Best examples of contradiction?

[Seggybop]

This guy I'm arguing with wants the strongest examples of contradiction within the Bible, because he thinks he can refute anything like that. So, what would you suggest as the most unavoidable conflicts within the text?

[Joe]

Well, there's the notion that God is supposed to be omnipotent and all-powerful, yet he can't beat a bunch of iron chariots.

In the New Testament, Jesus blathers on about bringing peace to mankind and then reminds his disciples that he did not come to bring peace, but rather a sword.

And then there's that pesky "thou shalt not kill" rule, which I'm not even going to get started on.

[neoolong]

A lot of the time errors are declared as problems with context. Thus one of the stronger cases is to use objective, like numerical, contradictions.

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbi ... ctions.htm

[Kitsune]

A friend of mine sent me this years ago:

Here is EZEKIEL'S PROPHECY CONCERNING TYRE, with things important to the question of its "fulfillment as prophecized" highlighted with UPPER CASE:

"And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the first day of the month, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, "Son of man, because that Tyre hath said against Jerusalem: Aha, she is broken that was the gate of the peoples; She is turned unto me; I shall be filled with her that is laid waste; Therefore, thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against thee, O Tyre, And will cause many nations to come up against thee, As the sea causeth its waves to come up. And they shall DESTROY THE WALLS OF TYRE, And BREAK DOWN HER TOWERS; I will also scrape her dust from her, And make her a BARE ROCK. She shall be a place for the spreading of nets IN THE MIDST OF THE SEA, for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD; And she shall become a spoil to the nations. And her daughters that are in the field Shall be slain with the sword; And they shall know that I am the LORD. For thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I will bring upon Tyre NEBUCHADREZZAR king of Babylon, king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and a company, and much people. HE shall slay with the sword Thy daughters in the field; And HE
shall make forts against thee, And cast up a mound against thee, And set up bucklers against thee. And HE shall set his battering engines Against thy walls, And with HIS axes HE shall break down thy towers. By reason of the abundance of HIS horses, THEIR dust shall cover thee; At the noise of the horsemen, And of the wheels, and of the chariots, Thy walls shall shake, When HE shall enter into thy gates, As men enter into a city Wherein is made a breach. With the hoofs of HIS horses Shall HE tread down all thy streets; HE shall slay thy people with the sword, And the pillars of thy strength Shall go down to the ground. And THEY shall make spoil of thy riches, And make a prey of thy merchandise; And THEY shall break down thy walls, And destroy the houses of thy delight; And thy stones and thy timbers and thy dust Shall they lay IN THE MIDST OF THE WATERS. And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease, And the sounds of thy harps shall be no more heard. And I will make thee a bare rock; Thou shalt be a place for the spreading of nets, THOU SHALT BE BUILT NO MORE; For I the LORD have spoken, saith the Lord GOD." [Ez. 26:1-14, JPST]

Now, this did not happen; King Nebby did not conquer and destroy Tyre, and Tyre thrives today (though granted it lacks the stature and grandeur that it had in the "old days," but it is NOT simply a "place for the spreading
of nets" which Ezekiel evidently prophecized).

[InnerBrat]

First cha[pters of Genesis. The world is created twice.

[Faram]

Microsoft Works

This just can't be beaten

And I work with MS stuff for a living.

Edit
Did not read that you vanted bible stuff untill it was to late but hey MS bashing is fun

[Zoink]

Biblical contradictions can be had here:

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html

for example:

Rom.3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

1Kgs. 8:46 "...for there is no man that sinneth not,...." (2Chr. 6:36)

Prov.20:9 "Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?"

Eccl. 7:20 "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

Mark 10:18 "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

Rom. 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." (Also 1 John 1:8 & 10, Rom. 3:12, 5:12, Gal. 3:22)


Versus

Gen. 6:9 "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Job 1:8 "...my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" (Job 2:3)

Gen. 7:1 "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."

Luke 1:5-6 "In the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abia: and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.(RSV)

Another clear contradiction concerns whether or not God repents.

Num. 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."

1Sam. 15:29 "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent."


Versus

Jonah 3:10 "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

1Sam.15:11 "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king...."

Exod. 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Jeremiah 42:10 "... for I repent me of the evil that I have done unto you."

Gen. 6:6 "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

1Sam. 15:35 "...and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel."

(D) One final contradiction is worthy of note. It concerns the question of whether or not God's face has been seen.

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time;..."

John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father."

1John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."


Versus

Gen. 32:30 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

Exod. 33:11 "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

Num. 14:14 "...that thou LORD art seen face to face,..."

Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."

Deut. 34:10 "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,..."

Deut. 5:4 "The LORD talked with you face to face...." (also Psalm 63:2 Isa.6:1 & 6:5, Amos 7:7-8, Ezek. 20:35, Ex. 24:9-10

[Zoink]

More obvious errors, again from the same place:

(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.

edit: '8 ) ' were being turned into

[Rhadamanthus]

Strongest contradiction in the Bible?


"Thou Shalt Not Kill" vs. the rest of the Bible.

[Admiral Johnason]

Southern Bapitist conserative are "Christian."

[JodoForce]

Thou Shalt Not Kill?

[Rye]

Look up long hair on men in the SAB.

Seems it's both unnatural but nazarenes are supposed to let it grow naturally.

[Seggybop]

Ok, check this out, because it's the enemy's response and it's confusing as @#$%. Please advise ..?

SeggyBop, You must, when looking at any ancient manuscript, use rules in order to interpret the meaning of the manuscript itself. Aristotle’s said that “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic himself.” With this in mind, are there rules that have been historically used by non-religious and religious folk alike that will assist in the delineation of supposed contradiction? Yes.

I wish to speak to something now that will, in the future, help you in the area of Biblical exegesis. And don’t misinterpret me, it could be shown that the Bible is 100% a fraud, and the Christian-theistic message would still be the most philosophically sound out of any worldview available. However, I am not debating the truth of Christianity, I am debating whether the Scriptures have contradictions in them. Okay, what is exegesis (and hermeneutics)? You must understand this concept if you and I are going to seriously deal with the issues you brought up. I will give a plethora of dictionary definitions below (both secular and non-secular).

Hermeneutics and exegesis is used by theologians, but is used as well by any literary critic (say, someone critically looking into Homer, or Plato), as the non-theological dictionary definitions show. It has been used for 2,500 years.

her·me·neu·tics
1. the science of interpretation, esp. of the Scriptures.
2. the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis.
(Random House Webster Unabridged CD-Rom Dictionary, 1999)

her·me·neu·tics – (Gk., hermeneuo, to explain, interpret) Branch of theology dealing with the principles governing Biblical exegesis and interpretation. It is concerned with various types of interpretation, as allegorical and literal, multiple meanings and senses, and the role of historical criticism. The four principle hermeneutical approaches are romanticist, existential, ontological, and socio-critical. in the romanticist tradition, the goal of the interpreter is to reach behind the text to the mind of its author. Existential hermeneutics interprets the Bible in terms of the interpreter’s own life situation. Ontological hermeneutics interprets the meaning of the Bible in the light of the reality it is attempting to create. Socio-critical hermeneutics examines the social traditions and assumptions underpinning Biblical narratives.
(Nelson’e New Christian Dictionary 2001)

her·me·neu·tics – Traditionally the sub-discipline of theology concerned with the proper interpretation of scriptural texts. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the term widened to include the discipline that seeks to understand the interpretation of text in general, including the proper roles and relationships among author, reader, and text. Still, more broadly, the term has been used by philosophers such as Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Riceur to refer to the attempt to articulate the nature of understanding itself, with an emphasis on the role of interpretation as a key component in all human knowing.
(Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion, 2002)

her·me·neu·tics – From the Greek hermeneutikos, “interpretation.” Hermeneutics is the science of the study and interpretation of Scripture, the branch of theology that prescribes rules by which the Bible should be interpreted. Biblical hermeneutics strives to formulate guidelines for studying Scripture that help recover the meaning a Biblical text had for its original hearers.
(The Compact Dictionary of Doctrinal Words, 1988)

ex·e·ge·sis – From the Greek meaning “interpretation,” from ex, “out,” and hegeisthai, “to guide.” Exegesis is a method of attempting to understand a Bible passage. The reader of Scripture studies the word meanings and grammar of the text to discern what… was communicated, drawing the meaning out of the text rather than reading what he wants into the text [isegesis].
(The Compact Dictionary of Doctrinal Words, 1988)

ex·e·ge·sis – (Gk., explanation) Critical exposition or explanation of the meaning of a scriptural passage in the context of the whole Bible.
(Nelson’e New Christian Dictionary 2001)

ex·e·ge·sis – critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible.
(Random House Webster Unabridged CD-Rom Dictionary, 1999)

ex·e·ge·sis – critical explanation of the meaning of words and passages in a literary or Biblical work.
(Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, 1986)

ex·e·ge·sis – interpretation of a word, passage, esp., in the Bible.
(Webster’s New World Dictionary, 1994)

Theology Defined
Theology has been various defined as the "science of God" or "the study of the nature of God and religious truth." It presents man's knowledge of God in an organized body, including revealed (divine) and human knowledge. Theology has been referred to as "fides quaerens intellectum" or "faith seeking understanding."

Christian Theology
Christian theology is based on God's revealed truth and employs the tools of various academic disciplines to enrich it, from history and logic, to hermeneutics (methodology of interpreting the Bible to discover its meaning) and philosophy. In Catholic teaching, the Magisterium of the Church (its teaching authority) guides the believer in understanding revealed truth. In the Protestant traditions, the individual believer is often encouraged to discover the meaning of Scripture based on their own study. Sound Christian theology requires sound Biblical exegesis (process of bringing the meaning of a text to light). Theology is subdivided in to categories such as moral theology, Christology (the study of the person of Christ), ecclesiology (the study of the Church), sacramentology (the study of the sacraments), etc. In the first four hundred years of the early Christian community, the Church, which came to be referred to as catholic (the Greek word katholickos means "universal") after the usage of church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, struggled to find vocabulary to explain who the person of Christ is and to define the Holy Trinity. This was necessary because of heretical challenges that led the Church to develop a new vocabulary (e.g., the hypostatic union).

• Eight Rules of Interpretation
  
  "...the Eight Rules of Interpretation used by legal experts for more than 2500 years.”

Rule of Definition.
Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.

Rule of Usage.
Don't add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period
when the passage was written?

Rule of Context.
Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.

Rule of Historical background.
Don't separate interpretation and historical investigation.

Rule of Logic.
Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.

Rule of Precedent.
Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which their is no precedent.

Rule of Unity.
Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.

Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.

• "It will be worth your time to acquaint yourself with these rules and commit them to memory or jot them in the flyleaf of your Bible. Using them will keep you free from cultism and false teachings. All the early Church Fathers used them. Irenaeus used them when he wrote Against Heresies, which dealt with Gnosticism and other untruths. Every law court religiously follows them and honest theologians dare not violate them. Much false teaching is the result of violating one or more of these universal rules of interpretation."
  
  Ref: http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsind ... l#articles

Your first example I will use is (I already had this in my Microsoft Word for a friend who was confronted by a Muslim acquaintance):

• Matt 1:16 says, “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus...”
  
  compared to…
  
  Luke 3:23, which says “And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli”

The “Genealogy” of Jesus

This is one of the more popular examples of a Biblical contradiction that is for the most part brought up by Muslims to show the Bible is a document riddled with problems. However, if one gives this document the same attestation as one gives to any other text of history, say, Livy’s History of Rome or Caesar’s Gallic Wars, then the alleged contradictions disappear. On this test John Warwick Montgomery writes that literary critics still follow Aristotle’s dictum that “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic himself” (see for instance: Josh McDowell, The New Evidences That Demand a Verdict, p. 45). With this in mind, lets see what some have to say about this “contradiction.”

Matthew 1:1-16 gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, who was himself, a descendant of King David. As Joseph’s adopted Son, Jesus became his legal heir, so far as his inheritance was concerned. Notice carefully the wording of verse 16: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ [messiah]” (NASB). This stands in contrast to the format followed in the preceding verses of the succession of Joseph’s ancestors: “Abraham begat [Greek: egennesen] Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, etc.” Joseph is not said to have begotten Jesus; rather, he is referred to as “the husband of Mary, of whom [Gk. feminine genitive] Jesus was born.”

Luke 3:23-38, on the other hand seems to record the genealogical line of Mary herself, carried all the way back beyond the time of Abraham to Adam and the commencement of the human race. This seems to be implied by the wording of verse 23: “Jesus… being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.” This “as was supposed” indicates that Jesus was not really the biological son of Joseph, even though this was commonly assumed by the public. It further calls attention to the mother, Mary, who must of necessity have been the sole human parent through whom Jesus could have descended from a line of ancestors. Her genealogy is thereupon listed, starting with Heli, who was actually Joseph’s father-in-law, in contradistinction to Joseph’s own father, Jacob:

• And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli (Luke 3:23)
  
  And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary (Matthew 1:16)

Mary’s line of descent came through Nathan, a son of Bathsheba (or “Bathshua,” according to 1 Chronicles 3:5), the wife of David. Therefore, Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon.

The coming Messiah of Israel had to be able to prove this lineage as it was prophesied in the Old Testament that He would in fact be a descendant of David. The Jews kept meticulous records at the temple mount of all the genealogical records of the Hebrew people. This information was “public knowledge,” or, verifiable by even the Pharisees. The Romans destroyed these records in A.D. 70. (This is very important – prophetically speaking – because the Orthodox Jews [as opposed to the Messianic Jews] are still awaiting their Messiah, however, he cannot be traced to David or Abraham today! A prerequisite for the Messiah clearly stated in the Old Testament.) Also of importance is the fact that Luke is very close to Mary, remember that Jesus gave him charge of her while shortly before he died.

Here is another commentator on this “error” in Luke 3:23:

Problem: Jesus has a different grandfather here in Luke 3:23 (Heli) the He does in Matthew 1:16 (Jacob). Which one is right?

Solution: This should be expected, since they are two different lines of ancestors, one traced through His legal father, Joseph and the other through His actual mother, Mary. Matthew gives the official line, since he addresses Jesus’ genealogy to Jewish concerns for the Jewish Messiah’s credentials which required that Messiah come from the seed of Abraham and the line of David (cf. Matt 1:1). Luke, with a broader Greek audience in view, addresses himself to their interest in Jesus as the “Perfect Man” (which was the quest of Greek thought). Thus, he traces Jesus back to the first man, Adam (Luke 3:38).

That Matthew gives Jesus’ paternal genealogy and Luke his maternal genealogy is further supported by several facts. First of all, while both lines trace Christ to David, each is through a different son of David. Matthew traces Jesus through Joseph (his legal father) to David’s son, Solomon the king, by whom Christ rightfully inherited the throne of David (cf. 2 Samuel 7:12ff). Luke’s purpose, on the other hand, is to show Christ as an actual human. So he [Luke] traces Christ to David’s son, Nathan, through his actual mother, Mary, through whom He can rightfully claim to be fully human (the anthropomorphic “God-man”), the redeemer of humanity.

Further, Luke does not say that he is giving Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph. Rather, he notes that Jesus was “as was supposed” (Luke 3:23) the son of Joseph, while He was actually the son of Mary. Also, that Luke would record Mary’s genealogy fits with his interest as a doctor in mothers and birth and with his emphasis on women in his Gospel, which has been called “the Gospel for Women.” The genealogies can be thus summarized:

• Matthew: David – Solomon – Rehoboam – Abijah – Asa – Jehoshaphat – …. – Jacob – Joseph/Mary/legal wife (legal father) – Jesus.
  
  Luke: David – Nathan – Mattathah – Menan – Melea – Eliakim – …. – Heli à [Joseph/Mary/actual mother (legal husband)] à Jesus

(Sources for the above: Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe, When Skeptics Ask, pp. 385-384; Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 316.)

This is not isogesis… that is, insertion of thought into Scripture. It is exegesis… letting the Scripture interpret itself. It follows with the demands of Jesus’ “Messiah-hood,” and is self-explanatory with evidences based in the Scriptures themselves (Nathan vs. Solomon & Heli vs. Jacob). There is no contradiction, and Aristotle’s dictum which is accepted in our courts of law holds true for the historian as well.

• Recommended reading:
  John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity (Bethany House Publishers: 1964);
  
  F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable (Eerdmans Publishing: 1943);
  
  Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Inter-Varsity Press: 1987).

[Wicked Pilot]

How about the many different versions of the Ten Commandments? Would that do?

[JodoForce]

1. the passage says he's Joseph's 'father', not 'father-in-law'

2. Just use the numerical contradictions. There's no way he can weasel out of that.

[InnerBrat]

That's bullshit. Why not just mention Mary by name in the geneology?

[JodoForce]

WHY should we give the bible the benefit of the doubt??

[D.Turtle]

The thing is this debate is about the the fact, that the person seggybop is debating said that he can agree with the following quote: "I believe Christianity is the only logical, consistent faith in the world."

He then (after Seggybop didn't agree with this) challenged Seggybop to give 3 examples of contradictions in the Bible.
He would then refute these and Seggybop should rethink his stance on that issue.

So Seggybop is trying to prove that the Bible is NOT consistant within itself.
His adversary is trying to prove (by refuting 3 contradictions) that the Bible IS consistant within itself.

So you have to enter this debate neutrally and treat the Bible as you treat EVERY other historical document - you think they are true unless proven otherwise (benefit of doubt). He even gave 2 examples of this: Livy’s History of Rome and Caesar’s Gallic Wars.

Oh, and Seggybop already chose his three contradictions - his adversary just hasn't responded to all of them yet.

[EDIT]Damn, should have looked a the date :/
Anyway the other refutations haven't come yet, but Seggybop hasn't answered him yet, so ... the debate is still going on [/EDIT]

[Ted C]

This guy I'm arguing with wants the strongest examples of contradiction within the Bible, because he thinks he can refute anything like that. So, what would you suggest as the most unavoidable conflicts within the text?

Just try to reconcile the different accounts of the discovery of Christ's resurrection. Who was present? What was the sequence of events (i.e., who entered the tomb first? who was the first person to see an angel?)?

This is only the single most important event in the entire New Testament, you know.

[Enforcer Talen]

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra.html

[Seggybop]

The enemy said they were going away for four months... that's why I didn't bother responding to them. It would be pushed under and never seen again.