Contradictions in the Bible

Alright, I'll bite and be devil's advocate here.

As someone who has studied the Bible fairly closely and cares about it, this is no surprise. I'll give a few scattered points here, and you'll also have to pardon me, as this is from the top of my head, I only have so much time to burn on this today.

#1 The Bible is not first and foremost a "historical documentary" in the modern sense. The very idea of a historical account striving for objective unbiased reality is fairly recent historically, and the Bible is meant to be a religious text that's trying to teach you something.

I'll give an example. At the end of most of the gospels, there's a Roman guard, who reacts in wonder to the death of Jesus. In each account, he marvels aloud, saying something that caps off the themes of each gospel. As a reader, I don't believe that each apostle happened to be by a different guard that happened to say the perfect thing. Maybe one apostle saw a guard in the distance with a look on his face? Maybe there was no guard at all? The historical veracity of this detail doesn't really matter. The story is accurate in the major points, that Jesus died on a cross, etc, but the small details like this are full of embellishments and storytelling. Even in tiny details you wouldn't expect, details like numbers have symbolic significance. Ancient Jewish readers were aware of what was happening here, and this wasn't considered a lie or a devastating contradiction just like we don't think modern writers are liars for using exaggeration, metaphors, and sarcasm.

#2 The Biblical authors are aware there are contradictions. For example, there's a case where a ritual meal is originally supposed to be boiled. Later, the same meal is described as being roasted. Both of these cases are divine law given by God. I'd argue this change was because Israel was no longer fleeing through the desert, and so could prepare the meal in a slower way.

Much later in the Bible, an especially good King is described as being "so faithful that he roasts his meat in water". It's a Biblical author literally cracking a joke about a Biblical contradiction. These moments aren't some shocking gotcha to any reader paying attention.

#3 The Bible contradicts itself intentionally. It's an ancient Jewish way of teaching to have two rabbis take different stances, and argue publicly. Often, the truth of something is in the tension between two perspectives.

My favourite book in the Bible is Ecclesiastes, which takes a Nietzsche-esque stance that nothing we do matters, and life is terribly unfair. Bad things happen to good people and vice versa, so simply eat, drink, and be merry. It comes right after Proverbs, which is the classic book everyone quotes from about how doing good things leads to good things. The truth is somewhere in the middle. The books directly contradict, but are both true, being kind often leads to kindness, but life is also often unfair and out of our control. The best way to explain that is to state both sides, and let the reader sit on those two ideas and ponder them.

In summary, this collection of contradictions is a great visualization, and I love it for those obstinate people who are deep in the Dunning-Kruger effect with the Bible. But for those who actually pay attention and study, this isn't anything revelatory. When someone says the Bible is inerrant and has "no mistakes", they (hopefully) mean that they believe it's inspired by God, and everything in it has some value, even if they may not understand every detail. I would hope that they don't mean that there are literally no contradictory statements, as that's objectively untrue.

I'm someone who was raised Christian, learned a lot about the Christian Bible and its historical context, and is now very much not Christian because of that.
All of this comment feels like someone laying a lot of groundwork to justify cherry-picking opinions. It's about as meaningful as the catch-all excuse "God works in mysterious ways" when people are confronted with the problematic parts of Christian theology.
If the Bible can't be trusted, which it seems you agree about, then any use of it to justify hate and mistreatment is fundamentally flawed. Do you give this impassioned speech when you hear Christians use the book to justify their oppression of others? These days, particularly queer folk?
I, for one, am not particularly interested in deriving any part of my morality from the flawed "word" of a hateful murderous war god.
- Do you give this impassioned speech when you hear Christians use the book to justify their oppression of others? These days, particularly queer folk?
  Absolutely I do! Let's grab that framework I described earlier, and apply it to LGBTQIA+. I'm gonna break this into two questions:
  A) Is being gay a "sin". B) Is it right to protest/harass/whatever queer people.
  To start with A, let's do a quick check of mentions of homosexuality in the Bible. There is shockingly little here. Virtually nothing. But let's look at possibly the most popular instance to cite, in Sodom. Sodom is a horrifying Old Testament story, where an Angel disguises himself as a traveller and visits a city, being invited into a home. All the town gathers and demands the traveller be released to them, so they can rape him. Instead, the host gives them his daughter, who they rape to death. The whole town is then destroyed for its sinfulness. So this is... an unflattering association with homosexuality. But, there's clearly a lot more going on here too. To blame this on just homosexuality is obviously a stretch.
  So let's look for other examples. As a Christian and not a Jew, Jesus is considered the highest authority, so anything he says directly should be considered very important. So does he mention it? Not even once, as far as I'm aware. Perhaps he's just unaware? Well, looking at historical context, he's living in the Roman Empire, which is pretty famously gay, as tumblr delights to point out. So I find it highly unlikely that Jesus wouldn't have had opportunity to comment, and yet he never bothers, or at least the apostles never bothered to record it.
  So there's shockingly little said on the topic, and nearly nothing direct. Some will point to verses about "nature" and marriage, but that sounds to me like you're bringing your own conclusions in first, and have already decided what those words mean, rather than looking to the text and ancient Jewish culture to define them. In cases where it's condemned, it's usually muddled with lots of other horrifying sins. As far as a modern gay marriage goes, with two people committed to one another in a loving relationship, I don't see that described anywhere in the Bible, and personally don't find much basis to take issue with it.
  At the bare minimum, I think it's crystal clear this isn't an important issue. This isn't terribly scientific, but just opening Bible Gateway and searching the word "homosexual" in the NIV, I get 1 result, from a letter written to Timothy where it's mentioned in a list of "things contrary to sound doctrine". Searching "divorce", I get 33. "Adultery"? 45. So any church with a divorcee that can't tolerate gays? Deeply hypocritical. There's also 49 results for "judge not" while we're at it.
  --
  As for B, I don't think it's unreasonable to look at what I've presented above and conclude that it it's not godly. There isn't anything really pro-queer to be found either. And fair enough, I can understand if, say, a pastor isn't comfortable performing a gay marriage in their church. (sidebar, it's ridiculous that legal marriage and "Christian marriage" somehow became the same thing. The church should have no opinions on who non-Christians live with and how they're taxed accordingly).
  What I cannot understand is how you take the thin evidence presented above, and conclude it's enough to consider it acceptable to disregard the overwhelming themes of love and acceptance, of not judging, of having grace, and conclude that this issue merits such insane and unacceptable behaviour. To do so signals in bright crimson that you've discarded any pretence of letting the Bible guide you, and are fully allowing your politics and feelings to drive your interpretation of the Bible. Jesus loved prostitutes and cheating tax collectors, but you're telling me he would've harassed any gay he found, when he doesn't even bother to mention the topic?
  It actually pisses me off to an incredible degree, that I even have to talk about this issue, that these people mar the church constantly with such evil behaviour, and that Christianity is so deeply associated with such vehement hate and psychotic anti-human politics. I'd far rather a world of more atheists and agnostics than this type of "Christian". At least they own their ideas rather than pretending they're Biblical and handwaving any refutation. It's indefensible.
  --
  To be crystal clear, I wish the Bible gave me a clearer signal that gender is a construct, that love is love, and all of that. I have very close relationships with gay and bi people in my life. The topic is near and dear to my heart, so I've spent some time digging into it. I really don't love how inconclusive and wishy washy part of this comment sounds. But I don't want to hide that, which is why I tackled it first in this comment, before getting to the part people will like more. This is what I find studying the text, and I have to live with that to have any intellectual and spiritual honesty whatsoever.
  I believe the Bible should make you uncomfortable sometimes, it should challenge you and force you to reconcile some things. If it doesn't, you're probably forcing your own conclusions into it rather than actually reading it. Read properly, it will ask you to be radically generous, and radically kind. It will tell you that hating someone is tantamount to murdering them, that your little "white lie" sins and habits, like gossiping, are just as serious as the sins of the people you hate most. It tells you that you'll suffer, but that you aren't allowed to hate your enemies, and that bad things will happen that you can't do anything about as well as good things. It's not a fun mirror to look at, and it should challenge you and make you uncomfortable and force you to grow.
Thanks for spending the time to meaningfully contribute.
- Hey, thanks! I really appreciate you being one of the first comments here. It's always a bit risky to come out on the side of religion, as a lot of people have had terrible experiences with "Christians" and churches, and so understandably are pretty passionately against anything religious.
  That said, I've always had a pretty respectful experience on Lemmy, just by really trying my best to add some value and detail. After all, a one-sided conversation is pretty boring.
I can play devil's advocate too:
1 The Bible is not first and foremost a "historical documentary" in the modern sense. The very idea of a historical account striving for objective unbiased reality is fairly recent historically, and the Bible is meant to be a religious text that's trying to teach you something.
Yes people absolutely did write and read it as an historical account. You need to distinguish between multiple authors who did not sit in a writing room together and editors who collected the works. The reason why multiple reports were collected was to get at the truth. Long lists of names and events were included to establish historical credibility.
#2 The Biblical authors are aware there are contradictions.
Just no. Some of the authors wouldn't even have been aware of all the other authors.
#3 The Bible contradicts itself intentionally. It's an ancient Jewish way of teaching to have two rabbis take different stances, and argue publicly. Often, the truth of something is in the tension between two perspectives.
Yes, but using contradictions intentionally as a teaching device applies to the talmud(interpretation of the law), not to the tanach(biblical law). Contradictions in the tanach were seen as something that needs to be explained. And yes, some of them were explained, after the fact, as purposeful by theologians. But if we went to take a historically sound approach, we have to acknowledge, that they are a collection from many verbal sources separated by time and place. So it's far more likely that these unconnected sources contradict each other precisely because no written account has existed until then.
If contradictions in teaching had been a core part of Jewish theology beforehand, they would continue in writing. There would be many Toras. But the opposite happens: With the advent of the written word, correct word-for-word transmission of the written law immediately becomes absolutely central to the religion. So the conclusion is inevitable, that contradictions came first and ideology to explain them had to follow after the fact.
Verbal traditions can be contradictory, because contradictions are harder to notice. Once the verbal tradition is frozen as words on paper, the contradictions become obvious and ideology forms around them like a pearl froms around a speck of sand in an oyster, to protect the body of the teaching from the damage.
- Yes people absolutely did write and read it as an historical account. You need to distinguish between multiple authors who did not sit in a writing room together and editors who collected the works. The reason why multiple reports were collected was to get at the truth. Long lists of names and events were included to establish historical credibility.
  Were you raised in a protestant country? Because this is a very protestant logic.
Is this all rather convenient? The whole issue is that at some point someone tells you to act a certain way because God wants it, it's written in the book; then, other times it's not historic or whatever. The consequence is that anyone can use the Bible to justify any behavior because of the contradictions. That, and it was written by a bunch of dudes 300 years after the death of the fella on the cross.
Also, God doesn't exist so don't worry about it and just be kind to everyone.
- Isn't this all rather convenient?
  I do my best, as someone studying it, to read it as an ancient Jewish reader would, as that's the original, intended audience. That's why my #2 and #3 is all about how the authors of the Bible saw contradictions and accepted them. That is absolutely more of an art than a science sometimes, but I try to remove my own perspective and desires for what I want the Bible to say as I read it, and then figure out what I want to do with that later.
  The way I would personally weigh out an apparent contradiction is through study. How many times is a thing referenced? Does it contradict major themes or ideas? Is there any relevant historical context to this passage, such as it being a letter to a specific church? What's the broader context of the passage itself, within the book and a few chapters around? Usually a "correct" answer becomes pretty clear through this process.
  As for anyone justifying anything, they sure as hell can, and I've watched them do it. My #1 red flag, for anyone attending any church, is that any church worth its salt will encourage you to read the book yourself, ask questions, and that doubting and challenging things is encouraged. You cannot purely let someone else tell you what's in there, because it's a big book, and full of narratives of characters doing all sorts of things. The Bible is really meant to be understood as a whole work, and not cherry-picked passages.
That's all well and good if you're already working under the framework that God exists. If I'm not, why should I accept such a fallable and obviously human work as proof that God not only exists, but this specific God exists?
- Some people tried to prove God through language and logic, but it's beyond the point. The existence of God is much more easily experienced than proven.
  The Bible was born as a support to create the community around which the experience of God was possible. A scenario in which a person is reading the Bible alone, thinking really hard about it, and comes out convinced of God's existence is not what the Bible was written for or how it's used in most forms of Christianity.
Devil's advovate my ass. It's a hate book that's completely fictional, and so full of lies, utter nonsense, and just pure hate that it continues to ruin lives thousands of years after it was written by assholes.
When you just pick and choose, while ignoring the obvious hate material - that's not a good thing. You're becoming a part of the organization that DOES follow the hate parts.
So, pretend that you're not part of a hate organization all you want - if you're religious - you are. Even if you're one of the 'good ones". Especially if you think that you're one of the "good ones".
You made it worse. This is why I left Christianity. Plus it’s just a cult and/or money making machine now. If anything, the Bible makes monsters.
- You made it worse. This is why I left Christianity.
  You abandoned Christianity because the Bible contains jokes?
  I'm fully coming around on the idea of religious education in public schools. If this gets more of you dour fuckers out of the church, perhaps we'll see improvements.
This is supposed to be the base of all your beliefs. So what do people even believe in!?!
I don't agree with almost anything in your comment, but thank you for taking the time to write it and answering objections, it has been an interesting discussion. For what it's worth, you have my upvote.
My favourite book in the Bible is Ecclesiastes, which takes a Nietzsche-esque stance that nothing we do matters, and life is terribly unfair. Bad things happen to good people and vice versa, so simply eat, drink, and be merry. It comes right after Proverbs, which is the classic book everyone quotes from about how doing good things leads to good things. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
There's a highly underrated Coen Brothers movie called "A Serious Man" that lives somewhere in between Ecclesiastes and Job. A story about a guy who lives in this moral gray zone and just kinda has good and bad things happen to him. All the while, he's struggling for meaning and direction, in a community of very religious Jews who have nothing useful to say.
If you enjoy very dry humor, it's a lot of fun.
The reality of the Dunning-Kruger effect is my bible.

I think you meant to post this to /c/dataisunreadable

You have all (almost 500) sources in the bottom half. If it's unreadable you might be opening a thumbnail, check for the full resolution of the image.
Zoom.

It's a book written by hundreds of different author in a 600 years span (and collecting far older traditions) in three different languages. It's surprising there are not more contradictions.

That's not the problem. The problem is the abundance of assholes using selected parts of the Bible to manipulate others while conveniently ignoring other parts of the Bible that contradict them. They choose what parts they want to hear, and then act like they're unassailable edicts that came straight from God.
- Cherry pickers, every single one of them.
  Oh, and that changes from day to day, minute to minute. It's not consistent in any way. The only consistent part is their surety of existence of something that does not, and never did, exist.

You can kinda sum it up in: -love thy neighbour, but also kill them.

Almost as though there were multiple revolutionary changes to the underlying religious philosophy between the various books, most notably (but certainly not exclusively) between the Old and New Testaments.
- Well sure, but it also says god never changes.
  (Ok memeing aside: sure there’s plenty of layers and nuance to go around but that doesn’t take away that there’s still far too many people who take this book too literal, too serious and are ruining other lives by doing so. If it was treated for what it is, a piece of history, then this conversation wouldn’t be necessary)

Bible's broken -River Tam

I love coming across a fellow browncoat!
- I am doing a weekly rewatch of the show over in !firefly@slrpnk.net if you would like to join us for something shiny.

The Bible would have made a better JRPG than a religion.

Not sure what goes into creating this, but wouldn't it be marvellous if we could created these for political parties. That would shake out the BS fruit that can grow there and give a clearer fidelity view.

Black and white answers are the pinnacle of evolution. 🤓

Are there major contradictions or not?
Yes. Yes, there are.
Why? It's fictional.
Call that black and white, or any other color you want. That's just reality.
- Water is bad: flood, drowning, monsoon, cholera victims. Water is good: drought, famine, dehydration victims. Pretty major contradictions.

If you remove all the contradictions from all the religious texts you'll get the true word of god which was also written down in a dragon scroll by oogway. \s

I can not understand how someone can blindly believe in a book they KNOW was rewriten infinite times. They say it's the word of god but it was also edited by all sorts of kings and popes, can we edit the word of god? How can people not think? I'm not talking about faith but this sick following of a fucking book

Please tell me there are ones for the Quran and the Bhagavad Gita

Bhagavad Gita is not the equivalent for Bible. In fact a "Bible", i.e. a singular holy book that governs everything - doesn't exist in Hinduism.
I'm not sure that the OP is being exclusive, just shading what they have. Fair point though, every religion will have similar. Now I'm thinking there would be useful for every political party too. Would certainly share the trees.

I'd love to see one with the old and new testament references highlighted in different colors

Also the ones where Paul contradicts Jesus.

Apparently there are more than 400,000 variations in the Greek manuscripts that are the basis for the New Testament. Which means there are more variations then there are words in the New Testament itself.

Truly incredible that God, in their infinite wisdom, sent us this message, which we're evidently not able to decipher.

I wanna see a version that is just Old Testament. One that is just New Testament. And then versions with and without revelation.

I wish they highlighted the most important contradictions, ngl I don't care about contradictions about some old guys number of sons, some Christians admit the bible is a source, like all historical source, and the authors make some mistakes. But for example Alex O'Connor talks about how the contradiction in the gospels of whether or not Jesus went to Egypt or to a temple or something, which fulfills some Messiah prophecy, indicating Luke (Or whichever Gospel author wrote it) was intentionally lying to make Jesus seem more like the Messiah. Also an explanation of why each contradiction matters. This seems more like a boring gotcha than something to learn about.