Contradictions in Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flatty10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Flatty10

Guest
I’m currently having a small debate with my lecturer at Uni, she claims the bible is riddled with errors and contradictions. My point of view, is the original text and correct interpretation can have no errors. She strongly disagrees. I got here to write them down for me and this is what she came up with…

How does Peter find out the Jesus is the Christ(messiah)
  1. Revelation from heaven ( Matthew16:17)
  2. Brother Andrew told him (John1:41)
Herod & John the Baptist & Jesus (Herod thought Jesus was the John the Baptist)
  1. Matthew 14:2 and Mark 6:16 = YES
  2. Luke 9:9 = NO
Gospel of John
“If i bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true” (John 5:31)
“even if i do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true” (John 8:14)

Who was the Father of Joseph?
Matthew 1:16 = Jacob
Luke 3:23 = Heli

What’s everyone think of these? or am i just wrong in saying the bible is inerrant?
 
The Charge of Contradiction
Click to expand...
Muslims talk often about the many contradictions in the Bible. The number of contradictions vary depending on whom you are talking to. Kairanvi’s Izhar-ul-Haq presents 119 numbered contradictions, while others such as Shabbir Ally have supposedly found 101 contradictions. The problem as they see it concerns their supposition that any religious book claiming absolute divine authority must not include any contradictions, as a message emanating from an Omniscient being must be consistent with itself.
Click to expand...
debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm

I enclosed the site for your review and it explains quite a bit. Not sure if your “lecturer” at your Uni is a muslim, but it matters not.

The inquiries and “contradictions” you posted in your thread are explained in the site I provided.
 
Also, as the Vatican II document Dei Verbum states, Inerrancy in the scriptures pertain to matters of God revealing Himself (particularly in Jesus Christ) and His plan of Salvation for all humanity. So if Quinirius was the governor of Wherever at some time that another record says he was not, then that does not matter as far as we are concerned.
 
How many times have you hear you will find the answer if you look in the Bible?
My first college was a Catholic college which required a Theology class in order to graduate. I never took the course. However I did go to the orientation as a Freshman.
The most freeing statement I heard was, “Do not look to the Bible for answers. Look for the questions.” As an 18 year old I did not fully understand what it meant to allow the Bible to question me. Yes, there are seeming contradictions in scripture. It is in allowing the Bible to question me that I actually found answers.
My most obvious experience comes from “a man will leave father and mother and cling to his wife.” At the same time, the 4th commandment is “Honor your father and mother.” The conflict I felt could only be found when I read the Book of Tobit which deals with the proper relationship. The mother-in-law becomes the bride’s new mother. The father-in-law becomes the groom’s new father.
The gospels are eyewitness accounts. The differences are a matter of personal perspective and what the evangelist is emphasizing at the time. Each evangelist has a different audience.
 
The gospels aren’t always witness accounts. Obviously the writers were not there to witness any of the private events they describe, such as the annunciation, the visitation, the presentation at the temple, the flight into Egypt, the finding in the temple, the temptations in the desert. Or the crucifixion, since none of the Gospel’s the authors - according to their own accounts - were present at the scene. The narration progresses seamlessly between the possible eyewitness parts and the others, making no distinction between what the author can verify and what he has gathered from other sources.

You are right that we should question the Bible. But we shouldn’t just stop at questioning its content within our comfort zone, but we must also question its origins and reliability. And, unlike any other book, its canonical status demands real answers to all the issues of contradiction. By being holy it has truly been set apart, both from all other works but also from the shortcomings of non-holy literature. If it does display the same shortcomings as secular literature, then the only thing left to question if whether it is in fact holy.
 
Hmm…there are certainly “contradictions” in the Bible, but probably not in the same sense as “error.” I can only speak of the Old Testament, since I’ve studied it. If you lecturer is using the historical-critical method, then there would be a seeming contradiction with the two accounts of creation. Some Hebrew sources tell of the “first wife of Adam” known as Lilith, who did not want to be under (sexually) Adam, so she was banished from the garden of Eden and Eve was created from Adam’s rib to replace her.

Another one is the comparison between the account of Noah’s ark and the earlier Sumerian story of a similar flood, which some scholars say could have been taken directly and applied to and later added into the Hebrew Torah.

If you would like further explanation, here’s Fr. Robert Barron on the Book of Revelation:
youtube.com/watch?v=I8yCkYT50No

On Violence in the Bible: youtube.com/watch?v=1A65Wfr2is0
 
DebChris said:
Lithith is not in the Bible. Eve means first woman.
Click to expand...
Eve means life. The Hebrew word for Eve is Chavvah which is translated as Zoe in the Greek Septuagint.
You can read about it here: behindthename.com/name/eve
and here: biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/chavvah.html

In accordance with the Bible and the Church Fathers, we know that Eve was the first woman. Lilith is a myth.

Also, with regards to evolution, Catholics are still required to believe that we descended from our first parent, Adam:
“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.” - Venerable Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Ch 37
 
Zekariya said:
Eve means life. The Hebrew word for Eve is Chavvah which is translated as Zoe in the Greek Septuagint.
You can read about it here: behindthename.com/name/eve
and here: biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/chavvah.html

In accordance with the Bible and the Church Fathers, we know that Eve was the first woman. Lilith is a myth.

Also, with regards to evolution, Catholics are still required to believe that we descended from our first parent, Adam:
“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.” - Venerable Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Ch 37
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification.This the point I was trying to make. Lilith is not Biblical, but is strictly a myth. Yes, the footnotes in my Bible say Eve is related to the Hebrew word for “living.” “The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of the living” [Genesis 3:21].
God created Man. Whether or not we choose to accept that God created the world in a literal seven days is less important than our acceptance that God created the world. “For what is a thousand years in the sight of God?” As God questioned Job’s comforters, I was not there when He created the world.
Man sinned and rejected the grace that was his. He accepted the lie that Satan fed him. Even in Genesis, we find the promise of Salvation that allows us to be reconciled to God through His Son (Gen 3:15).
 
Flatty10 said:
I’m currently having a small debate with my lecturer at Uni, she claims the bible is riddled with errors and contradictions. My point of view, is the original text and correct interpretation can have no errors. She strongly disagrees. I got here to write them down for me and this is what she came up with…

Who was the Father of Joseph?
Matthew 1:16 = Jacob
Luke 3:23 = Heli

What’s everyone think of these? or am i just wrong in saying the bible is inerrant?
Click to expand...
Getting pretty picky with the name thing there.

If someone were to ask who the father of my son is;

They would be correct in saying Deacon Watzek.

They would also be correct in saying Bill.

🤷 These name things are not very good arguments and always make the whole argument seem disingenuous to me.
 
Flatty10 said:
I’m currently having a small debate with my lecturer at Uni, she claims the bible is riddled with errors and contradictions. My point of view, is the original text and correct interpretation can have no errors. She strongly disagrees. I got here to write them down for me and this is what she came up with…

How does Peter find out the Jesus is the Christ(messiah)
  1. Revelation from heaven ( Matthew16:17)
  2. Brother Andrew told him (John1:41)
Click to expand...
**I do not see contradiction here: **
in Matthew Jesus asks the Apostles who do they think he is and Peter answers: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This is and Old Testament concept about the Christ (ie the messiah)

In John’s Gospels John the Baptist tells Peter’s brother, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” This is a New Testament concept about the Christ that they did not know in the OT. Therefore I do not think why there should be a contradiction.
Flatty10 said:
Herod & John the Baptist & Jesus (Herod thought Jesus was the John the Baptist)
  1. Matthew 14:2 and Mark 6:16 = YES
  2. Luke 9:9 = NO
Click to expand...
I do not see why we have to be so close minded: the three answers are different, the one in Mark needs the interrogation mark. In Luke and Matthew’s accounts someone tells Herod that Jesus is John the Baptist resurrected and that is why he has those powers.

First he denied the rumors:
In Luke Herod says: “John I beheaded; but who is this about whom I hear such things?”

**Then he doubted, and question himself if the rumor could be true. **
In Mark Herod says: “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised?”

**And then he fear that he has resurrected, for he had kill him **
In Matthew Herod says: “This is John the Baptist, he has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him.”

So I really believe that this three answers, he gave them in three occasions, in this order, and each Gospel reported the truth of who ever heard the answer.
Flatty10 said:
Gospel of John
“If i bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true” (John 5:31)
“even if i do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true” (John 8:14)
Click to expand...
From the Gospel of John she changed the meaning by not quoting what comes before:

"30 **I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. **31 If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true; "

It just makes that difference to see clearly what is he saying, that if he was bearing witness to himself instead of to God, then his testimony will be not true. But later we are explain that when he gives testimony to himself even is true. Let us see why.

"And the next quote Jn 8:14 she neither considers the rest:

13 The Pharisees then said to him, “You are bearing witness to yourself; your testimony is not true.” 14 Jesus answered, “Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true,"

and then in verse 18 he explains why his testimony is true:

18 I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me
Flatty10 said:
Who was the Father of Joseph?
Matthew 1:16 = Jacob
Luke 3:23 = Heli
Click to expand...
Just to say something with this one and not to worry about it let us hear from Timothy:

“…charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training[a] that is in faith; whereas the aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith. Certain persons by swerving from these have wandered away into vain discussion” 1 Tim 1:3-6

or in Titus 3:9

“But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile”.

I hope all this helps,
Gloria

.
 
I try to download the pdf that you suggested but my computer warn me that could be dangerous!!! We also wrote a synopsis but never published it.

Many thanks any way,
Gloria

.
 
Gloria_de_G said:
I try to download the pdf that you suggested but my computer warn me that could be dangerous!!! We also wrote a synopsis but never published it.

Many thanks any way,
Gloria

.
Click to expand...
That’s strange, its a google document. It is clean on my end, but listen to your computer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top