Bible Quiz...

[Niccivan]

So which view do you believe in then? And how do you explain the other contradictions?

You can't believe in both ways. For example; you can't believe that God exists AND that he doesn't. So how do you decide which part of the bible is right?

I don't think they are contradictions. I think the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all personal accounts of what they saw. I believe them all. I just believe that perhaps some experienced it a bit differently, which gives their story a slightly different perspective. What's great about their accounts, is the meanings of the books are all the exact same. Just because they accounted that Jesus may have said something different upon his last breathe, doesn't change the actual story at all.

For example: Let's say your kids get into a fight. You listen to both sides and they are both just a little different. One says the other one started it by something they said. The other one claims something different. Who do you believe? Do you just assume because they "contradict" each other, they are both wrong and thus they never fought? No, you just assume that they saw things differently, but the fact that they still fought is still there.

[DJQ]

I don't think they are contradictions. I think the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all personal accounts of what they saw. I believe them all. I just believe that perhaps some experienced it a bit differently, which gives their story a slightly different perspective. What's great about their accounts, is the meanings of the books are all the exact same. Just because they accounted that Jesus may have said something different upon his last breathe, doesn't change the actual story at all.

For example: Let's say your kids get into a fight. You listen to both sides and they are both just a little different. One says the other one started it by something they said. The other one claims something different. Who do you believe? Do you just assume because they "contradict" each other, they are both wrong and thus they never fought? No, you just assume that they saw things differently, but the fact that they still fought is still there.

While your point is well taken, there are only a few examples where the new testement differs. What about the old testement? How do you explain those contradictions?

[billynomates]

While your point is well taken, there are only a few examples where the new testement differs. What about the old testement? How do you explain those contradictions?

Frank exactly what are trying to proove? You set a Bible quiz, now seems like you're trying to give Niccers the 3rd degree!

[Kellieintx]

While your point is well taken, there are only a few examples where the new testement differs. What about the old testement? How do you explain those contradictions?

The disagreements of scripture are a strong incidental proof that there was no collusion among the sacred writers. The narratives exhibit substantial agreement with circumstantial variation.

This is precisely what a court of law requires in respect of the testimony of witnesses. If the witnesses agree precisely in every word and syllable, this would be viewed as "proof of conspiracy or collusion". It is believed these discrepancies are, in fact, evidences of the purity and integrity of the sacred text.

There are also some contradictions that arise from the use of the same word with different and sometimes very opposite meanings. The ones I found are- Hebrew word "barak" is used as "to bless" and "to curse." The Latin word "sacer" means both "holy" and "accursed." The Greek word "erchomai" means "I come" and "I go." The English word "let" can mean "to permit" or "to hinder." All of this is complicated by the fact that the same Greek words are often translated into totally differing English words in our Bible, and conversely differing Greek words often end up as the same English word.

Also...other discrepancies are of a historical character, are a result of the adoption of different writing styles and arrangements by the various authors. One writer may follow strict chronological order, another follows associations and major events. One may write history in detail, another may summarize to suit his purpose. The Bible is written to three groups of people: Jews, Gentiles and the Church. All Scripture has three applications - doctrinal, historical and inspirational.

Another thing to keep in mind is, the Bible is not written in chronological order, nor were they all written in the same place. This includes the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Gospels which tell us in detail of Jesus' life and death are thought to have been written many years apart (Matthew being the first- around 50-60AD, and John being last- around 80-90 AD.) Not only that, but they wrote it in different areas, with different dialects, for different people/audiences.

To Tell You The Whole Truth - The Bible: Approximate Dates When The Books Were Written
Map showing Locations Where Books of the Bible were Written

[DJQ]

Frank exactly what are trying to proove? You set a Bible quiz, now seems like you're trying to give Niccers the 3rd degree!

I'm not trying to give her the 3rd degree in a bad way. Since she says she knows so much about the bible, I'm interested in her oppinions. Contrary to popular belief, that's all I ever wanted, was peoples oppinions and explinations as to why the bible differs so much from book to book.

[DJQ]

The disagreements of scripture are a strong incidental proof that there was no collusion among the sacred writers. The narratives exhibit substantial agreement with circumstantial variation.

This is precisely what a court of law requires in respect of the testimony of witnesses. If the witnesses agree precisely in every word and syllable, this would be viewed as "proof of conspiracy or collusion". It is believed these discrepancies are, in fact, evidences of the purity and integrity of the sacred text.

There are also some contradictions that arise from the use of the same word with different and sometimes very opposite meanings. The ones I found are- Hebrew word "barak" is used as "to bless" and "to curse." The Latin word "sacer" means both "holy" and "accursed." The Greek word "erchomai" means "I come" and "I go." The English word "let" can mean "to permit" or "to hinder." All of this is complicated by the fact that the same Greek words are often translated into totally differing English words in our Bible, and conversely differing Greek words often end up as the same English word.

Also...other discrepancies are of a historical character, are a result of the adoption of different writing styles and arrangements by the various authors. One writer may follow strict chronological order, another follows associations and major events. One may write history in detail, another may summarize to suit his purpose. The Bible is written to three groups of people: Jews, Gentiles and the Church. All Scripture has three applications - doctrinal, historical and inspirational.

Another thing to keep in mind is, the Bible is not written in chronological order, nor were they all written in the same place. This includes the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Gospels which tell us in detail of Jesus' life and death are thought to have been written many years apart (Matthew being the first- around 50-60AD, and John being last- around 80-90 AD.) Not only that, but they wrote it in different areas, with different dialects, for different people/audiences.

To Tell You The Whole Truth - The Bible: Approximate Dates When The Books Were Written
Map showing Locations Where Books of the Bible were Written

All well and good, but it still doesn't answer my question. When the bible tells you that you have to do something one way in one book, and then tells you that you have to do it a different way in another, which one do you follow? Which are you suppossed to believe?

[Kellieintx]

I answered you previous question - "What about the old testement? How do you explain those contradictions?"

Now onto your next question...

When the bible tells you that you have to do something one way in one book, and then tells you that you have to do it a different way in another, which one do you follow? Which are you suppossed to believe?

If you read the Bible, at face value, without a preconceived bias for finding errors – I believe you will find it to be a relatively easy-to-understand book. Yes, there are difficult passages. Yes, there are verses that appear to contradict each other. You have to remember that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years. Each writer wrote from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some differences! However, a difference is not a contradiction or an error. It is only an error if there is absolutely no conceivable manner in which the verses or passages can be reconciled. Even if we do not have the answer right now, that does not mean the answer does not exist. Many have found a supposed error in the Bible in relation to history or geography only to find out that the Bible is correct once further archaeological evidence is discovered.

Frank, if you are truly trying to find the answers to some of these questions, maybe you might benefit from some of the Theological Online Study programs.

Religious Studies Degrees Online


Is there any question in particular you have been struggling with, and are searching for the answer?

[Niccivan]

I'm not trying to give her the 3rd degree in a bad way. Since she says she knows so much about the bible, I'm interested in her oppinions. Contrary to popular belief, that's all I ever wanted, was peoples oppinions and explinations as to why the bible differs so much from book to book.

Well, if you could give me a specific example in the Old Testament where it contradicts itself, I will be more than happy to give my opinions and beliefs. It's hard to answer this question when I don't believe the Bible contradicts itself at all, in any book. So, just quote me some what you call contradictions, and I will do my best to answer.

[ColdCase]

Instead of studying the Bible online or not...I suggest you study art, literature and
music AFTER religion had a strangle hold on artists. AFTER art was commissioned by
the supposed pious to use as propaganda.

Study the cultural currents which allowed the artist to observe and express his/her views on popular culture. Study their comments on the relevant issues and not the
puerile propagation of fairy tales. Read the great works of the Existentialists for example. Study why renowned artists comment passionately and use difficult styles
to cut through your conditioning. Stop loving pretty pictures and nice colors of so called *BLIND FAITH* and do something DIFFICULT!!

It's all too easy....all this B L I N D F A I T H !!!

(struts off to The Church of Art!) Art History Rulz!!!!! Men and Women
breathing life and showing you the fragility and majesty of mankind....if you
would only look...and STUDY! But no.....do what you were TOLD to do!

Study what makes the boo boos go away!


Carry on....I know you will tell me that you can do both....Multi Task away!!!!!!

[bluffmanxx]

art history can provide interesting insights into culture and societal trends, but it is only one piece of the puzzle, not the entire puzzle. many different perspectives need to be considered to understand the complexities of life.