earth. The biblcal text does not tell us the extent of the genesis flood. The hebrew word erets has a few different meanings aside from "the entire earth." The flood was universal in the effect that it wiped out all mankind but it does not need to have covered the entire earth. The hebrew texts do not specify the proximity of the flood. There weren't any polar bears or kangaroos on the ark. Just local animals. There is nothing in the original hebrew that requires or implies a global flood over a local flood. Science has shown evidence of a large scale flood in this region back in the day. Thats the reason there are so many flood accounts. There aren't any contradictions here. 



This concludes all the contradictions in the first table with the exception of one. John 12:21 states that "The same came therefore to Phillip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired of him..." Bethsaida was in the province of Gaulontinis, not the province of Galilee. I've never seen that claim before nor do I know whether Bethsaida was in the province of Gaulontinis or not. A lot of that stuff on that page was in left field. But I shall look into into.



The Bible will continue to wear out hammers...



































Vinnie

Praise Jesus
</body>
</html>

[This message has been edited by ilgwamh (edited December 28, 1999).]

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ilgwamh · Dec 29, 1999

My html up above is on crack
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Should of done it by hand instead of using a word processing program. The entire thing is pretty much a huge link...

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Searcher · Dec 29, 1999

Vinnie,

Yeah - a huge link that doesn't even work! Even when I got rid of the additional words & characters that followed the ".htm", it still gave me this error message:

Error 404: File not found

At any rate, did you submit your arguments to the originator of that webpage? If not, you certainly should.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ilgwamh · Dec 29, 1999

I will submit it when it is completed . A good deal of that is copy and pasted material. I'm pretty sure I have all the sources bookmarked. Some of it was my own however. The stuff on the resurrection will be my own. I've lookied into those contradictions a little myself so I can refute them pretty easily.

The link should work. Here it is again. http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

Oxygen · Dec 29, 1999

I see a BIIIIIIIIG mistake on both sides of the playing field, especially where you claim that the quotes don't match up. I offer for your scrutiny, the parable of the mustard seed.

IN THIS CORNER, THE CONTRADICTIONIST:
Matthew 13:31-32 states that "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed... is the smallest of all seeds but when it is grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree."

IN THIS CORNER, THE MIGHTY ILGWAMH:
"The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."

IN THIS CORNER, GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET, OXYGEN:
"Matthew 13:31-32, Another parable put he forth unto them, saying , The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which is indeed the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof."

That's three different takes on the story from three perfectly legitimate bibles. Who's got the real one? Who's right? Entire civilizations have been slaughtered over this question.

I don't think anybody should be claiming anybody's interpretation of the bible is wrong until we're all reading the same book verbatim. By describing the mustard seed as the "least of all seeds" we can take that to mean either the smallest or the most worthless. Maybe the seed itself was worthless except for growing mustard plants which have wonderful healing and culinary properties. Maybe it was just a really small seed.

If nobody can agree on what the bible even says, how can we ever hope to agree on what it means?

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

[This message has been edited by Oxygen (edited December 29, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Oxygen (edited December 29, 1999).]

truestory · Dec 29, 1999

Sorry guys, uh... and please don't take that "sorry" as a sincere "apology"... there is nothing to apologize for...

The "parable" of the mustard seed was not put forth to teach "botany" or "horticulture" -

The "parables" of the mustard seed AND the yeast were both put forth to "illustrate" the same point: the amazing contrast between the small beginnings of the kingdom of heaven and its marvelous expansion.

The divine message? JESUS PLANTED THE SEED!!! HEAVEN IS WAITING FOR US ALL!!! THE MORE SOULS THAT ARE SAVED, THE MORE HEAVEN WILL GROW!!!

Searcher · Dec 29, 1999

Going to Hell in a Handbasket Oxygen,

I'm in your corner! Well, the fires of Hell will certainly need plenty of oxygen so they can burn nice and hot! Don't worry, they'll need plenty of searchers to consume, as well.

Yes, I've been accused of misquoting the Bible, all because I was using the KJV, while, I believe it was Corp. Hudson, was using another version. I'm sure Holy Wars have been fought for less!

Going to Hell on Greased Runners Searcher

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com

Oxygen · Dec 30, 1999

The "parable" of the mustard seed was not put forth to teach "botany" or "horticulture" -
Click to expand...

But truestory, there WAS a lesson in botany and horticulture in the post...

First, mustard seeds, while small, are hardly the smallest of seeds. Many other seeds, particularly some orchid species, are much, much smaller. Second, it isn't a shrub, but an herb, and isn't particularly large as herbs go, either. There are many herbs that get much, much larger. And third, it doesn't become either a shrub or a tree. Like all other herbs, it stays an herb. It is an annual, and usually dies at the end of a single growing season, so could hardly be mistaken for a shrub.
Click to expand...

[This message has been edited by Oxygen (edited December 29, 1999).]

truestory · Dec 30, 1999

Uh, sorry, Oxygen... Well, not really
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

*Sigh* Actually, I really don't like doing this, BECAUSE this is NOT what the Bible is about, however... SOME PEOPLE just don't know when to give up, SOOOOO:

MUSTARD, common name for the plant family Brassicaceae, a large group of pungent-juiced herbs, important for the many food plants and other crops it produces, and for its representative genus Brassica. The family is a member of the order Capparales and contains about 390 genera and 3000 species. It is cosmopolitan in distribution, with centers of diversity in the Mediterranean region and southwestern and Central Asia, where about two-thirds of the species occur.

Most members of the Brassicaceae are annual OR PERENNIAL herbs; A FEW ARE SHRUBS OR CLIMBERS.

The original Brassica nigra (black mustard), which was what was prevelant at the time and place that the "parable" was written, actually formed from a VERY TINY seed which could lay dormant for years without growing - until disturbed - then it would become a very fast-growing, wild shrub, which could become tree-like and flourish indefinitely. Through both natural and artificial hybridization, because it was unsuitable for mechanized cropping, it was "tamed" over the years and almost entirely replaced by latter species of white, yellow and brown mustard.

Poupon!

Oxygen · Jan 2, 2000

Okay, so it really WAS a lesson in horticulture. How does this account for the variance in words used and the tendency to nit-pick on those words when it suits one? (Yeah, I know. "Tell 'em that it's human nature..."-Michael Jackson)

truestory · Jan 2, 2000

Oxygen,

The difference is in the intent of the seeker and the message. Here is where the nitpicking comes in: If one is looking to the Bible to reconcile the current physical world with the prepetual spiritual world, then they are looking in the wrong place. The physical world changes. The Bible gives us God's divine, spiritual message of salvation. This spiritual message is timeless. It does not change.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited January 01, 2000).]

Log in or Sign up

Contradictions??? Where at? I don't see any...

ilgwamh Fallen Angel Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

ilgwamh Fallen Angel Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Searcher Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

ilgwamh Fallen Angel Registered Senior Member

Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

truestory Registered Senior Member

Searcher Registered Senior Member

Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

truestory Registered Senior Member

Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

truestory Registered Senior Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Contradictions??? Where at? I don't see any...

ilgwamh Fallen Angel Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

ilgwamh Fallen Angel Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Searcher Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

ilgwamh Fallen Angel Registered Senior Member

Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

truestory Registered Senior Member

Searcher Registered Senior Member

Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

truestory Registered Senior Member

Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

truestory Registered Senior Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches