Biblical Contradictions; a thing of graphical beauty.

[afleitch]

Here is the main link.

http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png

[memphis]

Caution. The forum does not view taking a critical look at religion positively. You will we called all sorts of nasty names soon.

[Blue3]

Is that really a complete list??

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Is that really a complete list??

Nope, you could make this list much longer. At the same time a lot of these make sense if you bother to read more than a single verse, or recognize that words can have multiple meanings.  For example, if you take two verses in Job at random you are probably reading parts of monologues from two different characters, so it'd be surprising and also quite boring if they completely agree. 

The graph obscures more than it reveals. It's a good argument against proof-texting, but that's about it.   

[DC Al Fine]

I'd also like to point out that at least one contradiction cited leads to a verse that doesn't exist.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd also like to point out that at least one contradiction cited leads to a verse that doesn't exist.

Are you referring to an outright error or to verses from the deuterocanon?

Anyway, some of these are at the level of dinging a writer of the political history of the US for in some places saying George Bush was our 41st President, while in others it says that he was our 43rd.  And lets not forget that in one place Ike was described as the president after Truman, but in another it was Eisenhower who came after Truman.  Then there's the goof of FDR being elected for four terms despite presidents being limited to only two by the Twenty Seven Amendments.

There are some more significant contradictions, but lumping ones that can be explained by possibilities such as the above with them only makes it easier for those who would simply dismiss the possibility of their being contradictions.

[ZuWo]

Such graphics seem impressive at first glance but, as others have pointed out in this thread, often don't stand up to a more critical examination. Indeed, this also appears to be true for this graphic.

For instance, I randomly picked example 93 ("What color was Jesus' robe?") to check how fact-based this graphic is. Concretely, the alleged biblical contradiction lies in Matthew's claim that the robe was scarlet, while Mark and John write that it was purple. However, if you bother to read up on the etymology and history of the word "purple" you will notice that even until the Middle Ages the word "purple" was used for a wide range of hues (for an ancient example, see Emperor Justinian's robe (a beautiful mosaic which I was fortunate enough to see with my own eyes this autumn in Ravenna)) - in fact, for a long time reddish, blueish and violet colors could all be referred to as "purple". Therefore, example 93 can be removed from this list. If I have time, I will tackle more of these example, but I guess this arbitrary example suggests that the word "contradiction" should be used a bit more carefully (for the sake of the credibility of the people who compiled this list).

[DemPGH]

That is an impressive graphic - quite arresting. There are several of these, and that's a great one to add. I've used this one before: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

Some of them aren't necessarily contradictions per se as much as logical scrutiny, like, "How did eight extreme senior citizens manage to load and care for 32,000 animals?" Well, good question! Back when I was kid dragged to church out in the country, somehow we didn't discuss it quite that way.

Although there are contradictions. Like when Jesus says he and God are one, then right after that says God is greater than he. And so on. It's just like those classic Star Trek episodes where Kirk and company come across a civilization that does not question bizarre religious rites and rules that it lives under, and Kirk usually finds out it's a computer run amok that's posing as God. Gene was trying to get his audience to see a parallel between their own society and the fictional one on screen. Dealing with religion in a critical light is a very healthy thing for a society to do, in other words.

[DC Al Fine]

I'd also like to point out that at least one contradiction cited leads to a verse that doesn't exist.

Are you referring to an outright error or to verses from the deuterocanon?

Nothing from Tobit or Judith or anything like that. I mean referencing a verse in Genesis, and then when I look it up, said verse doesn't exist. I assume they're typos.

[Wiggle Your Yummy Moist Preggers Cake Ben Shapiro]

A Fundamentalist Athiest founded the group that did this, so I won't trust it. Besides, if you want to debunk the Bible, use the Greek/Hebrew versions, translate them for yourself, learn about life in the day, and of course use verses that actually exist. But Fundamentalist Athiests don't have time for that, they're too busy claiming the "horrors" of religion.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Pretty awesome... Certainly will not debunk Christianity for a believer, but I don't think any sane person can look at such a vast number of contradictions are still claim this thing was written by an infallible god. 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

As others have noted, this graph is deceptive based on differences in ancient, foreign words.  It's tricks like this that give atheists a bad name.

[Insula Dei]

That is an impressive graphic - quite arresting. There are several of these, and that's a great one to add. I've used this one before: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

Some of them aren't necessarily contradictions per se as much as logical scrutiny, like, "How did eight extreme senior citizens manage to load and care for 32,000 animals?" Well, good question! Back when I was kid dragged to church out in the country, somehow we didn't discuss it quite that way.

Although there are contradictions. Like when Jesus says he and God are one, then right after that says God is greater than he. And so on. It's just like those classic Star Trek episodes where Kirk and company come across a civilization that does not question bizarre religious rites and rules that it lives under, and Kirk usually finds out it's a computer run amok that's posing as God. Gene was trying to get his audience to see a parallel between their own society and the fictional one on screen. Dealing with religion in a critical light is a very healthy thing for a society to do, in other words.

Good thing the Trinity was never subjected to any real theological or philosophical scrutiny, eh?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A Fundamentalist Athiest founded the group that did this, so I won't trust it. Besides, if you want to debunk the Bible, use the Greek/Hebrew versions, translate them for yourself, learn about life in the day, and of course use verses that actually exist. But Fundamentalist Athiests don't have time for that, they're too busy claiming the "horrors" of religion.

To be fair, quite a few Fundamentalist Christians don't bother with going back to the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts.  But the don't have time for that, they're too busy claiming the joys of religion.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The Bible may appear to contradict itself on the surface, but if you research it further, you will find that there are really no contradictions at all.  There's a reason that all of the archaeological evidence that has been discovered has confirmed what the Bible says and has never contradicted it.

[John Dibble]

The Bible may appear to contradict itself on the surface, but if you research it further, you will find that there are really no contradictions at all.  There's a reason that all of the archaeological evidence that has been discovered has confirmed what the Bible says and has never contradicted it.

Very little of the Biblical account, especially the Old Testament, is corroborated by archaeological evidence.

For instance, there is nothing to suggest that millions of Hebrews were ever enslaved by Egypt, much less that they wandered in the desert for 40 years on a trip that should have taken only a few weeks or perhaps months at most. (not to mention the complete implausibility of keeping that many people fed and watered in a desert living a nomadic lifestyle for that many years) You'd expect them to have left some kind of trail.

There's also the complete lack of evidence for a global flood. We'd expect to see every major civilization on the planet at the time to have been completely wiped out by such an event, but no archaeological evidence exists to suggest that. Again, we'd expect a big event like that to leave some kind of evidence - it's implausible for it to not be there.

Also, what little evidence for Solomon and David existed suggest that the Biblical claims of the size and strength of their kingdoms are grossly exaggerated.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The Bible may appear to contradict itself on the surface, but if you research it further, you will find that there are really no contradictions at all.  There's a reason that all of the archaeological evidence that has been discovered has confirmed what the Bible says and has never contradicted it.

Very little of the Biblical account, especially the Old Testament, is corroborated by archaeological evidence.

For instance, there is nothing to suggest that millions of Hebrews were ever enslaved by Egypt, much less that they wandered in the desert for 40 years on a trip that should have taken only a few weeks or perhaps months at most. (not to mention the complete implausibility of keeping that many people fed and watered in a desert living a nomadic lifestyle for that many years) You'd expect them to have left some kind of trail.

There's also the complete lack of evidence for a global flood. We'd expect to see every major civilization on the planet at the time to have been completely wiped out by such an event, but no archaeological evidence exists to suggest that. Again, we'd expect a big event like that to leave some kind of evidence - it's implausible for it to not be there.

Also, what little evidence for Solomon and David existed suggest that the Biblical claims of the size and strength of their kingdoms are grossly exaggerated.

Where is this "archaeological evidence" agains what the Bible says?  Nearly every ancient civilization had a global flood story, whcih granted, doesn't make it true, but seems to point toward one actually happening.  And where is this "lack of evidence" for the Israelites' slavery in Egypt or wandering in the desert for 40 years, or even the existence of David or Solomon?  Please give me sources.  And just because there's no evidence for it now doesn't mean that we will never discover any.  That's why we keep searching for these things.

[John Dibble]

Where is this "archaeological evidence" agains what the Bible says?  Nearly every ancient civilization had a global flood story, whcih granted, doesn't make it true, but seems to point toward one actually happening.

Nearly every ancient civilization experienced floods - it's a common disaster. As stated before, if there was a flood that covered the entire planet then we would expect to see ruins of ancient civilizations that would be dated to have all died out at the same time. We'd also expect to see geological evidence for it considering it was a global event, but we don't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Links to specific sources are on the page.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

There's minimal evidence to suggest they existed, but that was not the important point. The exaggeration of their kingdom's size and strength was more important. You can do basic reading on Wikipedia, which as stated links to sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon#Criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#Historicity

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And just because you're hopeful evidence will be found does not mean it will be, or that it even exists. It could be that blatantly contradictory evidence might be found, so that's hardly an argument for your point.

Speaking of evidence, you claimed it exists and supports you on this - if you're going to ask me for my, where's yours?

[DemPGH]

There's no archeological evidence for really anything at all in the Old Testament (and in many cases not the New Testament), to include even the Exodus, which obviously was a major, major ordeal. It's a little like the King Arthur business. If not made up all together like James Bond, Arthur was either a 1) Welsh god who became part of history or 2) a military leader who helped the Britons momentarily fight back the Saxons. It's possible that both of these scenarios combined, because Arthur would have been an ordinary person whose accomplishments got blown way out of proportion in the ensuing centuries. Then he became associated with magic and acts of God and the grail and all that.

Same with the Old Testament. Example, the flood, if it happened, was likely a local flood from the early days of shipbuilding. "The Exodus" could most certainly have been someone leading a group of nomads across the desert. Ordinary things that took on a life of their own in later times and became the stuff of legend. That's if they weren't made up altogether. Humans love storytelling. Always have, always will.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html

[DC Al Fine]

There's no archeological evidence for really anything at all in the Old Testament (and in many cases not the New Testament),

What New Testament stuff do you think there is no archaeological evidence for?

[afleitch]

There's no archeological evidence for really anything at all in the Old Testament (and in many cases not the New Testament),

What New Testament stuff do you think there is no archaeological evidence for?

I think DemPGH jumped too quickly off the mark there. There are historical flaws with the NT, rather than archaeological flaws. However, why haven't you answered Dibble?

On the matter of the NT, it actually tries to be very precise in it's history but is still riddled with errors. Let's just look at the Christmas story. According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but according to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Herod died in 4 BC but any census took place in 6 or 7 AD. The idea that every citizen in the Roman Empire had to return to their place of ancestry is logistically impractical and there is no contemporary record to suggest that took place. Census' of taxation you would assume would be concerned where people live and work, not where their families came from. Matthews over zealous concern with Micah led to him to placing his candidate for the messiah in Bethlehem

There is also another problem with the census. In the Acts of the Apostles there is a reference made by Gamaliel to a man called Theudas who was killed, his following broken up and then after him, we are told came 'Judas the Galilean at the time of the census.' Josephus talks of the same Theudas, but that was in 45-46 AD, which is of course 40 years after the census long after Judas the Galilean and indeed was an event that took place after Gamaliel was apparently speaking.

Herod probably didn't kill all male children under two years old. Firstly he didn't have the authority to do so in terms of what powers he retained under Roman suzerainty. Secondly there is no historical record that it happened. Josephus who was notable in noting Herod's crimes never mentioned it happening.

Matthew also has the whole family fleeing to Egypt, a 350 mile trip (this was the same trip that apparently took Moses and the Israelite's 40 years to make at a rate of less than 9 miles a year)

Compare this with Luke who says that forty days after Jesus was born he was brought to the temple and then returned to Nazareth.

During this period, Matthew has Jesus being born, the Magi visiting Herod (who is presumably in Jerusalem) then visiting Jesus, then Herod killing infants under two years of age, the family fleeing 350 miles to Egypt, then coming back again in another 350 mile trip. That means the holy family is, if we give the Magi a few days to visit Jesus undertaking something like a 20-30 mile trek each day without stops. Poor Mary. Factoring in a brief sojourn in Egypt until the coast was clear, they are covering a hell of a distance in a short period of time. Even the best men of the Roman Army could only cover 25 miles a day.

[DC Al Fine]

There's no archeological evidence for really anything at all in the Old Testament (and in many cases not the New Testament),

What New Testament stuff do you think there is no archaeological evidence for?

I think DemPGH jumped too quickly off the mark there. There are historical flaws with the NT, rather than archaeological flaws. However, why haven't you answered Dibble?

Because he is arguing with OldiesFreak and my views on the Old Testament are unorthodox anyway.

[Wiggle Your Yummy Moist Preggers Cake Ben Shapiro]

A Fundamentalist Athiest founded the group that did this, so I won't trust it. Besides, if you want to debunk the Bible, use the Greek/Hebrew versions, translate them for yourself, learn about life in the day, and of course use verses that actually exist. But Fundamentalist Athiests don't have time for that, they're too busy claiming the "horrors" of religion.

To be fair, quite a few Fundamentalist Christians don't bother with going back to the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts.  But the don't have time for that, they're too busy claiming the joys of religion.

True, True.

[DemPGH]

There's no archeological evidence for really anything at all in the Old Testament (and in many cases not the New Testament),

What New Testament stuff do you think there is no archaeological evidence for?

I'm probably being a little nitpicky, but let's separate historical evidence from archaeological evidence. As that article says that I posted above a few posts, archaeology can verify places, settlements, and instances where the Bible says something was here or there. Beyond that, archaeology cannot even verify that Jesus Christ existed. No tomb, no DNA, no remains, and no records beyond the gospels. Archaeology cannot show that the sermon on the mount happened, or where it was. And so on. Now archaeology does not disprove anything. It only aims to recover tangible, concrete artifacts that tell us things we don't know or that confirm what we do know, and about the Bible times, it isn't really much.

Now historical evidence is a little different, and gets into a grayer area because you are relying on accounts, testimonies, letters, agreement between those things, how trustworthy they are, and so on. But I think there is enough historical evidence to say that Jesus Christ the man, for instance, did exist and whose teachings and philosophy come down to us today in fragments recorded after the fact.

[Oak Hills]

The Bible may appear to contradict itself on the surface, but if you research it further, you will find that there are really no contradictions at all.  There's a reason that all of the archaeological evidence that has been discovered has confirmed what the Bible says and has never contradicted it.

Very little of the Biblical account, especially the Old Testament, is corroborated by archaeological evidence.

For instance, there is nothing to suggest that millions of Hebrews were ever enslaved by Egypt, much less that they wandered in the desert for 40 years on a trip that should have taken only a few weeks or perhaps months at most. (not to mention the complete implausibility of keeping that many people fed and watered in a desert living a nomadic lifestyle for that many years) You'd expect them to have left some kind of trail.

There's also the complete lack of evidence for a global flood. We'd expect to see every major civilization on the planet at the time to have been completely wiped out by such an event, but no archaeological evidence exists to suggest that. Again, we'd expect a big event like that to leave some kind of evidence - it's implausible for it to not be there.

Also, what little evidence for Solomon and David existed suggest that the Biblical claims of the size and strength of their kingdoms are grossly exaggerated.

Not to mention that the geological evidence unequivocally shows that the first chapter of Genesis could not have happened in the time span it claims.