Bible Contradiction Graph

[Just Another Opinion]

In the military there is always a chain of command.  Here you have two statements, "Chief of the Three" and "Chief of the Officers".  I cannot rationally conclude that these are the same people since Chief seems to be used in these instances as the one in charge.  So you have the "one in charge" of the Three and the "one in charge" of the Officers.  Now lets make Three = A and Officers = B then we have "one in charge of A" and "one in charge of B".  The fact they have different names makes it more difficult to believe they are the same person.  Jack and Jarrod are similar type names yet are distinctly not the same name.   Josheb-Basshebeth and Jashobeam.  Lets for arguments sake take of the Basshebeth and we are left with  Josheb and Jashobeam.  Under the argument "the names are similar" you are inferring that all name beginning with the same letter(since the second letter is where the first deviation occurs) should be assumed to be the same person until proven otherwise?  Now lets look at the name we removed, Basshebeth, and what this would indicate in our culture.  Let's assume for a second that these are the same name, then what is the point of the added name.  Normally when two people have the same name they are usually identified from each other by their last name or some other form of designation type.  Thus the reason our military uses last names.  Just because two soldiers have the same name does not mean they are the same individual.  From a strict standpoint of fact(the facts you provided) interpretation/logical deduction it does not appear to be a rational conclusion in my opinion. 

I only had little time on my hand to look through the "Biblical contraction graph" but with my limited biblical knowledge, I have yet unable to find any contradictions.
1)How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?
it's two different persons (Josheb Basshebeth, a Tahkemonite and Jashobeam, a Hacmonite)

2 Samuel 23:8 These are the names of David’s mighty warriors:
   Josheb-Basshebeth, a Tahkemonite, was chief of the Three; he raised his spear against eight hundred men, whom he killed in one encounter. 9 Next to him was Eleazar son of Dodai the Ahohite. As one of the three mighty warriors, he was with David when they taunted the Philistines gathered at Pas Dammim[d] for battle. Then the Israelites retreated, 10 but Eleazar stood his ground and struck down the Philistines till his hand grew tired and froze to the sword. The LORD brought about a great victory that day. The troops returned to Eleazar, but only to strip the dead.

 11 Next to him was Shammah son of Agee the Hararite. When the Philistines banded together at a place where there was a field full of lentils, Israel’s troops fled from them. 12 But Shammah took his stand in the middle of the field. He defended it and struck the Philistines down, and the LORD brought about a great victory.

1 Chronicles 11:10 These were the chiefs of David’s mighty warriors—they, together with all Israel, gave his kingship strong support to extend it over the whole land, as the LORD had promised— 11 this is the list of David’s mighty warriors:
   Jashobeam, a Hakmonite, was chief of the officers[c]; he raised his spear against three hundred men, whom he killed in one encounter. 12 Next to him was Eleazar son of Dodai the Ahohite, one of the three mighty warriors. 13 He was with David at Pas Dammim when the Philistines gathered there for battle. At a place where there was a field full of barley, the troops fled from the Philistines. 14 But they took their stand in the middle of the field. They defended it and struck the Philistines down, and the LORD brought about a great victory.

So you want claim it was two different men.  Unfortunately for you, they are talking about the same man.  And they make the claim that the same man slew 800 and in a retelling, slew 300, and also can't get the name or the nationality right.  You see that Eleazar doesn't have that problem and is the same one.  Your bible can't keep itself straight.  how does that work with a book that comes from a suposedly omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent god?

[Just Another Opinion]

Romans vs James.  Works Faith and Deeds.  Romans says works don't matter to God.  James says faith without deeds(works) is dead.  What we have here are those fun test we all use to take that said if all A's are B's and some B's are C's then are all A's able to be C's.  What I mean is this.  Lets assign Works to A and Deeds to B.  So B isn't what is important to God.  You don't necessarily get A from doing B.  James is saying if you have A and A doesn't produce B in you then you never had A in the first place.  Meaning A's natural course of progression should lead to B.  But B doesn't always lead to A.  So A always leads to B, or there was no A.  And B doesn't always lead to A.  So I again have a hard time finding a contradiction.  I would also like to suggest that by the time we have received the Bible it has been translated through many languages and many generations.  To think that it is word for word accurate is silly.  To believe that it has remained generally intact is much more probable and probably more likely.  I don't mean to infer that the text has changed much, just that the wording has.  For example.  The black cat jumped in the pool.  VS  There was this crazy cat, which was black, and it did the stupidest thing I have ever seen.  It jumped into my pool!  While the wording is different the premise is the same.  So if we are really arguing semantics over words we need to find a few Scholars who speak things like 2000 year old Hebrew.

And if he did say "Well it's not YOUR bible, so you shouldn't be interpreting it in the first place." which I didn't hear, then I sorta regret putting that up.

I believe the phrase was "skeptics should just leave it to the theologians"

The second contradiction isn't so much a contradiction. Romans reads: "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God.". It is saying "If he was, then he might have something to boast about." It doesn't say he was justified by works

Yes, Romans 4:2 is the "works don't matter" part of the contradiction ... the other part being James 2:21 which says that works are a requirement.

[mmmjv]

Cain's wife was his sister. Cain, Abel, and Seth weren't their only children. Genesis 5 states that Adam had other sons and daughters, probably quite a few when you consider that at the beginning he was told to be fruitful and multiply and Eve was still having babies at 130 (Genesis 5 states that's how old Adam was when Seth was born). The prohibition against having sex with a sibling didn't come till later with Mosaic law and the genes wouldn't have been a problem because Adam and Eve were just created by God so they would have been genetically pure.

When God said let there be light what we had then was just pure light. Creating the sun later as a source of light would be kind of like how we created the lamp as a source of light even though light certainly existed before the lamp.

When God bought the animals to Adam so he could name them he had already created those animals. Lots of Bible versions are confusing here because they don't include the very important word "had". But some aren't

1750 Douay-Rheims Bible
And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.

1890 Darby Bible
And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought [them] to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name.

1902 Rotherham's Emphasized Bible
Now Yahweh God had formed from the ground every living thing of the field, and every bird of the heavens, which he brought in unto the man, that he might see what he should call it,—and, whatsoever the man should call it—any living soul, that, should be the name thereof.
http://oldebible.com/genesis/2-19.asp#1769-king-james-bible

[Foxy Freedom]

the genes wouldn't have been a problem because Adam and Eve were just created by God so they would have been genetically pure.

Genetic research does not show that. It shows that humans evolved from other animals. It also shows that humans interbred with other types of prehuman. In your own DNA there are pieces of DNA from more than one type of prehuman. Take a DNA test if you don't believe it.

[William]

...Eve was still having babies at 130 ...

Any thoughts on what was inhibiting ovarian follicle development and atresia - or what other mechanism would delay menopause to that extent?

[Nam]

It's funny how future versions of the Bible add filler words to verses, and people stating that it doesn't change anything but it does, it changes the meaning, and there lies the true contradiction to the original verse.

-Nam

[CheyenneH6877]

The Bible actually doesn't contradict itself, although it may seem like it. It may just be a little harder to understand. I understand that you may want to say that it does contradict itself, but trust me, it doesn't.

[Jag]

This thread gives you countless examples of bible contradictions. Do you really think you can show up and proclaim that there are none, because you can be trusted and that's the end?

Explain yourself please - explain the contradictions identified so far, and why you are claiming that they are NOT contradictions.

Because I don't trust you. 

[Hatter23]

The Bible actually doesn't contradict itself, although it may seem like it. It may just be a little harder to understand. I understand that you may want to say that it does contradict itself, but trust me, it doesn't.

Seem? No, it DOES contradict itself. It contradicts science. It contradict archeology. It contradicts history. It contradicts logic. It contradicts morality. It contradicts reality.

Bats are Birds, Pi is 3, Judas dies two different ways, parable of the good Samaritan versus "Not a Jot or Title of the Law," Noah took one pair of every animal or 7? Different orders or creation.

It is a compilation of mythology. Anyone but an idiot should see this.

Post 3000! Woot!

[screwtape]

but trust me, it doesn't.

I don't trust you.  Kindly pick an example and elaborate.  If you like, I can pick the example and you can explain how it is not a contradiction.  We will then discuss whether your argument has merits.

[jdawg70]

The Bible actually doesn't contradict itself, although it may seem like it. It may just be a little harder to understand. I understand that you may want to say that it does contradict itself, but trust me, it doesn't.

Comic sans.

If this is not a POE I may s**t myself from shock.

[Astreja]

The Bible actually doesn't contradict itself, although it may seem like it. It may just be a little harder to understand. I understand that you may want to say that it does contradict itself, but trust me, it doesn't.

Cheyenne, hand over the Magic Decoder Ring and back away slowly.

And please don't use Comic Sans if you want to be taken seriously. 

[Nam]

The Bible actually doesn't contradict itself, although it may seem like it. It may just be a little harder to understand. I understand that you may want to say that it does contradict itself, but trust me, it doesn't.

Cheyenne, hand over the Magic Decoder Ring and back away slowly.

And please don't use Comic Sans if you want to be taken seriously. 

Was I not supposed to eat that? I thought it was candy.

My bad.

-Nam

[Astreja]

Was I not supposed to eat that? I thought it was candy.

Wot, another one?

[Nam]

Was I not supposed to eat that? I thought it was candy.

Wot, another one?

Wait! they're not all candy? (burp) Ummm....

-Nam

[harbinger77]

romans vs James... To easy! Romans is salvation. Salvation is not of works. It is a gift from God. Nothing you do can earn it. In fact you (we) are not even worthy of the gift. James is sanctification. Deeds are what we call the fruit of the spirit or the fruit of true salvation. He is saying show me you are saved by what proof or deeds you have.

[harbinger77]

It's funny how future versions of the Bible add filler words to verses, and people stating that it doesn't change anything but it does, it changes the meaning, and there lies the true contradiction to the original verse.

-Nam

 you say "original verse.." Logically this statement says you have some knowledge about both the "original verse" and the "filler words" That were added? Assuming this is not hear say, as i believe that's against the rules as a mod I would think you would know this. please correct the new guy if I'm misinformed. Anyway, you must have personal knowledge. I can then Logically conclude,  you can and have read koina greek and ancient hebrew? I think it's only fair to let the board know what type of expert we are debating. I may wish to adjust my argument for a person of such caliber.

[Nam]

It's funny how future versions of the Bible add filler words to verses, and people stating that it doesn't change anything but it does, it changes the meaning, and there lies the true contradiction to the original verse.

-Nam

 you say "original verse.." Logically this statement says you have some knowledge about both the "original verse" and the "filler words" That were added? Assuming this is not hear say, as i believe that's against the rules as a mod I would think you would know this. please correct the new guy if I'm misinformed. Anyway, you must have personal knowledge. I can then Logically conclude,  you can and have read koina greek and ancient hebrew? I think it's only fair to let the board know what type of expert we are debating. I may wish to adjust my argument for a person of such caliber.

Are you saying you're a moderator, or are you saying I'm a moderator? If the latter, the day they make me a moderator on this website is the day that this website never exists; ever again.

The original text is in another language; before that it was oral, but let's focus on the text: if you go to http://biblegateway.com you will find many versions of the Bible. You will find that many add words (yet source the original), many take words out, and many change words and contend they are synonyms when they clearly are not. Each version is different from the next changing the meaning ever so slightly to either be more literal or just water-down to make it less than what it previous was.

As a side: your comment is condescending and sarcastic. Just to put it out there: I'm an asshole, and one you don't want to fuck with.

-Nam

[Hatter23]

romans vs James... To easy! Romans is salvation. Salvation is not of works. It is a gift from God. Nothing you do can earn it. In fact you (we) are not even worthy of the gift. James is sanctification. Deeds are what we call the fruit of the spirit or the fruit of true salvation. He is saying show me you are saved by what proof or deeds you have.

All interpretations from your brand of magic decoder ring.

[shnozzola]

Salvation is not of works. It is a gift from God.  He is saying show me you are saved by what proof or deeds you have.

That is such a canned statement used by a segment of Christian denominations.  Walk up to the front, cry, say you have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your savior, and go on living your life, secure in the knowledge that you have sincerely realized the important lessons of the bible, and you have nothing to fear, even death, because Jesus was resurrected - part of the long creed you recite every Sunday.

Harbinger, don't be afraid to think more deeply about life than just " salvation is a gift from god."
Think about eternal life in heaven and what that may mean.  Question it.  Think about whether it is the  truth and what that means.  Think about more than surface theology.

   If you make it to heaven (are you sure you will?) do you believe that you will have a consciousness for eternity?
   Do you believe you will experience some type of eternal physical bliss?
   What if a person does good deeds but doubts the existence of god?

 Why would it mean hell for a nonbeliever to  rob a bank ( I guess the non-believer doesn't even have to rob the bank.  ),  but be forgiven for a believer to rob the same bank?  Just accepting Jesus is all God asks?  Not any god - the god.  Believe me, the more you study what you have been taught, the more odd it will become.  Your definition of god will begin to change.  Good luck, may you learn to accept that, deep down, you really have no idea what the truth is, and the fellow beside you doesn't either.  It is much safer for the world.

..........you can and have read koina greek and ancient hebrew? I think it's only fair to let the board know what type of expert we are debating. I may wish to adjust my argument for a person of such caliber.

Harbinger, how sure are you of your understanding of koina greek and ancient hebrew to question another?  I don't understand it at all.  KJV and Good News for Modern man is about it, and I don't understand that.

[ParkingPlaces]

Lucky me. I don't need to dismiss any version of the bible to be an atheist. Christianity is just another primitive religion, and I need not pay any more attention to the specifics of its writings than I do to the specifics of hinduism.

If a religion wants to makes claims of truth, first they have to say something that is believable. First they have to provide words that match reality. So far, no good.

Having seen no sign that christians have any extra access to the truth, I shall continue to dismiss it.

But this stuff is fun to watch. I should change my name to Chauncey.

[harbinger77]

 Are you saying you're a moderator, or are you saying I'm a moderator? If the latter, the day they make me a moderator on this website is the day that this website never exists; ever again.

The original text is in another language; before that it was oral, but let's focus on the text: if you go to http://biblegateway.com you will find many versions of the Bible. You will find that many add words (yet source the original), many take words out, and many change words and contend they are synonyms when they clearly are not. Each version is different from the next changing the meaning ever so slightly to either be more literal or just water-down to make it less than what it previous was.

As a side: your comment is condescending and sarcastic. Just to put it out there: I'm an asshole, and one you don't want to fuck with.

-Nam
[/quote]

I meant for my comment to only draw a logical conclusion. I'm sorry if you found it rude. As for the mod thing. I thought I saw a green dot by your name indicating you as a mod. I was wrong I'm sorry. The reason behind your questioning is one that Christians discuss quite a bit. you say the original as though there is only txt to consider. There are a few textus receptus vs alexandrian txt. one came through rome and the Catholic church the other straight from Antioch. There are also gnostic texts. the argument is which one is the proper original txt and therefore fit for translation. I personally want nothing that came through the catholic church. (before you or anyone else jumps on that one I came from a catholic family) Another thing to consider is still other denominations such as Jahova witness and Mormon that have deliberately translated text to support non-christian doctrine. I can't prove this one, although I can make a case, I also believe Satin could easily have a hand in some of these translations. even a secular person such as you can easily see some of it gets "watered down." This is directly related to libs not wanting to offend anyone. Lets face it, the Gospel of jesus Christ IS offensive. That's another topic though. Personally I try to stick to KJV but I do sometimes read NLT.
As a side note. it's not nice to make threats. seeing that this is the internet I don't know what you could ever make of them anyway. In the future I would ask you to refrain from such vile language and threats as both are against the rules. thank you.

[harbinger77]

shnozzola:
canned statement? I was explaining the dif between Romans discussing salvation and James discussing the fruit of salvation. I guess one could say the reply is "canned" as it is the right answer. I do almost nothing (in my free time) but study the word of God and things related. I have found quite the opposite of what you say to be true. The deeper I go the more truth I see. As for the bank robber. We are promised that Christ will make us a "new creature" and we become a new person. Also God will give us a new heart. Good for me, as I have a witness. My wife has seen this happen to me. (Maybe I should post that in the testimonial section huh?) It's more than believing. I know that I know. The person who has that bit of doubt well, a little levin will levinith the whole loaf. The thing is a person who is truly saved wouldn't have robbed the bank in the first place. The problem here is that there are lots of name only christians out there. These people unfortunately only add fuel to your arguments. I do believe in a literal Heaven and a literal Hell and everything that would suggest. Yes I am Heaven bound. I had an out of body experience once. I was able to save the life of a friend of mine. This was a verbal interaction not a physical one. Life saving all the same though. This was years before I was saved but this showed me without doubt I have a soul (or something) that can operate independent of my body. I think I got all your points... let me know if I missed something.

[harbinger77]

missed one yes I am trying to learn the greek. One day the Hebrew as well. I don't claim to be an expert but I do at least have the desire to learn.

[Nam]

I meant for my comment to only draw a logical conclusion.

Christianity doesn't deal in logic.

I'm sorry if you found it rude.

As for the mod thing. I thought I saw a green dot by your name indicating you as a mod. I was wrong I'm sorry. The reason behind your questioning is one that Christians discuss quite a bit. you say the original as though there is only txt to consider. There are a few textus receptus vs alexandrian txt. one came through rome and the Catholic church the other straight from Antioch. There are also gnostic texts. the argument is which one is the proper original txt and therefore fit for translation. I personally want nothing that came through the catholic church. (before you or anyone else jumps on that one I came from a catholic family) Another thing to consider is still other denominations such as Jahova witness and Mormon that have deliberately translated text to support non-christian doctrine. I can't prove this one, although I can make a case, I also believe Satin could easily have a hand in some of these translations. even a secular person such as you can easily see some of it gets "watered down." This is directly related to libs not wanting to offend anyone. Lets face it, the Gospel of jesus Christ IS offensive. That's another topic though. Personally I try to stick to KJV but I do sometimes read NLT.

The problem with any text that old is that it's up for too much debate. Meaning: it can't 100% be verified therefore what is written can't be verified on the same level. That's why people believe in things like that with 'faith' rather than absolutes.

Learn to use the quote feature. There's a testing area.

-Nam

[Nam]

shnozzola:
canned statement? I was explaining the dif between Romans discussing salvation and James discussing the fruit of salvation. I guess one could say the reply is "canned" as it is the right answer. I do almost nothing (in my free time) but study the word of God and things related. I have found quite the opposite of what you say to be true. The deeper I go the more truth I see. As for the bank robber. We are promised that Christ will make us a "new creature" and we become a new person. Also God will give us a new heart. Good for me, as I have a witness. My wife has seen this happen to me. (Maybe I should post that in the testimonial section huh?) It's more than believing. I know that I know. The person who has that bit of doubt well, a little levin will levinith the whole loaf. The thing is a person who is truly saved wouldn't have robbed the bank in the first place. The problem here is that there are lots of name only christians out there. These people unfortunately only add fuel to your arguments. I do believe in a literal Heaven and a literal Hell and everything that would suggest. Yes I am Heaven bound. I had an out of body experience once. I was able to save the life of a friend of mine. This was a verbal interaction not a physical one. Life saving all the same though. This was years before I was saved but this showed me without doubt I have a soul (or something) that can operate independent of my body. I think I got all your points... let me know if I missed something.

You say it all right here: it's the "truth" because you believe it is. That doesn't actually mean it is the truth; just means it is to you.

-Nam

[harbinger77]

like I said I don't just believe. I know that I know. If you were a "knower" then you would understand.  Unfortunately NOTHING I ever say no matter how logical, practical or even provable will convince anyone.  It's not by my words but by His Grace. You, and others, are dead set against something that is spiritual not natural. Until you accept there is something beyond the natural world you see. Start with string theory which scientifically allows for the existence of many many alternate universes. Maybe this can lead you. I would also encourage you to really look at something like Carbon dating. live clams have been dated at millions of years. How about reading something scientific. The young earth theory has nothing to do with God. Only Science. Good place to start. Really there is nothing I can say or do. I will not change your mind. I can't. I'm not even trying to change your mind only answer a few questions from a different view point. Just to let you know, I started out with, most likely, the same world view as some of you reading this. By the Grace of God, truth seeking, and keeping an open mind, I came to where I am now.

[Aaron123]

like I said I don't just believe. I know that I know. If you were a "knower" then you would understand.  Unfortunately NOTHING I ever say no matter how logical, practical or even provable will convince anyone.  It's not by my words but by His Grace. You, and others, are dead set against something that is spiritual not natural. Until you accept there is something beyond the natural world you see.

The only reason we're "dead set" against spiritualism is because there is no creditable evidence for it.  Give us creditable evidence, then we'll start singing a different tune.

Start with string theory which scientifically allows for the existence of many many alternate universes. Maybe this can lead you. I would also encourage you to really look at something like Carbon dating. live clams have been dated at millions of years. How about reading something scientific. The young earth theory has nothing to do with God. Only Science.

Young Earth theory has nothing to do with science.  All the evidence points to the idea that the Earth is billions of years old, not 10,000 (or whatever you think).

Good place to start. Really there is nothing I can say or do. I will not change your mind. I can't. I'm not even trying to change your mind only answer a few questions from a different view point. Just to let you know, I started out with, most likely, the same world view as some of you reading this. By the Grace of God, truth seeking, and keeping an open mind, I came to where I am now.

Translation: "I have no creditable evidence for my claims, and I know it."

[Nam]

like I said I don't just believe. I know that I know. If you were a "knower" then you would understand.

You know that you know? I know you're an idiot. If you knew what I knew, you'd agree. See how that works? It's nonsense.

Unfortunately NOTHING I ever say no matter how logical, practical or even provable will convince anyone.  It's not by my words but by His Grace. You, and others, are dead set against something that is spiritual not natural. Until you accept there is something beyond the natural world you see.

All I read was, "blah blah blah".

Start with string theory which scientifically allows for the existence of many many alternate universes.

What does 'string theory' have to do with 'spiritualisation'?

Maybe this can lead you. I would also encourage you to really look at something like Carbon dating. live clams have been dated at millions of years. How about reading something scientific.

What does this have to do with spirituality?

The young earth theory has nothing to do with God. Only Science. Good place to start. Really there is nothing I can say or do. I will not change your mind. I can't. I'm not even trying to change your mind only answer a few questions from a different view point.

Lie. If you didn't want to change our minds you wouldn't be here preaching about your nonsense.

Just to let you know, I started out with, most likely, the same world view as some of you reading this. By the Grace of God, truth seeking, and keeping an open mind, I came to where I am now.

Wrong. Many of us started out like you.

I'm a former closed-minded Southern Baptist.

-Nam