Bible Contradictions Refuted

[BRB]

there are quite a number of contradicting narratives and accounts in the bible. some of the books have things that contradict with others. some of the books have things that contradict with what we know of history or science. the point is, the bible isn’t completely without error except where it gives examples of God’s character. .

Its was probably intended to be so … to show us that inerrancy can be dangerous. Afterall we are not Christian solely on our knowledge of Church history and biblical facts. Its not what we know, but Who we know. Also stated as … Who has led us to be known of Him.

Indeed, even the most recent Popes have clearly said in their writings that on some matters they could be wrong. Wasn’t even the first Pope mistaken and in error on some occasions. People will always be less than divine.

Generally speaking, the Popes have stood us in good stead over last 2000 yrs … and are to be respected / honored for their authority / position given them by the Lord.

 

[bengal_fan]

So the bible is only inspired spiritually, but not historically or scientifically? How can this be so?

very easily, because it isn’t. the pope is inspired and infallible (according to the catholic church’s teaching) only in areas of faith and morals. the same restrictions can be placed on the bible as well. for instance, the majority of scientific evidence points to a very old earth. not even taking evolution into account, the bible has the earth as much younger than science has shown us. the bible though is not a science book, so it has nothing to do with faith or morals or the character of God how old the earth is. so if (and it’s pretty clear it is) the bible is wrong about the age of the earth, it does nothing to shake my faith. the creation story still teaches me what i need to know about God and man.

Either the bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit or it isn’t. If the bible is errant in some aspects, how do we know it is inerrant when speaking about Jesus or the Resurrection?

that is again like asking the question, “if the apostles were wrong about that, how do we know they were right about Jesus?” peter was wrong on something and paul called him out on it. some of the other apostles opposed preaching to the gentiles, they were wrong. the church has not always been right on every issue, nor is that the expectation (after all, the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around as the church once taught). the church is to lead us into the truth about God, man, and the nature of this world. when the scriptures tell us something about God, we can believe it. when it tells us exactly when it happened or how it happened, we need to take it with a grain of salt.

I’ve read that this prophecy could have alluded to Judges 13:5-7.

no. the passage in judges is talking about samson and the vow of the nazirite. a nazarene is one who hails from nazareth. the vow of the nazirite (which john the baptist’s parents were told to place on him from birth as well) entails: never cutting your hair, never touching anything dead or unclean, never drinking wine or any other fermented drink, and more. if you broke the vow (i.e. touching something dead or drinking wine) you were to shave your head. Jesus obviously did not take this vow as He drank wine and touched dead and unclean people all the time (touched lepers, touched the little girl, touched the woman’s son, etc.). if He had taken the vow of the nazirite (which has nothing to do with the town of nazareth), He would have been shaving His head an awful lot…lol.

it is in matthew 2:23 where the prophecy is reference in the NT, and matthew is pointing towards a passage in the OT:

Isaiah 11

1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; 
   from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.

the word branch sounds a lot like the word nazareth (in fact, the town was probably named “branch”). but we see this verse is taken completely out of context to prove matthew’s point. none of the other gospel writers make the same statement.

 

[bengal_fan]

If John could recieve such a vivid revelation like the Apocalypse, why couldn’t the Holy Spirit have allowed the authors not to commit historical errors? How can the Holy Spirit reveal some truth in a message, but deliberately not guide the authors in other ways?

of course the Holy Spirit could have not allowed any historical errors. but you are thinking of inspiration in a wrong way. the HS didn’t take over the person’s mind and hand while he was putting ink to page. the HS guided the writers to the truth of Himself and the other parts of the trinity and the one God.

If the authors didn’t commit any errors, more people would believe what the bible says is true. I wonder how many skeptics there are that come across “contradictions” in the scriptures and subsequesntly reject Christianity because of them for example.

good thing Christianity is based on truth and not fact. if we have fact, we have no need for faith. it is not about the contradictions in dates, places, storylines, etc. it is about the truth about God, us and this world.

 

[inthecloud]

There are many undisputed contradictions or errors or whatever you may wish to call them. They are not in dispute among biblical experts and scholars. There can logically be no “good” sites to refute such assertions therefore.

Bravo, the voice of reason has spoken. The fact is that the Bible does has contradictions-

As some one here said, so what? errors are to be expected when you are dealing with an fairly arbitrary collection of writings, written over more than 1,000 years and written by many, largely unknown authors. What else could you expect?

True, there were several versions of the Mossaic Torah that were finaly unified by the Priests in the Temple. And the match up was not seamless. Same for the Gospels.

To try to argue by dissembling and twisting and turning that there is some logical explanation for such errors serves only to make the speaker look foolish and is so counterproductive towards the goal of bringing people to the wonders of the bible as to be obvious. Leave it to rank fundamentalists to make these illogical arguments. People expect such nonsense from them. It is not the province of those who have a firm and well grounded understanding of sacred texts.

So true, playing the fundamentalist game only makes you sink deeper into nonsence and makes poor witness for Christianity in the end.

Good post. Also Bengals Fan are very good too.
Yes there are some contradicitions. What do you expect? But there are so many common points for a Book written by dozens of authors over such a long time that is remarcable.

 

[Pete_Holter]

I wonder how many skeptics there are that come across “contradictions” in the scriptures and subsequesntly reject Christianity because of them for example.

Hey MH84,

I was one! But God had mercy on me and eventually humbled me before his Word.

There was a post on another thread by “itsjustdave1988” that I found very edifying. You may have seen it…

My understanding of the inerrancy of Scripture is this…

God gives us his revelation in two ways: 1) Natural revelation – God speaks through the things he has created, and 2) Supernatural revelation – God speaks directly, supernaturally. Whenever & however God speaks, he always speaks the truth, and nothing but the truth. Whenever we think we has come across an apparent contradiction in what God has spoken, the error is in our failure to properly understand the Author’s intent.

With regard to Divine revelation of the “natural” sort, scientists trust that truth can be discovered by discerning the nature of things. For instance, when observing lightning on particular occasions (particular truth), we can reason or infer things about the truth of lightning in general (general truth). Anyone who has spent any significant time studying science has come across what seem to be “apparent contradictions.” For example, light seems to behave as a particle. However, it also seem to behave like a wave. This wave-particle duality can be an “apparent contradiction” to some, but we accept it as true, although complex and not quite fully understood…a “mystery.” A mystery that gifted men and women may come to understand more deeply after further contemplation, while others may never see past the apparent contradiction. Thus, when scientists encounter apparent contradictions in the study of nature (science), we do not presume that nature is fraudulent, filled with error. Instead, we accept a priori, the God’s revelation is inerrant. When faced with apparent contradictions in nature, we conclude that we haven’t perfectly understood the truthful material very well*, and therefore we have more work ahead of us.* Scientists accept that there are still things they do not understand. In other words, nature contains some “mysteries” which we are still trying to contemplate. While we are aware that there are “apparent contradictions” in God’s natural revelation to us, we also know that they cannot be true contradictions in nature, but instead result from our own lack of ability, our own failure to understand that revelation properly.

Same thing goes for the Divine revelation of the “supernatural” sort. It is complex. It is filled with mystery. We can sometimes come across “apparent contradictions” which we find perplexing, but we trust that such are the result of a lack of understanding on our part, not characterized by “fraud” on the part of the Author.

In other words, God’s natural revelation and God’s supernatural revelation are not erroneous, but true. There can be no true contradictions within or between them. It would be foolish to accuse the Author of Divine Revelation of error. We instead admit humbly that something in our own understanding must be lacking, and we are called to further contemplation. In this way, it is in God we trust above our own limited talents.

Why is this important? From the perspective of Catholicism, the ultimate norm for discerning the truth is God and His revelation to us (natural and supernatural). Consequently, by seeking to better understand God’s revelation, Catholics may come to a deeper knowledge of God, and a more intimate love of God, so that we may more faithfully serve God.

Inerrancy of Scripture derives from the dogma which affirms that God is the author of Scripture in such a mysterious way that the Sacred human authors wrote only that which God himself wanted written. A dogma taught forever, always, and by all, affirmed by Vatican II, and all the popes since Vatican II.

 

[Angelos]

when they say Jesus was from nazareth to fulfill the prophecy that he will be a “nazarene”, the verse that comes from says nothing even close to that.

Hi

Since I am packing my suitcase for 2morrow’s trip, I have no time to answer the other supposed biblical contradictions you have included into your list.

This really astonishing reference to an unknown prophecy by Matthew alone is actually “the odd one out” in the infancy narrative. If one thinks that this prophecy is similar to the other prophecies quoted by Matthew from the OT and must therefore be present in the Jewish Scripture, Matthew’s writing style and the distinguished structure of this prophecy warn the reader that such an expectation will turn into disappoinment. Actually, it is Matthew himself who gives us the clue that this prophecy related to the name “Nazareth” is an oral tradition rather than a written prophecy recorded in the OT! Matthew deliberately ascribes this interesting prophecy not to a certain prophet, but to a number of prophets through the attachment of plural marker:

2: 23 And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by the prophets: That **he shall be called a Nazarene. **

However, it is not plausible to blame Matthew for fabricating a prophecy and then attributing it to unknown prophets since being considered a Nazarene by all the Jews is a significant element for Christ’s identity in all Gospels. We read in John:

1: 45-46 Philip findeth Nathanael and saith to him: We have found him of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth. And Nathanael said to him: Can any thing of good come from Nazareth?

Although Jesus was born in Bethelehem, almost everyone knew Him as Jesus the Nazarene:

21: 10-11 And when he was come into Jerusalem, the whole city was moved, saying: Who is this? And the people said: This is **Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth **of Galilee.

A few biblical scholars contend that Jesus’ identification as a Nazarene at that time illustrated His despisal by His adversaries. It is highly probable that Matthew interpreted Jesus’ association with Nazareth as an indispensable part of His life and ministry to the extent that he incorporated it to the infancy narrative as if it were a real prophecy. Matthew was right to do so since Jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies as the Nazarene: this identification followed Him even to the cross, on which was written “Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum”

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[bengal_fan]

This really astonishing reference to an unknown prophecy by Matthew alone is actually “the odd one out” in the infancy narrative. If one thinks that this prophecy is similar to the other prophecies quoted by Matthew from the OT and must therefore be present in the Jewish Scripture, Matthew’s writing style and the distinguished structure of this prophecy warn the reader that such an expectation will turn into disappoinment. Actually, it is Matthew himself who gives us the clue that this prophecy related to the name “Nazareth” is an oral tradition rather than a written prophecy recorded in the OT! Matthew deliberately ascribes this interesting prophecy not to a certain prophet, but to a number of prophets through the attachment of plural marker:

2: 23 And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by the prophets: That **he shall be called a Nazarene. **

actually, that is just a common way to speak. yes, there were oral traditions (and even other versions of some OT books!!), but according to every jewish scholar i have read, the messiah coming from nazareth isn’t one of the prophecies in oral tradition. that is why many of the other self-proclaimed “messiahs” have never associated themselves with nazareth. they have tried to tie themselves to bethlehem.

However, it is not plausible to blame Matthew for fabricating a prophecy and then attributing it to unknown prophets since being considered a Nazarene by all the Jews is a significant element for Christ’s identity in all Gospels. We read in John:

1: 45-46 Philip findeth Nathanael and saith to him: We have found him of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth. And Nathanael said to him: Can any thing of good come from Nazareth?

nathaniel proves my point. “can anything good come from nazareth?” even he, a jew, didn’t expect the messiah to be from nazareth. why? because it wasn’t a prophecy of the messiah. it is very plausible to say that whoever wrote the gospel of matthew “added” (not with malicious intent i don’t think, but a desire to tie everything in Jesus’ life with OT prophecy) this prophecy. it was actually very common to do this with powerful people. there are many fantastic birth stories out there. most of which don’t really hold up to historical scrutiny. even mohammed has an incredible story of his birth. gabriel came to his mother and announced she would have a son and name him mohammed. as an infant, he supposedly performed the ritual cleansing that all muslims now do as well.

A few biblical scholars contend that Jesus’ identification as a Nazarene at that time illustrated His despisal by His adversaries. It is highly probable that Matthew interpreted Jesus’ association with Nazareth as an indispensable part of His life and ministry to the extent that he incorporated it to the infancy narrative as if it were a real prophecy. Matthew was right to do so since Jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies as the Nazarene: this identification followed Him even to the cross, on which was written “Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum”

Jesus’ identification as a nazarene was a necessity because the name Yeshua was extremely common. so you had to add where the person was from and usually the name of their father. Jesus had become famous enough that they didn’t need to add the “bar Joseph” after Him for just saying that He was the one from nazareth was enough. it was for identification purposes only.

if it was so important, the prophecy would be contained in at least one other gospel. even luke (the other one with a birth narrative… although a different geneology…and yes, i know that one is Joseph and one is Mary) doesn’t even mention it. he doesn’t speak of the flight from egypt either (which matthew also equates to a messianic prophecy although it is tough to find that in the OT to in places that don’t talk specifically about Moses (one of the other saviors of the jews).

all in all, your explanation falls flat. it is a contradiction, but not one that comes close to shaking my faith. we have to remember that these were men trying to make a point with what they were writing. God ensured that they would not err when speaking of His character, His interaction with the world and individuals, or His plans. other than that… the history and science contained in the bible is up for debate. and many times, the bible loses in those regards. but i thank God that all the books are consistent in their picture of God. that is what is inspired, infallible, and inerrant.

 

[Angelos]

actually, that is just a common way to speak. yes, there were oral traditions (and even other versions of some OT books!!), but according to every jewish scholar i have read, the messiah coming from nazareth isn’t one of the prophecies in oral tradition. that is why many of the other self-proclaimed “messiahs” have never associated themselves with nazareth. they have tried to tie themselves to bethlehem.

However, Jesus was born in Bethlehem although people called Him a Nazarene! Notice how Matthew narrates Jesus’ birth in Nazareth through a certain prophecy in the OT. Interestingly, it is easy to infer that Joseph’s settlement in Nazareth after the return from Egypt is not directly related to God’s plans: we read that Joseph was told in a dream to go to Nazareth since he was afraid to go back to Judah (check the similarity between Joseph and the magi in this context). Not a theological reason per se.

Nevertheless, we can easily see how the choice of Nazareth conforms to Jesus’ future identification as a Nazarene. Apparently, Jesus is called a Nazarane not because some unknown prophets predicted it, but because Joseph went to Nazareth instead of Bethlehem. This last prophecy of Jesus’ infancy narrative is surprisingly derived from future projection rather than from flashback. In other words, this particular prophecy is like the ones Luke employs in the chapter that relates the annunciation of Elijah’s and Jesus’ birth:

**1: 76 **And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest

1: 32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High.

if it was so important, the prophecy would be contained in at least one other gospel. even luke (the other one with a birth narrative… although a different geneology…and yes, i know that one is Joseph and one is Mary) doesn’t even mention it. he doesn’t speak of the flight from egypt either (which matthew also equates to a messianic prophecy although it is tough to find that in the OT to in places that don’t talk specifically about Moses (one of the other saviors of the jews).

This argument of yours makes no sense to me since none of the prophecies quoted by Matthew can be found in Luke’s Gospel! The way Matthew refers to OT prophecies while narrating Jesus’ birth and infancy is peculiar to him since he makes associations between the three major periods of biblical Jewish history and Jesus, the new Israel:

The first section of Jesus’ genealogy (from Abraham to David): time of divine promises of salvation is countered by the angelic annunciation to Joseph.

The second section of Jesus’ genealogy (from David to the beginning of the exile): the establishment of the Kingdom and its golden age are countered by Jesus’ birth and His declaration as the King by the magi.

The third section of Jesus’ genealogy (from the exile to Jesus’ birth): the time of suffering and deportation from the holy land is countered by the massacree of the infants and the holy family’s departure from Israel to live in a pagan country.

all in all, your explanation falls flat. it is a contradiction, but not one that comes close to shaking my faith. we have to remember that these were men trying to make a point with what they were writing. God ensured that they would not err when speaking of His character, His interaction with the world and individuals, or His plans. other than that… the history and science contained in the bible is up for debate. and many times, the bible loses in those regards. but i thank God that all the books are consistent in their picture of God. that is what is inspired, infallible, and inerrant.

This statement is actually a contradictory one. You claim that there are contradictions, mistakes, mistranslations in the book inspired by God, who in your opinion does not correct the mistakes or guide people to literal inerrancy but compels them to reinterpret the notion of inerrancy in a way that endorses errancy.

P.S I am going to be away for a week. I hope I shall find this thread active on my return

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[bengal_fan]

However, Jesus was born in Bethlehem although people called Him a Nazarene! Notice how Matthew narrates Jesus’ birth in Nazareth through a certain prophecy in the OT. Interestingly, it is easy to infer that Joseph’s settlement in Nazareth after the return from Egypt is not directly related to God’s plans: we read that Joseph was told in a dream to go to Nazareth since he was afraid to go back to Judah (check the similarity between Joseph and the magi in this context). Not a theological reason per se.

there is no prophecy for the messiah to come from nazareth. matthew is trying to make one since that is where Jesus is raised. just because He was born in bethlehem, that is not where he is from. in fact, most think they returned to nazareth because that is where they travelled from in the first place for the census. so you are saying that this was a prophecy that came after Jesus was born to joseph? how can it be a prophecy if the person who it is made to is also the one responsible for carrying it out? it is self-fulfilling. the whole nazareth “prophecy” is the writer of matthew’s attempt to enhance the birth narrative of Jesus. it is BECAUSE it is not in any other gospel that it proves it was not a prophecy or the others would have mentioned it. there are instances in the other gospels where they show major prophecies being answered.

Nevertheless, we can easily see how the choice of Nazareth conforms to Jesus’ future identification as a Nazarene. Apparently, Jesus is called a Nazarane not because some unknown prophets predicted it, but because Joseph went to Nazareth instead of Bethlehem. This last prophecy of Jesus’ infancy narrative is surprisingly derived from future projection rather than from flashback. In other words, this particular prophecy is like the ones Luke employs in the chapter that relates the annunciation of Elijah’s and Jesus’ birth:

**1: 76 **And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest

1: 32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High.

of course Jesus being raised in nazareth “conforms” to his identity as a nazarene… HE’S FROM NAZARETH. it has nothing to do with Him being messiah however. it is why the jews were shocked that some one claiming (or His followers claiming )to be the messiah would be from nazareth. because there is nothing about the messiah coming from nazareth. matthew alludes to an obscure passage that really doesn’t have anything to do with the town of nazareth, but that he will come from the line of jesse (and following… the line of david).

This argument of yours makes no sense to me since none of the prophecies quoted by Matthew can be found in Luke’s Gospel! The way Matthew refers to OT prophecies while narrating Jesus’ birth and infancy is peculiar to him since he makes associations between the three major periods of biblical Jewish history and Jesus, the new Israel:

The first section of Jesus’ genealogy (from Abraham to David): time of divine promises of salvation is countered by the angelic annunciation to Joseph.

The second section of Jesus’ genealogy (from David to the beginning of the exile): the establishment of the Kingdom and its golden age are countered by Jesus’ birth and His declaration as the King by the magi.

The third section of Jesus’ genealogy (from the exile to Jesus’ birth): the time of suffering and deportation from the holy land is countered by the massacree of the infants and the holy family’s departure from Israel to live in a pagan country.

i think the argument makes perfect sense. actually, luke has Jesus being born in bethlehem. he has joseph being from nazareth. the key to luke’s story is that they had to leave nazareth to get to bethlehem becaus THAT is where the messiah would be from. also, luke traces Jesus back to the line of david (another prophecy he and matthew agree on). there are others as well, so your assertion is wrong.
the second part here is not in debate.

This statement is actually a contradictory one. You claim that there are contradictions, mistakes, mistranslations in the book inspired by God, who in your opinion does not correct the mistakes or guide people to literal inerrancy but compels them to reinterpret the notion of inerrancy in a way that endorses errancy.

i claim there are contradictions because there ARE contradictions. but these contradictions have nothing to do with the character and nature of God nor do they deal with God’s dealing with man and our fallen nature. God doesn’t “correct” the mistakes because they have nothing to do with what He is communicating. it’s not a reinterpretation of inerrancy. it is actually how the jews viewed the OT. that it is about learning who God is and who we are. not about history or science.

 

[Angelos]

there is no prophecy for the messiah to come from nazareth. matthew is trying to make one since that is where Jesus is raised.

Here you overtly accuse Matthew of fabricating a prophecy about Nazareth and incorporating it into divine inspiration. So you believe Matthew to be a liar and forger. I definitely disagree from you.

so you are saying that this was a prophecy that came after Jesus was born to joseph? how can it be a prophecy if the person who it is made to is also the one responsible for carrying it out? it is self-fulfilling. **the whole nazareth “prophecy” is the writer of matthew’s attempt to enhance the birth narrative of Jesus. ** it is BECAUSE it is not in any other gospel that it proves it was not a prophecy or the others would have mentioned it. there are instances in the other gospels where they show major prophecies being answered…

To Address the underlined part of your response:

According to your fallacious reasoning, Jesus is not the Word of God because He is called the WORD in no other Gospel than John’s! Likewise, The story that Jesus was born during a census is a fabricated one because it is related only in Luke. The prophecy concerning the purchase of a burial place after Judas’ death is a fable because it is found only in Matthew…

Moreover, another sentence in your response - bolded by me - indicates how you discard the specific prophecy in Matthew as made up by the Evangelist, but:

2 Peter 1:20-21 Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

About the self-fulfillment: Do you really believe that Matthew included Joseph into Jesus’ genealogy before His birth from the virgin? Does not the Virgin in Luke fulfill the promise given to Her by the angel when She gives birth to Jesus? The prophecies and prophets in the Gospels are by no means restricted to the ones in the OT. Even Simeon prophesies Jesus’ death in Luke.

i think the argument makes perfect sense. actually, luke has Jesus being born in bethlehem. he has joseph being from nazareth. the key to luke’s story is that they had to leave nazareth to get to bethlehem becaus THAT is where the messiah would be from. also, luke traces Jesus back to the line of david (another prophecy he and matthew agree on). there are others as well, so your assertion is wrong.

Another prophecy Luke and Matthew agree on??? Show me a verse where Luke binds Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem to the written prophecy quoted by Matthew. Luke never uses the structure “This happened so that what was said by the prophet might be fulfilled”. The infancy narrative in Luke has no prophecies quoted from a specific passage in the OT. Thus, Matthew is alone.

i claim there are contradictions because there ARE contradictions. but these contradictions have nothing to do with the character and nature of God nor do they deal with God’s dealing with man and our fallen nature. God doesn’t “correct” the mistakes because they have nothing to do with what He is communicating. it’s not a reinterpretation of inerrancy. it is actually how the jews viewed the OT. that it is about learning who God is and who we are. not about history or science.

This means you accept only some parts of the scripture as infallible and inerrant since those parts not directly related to God’s nature are - in your personal opinion - naturally full of mistakes and contradictions. I never claim the Bible to be a book of science or history, but this does not mean that it is confused with myths and fables that have nothing to do with how God communicates Himself to us. I am not Jewish, and what I get from the notion of inerrancy is naturally different.

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[Gamera]

a couple of contradictions:

the death of judas as told by matthew versus luke.

This is not a contradiction. It is an inconsistency. An inconsistency is when one verse says “A” and another verse says “B.” A contradiction would be if one verse said “A” and another verse said, “Not A.”

The distinction is significant because most inconsistencies can be reconciled. For instance, if I tell my wife that I worked today, but tell my friend that I posted on the internet today, my two statements are inconsistent, but both statements are true – I both worked and posted today. My statements are merely tailored to my audience, which is why they are not identical, but neither contradicts the other.

In your example, Judas could have jumped from a high place to hang himself, then later his corpse could have fallen onto rocks below and burst open. The two accounts are inconsistent but they can be reconciled.

 

[bengal_fan]

This is not a contradiction. It is an inconsistency. An inconsistency is when one verse says “A” and another verse says “B.” A contradiction would be if one verse said “A” and another verse said, “Not A.”

The distinction is significant because most inconsistencies can be reconciled. For instance, if I tell my wife that I worked today, but tell my friend that I posted on the internet today, my two statements are inconsistent, but both statements are true – I both worked and posted today. My statements are merely tailored to my audience, which is why they are not identical, but neither contradicts the other.

In your example, Judas could have jumped from a high place to hang himself, then later his corpse could have fallen onto rocks below and burst open. The two accounts are inconsistent but they can be reconciled.

sure, anything can be twisted in any way we want it. they are drastically different. one says judas bought the field, the other says the priests did. they give different reasons for the field being called the “field of blood” and the actual deaths are just so different. one says he committed suicide and the other says he fell.
i agree, you can reconcile them if you want, but it is a big stretch.

 

[bengal_fan]

Here you overtly accuse Matthew of fabricating a prophecy about Nazareth and incorporating it into divine inspiration. So you believe Matthew to be a liar and forger. I definitely disagree from you.

no, i say that the writer of matthew understands Jesus is a remarkable man (even the Son of God) and thus includes an incredible birth narrative. this is a common practice in ancient times. it is not “lying” it is storytelling. there is a difference. calling it lying is like calling the brothers grimm liars. the difference is that Jesus is not a fairy tale. i am saying that the writer knew that Jesus deserved a fantastic birth story and he used whatever he could to provide that. the readers of the day would have understood what he was doing. it is as Christianity became more and more removed from it’s original context that we have lost the ability to understand these nuances. just because something didn’t actually happen doesn’t mean it is not true (or contain the truth… the birth of Jesus, i.e. God entering the world in human form, is fantastic, incredible and true… matthew is expressing that fact through a literary device).

To Address the underlined part of your response:

According to your fallacious reasoning, Jesus is not the Word of God because He is called the WORD in no other Gospel than John’s! Likewise, The story that Jesus was born during a census is a fabricated one because it is related only in Luke. The prophecy concerning the purchase of a burial place after Judas’ death is a fable because it is found only in Matthew…

let’s be charitable. my reasoning is not fallacious. just because you disagree with it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. i disagree with you, but i can exist knowing that i could be wrong. hence, i haven’t stooped to insults. but i digress.
your jump in logic here is quite a jump. it is true that nowhere else is Jesus referred to as “the Word”. but the concept that john is communicating is all over the NT. so my reasoning does not make that jump, it is you trying to put words into my mouth.
the place where judas died is also in acts by the way.
and we have no record of a census of the entire roman world at that time.

Moreover, another sentence in your response - bolded by me - indicates how you discard the specific prophecy in Matthew as made up by the Evangelist, but:

2 Peter 1:20-21 Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

so you are saying that matthew made the prophecy after the fact? or do you have a specific place that matthew is referring when saying it was prophesied that the messiah would be from nazareth?
thanks for helping me to “recognize” that

About the self-fulfillment: Do you really believe that Matthew included Joseph into Jesus’ genealogy before His birth from the virgin? Does not the Virgin in Luke fulfill the promise given to Her by the angel when She gives birth to Jesus? The prophecies and prophets in the Gospels are by no means restricted to the ones in the OT. Even Simeon prophesies Jesus’ death in Luke.

mary had a very passive role in the conception and birth of Jesus… so no, she did not fulfill the promise God gave her. she participated in God bringing it about. your earlier statement made it sound like Joseph was given the prophecy that matthew was referring to. but that would make it a self fulfilling prophecy and it is not what matthew was referring to anyway.

Another prophecy Luke and Matthew agree on??? Show me a verse where Luke binds Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem to the written prophecy quoted by Matthew. Luke never uses the structure “This happened so that what was said by the prophet might be fulfilled”. The infancy narrative in Luke has no prophecies quoted from a specific passage in the OT. Thus, Matthew is alone.

um, Jesus is born in bethlehem in luke. luke wasn’t writing to show a multitude of fulfilled prophecies. luke was greek, not jewish. his audience was greek, not jewish. matthew was writing to jews who would be interested in OT prophecy, the greeks just want a good story. matthew is alone in his purpose in writing… just like all of the other authors of all of the other books in the bible. they all had their individual motivations for writing.

This means you accept only some parts of the scripture as infallible and inerrant since those parts not directly related to God’s nature are - in your personal opinion - naturally full of mistakes and contradictions. I never claim the Bible to be a book of science or history, but this does not mean that it is confused with myths and fables that have nothing to do with how God communicates Himself to us. I am not Jewish, and what I get from the notion of inerrancy is naturally different.

well, since our faith comes directly from judaism, it would be good for you to learn more about it instead of trying to view Christianity through western culture. when we do that, it tends to not make as much sense. i accept all of scripture as true, just not as fact. there is a difference.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hey bengal_fan!

I hope you’re having a nice day…

one says judas bought the field, the other says the priests did.

We must keep in mind, the chief priests were not interested in easing the guilt of Judas and refused his return of the money saying, “What is that to us? See to it yourself”. So the chief priests are the ones who physically bought the Potter’s Field: “the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, ‘It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.’ So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers.” (Matt. 27:6-7). When Peter says that Judas “acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness”, this is also true. In fact, Judas did acquire the field, for the field was purchased by the priests with Judas’ money - his payment for the betrayal of the Lord - and through the bartering of the priests, he thereby “acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness” (Acts 1:18).

they give different reasons for the field being called the “field of blood”

I love my wife because she is so good to me.

I love my wife because she is a good mother.

I love my wife because I am commanded by God to do so.

etc.

My name is Pete because my great uncle’s name is Pete. But - unless I have my story wrong - my name is also Pete because, when my dad was in his late teens, he worked on a farm owned by another guy named Pete, Pete House.

and the actual deaths are just so different. one says he committed suicide and the other says he fell.

Helpful to keep in mind is that neither in Matthew nor in Acts does it explicitly state that he died in either of these ways; but he was certainly dead by the end of it all. It is most likely that Judas died after “he went and hanged himself” (Matt. 27:5). And that his dead body began to bloat in the sun after hanging for a certain length of time, after which time, “falling headlong he burst open in the middle [of the field] and all his bowels gushed out” (Acts 1:18).

May God bless you!

 

[bengal_fan]

pete,

i am doing well, thanks. i hope you are too.

this is not to be rude, but i have heard all of those explanations before. i did say that we cant explain things away (no matter how glaring the discrepancies are). i think people are missing my point and i will continue to use the death of judas as an example.

from an historical point of view, some one actually handed the money over for the field. it seems it was most likely the priests. judas returned the money (although that is left out of luke’s gospel and out of the book of acts as well) and they went and bought a field. according to luke then, judas died in the same field the priests bought! quite a coincidence unless the priests specifically bought the field judas hung himself in… which is possible. matthew has judas returning the money, going and hanging himself, and the priests buying the field in that order. luke has judas betraying Jesus, feeling remorse, buying the field, and “falling headlong… and bursting open”. they say the field was named the field of blood for different reasons. yes, maybe both reasons are true, but it ultimately started somewhere. they are in different orders and say some different things.

but, they both have the same theme. judas betrayed Jesus, felt remorse, and died. the point is, the history does not have to be completely correct. the order of events does not have to 100% match up (look at how out of order the gospel of John is compared to the others). the point of judas’ story is that he betrayed Jesus (just like all of humanity has, and just like peter, individually, did as well) but couldn’t attempt reconciliation. he place the burden on himself and knew he could never overcome it. that is what many of us do and why so many people in this world live without hope. peter, on the other hand, went back to his life trying to understand everything. he had not given up by going back to fishing, but was living in a state of confusion because he still had this trust in God and in who he thought Jesus was (not that he was anticipating the resurrection). peter, despite his guilt and knowing his own failure, rushes to Jesus the first chance he gets. he experiences the grace of God because of his humility and knowing that he could never reinstate himself but that God had to do it. judas knew he could not reinstate himself also, but did not trust God to do it either. the point of the story still comes across despite the historical contradictions.

the whole point i am trying to make is that there are parts of the bible that do not agree in: order of events and meanings of other passages (in light of historical events). there are parts of the bible that contradict what we KNOW of nature from scientific study. these have nothing to do with our faith. the points the writers have been inspired by God to communicate to the world come across loud and clear. God wanted us to know Him and His love for us. He uses the bible, perfectly, to communicate these things. He is not concerned in “correcting” the writers when they make a grammatical, historical, or scientific error. He leads them to communicate the truth of Himself. because of this, i can say that the bible is 100% inspired, 100% infallible (where it was intended to be by God), and 100% inerrant (in communicating the truth of God). it is all these things when we are talking about TRUTH, not FACT. they are different things.

i love the bible. i read it, study it, memorize it, and meditate on it. it is my first rule of life (and i try to live up to that as best i can, although we all stumble and fall at times). i am in now way trying to insult the bible. the problem i see is when people put too much stock in the words and facts rather than the ideas and truths. if you base your faith on the historical and scientific AS WELL AS the spiritual inerrancy of scripture… the moment you find out the bible contains historical and scientific errors, your faith crumbles. we see this constantly with kids who go off to college and take a class on the bible. they become so horrified that what they were taught all along was not true about the bible (because they have been taught that every single word of the bible is fact, not that the book is 100% truth). they end up losing their faith. we must be honest is how we present the bible so that our faith can be strengthened every time we learn something new about history and science as opposed to it being shaken.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Greetings in the Lord!

i did say that we cant explain things away (no matter how glaring the discrepancies are). i think people are missing my point and i will continue to use the death of judas as an example.

Do you mean can explain things? Do you see how this harmonizing approach also needs to be taken even concerning things pertaining, as you said, to “faith and morals and the character of God”? It seems like you’re taking a woodenly literalistic approach to historical and scientific material in order to show that there are contradictions, but that you then apply a softer, harmonizing hermeneutic to theological material. For example, Ezekiel 33:11 says, “As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” On the other hand, 1 Sam. 2:25 says that the sons of Eli “would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death.” I take this example from Still Sovereign, edited by Schreiner & Ware. The same Hebrew word, haphez, is used in both verses to describe God’s disposition toward these people. In one case He does not desire the death of anyone. In the other, he desires the death of Eli’s sons. On the face of it, this is a sheer contradiction concerning the character of God. To be consistent with ourselves, it seems to me that we either have to admit that there are contradictions on every level, or else we humble ourselves and come to an interpretation that submits to the notion - and I would say reality - that the Holy Spirit was able to and actually did preserve the Holy Authors from every error.

according to luke then, judas died in the same field the priests bought! quite a coincidence unless the priests specifically bought the field judas hung himself in… which is possible.

Here’s a funny one. My brother-in-law’s name is Thomas Thompson. And guess where he lives “by coincidence”? Thomas Avenue!

matthew has judas returning the money, going and hanging himself, and the priests buying the field in that order. luke has judas betraying Jesus, feeling remorse, buying the field, and “falling headlong… and bursting open”.

I think that what is giving you trouble here is the assumption that Judas hung himself before the chief priests purchased the field. I would say that, although this is possible, it is not necessitated by the text. Matthew is not necessarily saying that Judas did this and that, and that afterwards the chief priests purchased the field (although this is the flow of the text on the page). I would say that Matthew gives us all the information pertaining to Judas and then he gives us all the information pertaining to the chief priests. In other words, I do not think that Matthew is requiring us to believe that the chief priests stood in frame-freeze while Judas left the temple and found a place to hang himself. And that after this, which may have taken days or weeks to transpire, the chief priests reanimated and picked up their conversation and purchased the field. I think that it’s plausible to believe that the field was acquired by Judas through the agency of the priests first, perhaps after the death and resurrection of Jesus, and that Judas then went to the field and hung himself, all of this taking place before the day of Pentecost.

the point of judas’ story is…

The spiritual wealth and depth of Scripture is overwhelming! I agree with you, Bengal Fan, that the point of the narrative is to equip the man of God. The point where we diverge is on the place of history in all of this. I would say that, in the case of the Gospels, it is not merely sufficiently, accurate history, whereas you would say it’s not even sufficiently, accurate history at all. Hopefully I’ve given you something helpful to think about in the case of Judas.

Pope Benedict writes in the beginning of Jesus of Nazareth, about Luke’s genealogy for Jesus, that “the point is not just the chronology…” (Page 11). Exactly right! It’s not just the chronology; but it is at least that much! The Gospels are not just history, but they are at least that much.

I know that you are more knowledgeable in these things than I am. But I still hope that the Lord was able to bless you in some way through what I’ve written here.

Love,
Pete

 

[marymol]

Hey MH84,

I was one! But God had mercy on me and eventually humbled me before his Word.

There was a post on another thread by “itsjustdave1988” that I found very edifying. You may have seen it…

Thank you for this !

Efforts to help to increase our faith and trust in God’s word and to accept that , what we do not understand or seem to find conflicting is due to our own limited understanding ,seems the prudent way .

Have sometimes wondered if many of the passages of O.T that seem so difficul to interpret , that one would not even try, may be there , to inculcate this basic attitude of accepting mystery !

unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/EmmerichGreatMystic.htm

Seems God comes to our help , esp. in these times , through the miraculous writings of persons such as Bl.Emmerich !

God Bless!

 

[bengal_fan]

pete,

i did mean “can”.

as for the explanations, like i said, they might work for some, but not for others. that is why it is not important if the bible is historically or scientifically accurate.

as for the hebrew reference, one says God does not desire the death of the wicked and the other says God wills the death. is that the word you are saying is the same? so, if that is true, everything that God wills to happen is also His desire. I would disagree with that. God does not desire for any to perish but for all to come to eternal life (as it says in the NT), but His will causes some to end up in hell. it is not His desire but His will. this is still consistent. parents never desire to punish their children but their will as parents forces them to do it.

in conclusion, the only people who say there are no contradictions in the bible are believers who base their faith on the historical accuracy of the books included in the bible. if you do that, you have to base it on the science in the books as well. those people are forced to think the sun revolves around the earth. dinosaurs and humans existed together. the earth is only 10,000 (or less) years old. all of these things are possible, but through the observations we have been able to make, we know they are not true.

my faith is not based on this view of scripture.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Thank you for this! Efforts to help to increase our faith and trust in God’s word and to accept that , what we do not understand or seem to find conflicting is due to our own limited understanding ,seems the prudent way.

Greetings marymol!

Pope Leo XIII, as you may be aware, shares your thoughts here:

“If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being. There have been objections without number perseveringly directed against the Scripture for many a long year, which have been proved to be futile and are now never heard of; and not unfrequently interpretations have been placed on certain passages of Scripture (not belonging to the rule of faith or morals) which have been rectified by more careful investigations. As time goes on, mistaken views die and disappear; but ‘truth remaineth and groweth stronger for ever and ever.’ Wherefore, as no one should be so presumptuous as to think that he understands the whole of the Scripture, in which St. Augustine himself confessed that there was more that he did not know, than that he knew, so, if he should come upon anything that seems incapable of solution, he must take to heart the cautious rule of the same holy Doctor: ‘It is better even to be oppressed by unknown but useful signs, than to interpret them uselessly and thus to throw off the yoke only to be caught in the trap of error’” (Providentissimus Deus, 23).

Have sometimes wondered if many of the passages of O.T that seem so difficul to interpret , that one would not even try, may be there, to inculcate this basic attitude of accepting mystery!

This is a pious thought. Augustine had a thought similar to your own: “But hasty and careless readers are led astray by many and manifold obscurities and ambiguities, substituting one meaning for another; and in some places they cannot hit upon even a fair interpretation. Some of the expressions are so obscure as to shroud the meaning in the thickest darkness. And I do not doubt that all this was divinely arranged for the purpose of subduing pride by toil, and of preventing a feeling of satiety in the intellect, which generally holds in small esteem what is discovered without difficulty” (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 6).

May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Augustine had a thought similar to your own…

I’m convinced that St. Augustine is correct. The Revelation of God–both the “natural” and “supernatural” sort–seem to be purposefully ambiguous in many places so as to inspire us to keep searching, and to persistently require of us, faith.

I love this quote from St. Ephraim the Syriac, a deacon from the 4th century…
*Lord, who can grasp all the wealth of just one of your words. What we understand is much less than what we leave behind. Like thirsty people who drink from a fountain, for your word, Lord, has many shades of meaning, just as those who study it have many points of view. The Lord has colored his word with many hues, so that each person who studies it can see in it what he loves. He has hidden many treasures in his word, so that each of us is enriched as we meditate on it. The word of God is a tree of life that from all its parts offers you fruit that is blessed. It is like that rock that is open in the desert, which from all its parts gave forth a spiritual drink. He, who comes into contact with some share of its treasure, should not think that the only thing contained in the word is what he himself has found. He should realize that he has only been able to find that one thing from among many others. Nor, because only that one part has become his should he say that the word is void, empty, and look down on it. Because he could not exhaust it, he should give thanks for its riches. Be glad that you are overcome and do not be sad that it overcame you. The thirsty man rejoices when he drinks, he is not downcast because he cannot empty the fountain. Rather let the fountain quench your thirst, than have your thirst quench the fountain. Because if your thirst is quenched and the fountain is not exhausted, you can drink from it again whenever you are thirsty. But if, when your thirst is quenched, the fountain also is dried up, your victory will bode evil for you. So be grateful for what you have recieved and don’t grumble about the abundance left behind. What you have received and what you have reached is your share. What remains is your heritage. What at one time you are unable to receive, because of your weakness, you will be able to receive at other times, if you persevere. Do not have the presumption to try to take in one draft what cannot be taken in one draft. And do not abandon out of laziness what you may only consume little by little.

*[St. Ephraim, cited by Dr. Scott Hahn, *The End: A Study of the Book of Revelation, (St. Joseph Communications, audio series)]