Bible Contradictions, Errors: Bible is Full of Contradictions & Errors

[regnauld]

---

I just found out some of my research here:

Did Saint Peter, the Apostle, Really Write His Two Letters in the Bible?

Whether Peter wrote his so-called "second Letter" is extremely doubtful as this letter was not published until 50 years after Peter's death. Furthermore, it purports to be a general letter, so why would every single one of the many people to whom it was sent keep it a secret for 50 years? Also, this second letter refers to the first (3:1), stating that both letters were sent to the same people. But they were not the same people. The first letter "is addressed to all those whom God, the Father, has deliberately chosen and who are now living as exiles, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia." The so-called "second Letter" is simply addressed to "all those who are equally precious with us to God because they have obtained faith in God through the righteousness of our Savior, Jesus Christ." This implies that the "second Letter" had a much wider circulation, which makes the fact that it was kept secret for 50 years even more startling. Furthermore why would Peter talk about a "second Letter" to people who had never received the first? And why does the author call himself "Simon Peter" (or even "Symeon Peter") in the "second Letter", while in the first he is referred to simply as "Peter"? Even more damaging is the clear implication in Chapter 3 that some reasonable period of time has elapsed since the writer's first letter. Are we then to believe that in all the years of Peter's ministry he wrote or authorized only two letters? While the evidence against Peter's authorship of the "second Letter" is overwhelming, there is no doubt that the "first Letter" was issued in Peter's name and under his authority, but beyond adding a postscript (in which he commends the trusted Silvanus), I believe he actually had very little, if anything, to do with it.

Consider these points: Peter was unable to read Aramaic, let alone write Greek. And although Peter was undoubtedly made conversant with a number of the quotations from Scripture (proof texts-in Greek, of course-were probably available as early as 55 or 60), he most certainly did not have the skills or the expertise to use them in the sophisticated manner employed here [Acts 4:13].

In fact it's doubtful if Silvanus even ran the letter past Peter for his approval. At one stage, Silvanus gets carried away in his argument and makes an honest, perfectly understandable mistake which meticulous Peter would certainly have corrected. Although Silvanus had the best of intentions, it was simply an assumption on his part that Jesus did not return insult for insult (2:33). Jesus had an ongoing verbal battle with the Pharisees, chief priests and Scripture teachers in which far more insults were freely exchanged than the many recorded in the Gospels. What's more, the writer of this letter is even unaware of Peter's own gospel account as recorded by his adopted son, Mark (also mentioned by Peter in his postscript to this letter). True, Mark's account was probably not published until 64 at the earliest, 69 at the latest. Peter was martyred in 64 or 67, although it's quite possible that Silvanus continued to work on his letter after Peter's death.

So who is this trusted Silvanus who writes so fluently in Peter's name and with his authority?

The Silas of "Acts" is generally (and accurately, in my opinion) identified as the same man as the Silvanus of the "Epistles". Like Paul, he was a Roman citizen. He partnered Paul during the greater part of his second missionary journey (as recorded in "Acts" 15 through 1.

At the important meeting of the Christian community called by James at Jerusalem, it was decided that circumcision should not be imposed on non-Jewish believers. Accordingly, Silas and Judas Barsabas were appointed to join Paul and Barnabas in conveying the official letter to the churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. As "leaders among the brothers" at Jerusalem, Silas and Judas were further commissioned to confirm the contents of the letter by "word of mouth." On arrival at Antioch, when the letter was delivered, Silas and Judas, "who were themselves prophets, spoke at great length, encouraging and strengthening the brothers."

When Paul and Barnabas had their famous falling-out in Antioch, Silas was chosen by Paul to take Barnabas' place. At Philippi, the exorcism of an evil spirit from a sorceress brought upon Silas and Paul the enmity of her masters, whose source of income was thus destroyed. On being charged before the magistrates with causing a breach of the peace and preaching false doctrine, their garments were torn off them and they were scourged and imprisoned. In no way dismayed, they prayed and sang hymns to God, and an earthquake in the middle of the night secured them a miraculous release. The magistrates, on learning that the two prisoners whom they had so maltreated were Roman citizens (and thus entitled to sue them for false arrest), came in person and pleaded with them to leave the city.

So Silvanus was a highly trusted disciple of both Paul and Peter. Like Paul, he was highly educated, well versed in Scripture and able to speak and write fluently in both Aramaic and Greek. In fact, if you turn to what are billed as Paul's Letters to the Thessalonians, you'll find that both are actually credited to "Paul, Silvanus and Timothy."

The letter known as 1 Peter, newly translated by John Howard Reid, is included in his book on John's Gospel, entitled "Essential Bible Wisdom: GOOD NEWS by John, the Beloved Disciple, and John, the Elder."

Did Saint Peter, the Apostle, Really Write His Two Letters in the Bible? by John Howard Reid Classic Movie Posters

[regnauld]

My Conclusion: The BIBLE is not authoritative except for the Pauline Epistles!

[regnauld]

I beg to disagree.. NT writers are Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, Jude.. all but Paul are Jesus' Apostles

Read and study this article!

Authorship

Main articles: Authorship of the Pauline epistles and Authorship of the Johannine works
The New Testament is a collection of works, and as such was written by multiple authors. The traditional view is that all the books were written by Apostles (e.g. Matthew and Paul) or disciples working under their direction (e.g. Mark[5] and Luke[6]). However, in modern times, with the rise of rigorous historical inquiry and textual criticism, these traditional ascriptions have been rejected by some. While the traditional authors have been listed above, the modern critical view is discussed herein.
Seven of the epistles of Paul are generally accepted by most modern scholars as authentic; these undisputed letters include Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon. Raymond E. Brown has this to say about Colossians: "At the present moment about 60 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write the letter" (An Introduction, p. 610; cited by earlychristianwritings.com). Liberal scholars usually question Pauline authorship for any other epistle, although there are conservative Christian scholars who accept the traditional ascriptions. However, almost no current mainstream scholars, Christian or otherwise, hold that Paul wrote Hebrews. In fact, questions about the authorship of Hebrews go back at least to the 3rd century ecclesiastical writer Caius, who attributed only thirteen epistles to Paul (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 6.20.3ff.). A small minority of scholars hypothesize Hebrews may have been written by one of Paul's close associates, such as Barnabas, Silas, or Luke, given that the themes therein seemed to them as largely Pauline.
The authorship of all non-Pauline books have been disputed in recent times. Ascriptions are largely polarized between Christian and non-Christian experts, making any sort of scholarly consensus all but impossible. Even majority views are unclear.
The Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, unlike the other New Testament works, have a unique interrelationship. The dominant view among non-theologian scholars is the Two-Source Hypothesis. This hypothesis proposes that both Matthew and Luke drew significantly upon the Gospel of Mark and another common source, known as the "Q Source" (Q is derived from Quelle, the German word for "source"). However, the nature and even existence of Q is speculative, and scholars have proposed variants on the hypothesis which redefine or exclude it. Most pro-Q scholars believe that it was a single written document, while a few contest that "Q" was actually a number of documents or oral traditions. If it was a documentary source, no information about its author or authors can be obtained from the resources currently available. The traditional view supposes that Matthew was written first, and Mark and Luke drew from it and the second chronological work; and some scholars have attempted to use their modern methods to confirm the idea. An even smaller group of scholars espouse Lukan priority.

To summarize, the only books for which there are solid authorship consensuses among modern critical scholars are the Pauline epistiles mentioned above, which are universally regarded as authentic, and Hebrews, which is nearly always rejected. The remaining nineteen books remain in dispute, some holding to the traditional view, and others regarding them as anonymous or pseudonymic.

[YellowSubmarine]

so where's the contradiction there?

[tokidoki_v2.1]

My Conclusion: The BIBLE is not authoritative except for the Pauline Epistles!

Eh? not authoritative EXCEPT for...? So naa diay gihapon authority.

[regnauld]

so where's the contradiction there?

Aside from lots of contradiction and errors the bible is not written by the author himself. Try to read this introduction again. Isn't it ironic that all the four gospels were not written by the apostles? It was just written like this The Gospel according to St. Matthew but Matthew himself did not write that gospel and the others.

I have read from somewhere(wikipedia) that most of the New Testament writers never met or saw Jesus in their lives. They lived many years after Jesus left the Earth. They wouldn't have known Jesus of Nazareth if they walked him on the street.

The Bible writers were great believers and great historians. They took the stories which had been passed down to them and to their friends by others - elders - from elder to elder, until finally a written record was made. And not everything of the Bible authors was included in the final document.

[flying fish]

Eh? not authoritative EXCEPT for...? So naa diay gihapon authority.

the bible is not the authority because its not the only means to an end, god, truth or whatever the garment is, speaks or reveals to different human temperament, it may reveal to music, art, philosophy, psychology, poetry, truth is evrywhere. and i guess our task is to be able to discern TRUTH in its seeming differences,,the bible is just one of the many windows to posibly hunt truth.
though its another storey as to the technicalities in the bible, specialy considering how many changes wre alrdy made to fit the needs of the church fathers before,making it more difficult as to w/s is literal, metaphorical & mystical..

[Maikeru]

Guys in pro bible? How can you really prove to the people that everything you said are true? Same for those not-so-pro(heheh)? Don't give us any articles or any written documents on an INCOMPLETE history. (no matter how you'll put it our history is a jigsaw puzzle and many pieces were gone) and nobody is certain even those you said scholars what really happened. Were they there? How can you be so confident to say what is wrong and what is right if in the first place nobody here or anywhere in the world that are still alive already existed by those times? Remember, we are all human beings. WE MAKE MISTAKES no matter how good we are. So if everyone makes mistakes (that includes those scholars and so called experts) how can you BOTH sides prove that you are right?

In my opinion it's all up to faith. We all have different stand and no matter how you'll make a point, not everyone will accept it. There will always have differences.

How about we will take it in a different way? Say, lets live our life by the lessons the bible taught us (for those who believe in the bible). How about we live our life with respect, honestly, humility, love and all those virtues? Isn't the world much more nicer if we do that?

I know it's kinda off topic, but I just want to point it out.

[regnauld]

Guys in pro bible? How can you really prove to the people that everything you said are true? Same for those not-so-pro(heheh)? Don't give us any articles or any written documents on an INCOMPLETE history. (no matter how you'll put it our history is a jigsaw puzzle and many pieces were gone) and nobody is certain even those you said scholars what really happened. Were they there? How can you be so confident to say what is wrong and what is right if in the first place nobody here or anywhere in the world that are still alive already existed by those times? Remember, we are all human beings. WE MAKE MISTAKES no matter how good we are. So if everyone makes mistakes (that includes those scholars and so called experts) how can you BOTH sides prove that you are right?

In my opinion it's all up to faith. We all have different stand and no matter how you'll make a point, not everyone will accept it. There will always have differences.

How about we will take it in a different way? Say, lets live our life by the lessons the bible taught us (for those who believe in the bible). How about we live our life with respect, honestly, humility, love and all those virtues? Isn't the world much more nicer if we do that?

I know it's kinda off topic, but I just want to point it out.

Most Christians believe that the Bible is the "word of God," and that it is a perfect book containing the perfect message of salvation from an all-powerful, all-knowing god, but the vast majority of these faithful believers have never taken a close look at what the Bible really teaches. If they had ever examined the Bible closely, they would be astonished to find that the Bible contradicts itself on the matter of salvation. Since an all-powerful god obviously would have had the ability to prevent the writers of "God's word" from contradicting themselves when conveying God's most important message to mankind, we must conclude that the Bible is not the word of God.

The proof that the Bible writers contradict themselves on the matter of salvation is given below.

Mark
Luke
Paul
Believe in Jesus and Be Baptized




-----------------------------

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will condemned."
(Mark 16:16)


Obey Commandments and Give All Money to the Poor


---------------------------------
The man asked him, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?"

You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother…Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."
(Luke 18:18-22)

Nothing you do will change your fate. God deliberately made men who would not be saved, no matter what they did
--------------------------------
He chose us …before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight… he predestined us
(Ephesians 1:4-6)

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
(Romans 9:13-21)


Note that these three Bible writers totally contradict one another.



1. Mark said that if you believed in Jesus and were baptized, you would be saved. There's no mention of obeying commandments or giving up your money.


2. Luke said that if you obeyed the commandments and gave up your riches to the poor, you would be saved. There's no mention of believing Jesus or being baptized.

If God really did want us to believe that we could be saved by believing in Jesus, being baptized, obeying the commandments, and giving up our money to the poor, why didn't he use his infinite powers to make sure that Mark and Luke each gave us the same message? The answer appears to be that the two writers had different backgrounds and different beliefs about what the "word of God" was.

The problem is much worse than this, however, as can be seen in the third column in the table above.

3. Paul says that no matter what man does, he cannot alter God's plan for him. God predestined each man either to be cast into the fiery pits, or else to live evermore in his kingdom of heaven. Nothing man can do can change his fate. Sincere faith and all the good works in the world will not save the man who's been predestined by God to be one of the "pots" for common use, who will be cast aside. Likewise, nothing man does can prevent himself from being saved, for he was created a "noble" pot, and his fate was sealed long before, at the time of creation!

Why did God deliberately make flawed men whom he would cast aside, while making "noble" ones who would enter heaven, no matter what they did? Well, according to Paul, God does this for the same reason he made the Pharaoh flawed: so that God could rain plagues down on him to show off for the people his great power. For that same reason, Paul said, God makes men flawed who will not be saved, no matter what might be their "desire or effort," all for the purpose of having an excuse to cast them into the pits of hell to show off to the people how powerful he is.

What a preposterous, childish notion Paul had about his god! Why should a being who is infinitely powerful have to put on a display of his powers? If he wanted mankind to behave in a certain way, why could he not have just made it happen with his infinite powers? If putting fear of God into the minds of mankind really were the intention of this god, why could not this infinitely powerful being have just embedded into the DNA of all humans at conception an innate and instinctive awareness of the great power of God, and an instinctive understanding of God's messages? The all-powerful god described in the Bible would have had the power to do that, wouldn't he?

Thus, Luke contradicts Mark, and Paul contradicts both Mark and Luke, with a ridiculous teaching about God's need to display his power. Mark and Luke teach that man can be saved by faith, baptism (Mark), or by obeying the commandments and giving up wealth (Luke). In other words, Mark and Luke teach that man's desire and efforts could lead them to salvation, but Paul says that man's fate was sealed at the time of creation, and that their salvation does NOT depend on "man's desire or effort."

Summary


The fact that these three authors so blatantly contradict each other in the matter of salvation shows clearly that they could not have been recording the message of an all-powerful, all-knowing god, for such a god obviously would have had the power to prevent the writers from presenting to two millennia of Bible readers such a muddled, contradictory message.

If we cannot trust that the teachings of Mark, Luke, and Paul, come from God, why should anyone believe ANY part of the Bible comes from God?

There will apologists who argue, of course, that mere mortals cannot know the mind of God, so when the mortal man sees what he thinks are contradictory teachings in the Bible, it is only because his mind is finite and incapable of reasoning on the level of the infinitely wise god. This is the type of apologetic argument that could be used to justify absolutely ANY religious teaching whatsoever, no matter how preposterous it may seem, for the apologist will always be able to escape criticism by alleging that his god's ways are not for us to understand. Only when we get to heaven will it all be explained to us, they would argue.

[Maikeru]

Off topic saq kadyot hap.. ehehe!

@regnauld
I'm a Christian and I'm one of those whom you said who believe in the Bible, I won't say you are wrong. That's what you believe in ^^ and I respect that. Me in my case, I'm really no good on explaining the whatnots of the Bible. How those books came about. Ask me to trace the history of the bible and I can't seriously give an answer. ^^ But I'm much more considering the lessons in it. Much more like I'm trying to live a better life, be a better person trying hard to be less evil. My point in my last post was for the people not to forget that no matter what we believe in, no matter how much we preach of truth and righteousness, if we treat others like dogs, then it's useless.

Anyways.. advertisement ra ni hap.. cge back to your debate.. hehehe ^^

God bless all.