Yes, exactly - we need to understand what the authors intended meaning was when reading the Scripture and not just rely on the literal reading (which can be contradictory as that site shows) and ignore their historical and literary context.It only has contradictions if you take things out of context, or take things as a literalist (without considering what the original meaning is, what the author is trying to say).
The Bible is full of idioms and things like that from the first century or earlier. That is why the Magisterium is there: to preserve meaning over the centuries and so that people who seek the truth can find it.
I am tired of people that don’t know the bible making websites where they claim the bible contradicts itself. Most of those "contradictionsHas anyone debunked any of these ideas in this article? And what exactly is the writer trying to get at. Any good apologetics are needed for this because I’m totally lost,
borndigital.com/tcont.htm
^ random site too… Idk I’m just really confused!
Exodus 20 is talking about kill in such a way that it is a capital offense, ie murder, Ex 32 is NOT about murder, its killing people for idolatry.Should we kill?
Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder.
Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side…and slay every man his brother…companion…neighbor.(See also 1 Sam. 6:19; 15:2,3; Num. 15:36)
The word jealous as used in mostly older bibles is an archaic usage (look it up in a dictionary) it means exclusive loyalty. God did not want the Israelites wasting time with non existent so called deities. Furthermore, some Jews insist the proper understanding should “zealous” not “jealous” meaning He will punish…Ex 20:5 “…for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God…” (see also Ex 34:14, Deut 4:24, Josh 24:19, and Nah 1:2)
Gal 5:19-20 “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are…jealousy…” (See also 2 Cor 12:20)
bearing false witness is technically something that done in a trial. 1 Kings 22 is about punishing a king for not listening to a true prophet. Joshua 2 the men are misled to save a life, there are a few times in the bible where this is done.Should we tell lies?
Ex. 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness.(Prov. 12:22; Rev. 21:8)
1 Kings 22:23 The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. (II Thess. 2:11; Josh. 2:4-6 with James 2:25)
Exodus 12:35 is traditional catholic bibles simply refers to the fact Israel ASKED of things from the Egyptians (not borrowed as the KJV has), since the word in Hebrew simply means to “ask.” Some believe te Egyptians gave freely perhaps out of guilt for enslaving the Hebrews.Should we steal?
Ex. 20:15 Thou shalt not steal. (Lev. 19:13)
Ex. 3:22. And ye shall spoil the Egyptians. (Ex. 12:35-36; Luke 19:29-33)
Isaiah 1 is poetic, and furthermore, God cannot bear their sabbaths because of the people’s sins. God is not condemning keeping the Sabbath at all.Shall we keep the Sabbath?
Ex. 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. (Ex. 31:15; Num. 15:32,36)
Is. 1:13 The new moons and the Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity. (John 5:16; Matt. 12:1-5)
Exodus 20 is about worshipping pagan gods, 25 is not about worship at allShall we make Graven images?
Ex. 20:4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven…earth…water. (Lev. 26:1)
EX. 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them.
James 2 says justified not saved, works done in grace are seen as a righteous act by God.Are we “saved” through works?
Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith…not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16)
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.(Matt. 19:16-21)
Ah I see… Definitely Alot of different spiritual views on the site… But it’s odd because you can’t even tell WHAT exactly the site is even about or trying to say. Its just bunch of linksI went to the link that was posted and then to the basic site. There is a lot of all kinds of really strange stuff, like Indian spirituality, smoking marijuana, magic mushrooms. What I think is that someone with a computer and way too much time on their hands. It sounds like to me he has a deep bias against Christianity. There is little that could be useful to anyone wanting to understand God, His purposes and plan for mankind. Maybe the guy is influenced by an unclean spirit.
As far as the contradictions, there are only things that appear to be contradictions. God is not bound by what He commands of men. He could simply destroy sinful man but He chose to redeem mankind.
I am tired of people that don’t know the bible making websites where they claim the bible contradicts itself. Most of those "contradictions
Exodus 20 is talking about kill in such a way that it is a capital offense, ie murder, Ex 32 is NOT about murder, its killing people for idolatry.
The word jealous as used in mostly older bibles is an archaic usage (look it up in a dictionary) it means exclusive loyalty. God did not want the Israelites wasting time with non existent so called deities. Furthermore, some Jews insist the proper understanding should “zealous” not “jealous” meaning He will punish…
bearing false witness is technically something that done in a trial. 1 Kings 22 is about punishing a king for not listening to a true prophet. Joshua 2 the men are misled to save a life, there are a few times in the bible where this is done.
Exodus 12:35 is traditional catholic bibles simply refers to the fact Israel ASKED of things from the Egyptians (not borrowed as the KJV has), since the word in Hebrew simply means to “ask.” Some believe te Egyptians gave freely perhaps out of guilt for enslaving the Hebrews.
Isaiah 1 is poetic, and furthermore, God cannot bear their sabbaths because of the people’s sins. God is not condemning keeping the Sabbath at all.
So you disagree with your own religion, then?Well, the Bible does have contradictions - it was written by humans remember, not God and humans make mistakes.
This only really is a problem if you are a Biblical literalist or inerrantist
It doesn’t have to be an either/or. When asked about His betrayer, Jesus might well have said, “The person I give this bread to, and who dips the bread in the oil with me, is the one.” He might even have said more than that, in addition, additional comments that weren’t recorded. Matthew was only interested in recording what he quoted from Jesus, and John was only interested in quoting what he quoted from Jesus. If you asked John about Matthew’s quote, he might easily have answered, “yes, He said that too.” This is one of many cases in the Bible where one can say to oneself, “There might be a contradiction here,” but cannot prove that a contradiction exists. Therefore it would serve as only a weak argument against the infallibility of scripture.What about this contradiction that I discovered myself last night. in the gospel of Matthew Jesus says something like: “The person who dips bread in the oil with me is the one”, in the Gospel of John He says “the person I give this bread to is the one”, he then gives the bread to Judas.
To add to what you said, as I recall, Jesus addresses different people in Matthew and in John. He says one thing to the group as a whole, and then he says something in private to John, which the others do not hear. So this may also account for the seeming discrepancies.It doesn’t have to be an either/or. When asked about His betrayer, Jesus might well have said, “The person I give this bread to, and who dips the bread in the oil with me, is the one.” He might even have said more than that, in addition, additional comments that weren’t recorded. Matthew was only interested in recording what he quoted from Jesus, and John was only interested in quoting what he quoted from Jesus. If you asked John about Matthew’s quote, he might easily have answered, “yes, He said that too.” This is one of many cases in the Bible where one can say to oneself, “There might be a contradiction here,” but cannot prove that a contradiction exists. Therefore it would serve as only a weak argument against the infallibility of scripture.
This said, there are a tiny handful of places in the Bible where there is an error. For instance, one or two points of chronology in the books of Kings or Chronicles are inconsistent with one another or history. A very, very small number of real errors exist. The Church says that in such rare cases as this, we should believe that this is the result of a translation error along the way, and not an error in the original manuscript. Humans can tamper with Bible manuscripts by accident or deliberately, but in its original form, the Bible is the Word of God, with God as its Author, and consequently it has no error.