Contradictions and their common apologetics

[Dark Jedi]

What are your favorite unresolvable contradictions and errors in the bible? And, if you would, their common apologetics...

I am debating a literalist, and doing well. I would like to be proactive, and post the error, the common apologetic, and then show how the apologetic is false or in error itself. take a more aggressive stance, so to speak.

problem is, I'm lazy... It's hard for me to concentrate on the search and keep a compiled list of errors and apologetics. Damned lack of concentration!
<Kirk> Khaaaaaaaaannnnn!!!!!</Kirk>

Any help?

[Endymion83]

This is one of my favorites.

Fortunately for those who really want to know the truth, Matthew made a colossal blunder later in his gospel which leaves no doubt at all as to which of the above possibilities is true. His blunder involves what is known as Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (if you believe Mark, Luke or John) or riding on two donkeys (if you believe Matthew). In Matthew 21:1-7, two animals are mentioned in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, "on them he sat."

Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, "mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey."

Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know that the word translated "and" in this passage does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of "even" (which is used in many translations) for emphasis. The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew was evidently not familiar with this usage. Although the result is rather humorous, it is also very revealing. It demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus' life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event. Matthew's gospel is full of fulfilled prophecies. Working the way Matthew did, and believing as the church does in "future contexts," any phrase in the Bible could be turned into a fulfilled prophecy!
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

[Vinnie]

Use my food law error that I positd in the formal debate with Robertlw in the debate forum here :)

Vinnie

[Godless Wonder]

You know about Biblical Errancy (http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/), right?

I wouldn't call it concise, however, nor is it organized from "strongest" to "weakest" or anything like that. It's kind of just a big pile of information.

[Asha'man]

My favorite contradiction is the two conflicting genealogies of Joseph in Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:21-31. There is simply no doubting that both genealogies cannot be of the same person, and are therefore not historical.

I’ve heard only one apologetic for this: The claim is made that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary, not Joseph. This claim utterly ignores Jewish custom of the time, where paternal ancestry is the only one that matters. (Maternal recognition was changed after the Diaspora, around the 2nd to 3rd century) This claim also ignores that Mary’s cousin Elisabeth (and therefore Mary herself) was identified as being of the daughters of Aaron, or tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5), not of the royal line of David.

However, this still means that the text has an error, since Luke clearly states “Jesus ...being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.� Mary’s name is not in the verse. No matter who the genealogy is assigned to, the text we have must be in error.

There is no possible claim of a metaphorical meaning here, or taking the verse out of context. A genealogy is meant to be taken literally, as a piece of history. It was clearly provided to fulfill the requirement that the Jewish Messiah was descended from David. However, it became irrelevant after the doctrine of the virgin birth was invented, since the ancestry of Joseph then became utterly irrelevant. This demonstrates the evolving doctrines of early Christianity.

I also like this contradiction because of its consequences. If the literalist accepts that at least one of these genealogies is invented rather than real, then he has essentially conceded that the authors of the Gospels were willing to forge facts to shoehorn Jesus into Messianic prophecies that he did not fill. Once that fact is recognized, the entire authority of the Gospels becomes suspect.

If you delve deeper into the genealogy question, you will find scores more genealogical conflicts. There is yet another genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3:10-16 that collides with the one in Matthew. Jerimiah 22:28-30 claims that Jeconiah will be childless, and no man of his seed shall sit on the throne of David, yet Jechoniah is listed in Matthew 1:12 as an ancestor of Joseph! You can find a whole slew of paternity conflicts on this page (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/topics/paternity.html). (Who says the SAB is worthless!)

[secular buddhist]

My favorite contradiction is the conflicting accounts of the resurrection in the four gospels. This is may favorite, because it has my favorite apologetic:

"Well, you don't think the writers/compilers would have included such an obvious contradiction in the Bible if were really a problem, do you?"

In other words, the fact that it is so obvious a contradiction is proof that it's not really a contradiction.

[Clutch]

I think it's important not to focus too much on contradictions. There simply is no such thing as a contradiction that can't be evaded. And none of the evasions will be less plausible than the central features of biblical interpretation that are common to most Christian sects in any case -- e.g., a physical literal resurrection. So I tend to think of contradiction-mongering as wasted effort.

[Dark Jedi]

Originally posted by Clutch
I think it's important not to focus too much on contradictions. There simply is no such thing as a contradiction that can't be evaded. And none of the evasions will be less plausible than the central features of biblical interpretation that are common to most Christian sects in any case -- e.g., a physical literal resurrection. So I tend to think of contradiction-mongering as wasted effort.

Not entirely. The goal is not to get them to believe the contradictions, but to get them to actually read the ancient book of fairy tales themselves. Far too many have never read a word of it for themselves. Sadly, this is usually those who are the most adamant that it is inerrant.

If they read it themselves, they tend to back off of the inerrancy bit. There are always the certifiably insane who will cling to the burning, breaking up, sinking ship... but they are merely an amusing diversion. And the onlookers of said debate may pick up a bible for some reading on their own.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I rather like the doctrinal ones: Are we punished for the sins of others? (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html) and so forth. Inerrantists tend to argue that morality comes from God, but the Bible cannot give a coherent view of Christian morality and doctrine. Christian doctrine becomes a matter of personal preference: just pick a verse that says what you want it to say.

Most Christian apologists are so accustomed to reciting Biblical verses which support their own opinions that they haven't actually been confronted with the verses that contradict those opinions: this is a way of challenging their "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" mindset. They need to explain why a "true Christian" can't come to exactly the opposite conclusion if he/she wants to.

[Rymmie1981]

1. God is love. (1John 4:8, 16)
2. Love is not jealous. (1Cor. 13:4)
3. The LORD thy God is a jealous god. (Ex. 20:5, ad nauseum)

I like this one. Especially if you sit down with your Bible in a public place and wait for some unsuspecting Christian to come up. When they ask what you are reading, tell them that you just found the weirdest thing and you're trying to figure it out. Show them the above verses. Be joyful and glad at the looks, the stammering, the confusion. Now, it doesn't work with a KJV because 1Cor. uses "charity" and "envies not". So, get one of the more literal translations, such as, NLT, NASB, or RSV. Or use a Strong's.

And remember that anyone who doesn't wish to see a contradiction will not see a contradiction. Yeah, because jealous doesn't mean jealous there it means something else. Right. Yeah. Cause that's the Word of God...you know...

[Roland]

One of my favorite contradictions involves Doubting Thomas.

According to John, Thomas was not present when the risen Jesus first appeared to the disciples in the locked room.

Yet, Luke specifically states that "the eleven" were present. Since Judas was, obviously, gone by this time, wouldn't that mean that Thomas HAD to be there with the rest of them?

The only halfway plausible rebuttal to this I've ever gotten from an apologist is that the term "the eleven" signified the apostles as a group, not necessarily as eleven individuals (could one still refer to The Beatles as The Fab Four even if one of them was temporarily absent?). I'm not sure if this is a valid argument or not. It seems to me that when the Bible says "eleven," it means eleven. And I would imagine most Bible literalists would believe that too, unless, of course, it would cause problems for them to do so. Then literalism be damned!

[Johann_Kaspar]

To love your enemy...

To insult him, to kill him (many examples).

But not so hard contradictions if the texts were written as literature works and by different authors at different times. One has to understand how the Hebrew literature was built.

[Julian]

I believe that the quote about god being jealous is an incorrect translation. According to my masoretic translation it arises because of a confusion between qana and qanna, one of which means jealous and the other zealous. The passage is translated as god being zealous which makes a lot more sense.

I also agree with a post ealier which stated that any contradiction can be explained away if you are allowed to add any extra words you care to. And they do, indeed, allow themselves to do this. For example, my favorite contradiction which is the birth year of jebus. Is it 4bce as according to Mathew or 6ce as according to Luke? The contradiction is glaring and beyond any resonable dispute yet they have managed to explain it away. How? Well, since the bible is absolutely true then clearly we must just not understand what is going on here. So therefore Cyrenius (spelling in SAB) must have been governor twice. Even though that would be unprecedented in the whole history of the roman empire. No one was ever govenor twice of the same province. Yet that is their explanation. Despite not having any evidence nor reason for this to be true. See how you can explain away any contradiction? I gave it up a long time ago. The christians are absolute moronic idiots who will never be convinced by anyone. In rare instances they manage to convince themselves and we get another member on the good guy side, but it's rare.

All that being said, give them hell! I wish you luck.

Julian

[ceb]

Originally posted by Julian
I believe that the quote about god being jealous is an incorrect translation. According to my masoretic translation it arises because of a confusion between qana and qanna, one of which means jealous and the other zealous. The passage is translated as god being zealous which makes a lot more sense.

:confused:

You think

Exodus 34 14 --for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Zealous, is a zealous God--

makes more sense than

Exodus 34 14 --for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God--

?

[nermal]

I've never been big on finding contradictions. I leave it to theists to substantiate the supposition that God exists, then we'll get down to the details. Nevertheless, I found this one last night, and guffawed:

Ezekiel 25:10
"Unto the men of the east with the Ammonites, and will give them in possession, that the Ammonites may not be remembered among the nations"

Cracked me up.

Ed

[capnkirk]

I've never been big on finding contradictions...Nor I...but my favorite is the claim that Jesus was of the House and Lineage of David (via Jospeh), then taking Joseph's seed completely out of the picture by claiming that Mary conceived or the holy spirit! I'm not even sure there is an apologetic for this one, but if there is it must be a tortured one indeed.

[Matrioshka_Brain]

What about the one with I Corinthians where Paul claims that the letter is his word, but in Timothy or something it clams that the whole bible is the word of Yhwh?

Or that incident where it names of 16 cities, and says that there's only 14?

And of course there are scientific errors, like that part (Samuel somewhere, I think) were it essentially states that Pi=3.

Sorry for not being really specific...

[Julian]

Checking up on the jealous/zealous/envy issue, it pretty much seems that you can translate it pretty much as you like. The Hebrew god is ludicrous enough without us making him jealous as well. ;)

Julian

PS. My, really nice, version of MT with translation prefers to use zealous rather than jealous. I find that the translation is generally excellent to the best of my knowkedge. Take that statement with a grain of salt since I do not read Hebrew. I do not remember what version I have but I can check when I get home.

[Sensei Meela]

And of course there are scientific errors, like that part (Samuel somewhere, I think) were it essentially states that Pi=3.
1 Kings 7:23
He [Solomon] made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.


Contradictions? Hmmm...how about the Omnimax God? There's a good place to start...(soo much to say, and yet soo much alcohol impairing me...)

[Boro Nut]

I believe that the quote about god being jealous is an incorrect translation. According to my masoretic translation it arises because of a confusion between qana and qanna, one of which means jealous and the other zealous.

Well it certainly follows the golden rule that a rhyming word misspelled in one language must by definition be another rhyming word in the other language. For similar examples try googling for mumbo and jumbo.

Boro Nut

[Dark Jedi]

Well it certainly follows the golden rule that a rhyming word misspelled in one language must by definition be another rhyming word in the other language. For similar examples try googling for mumbo and jumbo.

Boro Nut


:notworthy

You never fail us, boro. :D