The Bible contradicts it self?

The historical existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is still in dispute by archaeologists.

If there were large quantities of salt found in that area it would probably be attributed to the fact that it is near the Dead sea, one of the saltiest bodies of water on Earth.

 

I am loving this thread... it is so much fun.
I am kind of disappointed though that we seem to be focusing on only one or two things (well beating them into the dirt actually...:beatdeadhorse5 When we have had other equally valid points made.

Anyway. Here is another example of what I would call a contradiction:

2 Kings 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

vs

2 Chronicles 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.


And yes I did read the chapter around it so I am positive that this is the same Jehoiachin in both passages. So why in Kings was he 18 and in Chronicles he was 8?

I do realize that this may not seem significant but then again there are no significant contradictions in the Bible. Any that might have been there would have surely been "fixed" years ago. Probably back in the times when church leaders purposely kept the Word from the common man. The Bible was always written in Latin and Most commoners (if they could read at all) couldn't read Latin, not to mention the price of such a thing as the Bible would have been more than most could ever afford. Therefore they were dependent on the Church leaders to tell them what the Bible said. So no matter how hard you look you will never find a contradiction in any Biblical Doctrine. Only such insignificant things as numbers, dates, etc. And these "insignificant" things will always be written off by Christians because they will have no effect on their basis of Faith.
It's still fun to debate these little inconsistencies though.

 

You don't get contradictions in the Beano either.

 

Yeah, translation can make a big difference. In the NIV,NAS translation Gen 2:19 says "God had formed out of the ground beasts of the field. Using these translations there isn't neccesarily any contradiction.

Indeed, the writers of the bible may have used the formations to add to the power of the story....or maybe she really did turn to salt. Even if she didn't it doesn't really take away from the moral of the story imo.

I found this. http://www.thebereans.net/contra-r04.shtml

 

Was the Beano written by multiple different people over a span of 1600 years? Is it in any way historical spiritual and rich with complex story?

 

I think that one of the reasons why people are so against the Bible is BECAUSE of the church's doctrines. Much of the doctrines seems very contradictory, which is why, imo, people have a field day with Doctrinal Christians.

 

I think the moral of this story is that, especially in dealing with Bible controversies, we either need to know Hebrew and Greek or to consult several translations. I thought I was doing that by using three, but I didn't use NIV, NAS. It's interesting that fundamentalists sometimes disparage NIV as the "Not Inspired Version", and there is a school of fundamentalist thought that argues "King James Only", but in this case King James made it look like the Bible was contradicting itself, while NIV, NAS didn't. I don't think that necessarily means one can always be relied on and not the other. I'm going to continue using the others, and add NIV, NAS.

 

No problem, at work today I was thinking that might be the problem. So I tried to come up with another solution using "your translation" and this is what I came up with; In Gen 1 it says the animals were created and then man, it doesn’t say Adam so it could mean mankind. Then in Gen 2 it says Adam was created then the animals and after Adam named them then Eve was created thus the creation of “man” was finished after the creation of the animals.

You know zoomed out maybe you’d just see the finish of the creation of the animals and then the finish of the creation of man but zoomed in you would better see the detail that Adam was created first then the animals then Eve.

What do you think? Possible?

 

Oh I haven't forgotten about you!
It’s just a “bad?” habit of mine, that when I get on a topic I have to wring all the juice out of it before I move on.

As for numerical contradictions a lot of times the literature on the subject will say that it seems to be a scribal error but sometimes there is more to it than that and it can be an interesting study. Here’s hoping.

 

I like the NWT and have easy access to it in digital form but I realize many have a problem with it and so try to use other translation as much as possible if I have the time but if I answer quickly with a scripture it's probably NWT.

 

What was the moral of that story?

To kill homosexuals?

Or to shun those who are different than you?

 

Although I find the language it the "King James" beautiful and poetic, it is a particularly bad translation and has several cases of spurious scriptures. Personally, I believe that the truth can be found in any Bible but the “King James” seems like it was worded in a way to make it particularly difficult.

 

Why both of course with a might touch of don't try and molest the Angels when they come to town thrown in.

 

Ya, molestation isn't all that great imo

 

OMG! :smilielol5: Lol you are just too much Brother!

 

I think the animals being created first is better. Then dinosaurs and man wouldn't have to live together.

That would be awesome to be able to read the bible in Greek and Hebrew. I bet there are details that get changed slightly in the translation. It's interesting looking up what hebrew words mean. The word Adam is hebrew for man and it sounds like Adamah which means ground or soil.

 

I'm not sure the story of Sodom and Gommorah has much or anything to do with ordinary homosexuality, but it has a lot to do with the evil of mistreating those who are different from you. The first extended commentary on the Sodom story is Ezekiel 16:49-50. What does Ezekiel say the sin of Sodom was? “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” The immediate incident that brought about the destruction of the city involved a couple of strangers who showed up at Lot's house and were given his hospitality. A mob surrounded the house and demanded that Lot send out the strangers that they might "know" them (presumably in the biblical sense). Lot offered his daughter in place of his guests, but the mob would not be satisfied by anything less than the guests. What was going on here? Was this a horny group of homos looking for sex? More likely, it was a mob of bullies seeking to intimidate and humiliate strangers to town--outsiders,foreingers. Use of sexual intimidation and gang rape by men who are ostensibly heterosexual for purposes of domination is not uncommon even today. It is SOP in our prisons. New York's finest (presumably not homos) "sodomized" and African with a plunger during the Juliani mayoral era. In the law case, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Oil Services, a man was subjected to sexual bullying by other men, including threats of rape and having a bar of soap jammed up his ass. Neither the victim or the perpetrator were gay. At best, the incident at Sodom was not your typical act of homosexual love; it was threatened gang rape, probably not for sex but for intimidation. Unfortunately for them, the mob picked on a couple of angels and were toasted for it. I'd say the moral was be kind to strangers, especially if they're angels--treat them decently. I think killing homosexuals or shunning those who are different from you would perpetuate the sin of Sodom, not avoid it.

 

I had forgotten that homosexuality is a sore subject with you. Sorry about making light of it with rudenoodle.

We've dicussed this before and you know where I stand and that I don't believe we should be killing homosexuals nor do I believe we should shun people just because they are different but I think the molesting Angels part was spot on.

 

Hey OWB, I was thinking about how the term "man" refers to both Adam and Eve how "man" is in the image of God. Therefore, God must be both male and female. That's why in Gen. 1 he always refers to himself as "us". So is the Holy spirit his Eve? I just thought that was interesting. I've never really considered that before.

 

I think what some folk need to remember is that the books in the Bible were written by ordinary men , each one adding their own personality to the text.
Even the New Testament , even though it was written by those men that hung out with Jesus , was written YEARS later , after he was crucified , and we all know how fallible human memory is.
GOD didnt write the Bible , he just dictated , and left Man to write it all down.