Log In | Sign Up | Help
Upload_transparent

101 Contradictions In The Bible?

Twitter Facebook
  • Send This
  • Add_to_favs_transparent
  • Embed
  • Download
  • Flag
  • Add to Favorites

Scribd requires Javascript. Please enable Javascript in your browser.

Value This
Doc 		Scribd
Average
     
Pages: 36 43
Words: 16499 13640
Characters: 93695 81678
Lines: 160 623
     
     
Letters per word: 5.68 5.99
Words per line: 103.12 21.89
Words per page: 458.31 317.21

Document Information

43,542 Reads | 35 Likes | 77 Comments | 44 Favorites

Added By
Description

Does the Bible really have contradictions? In this document, we'll take a look at 101 "contradictions" ; in the Bible and explain how they're really not contradictions at all.

This document is in response to Sabir Ally's list of "101 Contradictions in The Bible"

Word_16x16 36 Pages

Date Added

03/10/2007
Category
Tags
Groups

ALL RELIGIONS, 101, Bible, Business, Life & Spirituality Ebooks ..., MBA-PEC-VRK, MY FAVES, Religion_Trip, Religious, Religious Books, Silverfox Library , Soldiers of Christ, The Unitarianism Database, wisdom-Iran Group_add

Awards

Flame Hot

Copyright

Attribution Non-commercial

More info »

 

Comments

Login or Signup to Leave a Comment

Showing 1-20 of 77 comments

1 2 3 4 Next » Last »
imtiazq 2 months ago

Hi there, Luke claims that 'Gospel of Luke' is merely a history book written along with others based on what he heard from some sources - no divine inspiration involved. Reference - Luke 1:1-4

Now, if there is no divine inspiration involved, why studying this book to get closer to The Divine Entity? It doesnt make much sense to me.

Another point, may be off topic, if your religion is the true religion of God, what name God gave to your religion?

I dont meant to offend anyone here (honestly), just some points that distracted me from Jesusianity

regards
Q

Mormon-Quill 3 months ago

The four gospels were not written by four apostles.

John marc and Luke were not apostles. Matthew and John alone of the evangelists were apostles.

You seem to be unaware of the possibility of 'Q' and of the literary dependency shared by Matthew and Luke on Mark's rescension of 'Q.'

The four accounts were not merely remembrances of the life of Jesus and his doings. Each gospeller wrote with a distinct purpose and for discreted target audiences.

Apostle Matthew writes for his Judaic brethren and so quotes from tnk to demonstrate that Jesus fufills the promises made about the Messiah that is to come.

Physician Luke wrote for gentiles - himself a gentile of Greece - and appeals to reason to make his case, for he knows the Hellenic mindset.

Companion of Peter John Marc did little more than catalogue the stories of and about Jesus, neatly, and according to place, for example, 'by the sea shore,' &c. He is thought to represent Peter's view of Jesus, and also to have consulted the 'speculative' source dopcument, 'Quelle' called 'Q' for short. Some scholars posit a document earlier than Q on which Q was dependant.

It is evident that Matthew and Luke have profound leaning on Mark's account, because they elaboratye what he wrote, and have their materials slightly in different order, but overall from the same perspective, hence, synoptic, having the same or a similar view.

The Fourth Gospel is another matter entirely. It is the last book in the NT to have been written, later than Revelation.

John's purpose [if it is written by John the apostle] is to correct a disturbing trend in the Church at the end of the first century of the Common Era.

Without delving deeply into the mnay probloems the church had at this time, one was that the Jesus that died on the Cross was a phantom, and not really Man-God [or God-man].

John sets out to resore belief in the humanity of Jesus whilst keeping his divinity shining bright. In 4G the writer's purpose is not to describe what happened, but to illuminate the puspose of what happened. It has been called 'The Book of Signs,' having, it is said, seven signs that prove the Divinity of Christ, the power of God with which his Father had endowed with him.

Nevertheless, there are significant departures from the common path as, for example, how long Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem, and whether 'the last supper' was a Pesach meal, or whether it took place the day before.

John is widely at cvariance with the synopticists on these two,and other, historic points.

One further thjing [among many] where John wanders off by himself is in the case of his introduction of 'realised eschatology.'

It is obvious from your writing that you have zeal to defend your faith. However, and I do not say this in any way to offend or insult, but your zeal is not accompanied by knowledge of the Bible in an equ...

ronross 4 months ago

It seems important to you to maintain that there were 14 generations between Babylon and Jesus (#32) But you ignore the incorrect use of "14" generations to describe the period between David and the captivity in Babylon. As you yourself note in #30 , some were left out of Matthew's list. This may not be simply to arrive at the number 14. Those left out of the genealogy were Joram, only surviving son of Jehosphat, Ahaziah, only surviving son of Joram, Joash, the only surviving son of Ahaziah, and Amaziah, son of Joash and father of Uzziah. (see 2nd Chronicles 21-26) The reason for this may be so that Matthew can include a tirade in chapter 25 in which he accuses the ancestors of scribes and Pharisees of killing the prophet Zechariah "between the temple and the altar." In fact, It was actually Jesus' own ancestor Joash who killed Zechariah between the temple and the altar. In any case there were 18 generations between David and Babylon.

zakiii 8 months ago

hi there..
i agree with you wich it exist some contradiction in "bibles".. but the problem what bibles do you talking about??!!!
so.. i think wich you must take a look in a bible name's "SAINT CORAN", the bible of the islam rligion frind.

dc1989 10 months ago

Yes the contradictions were resolved by men REWRITING THE TEXT, to fit and make sense. It should of never been revised in the first place. and yes corrected into what <i>they want you to believe</i> and the only way relgion appeases to anyone is because VAST RICHES, paradise, or virgins are promised, sounds kind of humanely doesn't it?

Divus 10 months ago

A lot of questions can be solved in the New Testament,
reading the book of Francesco Carotta.
http://www.carotta.de

arshie 11 months ago

It is good to see that we have something in common. Maybe some time you can tell me about it.

Yes, what I have told you is Islam.

God summarizes the purpose of life in Quran 67:1-2 "Blessed is He in Whose hand is the Sovereignty, and, He is Able to do all things. Who hath created life and death that He may try you which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Forgiving". To Muslim, this life is a testing ground. The scoring of which is done on the basis of deeds. And the reward of which will be given by the Creator on the day of Judgement.

To a Muslim, for the Creator to be pleased and happy with him is the utmost achievement. This is what a Muslim strives for to earn the acceptance of his Creator. And when the Creator is pleased he blesses his servants with endless bounties. Those who believe in the Oneness of God and are righteous would earn His pleasure. Any other rewards that come along the way in Paradise are an added advantage. Such as a perfect social life that you Dennis dream of, infact much better than that, everlasting life, happiness, peace, luxuary, absence of pain, anguish and suffering. These are the motivation factors (from hereafter) for a Muslim. There are worldly motivations as well, which I will write about in due course of time.

The torment of hereafter is certainly a deterrant from transgressing the Quranic Law. A person might escape and avoid the punishment for his wrong doing in this world. But, when he is Judged by the Creator from whom nothing is hidden, all accounts will be settled in full. God says in Al-Quran 99:6-8: "That day mankind will issue forth in scattered groups to be shown their deeds. And whoso doeth good an atom's weight will see it then, And whoso doeth ill an atom's weight will see it then.". The judgment is also mentioned in Al-Quran 101:4-11: "A day wherein mankind will be as thickly-scattered moths And the mountains will become as carded wool. Then, as for him whose scales are heavy (with good works), He will live a pleasant life. But as for him whose scales are light, Will have his home in a (bottomless) Pit. And what will make you know what it is? (It is) a Fire Blazing fiercely!".

I shall write about the aspect of God's law implementation on earth that deters people from committing injustice at a later time.

Thanks

den3 11 months ago

very interesting. thank you, you did a great job of explaining. it seams that we both have almost the same ideas. just some of mine tend to blend with other religions but this is very much like what i belive. you said this is Islam, correct?

what i am confused by is this. Every one needs a motivation to live, and is this motivation a chance to see the Creator? also is the threat of the Lord punishing them a some-what safe guard to keep the people in order?

thanks alot, i'll post again soon. dennis

arshie 11 months ago

.. continued ..

This is a true democratic system woven within the fabric of Islam, which gives people freedom to implement matters within the limits prescribed by God. And the greatness and Oneness of God with the responsibility of personal accountability on the day of judgement makes righteous people stay on the straight track.

A righteous Muslim is like a bird with two wings. One wing of Hope that God the most merciful and most forgiving will forgive him and grand his a place in paradise where he would be able to see his Creator. Another wing of fear that God the most Just would punish him for his wrong doings. The result of excessive wrong is hell-fire. And worst of all it is the feeling that one might never ever able to know who created him to start with.

arshie 11 months ago

..continued...

"That no laden one shall bear another's load, And that man hath only that for which he maketh effort, And that his effort will be seen. And afterward he will be repaid for it with fullest payment; That to thy Lord is the final Goal;" Al-Quran 53:38-42. It states that every person is responsible for his own actions. One person cannot be held accountable for anothers persons deeds. There is no original sin. Every child is born sinless, with a clean slate. Everyone would be rewarded upon resurrection after death. And the reward would be eternal life in Paradise, or an eternal life in Hell-fire.

Above is regarding the accounting in the hereafter.

While Quran clearly states the prohibitions of stealing, lying, cheating, backbiting, slandering, murdering, committing indecency etc. Which are important for safeguarding the peaceful operationg of a society. It also tells us how to create an environment where people do not commit the prohibited actions that would cause chaos in the society. For instance, God command in Quran not to steal, or not to take anything from anyone without permission. And inorder to create an environment that would prevent people from stealing God commands in Quran to give 2.5% of ones annual saving to the people in the neighborhood who are in need of it. This social wellfare system reduces the problem of "theft out of necessity". And if anyone has what he needs and he steals because of greed. Then there is a criminal punishment which warns, flogs, or chops of the hands depending on the seriousness of the theft.

In terms of murder. God says in Holy Quran 5:32 "If anyone murders an (innocent) person, it will be as if he has murdered the whole of humanity. And if anyone saves a person it will be as if he has saved the whole of humanity.". This prohibits killing of innocent people. In order to establish a state of justice in the society God says in Al-Quran 17:33: "Nor take life, which Allah has made sacred, except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, We have given his heir authority (to demand Qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the law). Again, the prohibition is accompanied but a punishment and bounds. While God allows the killing or forgiving of a murderer, He also tells that it is only the right of the relatives of close ones who get to decide, and that they can only punish the criminal and not anyone else and neither in any other manner.

The list of such prohibitions, methods of arbitration in this world, limits in arbitration and recompense in the hereafter is comprehensive in Islam and Quran and Ahadith cover all the aspects of human beings personal, social, financial, legal, humanitarian and military affiars in great detail.

This is a true democratic system woven within the fabric of Islam, which gives people freedom to implement matters wi...

arshie 11 months ago

Brother Dennis,

I pray that you you get well soon.

I am not an expert on Bible. A Bible Scholar would be a better person to ask this question to. But I do know the Islamic stand on this matter.

Everything in Islam has its basis on the Oneness of God. In Islam there are no ifs and buts about Oneness of God. In Al-Quran Chapter 112, God tells of Himself:

Say: He is God, One and Only.
God, The Absolute, The Eternal.
He Begets not Nor is He Begotten.
And there is absolutely nothing even remotely similar to Him.

In other words He is Supreme, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Seeing, most-forgiving, most-merciful, ever existent, independant, uncomparable.

In Islam all human beings are created equal. Islam absolutely negates the concept of superiority of any nation, race, class or sect over another. This is evident from Holy Quran:

"O Mankind, We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is he who is the most righteous of you" (Quran 49:13).

This verse not only addresses Muslims but the whole of mankind as a single greater brotherhood. The criteria of superiority in the sight of God is not race, class or wealth, it is God consciousness. The fact that God divided men in different nations, colors and tribes is not wrong, rather it is a sign.

"And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colors. Verily, in that are indeed signs for those who know" [Quran 30:22]).

The injunctions of Quran are further emphasized by the last prophet of Islam, Muhammad (peace be upon him) throughout his life and specially during his last sermon: "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black, nor a black has any superiority over a white- except by piety and good action."

And this concept of universal brother is practically implemented 5 times a day in the Mosques, streets and houses around the world during Salaah (prayers), where rich, poor, scholars, illiterates, all colors stand shoulder to shoulder and prostate together with humility. Universal brotherhood is further practically demonstrated when 2.5% of annual wealth is distributed to the needy in the community.

In Islam there are no intermedieries to God and no one can forgive anyones sins on behalf of God. God is most forgiving most merciful, and closest to Human being, more closer to him than his jugular vein according to Quran. But God is the most Just. And it is out of his Justice that everyone would be held accountable, rewarded and punished.

"That no laden one shall bear another's load, And that man hath only that for which he maketh effort,...

den3 11 months ago

firstly, thanks for hoping that im in good health but i just resently got into a terrible axident with ha miter saw :( but thats beside the point.

any way, the society i envision is actualy some what of a socialist/communist like society. where most property is shared. so a local organisiation would be fairly easy for a group of people to establish. also i belive in a thing called the common knowledge. its basicaly where knowledge is shared without governmet censorship. so in common knowledge, say if a ufo was sigted, the government would not be able to kidnap the sighter and tell him that ufo's dont exist and if he ever speeks of what he saw he, his family, and his friends will be killed. ( i know its a exagurated example but i think it proves my point better). this " common knowledge " would VERY efectively moniter the amount of power that the local government has.

also your right, its human nature to get caried away with power. their are the very few rare people ( like me) who would refuse the oportunity to have mass power. and i think those people should be in charge. george washington was a person like this, and probably the one and only " good" president of the u.s. people like this are very eisily distinguished by their personality, interests, and emotions. and i think that a few well educated people who study this kind of stuf ( sorry i dont know what this branch of science is called) could eisily distinguish these people as children and give them the oportunity to have some amounts of power over others.

what im wondering though ( this gose back a few posts) is how the bible explains these questions.
such as how a soverign person wouldent become a savage with power. and how a person is puished for thei crimes?

arshie 11 months ago

Hi Dennis, I hope that you are in the best of health and spirit. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. I agree with you on the money front. However, I think that the problem that we have with money would still exist even if money was not there. Money is just another representation of wealth or value. If we look back at history when banks had not taken over the lives of people , the situation was not so bad as it is today. But, even with trade system people still had this urge to gather more of valuable items such as grain, sheep, horses, gold etc. And crimes were committed, although to a lesser degree.

So, in my opinion, removing money and going back to trade based system will certainly lower "greed of wealth" related crimes, but not eliminate them completely.

Local governance is a good idea. Issues can be settled much more quickly without too much of a red tape. But again the question arises: How would the rules of a community be defined? In other words how would the equivalent of a scaled down constitution be achieved? How would the community arrive at these rules. Such are the questions which come to my mind when I think of this situation. Would it be similar to the democratic process we have today, which is ofcourse not so democratic any more. The one with more guns has the biggest mouth.

The concept of "sovereignty belongs to people" is running wild and unleashed without knowing any morality or respect for humanity. How can the micro community concept prevent "sovereign people" from becoming savages?

den3 11 months ago

state came to compete in long boat races. so the raes were held last week i and some friends went to watch and it was fun, i lost 10$ in a bet though. anyway, yesterday i read this arcicle in the newspaper about how someone had found out about under the table deals doune to set the winers of that race. so i just ask myself the question why someone would do that. wouldent the world be so much better if people like that were somewhere else? ill explain the whole story if you want in another post later.

dennis.l

den3 11 months ago

ok, i like your idea. and ill see what i can do to to answer your question for you later.

well im sure that similarites would be in the moral ethics section or lives. most of us belive in the basic ethics such as, not killing anyone, not stealing, and not lieing. so you might think that ost anarchists shoulr regect this because it sounds like ruels. but i think of it more as guide lines not to get into trouble.

so to your question, your right, that is one of the most confusing aspects of individual freedom. so first il try to explain why your proposed situation is very unlikely. i think its safe to say that all crimes happen for a reason, and 90% of the time those reasones can be linked back to one or more of the folowing.
1) money
2) authority
3) ownership of property
4) because it is required to fit into a group
5) or poverty
i personlaly think that money is the most corupt thing in the world. money is just terrible. people with more can control others lives, while people with less can barely live at all. people kill eachother for it, and some spend their lives working to get more of it. so i would like to live in a society where their is no, so to speek, money. more a trade system. a trade system would also bring the benefit of people being able to value their possesions more acurately.

ok, so asuming that their was a crime commited, the one who was ofended with the crime if it is serious enough should organise a group of his friends who are wlling to help him and try to solve it them selves. also i think that a small local governing organisation can exist. its purpose would be to think over problems that concern the people in the town or area. if say a group of people from another country were visiting then this organisation would take acre of a tour, places for them to stay and the such. this group however would also be in charge of organising a millitary or resistance force against posible hostile invaders.

so you could take your problem to them, but that would be making you dependent on the governing body. you could ask them for help, maybe axess to some files that would help you or if they know somone who could help then they could arange a meating for the two of you.
I know that without laws and ruels new problem will result that will be harder to solve without such a tightly organised comunity but i think that ruels can to some extent exist, thats not so terrible. what im looking for is the will of people to want to escape those laws and ruels if they start to pose a problem for you. as you said people are very diferent many with diferent interests, so the person who is a woodworker realy dosent care about the laws that consern fireworks, whereas the person with pyrotechnic interests will have many problems with firework laws.

here is a interesting story kindof off the subject but anyway. last weeks, in my city we had a event where 120 groups from around the s...

arshie 11 months ago

I would like to propose a way forward for our discussion. Do do let me know f you would like to suggest an alternate format. I think it would be fair to all parties to discuss similarities in in our beliefs, codes and scriptures. As for the dissimilarities, we can agree to disagree and resolve them later if possible. With this approach we can have the fruit of a common platform without displeasing anyone.

Thank you brother dennis for sharing your thought with us. Individual freedom is indeed one of the most important aspects of human life. But is "individual freedom" the only ingredient thats required for a peaceful existence of human biengs? I agree with you that in a perfect situation where every person only minds his own life, this can be a good way. But we human biengs come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, colors, moods, generosity, hospitality and mischeif. Some people are more mischevious that others.

For example. Have you observed how siblings love and care for one another. Yet, they learn the weak points of one another and find some sort of pleasure in teasing the other. While one cries, the other gets a laugh. Similarly this behavior of mischeif is found among grownups as well.

Suppose we are living in such a perfect society based on "individual freedom" and there are no rules being enforced upon anyone. How does "individual freedom" alone handle a situation where one person hurts someone. Hurting can occur in the form of physical or phsycological trauma. Even as financial loss or property damage.

Lets say now that something needs to be done to resolve this conflict. Then the question arises, "Who gets to decide how the situation is resolved, and why?".

den3 12 months ago

right, i thought that trying to understand a religion from its folowers might create problems.
so i think going back to its sorce is a better thing to try.

den3 12 months ago

yeah, im ok with den3. im actualy named dennis but the screen name was taken already.

well, you could say through a basic summary that im the kind of person who belives that every humman being is equal and should have no limits or restrictions to his actions other than what he himself belives.

so many people say that that would bring chaos and pandemonium to the world, and that may be true is a suden transition is made from todays society to one which i think is better.

so what i belive, hmm

i belive that everyone is entiteled to govern their own actions and that no other person should have the authority to tell you what to do.

that dose not apply to those who are trying to help you, and only you.

the problem i see is that if somone tries to help a majority then their will still be a minority that is unhappy with the authoritiy's actions.
so what i think is that if no one were dependant upon a authority then this problem would siec to exist.

sorry if thats hard to understand, i did a verry poor job of wording my thoughts.

so as i said in my previous post i realy think that the idea of a governmnt is wrong but just this morning i started to think about how what the government dose kindof ties in with what a religion dose. and so i started to think that maybe religion was also somthing that should be destroyed. but then i realised that if that is what the person chose to belive then he is only exersising his freedoms.

is summary i have nothing against religions as i do agains government.
so now im on a quest to more understand this confusing phenomanon of why so many people chose to, as i read somwhere in these posts, give themselves or their soul to god, because isnt that basicaly distroying your freedom ??

sorry as i said im having troubel puting my thoughts into words.

if you have any question go ahead and ask, i think il be better of answering a small question instead of trying to explain a whole major philosophical idea.

dennis

arshie 12 months ago

Hi den3. I hope you dont mind if I address you as such. You are more than welcome to join in. In this thread we are trying to understand the origin, authenticity, teachings, contradictions of bible as it has evolved over time. We are not focusing on any group of people because most of the time people do not tend to follow the scriptures sincerely. Therefore judging a belief or religion by its followers can result in an incorrect conclusion. Therefore we are only focusing on the original sources that are the scriptures. I follow the tenets of Islam with Quran as the scripture. Brother Jedi Ninja is a Jehovah's Witness, if I am not mistaken. Forgive me if I got that wrong.

Please do tell us about yourself. I have never talked to an Anarchist (i hope you dont mind). Do let me know if there is another term that refers to your set of beliefs. Also tell us if there is a set of codes, tenets or rules that you try or strive to adhere to.

May this discussion bring us all closer to the truth.

den3 12 months ago

oh also, if somone has the time can they give me a quic summary of cristianity.
because i know that you belive their is a god and his son jesus that died on a cross, and you dont like jews and some other stuff. but im mostly interested in how the theory of god explains things. i just dont think that " it is gods will" realy is a desent explanation to anything.

Showing 1-20 of 77 comments

1 2 3 4 Next » Last »