Talk:Biblical contradictions
Contents |
[edit] Creation Week
The Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 issue is probably better covered here: Creation Week.--Bobbing up 15:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)
- Actually we have found a couple of problems when going down this "biblical contradictions" route in the past:
- Translations. The existence of a contradiction may or not may depend on the translation you are using - or indeed if you are using the original manuscript and translating it yourself. This can spark off all sorts of complex debates.
- One cannot attribute these differences to "lost in translation"-I can attest that at least those verses which come from the Hebrew texts are translated in both letter and spirit.--Greg
- How literal you wish to understand the paragraph to be. Frequently these contradictions are important to those who believe in full biblical literalism but irrelevant to those who take a more intellectual approach. Consequently we are left the the question, "A contradiction in whose eyes?"
- In my opinion we should simply regard the bible as a myth and leave at that. Trying to take it apart at this level will simply invite problems.--Bobbing up 15:46, 11 December 2008 (EST)
- isn't part of the part though that fundies take it literally and call it infallible ("God said it, I believe it, that's all there is to it" as I read somewhere - possibly one of Karajou's userboxen)? This is why its
mistakes and contractionsrichness and complexity need examining. Totnesmartin 17:49, 11 December 2008 (EST)
- isn't part of the part though that fundies take it literally and call it infallible ("God said it, I believe it, that's all there is to it" as I read somewhere - possibly one of Karajou's userboxen)? This is why its
Numeric biblical contradictions should be merged here. ħuman
22:57, 5 January 2009 (EST)
I think writing out long lists of contradictions is counterproductive, since most of them are weak or subjective ("Why can't he be a god of war some of the time and a god of peace other times?") After the Christian reads a few of those, they scoff and dismiss the entire list. There are entire books dedicated to refuting these contradictions. It's better to focus on the few numerical contradictions or differences in accounts of specific events, as these are clear factual errors and you have to jump through a lot of hoops to explain them away. Hmmph (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The biblical contradictions are in the Bible on purpose, so that you may read it more carefully and think about it with an open mind IMHO. --Jiri — Unsigned, by: 130.233.217.167 / talk / contribs
- LOL. Yes, that would be the answer. Just like all those incremental fossils, god loves to fuck with our minds.
Генгисmutating
11:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Jesus' Parental Grandfather - not a contradiction.
Although the account in Luke and in Matthew tell us of a different name, there is a clear answer as to why they differ. Luke shows Jesus' natural descent, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary(i.e. Heli was Mary's father). The Matthew scripture does not say 'Joseph became father to Jesus' but that he was "husband to Mary, of whom Jesus was born". Therefore, Joseph being the adoptive parent showed the legal heir in the male line of descendants from David and Solomon. RoryWatt (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that is one of several excuses apologists have concocted to explain away the contradiction. What is your point, exactly? --Inquisitor (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- 'excuses'? This is called reasoning and considering the context of statements. Context is clearly something a baboon like you cannot mentally grasp.
- Jacob is the father of Jesus' father regarding the question asked. Heli, as stated above, is the father of Mary(Jesus' mother). The legality of Joseph being the father does not purely rest on the fact of whether he is the biological father does it? To state that as not true on your part would show your ignorance in full. So, the reasoning of the contradiction that Jesus being born of a virgin is somehow in opposition to a genealogy is accepted in nothing but stupidity. To label it as "pointless" only enhances the fact that little thought and research has been given into the concluding statements. Which is why the small section should be removed. RoryWatt (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with the section, edit it and point out why you think it's not a contradiction, don't just wipe it. Thanos6 (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- You would prefer me to edit and it and state why it's not a contradiction in the main page?? I wiped it because of the evidence I provided to conclude that this is simply a matter of not knowing the context. I stated above why it is not a contradiction. Hence why it should be deleted and why I am doing so again right now. Unless what I have said is wrong, do not re-add the section. Thank you. RoryWatt (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it seems that the Heli-is-the-maternal-grandfather hypothesis is one of a few possible explanations available why the Bible mentions 2 grandfathers through which Jesus is supposed to be related to David. It's not at all clear from the context in the passages that this explanation is the right one, though.
- It's not like Jesus's genealogy is anything special in this regard, though; genealogies linking someone to an important person from the past show a strong tendency of being faulty. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Strong tendency of being faulty" - Please do not state your opinion as fact. Use examples in history and post them here of exactly where the 'fault' lies, because this is a subject where blind opinions are irrelevant, especially when involving scriptures.
- The clarity of my explanation is backed up in Luke 3:23, where it says "being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli," and in Matthew 1:16 where the comma is used to emphasis that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, but that he was "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born". This shows that both Matthew and Luke knew that Joseph was not actually Jesus' father, so it is in fact clear that this explanation is the correct one considering that context. RoryWatt (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- "...where the comma is used to emphasis..." The comma is a fiction introduced by translators, not the basis for a valid argument. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- You would prefer me to edit and it and state why it's not a contradiction in the main page?? I wiped it because of the evidence I provided to conclude that this is simply a matter of not knowing the context. I stated above why it is not a contradiction. Hence why it should be deleted and why I am doing so again right now. Unless what I have said is wrong, do not re-add the section. Thank you. RoryWatt (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, bit of a latecomer here. My 2¢: from my understanding of previous discussions I've had over the subject (with both Christian and Jewish peers), one of the objections to this hypothesis is that Mary is listed as cousin of Elizabeth in Luke 1:36, who in Luke 1:5 was listed as a descendant of Aaron, a Levite, rather than King David's tribe of Judah. That and Luke uses "son" to reference the relation between Heli and Joseph, rather than "son-in-law", as he uses in later passages. Noir LeSable (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Better title?
Isn't "Contradictions in the Bible" better from a SEO point of view?--ZooGuard (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Why? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 03:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Remove "Other examples"?
These "other examples" are pretty weak. "God was nice sometimes and mean other times!" isn't really a contradiction and posting laundry lists of these weak arguments isn't going to be a big challenge to anyone's beliefs. In fact, it makes it easier for them to dismiss the entire list. Focus on a few obvious contradicitons in factual events, not subjective qualities of people. The 2 deaths of Judas is a pretty good contradiction, and the 7 vs 2 animals is an ok one (the apologetics rebuttal is stupid, but logically possible), but the fate of the righteous or Jesus vs god are dumb. The more hoops apologists have to jump through to explain it away, the better. Hmmph (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't object to trimming it down a bit. As to the 1 > 1 proof, well, I find it vulnerable to silly theological handwaves (that start centuries-long feuds) rendering it mostly meaningless; War and Peace is also more or less a non-contradiction, and... my memory is getting shoddy so I may need to do some more research, but some pruning might help. Also who put the "other" section first? PacWalker 03:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. Two things to do:
- Merge in Problems_with_biblical_inerrancy#Textual_contradictions
- Trim stupid ones
- 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
All in. Anyone up for a trim? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 04:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Argh αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Merge in Creation Week?
Everything on that page except "The Sun-Day Paradox" and "Before Creation Week" could go to this page; "The Sun-Day Paradox" could go to Scientific errors in the Bible and "Before Creation Week" could eventually be merged into Evidence against a recent creation. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Or should we do the reverse: Move Creation-related stuff from this page to Creation Week and just link over to it? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Eh... I dunno. However while I'm here I'm removing a couple one sentence side-by-sides; they just kill readability and look pretty... odd. PacWalker 02:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Or I could redo them like you just did to Jaccob/Heli/etc. That might be wiser. PacWalker 02:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- The real problem with the SBS's that you removed is that they didn't quote the Bible, but just asserted something. :/ FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- How [is it] now brown potatow? PacWalker 02:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Is better. Creation Week merge? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm no expert on this merging stuff, but I feel like even if we leave a main article link over at Creation Week, at least a brief summary of the contradictions would be nice. That said you may wish wait upon a better-wikinformed opinion/opinions. PacWalker 02:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Is better. Creation Week merge? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- How [is it] now brown potatow? PacWalker 02:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- The real problem with the SBS's that you removed is that they didn't quote the Bible, but just asserted something. :/ FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)