I found some on http://quinnell.us/religion/reasons/contradictions.html
Who here can explain that they are not contradictions?
Bible contradictions
contradictions
I have been through this argument with others before. It is difficult to keep on topic and understandable with a long list of supposed contradictions. The post just gets too long. Choose one, and I will try to explain it. After that we are both satisfied, try another. It is just too unweildly to try to do more than one at a time.
Ray
Ray
-
AttentionKMartShoppers
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2163
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Location: Austin, Texas
- Contact:
I'm sorry, that site is lying. I looked up the two verses for the first one...and it's a lie! lol
Acts 9:7 says that when Jesus called Paul to preach the gospel, the men who were with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. However, Acts 22:9 asserts that when Paul received his calling, the men who were with him saw a light but did not hear the voice that spoke to Paul.
Acts 9 Read This Chapter
9:7
The men who traveled with him stood R467 speechless, hearing R468 the voice F205 but seeing no one.
Acts 22 Read This Chapter
22:9
"And those who were with me saw R1357 the light, to be sure, but did R1358 not understand F503 the voice of the One who was speaking to me.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
Yeah, the one about the angels at the tomb is false tooAttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I'm sorry, that site is lying. I looked up the two verses for the first one...and it's a lie! lol
Acts 9:7 says that when Jesus called Paul to preach the gospel, the men who were with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. However, Acts 22:9 asserts that when Paul received his calling, the men who were with him saw a light but did not hear the voice that spoke to Paul.Acts 9 Read This Chapter
9:7
The men who traveled with him stood R467 speechless, hearing R468 the voice F205 but seeing no one.Acts 22 Read This Chapter
22:9
"And those who were with me saw R1357 the light, to be sure, but did R1358 not understand F503 the voice of the One who was speaking to me.
-
BGoodForGoodSake
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2127
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Washington D.C.
What do you mean?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I'm sorry, that site is lying. I looked up the two verses for the first one...and it's a lie! lol
7The men with Saul stood there speechless. They had heard the voice, but they had not seen anyone.
9The men who were traveling with me saw the light, but did not hear the voice.
In many versions of the bible the contradiction exists.
It's not a lie, this is a case of bad translation.
Refer to NIV to get the best translation, refer to greek to get the real meaning.
Don't be so dismissive the truth is the truth.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
-
AttentionKMartShoppers
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2163
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Location: Austin, Texas
- Contact:
Well, bad translations will have bad translations...
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
Acts 9:7 says that when Jesus called Paul to preach the gospel, the men who were with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. However, Acts 22:9 asserts that when Paul received his calling, the men who were with him saw a light but did not hear the voice that spoke to Paul.
===========================================
by Bumbulis, Smith, and White
The original Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message. Haley notes "The Greek "akouo", like our word "hear", has two distinct meanings, to perceive sound, and to understand". This distinction makes sense also in light of the context. Recall the differing levels of perception. While the men heard an unintelligible sound and saw a light, Paul heard the voice and saw the person speaking. In fact, this type of distinction occurs in another place:
"Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it
again". The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him" [John 12:28-29]. Here is a clear-cut example where a voice speaks, but is heard by some as an unintelligible sound.
The problem with the skeptic's approach is that it assumes these accounts are exhaustive, step by step, accounts where each detail is conveyed. They are not. It's not as if the author of Acts is saying "this is how it happened" three separate times. The author does this once, and the other two times he relays Paul speaking about it in two different contexts. Now given that the author wasn't on the road to Damascus, and given that Paul was speaking from memory, and given that none of these are meant to be some exhaustive, detailed, point by point description, it is indeed wise to fit them all together. Furthermore, the account in Acts 26 relays a speech that Paul gave to King Agrippa which was only a synopsis. Acts 26 simply relays the manner in which Paul chose to convey his points.
===========================================
by Bumbulis, Smith, and White
The original Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message. Haley notes "The Greek "akouo", like our word "hear", has two distinct meanings, to perceive sound, and to understand". This distinction makes sense also in light of the context. Recall the differing levels of perception. While the men heard an unintelligible sound and saw a light, Paul heard the voice and saw the person speaking. In fact, this type of distinction occurs in another place:
"Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it
again". The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him" [John 12:28-29]. Here is a clear-cut example where a voice speaks, but is heard by some as an unintelligible sound.
The problem with the skeptic's approach is that it assumes these accounts are exhaustive, step by step, accounts where each detail is conveyed. They are not. It's not as if the author of Acts is saying "this is how it happened" three separate times. The author does this once, and the other two times he relays Paul speaking about it in two different contexts. Now given that the author wasn't on the road to Damascus, and given that Paul was speaking from memory, and given that none of these are meant to be some exhaustive, detailed, point by point description, it is indeed wise to fit them all together. Furthermore, the account in Acts 26 relays a speech that Paul gave to King Agrippa which was only a synopsis. Acts 26 simply relays the manner in which Paul chose to convey his points.
Oh, the angels at the tomb? That's no problem! 
At least if one has common sense. But that's only half the battle. The other half is using what one has. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gospel writers seem to report different "beings" at the tomb. Matthew reports "an angel." Mark reports "a young man." Luke reports "two men." John reports "two angels." Do these accounts conflict concerning the nature of the beings reported—i.e., were they earthly men or heavenly angels? How do we respond to the critics who claim these accounts conflict?
When the Gospel writers refer to angels as men, they are describing how the angels appeared to them. Whenever angels appear to men in the Scriptures, they are almost always said to take the form of men. Nor is this surprising; it seems to be a deliberate attempt to reduce the anxiety level of those they contact. But they may reveal that they are angels in some unique way as they did in Matthew 28:2-3 or they may keep their angelic nature entirely hidden, as is plain from Hebrews 13:2. Therefore, it is not contradictory for the four Gospel writers to refer to the angels as men or as angels. Both are correct.
Regardless, Matthew specifically states it was an angel of the Lord. When angels are described as men, there is really little doubt as to the angelic nature of the men.
Luke, although describing their appearance as "men," also clearly identifies them as angels for he notes they were "in clothes that gleamed like lightning." Throughout the Bible angels are many times described as "men." In fact, sometimes in the very same passage angels are first described as "men" and later as "angels."
The Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, refer to angels in this way. It is not unique to these passages. Any critic who says this is a contradiction has not read the rest of the Bible (Genesis 18:1-3,22; 19:1,5,11-13,15; Judges 13:3,8,9-11,13; Luke 2:9-10; Hebrews 13:2).
We must remember that both Matthew and Mark are dealing with the same event. But neither writer is obligated to include every detail.
Mark simply refers to the fact that there is an angel the women encounter sitting on the right side who proceeds to give them a message. Mark compresses the story here as Matthew has done in places in his account. Luke, on the other hand, supplies more details about this event. He states in addition to the angel that speaks, there is a second angel present. Apparently the second angel does not say anything.
Concerning the number of angels recorded by Luke (two) and Matthew and Mark (one) Wenham states:
It should be said once and for all that the mention by one evangelist of two angels and by another of one does not constitute a contradiction or discrepancy.
If there were two, there was one. When learned critics make heavy weather about the accuracy of such accounts, they lack common sense. Contradiction would only be created if the writer who mentioned the one should go on to say explicitly that there was only one.
In a scene where one person is the chief speaker or actor it would often be perfectly natural to omit reference to the irrelevant fact that he had a companion.... It needs to be remembered that we are dealing with two descriptions of an event, and not with two witnesses replying to cross examination.
If witnesses, who had been in the tomb at the same time, had been asked independently, "Precisely how many men did you see?" and had given different answers, that would have shown one or the other to be unreliable. But these witnesses are not answering the question "How many?", they are giving (as all descriptions must be) incomplete descriptions of a complex event.6
In conclusion, even though Matthew, Mark and Luke have recorded differing details concerning the number of angels and their activities, the accounts do not contradict. Rather, they are complementary. Again, this does not show collusion but rather truthfulness in reporting. The writers have merely reported the events selectively, as all writers do.
Yet contemporary critics continue to discount what the Scriptures report concerning the story of the angels who were present at the Resurrection.
By Dr John Ankerberg & Dr. John Weldon
At least if one has common sense. But that's only half the battle. The other half is using what one has. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gospel writers seem to report different "beings" at the tomb. Matthew reports "an angel." Mark reports "a young man." Luke reports "two men." John reports "two angels." Do these accounts conflict concerning the nature of the beings reported—i.e., were they earthly men or heavenly angels? How do we respond to the critics who claim these accounts conflict?
When the Gospel writers refer to angels as men, they are describing how the angels appeared to them. Whenever angels appear to men in the Scriptures, they are almost always said to take the form of men. Nor is this surprising; it seems to be a deliberate attempt to reduce the anxiety level of those they contact. But they may reveal that they are angels in some unique way as they did in Matthew 28:2-3 or they may keep their angelic nature entirely hidden, as is plain from Hebrews 13:2. Therefore, it is not contradictory for the four Gospel writers to refer to the angels as men or as angels. Both are correct.
Regardless, Matthew specifically states it was an angel of the Lord. When angels are described as men, there is really little doubt as to the angelic nature of the men.
Luke, although describing their appearance as "men," also clearly identifies them as angels for he notes they were "in clothes that gleamed like lightning." Throughout the Bible angels are many times described as "men." In fact, sometimes in the very same passage angels are first described as "men" and later as "angels."
The Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, refer to angels in this way. It is not unique to these passages. Any critic who says this is a contradiction has not read the rest of the Bible (Genesis 18:1-3,22; 19:1,5,11-13,15; Judges 13:3,8,9-11,13; Luke 2:9-10; Hebrews 13:2).
We must remember that both Matthew and Mark are dealing with the same event. But neither writer is obligated to include every detail.
Mark simply refers to the fact that there is an angel the women encounter sitting on the right side who proceeds to give them a message. Mark compresses the story here as Matthew has done in places in his account. Luke, on the other hand, supplies more details about this event. He states in addition to the angel that speaks, there is a second angel present. Apparently the second angel does not say anything.
Concerning the number of angels recorded by Luke (two) and Matthew and Mark (one) Wenham states:
It should be said once and for all that the mention by one evangelist of two angels and by another of one does not constitute a contradiction or discrepancy.
If there were two, there was one. When learned critics make heavy weather about the accuracy of such accounts, they lack common sense. Contradiction would only be created if the writer who mentioned the one should go on to say explicitly that there was only one.
In a scene where one person is the chief speaker or actor it would often be perfectly natural to omit reference to the irrelevant fact that he had a companion.... It needs to be remembered that we are dealing with two descriptions of an event, and not with two witnesses replying to cross examination.
If witnesses, who had been in the tomb at the same time, had been asked independently, "Precisely how many men did you see?" and had given different answers, that would have shown one or the other to be unreliable. But these witnesses are not answering the question "How many?", they are giving (as all descriptions must be) incomplete descriptions of a complex event.6
In conclusion, even though Matthew, Mark and Luke have recorded differing details concerning the number of angels and their activities, the accounts do not contradict. Rather, they are complementary. Again, this does not show collusion but rather truthfulness in reporting. The writers have merely reported the events selectively, as all writers do.
Yet contemporary critics continue to discount what the Scriptures report concerning the story of the angels who were present at the Resurrection.
By Dr John Ankerberg & Dr. John Weldon
The Bible has many seeming contradictions within its pages. For example, the four Gospels give four differing accounts as to what was written on the sign that hung on the cross. Matthew said, “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37). However, Mark contradicts that with “The King of the Jews” (15:26). Luke says something different: “This is the King of the Jews” (23:38 ), and John maintains that the sign said “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews” (19:19).
Those who are looking for contradictions may therefore say, “See—the Bible is full of mistakes!” and choose to reject it entirely as being untrustworthy. However, those who trust God have no problem harmonizing the Gospels. There is no contradiction if the sign simply said, “This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.”
The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).
By-the evidence bible
Those who are looking for contradictions may therefore say, “See—the Bible is full of mistakes!” and choose to reject it entirely as being untrustworthy. However, those who trust God have no problem harmonizing the Gospels. There is no contradiction if the sign simply said, “This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.”
The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).
By-the evidence bible
Re: Bible contradictions
They aren't contradictions. You simply haven't read them carefully. In genesis 1:27, God says that he created male and female. In Genesis 2:22-23, God explains how and when he did this.Jay_7 wrote:I found some on http://quinnell.us/religion/reasons/contradictions.html
Who here can explain that they are not contradictions?
Jesus did not bear the iniquity of his Father. He didn't have children.
There is no contradiction about the animals led into Noah's ark. God told him to bring two of every sort (meaning male and female) and he described how they should be led into the ark.
I can't remember the others because I have no access to them while replying to you. But you are reading the bible with human wisdom, not spiritual wisdom, so there is only one way in which you can see it. Because humans are fallible, we will always overlook many other possibilities and zero in on one. So I suggest that when you read the bible, instead of claiming it's contradictory, ask God to show you the meaning. Then your mind will open up to possibilities that only God can see, not humans. Only the indwelling Holy Spirit can give us the knowledge of God's meaning.
