Are there any mistakes in the Bible?

[Marshalscienceguy]

was the Bible able to prove that Jesus is the son of David?

There is so many different variations that all say something different. How do you know which one to follow?

[Moontanman]

 

 

I’m not suggesting otherwise; I am suggesting time, on the millennial scale, distorts understanding when written down.

 

Language evolves, meanings change and facts change; a large percentage of what we know now will change with further investigation.

 

BTW the Greeks also, at one point, thought the earth was flat.

 

 

Yes and they were wrong, they found out they were wrong and changed their world view, what is your point?

[Hendrick Laursen]

Am I the only one who doesn't get to the core of this topic?

 

You want to say Bible contains mistakes and we all know it already.

[yahya515]

Are there any mistakes in the Bible?

 

John's doubts :

Gospel of Luke 3:21 " now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was
opened And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven,which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased"

however in the same Gospel (Luke) 7:19 " And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? (KJV)

first :
why John asks Jesus if he is the Messiah OR NOT, although John was a prophet ? John was not sure about Jesus being the Messiah , what about other people who do not have inspiration as John?

second:
certainly John heard the voice from the heaven" Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased" if he did not heard the voice who heard it?!

so why John did not know that Jesus was the Messiah when he heard the voice ?! for a person like John , who was a prophet , he should know that Jesus was the Messiah from the two signs, the dove and the voice.

 

Jesus sent John's disciples back to him to tell him about his miracles that means John asked if Jesus was the Messiah , if you are not the Messiah I will wait until death for another " Art thou he that
should come? or look we for another" and then Jesus answered John by sending to him back his disciples telling John about his miracles "Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell
John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind
see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the
dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached ...."
and to ask John quit from his doubts and believe in Jesus ".....And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me "

Jesus said about John "This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my
messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way
before thee" he should be well aware of Jesus.

Edited September 22, 2014 by yahya515

[ajb]

This sounds more like "bible studies" than the simpler question "does the bible contain mistakes?".

 

You are suggesting that there are internal inconsistencies with the bible? If so no-one here will be surprised, given the history of the book, how it was written in pieces mostly "after the fact" and remembering it has been translated several times. This is independent of the question of the overall accuracy of the bible as a historical document.

 

I would like to ask you where this is heading and what point you are trying to make?

[Hendrick Laursen]

I would like to ask you where this is heading and what point you are trying to make?

Good point, me too.

[yahya515]

 

I would like to ask you where this is heading and what point you are trying to make?

I would like to discuss what I think are mistakes in the Bible, and see other people opinions.

[ajb]

I would like to discuss what I think are mistakes in the Bible, and see other people opinions.

To what end?

[Hendrick Laursen]

I think I got what you mean,

In the holy Quran you read verses such as:

"
Chapter 5

 

Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light, by which the prophets who surrendered (unto Allah) judged the Jews, and the rabbis and the priests (judged) by such of Allah's Scripture as they were bidden to observe, and thereunto were they witnesses. So fear not mankind, but fear Me. And My revelations for a little gain. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are disbelievers. (44)

 

"And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil). (46)"

 

And so, when you face the actual Bible (For example KJV), you see it doesn't suit the description mentioned in Quran. It causes you to make topics like this, Am I not right?

[yahya515]

To what end?

If you think I am preaching Islam, then you are wrong, I do not even believe in today's Islam.

I think I got what you mean,

In the holy Quran you read verses such as:

 

"

Chapter 5

 

Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light, by which the prophets who surrendered (unto Allah) judged the Jews, and the rabbis and the priests (judged) by such of Allah's Scripture as they were bidden to observe, and thereunto were they witnesses. So fear not mankind, but fear Me. And My revelations for a little gain. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are disbelievers. (44)

 

"And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil). (46)"

 

And so, when you face the actual Bible (For example KJV), you see it doesn't suit the description mentioned in Quran. It causes you to make topics like this, Am I not right?

The Gospel and Torah were light in the past before they were corrupted. after they were corrupted errors occurred on them.

[Hendrick Laursen]

One could also make a "moral argument" on the Bible.

Regarding all those "erotic" verses in OT's latter books, the story of Lot is the oddball of the Bible, where he sleeps with his own daughters. (Genesis 19:30-38)

Is it not a mistake when Bible attributes Incest to a prophet? A thing that many people would be ashamed of.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Hendrick Laursen

[yahya515]

One could also make a "moral argument" on the Bible.

Regarding all those "erotic" verse, the story of Lot is the oddball of the Bible, where he sleeps with his own daughters. (Genesis 19:30-38)

Is it not a mistake when Bible attributes Incest to a prophet? A thing that many people would be ashamed of.

a religious mistake is not an argument , it is within a particular religion and its environment, perhaps according to Judaism or christianty it is OK for a prophet to do what Lot did, however I am talking about contradictions as mistakes.

[Hendrick Laursen]

Read my former post carefully, man,

It's a "MORAL ARGUMENT".

[Moontanman]

Mistakes in the bible

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_errors_in_the_Bible

 

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

 

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblecontradictionserror/tp/Scientific-Historical-Errors-Mistakes-Bible.htm

 

I could go on and on...

[yahya515]

Are there any mistakes in the Bible?

God can not see in the dark!

Genesis chapter one : "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was
without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the
Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be
light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God
divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the
darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." (KJV)
at that time God had not created human yet , why God describes darkness as a thing that exists? this means that God feels darkness, there was not a human to feel darkness, but God describes darkness , that means he feels it, and that why God created light before he created other things and the sun itself!!! because he wanted to be able to see in order to create other things!! "God saw the light , that it was good" if he does not feel darkness he won't describe light as good!!

Edited September 23, 2014 by yahya515

[ajb]

God can not see in the dark!

This seems a logical conclusion. God, whatever that is has some photon detectors, his "eyes", and was unable to detect any photons when there were no photons. That seems consistent, if nothing else.

 

If you think about it, what you have written is really something about the human mind and how we evolved primarily as daytime animals. It may have come about as our ancestors were picking ripe fruit from trees and that was easier for them in the daytime, I of course speculate. Our evolution has meant that we are not really comfortable in the dark and that the night is inherently scary to us. Thus the association if light with good and dark with bad. These sentiments are then written into the bible and I am sure other creation myths.

[Hendrick Laursen]

This seems a logical conclusion. God, whatever that is has some photon detectors, his "eyes", and was unable to detect any photons when there were no photons. That seems consistent, if nothing else.

 

If you think about it, what you have written is really something about the human mind and how we evolved primarily as daytime animals. It may have come about as our ancestors were picking ripe fruit from trees and that was easier for them in the daytime, I of course speculate. Our evolution has meant that we are not really comfortable in the dark and that the night is inherently scary to us. Thus the association if light with good and dark with bad. These sentiments are then written into the bible and I am sure other creation myths.

When we first discovered "fire", we used it in order to frighten other animals and dominate on them and perhaps was our Golden Key to survive in Darkness. So, we took fire to be good and holy as some Zoroastrians still believe. Greek mythology describes there was a certain guy named "Prometheus" who stole fire from gods and gifted it to humans. And then gods were very furious at him.

 

But light has grown other meanings as well, such as eternal salvation, or the Kingdom of Heaven.(Mary and Jesus have some light around their face, saints too.) Islam claims Allah is "the light of the heavens and the Earth." 24:35.

It seems when we conclude something is good, we want to stabilize it's state by making it holy.

[ajb]

When we first discovered "fire", we used it in order to frighten other animals and dominate on them and perhaps was our Golden Key to survive in Darkness. So, we took fire to be good and holy as some Zoroastrians still believe. Greek mythology describes there was a certain guy named "Prometheus" who stole fire from gods and gifted it to humans. And then gods were very furious at him.

Great point.

 

Light and warmth are just inherently "good" to humans and that is why we have made such a link between holiness and light/fire. When you die you "step into the light". When things are bad you are in a "dark place". One talks about the "warm welcomes". And so on...

 

I guess the exception to this is too much fire, like in hell. Not good, but we still have some religious association with the power of fire for good and evil.

 

It is not at all surprising that "god made light and it was good". It is really in or evolution and our discovery of how to use fire.

Edited September 23, 2014 by ajb

[Moontanman]

 

Are there any mistakes in the Bible?

God can not see in the dark!

 

Genesis chapter one : "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was

without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the

Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be

light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God

divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the

darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." (KJV)

at that time God had not created human yet , why God describes darkness as a thing that exists? this means that God feels darkness, there was not a human to feel darkness, but God describes darkness , that means he feels it, and that why God created light before he created other things and the sun itself!!! because he wanted to be able to see in order to create other things!! "God saw the light , that it was good" if he does not feel darkness he won't describe light as good!!

 

 

 

Did you completely miss post #39 or are you using mistakes in a context i am not understanding?

[yahya515]

When we first discovered "fire", we used it in order to frighten other animals and dominate on them and perhaps was our Golden Key to survive in Darkness. So, we took fire to be good and holy as some Zoroastrians still believe. Greek mythology describes there was a certain guy named "Prometheus" who stole fire from gods and gifted it to humans. And then gods were very furious at him.

 

But light has grown other meanings as well, such as eternal salvation, or the Kingdom of Heaven.(Mary and Jesus have some light around their face, saints too.) Islam claims Allah is "the light of the heavens and the Earth." 24:35.

It seems when we conclude something is good, we want to stabilize it's state by making it holy.

the word holy and good are not synonoms, also God described other things as good such as sees"and the gathering together of the

waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good" and "and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding

fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good" so good here means attractive or benefitial.

Edited September 24, 2014 by yahya515

[Hendrick Laursen]

Mr. Yahya,

We didn't claim they're synonyms.

You've just skipped my very last sentence.

"It seems when we conclude something is good, we want to stabilize it's state by making it holy."

[yahya515]

"It seems when we conclude something is good, we want to stabilize it's state by making it holy."

I understand this as (everything was declared by God as good is holy), if so ,God described other things as good but they are not holy, if not , please either explain or write it in simple English becuase I am confused by the pronoun (we).

[Moontanman]

I understand this as (everything was declared by God as good is holy), if so ,God described other things as good but they are not holy, if not , please either explain or write it in simple English becuase I am confused by the pronoun (we).

So to talk to you about this we have presuppose a god as real?

[ajb]

So to talk to you about this we have presuppose a god as real?

This is a good point. I think we could simply, for the purpose of argument, state that we assume that god exists and therefore...

 

The trouble is this makes it difficult to extract the manifestly human invention here and our collective psychological evolution. Therefore I think it best not for us to suppose that god exists, but to state that we acknowledge that many people do believe that god exists.

 

So, we have to accept that the bible was written by humans, as is any holy book. Forgetting the actual history of the construction of the modern version of the bible, such as translations and its piecemeal nature, the fact that people wrote it means that there will be some mistakes somewhere in the book.

 

The question has to be why try to make a big deal out of these mistakes and inconsistencies? The book was constructed for some purpose. For example the New Testament has some agenda initially set by the early Christian church and then the holy Roman empire. The new testament is a piecemeal document designed with the purpose of constructing a certain image and legend of Jesus.

 

Historical accuracy was not the main purpose and internal consistency may well have suffered because of this. Indeed, parts of the bible are probably just fabricated and other may have some truth behind them. The flood of Noah may have been based on some real event in prehistory, for example. Also, it is not really clear that there was a "Jesus". The historical verification of a single man called Jesus giving the Roman empire some grief is lacking. There were many Jewish breakaway sects at this time and the New Testament may have its origins in bringing these new ways of doing Judaism together to create "Christianity".

 

As a comparison, there are some independent historical documents that Muhammed was real. I think these are to do with the Muslim conquests and so the early life of Muhammed is under question. I understand that there has been little success in really verifying the exploits of Muhammed as written in the Qur'an. There are few non-Muslim sources and I don't think the history or culture of pre-Muslim Arabia is well understood.

 

Anyway, like the Bible, which was written to create an image of the heroes of the Jewish tribes and of course later Jesus, the Qur'an and the later sīra literature and Hadith, were written to create some image of Muhammed. This image seems vastly different to Jesus, but this is not the point. None of these books can be taken as the truth in a historical context.

 

Still, I don't yet understand where yahya515 is heading with this.

[iNow]

Nice well rounded post, ajb. Thank you.