Struggling with Contradictions in Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter seeking3find
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

seeking3find

Guest
I found a “dossier” written by an atheist that points out many contradictions in scripture and I’ve been struggling with faith ever since.

Link: I can’t post it, but it is called “dossier of reason”

If scripture is perfect, why were these contradictions here in the first place?

An example from the link

MT 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.
LK 3:23-38 There were forty-three.
 
That’s - your big “ contradiction “ point of evidence ?
Ha ha aha ohhh man - 😅
 
It’s a matter of faith that Scripture is the inerrant Word of God. You are not supposed to have answers to every apparent contradiction, or even to understand every passage fully. Have faith and do not listen to the unbelievers.
 
seeking3find said:
If scripture is perfect, why were these contradictions here in the first place?
Click to expand...
You would have to demonstrate that there are actual ‘contradictions’ first, wouldn’t you?
An example from the link

MT 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.
LK 3:23-38 There were forty-three.
Click to expand...
So, if you want to claim that this is strictly literal and historical, then you’ve got a problem. Matthew, however, is making a theological claim: Jesus is the son of David. So, in each of his three strophes, he provides fourteen generations. In Hebrew, letters were also counted as numbers. The name ‘David’ (“DVD”) counted for 4+6+4 = 14. Matthew is literally screaming that Jesus is David, David, David! 😉
 
I have often heard the phrase look in the Bible for the answers.
The first college I attended was a Benedictine college that required a Theology class for graduation, that I never took. However, during Freshman orientation I did hear a very freeing statement.
When reading scripture, “Instead of looking for answers, look for the questions.” Let the scriptures question you.
It is amazing that this approach has actually answered apparent contradictions.
As Catholics, we do not read the Bible as individual passages, as verses isolated from one another. Our understanding develops over time, just as the Israelites understanding of God developed over time.
There are also different forms of literature in the Bible.
What was the author trying to convey? The Bible itself says not to quibble, to argue about small details.
The Bible is not a history or science book, although it does tell the history of the Israelites. I read less for information, and more for transformation. If I am willing to allow God to transform me through His words written in scripture, perhaps, I might begin my scripture reading by asking the Holy Spiritual to enlighten me in what He would have me understand.
 
I see, I can understand the Theological claim! Also, one genealogy starts with Abraham, and the other with Adam!

So do we take this genealogy as 100% factual, or try and see what the overarching picture is?

Wouldn’t this claim help lead to a calculation of how long it has been since Adam and Eve btw?
 
Last edited:
seeking3find said:
So do we take this genealogy as 100% factual, or try and see what the overarching picture is?
Click to expand...
There are many ways to understand genealogies. In one Bible study I took, it was compared to the dynamic of a game of ‘Chutes and Ladders’ – it’s a means for us to get from here to there. So, what’s the ‘here’ and what’s the ‘there’? What stories do we pick up along the way? The genealogies do all of these things. Are they strictly literal, though? That’s a question for a Scripture scholar… 😉
Wouldn’t this claim help lead to a calculation of how long it has been since Adam and Eve btw?
Click to expand...
Good question!

I think that I’d say that the Church doesn’t require a literalistic reading of the beginning of Genesis, and as a result, it’s not possible to do that kind of math. (That hasn’t stopped folks from trying, though: the claims that the earth is only 6000 years old stems in no small part from the attempt to do “Bible math”… 😉 )
 
Scripture is full of contradictions, and in reality, things that rationally can’t be true. Examples, if todays modern lifespan is approximately 75 years (in the US) how did people live to 900 years old in the past? How did Noah get kangaroos, polar bears, and penguins on the ark? In one gospel, Jesus delivers a sermon on the mount, in another it is on a plain. Why does Luke’s version of the Good Thief, contradict Mark and Matthew, and John who stood at the foot of the cross makes no mention of it? And there are many others.

Remember, Scripture was written in a vastly different time, by different writers, in different cultures, with different understandings of life. Scripture is divinely inspired to teach lessons, not necessarily as an accurate account of history. Allegory is used extensively; in fact Jesus’ parables were most likely allegorical stories to make a point, not necessarily cite history.
 
Last edited:
joeybaggz said:
Scripture is full of contradictions
Click to expand...
Seriously? That’s what you’re going to go with? 🤦‍♂️

OK – let’s look at these “contradictions”:
joeybaggz said:
if todays modern lifespan is approximately 75 years (in the US) how did people live to 900 years old in the past?
Click to expand...
This presumes that you read those ages literalistically. The Church doesn’t require that interpretation.
joeybaggz said:
How did Noah get kangaroos, polar bears, and penguins on the ark?
Click to expand...
Again, this requires the interpretation that it was literally a worldwide flood (and not a super-regional one that appeared ‘worldwide’ to people).
joeybaggz said:
In one gospel, Jesus delivers a sermon on the mount, in another it is on a plain.
Click to expand...
Read the footnotes to the NAB (IIRC). The evangelist is using the setting, as part of the story he’s telling, in order to make a point about who Jesus is. Again – fundamentalist literalist interpretation is not what the Church is about.
joeybaggz said:
Why does Luke’s version of the Good Thief, contradict Mark and Matthew, and John who stood at the foot of the cross makes no mention of it?
Click to expand...
The fact that one person mentions a story and other storytellers do not is not a ‘contradiction’, but merely a choice in how to tell the story that one wants to tell.
joeybaggz said:
And there are many others.
Click to expand...
Right now, you’re batting 0-for-4. 😉
joeybaggz said:
Scripture is divinely inspired to teach lessons, not necessarily as an accurate account of history. Allegory is used extensively; in fact Jesus’ parables were most likely allegorical stories to make a point, not necessarily cite history.
Click to expand...
In other words: no contradiction.
 
In other words: no contradiction.
[/quote]

Contradiction - a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present. The Bible, when read literally is full of contradictions.
 
joeybaggz said:
The Bible, when read literally is full of contradictions.
Click to expand...
And that, my friend, is a completely different assertion than the one you made. Yes – if you decide that you must adopt a slavishly literalistic reading of the Bible, then you will find contradictions.

That’s not a characteristic of the Bible – it’s a characteristic of the interpretative hermeneutic that you’ve chosen to adopt. Critical difference, there… 😉
 
Gorgias said:
40.png
joeybaggz:
The Bible, when read literally is full of contradictions.
Click to expand...
And that, my friend, is a completely different assertion than the one you made. Yes – if you decide that you must adopt a slavishly literalistic reading of the Bible, then you will find contradictions.

That’s not a characteristic of the Bible – it’s a characteristic of the interpretative hermeneutic that you’ve chosen to adopt. Critical difference, there… 😉
Click to expand...
Yet in the past I’ve seen your posts where you “slavishly” rip out a scripture passage out of context and apply it to a point you want to make. NOT seeing said passage in light of the “interpretative hermeneutic” nuance you extol. Seems like you want it both ways.
This thread is about contradictions in scripture. Most people read and interpret narrative in a literal sense. Most people. And to most people, reading the four passages in Mt. Mk, Lk, and Jn regarding the “good thief” will see a contradiction. A simple and plain contradiction. That’s why, we have scholars and apologists that try to explain the Bible in a historical critical manner. Unfortunately, we have annoying zealots too.
 
seeking3find said:
MT 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.
LK 3:23-38 There were forty-three.
Click to expand...
Matthew’s genealogy is incomplete on purpose. He tries to stress fourteen generations in between Abraham and David, David and the Babylonian exile, and the Babylonian exile to Christ to show Jesus as the new Davidic king. He knows (and anyone who read Luke’s gospel knew) that he omitted names. That was done on purpose.

Not everything the NT writers do is meant to be taken in a literalistic way. They employ various writing techniques, many of them symbolic in order to prove a point. This is just one example of Matthew doing just that.
 
Last edited:
How about this, how about listening to God and not the unbelievers, and false teachers/profits … errrr I mean prophets
 
Last edited:
feed_me said:
How about this, how about listening to God
Click to expand...
I do, especially the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, a Church instituted by God Himself, who empowers it to faithfully maintain and defend the “deposit of faith” left to us by the Prophets of Old, Jesus and his apostles to whom He taught all in truth.
 
Then if you do then there wouldnt be contradictions because it would make since instead of contradicting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top