Tod

As stated below, there are too many real contradictions that require a lot of verse twisting and special pleading to rationalize away to mess around with difficulties that either aren't real contradictions or don't require ridiculous scenarios to explain away.

I think the two that follow should be decent examples of actual contradictions, and I look forward to the resident apologists' explanations.

Contradiction number one:

Ex. 6:3 tells us that Abraham did not know Yahweh's name, but Gen. 22:14 tells us that Abraham named a place after him using his name. Obviously he knew his name.

Contradiction number two, brought to my mind by the person who presented the conflicting account of whether it was Yahweh or Satan that influenced David's taking of a census:

In I Kings 15:5 we are told that "David did all that was right in the eyes of the LORD...save only the matter of Uriah the Hittite." (The "matter of Uriah the Hittite" is found in II Sam. chapter 11. What had happened was that David had sent a man, Uriah, to the front lines of a battle, ensuring his death, so that he might acquire his wife Bathsheba). However, if you turn to the last chapter of II Samuel, chapter twenty-four, you will find that David was punished for taking a census. The punishment was an example of utmost cruelty in itself, because to punish David Yahweh (God) killed 70,000 Israelites who had nothing to do with David's decision to take the census. If Yahweh got so angry about David's taking of the census that he punished him by killing 70,000 people, obviously the "matter of Uriah the Hittite" was not the only act of David that was not "right in the eyes of the LORD" as is claimed in I Kings 15:5.

Furthermore, in the first verse we are told that it was Yahweh himself that had "moved" David to take the census in the first place! So he "moves" him to do it, and when David does exactly what the Lord had "moved" him to do, it is deemed a sin, and David is punished. His punishment not harming him, but killing 70,000 others. That is no different than encouraging your child to engage in a forbidden act, and then punishing him/her by killing all of his/her friends on the block. A strange display of benevolence and justice to be sure.

Roland

I believe that there is a contradiction between Luke's account of Jesus' first post-resurrection's appearance to the apostles and John's account of the same event.

Luke claims "eleven" disciples were present. John says Thomas was absent, making it only ten.

HaysooChreesto!

I have a question Tod. Forgive my lack of specifics on this one: After Jesus is resurrected he tells his followers that some in this generation will live to see his return. Isn't that a huge contradiction? Everyone present when he made that prediction is obviously long dead. To me, this seems to be one of the most damning contradictions in the Bible. At best it's an utterly failed prophecy.

The only way I've ever heard it 'splained away is that Jesus was talking about the "generation of mankind' whatever that may be.

Tod

Oh yeah, that is definitely a good example of failed prophecy, although the fundies won't see it that way. ; ) Also, he says this before his resurrection when he is ranting about the end times and his second coming. I believe you refer to Matthew 24:34 or the Mark equivalent.

Not only do you have the verse you cite in Matthew 24:34 "In truth I tell you, before this generation has passed away, all these things will have taken place."

But you also have Matthew 16:28 "In truth I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming with his kingdom."

Further you have Matthew 10:23 "In truth I tell you, you will not have gone the round of the towns of Israel before the Son of man comes."

Now, in the case of 24:34, apologists will quibble about what the word "generation" means. There quibbling amounts to a wasted effort when one considers the other two verses that substantiate the most likely translation that he referred to a literal generation.

As to 16:28, apologist are fond of utilizing a very big case of silly special pleading and argue that this statement refers to the transfiguration that occurred six days later in 17:1-2. However, Jesus' face and clothing starting to glow as an apparent demonstration of supernatural attribute is hardly either Jesus "coming" in any sense, much less with a kingdom. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to assume he is speaking about anything but his second coming.

Furthermore, it would be the height of stupidity to think that when Jesus says "some standing here will not taste death before [such-and-such happens]" he was referring to an event only 6 days away! That is a no-brainer: of course "some standing here will not taste death" in six days, he's addressing a group of young to at most middle aged adults.

Unless they all are coincidently killed together by some violent means, by a very fast acting and incredibly contagious disease, or unless he is addressing a centurian club or the terminally ill (and even in all of these cases we'd expect "some" to still be alive in six days!) it goes without saying that probably all, and definitely "some," of those he is addressing will still be alive in six days.

The only way the wording "some standing here will not taste death before" this or that happens is if the thing you are discussing will not happen for long enough in the future, at least a few decades, to make it likely that some of the people you are addressing will be dead.

judge

Excellent point!

Time after time after time we see Jesus telling his disciples he would soon return.
Paul writes as if it is about happen, so does James etc...etc...


Jesus did in fact come in glory around 70 a.d.

The resurrection of the dead has alread happened as well.

Try a google search on preterism or preterist

Abel Stable

I know that Catholics are fond of stating that "Jesus' return" meant his presence in the holy eucharist. Heck, I bought it just fine when I was a Catholic.

The_Unknown_Banana

Didn't magus explain it by saying Jesus was actually speaking to a generation in the future or something? (ie. prophecising and speaking as if in the future or something)

Hope I'm not misrepresenting him though...

CJD

Greetings, Tod.

First, you won't find too many theists around here defending the relatively new fundamentalized understanding of biblical inspiration. Sorry to let you down in that regard. You can expect to see me challenge others' (mis)use of textual criticism, or defend the brilliance of narrative poetics found in the Tanak, etc., but you won't see me losing sleep over the inclusion of insects with four legs and hares that chew cud:

The bishops all have sworn to shed their blood
To prove it is true the hare chews the cud.
O bishops, doctors, divines, beware —
Weak is the faith that hangs on a hare.


As is typical, the first contradiction mentioned strains a gnat and swallows a camel. I realize that your challenge might be to the "verbal plenary" inspiration types, but have you stopped to consider what the text is saying theologically, or is that not your concern?

Why stop there? Genesis 4:26, 9:26, 12:8, and 24:12 all imply the use of YHWH from the earliest time. One thing we can see, however, is that the name YHWH is not found as an element in personal names (Ja- or Jo-) before the supposed time of the Exodus (Moses), with the possible exception of Jochebed in Exodus 6:20. But again, YHWH is much more commonly used in Genesis that El-Shaddai, and the obvious reason for this is the timing of the initial writing and later editing. If the intended audience of Genesis was the wilderness wanderers (the implied audience being all of God's people in every age), then their leader would have them know that the God of their fathers (Abe, Isaac, and Jacob), El-Shaddai, is one and the same as YHWH, the covenant LORD who has redeemed them from oppression. This, then, requires us to look at Genesis 22:14 a little closer.

"And Abraham called the name of the place "The-LORD-Will-Provide"; as it is said to this day, "In the Mount of the LORD it shall be provided."

Which "day" is it said? This is one of those genuine post-Mosaic additions, and was meant to imply the authenticity of the story's historicity. As was typical with these anonymous "historical" writings, they were living texts in the hands of the scribes, who kept them current for the people of God. After the time of David, that is, after he took Jerusalem, the "mountain of the LORD" refers to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (see Ps. 24:3; Isa. 2:3; 30:29; Zech. 8:3).

What we have then is a typical interpolation, and the overlooking of an apparent contradiction. If one wants to argue on the simplistic level of fundamentalism and expose apparent contradictions, then go for it. So long as that one realizes its irrelevance to the theological message of the text.

Where's that contradiction again? Based on your reading, it might be unfair, unjust, etc., but hardly a bona fide or logical contradiction.

Regards,

CJD

HaysooChreesto!

But isn't it "explanations" like that that just make Biblical scripture look that much more silly? Things like this make my bullshit detector go bannannas.

Prophecy has always been shrouded in arcane interpretations whether it be Nostradomus' quatrains, Edgar Cayce's sleeping predictions, or religous hooey.
If the Bible's prophecies were accurate then why does there seem to be so many different explanations and interpretations of them? Shouldn't they just be clear? And if they aren't abundantly clear then the only reasonable answer is that they were wrong.
Therefore that means that some of the most significant parts of the Bible are wrong and therefore the entire thing is suspect.

Jebus coming back is huge to Xtianity. To me it seems quite clear that he told his followers that he was coming back with his kingdom and whatnot within at most a few decades. It didn't happen. It's been 2000 years and it still hasn't happened. So what's the fuss?
Xtians have been stood up on a date. That's all. When you get stood up it sucks, but it's not the end of the world. Maybe the girl had a good reason for not showing up and if she did she'll call. But Jebus hasn't called because,

A) His phone service went down a long time ago and he hasn't been home between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. in 2000 years or,

B) He never really wanted to go out with us to begin with but didn't know how to say "no" without hurting our feelings or,

C) Jebus just doesn't exist.

Given the three options above I gotta go with C.

Tod

As is typical, the first contradiction mentioned strains a gnat and swallows a camel. I realize that your challenge might be to the "verbal plenary" inspiration types, but have you stopped to consider what the text is saying theologically, or is that not your concern?

To say there is a deeper theological meaning would be to engage in baseless speculation. You're asking me to swallow a camel that my throat can't accomodate. Yahweh is introducing himself, and telling Moses that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew him as "El Shaddai," and not Yahweh. Pretty straightforward stuff.

Why stop there? Genesis 4:26, 9:26, 12:8, and 24:12 all imply the use of YHWH from the earliest time.

Because I'm not arguing the strawman you are setting up. I'm not making an argument based upon what the author's of Genesis chose in many places to call Yahweh. I'm sure that Genesis was written well after Moses' time, and granting an assumption the story is true, obviously these later writers would know Yahweh's name since they wrote after Moses, who was the first, according to this passage, to know his name. We are talking about the specific claim that Abraham named this place "Yahweh provides."

One thing we can see, however, is that the name YHWH is not found as an element in personal names (Ja- or Jo-) before the supposed time of the Exodus (Moses), with the possible exception of Jochebed in Exodus 6:20. But again, YHWH is much more commonly used in Genesis that El-Shaddai, and the obvious reason for this is the timing of the initial writing and later editing. If the intended audience of Genesis was the wilderness wanderers (the implied audience being all of God's people in every age), then their leader would have them know that the God of their fathers (Abe, Isaac, and Jacob), El-Shaddai, is one and the same as YHWH, the covenant LORD who has redeemed them from oppression. This, then, requires us to look at Genesis 22:14 a little closer.

And none of this is relevant, since, as stated above, I'm not saying that the fact that some times the authors of Genesis referred to their god as Yahweh contradicts Exodus 6:3, only that Genesis 22:14 does.

"And Abraham called the name of the place "The-LORD-Will-Provide"; as it is said to this day, "In the Mount of the LORD it shall be provided."

Let's be a little more clear here. In Hebrew this verse specifically says "YHWH." That will be important in the next point.

Which "day" is it said? This is one of those genuine post-Mosaic additions, and was meant to imply the authenticity of the story's historicity. As was typical with these anonymous "historical" writings, they were living texts in the hands of the scribes, who kept them current for the people of God. After the time of David, that is, after he took Jerusalem, the "mountain of the LORD" refers to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (see Ps. 24:3; Isa. 2:3; 30:29; Zech. 8:3).

What we have then is a typical interpolation, and the overlooking of an apparent contradiction. If one wants to argue on the simplistic level of fundamentalism and expose apparent contradictions, then go for it. So long as that one realizes its irrelevance to the theological message of the text.

This is ridiculous. To claim that this is simply a interpolation that is of minor importance is to accuse the author's of the grossest incompetence.

Let's take an example with our own country. New York used to be called New Amsterdam. Now, I don't feel like taking the time to get out the encyclopedia and see who actually first named the place New Amsterdam, as the details are irrelevant, so we'll just make up a name. Joe Blow sounds about right. So Joe Blow first named this place New Amsterdam. Now, we all know that it was later named New York. So let's say I'm writing a story about New York, and I'm writing, of course for a present day audience that of course knows New York as New York and not New Amsterdam.

If I was to write that Joe Blow named the place New York simply because people and myself as the author now call it New York, that would be gross incompetence on my part, and my assertion would be wrong no matter how you slice it. To incorporate your strawman, you are right, it would be perfectly justified to refer to New York as New York all other times for ease of understanding in my story, EVEN if I was talking about a timeframe when it was called New Amsterdam. However, when I make the specific claim that Joe Blow named the place New York, I'd be wrong, misleading, and incompetent. In this case it would be highly inappropriate for me to say New York.

According to your special pleading, and it is extreme special pleading because you wouldn't make the following argument to defend my incompetence even though it is the same situation, you would defend my mistake by saying that I was writing for an audience that knew the place as New York, I called it New York, so it is of minor importance. You would be wrong to defend me though, because irregardless of what the place was later named and what it is called NOW, Joe Blow, the person in question, did not name the place New York, but rather named it New Amsterdam!

The same applies here. It doesn't matter what the people reading the account call their god and it doesn't matter what the author NORMALLY calls his god. The fact is, the author is claiming that ABRAHAM named the place, quote: "Yahweh provides." If Abraham named the place "El Shaddai provides" the author would not only be grossly erroneous to say that Abraham named it "Yahweh provides," but would guilty of committing far more than a minor error in fact that causes only a mere "seeming contradiction."

It is a contradiction in english translations, the Masoretic text, and it if was originally written that way, it is just plain wrong.

Where's that contradiction again? Based on your reading, it might be unfair, unjust, etc., but hardly a bona fide or logical contradiction.

You obviously didn't read thoroughly, and it seems only read the very end of what I was saying! Let me quote the beginning of what I said:

" In I Kings 15:5 we are told that "David did all that was right in the eyes of the LORD...save only the matter of Uriah the Hittite." (The "matter of Uriah the Hittite" is found in II Sam. chapter 11. What had happened was that David had sent a man, Uriah, to the front lines of a battle, ensuring his death, so that he might acquire his wife Bathsheba). However, if you turn to the last chapter of II Samuel, chapter twenty-four, you will find that David was punished for taking a census. The punishment was an example of utmost cruelty in itself, because to punish David Yahweh (God) killed 70,000 Israelites who had nothing to do with David's decision to take the census. If Yahweh got so angry about David's taking of the census that he punished him by killing 70,000 people, obviously the "matter of Uriah the Hittite" was not the only act of David that was not "right in the eyes of the LORD" as is claimed in I Kings 15:5. "

So basically I Kings 15:5 tells us that "David did all that was right in the eyes of the LORD...save only the matter of Uriah the HIttite." While the last chapter of II Samuel quite clearly tells a detailed story of David doing something else that wasn't right in the eyes of the Lord. So I Kings 15:5 is obviously wrong.