101 Bible Contradictions Cleared

[sub_zer0]

Conclusion:
In conclusion, once we have weighed the evidence, many if not all of the seeming contradictions posed by Shabbir Ally can be adequately explained.

When we look over the 101 supposed contradictions we find that they fall into 15 broad categories or genres of errors. Listed below are those categories, each explaining in one sentence the errors behind Shabbir's contradictions. Alongside each category is a number informing us how many times he could be blamed for each category. You will note that when you add up the totals they are larger than 101. The reason is that, as you may have already noticed, Shabbir many times makes more than one error in a given question.

Categories of the errors evidenced by Shabbir in his pamphlet:
-he misunderstood the historical context - 25 times
-he misread the text - 15 times
-he misunderstood the Hebrew usage - 13 times
-the texts are compatible with a little thought - 13 times
-he misunderstood the author's intent - 12 times
-these were merely copyist error - 9 times
-he misunderstood how God works in history - 6 times
-he misunderstood the Greek usage - 4 times
-he didn't read the entire text - 4 times
-he misquoted the text - 4 times
-he misunderstood the wording - 3 times
-he had too literalistic an interpretation - 3 times
-he imposed his own agenda - 3 times
-he confused an incident with another - 1 time
-we now have discovered an earlier manuscript - 1 time

It must be admitted that we have in certain places followed explanations or interpretations that are not specifically stated in the text. This is entirely permissible, as the explanations must merely be plausible. It is clear that the gospel authors are writing from different points of view, adding and leaving out different details. This is entirely to be expected when four authors write independently. Far from casting doubt on their accounts, it gives added credibility, as those details which at first appear to be in conflict can be resolved with some thought, yet are free from the hallmarks of obvious collusion, either by the original authors or any subsequent editors.

This testifies to the honesty and openness of the scribes and translators (both Jewish and Christian). Although it would be easy to change this recognized error, this has not been done in favour of remaining true to the manuscripts. Although it leaves the passage open to shallow criticism as Shabbir Ally has shown, it is criticism which we are not afraid of.

In Shabbir's booklet, he puts two verses on the bottom of each page. It would seem appropriate that we give an answer to these quotes, which are:

1. "God is not the author of confusion..." (1 Corinthians 14:33)
True, God is not the author of confusion. There is very little that is confusing in the Bible. When we understand all the original readings and the context behind them, the confusion virtually disappears. Of course we need scholarship to understand everything in there, as we are 2,000 - 3,500 years and a translation removed from the original hearers.

But this is no different to the Qur'an. On first (and tenth) readings of the Qur'an there are many things which are not apparent. Take the mysterious letters at the beginning of the suras. It seems that after 1,400 years of scholarship, people can only take a good guess at what on earth they might be there for. Or take the many historical Biblical characters whose stories do not parallel the Bible but seem to originate in second century Talmudic apocryphal writings. This is indeed confusing. However, it is because we can go to the historical context of those writings that we now know that they could not have been authored by God, but were created by men, centuries after the authentic revelation of God had been canonized.

2. "...A house divided against itself falls" (Luke 11:17)
The Bible is not divided against itself. Jesus was talking about a major division, i.e. Satan destroying his own demons. This is far removed from the Bible. A book four times the size of the Qur'an, with the remaining problems able to be counted on your fingers and toes, a 99.999% agreement! That indeed is remarkable!

To see all those infidels.org contradictions just melt away visit:
http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/101contradictions.html

Or this site has an extensive list on supposed contradictions:
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm

[meloakey]

I know this isn't exactly on what you wrote but I want to know how you can prove the things of the Bible without making references to the Bible. I would also like to know how each book of the Bible was choosen and who chose what went into the Bible. All without making references to the Bibile.

[Duo_Maxwell]

I know this isn't exactly on what you wrote but I want to know how you can prove the things of the Bible without making references to the Bible. I would also like to know how each book of the Bible was choosen and who chose what went into the Bible. All without making references to the Bibile.

Quiet you. You might disturb his belief system.

One thing I learned in English is NEVER to define a word with the word. Oddly it applies here as well except someone else didn't learn that lesson.

[Craig]

I note that quite a few of these flaws are based upon interpretation. But why should we accept the "orthodox", (whatever that means), interpretation of these passages as the correct one?

[sub_zer0]

I know this isn't exactly on what you wrote but I want to know how you can prove the things of the Bible without making references to the Bible. I would also like to know how each book of the Bible was choosen and who chose what went into the Bible. All without making references to the Bibile.

I don't see how it is possible to prove the Bible and not quote it. As far as how we got the Bible, check this: http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/KJV.HTM

Or http://www.biblebb.com/mac-a-g.htm and scroll down to Bbible (1) - has a wealth of information.

[sub_zer0]

I note that quite a few of these flaws are based upon interpretation. But why should we accept the "orthodox", (whatever that means), interpretation of these passages as the correct one?

Because they don't contradict.

Orthodox = Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.

[sub_zer0]

Quiet you. You might disturb his belief system.

One thing I learned in English is NEVER to define a word with the word. Oddly it applies here as well except someone else didn't learn that lesson.

Never define a word with a word??

LOL, nobody is disturbing my belief system as a matter of fact, I am asking for somebody to show me and prove to me that the Bible isn't the word of God...

[Craig]

Because they don't contradict.

Orthodox = Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.

I don't think it's enough that they don't contradict. Consider as follows:

Claim from Book X:

It is wrong to use capital punishment against offenders. The death penalty is a cruel and barbaric measure. In some instances though, if the offender is vicious and evil enough, it may be a viable option.

Reader I: Book X is contradictory. It claims that it is wrong to use capital punishment, and then asserts that for some offenders, it may be a viable option.

Reader II: Book X isn't contradictory if we understand the third sentence represents an exception to the first.

Reader II: Because my interpretation of Book X means that the Book does not lapse into a contradiction, we should reject your interpretation.

I hope you can see the problem here. Reader II's conclusion, namely that his interpretation is better, rests entirely upon the fact that he wants Book X to be non-contradictory. In other words, if we wrote out the conclusion explicitly, it would actually read:

Reader II: My intepretation of Book X is better because it doesn't lapse into a contradiction because I want Book X to be non-contradictory.

It's fine that Reader II might want Book X to be non-contradictory, but we certainly should not accept his interpretation just because he wants there to be no contradiction in the text. Reader II's reasoning is particularly bad when we realize the initial claim is that the book is contradictory. Essentially, Reader II is justifying his interpretation of Book X as better because it explains away the problem of contradiction, rather than actually dealing with the problem.

Reader II's interpretation is fine if both he and Reader I agree with the starting premise "Book X must be non-contradictory, so there must be an explanation for any contradictions". That doesn't mean that their interpretation is sound, but it does mean that both readers can agree upon the interpretation. If, however, Reader I rejects the starting premise and Reader II accepts it, Reader I has no reason to accept the conclusion that a non-contradictory interpretation of Book X is best.

[Craig]

Orthodox = Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.

That's not the point with my usage of the word "orthodox". I know what the term means. The problem is that there's many different interpretations of the Bible and exactly what each passage means, so calling a particular interpretation "orthodox" is highly problematic and open to debate.

[sub_zer0]

That's not the point with my usage of the word "orthodox". I know what the term means. The problem is that there's many different interpretations of the Bible and exactly what each passage means, so calling a particular interpretation "orthodox" is highly problematic and open to debate.

"You know when people ask me that what I tell them? Get your Bible out and check me out. See, I always say, I know I’m right, because if I was wrong, I’d change my view. Right? It’s so simple. Wouldn’t you do that if you were wrong, you’d change your view, wouldn’t you? Of course. I must be right, or I’d change. Oh, so you don’t know how to handle that, do you?

No, you want to know something? I stand and I stand there with great sense of awe and respect—I stand in a tradition of hundreds and hundreds of years of Bible teachers and preachers. I don’t—I’m not out on a limb; I’m not out on a tangent. I stand right where they’ve stood for years, in the main line of Bible interpretation. There are not a lot of interpretations. There’s only one and a whole bunch of wrong ones. Satan clutters the air with all kind of smokescreens of untruth and so forth."

Obviously when there is a view that doesn't contradict it should be considered over a view that does contradict.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Never define a word with a word??

LOL, nobody is disturbing my belief system as a matter of fact, I am asking for somebody to show me and prove to me that the Bible isn't the word of God...

No, check your reading comphrension. never define the word with the word.

Hence: Castle, noun
a : a large fortified castle or set of buildings b : a massive or imposing house

You are essentially doing the same thing. Proving scripture by citing scripture is similar to defining a word with the wor.d

[Craig]

"You know when people ask me that what I tell them? Get your Bible out and check me out. See, I always say, I know I’m right, because if I was wrong, I’d change my view. Right? It’s so simple. Wouldn’t you do that if you were wrong, you’d change your view, wouldn’t you? Of course. I must be right, or I’d change. Oh, so you don’t know how to handle that, do you?

No, you want to know something? I stand and I stand there with great sense of awe and respect—I stand in a tradition of hundreds and hundreds of years of Bible teachers and preachers. I don’t—I’m not out on a limb; I’m not out on a tangent. I stand right where they’ve stood for years, in the main line of Bible interpretation. There are not a lot of interpretations. There’s only one and a whole bunch of wrong ones. Satan clutters the air with all kind of smokescreens of untruth and so forth."

Obviously when there is a view that doesn't contradict it should be considered over a view that does contradict.

Sorry sub, but as I stated in my last post, no one's obligated to accept that premise, especially in a case where it is suspected that the material is contradictory.

Out of curiousity, do you believe my example from Book X is a contradiction or not, and why?

[sub_zer0]

No, check your reading comphrension. never define the word with the word.

Hence: Castle, noun
a : a large fortified castle or set of buildings b : a massive or imposing house

You are essentially doing the same thing. Proving scripture by citing scripture is similar to defining a word with the wor.d

Most definately. Scriptura sacra sui ipsius interpres.

[sub_zer0]

[QUOTE=Craig]Sorry sub, but as I stated in my last post, no one's obligated to accept that premise, especially in a case where it is suspected that the material is contradictory.

Out of curiousity, do you believe my example from Book X is a contradiction or not, and why?

You see one interpretation that is contradictory - yours. I see another that isn't. The interpretation I use is based on a multitude of things and makes more sense as the condradictory interpretation. Again, the one that doesn't makes sense - it should bethrown out until you find another interpretation.

[ultimate capita]

Bible. Book of Genesis. Chapt. 1. Verse 3 to 5:- “And GOD said, ‘let there be light’, and there was light. GOD saw that the light was good, and HE separated the light from the darkness. GOD called the light ‘Day’, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morning—the First Day.”

Here science has a problem. This is the First day when the light has come. But where has it come from? If the source of light was Sun, then according to the Bible it appears much later on i.e. on the Fourth day as we will see later. Stars also appear on the Fourth day. So how can there be light three days in advance of Sun or stars? These are imaginary descriptions of events. There is a lot of human manipulation.


Bible. Book of Genesis. Chapter I. Verse 14 to 19:- “And GOD said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.

And it was so. GOD made two great lights— the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.

He also made the stars.

GOD set them in the expanse of the sky to give light to the earth, to govern the day and the night and to separate light from darkness.

And GOD saw that it was good.

And there was evening, and there was morning—the Fourth Day.”

Here there is a problem. In earlier verses — it has been said that the earth was already created on the First Day and there was vegetation and trees with fruits and seed. Now it is the Fourth Day and Bible now tells us that on the Fourth Day the Sun and the moon have appeared. But we know from science that the earth and the moon emanated from their original star—the Sun. So here again the Bible statement is other way. round. The Sun should have been mentioned first, light and darkness, vegetation, plants and trees and seeds should have followed thereafter. Order is God’s First Law. Today’s Bible was written in the understanding of man and it was written in the language of man.

So tell us in your infinite wisdom how does this work out? does'nt science just rock your world :shock:

[Dangerrmouse]

"You know when people ask me that what I tell them? Get your Bible out and check me out. See, I always say, I know I’m right, because if I was wrong, I’d change my view. Right? It’s so simple. Wouldn’t you do that if you were wrong, you’d change your view, wouldn’t you? Of course. I must be right, or I’d change. Oh, so you don’t know how to handle that, do you?

No, you want to know something? I stand and I stand there with great sense of awe and respect—I stand in a tradition of hundreds and hundreds of years of Bible teachers and preachers. I don’t—I’m not out on a limb; I’m not out on a tangent. I stand right where they’ve stood for years, in the main line of Bible interpretation. There are not a lot of interpretations. There’s only one and a whole bunch of wrong ones. Satan clutters the air with all kind of smokescreens of untruth and so forth."

Obviously when there is a view that doesn't contradict it should be considered over a view that does contradict.

Using quotation marks is an improvement, but you really should include a link, when you use others' material.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-J-17.htm

[sub_zer0]

Using quotation marks is an improvement, but you really should include a link, when you use others' material.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-J-17.htm

I've posted that site many times.

[Craig]

Sub_zer0,

I'm going to let you off this time, since you may genuinely not know about the rules of plagiarism. However, consider yourself warned henceforth: every single time you use an idea that is not yours, you have to acknowledge the source. Failure to do so is plagiarism, even if you cited the website many times before. Remember, any time you don't include a link/citation for an idea, your essentially claiming that the idea is your own, because you've done nothing to illustrate that it actually belongs to another person. If you use other people's ideas, the onus is on you to acknowledge that usage.

And here's something to consider: if you paraphrase a bunch of information from a book, and you remember to cite that book in most cases, but forget to cite it for one of your paraphrases, you're still technically plagiarizing. Why is this? Because even although you've indicated, most of the time, where the information came from, if you forget a single citation, you're still claiming the information from the book is actually your own ideas, and therefore you're plagiarizing. Here's an example:

As part of his campaign to ensure his success in England, William the Conqueror sent out small parties of men to ravish villages (Carpenter, 77). In particular, the fact that winter time was fast approaching in England made the effects of the raiding parties' actions particularly devastating. By setting barns on fire, which contained the seeds for next year's crop, and burning them to the ground, two years supply of food was effectively lost.

If what I wrote above appeared in an essay, I could be charged with plagiarism. Why? Because even although I acknowledge where the information in the first sentence came from (and the rest of the info came from the exact same page in the book), I failed to indicate that it was Carpenter's ideas, and not mine. Therefore, I'd be plagiarizing.

The rule that I've just outlined does not apply here to Whistlestopper. That is to say, you only have to include the link once, rather than citing each and every line that is not yours. The reason I brought it up is because it's a good example that just because you've cited a source before doesn't mean you can get away with not citing it at a later time. Consider yourself warned- if you are caught borrowing someone else's information, even if you have included the link to their webpage in the past, I will penalize you for plagiarism next time.

[Craig]

By the way Sub_zer0, if there's anything that is not clear or that you don't understand about my above post, now is the time to ask me, either here in the forum or by PM. Otherwise, I will assume that you have read and fully understand what I've written.

[sub_zer0]

By the way Sub_zer0, if there's anything that is not clear or that you don't understand about my above post, now is the time to ask me, either here in the forum or by PM. Otherwise, I will assume that you have read and fully understand what I've written.

The only time I reference something is when I put quotes around it... I'll post links next time... its OK.

[Craig]

The only time I reference something is when I put quotes around it... I'll post links next time... its OK.

As I've said, things are more relaxed here in Whistlestopper than when you're writing an essay. So long as you include a link for every separate post in which you use an idea that is not your own, there's no problem.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Most definately. Scriptura sacra sui ipsius interpres.

the fact that you agree with that is disturbing. you just admitted that you are trying to prove the validity of scripture by citing scripture. That's like saying you're right and then citing as a source that you are right, yourself. Doesn't fly here sub.

[sub_zer0]

the fact that you agree with that is disturbing. you just admitted that you are trying to prove the validity of scripture by citing scripture. That's like saying you're right and then citing as a source that you are right, yourself. Doesn't fly here sub.

You don't get it. We are solving contradictions within a book. If a contradiction can be solved by citing the same book than the contradiction is located in, it becomes null. Simple as that.

[Duo_Maxwell]

You don't get it. We are solving contradictions within a book. If a contradiction can be solved by citing the same book than the contradiction is located in, it becomes null. Simple as that.

That's rich comming from you. That's not your point here as everyone can see. The point here is to further the notion that the bible is true. The problem is you are doing that by citing the bible as proof of its validity. That does not work.

[sub_zer0]

That's rich comming from you. That's not your point here as everyone can see. The point here is to further the notion that the bible is true. The problem is you are doing that by citing the bible as proof of its validity. That does not work.

Would you like some external evidence then?

[Duo_Maxwell]

Would you like some external evidence then?

None that you provide, I've seen the 'quality' of that.

[sub_zer0]

None that you provide, I've seen the 'quality' of that.

Allow me to then verify the Bible as a historic record of the world it speaks about.

OLD TESTAMENT:
Hezekiah’s tunnel
2 Kings 20:20 “Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah—all his might, and how he made a pool and a tunnel and brought water into the city—are they not written in the book of chronicles of the kings of Judah?”

2 Chronicles 32:30 further substantiates the tunnel construction with this comment: “This same Hezekiah also stopped the water outlet of Upper Gihon, and brought the water by tunnel to the west side of the City of David.”

Found in 1880, Hezekiah took the throne of Judah at 25 for 29 years. The Siloam inscription commemorates the excavation of Hezekiah’s Tunnel. Hezekiah’s tunnel, displaying the thick limestone through which workers had to dig.

So much more here http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2502

[Dangerrmouse]

This is like prediction. A city needs a water supply. In a hot country, using a tunnel reduces evaporation. This city has an ancient tunnel which supplied it with water. An ancient book says someone built a tunnel for that city. they are not necessarily one and the same. For example DNA research has suggested that we are all evolved from one maternal bloodline originating in africa. "Our" collective grandmother is known as "Eve" because of the similarity with the legend.
One piece of the linked article seems accurate though. Perhaps not the best choice for evidence of authenticity.

"Therefore, if we ask archaeology to “prove” that the entire Bible is true or false, we are faced with the fact that archaeology can neither prove nor disprove the Bible’s validity"