Contradictions a-plenty

[Teazer]

All the biblical contradictions in an easily searchable format.
http://bibviz.com/

[Michael]

Come on guys, it's the editor's fault, not the author's. LOL

[Alexatron]

Had a quick look at this - couldn't find which version of the bible they're talking about - did anyone find this? (it matters . . . a LOT). I'm not a christian but studied 'bibles' for many years. There are huge differences between the various versions.

The biggest problem with the current bibles are the centuries of liberties the Roman Catholic church has taken in rewriting them.

[Bill]

The biggest problem with the current bibles are the centuries of liberties the Roman Catholic church has taken in rewriting them.

Care to give any examples of your theory?

The canon of the entire Bible was essentially settled around the turn of the fourth century. Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains. Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397), a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse (405), and the Second Council of Carthage (419). In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on, in practice Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter.

By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.

[Dmitri]

Yeah it's definitely not about Catholics or any other group in particular, IMHO... It's about humans in general. Several people can read the exact same translation and interpret it in several different ways, respectively.

As for the OP (I haven't watched the video but I think I have some idea), the "problem" is that kids are continually brought up conditioned with the idea of a god (Christ, Krishna, Allah, Buddha, whatever), and it sticks, becomes part of the person. The rest follows naturally... Therefore it wouldn't make much sense to take any religious text and analyze it logically and wonder at its apparent inconsistencies without keeping the above in mind, IME.
(Took me many years to come to this, now obvious (to me), idea/understanding BTW... This might be the first time I've actually written it down like that.)

Nothing wrong with simply pointing things out of course, but it usually, almost inevitably, leads to a confrontational response.

[klonk]

Hey Bill: The idea that the deuterocanonical books are not of the same standing as the Old Testament proper did not start with Luther. It goes clear back to Jerome, and farther still. The Protestants took up a position that had long been held quietly in various places within the Church. The Old Testament canon of the Protestants is that of the Jews. Who better to ask, right?

Protestants do not reject the secondary books outright, but deny their canonical standing. Many read them for insight into the times and events they cover, and the general drift of Jewish thinking at the time.

In the New Testament the situation is much different. All Christian churches everywhere receive the same New Testament as their canon. That is a good thing, since all hope to transmit the apostles' doctrine in a way that is true to its origins and efficacious for its hearers.

[klonk]

Hey Alexatron: Here is a site you will just love. It allows you to compare Bible translations side by side, and even look at the original languages.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... on=KJV;NIV

[Teazer]

Had a quick look at this - couldn't find which version of the bible they're talking about - did anyone find this? (it matters . . . a LOT).

It draws contradictions from several sources. The the majority are form the Skeptics Annotated Bible site which uses the King James Version. Not sure about the other two sites.

[klonk]

I haven't had a lot of time to give to the site Teazer mentioned, but I looked around enough to see that it is the same old thing. It gives the worst possible reading to any text, rather than a sympathetic reading, and ignores many nuances. The use of the Authorized Version (the King James Bible) is significant since that very old translation is murky to modern readers. It is easier to make false deductions when the text is unclear.

If you read anything at all with a desire to yell "gotcha!" you can find superficial problems, but when that is a matter of words not substance, or of making unwarranted inferences about the substance, it isn't a good critique.

The site repackages the same set of skeptical barbs we Christians have answered for years. The thing is, answers to these barbs are old hat among Christian apologists. (BTW "apologist" does not indicate that one is sorry about anything. It is an old use of the term, meaning to offer a defense.)

apol·o·gist noun \ə-ˈpä-lə-jist\

: a person who defends or supports something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people

What I am driving at is that answers are out there to those claims about the bad old Bible, and one may find them easily enough if interested. Google is your friend.

[Steve James]

Ok, Jews don't eat pork (or animals with cloven hooves) because of their scripture.
Does the NT contradict that? Or, have they interpreted the scripture incorrectly?

[klonk]

Ok, Jews don't eat pork (or animals with cloven hooves) because of their scripture.
Does the NT contradict that? Or, have they interpreted the scripture incorrectly?

See Acts ch. 15. Gentiles who are Christians are given a dispensation from the Jewish cultural and ceremonial laws. I can eat all the ribs I want.

And no, I am not going to hang around and field every question. Try Google. Try equip.org or any of the other sites that deal with this sort of thing. It's yesterday's news. Besides, people who do their own research are the more likely to believe the results.

[bailewen]

Ok, Jews don't eat pork (or animals with cloven hooves) because of their scripture.
Does the NT contradict that?

Actually, even Leviticus (11:3) contradicts that. We only eat the ones with cloven hooves. Funny how everyone gets that backwards. Cows have cloven hooves. With pigs, the feet are fine. It's their stomachs that don't meet the requirements.

Pigs are not kosher because they do not chew their cud.

Pigs feet:

Cows feet:

Both are cloven.

Now horse meat! Not kosher. No cloven feet.

[Steve James]

Oops, but, hey, I've got nothing against pork chops or sirloin

Afa Christians getting a dispensation, sure, that's how they do it. I'm not sure whether Jesus ate pork or not. (Though, he did say that it's what comes out of a man's mouth that defiles him, not what goes into it). Anyway, I brought up Jews only because they (seem to) share the same Bible. I understand that Christians don't follow Jewish religious rules. But, what was the op brought up was the contradictions within the scriptures. Of course, technically, some things are just contrary, not contradictory.

I tend to think that people will find whatever scripture they need to justify whatever they want, and they will define some scriptures as hard and fast rules. For some others, the rules will be reinterpreted or stretched to fit.

[klonk]

A part of this question is whether Mosaic law was ever given to, or for, anybody but Jews. I see Acts 15 as ratifying the common sense position. God never told my ancestors not to eat pigs.

The Law is tied up with Jewish identity and holiness, and the attempt of some Jews to enforce it on Gentiles who converted to Christianity was what the Apostles rejected as a mistake.

Some Jews, at least, would agree, seeing the Noahide law (before Moses) as binding on all people of good will toward their Creator, but the Law of Moses as something to, and for, the Jews.

[Steve James]

I'm not arguing that anyone should or shouldn't eat anything. I'm just pointing out that the two testaments do no agree on that particular issue.