Well, Yorick, here's the professor who spent several weeks of class focusing on the gospels, including contradictions between them:
http://www.centre.edu/web/academic/f...ccollough.html

There is nothing wrong with contradiction in the Bible. As in the modern day, everyone who encountered Jesus took away their own interpretations of what he taught them. And, people's memories, recollections, and recounting of events are never 100%. The contradictions do not necessarily invalidate the Bible.

A quick alltheweb.com search for "bible contradictions" turned up numerous sites, many in fact debunking the contradictions notions. It has been debated for years by many learned folks. You'll forgive me if I don't elevate you above all the others. Worship no false idols and all that.

While I don't really have the time to be doing this right now, you have at least prompted intellectual curiosity, Yorick.

I found this interesting:
_______________________________________________
(excerpt_

Contradictions

--If there is any area in which the Bible's imperfections and errancy is most apparent, it is that of inconsistencies and contradictions. The book is a veritable miasma of contradictory assertions and obvious disagreements, which is to be expected in any writing formulated over approximately 1,500 years by 40 or 50 different writers, few of whom seemed to be precisely concerned with what the others had penned. Moreover, the highly repetitive nature of the Bible accounts for many of the conflicts. It would have been far better for those attempting to defend the Book if, for example Deuteronomy had not repeated so much of Exodus, Chronicles had not repeated so much of Samuel and Kings, and the gospels had not been so repetitious. But they do repeat and, thus, problems exist. Yet, despite all historical, mathematical, ethical, philosophical, geographical, and chronological difficulties contained therein, some die-hard fundamentalists carry their hopelessly doomed resistance to the bitter end. As incredible as it may seem, there are some individuals who still say, "The Bible is perfect and inerrant. There are no inaccuracies." So, for the benefit of these holdouts, I am going to provide a list of some simple, straight-forward problems that even some well-known spokesmen for the fundamentalist position grudgingly concede:

(a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;
(b) Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign;
(c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:8), 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:8), 3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);
(d) There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;
(e) There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs of the officers that bare the rule over the people;
(f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;
(g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);
(h) Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);
(i) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);
(j) Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000 (1 Kings 7:26), 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:5) baths;
(k) The workers on the Temple had 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16), 3,600 (2 Chron. 2:18) overseers;
(l) The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth forever;
(m) If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true (John 8:14), is not true (John 5:31);
(n) Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 35:24);
(o) Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:28) days;
(p) Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh (2 Kings 25:8), tenth (Jer. 52:12) day of the fifth month.

Besides hundreds of singular contradictions, the Bible has several instances in which contradictory statements appear in blocks or groups of anywhere from 10 to 25. The numerous problems associated with the Resurrection show this quite well (See: BE #2). Probably the most blatant example concerns the listings in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 of the family units of the returning exiles. There are about 33 units that appear in both lists, starting with the children of Parosh. Fourteen of these units disagree, as can be seen by simply reading down the lists and comparing the numbers. Moreover, Biblical writers often had difficulty in adding figures, and this instance is no exception. Ezra 2:64 says the whole congregation together was 42, 360, whereas, one need only add the figures to see that it is actually 29,818. Neh. 7:66 says the total number of returnees was 42,360, whereas, the actual number of people listed in Nehemiah 7 is 31,089.


REVIEWS

For many years apologists have been using a wide assortment of rationalizations and justifications to explain away obvious contradictions or inaccuracies in Scripture. Many have become masters of distortion, prevarication, and obfuscation, often going as far to make that which is patently false on its face seem rational, if not extraordinarily wise. They have developed an ability to make that which is irrational and absurd seem sensible and profound. The noted Biblical scholar J.T. Sunderland said it well:

Men (theologians-ed) allow themselves conveniently to drop into the background some of the more incredible or objectional things which the books contain; they develop a marvelous facility in explaining away contradictions and inaccuracies and things which the increase of knowledge has shown not to be true, and in reading into the books in a thousand places all sorts of new meanings and so-called "deeper interpretations" to make the teachings of the books harmonize with the increase of knowledge. That which really belongs to the mind of the reader is attributed to that of the writer. The natural and simple meaning of the words is set aside. Forced interpretations are put upon passages for the purpose of compelling them to harmonize with that which it is supposed they ought to mean. Statements, doctrines, and allusions are discovered in the books which not only have no existence in their pages, but which are absolutely foreign to the epoch at which they were written."
The Origin and Character of the Bible,by J.T. Sunderland, p. 12.

In light of this fact, let us look at some of the explanations apologists often submit to explain problems such as those already discussed. In his work, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties, professor Gleason Archer of Evangelical Divinity School attempted to wrestle with many of the contradictory aspects of the Bible and produced a work which is something less than definitive. Although a strong evangelical fundamentalist, he admits the previously-mentioned inconsistencies ( a, b, c, d, and e) are in fact, contradictory. He doesn't dispute the point, but attributes this to copyist errors. A Biblical writer supposedly transcribed something incorrectly. This explanation is often employed by apologists when any other approach would obviously be false. Facts are stubborn things, and closemindedness might begin to show through. But how does one know if a copyist has made a mistake, when Archer himself admits the original writings longer exist? "...we must deal with the very real problem of the complete disappearance of the autographa (the original writings-ed) themselves... it is technically true that there are no extant inerrant originals." (p. 27). "it may be true that we no longer possess any perfect copy of the inerrant original manuscripts of the Bible." (p. 28). Having said this, Archer then makes a statement bordering on the absurd. "So also, we must cherish the inerrant originals of Holy Scripture as free from all mistakes of any kind, even though we have never actually seen them." (p. 29). Imagine the nonsense of this! We are told, Yes, there are contradictions in the KJV of the Bible. Why? Because somebody copied something wrong from the original writings. But no one has ever seen the original writings, so how does Archer know that something was copied incorrectly? How does he know the original itself is flawless? The originals themselves could very well contradict each other. In fact, how does Archer know there were original writings to begin with? Apologists constantly talk about the autographa, which admittedly do not exist, and no living person has ever seen. Modern versions of the Bible such as the King James, the New American standard, the Revised Standard, and the New International are nothing more than compilations, put together by a team of scholars who, after viewing a wide variety of Biblical manuscripts and codices (e.g., Codex Siniaticus, Codex Vatianus), attempted to reconstruct the alleged original writings. The fatal flaw in the entire process, even if there had been original writings, lies in the fact that hundreds of manuscripts disagree on hundreds of verses. Consequently, any version of the Bible is nothing more than the outcome of a popularity contest, in which conflicting manuscripts were reconciled with conflicting scholarly opinion. Votes, not God, gave man the Bibles of today.
_______________________________________________

I don't know who Dennis McKinsey is (and don't have time to check his credentials), but he cites educated authorities in his lengthy list of Biblical Errancy.

Here are 322 contradictions -- good luck debunking them one by one. ;)

Will you concede the point that scholars do disagree on the topic?

[ 08-13-2003, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Well, as there seems to be no going back to the original topic I'll join the Bible discussion.

DISCLAIMER
I have read the Bible only twice and in the (rather bad) German standard translation. I also happen to have read some passages of the New Testament in Greek. I have NOT studied any theology (at college that is) but I have given these issues a lot of thought as I come from a catholic family. Yet I decided to define myself as agnosticist somewhen during puberty and am quite happy with that for now. I do not deny that there may be a god and I actually admire people who can gain the faith to believe but I can't and therefore do not concern myself much with the question of his existence (after all I'm not a: "There's no god, I can prove it" weirdo)

So to the chase:

1. The Bible is a book with more than 1000 pages written by several different authors. Therefore from a philological viewpoint it is highly probable to contradict itself somewhere.
2. However it does not do so on the major issues.
3. I have to side with Timber and Chewbacca on the discussion about the discussion. They are entitled to their viewpoints as the "experts" they are quoting are. "I know more than you, so just belive me" is always a bad argument.
---and for the patronizing point---
4. It seems to me that all of you have taken the discussion to a meta-level where it's not about making a point anymore but about who is entitled to make a point and if the point he made was correct. The fun is in the game people! Not in arguing with the referee (or with each other if you lack one)

I made a new thread to discuss contradiction in religion.
http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...;f=27;t=000202

My point was, that I am often going straight to the primary source source, sometimes even in the original languages, while you are taking second hand information.

The overwhelming majority of "scholars" of the bible are believers in it. It is the belief itself, which prompts such scrutinising. There is so much more at stake in me finding an inconsistency that you for example. The reasons fairly obvious. I go over an alleged consistency with a fine-toothed comb. I do not base my life on an error ridden tome, but the most validated, self crossreferencing work on the planet. I am constantly testing it's philosiphical value with first hand self experimentation for example.

Secondly, many of the "contradictions" you just posted, have already been answered in pages linked to this thread!! What is the point of debate, if you rehash an already debunked argument?

"Timber is a doctor"
"No he isn't, he's a lawyer"
(3rd person) "Timber is a doctor"


Where does that get us? You didn't even respond to the counterpoints that debunk the alleged contradictions, you simply reposted them!!

Secondly, in "new" contradictions that even Barker avoided, there are bogus problems at best.

Take your Genesis 14:12 vs Genesis 14:14 example of the "brother/nephew" contradiction.

In all the translations I checked, vs 14 mentions speaks about Abrahams 'relative', 'kinsman', or 'nephew'. vs 12 about Abrahams "nephew" and "brothers son" Only one mentioned him as "brother" which is an error in translation! Not an error in the bible. That the bible mentions Lot's relationship to Abraham twice prevents an error from occuring.

I can go through all of these and debunk them using my own words and understanding,(as I have been doing) but am at a time disadvantage, because you are using others incorrect assertions.

You are not reading the bible yourself and stumbling upon these things, then checking out the problem or issue for yourself.

A christian can spend a lifetime doing that. They come across a problem that challenges their faith, and they investigate it.

The bible IS consistent.

As I said earlier, it was your choice. My point was not regarding individual inconsistency arguments, it was noting that many scholars have come to the same conclusions -- that the text is inconsistent. I can post the same inconsistency 100 times over, then, as long as it is from different sources -- the point is people disagree!!! Sure, you can debunk it, but others still will feel their interpretation is right, and yours is wrong.

What I liked about the particular portion I posted is it does not undercut the fabric of the Bible, the urstoff of the religion, but rather homes in on numerical gaffs and other clerical/transcription errors -- which we all know happen all the time in every industry. Humans write the words down, after all. And, before Guttenberg, every copy was hand-transcribed. To argue there are no clerical errors in the work is, well, [img]graemlins/noevil.gif[/img]

However, you will not relent. When faced with people who disagree with you, you say they are wrong and that is that. Well, it isn't that, Yorick. There are other educated opinions out there -- and even some very committed believers admit simple mistakes and contradictions exist in the Bible. But, you have once again shown your ability to argue with a STOP sign. I rest my case, again.

When you get to this bullish-attitude "Did Not," "Did TOO" phase of arguing, continuing with you is like hitting one's self in the head with a hammer: it feels good when you stop.

If you'll read my arguments, I am not saying the bible is without "copyist errors" or translational problems. THat is why we have different versions and always need to revert back to the original languages.

What was presented was not "clerical errors" but contradictions within the Bible. You in fact said here that the bible was "full of contradictions" which is very different to saying that some translations have discrepensies here and there.

The interesting thing, is that many of the inconsistencies are found only within the King James version. Believe it or not, the majority of Christian churches worldwide do not use the King James version because
a. It's language is archaic. We no longer speak Olde English. The whole point of a translation is so it is understood by Mr.Everyman who speaks that language.

b. Better translations have been published since, including the "New King James version" which is in contemporary English.

The "inconsistencies", rather than proving the Bible has inconsistencies, simply prove that the KJV is an imperfect translation. Which most of us already knew.

Many of those "inconsistencies" like the "do not murder" issue, are solved by simply checking another translation. Sooooo easy!

But too difficult for the person that WANTS to see error.

[ 08-14-2003, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Yorick, yes, my first post on the religious contradiction issue was more assertive. Yes, I was arguing for more harsh contradictions. However, I backed off that to the simpler clerical errors to explore the bounds of your assertion that there were NO contradictions. I'm allowed to do that, you know.

I think that reverting to the "original" text does not solve the clerical error problem. The Old Testament was an oral tradition until sometime between 400 and 500 BC. In fact, Rabinical arguments over some basic things persist to this day. For instance, there are some Rabinical theologians who still argue that Abraham in fact killed Isaac, and that God did not stay his hand.

I have not heard of such an assertion. Not even Islamic scholars argue that. Isaac clearly had at least two children, Esau and Jacob. Jacob fathered the twelve tribes of Israel.

The geneology is certainty.

Where there IS dispute, is between Jewish and Islamic scholars, the latter of who assert that ISHMAEL, not ISAAC was the child of Abrahams who he was going to sacrifice.

But even they acknowledge that his hand was stayed.

Any Jew that argues Isaac was killed is arguing against their descent from Abraham. No Isaac, no Israel. (Ishmael fathered the Arabs)

Abrahams fatherhood of Israel is documented all throughout the bible, from official geneology lists, to more conversational references.

Part of the "crossreferencing" I've been talking about.

On the matter of Ishmael vs Isaac theory, though the child is unnamed, the context indicates Isaac. Christian and Jew both agree.

Which problems? The "copyists error" of a single stroke left off a number is solved by the books of Chronicles and Kings both covering history of the same era. The copyists error in one place, is recitified by the mention in the other.

Crossreferencing. Corssreferencing, rather than providing contradictions, provides accuracy.