Contradictions within the Bible?

[Dymmesdale]

The topic of contradictions within the Bible came up in another thread, and several examples were mentioned. Here are those examples, along with my explanations (I think I linked to all of the external sources I used.)

Please note that I believe that the Bible is true, and I am not trying to prove it otherwise. I wish to discuss these contradictions, and see what people think/can come up with.

using your logic.....in Genesis it says...God created heaven and the earth.....and in Ephesians it says.....all things were created by Jesus Christ...

This one, I think, is easiest for me to explain. Non-Trinitarians will find it a bit hard to swallow though, so consider yourselves disclaimed. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1,3)

Jesus, the second part of the Trinity, (i.e., God) was there in the beginning when the earth was created.

Genesis is correct in saying that God created the heavens and the earth.

Ephesians is also correct because Jesus is God.

So, if #1, then I ask you to explain a few things for me: 1. Did Judas Iscariot hang himself or jump off a cliff? Both are stories in the NT.

2. When Paul was converted, did the men with him see the light and not hear the voice, or did they hear the voice, but not see the light? Both are in the NT.

3. Why would Paul tell us that we are saved by faith without works, and then James tell us that faith without works are dead? Which is correct? Which is wrong?

4. As mentioned before, if Moses was told that his law was to be covenant with Israel forever, then why did Jesus say the law of Moses was fulfilled in him?

This is a site I found helpful for this question: The Death of Judas- Is there a Contradiction? - KATAGRAPHAIS

“We must ask ourselves, does Matthew or Luke’s account render the other as impossible? If we think about it, I think we can safely say that no, they do not. Matthew’s account has Judas hanging himself. Luke’s account has him falling, and then splitting open. These two accounts fit neatly together. The presupposition of Judas falling is that he was, prior to falling, at a higher point from which he could fall. If he was hanging from a tree, this makes perfect and logical sense. The two obviously do not exclude each other from being possible. If we realize that Judas has been dead awhile, it also makes sense that his body would be in such a state of bloat and decomposition that we should have no problem with it rupturing. This view has Luke supplementing information, rather than contradiction. Since Judas hanged himself during passover, and before the Sabbath, it is likely that he hung for awhile, as no one would want to defile themselves by touching his body until after both Passover and Sabbath. This gave time for gravity to pool Judas’ blood, causing a lot of bloating.”

2. The difference between these two accounts is a problem of translation. In both accounts, the Greek word “akouo” is used. This word can mean either “hear” or “understand.” Therefore, it is apparent that the men accompanying Paul heard the voice, but did not understand either what it was saying, or what it meant.

3. Paul was battling the idea that we are saved by being good people, and was stressing that we can never do anything to deserve eternal life, but rather it is by grace through faith that we are saved. James was saying that the natural outcome of having a true faith is works. If no fruit comes of your faith, then you should probably check its pulse.

4. I don’t think I can give an adequate answer to this one right away, but I will spend some time on it and get back to you.

reading 1 Kings4:26 it says Solomon had 40,00 stalls.....reading 2 Chronicles 9:25 it says he had 4,000

Luke 9:3 Matt 10:10 .....they say the staff is forbidden...however in Mark 6:8....it says the staff is permitted

in Acts Paul tells about his vision on the road to Damascus 3 times...in chapter 9 and 22 and 26....each account is different

Look at the Gospels of Mark and Luke....talking about the empty tomb. When you read Mark it say there was only one young man at the sepulchre and Luke says there are 2.

In response to the question of the staff: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nostaff.html

FYI, this explanation is rather long and technical, but I read through it and it seems to make sense. I am not a Greek scholar (although I hope to be soon), but my father-in-law is, and if necessary, I can ask him to help clear it up for me so I can better explain it to anyone who is still confused.

For the question of the angels at the tomb, I direct you to this commentary: Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 3 | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

“Our three Evangelists, from a desire of brevity, leave out what is more fully related by John, (20:1-12) which, we know, is not unusual with them. There is also this difference, that Matthew and Mark mention but one angel, while John and Luke speak of two. But this apparent contradiction also is easily removed; for we know how frequently in Scripture instances occur of that figure of speech by which a part is taken for the whole. There were two angels, therefore, who appeared first to Mary, and afterwards to her other companions; but as the attention of the women was chiefly directed to the angel who spoke, Matthew and Mark have satisfied themselves with relating his message. Besides, when Matthew says that the angel sat on a stone, there is in his words (ὕστερον πρότερον), an inversion of the order of events; or, at least, that order was disregarded by him; for the angel did not immediately appear, but while the women were held in

[Maxel]

Dymmesdale-

I applaud you for your honest search to find the answer to our questions. While others may have points of discussion, I just want to point out one detail.

Do you now understand how something sacred and inspired (literally 'God-breathed') can contain what seem to be, at first glance, errors?

There's a wonderful book called How Wide the Divide?, which is the result of an ongoing discussion between two professors- a Latter-day Saint named Stephen Robinson, and an Evangelical (I forget his denomination) named Craig Blomberg. It is a wonderful read, and one I highly recommend if you wish to begin to understand the underlying differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity.

In the book, Robinson makes the point that there are many learned, Jewish scholars that claim the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament and is, therefore, not scripture. There are many learned, Christian scholars with access to the same texts and evidences that argue the opposite: that the New Testament does not contradict the Old Testament and that both are scripture. The theme is that we overlook apparent discrepancies that our faith requires us to overlook, and we utilize faith in the hope that all will one day be resolved. There are many atheists that reject all scripture as ridiculous- their faith (or lack thereof) requires them to find contradiction and fault in religion, therefore they overlook impressive evidence pointing towards the existence of God.

What I'm getting at, is that there may be seemingly valid discrepancies in the Book of Mormon. I can't think of any of significant import, and I do know that science, history, and archaeology has only strengthened its claim to the status of scripture. However, my faith in the Book of Mormon doesn't stem from a lack of contradiction, but from a witness borne to my soul through the power of the Holy Ghost that is is scripture. Additionally, my faith in the Bible does not arise from a supposed inerrancy found therein, but from a witness borne to my soul through the power of the Holy Ghost that the Bible is inspired, or 'God-breathed'. My faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not stem from a cognitive approval of its teachings or practices (though it is strengthened by that), but from a witness borne to my soul through the power of the Holy Ghost that it is God's chosen church on the earth, and that His priesthood and His authority is to be found therein.

Most importantly, my firm faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, my Savior and Redeemer, does not stem from historical accounts of His life, or theological constructs that He taught man, or by seeing the miracles that He wrought while on the earth. My faith in Christ comes from a powerful testimony which is fed daily through prayer, study, and reflection. It comes from belief in Him, combining with the works I feel He would have me do to form the living faith of my soul. It comes from the numerous witnesses given me by the great Testator, the Holy Ghost, about the truth of Christ's doctrine.

My apologies for the tangent.

After looking over your explanations, I find I agree with them all saving the first, where you employ Trinitarian logic to explain how God made heaven and earth, yet Ephesians states it was Christ who made it. A rather simple explanation from an LDS standpoint is that the God of the Old Testament (Jehovah, or Yahweh) was in actuality Jesus Christ. Therefore, rereading we find that Genesis claims Jehovah created the heavens and the earth, and in Ephesians it claims that Christ did so. There's no disparity there, as Jehovah = Christ.

[Elgama]

you rather making the point though that what is a contradiction and what isn't is based on a level on understanding, some of the understanding for the contradictions or lack of in the Standard Works comes from years of understanding and learning. Interestingly most of them don't require you to be a Greek Scholar merely a studious LDS

-Charley

[rameumptom]

I also believe in the Bible. It is inspired of God. And the key concepts have endured. However, there are some major discrepancies in it. I believe that as the writings were given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they were doctrinally correct. However, centuries, translations, and political intrigue between various religious factions have watered down the Bible in many ways.

Professor Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar, notes in one of his several books on the NT that of all the manuscripts we have available up through the creation of Gutenberg's printing press, there are more differences than there are words in the New Testament itself!

He explains that there were various factions vying for supremacy of Christianity in the early years of the Christian Church. These included what he calls the proto-orthodoxy and several Gnostic sects. Many religious books were available in the early Christian era, many of which were used by the proto-orthodoxy, while others were used by Gnostics. The Gnostics primarily used the gospel of Luke, as it seemed to support some of their tenets (Jesus and Christ are two separate beings, with the mortal Jesus being filled with the God Christ at his baptism - You are my Son, today I have chosen you; and then Christ leaving Jesus on the cross to suffer alone - My God, why hast thou forsaken me?). Many pseudo-prophetic books were written in this timeframe to support one side or another. There were many apologists/defenders for both sides. Origen and Justin Martyr are two examples of early apologists for the proto-orthodoxy.

The New Testament was a variety of books until the 4th century, when St Jerome created the current list. He tossed out hundreds of books for various reasons. One book, the Book of Enoch was used for centuries by Jews and Christians alike. It is quoted 39 times in the New Testament (see Jude for one example). Yet, he tossed it, because its eschatology seemed strange to him. He made some decisions based upon political issues - he almost tossed Hebrews and Revelation, because he could not find a strong evidence of who wrote them, but kept them because the Western Church insisted on it if they were to use his list.

Major issues occur in the Old and New Testament. One of the biggest was a statement added that attempted to prove the Trinity, but is now considered a major interpolation from later writers. It is called the Johannine Comma.

I've mentioned the major error in Hebrews 6:1, where Paul seems to be telling us to leave the doctrine of Christ behind and move onto perfection.

What does this mean? It means that the Bible is NOT perfect. It is inspired. But it does show the importance of having modern prophets and apostles to guide us in which sections are and are not correct.

[rameumptom]

The explanation you gave of Paul's conversion does not fit totally. One has to do with hearing/understanding the words spoken, the other concerning seeing the light. Either they saw the light, or didn't. Your response did not address this issue.

[rameumptom]

Your discussion of the angels at the tomb (one or two) as mentioned in the gospels is all opinion, and not evidence that there is no discrepancy. The discrepancy still remains, but with a notation that some scholars have the opinion that one angel was ignored by Matthew and Mark. While that may be the truth, where is the evidence that such is the case?

[Cydonia]

You forgot to address the Genesis 1 and 2 contradiction (the first one in the Bible, and mentioned on the other thread). There's a possible answer here: Genesis contradictions?

[Sergg]

One contradiction regarding creation, is that fowl is created in Gen.1 from WATER, and in Gen.2 from the EARTH. An interesting twist on it, is that the Pearl of Great Price reproduces this tension, and that includes even another: in the two books that comprise the PoGP, one posits Adam naming the animals ALONE, and Eve created later, and the other posits Adam and Eve created, and naming the animals.

Chicken or egg?....

There are many tensions that are reproduced or reinterpreted by posterior writers or prophets precisely because originally they (such tensions) respond to a mythological consciousness and not a historical consciousness, and reflect the borrowing from other traditions and the heterogeneity of such sources (Gen.1 = egyptian, Gen.2 =babylonian, and so on). Posterior writers of more refined and 'historical' mentalities took the myths at the core of judaism to mean either allegorically or factually, historical events that took place.

[Dymmesdale]

you rather making the point though that what is a contradiction and what isn't is based on a level on understanding, some of the understanding for the contradictions or lack of in the Standard Works comes from years of understanding and learning. Interestingly most of them don't require you to be a Greek Scholar merely a studious LDS

-Charley

I think it is a fair thing to say that what one conceives to be a contradiction may be based upon one's understanding of the work. My understanding of the Book of Mormon is far less than my understanding of the Bible, so the seeming contradictions thereof may in fact be perfectly valid. However, if an atheist thinks that something in the Bible is contradictory to itself, it is up to the Christian to explain the resolution, because the atheist doesn't know enough about the Bible to do so.

[Dr T]

The explanation you gave of Paul's conversion does not fit totally. One has to do with hearing/understanding the words spoken, the other concerning seeing the light. Either they saw the light, or didn't. Your response did not address this issue.

Ram, your error comes from the concept of this being a contradiction-which it is not. It is fully possible to both see a light and not be able to hear or understand what was said. Those two things are not mutually exclusive sir. It in not way violates the law of noncontradiction. That is easily understood.

[Dymmesdale]

The explanation you gave of Paul's conversion does not fit totally. One has to do with hearing/understanding the words spoken, the other concerning seeing the light. Either they saw the light, or didn't. Your response did not address this issue.

In Acts 26, I am not sure what you see here that disagrees. Paul says that the light shone all around him, and on the men with him. It never says in this chapter what the men saw or didn't see.

EDIT: Also, that you for your comment about the Comma Johanneum. I found an article about it here. Bible.org: The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian

The article deals with Cyprian and how early the comma appeared in the manuscripts.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Dymmesdale

[Sergg]

Ram, your error comes from the concept of this being a contradiction-which it is not. It is fully possible to both see a light and not be able to hear or understand what was said. Those two things are not mutually exclusive sir. It in not way violates the law of noncontradiction. That is easily understood.

Well T, scholars(even evalgelical ones) on Paul acknowledge it as a contradiction...

So, even without the such 'highly regarded' consent of the scholars, I find it also as contradictory to say that in the SAME event, T1, a and non-a occurred:

1st Account:

"At T1 A and B occurred (A=people saw a light, B=People heard no sound)

2nd Account:

"At T1 ALSO happened non-A and non-B (non-A= People saw nothing, but B=People heard a sound)

Does'nt that sound contradictory?

[Dymmesdale]

Your discussion of the angels at the tomb (one or two) as mentioned in the gospels is all opinion, and not evidence that there is no discrepancy. The discrepancy still remains, but with a notation that some scholars have the opinion that one angel was ignored by Matthew and Mark. While that may be the truth, where is the evidence that such is the case?

Just because Matthew and Mark mention only one angel, while Luke and John mentio two, doesn't mean that The former contradict the latter. They never said that the angel that spoke was the only one present.

If you ask anyone on the street how many wise men came to visit Jesus, they will tell you "three," because there were three gifts offered, so we assume that there were three wise men. It never says how many there were, it only says "there came wise men from the east."

[Dymmesdale]

Well T, scholars(even evalgelical ones) on Paul acknowledge it as a contradiction...

So, even without the such 'highly regarded' consent of the scholars, I find it also as contradictory to say that in the SAME event, T1, a and non-a occurred:

1st Account:

"At T1 A and B occurred (A=people saw a light, B=People heard no sound)

2nd Account:

"At T1 ALSO happened non-A and non-B (non-A= People saw nothing, but B=People heard a sound)

Does'nt that sound contradictory?

Where are you getting that the men with Paul did not see the light?

[Islander]

Dymmesdale

Are you actually reading the Book of Mormon?

[Dymmesdale]

Dymmesdale

Are you actually reading the Book of Mormon?

I have read parts of it, and when making references or quoting it, I obviously read those parts. I also generally read the bits what people quote in their posts, especially if the post is directed to me.

[Islander]

I have read parts of it, and when making references or quoting it, I obviously read those parts. I also generally read the bits what people quote in their posts, especially if the post is directed to me.

You seem to be picking parts of the BoM at random to compare with the bible. That seems odd.

"Assuming" from the text when it comes tot he bible lead many to disastrous conclusions. Beyond that, it open the door to endless speculation. You also run into the issue of when to assume and when not to assume.

Example: your assumption that "only three wise men came asking for the newborn because three gifts were offered" has no foundation whatsoever. Most biblical scholars disagree with that assumption.

[Dr T]

Well T, scholars(even evalgelical ones) on Paul acknowledge it as a contradiction...

So, even without the such 'highly regarded' consent of the scholars, I find it also as contradictory to say that in the SAME event, T1, a and non-a occurred:

1st Account:

"At T1 A and B occurred (A=people saw a light, B=People heard no sound)

2nd Account:

"At T1 ALSO happened non-A and non-B (non-A= People saw nothing, but B=People heard a sound)

Does'nt that sound contradictory?

Sergg, you are clearly reading into and adding to what is NOT there. No where in those two accounts of the same event do we see p and ~p at all. Just because one talks about one thing and the other does not it does not show that one didn't occur sir. That is so basic to understand.

[Maxel]

In regards to Dymmesdale reading the Book of Mormon-

I think that should be saved for this Book of Mormon contradictions thread; this one is to discuss Biblical contradictions.

In regards to the Biblical contradictions in this thread-

I think it would be helpful if we started listing references for our examples of contradictions (for example I cannot pinpoint, at this time, where Paul's differing accounts of his conversion occur, and therefore cannot contribute to the discussion, though I would sorely like to). I would look myself, but I am running short on time, as I must leave soon.

Also, if anyone claims 'scholars agree' about an issue, please cite sources. Anything that draws primarily on outside sources, in fact, need to be cited for sake of easy discussion and avoiding confusion.

[Noah18]

It should not matter if there are minor contradictions in the Bible. There has to be contradictions; we are talking about a 2,000 C.E. Year old book, written by many different authors most of them recording events that happened years before. It's also been translated into several different languages, and it's extremely possible a person could translate different parts of a manuscript wrong, especially if it's damaged or poorly written in some parts. It can also be difficult to interpret doctrinal teachings from the Bible, especially most of the NT which was written to already converted members. The Bible alone is a very poor stand alone witness to God's work; that's why we have the Book of Mormon & revelation to strengthen it's witness and divine influence.

[Sergg]

Sergg, you are clearly reading into and adding to what is NOT there. No where in those two accounts of the same event do we see p and ~p at all. Just because one talks about one thing and the other does not it does not show that one didn't occur sir. That is so basic to understand.

1)Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing(A) a voice(A.1), but seeing no(B ) man(B.1 ).

2)Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed (A) the light(A.1), and were

afraid; but they heard not (B ) the voice of him(B.1) that spake to me.

Following this illustration (or trying to...), we can find various contradictions or at least several tensions*.

There is, however, still left to decide whether both sentences are alluding to the same circumstances(or objects).

We have two basic structures:

Verbal:

1) P ("A": they heard x) and Q ("B": they saw no x)

2) P ("A": they saw x) and Q ("B": they heard no x)

objective:

1) P("A.1": they 'x' a voice) and Q ("B.1": they 'x' no man)

2) P("A.1": they 'x' a light) and Q ("B.1": they 'x' no voice)

Now, in its verbal structure, we have the same usage of verbs: 'saw' and 'heard'. In the siuch structure a contradiction in terms occurs.

But in its objective structure, -though I personally claim there is not- a particular ambivalence in what actually is a 'light' in one instance and a 'man' in the other, or a 'voice' in one and a 'nothing' in the other, makes plausible that the (formal) verbal structure is not contradicting itself for it (reasonably) depends on the meaning of the latter.

So this leaves us with defining what is Paul refering to when he speaks of 'man(Jesus)' and 'light(x?)' -which he verbally contradicts, and 'voice(of Jesus)' and 'nothing(x?)' which he again verbally counterposits.

My bet is that he is speaking of the same thing, that whatever role 'man(Jesus)' played in the first instance, 'light(Epiphany -hence, Jesus!)' plays in the second -which obviously after verbal contradiction results also in objective contradiction. And whatever role 'voice(of Jesus!)' plays in the second instance is also the one portrayed in the first one in 'voice(of 'no man' -but the only man-epiphany there was Jesus! So its Him implied)' , which also, after verbally contradicting themselves , result in objective contradiction.

Now, some scholars take them to be contradictions, others dont. Some lds scholars at Fairlds.org, acknowledge it as a contradiction to illustrate Joseph's Smith plausible(and justified) loss of memory(contradiction) in various of his different 'first visions'. But it doesnt matter, we can analize it by our lights. Does it actually contradict or not?

I have tried to suggest that it does, trying to sketch its structures and positing probable semantic usage.

I expect to see any 'attack' on this, rise to the same effort of illustration.

Edited February 17, 2009 by Sergg

[Dr T]

I'll admit that I have not looked into the specific verse at all but according what what I read above I didn't see a contradiction. The verbal part can be like hearing and not hearing like we say. For example, my son might be yelling something to me. I can "hear" him but in some cases I cannot "understand" what he is saying to me so I might yell down to him, "I can't hear you." Obviously I could hear him but not understand him but I use the same words in that case. Could it be something like that? The ability to hear but not hear (understand) what is being said?

[Sergg]

I'll admit that I have not looked into the specific verse at all but according what what I read above I didn't see a contradiction. The verbal part can be like hearing and not hearing like we say. For example, my son might be yelling something to me. I can "hear" him but in some cases I cannot "understand" what he is saying to me so I might yell down to him, "I can't hear you." Obviously I could hear him but not understand him but I use the same words in that case. Could it be something like that? The ability to hear but not hear (understand) what is being said?

And that is a great guess at the problem; indeed a reasonable (as i mentioned above) route to explore. Its called a semantic* argument to rescue the such statements from contradiction. Thing is, after the analysis done, you would need more than the mere guess, and actual textual or hermeneutical proof, that suggests strongly your point.

[Sergg]

I stress this because a semantical turn can also be made on my favor: "paul was 'actually' speaking of the same things and simply contradicted himself". How? Why? Because just as you say, If I were Paul, I could get mistaken and actually narrate differently what happened at some time. Here, I could say "they saw no man but heard a voice" and later "saw a light but heard no man" and refer differently to the same things.

[Dr T]

Thanks Sergg. Ok, I've looked into it and here is were the importance of the original Greek is very important for understanding. U asked for semantic support so here it is. In the original Greek there is no real contradiction between the two statements. Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative). Therefore, as we put the two statemetns together, we find that Paul's companions heard the Voice as a sound (somewhat like the crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the SOn in John 12:28, put perceived it only as thunder); but they did not (like Paul) hear the message that it articulated. Paul alone heard it intelligibly (Acts 9:4 says Paul Ekousen phonen-accusative case); though he, of course, perceived it also as a startling sound at first (Acts 22:7: "I fell to the ground and heard a voice [ekousa phones] saying to me," NASB). But in neither account is it stated that his companions ever heard that Voice in the accusative case. It's exactly what I was suspecting in my post above and now there is evidence that it's a sound understanding of the words so imo there is no contradiction there.