March 18, 2013
-
Does the Bible Contradict Itself? Part 1
We can’t count the number of people who tell us, “The Bible does NOT contradict itself. It was written by God through men and God can’t contradict himself.”
Well, we can’t speak for a non-existent God, but we can point out some places where the Bible contradicts itself at a level even children can understand and accept. Not that Christian Bible scholars haven’t gone to great extent (including adding to the text, changing words in the text or eliminating text) to prove there is no contradiction. Where this occurs, we will point out the wherefores of how these scholars are remiss in their attempts to prove the Bible non-contradictory. Fair? We hope so. Let’s start with the creation accounts. Specifically with Genesis, Chapter 1:
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land(on day 3) produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
On day 5 we read:
4 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Then finally on day 6:
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, (Probable reading of the original Hebrew text [see Syriac]; Masoretic Text the earth) and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Read it for yourself. It’s right in your Bible. vegetation and animals came before the creation of Adam. Yet later in Genesis 2, we read:
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth (or land) and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth (or land) and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams (or mist) came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man (The Hebrew for man [adam] sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground [adamah]; it is also the name Adam) from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.
Please note that according to the above verse there was NO vegetation on earth until AFTER Adam was created. These verses obviously contradict the verses in Genesis 1.
Now let’s look at a little translation slight of hand. In the NIV Bible we read:
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
Note the difference in the verses given in the King James Bible:
18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
The Hebrew word for formed ( simple past tense) as it appears in the KJV is now translated had formed (perfect past tense) in the NIV. “What’s the difference?” you ask? By rendering the word in the perfect past tense it makes it look as if the animals were created BEFORE Adam. In the KJV which uses the simple past tense it sounds like the animals were created AFTER Adam.
Yet, in Genesis 2:7 above, the NIV translates the same form of the Hebrew word as simple past tense formed. Why did translators of the NIV do this? To obscure an obvious contradiction concerning when God made man and the animals. This is a trick that is often used by evangelical translators to force the Bible to rid itself of difficulties.
Not convinced yet, huh? We don’t blame you. Let’s look at the myth of Noah and the ark. In Genesis 6 we read:
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.
The term every used here means there was no distinction between clean and unclean animals. Yet further along, the Bible says in Genesis 7:
2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
Wouldn’t you agree that you can’t have it both ways? Texts like these are just a sampling of why Biblical scholars feel the five books of Moses were actually written by many different people at many different times and in many different places. That’s how inconsistencies like these occur.
If it makes you feel any better, many books have been written attempting to gloss over the obvious contradictions in the Bible. Please, feel free to read them all and tell us what you think. This is only the beginning of our sojourn into Bible contradictions. Tomorrow we’ll look at discrepancies concerning race in the Bible. We hope you’ll join us.
- Y
Comments (12)
You began this post by classifying yourself as foolish. Why should anyone listen to you?
You can make anything foolish, friend, what we say, or even ourselves. Makes no mattermind to us. Considering you attack us, however, and not our article, why would anyone listen to YOU?
@Rhindon wrote about the two Genesis accounts at http://rhindon.xanga.com/758306902/biblical-contradiction-7-did-god-make-adam-or-the-animals-first/
@Hunt4Truth -
@musterion99 -
Hi guys. Thanks for stopping by and thanks for the links. One thing Rhindon said is very true, Hunt. The battle over contradictions in the Bible are nothing new. The points made in our post have certainly been made before and the ball has bounced back and forth like it was on a ping-pong table. I’m not a particular fan of weblinks so I’ll provide some book sources for you, all of which agree totally with the points made in your links:
“Alleged Bible Contradictions Explained” by George W. DeHoff
“Demolishing Supposed Bible Contradictions, Exploring 40 Alleged Bible Contradictions” by Ken Ham
“Demolishing Supposed Bible Contradictions” by Tim Chaffey, Ken Ham & Bodie Hodge
“Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible” by John Haley
“Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions” by Robert G. Hoerber and Walter R. Roehers
And, of course, many other Bible commentaries, dictionaries, and encyclopedias all offering explanations for the absurd contradictions found throughout the Bible. The sheer weight of all that’s been written in a effort to defend the myriad of simple discrepancies in the Bible ought to speak for itself. You can read all of it yourself and feel really good about what you believe, get your ears tickled, and see how right you are in vomiting half-truths about ancient texts OR you can seek out sources from other credited Biblical scholars and former fundamentalist church members like ‘Y’ (including pastors) and find out how a person with deeply held beliefs can feel deeply mislead by the weak support given to difficult Bible texts.
And NO, that Hebrew word CAN’T be translated in both the simple past tense and the perfect past tense. The Hebrew for “formed” is different form the Hebrew word for “had formed”. The Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages that the Bible was originally written in are not like English, French, or Spanish where the same word can stand for many different ideas. Fundamentalists make the claim that this is why God originally used those languages for His written word. Modern translations make a mish-mosh of the text by doing what is pointed out in our Article.
Finally, if you spend your time looking only at articles that reinforce beliefs that you already hold, what are you learning? Any fool can do that. In today’s minefield of Biblical exegesis, you can’t look at one or two links expecting to find truth. You have to dig deep into the material – both sides – in order to reach a justified conclusion. THEN you can argue from a firm foundation. We’ve done this and it brought us to the conclusion that the Bible could not possibly be the written word of an all seeing, all knowing, all loving God.
- Y
All you did was make a claim that the Hebrew word can’t also be in the pluperfect tense without any documentation on the Hebrew word. This article explains why both the pluperfect makes sense and also shows how just using the past tense also makes sense. I’m not going to argue with you as I already know you will disagree. So keep believing what you want to. LINK
So, have fun then.
I’m certainly not able to debate most of what you’ve presented with what I already know. I don’t have any expertise in this area. It isn’t philosophy, psychology, or education. Its ancient history, language and sources that I’ve not ever studied except to read different English versions of the Bible chapters. It is interesting to me and it seems that you’ve presented a well thought out argument. If I make any headway as I look into this, I’ll let you know. I don’t know if Michael may have a crack at it. I did include a link back to his page for you and he may have an interest… we’ll see as time goes on.
You mention that this is part one, so, I suppose I’ll be seeing some more from you about contradiction evidence; on race you say. This time, I admit, you’ve worked to include participation from the other side. I don’t know if we have experts here at Xanga in these areas.
RE: “Finally, if you spend your time looking only at articles that reinforce beliefs that you already hold, what are you learning?”
I don’t do that. I set out to find an understanding that makes sense. I sometimes can’t find it. However, for me, Creation, Heaven, God, and faith in salvation make sense to me. I have my own experience as well as evidence from others. Some of what I believe cannot be proven. That includes the creations by God, the creation of the natural universe, the existence of God, Angels and Divine beings, Satan, and the plan for salvation. All of these are truths in my belief and yet they originate from beyond the laws of nature. I am like Colton Burpo and Dr. Eben Alexander although I did not have a NDE. The experience that I did have cannot be erased from my conscious mind by text and reasons. Only loss of memory perhaps might shake from me my awareness. I’m not even worried that may happen either. So far, at 60, I am still of sound mind.
Sincerely,
Hunt
@Table54 -
[And NO, that Hebrew word CAN'T be translated in both the simple past tense and the perfect past tense. The Hebrew for "formed" is different form the Hebrew word for "had formed".]
Again, you just make a claim with no support. What are the 2 different Hebrew words? More specifically, what is the Hebrew word for “had formed” and please show proper documentation. And I’ve read where it can be translated according to the context.
[Finally, if you spend your time looking only at articles that reinforce beliefs that you already hold, what are you learning? Any fool can do that.]
haha – You’re funny! Yeah, and any fool can do what you’re doing. And how would you know whether I “only” look at articles reinforcing my beliefs? And just because you disagree with what I believe doesn’t make you right. You sound very arrogant and hypocritical. I’m finished with this conversation. Again, you can have the last word. I don’t care to argue with you. Have a nice night.
@musterion99 -
The Hebrew word for “formed” is yatsar וַיִּיצֶר֩
The Hebrew for “had formed” is yasar יָצָֽר׃
This from “The Bible Suite” by Biblos but any good Hebrew / English interlinear translation will get you these as well.
How would I know what you look at to reinforce your beliefs? By the links you provide to back up your claims. Instead of using sound Biblical references you always provide links to “refuting their claim” type web sites. You could have found the Hebrew references I just posted had you known where to look. Instead you had me do it, as if I pulled that claim out of my rear end.
You come to my home and you make me out to be some kind of idiot who doesn’t know how to use reference books. Then you have the unmitigated gall to say I “sound” arrogant and hypocritical when you can’t hear anything I’m saying. I suppose you can read into my words anything you’d like but really. Who’s the aggressor here? I did not call you a fool. What I said was, “if you spend your time looking only at articles that reinforce beliefs that you already hold, what are you learning? Any fool can do that.” And since the comment was directed to both Hunt and you, why did you think I was referring only to you? This blog is about teaching and learning. I’m not infallible. I make mistakes. When someone catches me in a mistake, I own up to it. I’m not here to bully someone into believing what I believe.
I listed six books that agree with what your link said. And I pointed out there are many Christian Bible commentaries, dictionaries, and encyclopedias that do the same. And I said I don’t understand why Fundamentalist Christian scholars (different from Bible Scholars) need such a preponderance of information to attempt to refute simple Biblical problems. If stating that is “arrogant and hypocritical” then I do indeed plead “guilty.”
Your cut and run strategy is noted. It’s the second time you’ve said such. I’m not here to argue either, BUT I am her to discuss so we can both learn from each other. I would think that’s what all this blogging stuff is about. And if someone else learns from our discussions or learns how to research our points for themselves, so much the better!
Thank you.
-Y
@Hunt4Truth -
Hi Hunt. If I remember right, you told me when we first met that you were on a path to learning? I can easily relate to that. From 1990 – 2002 I walked that same path. We’re both trying to get to the same place (understanding), we just started at different locations. I appreciate the link you sent and I certainly did read it. As I pointed out in my answer, I’ve read many ideas similar to his. The fact that you are willing to look outside your own comfort zone is a step up. I’m sure you’d agree that that’s how we learn. If I’d have read only Watchtower and Bible Track Society literature (and that’s what they preferred I do), I would most probably be a Jehovah’s Witness yet. But I went outside my comfort zone and learned. I asked questions they could not or would not answer so the time came for us to part ways.
I believe that for you Creation, Heaven, God, and faith in salvation do make sense. That’s become your comfort zone. You say that some of what you believe cannot be proven. You have to ask yourself why an all knowing, all seeing God would put you in that position. All I can say to you, Hunt, is stay on your path of investigation. The answer to that question is out there.
Thanks for stopping by. May we always be friends no matter our beliefs.
- Y
Looking up the English word, “formed” this page comes up.
http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/3335.htm
To Form
Original Word: יָצַר
Part of Speech: Verb
Genesis 2:7 (http://biblos.com/genesis/2-7.htm)
BIB: וַיִּיצֶר֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים
NAS: Then the LORD God formed man of dust
KJV: God formed man
INT: formed the LORD God
therefore “formed” = וַיִּיצֶר֩
Genesis 2:19 (http://http://biblos.com/genesis/2-19.htm)
BIB: וַיִּצֶר֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים
NAS: the LORD God formed every beast
KJV: God formed every beast
INT: formed the LORD God
Again, “formed” = וַיִּצֶר֩
Genesis 2:8 (http://biblos.com/genesis/2-8.htm)
BIB: הָֽאָדָ֖ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָצָֽר׃
NAS: the man whom He had formed.
KJV: the man whom he had formed.
INT: the man whom had formed
Now, “had formed” = יָצָֽר׃
You will note the Hebrew word for “formed” וַיִּצֶר֩ and “had formed” יָצָֽר׃ are different. It is the written Hebrew we are discussing, not the transliteration, my friend.
We’re getting into a circle with your other statement. I can only “know” what you read by what you show me. If indeed you are a well informed student of Biblical exegesis I would expect more scholarly references from you than well known attempts used to discredit claims that the Bible contradicts itself. Fundamental Christendom has an answer for everything. Their existence depends of it. It is a proven fact that the 5 books of Moses were written by more than one man (and certainly NOT by a man named “Moses” whose existence is only supported by the Bible and not within any other historical source.
For instance, here is a site (http://religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm) that looks at both sides of the argument concerning authorship of the Pentateuch. And as in all cases where conservative scholars differ from modern scholars you get to choose which side makes more sense to you. At least in this way you are getting more than one point of view. You get to make up your mind concerning which “experts” are more scholarly in their presentations. Then it isn’t a matter of agreeing with what you believe or finding anything else presented to be false. When two sides of an argument are placed side by side it should be easier to see which is the more credible. Especially if one keeps an open mind and is not simply trying to make a preconceived point. And without doubt there are times when I am just as guilty of that as others.
- Y
@Table54 -
I said I would let you have the last word but I’ll respond. The word yasar doesn’t mean had formed.
LINK 1 LINK 2
[How would I know what you look at to reinforce your beliefs? By the links you provide to back up your claims]
Nice non-sequiter. That doesn’t mean I don’t read other views. What kind of logic is that? That is why I said you’re arrogant. You’re very arrogant to assume and know what I read. And you dismiss the articles because they don’t agree with your beliefs. That doesn’t make those articles false.
I think enough has been said. I totally believe you have to read and listen to every perspective to make an intelligent decision. I’ve been on both sides and finally feel comfortable with my current spiritual path.