Biblical Contradictions

BrianCalgary

Well I went to the website that Robin suggested:

Contradiction number 133: The Fig Tree
Mt.21:19-20
"And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!"

Mk.11:13-14, 20-21
"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it. ... And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away."

Now here is the Christian Response:
Mark does not comment on when the fig tree withered away. He only states that the disciples “saw the fig tree withered away to its roots.” It involves no contradiction for the following events to occur:
(a) Jesus curses the fig tree
(b) the disciples hear what Jesus says,
(c) the fig tree withers away, and
(d) the disciples later notice that the fig tree has withered away.

A question remains about how suddenly or not-suddenly the fig tree withered. Matthew uses a word that is not the usual word for “immediately” -- the Greek word “parachrema” -- but which does describe an immediate action. The impression I get is that the fig-tree immediately drooped, but by the next morning -- where Matthew 21:20 picks up the scene without a break, and where Mark 11:20 picks up the scene with a break -- it was not just droopy but entirely shriveled -- i.e., as Matthew says, the fig tree “withered away” right after Jesus cursed it, but by the next morning, the fig tree had “withered away to its roots,” as Mark 11:20 says.

But another interpretation is possible. The fig-tree was off in the distance from the path where the disciples were -- Mark notes that the disciples heard what Jesus said without commenting on what they did or didn't see -- so it is also possible for the entire tree to have immediately shriveled up altogether, and for the disciples to have noticed this only later.

I trust that Robin won't accept the explanation. So I have put a similar contrast between reports that was quite interesting and the sarcasm should be noted:

Man Utd 0 Arsenal 0

Quote from the manutd.com match report:
"United finished the half on top and could easily have gone ahead in the 44th minute when Ruud van Nistlerooy fired in a cracking drive."

The Arsenal site:
"Two minutes from the break, Van Nistlerooy let fly from just outside the area..."

Everyone knows that a half is 45 minutes long. Man U says 44th minute while Arsenal says 2 minutes from time. They contradict, therefore I must conclude that it did not happen.

Man U: "Both sides close to opening the scoring within minutes of the resumption. Rooney's looping header excited the travelling United fans whilst ..."

Arsenal: "One such foray led to opening chance of the half in the 55th minute. Ryan Giggs dinked over a cross from the left and Wayne Rooney floated a header back across goal from the far post."

When did it happen, within minutes of the start or well into the half, 55th minute? I conclude therefore that it did not happen.

Man u: "and in the 70th minute the North Bank regulars were on the feet appealing for a penalty after Fabregas had gone down under Neville's challenge."

Arsenal: "In the 66th minute Henry's cute, angled ball was nearly turned past Vander Sar by Pires. A minute later Fabregas claimed a penalty after Neville's tackle in the area."

Was it in the 70th minute or the 67th (66 + 1)? I guess it didn't happen.

ManU tells us that Ryan Giggs received a yellow card, Arsenal makes no mention of it. I can conclude then that Giggs did not get a yellow.

In fact with all the contradictions I will question as to whether or not the game actually happened.

samb

I agree it is not a clear contradiction, it is an example of the trite you read in the Bible. Why did he kill the tree? It shows the contempt for nature also? A book of its time.

samb

Arsenal 0 Man U 0.
The premiership is over

robindch

> I trust that Robin won't accept the explanation.

On the contrary, your explanation of that that 'contradiction' shows how weak it is. Good work.

But, rather than picking a trivial one, why not go for something a bit deeper than a dead fig tree? For example, is there more than one god? The bible seems to think so:

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

Contradiction, or not?

BTW, at the risk of bugging excelsior with my fundamentalism the bible also implies that there are witches, sorcerers etc, all of whom we're enjoined to murder with heavenly authority; So, should we really kill them, assuming that we can find them?

Vangelis

samb wrote:

I agree it is not a clear contradiction, it is an example of the trite you read in the Bible. Why did he kill the tree? It shows the contempt for nature also? A book of its time.

Where does contempt for nature come from? Trees are here so we can reshape them to suit our needs. For shelter or other things. Abuse of nature is another thing. But it's not clear to me where you're going with "contempt for nature".

There are other gods, but God is the only true god.

Charis

Robin,
Now that wasn't a very helpful site. Many have mentioned the trinity, father-God, Son-Jesus, Holy Spirit. The Word mentioned in John chapter 1 would reference Jesus. The Bible would be very lacking in understanding of the societies in which the Jewish/Israelite people lived if it did not refence the worship of gods. Of course the greeks would be just one example. To see more on references to the greek gods and the Christian God check out Paul's sermon in Acts 17.16-34. The Jewish people were and are monotheistic and the societies which surrounded them polytheistic. If they were to remain true to God, it would be important to warn them of the other societies' beliefs.

Lets see, Excelsior can probably answer your other question better but I have a few minutes. The references to which you refer are found in the Old Testament before Christ came, fulfilling the law. Other posters on other threads have mentioned some of the laws in the OT and the harshness. I agree, however, Christ brought love and forgiveness. That is kinda the point of the law. It was impossible to be perfect and so we have Christ's love and forginess. There is no where after Christ's arrival that you see Christians being told to go out and kill anyone. Instead we are commanded to live peaceably with all men, overcoming evil with good. Romans 12:18-21

BTW yes, there are witches, I have known of several and I had a good friend who was one.

hairyheretic

Vangelis wrote:

There are other gods, but God is the only true god.

That statement puzzles me. If other gods exist, how then can they not be true? It seems something of a contradiction.

Asiaprod

hairyheretic wrote:

Originally Posted by Vangelis
There are other gods, but God is the only true god.

That statement puzzles me. If other gods exist, how then can they not be true? It seems something of a contradiction.

It puzzles me even more, how can there be other Gods? I thought that the accepted rule was there was only one God.

samb

Vangelis wrote:

Where does contempt for nature come from? Trees are here so we can reshape them to suit our needs. For shelter or other things. Abuse of nature is another thing. But it's not clear to me where you're going with "contempt for nature".

More contempt.

Again, why did he kill the tree? I don't understand. Was it not environmental vandalism?

Excelsior

I sometimes wonder about the level of Biblical familiarity that passionate decryers of Christianity have. I can't help but think sometimes that they are suffering from one of 3 fairly serious problems:
1) They reject all Biblical scholarship and read the text flat, like a good devout Paisleyite
2) They haven't read the Bible, but merely parsed it for apparent contradictions
3) They are cynically exploiting the ignorance of others to win them over to their faith in their overarching story- be that atheism, agnosticism or some alternative.

I say that because the page Robin linked to can all be dealt with by working on point 1) of my list there. If I know the answer to a problem, I also know it can't be a very difficult problem since I am such an amateur when it comes to Biblical studies.

There are 2 categories to the answer:
a) References to God in the plural that refer to the Trinity
b) References to things that people call gods who Yahweh dismisses as idols.

The first 3 references from Genesis are answered by a). God created the world. God is referred to as a community. Fast forward to the first line of the Gospel of John and we read that Jesus was the creative force in that community. The rest of the New Testament is an unfolding of the trinity concept of Father, Son and Spirit. This is the "we" of Genesis that is explicitly articulated in the final verse on that list.

All of the other references come under b). The Bible doesn't say that Yahweh is the only God that anyone ever worshipped. It says that He is the only God that ever lived. All the other Gods are pieces of carved wood, shaped gold or more likely, money, power and sex. When someone puts something at the centre of their lives, something that they order their lives around, which aren't Yahweh they are their gods. The Bible says you should have no other god but Yahweh.

Can someone tell me why the Skeptics Annotated Bible uses an archaic translation of Scripture? Would it not be a more authentic pursuit of truth to use the TNIV or the NRSV?

On the issue of witch burning: We are not asked to kill anyone. Jesus said something somewhere about turning your cheek and then said something about not judging lest something something. I forget the details. The Torah has been fulfilled in the coming of he to which the Torah points. Jesus gave us a different understanding of violence in the light of his arrival. The Law of the Old Testament exists to lead us to the Grace of the Gospel and in that Grace, Christians should not kill anyone.

wolfsbane

Robindch said:

BTW, at the risk of bugging excelsior with my fundamentalism the bible also implies that there are witches, sorcerers etc, all of whom we're enjoined to murder with heavenly authority; So, should we really kill them, assuming that we can find them?

As others have pointed out, Christians are not called to impliment the Mosiac Law, part of which mandated execution for witchcraft. Why are God's people today not under the same demands as in OT Israel? Because Israel has come to maturity, moved beyond the types and shadows of the Law and into the reality of Christ. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians%204;&version=50;49;9;47;

Israel then was a nationality set up by God as a nation-state. It was given temporary civil and ceremonial laws as well as the eternal moral laws. The civil were to preserve law and order, the ceremonial to point to the Coming One who would actually make atonement for their sins, and the moral expressed God's character and His will for us.

Christians are not a state, therefore they have no mandate to enforce law and order. Christ has come, so they no longer use the shadows to speak of Him. His moral law abides forever, so they seek to love Him with all their hearts and their neighbours as themselves - the kernal of the moral law.

hairyheretic

Excelsior wrote:

The Bible doesn't say that Yahweh is the only God that anyone ever worshipped. It says that He is the only God that ever lived. All the other Gods are pieces of carved wood, shaped gold or more likely, money, power and sex.

Does it state that specifically, or is that your interpretation of what its written?

Vangelis

hairyheretic wrote:

That statement puzzles me. If other gods exist, how then can they not be true? It seems something of a contradiction.

All other gods but the God you read about in the Bible are man-made, false, hypocritical gods. They are gods because humans have made them gods.
And now you will say that God is man-made too, and to that I will answer: It's a matter of faith.

Vangelis

samb wrote:

More contempt.

Again, why did he kill the tree? I don't understand. Was it not environmental vandalism?

Your point has no substance. Your house is probably made out of trees. Or something you possess is made out of trees. Dead trees. Killed trees. Do you hear anyone say: "You should be ashamed of yourself" ?

Excelsior, when I checked SkepticsAnnotatedBible I used the New King James version. That's just as good as any more modern translation and makes no difference from what I can tell.

Asiaprod

Excelsior wrote:

I sometimes wonder about the level of Biblical familiarity that passionate decryers of Christianity have. I can't help but think sometimes that they are suffering from one of 3 fairly serious problems:
1) They reject all Biblical scholarship and read the text flat, like a good devout Paisleyite
2) They haven't read the Bible, but merely parsed it for apparent contradictions
3) They are cynically exploiting the ignorance of others to win them over to their faith in their overarching story- be that atheism, agnosticism or some alternative.

How about the elder among us who had a version of christianity hoisted on us 20 - 30 years ago. Its was very differeent from the liberalism that we are begining to see today.

hairyheretic

Vangelis wrote:

All other gods but the God you read about in the Bible are man-made, false, hypocritical gods.

And you base this on what?

Vangelis wrote:

They are gods because humans have made them gods.

What of the Gods of every other culture, the ones that aren't mentioned in the bible?

Vangelis wrote:

And now you will say that God is man-made too, and to that I will answer: It's a matter of faith.

Indeed. The same faith that every person has in what they believe in. Is my faith in my Gods any different to your faith in yours?

robindch

> Christians are not called to impliment the Mosiac Law
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians%204;&version=50;49;9;47;

Hmm... I presume this is the same quotation that Excelsior noted a few weeks back (is it?)

I've read it twice and for the life of me, I can't see where it says "OK guys, please ignore everything I said in the OT about how to live. This new version is the correct one." Please tell me what I'm missing here.

> Christians are not a state, therefore they have no mandate
> to enforce law and order.

Good heavens! Where do you guys learn your history!? Have you ever read about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials? Christians have been attempting to enforce their own particular law and order all over the place for almost 2,000 years.

In case anybody thinks that this interference is gone with the decline of church's political power, take a look at this item from just a couple of days ago:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1678189,00.html

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Hmm... I presume this is the same quotation that Excelsior noted a few weeks back (is it?)

I'm sorry, I've been missing out on many posts due to business, so I'm not sure. Give me the reference and I'll see.

I've read it twice and for the life of me, I can't see where it says "OK guys, please ignore everything I said in the OT about how to live. This new version is the correct one." Please tell me what I'm missing here.

OK, Paul is rebuking these Christians for thinking of submitting themselves to the Mosaic Law. He points out that it is a part of the Church's chilhood experience, not fitting for those who have entered adulthood.9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years.....31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.
In Galatians 3 Paul makes this even clearer: 19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Good heavens! Where do you guys learn your history!? Have you ever read about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials? Christians have been attempting to enforce their own particular law and order all over the place for almost 2,000 years.

You will note that I said 'therefore they have no mandate to enforce law and order'. I did not say some of them did not do so. The wicked events you refer to were mostly carried out by false Christianity, but some true believers were also carried away with the false theology that seeks to promote the gospel by the sword. For these brethren I apologise.

Of course, I'm not saying Christians should not support the State in its restraint of evil-doing - theft, rape, murder, etc. all should be punished. Unbelief should not.

Excelsior

Also, what is wrong with the Vatican (technically a nation) lobbying for a political decision. Is it not right that Catholic citizens should seek to express their political will and mould society as they see fit? Is that not a right of all citizens?

The point where that becomes a problem is with methodology. If you are coercing people then that is not appropriate regardless of your beliefs. I don't think Catholics are.

Vangelis

hairyheretic wrote:

And you base this on what?

I read the Scriptures and from that I drew that conclusion.

What of the Gods of every other culture, the ones that aren't mentioned in the bible?

The same goes for them. A god doesn't have to be mentioned in the Bible to be a false, non-existant god.

Indeed. The same faith that every person has in what they believe in. Is my faith in my Gods any different to your faith in yours?

Yes, it is totally different, if you believe in a different god.

samb

Vangelis wrote:

Your point has no substance. Your house is probably made out of trees. Or something you possess is made out of trees. Dead trees. Killed trees. Do you hear anyone say: "You should be ashamed of yourself" ?
.

You haven't said why he killed the tree. If he had some useful purpose for it then fair enough. Seems to me like he was exerting power over it for the sake of it, hence contempt. It is that passage and the bible generally that has no substance.
What did you learn form that passage? What is its substance?

hairyheretic

Vangelis wrote:

I read the Scriptures and from that I drew that conclusion.

So how is it proven?

Vangelis wrote:

The same goes for them. A god doesn't have to be mentioned in the Bible to be a false, non-existant god.

And how would you feel about someone saying that because your god isn't mentioned in their holy book, yours is obviously false and non existant?

Vangelis wrote:

Yes, it is totally different, if you believe in a different god.

Not quite the point I was going for. Everyone who follows a path believes that it is the right one for them. They have faith in what they believe. The details of what that faith entails, and how they act, will differ but the fact is that they have that faith.

You believe that if you live a good life in accordance with your beliefs, you will receive your reward. I believe the same thing.

JustHalf

hairyheretic wrote:

And how would you feel about someone saying that because your god isn't mentioned in their holy book, yours is obviously false and non existant?

Well then their holy book is obviously wrong!

Seriously though, the fact that a differing opinion than one's own is written down does not in any way change the fact that it's just a different opinion. The fact that they consider their holy book as holy in the first place... that's just their opinon.

You're really asking "How would you feel if someone disagrees with you?". That's not something that you should find insulting.

hairyheretic

JustHalf wrote:

Seriously though, the fact that a differing opinion than one's own is written down does not in any way change the fact that it's just a different opinion. The fact that they consider their holy book as holy in the first place... that's just their opinon.

I wonder how many christians would be happy to admit the bible is just an oppinion?

Those (of any religion) who tend to believe theirs is the only one true way are obviously not going to be very agreeable to calling their religion an oppinion.

JustHalf wrote:

You're really asking "How would you feel if someone disagrees with you?". That's not something that you should find insulting.

I have no problem with any disagreeing with me, or indeed believing that I'm on a highway to hell I don't share their beliefs, so what they believe doesn't really mean all that much to me.

I believe that my path will result in my eventual reward, if I earn it. I expect theirs will too. Coming from a pantheistic perspective, I don't have a problem in believing other gods can exist, and for all I know, do.

JustHalf

The fact of whether or not the Bible is genuinely a Holy Book is entirely seperate from my opinion about whether or not it is a Holy Book.