How do you explain all the contradictions in the Bible?

Don't forget the utter holocaust of a world-wide flood.

The world is truly a terrible place. Walk away from your computer this very instant. Gaze outside your window and contemplate your mortality for a moment, that you will cease to exist in a few years...

Yes, the world is a terrible holocaust of death and suffering as multitudes slip off the edge of the world daily. That beautiful women I see in the street will grow old and die. How could I envy, even for a second, that fine young man in the pride of his life when he too faces that same fate in a few score and ten.

The horror, the horror. The world is a terrible place not withstanding the bubble of technology and media which would cocoon us from the true nature of existence.

And how can I be sure that my own nature is not so perverted, to the point where I could take pride in my God-like faculty, and reject the one small hope I might have.

 

Well, that is where the 'truth' might take us, if we were to stare at the world stripped of all illusions... and devoid of faith.

But then perhaps it is due to the perception of this utter fallenness of the world that we owe our faith in the first place. The perceptions of spiritual lack and need are beyond the parameters of materialism. Post-enlightened citizens tend to think all is right in the world. A little more GDP and entertainment, and everything would be just perfect.

 

Bible changed by Constantine, Old Testament is where its at.

 

The Hebrew and Christian Scriptures are an anthology, the collected stories of generations of faithful people, all expressing their experiences with the God they all loved. It isn't a "book," in the same sense that War and Peace is a "book," with a single author. When different people relate experience, even of the same event, the stories come out differently, and that's why diversity is important in a faith: you only get the whole "story" through all those different perspectives.

Because it is an anthology, and not a single "book," there was no "editor" to clean up inconsistencies across the generations. (Consistency is a modern concept, anyway, and so the people who selected which of the stories would be included in this anthology weren't looking at it through that lens.)

In any case, the Hebrew Scriptures--what Christians call, condescendingly, the "Old Testament"--were included in the Christian canon because the first Christians were Jewish, and they experienced the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus through their understanding of who God had always been, in relationship to God's people. It is important to Christians to understand Jesus' whole context to appreciate why he was so revolutionary.

So the "inconsistencies" in the Bible result from its being two related traditions, compiled hundreds of years after the fact, combining many human perspectives, through a retrospective lens--they KNEW who Jesus was to the Church, and so their selection of the stories was to give what they considered the most complete account of the collective story. The Canon changed several times across the centuries. Books were included and then taken back out, and for a long time, different branches of the Church were reading from different versions of the Bible. Even today, as you point out, different branches of the Church read different versions of the Bible, AND in different translations, which necessarily shifts the interpretations of exactly what the original storytellers might have meant when they wrote what they wrote.

Early Church history, and how the Bible came to be what it is, is an absolutely fascinating field. I can recommend some good, accessible books, if you'd like to learn more about it.

 

Perhaps, but remember also that although humanity--not the "world"--may have been "fallen" at one point, Christians believe that Jesus saved humankind by paying the ultimate price, taking responsibility for all our sins, and reconciling everything to God. We were made worthy by his sacrifice, never to be "fallen" again. Of course, human beings continue to be sinful, but the slate was cleared of "Adam's sin" through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And tomorrow's a great day to remember that, being the Feast of the Holy Trinity.

 

#1 isn't really a "contradiction" per se.

Also it's interesting you mention that history is written by the victors. There are plenty of cases in the Bible where the authors actually don't try to cover up details that might cast themselves in a bad light. Example: Moses was basically the leader of Israel for many years and wrote the first 5 books, yet he openly detailed his flaws in obeying God and his flawed leadership many times. If you look in the New Testament at the biographies of Jesus, you see dozens of examples of the closest disciples either misunderstanding Jesus or flat-out denying him, many times making them look pretty awful. If they cared more about their own reputations, they could easily have had these accounts altered before they were published.

 

A big leap forward in understanding theology will come when you stop thinking of God as a "man in the sky".

For example, if God is God, and he takes the life of an innocent Hebrew, wouldn't that same Hebrew be with him in Heaven, forever in bliss? But, if God is merely a man in the sky...? Well, in that the Hebrew forever ceases to exist and it is murder. You see?

The "young girl" vs. "virgin" is a difference in interpretation. The fact that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus clarifies the issue nicely for us Christians. And yes, i say fact because I'm a Christian. No, i don't expect you to agree it is a fact. But again, i'm pointing out that you falsely imply a contradiction that doesn't exist within a single faith. There is a contradiction between the interpretation by Jews and Christians, but that is appropriate and rather obvious.

The bible was compiled by the Catholic Church around 325 AD under the guidance of the holy spirit. Many false writings were rejected at that time. The holy spirit still guides the church. (But what about the pedophile priests!? How is this possible? - good question.)

Here's another "contradiction" you could bring up that seems to exist yet doesn't: Christianity claims to be monotheistic, yet they believe in "one God in three persons". Isn't this a contradiction? (Oh, my! The Christian faith is collapsing before my eyes!)

Here's another one: "If God is all powerful can he make a hamburger so big even He can't eat it?" (Yikes! A whopper!)

In all seriousness, some of these questions are difficult to answer. But there are answers - logical, satisfying answers. I have yet to find a question that I researched that couldn't be logically answered. And i've had many. Theology is not for simpletons, yet unfortunately people think it should be, that understanding God and understanding Religion should be simple. So sorry. It's not.

If you're into some serious discussion, and truly want to understand Christian theology, I suggest posting your question on a forum more suited to this type of discussion, like a catholic forum for example.

 

It's like trying to teach someone a Bach piano concerto when they've not yet mastered Chopsticks.

I suggest next time you try one question at a time, rather than demanding all answers to every question at once. Perhaps your "young-girl" vs. "virgin" question as that is probably the most trivial? Truly, if you can't sort that one out from a Christian perspective you're not even trying.

Here's a rather simple-to-understand take on it (one of many):
The original word, almah, means neither virgin nor young woman. It refers to a young unmarried woman of marrying age. In the social and religious context of ancient Israel, where young women married at a certain age (generally in their teens) and where young women who did not remain virgins until marriage were put to death (Deut 22:20-21), an 'almah would be a virgin. So 'almah means a virgin of marrying age, who is not yet
betrothed.

Furthermore, the scripture referenced is this:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

Now if "virgin" should be interpreted "young woman", what exactly is the sign from the Lord referenced? After all a young girl giving birth isn't much of a Godly sign, is it?

OR, one might recognize that it doesn't matter. Even if the prophesy is correctly translated as "young girl" that doesn't negate the belief that Mary was a virgin. To do that it'd have to be translated as "young girl who isn't a virgin".

Chopsticks.

 

I edited my response to address one question. Hopefully, when you see how easily it is to answer one of your questions you'll begin to wonder if others might too be answered if you devote the time and honesty.

Or, perhaps your intellect has become so daunting, i'm running away in terror, afraid my world-view will be shattered! I expect this is the view you will take. Enjoy!!!

BTW, what "evidence" are you looking for on the virgin birth? Evidence!? Oh, my!!! what would that look like?

 

Don't take me to mean all your questions are trivial and easy. They arn't. They are valid questions. That specific question was trivial and easy and there are multiple, satisfactory answers. A lot of your questions are not trivial and easy. But there ARE satisfying and logical answers. I don't wish to extend the energy here to be that guide for you. (in part because i doubt your sincerity. This is based on your inability to concede that the "young girl" conflict is easily and quite logically solvable from a Christian perspective. If you can't concede that you're either a. illogical or b. unwilling. Either way, i've lost interest.) Sorry.

 

Thanks man, this is really helpful

 

https://www.tomorrowsworld.org/booklets/the-bible-fact-or-fiction

 

"Truth" sometimes transcends "Fact," by which I mean that things do not need to conform to our modernist, Enlightened idea of "fact," especially not as Biblical literalists would think of "fact." The stories of the Bible are people's experiences of God, who cannot be conveyed by one person in story. The Truth of God, and indeed of the Incarnation, can be True, even if there is no modernist concept of Fact to back it all up.

The Millennials are teaching us something about this. There is a story--as related by Diana Butler Bass, but about whom I don't know--in which at a gathering where this person was giving a theological talk, suddenly the congregation burst out into sides debating the "reality" of the Virgin Birth, each side (all adults of a certain age, mind) trying to win with arguments for and against. After the talk, a teenager (Millennial, so this was a while ago, since they're now entering their thirties) came up to her and asked, "Why are people arguing about all of this? What does it matter whether it actually 'happened?' It's so beautiful it MUST be True!"

In matters of faith, there are Truths that can only be grasped intuitively and by the heart. God is unknowable, dwelling in the "Cloud of Unknowing," (which is a great book by a medieval mystic), and so we will be missing the profound Truth of God if we are relying on our modernist pragmatism.

 

Very early on in the Church you had whole councils, consisting of the greatest minds, assembling to discuss the truths of Christianity. They were no simpletons. On the contrary they were discussing how the most radical and rational theories of the day related to the faith. The beliefs we have today, such as the Trinity, are a direct result of the response of these councils to what were perceived as heresies.

Christians should keep in mind that their most cherished beliefs do not all spring fully formed from scripture. they developed within a historical tradition, namely the Church. In my opinion, it was largely due to the Protestant lack of historical consciousness [rationalism] that their faith was so susceptible to nineteenth century historical criticism such as you saw develop in Germany.

The Trinity, right there squarely in your face, demarcates faith from logic. God is one, yet three in one. There is a crossroads here; you either believe in logic and the theory it itself creates, or you believe the faith as revealed to us by Providence in history, scripture and Church.

Does this make faith irrational? I don't think so. To me, it seems supra-rational; we have a ground for reason and logic itself. Logic is itself a created form that operates within us, the creature, as a tool with which to negotiate the creation. And there it is limited. It really gets involved in absurdities and heresies [heresy means to think for yourself] when it's re-directed, and assumes the power to legislate for us all our spiritual and metaphysical beliefs. The will is central, not reason, and its the difference between piety and pride.

 

Well, yes, and the Church is so much larger than some branches think it is, because God cannot be constrained to a single tradition. It takes all of us to grasp the whole truth, and there will always be more because God is still speaking.

In the Episcopal Church we joke that everything was pretty sound until 900 CE. After that, and then until 1600 CE, it all went a little awry. But the Church is better now. We have the Eastern Church, the Roman Church, and lots of other voices proclaiming the Gospel in new ways to new generations. The voice of prayer is never silent, and God's work continues.

 

Sure, but it's really a question about authority and unity. Once you have the 'Reformation', you shortly afterwards end up with 'dissenters' from a national Church, and then you have an endless splintering of the 'church' to the point where the individual becomes their own authority. At this point, there is no Christian culture to speak of, but instead a thin veneer to cover a secular view of the world. And then it gets to the absurd stage where this poor individual has become a consumer and starts shopping about among various 'denonimations'. He then gets to the exasperated point of not going altogether. Unfortunately [or fortunately], Christianity is a religion rooted in history and inseparable from the Church, warts and all.

 

1. Times where different and Yes, you can call me crazy on that but I'd do anything for the one who gave me a reason to live.

2. Differences between the Catholics and Evangelics is one of the influences on that, since evangelical church says that only God is saint and catholics have many many saints.

3.IDK. I'll stay on the side I'm in forever and take it as the right one, like any other human being.