Bible Contradictions... Anyone?

Did you expect anything less? Many people do not like their beliefs challenged or questioned.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*************
M*W: No, it's not that simple. I am well aware that there are older mistranslated versions than the KJV. However, from the horrid mistranslations of the KJV, it gave us our current English speaking versions of the bible. Can you get your hands on a copy of any of the original texts of the bible that you listed, and can you read them in their original languages? No, because the originals do not exist! If you are truly a biblical scholar, you would know all about the lying KJV.

King James himself had the bible translated into olde English to suit his personal and, somewhat perverted, sexual whims. There are more than 3,000 mistakes in the KJV, and I've read other scholarly sources from real biblical scholars who say there could be as many as 6,000 mistakes that were made by biblical scholars who rewrote the KJV. We don't really know who these scholars were or if they could translate the original texts. However, you are wrong, because there are no original texts, so it's highly doubtful that any of the biblical literature up to the time of the printing press, and even then, couldn't be accurate due to human error.

Suffice it to say that the scholars who King James commissioned to reword the bible may or may not have been able to read the original ancient texts. They probably could read Greek and Latin, but then those were much earlier translations written by fallible and uninspired human beings whose only purpose was to appease King James. The other English language bibles that have come down the pike, some before, some after, King James, were copied from NO ORIGINAL TEXTS and were, therefore, totally butchured by human error in every copy that ever existed of the bible. Here's my list:

5,100 BCE - Clay tablet in the heiroglyphics etched onto rock hard red clay in the language of the day.

1107 CE - Year-Old Biblical Scroll. A Complete Hebrew Torah (Old Testament Scriptures, but translated from earlier non-original copies) on a giant sheepskin scroll over 160 feet long and 2 1/2 feet high! But, please understand even the copies of all these bibles were not translated from the original texts.

1410 CE - Wycliffe Manuscript written by John Wycliffe. He was the first person to produce hand-written copies of the Bible in the English language... before Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1450's.

1480 CE - Latin Vulgate Bible. One of the oldest and most visually impressive pieces of work. A truly stunning book, printed a dozen years before Columbus set sail for America. This is the second "Quarto" size Bible to come off a printing press. It is also the first Bible printed with a Title Page.

1516 CE - Erasmus Greek-Latin Parallel. New Testament: First Edition. An influential and very early work. This edition was used by Tyndale to translate the New Testament into the English language for the first time. It was also used by Luther to translate the New Testament into the German language for the first time. Most scholars consider the 1516 Erasmus Parallel New Testament, in either the 1516 or the 1519 dates of printing, to be one of the top ten most important books ever printed.

1535 CE - Coverdale Bible. This is the first edition and first printing of the very first complete Bible printed in English.

1537 CE - Matthew-Tyndale Bible. This is the first English language Bible ever translated directly from the original Biblical languages, but not in the language Jesus spoke -- Aramaic. It was however translated from COPIES of Hebrew and Greek, but printed in English.

1538 CE - Tyndale - Erasmus English-Latin Parallel New Testament. An extremely important milestone in the translation of the earlier copies of the Bible into English.

1539 CE - Great Bible. This large pulpit Bible, produced by the command of King Henry the Eighth, was the first English language Bible authorized for public use. It was called the “Great” Bible due to its great size, and was usually chained to the church pulpit. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, wrote the preface, so it is sometimes called the “Cranmer” Bibles.

1538 CE - Myles Coverdale's 1538 English/Latin Vulgate Parallel New Testament. In an unusual green leather, this extrodinarily rare parallel offers insight into the translation of the very first English language Bible produced just three years earlier by Myles Coverdale.

1549 CE - Matthew - Tyndale Bible. The second-edition printing of the first Bible ever translated from the original Biblical languages (not an original bible, however). Printed in Hebrew and Greek, it was printed in the English language.

1549 to 1566 CE - Tyndale’s Illustrated New Testaments. William Tyndale was the first person to ever print the New Testament in the English language, and he was killed for doing so. These New Testaments were printed in the years following his execution. It is extremely unusual for printed Biblical material of the 1500’s to have wood cut illustrations, and these printings are filled with many large illustrations.

1553 CE - Tyndale New Testament. Owned by Francis Fry, and one of a kind. Owned by the most famous Bible-collector of the 1800s, and history’s leading scholar and most respected authority on William Tyndale.

1560 CE - Geneva Bible: First Edition. The First Edition of the English Geneva Bible, also known as the “Breeches” Bible, and the “Bible of the Protestant Reformation”. The Geneva was the first Bible with numbered verses, and the Bible first brought to America. Quoted from hundreds of times by Shakespeare, this Bible of the Puritans & Pilgrims remained the Bible of choice for decades AFTER the King James was published.

1569 CE - "Bear Bible." The first Spanish language Protestant Bible. So named due to the Bear eating honey on the title page.

1611 CE - King James First Edition Pulpit Bible, the "He" Variant, but not from the original, but from the multitude of earlier copies.

1611 CE - King James First Edition Pulpit Bible: “She” Variant. It is called the "She" Variant, because a mistranslation occured in Ruth 3:15 and is corrected to read "she went into the city," instead of "he went into the city." It is often assumed that these 1611 "She Bibles" are actually the SECOND printing of the original 1611 King James Bible, likely done within several weeks of the 1611 "He Bibles". Many scholars now agree that the much more likely explanation is that the "He" and "She" King James Bible First Editions of 1611 were done at approximately the SAME TIME on two different presses, but this is not the only errors as I have mentioned above.

1631 CE - The "Wicked Bible." The printers were fined 300 pounds sterling for their terrible typographical error when type-setting for printing the Ten Commandments, omitting the all-important word “not” and rendering the verse as, “Thou shalt commit adultery!”

1663 CE - Eliot Indian Bible. The first Bible printed in America. Printed in the native Algonquin Indian language, and used by John Eliot to evangelize the American Indians. He actually had to develop a phonetic rendering of their native tongue and convert their spoken language into print for the first time! Please don't try to tell me that there were no mistranslations in this bible!

1782 CE - Aitken Bible. The first Bible printed in English in America. Only two copies are known to exist for sale world-wide.

Before you accuse someone of being "wrong" about your "holy book," make sure you have the same understanding of biblical scholarship, archeological reports of relics from, as well as the study of ancient histories and cultures of the period that most of us who are members of SciForums have. Our study and researching is ever on-going. Have you ever read anything scientific on this subject?

I want to be clear on this, none of the bibles written above that you and I have listed are originals. NONE! Give us the dates of the bible versions you listed. Also note that there were earlier bibles printed/written in English before the KJV.
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote of the Day:

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession." ~ Abraham Lincoln

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*************
M*W: I caught my error, but I was to busy to go back to correct it, and I still can't access the edit function. I still stand by my extensive reading and research which clearly denies Paul existed, so Paul didn't write anything. Talk about contradictions! There are so many contradictions in the alleged words of Paul by someone who actually wrote them. If Paul didn't exist, then whomever the books allegedly were authored by but definitely not Paul. Let's say Paul had a ghost-writer, and there is still some controversary about who really wrote the NT. The NT is teeming with lies and contradictions, because if Paul had existed, he would have never ever met Jesus. Paul was born after the alleged time of Jesus but proclaimed he had. BTW, Jesus never existed as an historical person either. So they are both fictional characters of creative myth.

Talk about vitriol? You are spouting your ignorant christian lies all over this forum! Do some scholarly reading, won't you? You might just learn the truth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought this thread would be right up your ally MW...

 

For a small counter-arguement.

Jesus had to be a real person. In the days of Christ and just after, the bible makes fantastic claims that his name was wide-known. If even a small collection of village people had not heard his name, then His authority would have been questioned there and then.

 

Medicine Woman,

First you said there were no texts earlier than the King James Bible but once a list of earlier texts is posted you change your story to, 'they were lies too'. It must be nice changing horses in mid-stream, especially when your horse is foundering.

You say that through your extensive reading you have had it proven to you that Paul of Tarsus never existed. Well through my extensive reading I have come to the opposite conclusion. Paul of Tarsus, originally Saul of Tarsus was an historical figure. He was in fact a real enough person to have attended the Council of Jerusalem. There is some doubt as to whether he authored all the book of The Acts of the Apostles and all the epistles credited to him but there is little serious doubt of his existence.

Not only did Paul exist as an actual person there is also fairly good evidence that Jesus existed. He is mentioned by ancient writers like Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus and others.

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. (Tacitus, Annals 15.44)

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind (Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth)

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared(Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64)

There are many more references that anyone interested enough in the subject can find.

 

If the most realistic, likely and obvious conclusion satisfies your curiosity then...why ask?

 

Galatians 5:12

Plain English: I wish the men who are trying to overturn YOU (meaning the congregation) would even get themselves emasculated.

Pual's word are the true crux of your inquiry. After coming to Antioch (in about 49 C.E) Paul and Barnabas sought to correct the misleading teachings of certain men from Judea who insisted that Circumcision was necessary to attain salvation. At the time there was an intense struggling over following the old Mosaic Law and as is common they were mixing in the teachings of Christ with the Law Covenant to make it seem more palitable. We all know tradition is a hard thread to break and the early Christians were having a hard time with it.

Paul continued to reiterate that all that was needed was abstaining from blood, sexual immorality were the requirements for outsiders to the Jews to attain salvation.

As we know Paul was the "firey one" of the Bible. He was a bad guy before being corrected. Frequently when discussing Paul the issue of the "thorn in the flesh" comes up. It's difficult to save what exactly that thorn was. Some thought it was a physical problem like a health problem. others though it was false apostles or perhaps his own error in his habits an ways.

This is one of the most refreshing things about the bible. It's commonly refered in churches as...the Good Book. The truth is it contains good and bad and the writers such as Paul were human and prone to error or wrong thinking. That never once changed in the Bible

So what is this scripture about? Fustration.
Think about this for a moment. Paul is attempting to maintain Christian TOLERANCE of Outsiders. That's basicly who they're talking about, gentiles(people of the nations. Or anyone else but a Jew) who wish to have salvation. These false apostles are undoing his hard work of guiding the flock.

It's actually abit humorous in context. You see these bad guys are telling people you HAVE TO GET circumcized! YOU HAVE to get circumcized! Hebrews were circumcized at birth and these guys were telling grown men you need to cut your foreskins off inorder to attain to Jesus. That's very painful for a grownman to do and it was completely unnecessary. I imagine that Paul was really at his witt's end because these would drive away most selfrespecting men.

When he expressed that he wished these false apostle would emasculate themselves it was exasperation. He didn't do it. And he didn't tell anyone else to do so...infact he "wished they do it themselves." It's almost as though he was taking circumcision to the extreme. If I'm not mistaking I think Paul said . "I wish they'd cut there own nutts off."

True it's not very nice to say but nor is it an endorsement to violate another human being. Paul was the firey one that was his reputation and it was well deservered it seems.

True God wouldn't have said that. But the BIBLE is a book of truth. Moses may have been a prophet of God but he errored when he presumed to kill the egyptian. He errored again when he took credit for the water that was provided in the wilderness and there are many more examples of non sanctioned behavior in the scriptures but that's part of telling the truth...the good and the bad go hand in hand and the Bible leaves none of it out.

 

These "bad men" were trying to inforce the Law of God. They were taught by the Old Testament God that the Law was eternal, right? Yes! So they thought that they would be disobeying God, or be "evil men" according to their own God, if they did not demand that the Law be obeyed here.

They would and should be confused by this whole thing whether or not they were actually good or bad men at heart. Actually, the more God fearing (supposed to be a good thing) they were the more likely they would have been to obey the Old Testament Law both then and now. God turned his own people, through this same fear, into these very same "evil men" by forcing them to obey His "evil" Law.

Even Jesus taught them that the Law was both good and eternal. Why then does it make them "evil" if they try to do what Jesus taught them to do. Obey the Law? Are you now saying that to seek to obey the Law is "evil"? That is probably what these "bad men" thought Paul was teaching. I can understand why.

Saquist,

There is still a problem here because this takes the "Word of God" and drops it out of the sky, out of the "every word inspired category", and brings these writings back down to earth as the words of only an imperfect man. This makes the "Word of God" untrustworthy. He cursed these people in contradiction to his own teaching (below) and he cursed these people in contradiction to the teachings of Jesus as well. He was also teaching these people, in contradiction to Jesus, that the Law of God did not need to be followed any longer even though God had declared it to be eternal.

Back in the real world, IMO, Paul was actually partially right, much of the Old Testament Law was indeed "evil". But he still sinned when he cursed these people who were very understandably confused.


"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them." (Romans 12:14)

Thanks!

 

One hundred years from now you will hear similar words echoing within the recesses of your mind--and one hundred years after that...and one hundred years after that... Despite the constant reassurance, you won't believe yourself anymore then than you do now.

 

Photizo,

You are saying that I will be condemned to hell for actually thinking about what you and others are selling? God cannot possibly be the monster that you think He is.

You can explain this little contradiction, can't you? I am not asking you to explain 100 of them or even 10. I am asking you to personally explain just the one mentioned at the beginning of this thread.

If you can explain it then please do. If you know the answer and you withhold it from me then you are cruel just like you think God is. Congratulations!

If you cannot explain this contradiction then you have absolutely no basis for condemning me at all, because the entire Bible then becomes untrustworthy and only the "Word of Man". But then again, you never have let that stop you from condemning another person so why should you let that stop you now?

Take Care!

 

We should Note that the men who were teaching these wrong view of Jesus were followers of the Pharises. The Pharises were known to violate the Law and punish based on the letter of the Law rather than show mercy. They had Jesus illegally brought to trial and executed on false charges. They're grasp of the law seems tenuous at best.

Instead of following the Law they and the rest of Israel became inflexible as to the law. God gave a command for all Hebrews to have the mark of circumcision to symbolize there dedication to him. The DEDICATION itself is what is eternal. A covenant is a deal made betwen two parties. We recognize even today that a treaty or covenant can be changed, ratified or amended to meet new needs. Only the Sabbath and binding nature of the Law Covenant were eternally binding. Somehow the Jews got the false impression that God's use of Isreal wouldn't change, that it wouldn't be adaptable. So what did they do? Instead of accepting the new arrangment they broke it.

We all know that Israel had a bad track record of on again off again service. at the point were Jesus was rejected they were once again in captivity...Roman captivity. So obviously they were doing something wrong. It's good to follow the Law but the course must be followed too. Israel didn't follow yet that deal breaking action didn't mean that God called it quits on Jesus original purpose of salvation.

So the deal is broken. These "bad men" couldn't recognize that. If you don't accept that you broke the treaty then you're stuck in that Covenant forever. Somehow they accepted Jesus but didn't realize there was a New Covenant. The whole Country Rejected the whole purpose of the Old Covenant. That was Jesus/Salvation. You don't follow both Covenants

That was the change they didn't accept. But they were told that he would come and what his purpose was. That's back in Genesis.
Once Jesus died for all sins there was no need kill goat and sheep on the alter anymore and they had a hard time with the change. This one of the many ways Israel failed to follow the directed course.

So the Law is broken. Does that make a person "evil" if they're telling people to follow the old Law and not to follow the New Covenant. Decidedly, Yes. When Laws in our world change we have an obligation to follow the stipulations of the New Law. The hard part was understanding if you should follow the Law. Apparently they accepted Jesus was were following the Old Law too. That was the confusion. Attempting to follow one and the other.


Timothy 3:16:
All Scripture is inspired of God and benificial for teach and reproving for setting things straight for disciplining in righteousness.

As the scripture indicates SetiAlpha...not every word every scripture. That includes examples of what to do and what not to do. Any time the scriptures tell the truth, good or bad, that is inspiration becase there is a dedication to the truth. The bible would be useless without it, you couldn't trust it. So not surprisingly it's not the first time someone didn't do as they were instructed. (Moses, Jonah, Adam, Eve, Paul, David, etc)

Was it an inspired action, NO. Is it inspired testimony to truth? Yes.

 

Bible news

in response to your question I give you a challenge, find any quote made by a man in the Bible then try and find a contradiction to it, you might be surprised at the % of conflicts you would find.

 

*************
M*W: The NT was written neither during Jesus's timeframe nor even right after. It is believed that the GMark was written around 70CE, GMatthew and GLuke were written around up to about 90CE, and GJohn from about 95-120CE. The Epistles of Paul were written prior to 70CE before the Gospels.

We have to remember, in the time of Jesus, people were illiterate peasants. Jesus allegedly didn't travel very far out of the region, even if he did live and manage to travel to Egypt, it really wasn't that far away. Their only media were words-of-mouth. I question the timeframe that the gospels were written. If Jesus was as well-known as christians believe he was, why did it take about 40 years after Jesus to write anything down about Jesus by someone who never even met Jesus (Paul)? Why did it take almost five centuries (late 300s CE) for the early church fathers to perpetuate this whole myth about Jesus? Even the village people didn't travel out of their own area as a rule. Another curiosity I am researching is the timeframe of the Jewish Rebellion (70CE) and the writing of the NT around the time Jerusalem fell. I think it is suspicious that the great Jewish historian Josephus doesn't say one word about the NT nor provided any references from it! He was a great communicator of the day, so why not mention the NT or preferably provide references from it like he does from the OT? However, some paragraphs about the Jesus myth do come up, but there are no references for these snippets... again only hearsay! Scholars think these snippets were just a propogation of the earlier myths and was forged in Josephus's works. I have an inkling that Josephus embellished his own writings.

The timeframe for Josephus's works is as follows:

(c.75CE) War of the Jews

(c.unknown) Josephus's Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades

(c.94CE) Antiquities of the Jews

(c.97CE) Flavius Josephus Against Apion

(c.99CE) The Life of Flavius Josephus

Josephus was on the side of the Romans, and was politically adopted into the Roman Flavian family. He died after the turn of the 2nd century. My point is that Josephus was writing at the very same time as Paul allegedly was, and both were Roman citizens living in Rome. Josephus helped both Titus and Vespasian sack Jerusalem in 70CE and returned to Rome victoriously with the Roman emperors. The research I've studied on this 'connection' is that scholars are now of the belief that Josephus may have also been the author of the Epistles and Gospels. Everytime I try to find a different connection to this theory, it always brings me back to this one.

Curiously, and in consideration of the info I provided above, could you explain why you believe Jesus existed, and why you believe Paul existed and wrote the books of the NT (Epistles, etc.)? I am asking you this so as to understand where you are coming from on the timeframe of these events, since the NT didn't exist during or even distantly in the future following Jesus's timeframe.

 

*************
M*W: The KJV is the more widely used English-speaking bible still in use today. I knew there were earlier English bibles, but when was the last time you saw one?

Also, if I make a mistake, I will own up to it, so to nit-pick my posts wastes everybody's time. Feel free to publically correct me, because I will research your contradictions. However, you seem to want to continually call me a liar, and I am going to report you to the mods for your disparaging remarks. In the meantime, I request you put me on Ignore, because you're just wasting my time. There are plenty of intelligent people on this forum who know who's telling the truth or not. In fact, your whole religion is based on lies. It is a myth, but you want to pick apart everything I say and call it a lie. Who's kidding who?

*************
M*W: I think everybody here is capable of missing minute details of information. What I meant by the KJV is that it was still being used whereas the earlier English versions are not. I am sorry you are too stupid to figure that out. I guess I'm just used to dealing with more intelligent people.

*************
M*W: There's a huge difference between what you read and what I read--apples and oranges.

*************
M*W: I'm sure we would all love to see your proof that Paul existed. Just because the bible says it does doesn't mean shit.

*************
M*W: So if Tacitus et al. wrote about Jesus, they too were propagating the myth. Now if anyone of these writers use biblical references, I might question this myself. But they don't. Selling christianity was a profitable business even back then! So, again, your words don't hold water.

*************
M*W: Again, this offers no proof that Jesus existed. It's just the proliferation of the earlier myth.

*************
M*W: I know you're new here, but you've stepped foot into your own lion's den. This passage from Josephus has been long proved to be a forgery.

*************
M*W: And that depends on where you getting your information from, and obviously, it's not the right place.

Do not answer any further posts of mine. I come here to read and learn and not to argue with idiots.

 

still obsessed with catholocism and sun gods hey medic

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.


peace.

 

*************
M*W: No, I'm just obsessed with the truth.

 

None of which were contemporary to the alleged Jesus. At least one of which is shown to probably be a forgery since the passage, which you quote later in that post, is out of context with the rest of his work. Even theological scholars have dismissed Josephus for that very reason.

Sorry. You're on your own. If your claims hold water, and you demonstrate them, his calling you liar only makes him look bad. Looking at his posts, I missed the word "liar," however.

 

An interesting contradiction in biblical mythology exists when the two genealogies of the alleged Jesus are compared (Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31). Clearly, the idea for each author was to show that his particular Jesus was descended from David. Clearly these two anonymous authors didn't know each other to get their stories straight first. The only common name between David and Jesus in these two genealogies is Joseph, the step-father.

I don't know of anyone who considers their step-parent's ancestors to be ancestors of their own. Either Jesus was stupid; he wasn't really the son of a god; or he didn't really exist to begin with.

 

Obessed with truth. An agreeable statement, true I would think for all men.

Word, law, truth, love, all refer to god. We're god obessed, because we know without him there is nothing. We say we learn to speak, but do not words come from the heart? Then are not we born with them? You say you believe, you believe, you believe, but what is this substance that causes it to be so? Who is this god, that confirms it?

You say I have studied, but what are those words you recieved? From where did they come. Who did make them?

Contridictions? How can there be language without it? How long will you suffer the contridiction of being told you're ingorant, when you hear by knowledge?
How long will you agree with those who deny reason by reason? How long before you would trust to come to yourself, and judge according to that which you were given, and acknowlegde it as such? How long will you avail your self to wretchedness?

In studying you have studied, but for what, to defend your ignorance? An if so from what?

All that you do, you do in faith. Who did show you to breath, and by what are the blind made to see? Judge for yourself where you stand, be your faith in life or death.

Their are no contridictions in the true scripture, only those who would believe, and in doing so stop themselves from hearing the word of life that would be spoken unto them.

(King James Version)
Proverbs 26
4Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

5Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

1 Corinthians 8

2And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet
as he ought to know.