Biblical Contradictions

[Verrick]

Alright, I've seen this argument 1 too many times. I am sick of it. If you want to post: The Bible is full of contradictions and therefore is wrong, post away, but before we start, I'm gonna say this:

Don't be a lazy bum and just post links to other peoples works. You can look at other peoples works, but if you are going to post a list of 100+ "contradictions", read all of them and understand the argument they are trying to make.

That being said: have fun atheists.

[Puck]

On a related note I had an argument with this guy once, he said "The bible is full of contradiction,"

I say "Where?"

"Here, where the bible says fire came down from the sky in exodus,"

"How is that a contradiction?"

"How did it happen?"

"It was a mirical,"

"That's a contradiction!"

"No...the bible says its a Mirical, and that is how explained, a contradiction would be it disagreeing with itself, you're not making any sense anymore,"

"..."

Seriously, is that a contradiction?

[Eternal Paradox]

Alright, here is a nice and simple one.

(Using the King James version)

Luke 3:23 - 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

Matthew 1:16 - And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Who is the father of Joseph? Heli or Jacob?

[Verrick]

Originally Posted by Eternal Paradox

Alright, here is a nice and simple one.

(Using the King James version)

Luke 3:23 - 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

Matthew 1:16 - And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Who is the father of Joseph? Heli or Jacob?

The conflicting geneologies, not uncommon:
The passage in Luke is actually referring to Mary's bloodline, not Joseph's. The reason Joseph is mentioned is because Luke is adhering to Hebrew tradition of listing the husband. He had made it clear in earlier passages that Joseph was not Jesus' father.

[Λύσις]

Originally Posted by Rhalen

The conflicting geneologies, not uncommon:
The passage in Luke is actually referring to Mary's bloodline, not Joseph's. The reason Joseph is mentioned is because Luke is adhering to Hebrew tradition of listing the husband. He had made it clear in earlier passages that Joseph was not Jesus' father.

???

The passage in Luke says "...Joseph, which was the son of Heli." How could that be referring to Mary's bloodline? Unless you're saying it's supposed to say "son-in-law"?

[Puck]

I guess it's the same way my Stepdad calls me his Son, not his Step-son.

[Eternal Paradox]

Originally Posted by Rhalen

The conflicting geneologies, not uncommon:
The passage in Luke is actually referring to Mary's bloodline, not Joseph's. The reason Joseph is mentioned is because Luke is adhering to Hebrew tradition of listing the husband. He had made it clear in earlier passages that Joseph was not Jesus' father.

I'm not talking about Jesus. I'm talking about Joseph.

In one passage it says Joseph is the son of Heli, in the other it says, Joseph is the son of Jacob.

[Verrick]

Originally Posted by Lysis

???

The passage in Luke says "...Joseph, which was the son of Heli." How could that be referring to Mary's bloodline? Unless you're saying it's supposed to say "son-in-law"?

Mary was the daughter of Heli. You don't get much more difinitive than that.

Originally Posted by Eternal Paradox

I'm not talking about Jesus. I'm talking about Joseph.

In one passage it says Joseph is the son of Heli, in the other it says, Joseph is the son of Jacob.

I realize this, and as I said, Luke refers back to Mary (wife of Joseph) and Matthew refers back to Joseph.

Is there something I'm not making clear?

[Eternal Paradox]

Originally Posted by Rhalen

Is there something I'm not making clear?

It wasn't very clear for me, but this cleared it up:

Mary was the daughter of Heli. You don't get much more difinitive than that.

Well, while I'm looking for another contradiction. Could you explain to me the two seemingly contradicting Genesis stories?

[Puck]

I've never understood how the stories contradict...Of course I beleive Genisis is a Metephor of how the world was created not an step by step instruction manuel, so i guess that's why.

[Verrick]

Originally Posted by Eternal Paradox

Well, while I'm looking for another contradiction. Could you explain to me the two seemingly contradicting Genesis stories?

Ah yes, it's actually rather simple. In the original text, there was a verb in the tense called pluperfect (which is a fancy way of saying a form of past tense) which actually puts the two accounts in order.

[Eternal Paradox]

Hmm, that doesn't explain this though, or does it?

Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:21-23 - And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

In the first, man and woman are created at the same time. In the second they are created at different times.

[Puck]

My awnser still stands, YAY for Metaphors.

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by Eternal Paradox

Hmm, that doesn't explain this though, or does it?

Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:21-23 - And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

In the first, man and woman are created at the same time. In the second they are created at different times.

As much as I hate to, I can explain this one.

1:27 refers to Adam & Lilith

2:21-23 refers to Adam & Eve.

[Verrick]

Originally Posted by Eternal Paradox

Hmm, that doesn't explain this though, or does it?

Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:21-23 - And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

In the first, man and woman are created at the same time. In the second they are created at different times.

Oh, I never heard that one before. I thought you meant how the two had supposedly conflicting orders.

Hmmm... I don't have a source (or time right now to find one) but my best guess is that the rib part happened a little while after Adam was created, and happened on the same day of creation.

[Eternal Paradox]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

As much as I hate to, I can explain this one.

1:27 refers to Adam & Lilith

2:21-23 refers to Adam & Eve.

I've actually heard of the Lilith explanation before. But, I've always thought that was debated.

Oh, I found something kind of funny. Apparently David killed Goliath twice.

1 Samuel 17:49-51 - And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David. Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by Eternal Paradox

I've actually heard of the Lilith explanation before. But, I've always thought that was debated.

Oh, I found something kind of funny. Apparently David killed Goliath twice.

1 Samuel 17:49-51 - And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David. Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

From a secular POV, it's the only explanation that makes any real sense.

[Chencheya]

"After God created Adam, who was alone, He said, 'It is not good for man to be alone.' He then created a woman for Adam, from the earth, as He had created Adam himself, and called her Lilith. Adam and Lilith immediately began to fight. She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one.' Lilith responded, 'We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the earth.' But they would not listen to one another. When Lilith saw this, she pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the air.

Adam stood in prayer before his Creator: 'Sovereign of the universe!' he said, 'the woman you gave me has run away.' At once, the Holy One, blessed be He, sent these three angels Senoy, Sansenoy, and Semangelof, to bring her back.

Said the Holy One to Adam, 'If she agrees to come back, what is made is good. If not, she must permit one hundred of her children to die every day.' The angels left God and pursued Lilith, whom they overtook in the midst of the sea, in the mighty waters wherein the Egyptians were destined to drown. They told her God's word, but she did not wish to return. The angels said, 'We shall drown you in the sea.’

'Leave me!' she said. 'I was created only to cause sickness to infants. If the infant is male, I have dominion over him for eight days after his birth, and if female, for twenty days.’

When the angels heard Lilith's words, they insisted she go back. But she swore to them by the name of the living and eternal God: 'Whenever I see you or your names or your forms in an amulet, I will have no power over that infant.' She also agreed to have one hundred of her children die every day. Accordingly, every day one hundred demons perish, and for the same reason, we write the angels' names on the amulets of young children. When Lilith sees their names, she remembers her oath, and the child recovers.*"

*wikipedia

Well, from this script, it looks like God attempted to create women inferior to men in the first place, and then killed a hundred children everyday because she didn't want to be subservient, but weren't women supposedly meant to be inferior or subservient to their husbands AFTER Eve sinned and took a bite out of the forbidden apple?

Perhaps they weren't created 'equal' then. And sorry for the short post, I can't type much since I've hurt my hand.

P.S: And where the hell did children come from if there was only Adam and Lilith at first?

[Verrick]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

As much as I hate to, I can explain this one.

1:27 refers to Adam & Lilith

2:21-23 refers to Adam & Eve.

Lilith? I gotta say that that makes no sense. I never heard of this before and find it rather strange. The name doesn't appear in the bible and therefore I cannot accept it as canonical.

As for the twice killed goliath, I'd assume that the first verb is more or less struck down and the second is slew, or perhaps verb tenses. What matters is that that one seems to be a "lost in translation discrepancy"

[Λύσις]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

As much as I hate to, I can explain this one.

1:27 refers to Adam & Lilith

2:21-23 refers to Adam & Eve.

Who the heck is Lilith? Obviously, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are telling the same story, not two different stories. God couldn't have created the Earth twice, so why need he create two women or whatever Lilith is?

[Verrick]

Originally Posted by Lysis

Who the heck is Lilith? Obviously, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are telling the same story, not two different stories. God couldn't have created the Earth twice, so why need he create two women or whatever Lilith is?

Quite so. Truth is, Lilith never once appeared in the Bible, but instead is some supposed demon spirit that appears in erotic dreams originating from Jewish folklore.

[Kouten]

This is the first time I've seen this version of genesis. I'm a christian (I feel I need to point out before this next part), but I'd like to ask how one can clarify that story (genesis with lilith) in relevence to the faith. Wo