Biblical contradictions and you

[Will Graham]

So I just wanted to discuss some of the contradictions in the bible, namely this list of them that I found on the back of a cereal box

List of contradictions

Are there any explanations for these that I don't know about? Have many of them been reconciled but are still floating around?

Something I really want to hear about though, is what believers think of them. Do you think they are contradictions at all? If you do see them as contradictions, how do you settle them for yourself?

Is the bible not meant to be infallible? http://www.seekfind.net/Bible_Study.html

I'm just genuinely curious

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Is this a contradiction?:

I. In the past it was legal for food products in the united states to contain cocaine.

II. In the present it is illegal for food products in the united states to contain cocaine.

Remember your answer. [: Next question.

Is this a contradiction?:

I. In the old testament, eating pig meat was considered an "ABOMINATION". Trichinosis may not have been a known quantity at the time and so it was considered a good practice for Jesus believers to avoid eating it, altogether.

II. In the current era, trichinosis is fairly well known. We know that proper cooking of pig meat eradicates it. Therefore, perhaps, there is no reason to consider the eating of pig flesh an "ABOMINATION" anymore in terms of religion.

Does the fact that what is considered ideal laws or practices changes over time imply contradiction?

Remember, people commonly used harmful substances like lead, mercury and radium in common household things until they knew better.

The fact that they changed their practices over time doesn't show contradiction anymore than religious people changing certain practices can justifiably be considered contradictory.

 

[Ethics]

I did laugh at quite a few of these, however, I know nothing about the bible, generally speaking, which is why I tend to avoid things like this. Given my knowledge, however, I do have to ask a few things.


How would God not know about something in the meat (or why is he considered all knowing if he wouldn't), and is the bible not the word of God?

Since when is updating the word of God without God continue to carry the title of "Word of God"? Or was the Bible updated with God around? (by updating I mean old testament vs new. I assume at some point in time new shit needed to be added to the book to divide old from new) I ask this here 'cause I'm not gonna read a page of religious bloopity blops for answers for the reason of it not interesting me that much and I'm too lazy to Google, yet not lazy enough to type this also this is a run on sentence.

I'm clearly going to hell as I don't know the bible and masturbate, but those are two questions that popped up in my tiny lil' noggin' while reading this.

Also, should I not capitalize "Bible" as it is a proper noun?

 

[Lirael]

I'm not religious, but I'm not athiest either and do find the contradictions in the Bible fairly interesting to discuss.

On the one hand, we could argue that the contradictions prove that God and the Biblical stories are all entirely false, but I don't really like that argument. It doesn't explore the possibilities.

The Bible was supposedly written from the 'word of God,' which is infallible, but it wasn't written by the 'hand of God.' The Bible was written by man, so it's entirely possible that there are some errors.

Furthermore, the Bible was not written in English. It has been translated. The translation could be at fault. If there are any contradictions in the original text, I return to the argument about the text having been written by man.

Many of the large contradictions - e.g. whether or not homosexuality is immoral - are between the Old and New Testament. Although many argue that God's word cannot change, people do change. Perhaps the word of God has changed over time (quite rightly) to reflect the changes in the human race. You never know.

A further point is this: the Bible is the Christian text. I personally believe that, if there is a God or gods, he does not necessarily ascribe to any religion. Each religion is different, but a large number of them appear to have similar roots. At their basis, they share qualities. The development of each religion is a human phenomenon. Each religion is an attempt to understand what the human race cannot understand - what is beyond us.

If this is true, the Bible can be viewed as the interpretation/s of Christian men. This doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong/flawed/false etc. It just means we shouldn't take the Bible literally. Part of it is symbolic as men have represented their experiences and/or beliefs to the populace.

The idea that the Bible itself is infallible was also created by men. Men wrote down those words, men believed in those words, and men preached those words. This can be used to support either the idea that God doesn't exist or the point that each text is an interpretation.

Also, I don't really see how these are contradictory:

Spoiler

Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

 

[Ethics]

In one he makes man before animals and in the other animals before man is the issue there, I think.

Also, does that mean that man changed the bible to match themselves rather than God's word? ....and we still hold it to be truth?

 

[AerithG]

Responding to both Richard B Riddick and Pockets:

Swine are known to be disgusting and filthy animals. They eat pretty much anything they can find, and if you think about it...it's pretty disgusting. God never said that it was sinful to eat it, he was pretty much giving us advice to keep our bodies healthy. Like you stated, swine were known for carrying many types of bacteria that had the potential to be lethal. Also, from what I can recall, Jesus stated nothing about eating pork, neither saying anything positive or negative about it (I could be wrong, though).

In Christianity, God is all knowing, yes, as it's why He gave helpful advice as to why we shouldn't eat it. The bible is the word of God, yes. Different scholars wrote what are known as books that contain things that have been said by God, as well as experiences that others have had with God and Jesus (in the New Testament).

Since I know people will bring this up, I'll mention this...
God is an all knowing being, yes, and in short He can do anything. But think about something. We are beings with free will. There is either free will or no free will, there is no partial free will, because if you are controlled even a tad bit, you're no longer in total control. If we didn't have free will, we would be puppets, so to speak. This is why God can't control what we do and what other people do here on Earth. People ask, "Why do people do such bad things? Why can't God just stop them?" Well, if He did, then He would be taking away our free will, and thus our existence as individuals would just be in vain, and God does nothing in vain.

The difference between Old and New Testaments is that the Old Testament contains the events leading up to Jesus' birth, talks about the coming of the Messiah, and why the coming of the Messiah was so important (along with other events, but the coming of the Messiah was always a very important part of the bible). The New Testament is about Jesus' birth, His time on Earth, His death, His resurrection, His time short stay on Earth, His ascending into Heaven, the work of his disciples with Christianity and spreading it across the world, and the Revelation (the foretold events that would happen that lead up to the Judgment).

No, you should capitalize the word 'Bible' as it is a title of a book and all titles are capitalized.

 

[Lirael]

In one he makes man before animals and in the other animals before man is the issue there, I think.

But if you read the contradiction, you CAN interpret that man was created first in each sentence. It's not the first thing you think of, but I don't think any of the four extracts contradict the assumption that man was created before the animals.

Also, does that mean that man changed the bible to match themselves rather than God's word? ....and we still hold it to be truth?

This one is tricky. Jesus supposedly said most of what's in the New Testament, so perhaps his visit was about reforming certain traditions and rules. You never know. We all assume that God is omniscient and transient, but that doesn't mean he is. Furthermore, one could argue that he wanted to see us develop and gave us basic rules to begin with, but saw the world change once it was independent of him. He then had to send a messenger down to rework those rules. Perhaps certain substances developed in a way he didn't predict, which then made them either moral or immoral. Perhaps we demonstrated more knowledge and intuition than he had expected, and so he took away certain rules (like don't eat pork). Perhaps the fact we bred so much meant that homosexuality, whilst not ideal, stopped being detrimental to our future. The fact that most homosexuals don't choose to feel attracted to the same sex may have also been something God couldn't predict.

God may have created our world and then watched it develop. He may not be omniscient, meaning he couldn't predict what would happen. If he is omniscient, he chose to gave us free will, which means he had to let us develop at our own pace. The rules changed as we changed.

I'm just theorising here. I know that there is little to support the theory, but so much of the evidence has been created by man. The most solid piece of evidence we really have is a complex universe with a complex solar system and a complex earth, filled with complex species, but that can still be explained by science. The question is, does science work because of God, or does it disprove him? Either we'll never find out, or we'll only find out when we're no longer a part of this world.

 

[Ohri-Jin]

The Bible is just a book written by human hands. Inspired by God? God whispered it to the prophet etc.? Nonsense... I dont believe it at all. Its faulty by default as its made by HUMANS. Deceiving species we are.

I dont believe in religion, but I do believe in a higher being somewhere in the universe.

Maybe some parts are legit in the written Holy books, but most of them are exaggerated.

I do value the ten commandments and maybe 7 sins etc.



When will there be a new Messiah or Prophet?
When will the world end? Doomsday? Apocalypse?

7 Seals?!

They say we are in the 6th seal at the moment.
That means epidemics and deceases will overrun the world.
After that WW3 and then end of days.

That is a theory which intrigued me. Im on it like cake! hahahaaha

 

[Will Graham]

Is this a contradiction?:

I. In the past it was legal for food products in the united states to contain cocaine.

II. In the present it is illegal for food products in the united states to contain cocaine.

Remember your answer. [: Next question.

Is this a contradiction?:

I. In the old testament, eating pig meat was considered an "ABOMINATION". Trichinosis may not have been a known quantity at the time and so it was considered a good practice for Jesus believers to avoid eating it, altogether.

II. In the current era, trichinosis is fairly well known. We know that proper cooking of pig meat eradicates it. Therefore, perhaps, there is no reason to consider the eating of pig flesh an "ABOMINATION" anymore in terms of religion.

Does the fact that what is considered ideal laws or practices changes over time imply contradiction?

Remember, people commonly used harmful substances like lead, mercury and radium in common household things until they knew better.

The fact that they changed their practices over time doesn't show contradiction anymore than religious people changing certain practices can justifiably be considered contradictory.

It is not the same thing at all, that juxtaposition is pointless

"no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:16-20"

A law can change when we find new information, religion is following the laws of your creator. So after people found out about trichinosis did God speak to them and say "Ah lads, you sorted out that pig meat thing, sure eat away now"

Nope it's still an abomination in an infallible book from which no private interpretation can be extracted, and "the Scripture cannot be broken John 10:35 b"

You can't argue that God wanted to keep his people safe from the disease in pig meat, why then wouldn't he just say it directly? Why would he call it an abomination? Why not just say "Eating the flesh of a pig will make you sick"?

 

[CassinoChips]

Is this a contradiction?:

I. In the past it was legal for food products in the united states to contain cocaine.

II. In the present it is illegal for food products in the united states to contain cocaine.

Remember your answer. [: Next question.

Is this a contradiction?:

I. In the old testament, eating pig meat was considered an "ABOMINATION". Trichinosis may not have been a known quantity at the time and so it was considered a good practice for Jesus believers to avoid eating it, altogether.

II. In the current era, trichinosis is fairly well known. We know that proper cooking of pig meat eradicates it. Therefore, perhaps, there is no reason to consider the eating of pig flesh an "ABOMINATION" anymore in terms of religion.

Does the fact that what is considered ideal laws or practices changes over time imply contradiction?

This argument/example would be relevant if you were saying that the Jews created the laws that were in the Bible, or that the USA got its laws from the Bible. As Conor pointed out, the Bible itself says that there is no room for interpretation for the laws/sayings in the Bible. With human laws, however, there is much room for interpretation. Also, human understanding changes over time. Thus our understanding that cocaine is bad. But the Judeo-Christian god is supposed to be omniscient, so there should be no need for a change in the Bible, and thus his understanding.

 

[Tucker]

The Bible is just a book written by human hands. Inspired by God? God whispered it to the prophet etc.? Nonsense... I dont believe it at all. Its faulty by default as its made by HUMANS. Deceiving species we are.

I dont believe in religion, but I do believe in a higher being somewhere in the universe.

Maybe some parts are legit in the written Holy books, but most of them are exaggerated.

Well, that is exactly what Christians believe. It is your choice to believe or not to believe it, but that is in fact what they believe.
3 steps how Bible is written-
-Something happened.
-Story got passed down for generations by word. Which means exaggerations and what not are bound to be there, however the heart of the story is still true.
-Someone decides to record it with God's inspiration.

That is what is taught to Christians, or at least most Christians. Whether you believe it or not fine, but it's their reason. Whether you think all humans are deceiving that's a completely different topic

So you're agnostic?

As said previously, many parts in the Bible are exaggerated. Like, is it REALLY possible to have that many animals on the ark? No. Even if there were, how did they eat. They'd eat each other. That's a fiasco that really would be messy and...bad. There are gonna be exaggerations, but you have to look at the Bible with contextual interpretation, it's the only way to make sense of many small points in the Bible.

I actually did a paper on this in 8th grade However, it was 3 pages long and I only refuted 5 different quoted "contradictions". So...maybe I'll come back to this later.