Implications of Contradictions

[dchernik]

The Catholic NABRE Bible comments on Saul’s conversion in Acts 9 and 22: “This is the first of three accounts of Paul’s conversion with some differences of detail owing to Luke’s use of different sources.”

Acts 9 says: “The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.”

Acts 22 says: “My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.”

At least one of these must be false.

Again, 2 Samuel 8 says: “David then defeated Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah, when he went to re-establish his dominion at the River. David captured from him one thousand seven hundred horsemen and twenty thousand foot soldiers.”

1 Chronicles 18 says: “David then defeated Hadadezer, king of Zobah, toward Hamath, who was on his way to set up his victory stele at the river Euphrates. David captured from him one thousand chariots, seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers.”

It’s either 1,700 horsemen or 7,000 horsemen (or something else) but not both.

From such contradictions, can we conclude that the Bible, while inspired (as in: teaches things above human nature), is not inerrant?

 

[Luke6_37]

Details like those are not theologically or doctrinally significant. The Bible is inerrant in what it says about God and our salvation. It is not mean to be read like a modern history or piece of journalism.

 

[dchernik]

But Christianity is supposed to be grounded in actual historical events. If these details are wrong, what other history is wrong, too?

Again, “The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, ‘Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.’ Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ He replied to him, ‘Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’” (Lk 23)

NABRE comments: “This episode is recounted only in this gospel. The penitent sinner receives salvation through the crucified Jesus.”

Indeed, in the other 3 gospels, the criminals crucified around Jesus all revile Him.

Is the historical truth here, too, irrelevant?

 

[yankeesouth]

The Good Thief Mocked Christ? | Catholic Answers Magazine

From this we can conclude that at some point after St. Dismas “reviled him,” and, before he asked Jesus to remember him in his kingdom, he repented. What beautiful humility St. Dismus displayed, and what astounding mercy Jesus gave.

 

[dchernik]

Outrageous! First he reviles Jesus with contempt, and then (a few minutes later?) his character completely changes, and he in a most saintly and wise manner defends Jesus and believes He is God!

No, I don’t believe this interpretation at all.

 

[yankeesouth]

Not outrageous at all. There are many death bed conversions…thank God.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Unfortunately I see a lot of threads like this on these forums. I suspect a lot of them are simply trying to bait the rest of us. But let’s give you the benefit of a doubt: You have a sincere question.

Read Dei Verbum, one of the reports from Vatican II: “…the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error **that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."

The catachism says something very similar (naturally) on p. 32:
“In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. ‘For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.’”

Or you could read Garry Wills, who, when discussing all the differences in details in the Resurrection stories in the four Gospels, simply says “So what?” Any logical Catholic would say the same thing. So what.

So what is “truth” in the Bible? The message that leads us to salvation. So…does it matter if Paul was riding a horse or walking? If he heard a voice or didn’t hear a voice? If it was 4 pm or 5 pm? If he were dressed in a brown cloak or a blue cloak? Nope. None of that matters. At all. What does matter? That Paul had some sort (we don’t need details) of vision and came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah and God. That’s it. Very simple. All the other stuff makes a nice story, but it really doesn’t matter. It’s fluff.

Does the number of horsemen David captured have anything to do with your salvation? Absolutely not. So does the number matter? Not at all.

If you watch police shows on TV, you know that if there are multiple witnesses to something, each of them gives a slightly different story. Sometimes their stories are quite different. You also know that if all the witnesses give exactly the same story with exactly the same details, the police know they they have colluded and rehearsed their answers–they are lying.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

since I am doing a Scripture course I will respond. Fundamentalist scripture reading attributes the Bible as inerrant. And literal
Correct Catholic Scripture reading should acknowledge discrepancies in the historical and or scientific narratives in Scripture. But Catholic scripture reading acknowledges there is no error , the Bible is inerrant in Faith / morals and Spirituality.

Dei Verbum as Ericaspirit says. It’s a good place to start reading how to read Scripture

The Bible is a set of books that are Canon. They have authority and are the measuring stick (Canon) of God’s standards so to speak.

We must, in this modern world, read as Contextually positioned narratives. No one passage should be orphaned from what’s immediately before or after it,
, the passage should then be read as show relation to the focus of the book it is found in, and then of course in respect of the Bible itself.

We must also take culture, way of communicating, lifestyle and how language is expressed into account when reading Scripture written thousands of years ago.

What is the Bible? God’s Words in human language. Jesus came as The Word, He spoke the Word of God.

Canon- sacred and authoritative text , All inspired, guided and directed by the Holy Spirit.

 

[ericc]

Acts 9 says: “The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.”

Acts 22 says: “My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.”

At least one of these must be false.

Not necessarily.

Acts 9 :7 Heard the voice, seeing no one
Acts 22 Saw the light, did not hear the voice

The 2 events in themselves are not mutually exclusive. He could have companions that can be segregated into those who saw the light (the Acts 22 vision group) vs hearing the voice( the Acts 9 audio group). There is no necessity to presume the size of the traveling group. If it is a caravan, those in front of the group may have a different experience from those at the back.

Again, 2 Samuel 8 says: “David then defeated Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah, when he went to re-establish his dominion at the River. David captured from him one thousand seven hundred horsemen and twenty thousand foot soldiers.”

1 Chronicles 18 says: “David then defeated Hadadezer, king of Zobah, toward Hamath, who was on his way to set up his victory stele at the river Euphrates. David captured from him one thousand chariots, seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers.”

It’s either 1,700 horsemen or 7,000 horsemen (or something else) but not both.

You will notice that the defeats reflect different stages in the battle. In 2 Sam 8, his objective was to “establish his dominion” where as in 1 Chron 18, the victory is already sealed as the setting of the victory steele indicates. . Hence, in 2 Sam 8 the captured was a smaller number 1700 horsemen whereas 1 Chron 18 show the final total captured of 7000 for the overall battle.

There are other possible explanations but I just want to show that what seems identical are not really so. We must remember that taking a snapshot from different angles will give different impressions. We have a tendency to jump to conclusions that a verse mentioned in one place reflects a copy-paste job in another place. Many times it is not so. There are subtle nuances that one must be sensitive to.

 

[AlNg]

since I am doing a Scripture course I will respond. Fundamentalist scripture reading attributes the Bible as inerrant. And literal

Correct Catholic Scripture reading should acknowledge discrepancies in the historical and or scientific narratives in Scripture. But Catholic scripture reading acknowledges there is no error , the Bible is inerrant in Faith / morals and Spirituality.

I am not sure about this, because it looks like the Bible may have some errors in addition to the ones already mentioned. For example in Genesis 3:8 it says that God was walking in the garden. However, if God is immovable, how could He be walking around in a garden? For other possible errors, it is written that slaves should be subject to their masters. I would not be in favor of forcing a young African woman slave to be subject to a white European slavemaster. I would oppose auctioning off slaves to the highest bidder who would then be their masters. This is done with pigs and horses but should not be done to human beings from Africa as was the case in the USA.
Also there are other errors such as for example, that you have to hate your mother and your wife in order to be a good Christian. Luke 14:26 .

 

[Roseeurekacross]

God can walk wherever He wants. The point of the post, was not to read the Bible in a fundamentalist narrative.

Does God say God is immovable? God is known for appearing in burning bushes, clouds, thunderous voices,.

Yes slaves were part of the culture several thousand years ago. All peoples were enslaved at some point through history.

There is still a slave trade today.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Luke

25Large crowds were now traveling with Jesus, and He turned and said to them, 26“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters — yes, even his own life — he cannot be My disciple. 27And whoever does not carry his cross and follow Me cannot be My disciple.…

A passage cannot be cut out and used without the context of the passages around it, the larger focus of the Book ie the Gospel of Luke, and the Bible itself.

Or the cultural or narrative setting

What is Luke teaching here? Read Luke and pray to the Holy Spirit for knowledge and understanding

 

[ericc]

For example in Genesis 3:8 it says that God was walking in the garden. However, if God is immovable, how could He be walking around in a garden?

That is anthropomorphism speak. God is a spirit. He is everywhere. He doesn’t need physical legs to move. When we say God is immovable, we are not referring to his physical anchoring to some spot but to his steadfast nature.

For other possible errors, it is written that slaves should be subject to their masters. I would not be in favor of forcing a young African woman slave to be subject to a white European slavemaster. I would oppose auctioning off slaves to the highest bidder who would then be their masters. This is done with pigs and horses but should not be done to human beings from Africa as was the case in the USA.

Slavery was the norm in civilization at that time (Bronze Age) I believe. Your current attitudes towards ancient practices is an anachronistic expectation. People 3000 years from now may have expectations vastly different from what you think is normal. You think equal rights is normal but not 100 years ago nor 3000 years ago.

Also there are other errors such as for example, that you have to hate your mother and your wife in order to be a good Christian. Luke 14:26 .

That problem is not what you think it is. It is a language deficiency in that the Biblical language Hebrew/Aramaic did not have the words to express various degree of similar sentiments. If you want to say you love A more than B, you end up saying loving A and hating B. That’s why Biblical passages may sound harsh when translated to English. Hence Luke 14:26 should be read as loving ones parents/wife/kids/self less than God in order to be his disciple.

You may also encounter problems of nailing down exact meanings of Biblical words because often times, a word could have several meanings depending on the context and even various contexts may appear appropriate for a specific chapter/verse. That’s why understanding the Bible is not just reading any translation but need guidance along the way.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

My last paragraph is simply about police procedure, but it is a good analogy for any sort of historical account, including the Bible.

“Where is the Pentagon located?” One answer could be Washington DC; another could be Virginia; another could be Arlington; another could be South Arlington; another could be a few hundred yards from Bill’s house. All are correct, in a sense. My answer would depend on how familiar I think you are with the area where the Pentagon is located, if you know Bill, and if you know where Arlington is. I’m not lying with any of the answers, I’m simply adjusting my answer to your frame of reference and to my perception of why you are asking the question. Let’s say you got ahold of 6 different tape recordings of me telling different people where the Pentagon was. They are “contradictory.” And some are flat out factually wrong–Arlington is NOT Washington D.C. Does that mean I’m lying? Does that mean I don’t know where the Pentagon is? That’s just silly.

If you insist on taking everything in the Bible literally, then obviously you have problems. Again, to say, as you do, “At least one of each account is precisely not truth but falsehood” is true but irrelevant. Yes, the two accounts of Paul’s encounter with God on the road to Damascus are “contradictory” if you think the details matter. And you could expend a lot of effort and ingenuity trying to reconcile them. But it simply doesn’t matter. It misses the point of the story–it’s like me telling you a half hour story about why Tiffany committed suicide, and afterwards you say “But you said at the beginning of the story she was wearing a pink dress, and at the end of the story you said she was wearing a green dress.” If that’s what you think is important in the story, then I feel sorry for you. You’ve wasted your time because you don’t understand the point of the story.

Your last sentence about “do Jesus’ teachings and parables matter?” takes a typically non-Catholic point of view. When were the first writings of the New Testament written? Almost all scholars agree that it was c. 50 AD with Paul’s first epistles. When was the last part of the New Testament written? The Gospel of John, c. 90 AD. Great. When did the Church begin? Pentacost, 50 days after Easter, somewhere around 30-33 AD. So you have a period of at least 17 years before any of the New Testament as we know it today existed. And about 57 years before the New Testament was complete. So if you mistakenly think the Church is dependent on the New Testament for validity, you have to account for those 17-57 years. The Catholic point of view is that the oral tradition of the Church has equal weight with the New Testament. After all, the New Testament is simply recording in writing what the oral tradition was. So let’s say you find something in the New Testament that, in light of modern scholarship, is “inaccurate.” For example, the final part of the Gospel of Mark. Probably an addition. Or the story of the women taken in adultery and Jesus’s comment about “casting the first stone.” Probably a later addition. You could, of course, take a thoroughly non-Catholic point of view and say “These are later additions. They don’t belong in the New Testament. They are false.” But the Church accepted them as “true” and therefore they are “true.” The Church validates the writings in the New Testament, not the other way around. Could these particular examples have been “invented” by someone who was not the author of the Gospel they are attached to? Of course. But it simply doesn’t matter because they are accepted.

Your final question, about Jesus’ crucifixion, death, and burial, are matters of doctrine. In other words, if you ask “Are these events connected with my salvation or are they mere details?” you have to realize that they are connected with your salvation. They are NOT simply details that don’t matter. And yes, every canonical source we have agrees that Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried. There is no disagreement.

I’ve said what I have said in these forums multiple times, so I’m out. If you still think that insignificant details matter, then you simply don’t get it.

 

[ATraveller]

In Acts 9, Luke was narrating.
In Acts 22, Paul was speaking. It indicates Paul thought no one else heard. Read the entire passage. It starts from Acts 21:37 and ends at Acts 22:21. Context matters.

 

[dchernik]

One thing is clear. When the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, for example, is done with it, nothing whatsoever is left of “sola scripture.” Which makes me glad I’m a Catholic.

 

[joemccarron]

Erikaspirit16:

Or you could read Garry Wills, who, when discussing all the differences in details in the Resurrection stories in the four Gospels, simply says “So what?” Any logical Catholic would say the same thing. So what.
So what is “truth” in the Bible? The message that leads us to salvation. So…does it matter if Paul was riding a horse or walking? If he heard a voice or didn’t hear a voice? If it was 4 pm or 5 pm? If he were dressed in a brown cloak or a blue cloak? Nope. None of that matters. At all.

I can only second this approach. It is fine to occassionally point out that some perceived contradictions may not be contradictions. But I don’t think it is healthy to continuously dance around minutia.

We see the argument from the op:

If these details are wrong, what other history is wrong, too?

This sort of hand wringing over a possible slippery slope is not used in any other area besides attacks on religion. If someone sees a history or science book made an error we don’t say it must be disregarded in its entirety! The same is true in court. If a witness gets some detail wrong that does not mean the Jury is instructed to disregard everything the witness said. Common sense should not be anathema when reading scripture.

 

[dchernik]

No history or science book is claimed to be 100% inerrant.

In fact, everyone assumes the opposite, namely, that future discoveries might invalidate any present historical or scientific consensus.

The Bible, on the other hand, is supposed to be inerrant for all time. When this claim is exploded, Christians would seem to have a problem.

 

[Dcn_Terry]

Perhaps these two links may help.

Resolving a Bible Difficulty: What Happened at Paul’s Conversion? | Catholic Answers Magazine

Library - The Father William Most Theological Collection | Catholic Culture

 

[joemccarron]

As Erikaspirit16

Read Dei Verbum, one of the reports from Vatican II: “…the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error **that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."

You want to raise quibbles that have nothing to do with our salvation. This just isn’t going to be a big deal for many Catholics.