Talk:Internal consistency of the Bible/Archive 1

The Gospels

Let it be noted that the four gospels were written by four different authors, to four different audiences, each of the authors saw and heard parts of what Jesus did and said at different times. So claiming that there are inconsistencies because Jesus said the same thing in three of the gospels, but they are slightly different is ridiculous! They all say the same thing, it could be how the author heard it, whether or not they were paying the greatest attention, etc. The fact is that each of those authors heard what Jesus said, and none of them are wrong. It is not meant to be an exact, word for word quote... How often do any of us cite a quotation word for word to others? Plus, even though God directly inspired every book of the Bible, he kept the authors' writing styles, etc. So it could also be an indication of different writing styles, etc. Not contradiction.
This section just seems particularly POV, and based on ignorance...

None of the Gospel authors "heard" anything that Jesus said, rightly or wrongly. He was already long gone by the time they were writing their works.

Merge, of course!

The articles Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible and Internal consistency and the Bible must be merged. It is against Wikipedia policy to have different articles about the same topic, each presenting a specific POV.

Also please note, that there is a level of detail, which may exceed the purpose of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia article is supposed to give a summary and review of a topic, not to replace all written books about it (or even add another one).

The atomisation of area of Bible-related articles does no good to readability and usefullness of the Wikipedia.

Pjacobi 13:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. KHM03 18:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge, never!

This article is NOT a POV fork. It is a combination of sections which severely overlap in other articles, such as Criticisms of Christianity, and Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible itself. It exists to take the pressure off those articles for space, as well as their own issues of POV - see particularly talk:Criticisms of Christianity. This article IS a summary and review of each topic. The issues of consistency ARE extensive, and a large number of books have been written on it. Clinkophonist 14:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

So what's the defining difference between the topics covered in Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible and those covered in Internal consistency and the Bible? --Pjacobi 15:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible also covers Ethics in the Bible (inconsistencies with modern morality), The Bible and History (factual inconsistencies concerning history - external consistency), and Science and the Bible (factual inconsistencies concerning science - external consistency).

Wheras Internal consistency and the Bible only covers internal consistency - e.g. "it says X here and not X here"? who is Jesus' grandfather via Joseph - James or Eli? Is Machir a distinct tribe or not? Was Canaan conquered all at once (Book of Joshua) or sporadically (Book of Judges)? Is Jesus returning soon - Yes (1 Thessalonians) or No (2 Thessalonians)? etc.

Leaving them all in one page (Alleged inconsistencies) acts as a POV magnet for what are complicated, and in some cases extensive, subjects. It also means duplication of material that is already present in other articles which cover the subject much better, and are able to do so more neutrally. Internal consistency.... constitutes the remaining type of "consistency" which is not addressed by the other articles.

Clinkophonist 13:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

Both SimonP and myself have redirected this article to "Alleged inconsistencies" several times. Is there only one user who wishes otherwise? Let's try to abide by community consensus. KHM03 12:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a better title than "Alleged inconsistencies", but that page has a lengthy page history and a much used talk page. I would support deleting this entry and moving Alleged inconsistencies here. - SimonP 15:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me...only one of these is needed, however...we don't want redundancy. Let's see if anyone else (notably Clinkophonist) has an opinion. KHM03 16:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If there is consensus (waiting for Clinkophonist) that "Internal consistency and the Bible" is the better or at least not worst than "Alleged inconsistencies", I can delete, move and fix the redirects any time. --Pjacobi 16:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It isn't about titles, it is about content. See above. Clinkophonist 13:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, either article is fine with me. Having both is a redundancy. I think, actually, "Internal consistency of the Bible" might be an even better option, but I will defer. I've redirected as per SimonP's suggestion to "Alleged inconsistencies", but will be happy with any of these options. As long as we have one page for this one subject, I'm happy. KHM03 13:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The point is that I don't desire both. But you keep reverting me at both so you are unable to see that. I have reorganised the location of various material, alleged inconsistencies I split up, as I also did to Criticism of Chritianity, merging together the shared subject matter and placing it in distinct articles. Alleged inconsistencies I then altered to redirect to a summary of these articles which was in large part created from a large chunk I removed from Criticism of Christianity. By reverting that you make it appear that I want this article AND alleged..., when that is not the case at all. I think it best to have this article and for alleged.... to redirect to the summary of Criticisms about the Bible as I had it before. Clinkophonist 22:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I'm fine with either one...whichever the community prefers. But only one is necessary. If you want to merge any relevant material to one and then do a redirect, be my guest...provided that we're all in agreement. KHM03 02:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If you note exactly what I have said, you will realise that I have already merged relevant material to relevant articles, and done redirects. You reversed that. Clinkophonist 11:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point: there is (and was when you created this) another article on the same subject matter, which is where this should have gone and should now go. As Radiant says on WP:AN/I, it's like seeing double :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

POV and Link titles

I am curious why the word "alleged" was added to one of the link titles under the Pro–errancy group, but not added to a very similarly titled article under the Pro–inerrancy group. Compare "List of alleged inconsistencies" vs. "Biblical Inconsistencies Answered". Where the latter is the actual title of the article linked, the former is a altered title: the actual title for the page is "Biblical Inconsistencies". I think it is wrong to fight POV with POV by changing titles (i.e. "Biblical Inconsistencies Allegedly Answered"), so I move to change the wording of "List of alleged inconsistencies" to conform with the actual title.--Andrew c 16:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirected

This article was started as POV fork by User:Clinkophonist in Dec. 2005. There's not a whole lot here worth saving; I've redirected the article. KHM03 18:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't just destroy an article by redirection with no nomination on WP:AFD. --Blainster 19:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you can. Redirection does not destroy the page's history, which is why you were able to undo it with no trouble. AfD is ONLY supposed to be for pages that should be deleted entirely from the site. Once you objected, the consensus for KMH03's edit was broken, and now it should be discussed here to see what the end result is. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to upset anyone. I really didn't think anyone would care. Also, I didn't violate WP:AFD, as I didn't delete anything. The policy to look at is WP:R...which I also did not violate. BUT...I'm happy to discuss this. The origins of this article are not in dispute...it was created as a POV fork by User:Clinkophonist in Dec. 2005. Now, do you think it's worth keeping/developing? Why? KHM03 19:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• This type of article deals with a convtroversial subject, and redirect of an existing article should not be done without discussion. The WP:R article describes various housekeeping functions. Redirecting this article to biblical criticism does not fall under those categories, instead it constitutes a shadow deletion. The WP:R page says that editors should take care to include the redirected title early in the target article so that a reader who is looking for the redirect is not startled by what she sees. In this case, the article on "internal consistency" appears as a "see also" link in "biblical criticism" and is thus broken. None of these issues were addressed. --Blainster 22:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• There were two articles previously covering this general topic. It does not matter why this second article was initiated, because "Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible" was subsequently merged into "Internal consistency and the Bible". According to the discussion, that was the resolution of a debate during which KHM03 stated that he was unconcerned about which title was chosen. Now he has tried to eliminate the remaining article by redirect. If you don't want the article to exist you should nominate it on AFD. I think there is room on an encyclopedia with over a million articles to have one discussing this topic. What seems to be missing presently is any references to published work, which hints that some of this may be original research. So what the article needs is some published sources. There are other Wiki "main" articles linked from several of the sections in this article. References from those might be employed here to give it some legitimacy. --Blainster 22:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the subject, but, you're right, it's mostly original research. Originally, it was hoped there would be more development here; there's been little. It still exists as a poor POV fork. If you (or anyone) wants to improve it...great! I'll support that. But I strongly dislike POV articles which never get worked on or improved. They make Wikipedia look bad. Have at it! KHM03 22:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

Where is the Biblical inerrancy scholarship in regards to the charges against the Bible presented. If you need scholars they can be found at Christian apologetics and at the Biblical inerrancy article. ken 19:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Could you possibly identify which scholars apologeticise for which internal inconsistencies? The ones I've looked at seem to be apologeticising for inconsistency with recorded history, rather than the bible contradicting itself. Clinkophonist 11:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

They are all over their own page, which you point out by your hypertext.Steve kap 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Translations are horrible

So where would the concept of the translations being completely distorted fit into this? One example is the Greek word pistis being translated alternately belief or faith seemingly at whim. Also it seems to me that it is better translated persistance or resolve. Hackwrench 21:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that might belong at the King-James-Only Movement and Dei Verbum articles. Clinkophonist 11:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

While we are on sentence one...

Doesn't Islam also regard the bible as divinely inspired? "People of the Book" and all that? It might be a hornets nest, but that looks like a glaring absence to me - unless of course they don't so regard it. Midgley 22:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Islam reguards the Tawrat and the Injeel as divinely inspired. Kirbytime 23:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

What do we need to do to get the tag off of this article? KHM03 (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the POV tag should be on this article - the cleanup tag is more appropriate. --EChronicle 00:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think it is strange, however, that there is no article focused on the Quran as well. This article itself may not be biased, but by having just this article, Wikipedia is biased solely against the religious text known as the Bible. Wolf ODonnell 11:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to stop someone who knows about it writing one. Or should the whole continuum of books from all three closely linked religions be handled in this one article? You could try writing here about the internal consistency of the Quran. I can't, I know nothing about it. Midgley 11:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And that's where I fall down, because I know next to nothing about the Quran as well. Wolf ODonnell 12:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Chronicles and the Deuteronomic History

I was wondering why this article mentions this one of the many resolved (alleged) "contradictions"? This has been resolved at many websites - for example http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/508.

I offer three changes:

• Delete that section
• Keep section and add how it has been resolved
• (If all else fails) Add to the article all of the alleged contradictions and how they've been resolved - because just having one alleged "contradiction" doesn't make sense

--EChronicle 23:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you offered proof that academics in the field think it is resolved, rather than just Christian/Jewish apologists running websites. Clinkophonist 21:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you offered proof that academics in the field think it is resolved, rather than just Christian/Jewish apologists running websites. --> I have pointed you to an article that shows how the Chronicles "contradiction" is not a contradiction at all. Look at the facts in that article - and/or do a Google search on it and see how it's been easily resolved. This alleged contradiction is not a contradiction at all - non-christians just use this to try to "prove" that the Bible is prone to human error, so they don't have to follow what's inside the Bible. Those and many other "contradictions" have been resolved time and time again by people who actually read and follow the Bible - It won't work if you just try to pick and "disect" it. Like I said earlier - I offer three suggestions:

• Delete that section
• Keep section and add how it has been resolved
• (If all else fails) Add to the article all of the alleged contradictions and how they've been resolved - because just having one alleged "contradiction" doesn't make sense

--EChronicle 23:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The source provided by Mr. Chronicle states "the only thing required to prove that a discrepancy does not exist is to provide a single possible solution". Such a weak standard explains the insipid exegesis. --Blainster 01:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Mr. Blainster, you did not read the full discussion above (or you just ignored it)? Note what I said: "Look at the facts in that article - and/or do a Google search on it and see how it's been easily resolved." If you are offended by such a "weak standard" and "insipid exegisis", then why don't you do a Google search and find another article that clears up the alleged contradiction? So you don't have to go to the trouble of doing that, try here.

--EChronicle 14:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line: mainstream scholars are far from unanimous that the issues are resolved. The best we could say is that "some scholars consider it resolved; most don't". KHM03 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And how do you determine who's a "mainstream scholar"? Are you talking about those who constantly pick the parts they don't like, disect them, run it through a test tube, analyze the results, and then get rich by making a book out of it (only to have it easily refuted by real scholars)? Point me to a page that refutes the links I've been talking about it, and then maybe... Otherwise, here are my three suggestions:

• Delete that section
• Keep section and add how it has been resolved
• (If all else fails) Add to the article all of the alleged contradictions and how they've been resolved - because just having one alleged "contradiction" doesn't make sense

--EChronicle 15:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

By "mainstream", I mean those who work in the most reputable, honored institutions (Harvard, Yale, Duke, Princeton, Cambridge, etc.) and who publish regularly (both books - which may or may not sell - and academic articles) and who generally adhere to the academic consensus (documentary hypothesis, Q source, etc.) and who are considered quality scholars by OTHER quality scholars. Anderson, Breuggemann, Metzger, Wright, etc. are all examples. KHM03 (γραφ) 16:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no obligation to show you how your so-called "main-stream scientists" agree with me. I've shown you how the alleged contradiction is not a contradiction at all - any thing else doesn't matter. Again, if you could point me to a page that refutes what I've been saying, I'd appreciate it. We don't need that one alleged contradiction mentioned on this page, so I'm removing that section. By the way, KHM03, since you seem be interested in issues relating to this, could you post an answer to my question under the "sectarian stance?" section at the ten commandments talkpage?

Thanks, EChronicle 19:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I already gave you the link to this article, but if not... http://www.theapologiaproject.org/101%20Cleared%20up%20Contradictions%20in%20the%20Bible.pdf --EChronicle 19:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no "page" that refutes your POV (that I know about)...I'm talking about academic writings - highly regarded books and articles in scholarly journals, not Internet stuff. Big difference. No...you are under no obligation to show the ways in which mainstream scholars agree or disagree with you, but their POV is what we need to place on the article, not yoours or mine. I don't object to the removal of the section...I just don't want us to say that academia holds a view which they do not. I will look at the Ten Commandments article shortly. KHM03 (γραφ) 19:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This article shouldn't have any POV on it - it needs to be NPOV and Verifiable (I'm being to persnickety - sorry - I'm suffering from WikiBurn). My point is that the alleged contradiction's been cleared up, and that's why I removed the section. I really thank you, though, for not just reverting like other users would (might). Also - even though we disagree on some things - thanks for being WP:CIVIL and following WP:Etiquette.

Thanks again, EChronicle 20:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think that a website is more reputable than the entire academic consensus. Please refer to an actual published work by an actual academic with an actual degree from an actual high level university and who holds an actual professorial or research position in an actual high level internationally respected university.

Some of those satisfying all of the above conditions, that also believe that the consistencies are not resolved are:

• Israel Finkelstein
• Richard Elliott Friedman
• Harold Bloom
• Neil Asher Silberman
• Bart Ehrman

Can you name any that satisfy the conditions I have given and also believe that the consistencies are resolved? Clinkophonist 00:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That explanation of inconsistency seems to depend on the translation used - eg. NIV: 1 chronicles 21:5 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah. vs 2 Samuel 24:9 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand.. Regardless, it seems the inconsistency exists only in literal and logistical sense as the magnitude of the numbers is similar and probably based on a long line of hear-says. - G3, 22:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Howdy all,

Sorry for my slow response... I think Clinkophonist, that you're missing the point. I showed you how it is resolved (actually - I showed you how it was never even a contradiction): you just are misunderstanding the historical context and/or misunderstanding the author's intent. Those whom you call "scholars" just try to tear the Bible into pieces and find mistakes in it so that they can say it isn't reliable and therefore they don't have to follow what it says. Guess what? There have been no mistakes or contradictions found at all in the whole entire bible.

Can you name any that satisfy the conditions I have given and also believe that the consistencies are resolved? --> I am under no obligation to point you to any so-called "scholars"... And it doesn't matter what anybody believes - it matters what's verifiable and what is the truth. For example, I could believe the earth is flat, but do my beliefs make the earth flat? Of course not! So your scholars could believe that there are contradictions in the bible, but does that mean there are contradictions in the bible? Of course not!

--EChronicle 17:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

For example, I could believe the earth is flat, but do my beliefs make the earth flat? Of course not! So your scholars could believe that there are no contradictions in the bible, but does that mean there are no contradictions in the bible? Of course not! - G3, 05:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comment. Note that I didn't point to any scholars - I just showed you how it was resolved - period. --EChronicle 16:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that one apologetics site has rationalized an apparent discrepancy between two Biblical sources does not mean that there is no discrepancy. Basically, the issue here is that EChronicle and his apologetical friends are working from the perspective that the Bible is inerrant and does n ot contradict itself. Given that assumption, every apparent contradiction has to be explained, and, I'm sure, every obvious apparent contradiction has been explained in some manner or other. The fact that some apologists have come up with rationalizations of apparent contradictions doesn't mean it's not an apparent contradiction, and furthermore, doesn't mean that anyone who is not a priori committed to the inerrancy of the Bible has to accept their rationalization as an accurate explanation of why these two Biblical statements seem to contradict each other. The author of your linked article states Remember that the only thing required to prove that a discrepancy does not exist is to provide a single possible solution. This is a grotesque claim, and only makes sense from a perspective where the right answer has already been decided upon a priori. For most of us, we look at all the possibilities, and try to decide which one is most likely. In any given instance of an apparent contradiction, it may be that an explanation which does not assume the internal consistency of the Biblical narrative is more plausible than one that does. To analyze this particular case, we'd need to look at what mainstream scholars have said about it, not the rationalizations of an apologetical source. john k 16:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting logic, JK... To analyze this particular case, we'd need to look at what mainstream scholars have said about it, not the rationalizations of an apologetical source. --> And why should I listen to your "mainstream scholars" anymore than you listen to "the rationalizations of an apologetical source."? You are right, in one aspect, that my "apologetical friends" and I are working from the "perspective that the Bible is inerrant and does not contradict itself" - a "perspective" that has always been verified and never disproven. I've shown you how the Chronicles passage is not a contradiction - now it's up to you to show how it is a contradiction. --EChronicle 13:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason you should listen to mainstream scholars is because they are mainstream and scholars. Its a bit like the reason you should listen to the medical advice of qualified doctors rather than that of blind old hags hanging around street corners in the nasty part of town.

Now you say you've shown how the Chronicles passage is not a contradiction. Well thats fine and dandy. But its also original research. Now if you can find a notable source (thats a source meeting the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability by the way) that says it is not a contradiction then we can maybe remark on that in the article. But original research is not allowed. Clinkophonist 20:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're going to accuse me of OR! I'm not doing any OR - my website is "notable" enough!!! Ok - to sum it all up - there are no contradictions or "discrepencies" in the Bible at all... (isn't interesting that every contradiction anybody has come up with has been refuted - that says something about the Bible!) --EChronicle 00:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Anything can be refuted. I can refute that you exist. I can refute that you are a Christian, and argue instead that you are a heretic. Just because something can be refuted doesn't make the something wrong, or inaccurate. You can refute the truth just as easily as you can refute a lie, all you have to do is use ever less scholarly sources, more illogical arguments, and more arguments to the gallery and to emotion, not to facts.

Your website? You cannot cite yourself, it counts as original research. Clinkophonist 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

John and the Synoptic Gospels

"There are several apparent discrepancies between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John that are difficult to explain: Many of Jesus' most famous miracles in John (the turning of water into wine at the Wedding Feast at Canah; the Raising of Lazarus) have no parallel in the Synoptic Gospels." How does this difference qualify as a discrepancy? A discrepancy is when one statement excludes another from being true. The statements in John about Jesus performing these miracles cannot exclude any statements in the Synoptic Gospels, because there are no statements in the Synoptic Gospels regarding Jesus either performing or not performing these miracles. It would be a discrepancy if the Synoptic Gospels stated that Jesus did not perform these miracles, or performed them differently, but the Synoptic Gospels make no such statement. They are silent on the matter. How can a contradiction come from silence? You actually need to make a statement on a subject in order to contradict another statement on that topic. Since there is apparently no textual conflict, we should remove this as an example of discrepancy. Ecto 09:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea - let me know if and how I can help. --EChronicle 19:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Its considered a discrepancy by scholars because its as if John and the Synoptics are referring to two different people, both of whom get crucified, had followers, and had a resurrection. The question is why do the Synoptic Gospels not mention these things when you'd think that they were significant enough to merit mention. Its like going "Damien is a famous artist. He cut a shark in half, pickled each half in formaldehyde, and exhibited the results, selling it for thousands of pounds" in 3 sources and then going "Damien is the son of Satan" in the other source - its something that you have to ask why the first 3 sources don't bother mentioning it. Clinkophonist 20:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Its considered a discrepancy by scholars because its as if John and the Synoptics are referring to two different people, both of whom get crucified, had followers, and had a resurrection. --> I don't get that impression (and neither do most other people) at all after reading both the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John. Where in the gospels does the text read like there are "two different people, both of whom got crucified, had followers, and had a resurrection"? --EChronicle 00:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, one source claiming "Damien is a famous artist. He cut a shark in half, pickled each half in formaldehyde, and exhibited the results, selling it for thousands of pounds" and another three sources claiming "Damien is the son of Satan" would not be a discrepency either, using the strict definition of the word. The problem seems to arise from poor word choice. Discrepency has a technical definition in textual analysis which is similar to the literal definition of contradiction. Discrepancy also has a lay definition, meaning "something that departs from expectations" which seems to be the way you are using the word. You can see the difference. I think the best way by which we could describe this variance between John and the Synoptics would be to say, in full, that "it departs from expectations", which is the lay definition of discrepency, but not to use that word itself, because, by its technical definition, it suggests a contradiction, which is impossible, because, in this case, there is no common dict among the Gospels to contra. Do you see my point? Also, I have to say that I have always had the impression that the Gospels are about the same person, even from my first reading. Jesus' miracles in John are not exactly out of character, from what I recall. Ecto 00:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Textual analysis tends to argue that the 3 Synoptics and John are discrepent in the sense of contradiction. Clinkophonist 21:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"There are several apparent discrepancies between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John that are difficult to explain: Many of Jesus' most famous miracles in John (the turning of water into wine at the Wedding Feast at Canah; the Raising of Lazarus) have no parallel in the Synoptic Gospels." This is what we are talking about. Not anything else. Not the entire books. Not any other issues in any of the books. Do you understand that? If you do not, please go back and reread my first comment, then read it again if you have to. We are not talking about the entire books here. Just this one issue. Just this one. Got that? Calling this--this one difference we are discussing here--a discrepency is nothing but an abuse of the English language. You cannot trump up this difference to the state of being a discrepency. Such a classification is illogical and, to be frank, misleading. Ecto 03:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh - Clinkophonist, please note how Webster (m-w.com) defines a descrepancy: "the state of being discrepant"... and "Discrepent" is defined as: "being at variance:disagreeing". Clearly none of the examples you give, and none of what the bible says includes discrepancies, contradictions, or anything of the sort! --EChronicle 00:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If the bible contains no discrepencies then tell me this, did Jesus come to bring peace or a sword? Clinkophonist 21:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Clinkophonist regarding the implied importance of statements in John which are missing from the Synoptics. They are inconsistent precisely because of the importance attached by scholars (including Christian scholars) to the agreement between the Synoptics, alongside the crucial <pun not intended> importance to Christian theology of the quite different story told by John, particularly regarding the statements of Jesus therein. The three synoptic authors are in agreement about a number of aspects of Jesus life. These are considered important because of their reiteration by the different authors. The absence of so much of the Johnanine material (which was written probably 10–20 years later) is striking in this regard. It is best explained by attributing the differences to development of Christian understandings which did not previously exist among the community. To suggest that there is no problem with stories that are so different, undercuts your own argument about the merits of the agreement of the Synoptics. --Blainster 18:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This is all getting rather silly, as everyone seems to be arguing what they think, rather than what the literature says. A couple of points here:

1. there are most certainly apparent discrepancies between different parts of the Bible - that is, there are statements which, taken at face value, directly contradict other specific statements.
2. there are also parts of the Bible which, while not containing specific discrepancies, seem in some way inconsistent with one another.
3. We should be careful about using the word "discrepancy" or "contradiction" to refer to the latter. It is not a "discrepancy" that John sometimes talks about things the Synoptics do not, and vice versa; it is, however, an issue involving the consistency of the Bible, which ought to be discussed.
4. Just about every apparent contradiction/discrepancy in the Bible has been "resolved" in apologetical writings. However, most of these explanations have not usually been convincing to anyone who was not already a believer, because they are not designed to be. These kind of apologetics are designed to demonstrate to believers that it is possible to reconcile apparent contradictions, not that this explanation is necessarily the correct one, or even the best one. The reason the apologetics are accepted is because the target audience has already accepted the inerrancy of the Bible. As such, any possible explanation to resolve an apparent discrepancy must be true, because the alternative is that the Bible contains mistakes, which is a possibility which has already been epistemologically rejected. This is not the way normal scholarship works.
5. The claim that apologetics (which assume the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant) are somehow equivalent to scholarship (which assumes they are not) is deeply misguided. On any given apparent inconsistency, scholarship does not assume anything one way or the other. The apologetical technique forces one answer to any question we ask about the Bible. The critical technique does not do the same thing at all - it is quite possible for the critical technique to arrive at the conclusion that a particular apparent contradiction is not really a contradiction. But the apologetical technique already has its answer before it starts. Whatever it is, it is not a scholarly endeavor.
6. In terms of John and the Synoptics, I think I agree that we'd best not refer to it as a discrepancy. It is probably nevertheless worth mentioning that there are significant differences. I do think that much more significant as a potential source of inconsistencies are differences among the different synoptic gospels. John is obviously derived from a different tradition than the other gospels, and its author is interested in different things. Whether or not the author was mostly making it up (I think the theology of John, at least, is almost certainly the theology of John, and not that of Jesus), it is not terribly surprising that, as a result of this, John and the Synoptics look different. Much harder to reconcile is the fact that the Synoptics are both very similar (to the point that most people assume that there was some kind of sharing going on, although the exact order and nature of the sharing has been disputed), but also contain significant disagreements and changes.
7. Finally, to repeat myself, we should be looking at what scholarship says, not simply shooting out our own opinions. john k 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"We should be careful about using the word "discrepancy" or "contradiction" to refer to the latter. It is not a "discrepancy" that John sometimes talks about things the Synoptics do not, and vice versa; it is, however, an issue involving the consistency of the Bible, which ought to be discussed." Thank you! That is the only thing I have been arguing here. And I have not just been "shooting off" my own opinion, thank you. It is also the opinion of every dictionary in which I have ever looked up the word discrepancy. Ecto 03:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I get the feeling that Discrepancy somehow means something different over there (US?) than it does over here (UK). Here it means something at variance, curious variation, and a difference seemingly out of place, rather than contradiction. In other words, here we view discrepancy and significant difference as synonyms - infact significant difference is stronger than discrepancy which is seen as somewhat of a euphemism. Whereas your reaction seems to suggest that you see discrepancy as stronger than significant difference. In other words to say that John and the Synoptics have significant differences (point 6 above) would be something I'd have interpreted as more offensive than saying they have discrepancies, whereas you seem to be reacting as if the opposite is true. If this is the case then the word discrepancy should simply be altered to the more verbose wording to satisfaction of all parties. Clinkophonist 17:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that "discrepancy" would be a milder way of saying "contradiction", or perhaps, as you say, a euphemism for it. I wouldn't advocate using "discrepancy" unless there's actual things that are irreconcilable. In terms of "significant differences," perhaps what I really meant was "significantly different," - that is, the account of Jesus' life in John is significantly different from the account in the Synoptic Gospels. There are, I think, some direct contradictions - a plain reading of the Synoptics and John suggest different dates for the crucifixion, for instance (John on 14 Nisan, the Synoptics on 15 Nisan). But there are also things that one talks about that the other doesn't, or different emphases, or whatever. I don't think these are necessarily contradictions or discrepancies. I'm not sure how to word this best. And then there are things that are kind of in between "variant accounts that don't actually directly contradict each other" and "apparent direct contradictions." For instance, Luke's account of Jesus being sent before Herod - the other Gospels never state that this didn't happen, but their silence certainly implies that they had no idea of it. This isn't quite an outright contradiction, but it isn't just a "different account", either. The same could be said of the two accounts in 1 Samuel of how Saul met David - the "David playing the harp" story and the David and Goliath story, which aren't completely incompatible, but certainly seem to be completely different stories that don't fit together very well. john k 19:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "departure from expectations" instead of "discrepancy"? Ecto 21:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Of, or And?

I'd like to start a discussion on the perceived neutrality of 'Internal consistency and the Bible' versus 'Internal consistency of the Bible'.

There's about 15 pages that link here so it's a real pain to change them all so they don't double-redirect too. Sorry for changing this to start with, I didn't think it was a problem, as 'of the bible' appears 7 times in this discussion. 'and the bible' appears zero (except in quoting the article title).

I don't think the 'Internal consistency of mathematics' is undermining mathematics, but a discussion of 'internal consistency and mathematics' sounds like it's describing the concept of 'internal consistency' and the concept of 'mathematics' and relating them. Which are we doing here?

I think the opening line 'There has long been interest in the degree of internal consistency present in the Bible.' is excellent tho :)

Lukelastic 03:47, 17 July, 2006 (UTC)

Is there some reason for the and? As far as I know, Internal consistency of the Bible would be the better title. Ecto 21:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"of" makes more sense, yes. I don't find it POV at all, as believers or non would surely think the article was about how internally consist the bible is, and that's what it's about. —Pengo 05:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the article has been edited to now contain zero occurrences of 'internal consistency of the bible'. A quick google for both terms returns more results for 'internal consistency and the bible' than 'internal consistency of the Bible', because the majority of them are just scrapes of this article! My point: on biblical discussion websites, we use 'of the bible'. Surely this is a no-brainer? I'd also like to see a revert to the opening line : 'There has long been interest in the degree of internal consistency present in the Bible.' Lukelastic 14:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Some stupid POV pusher on one side or the other apparently thought "Internal consistency of the Bible" was POV for one side or the other years ago, and then it never got change. It ought to get changed. The current title is stupid. john k 16:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please list the reasons to retain 'and the Bible'?

"Either you believe the Bible has 'internal cosistency' or 'not'" !?!?!

Everyone agrees the Bible has 'some degree' of internal consistency! I assume it's the 'absolute internal consistency' POV that will defend retention of 'and the Bible', yet 'to some degree' obviously means it should be 'of the Bible'? List reasons for 'and the bible' if you want to revert, please!!! Lukelastic 12:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This has now been resolved and the article renamed to Internal consistency of the Bible Lukelastic 13:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Concrete examples

The bottom line is that the Bible is FULL of inconsistencies. I think this article should list many more than it currently does. While it's inevitable that religious people will come with explanations for some of them, it's long been shown that no one can possibly explain all of them. Here's a very short list of contradictions, someone could bring up other types of inconsistencies such as factual errors and common sense issues.

1. The very first page of the Old Testament opens right up with contradictory descriptions of the creation (Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2). For example, if the Institute for Creation Research sought relevant information from Genesis, would they determine that plants were created, then animals, then humans (Genesis 1), or humans, then plants then animals (Genesis 2)?

2. Likewise, the very first page of the New Testament introduces another major contradiction: inconsistent genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Some have "explained" this by saying that Luke is the genealogy of Mary; such a claim acknowledges error, since Luke specifically states that it is the genealogy of JOSEPH [Luke 3:23], just like Matthew [Matt 1:16]. So, either there is a contradiction (Matthew says that Jacob is the father of Joseph; Luke says Heli is the father of Joseph, and from there back to Solomon not a single name is the same; not even the same number of generations), or one of them is making an incorrect statement about a relevant fact for Jesus' claim to the House of David.

3. Apostles James and Paul disagreed about a key doctrine: whether "salvation" is by faith alone, or faith and works combined. Compare the direct contradictions (when analyzed for parallel vocabulary and parallel grammatical structure in the original language) in wording between Romans 3:28 and James 2:24. Additional scriptures support faith alone (Romans 3:27-28 & 4:6; II Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 2:16; Titus 3:5), while others specify the need for works / good deeds (Matt 16:27, Revelations 2:26 & 20:12; 2 Timothy 4:14; Philippians 2:12; James 2:24-26).

4. Ezekiel chapter 26 ERRONEOUSLY predicts that during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar [Ez 26:7] the city of Tyre will be UTTERLY DESTROYED, become a BARE ROCK [Ez 26:4; 26:14 - KJV says "like the top of a rock"; NIV says "scrape away the rubble and make a bare rock"], and NEVER BE REBUILT [Ez 26:14; 26:21]. The city was defeated in battle in 587 BC, during King Nebuchadnezzar's reign, but was NOT "utterly" destroyed or "never rebuilt." In fact, today has more than 20,000 inhabitants at the core of a metropolitan area of more than 100,000 people! (Even within Bible times, long after the battle described by Ezekiel, Tyre had already been rebuilt and, in New Testament times it is still portrayed as a CITY (Mark 3:8) and as a harbor where ships could unload (Acts 21:3,7) -- so I guess this could qualify not only as a failed prophecy, but also as a CONTRADICTION.

5. Matt 12:40 clearly says: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Please note it says THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS (the same as in Jonah 1:17 which it refers to). Yet ALL FOUR GOSPELS report that Jesus died on Friday evening and was resurrected on Sunday morning (at or before dawn, some more contradictions on this point), which would only allow less than 36 hours, not three days AND three nights.

6. In Matt 24:34 Jesus predicts that the end of the world and all the fantastic "signs" he describes will occur within the lifetimes of the "current generation."

7. Isaiah 7:14 is widely claim as a prophesy for a messiah, who shall be given the name "Immanuel." This must not be referring to the son of Mary and Joseph, since they did NOT name him Immanuel, but rather, Jesus. The only reference to the name Immanuel in the entire New Testament is Matt 1:23 referring to Isaiah's prophecy, but even Matthew never actually uses that as a name or reference to Jesus and, in fact, there is no Bible record of Jesus being named or even ever called or referred to as "Immanuel."

8. David had seven brothers, 1 Samuel 16:10-11. David had six brothers, 1 Chronicles 2:13-15.

9. Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign, 2 Kings 8:26. Ahaziah was 42 when he began to reign, 2 Chronicles 22:2.

10. The men with Saul heard a voice, but they saw no one, Acts 9:7. The men with Saul saw a light, but they did not hear the voice, Acts 22:9.

11. After Paul's conversion, he was required to go first to Damascus to be healed of his blindness, baptized, and taught by the disciples, before he began to preach, Acts 9:6-20. After Paul's conversion, he did not receive any "flesh and blood" instruction, but rather he went immediately into Arabia to preach, and only later to Damascus, Galatians 1:15-17.

12. MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

13. MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

14. KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

15. PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. 1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

(Interestingly enough another passage where followers are sorta instructed to not learn anything outside of what they are suppose to know)

16. Here's another biology mistake. This is suppose to be the word of god afterall so he's suppose to know the difference...here a bat is supposedly a bird when of course it's not a bird.

LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind; LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat. DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind, DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan, DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant, DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

I can see how an ignorant man from thousands of years ago would think so. God isn't suppose to be ignorant, though.

17. LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

(rabbits don't chew cud)

18. PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun. (snails don't melt)

special note: you'll find that hardcore christians discover quite a bit of excuses for dismissing the biological errors. if they can't outright dismiss it then they wiggle around it by just saying things like, "god has chosen not to reveal all facts so there's something we don't know which makes god right".

19. GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. GEN 2:19 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.

(water or ground)

20. Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."

21. Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

22. II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee? I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

23. God's love?

"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11) "For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34) "The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9)

24. "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1) "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

25. GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

26. KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

27. What did they give him to drink? vinegar - Matthew 27:34 wine with myrrh - Mark 15:23

You say that many or most of these have been explained. Then why mention them?

Could you please supply the short list (if possible) of those that have not been explained. ^rossnixon 01:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

WHERES THE SITE FOR KORANIC INCONSISTENCIES? Like the fact Muhammad (or Allah) kept on changed his mind several times on Alcohol, initially it was fine but accept in Mosque and then it changed a few times to be completely against all mind-altering substances, it seems a little unfair to attack one religion

Create the page then if you have sources. This page is not an attack on any particular religion. It is a study in the internal soundness of the Bible. If there are NPOV insertions then remove them. LitCigar 21:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A list of detailed examples has been added. Two were removed by User:rossnixon, and reverted by User:Scottandrewhutchins. I consider that the removal was not vandalism but editing in good faith. However, I have reinstated one of the examples, about the attribution of God's glory to others. This is a valid example of apparent contradiction, though it is explained by the Christian doctrine (not accepted by all) of the full divinity of Christ. The other is not: there is no conflict between an OT passage on God's retribution for sin and a NT passage exhorting humans to forgiveness, since God is not a human. Ming the Merciless 10:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

re "God's glory". There is no apparent contradiction as the text says "with Thee before the world was" - a proof text for Christ's divinity. So, can I delete this so-called example again? ^rossnixon 00:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fish aren't created?

At the very bottom of the Torah section, it said "Fish are not created." I removed that, because it's simply not true. If anyone is wondering why, Genesis 1:20-21 says, "And God said, 'Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.' So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds..." (emphasis mine) Fish are obviously a living and moving thing with which the water teems; thus, God created them. --Sam Van Kooten 01:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Genesis

• In Genesis, God creates light on the first day, but doesn't make the sun until the fourth day.

The Sun isn't the only source of light. If it were supernaturally created, light could exist without any mechanism at the source to produce it.

• Plants are created on the third day, before there is any sun for photosynthesis.

No sun, but there is light from some source, and plants can grow on artificial light. (Even if they couldn't, I think most plants can go one day without light.)

• Birds are created before reptiles and insects (their food), and flowering plants before any other animals (needed to pollinate them).

I somehow doubt most birds would die if they went hungry for one day, or flowers if they didn't reproduce for one day. If we assume each "day" is thousands of years, then yes there is a problem, but if we assume a literal timescale, there isn't time for the incompleteness of the world to cause any serious ecological problems. So of the four points on that list, I consider only the first one an irreconcilable contradiction. NeonMerlin 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgiveness, human and divine

I have again removed the instance relating to forgiveness. Scottandrewhutchins claims that the explanation relies on Christian doctrine. I disagree: it is the supposed contradiction that relies on Christian doctrine. The Old Testament quote says "God visits the sins on the third and fourth generation", the New Testament quote says "you should forgive those who sin against you". This is only inconsistent if you hold the Christian POV which says that God is forgiving (or perhaps the post-Christian atheist POV that if God existed he ought to be forgiving). There may be a perceived moral inconsistency between the two passages, from a specifically Christian point of view, but from a NPOV there is no textual inconsistency. Ming the Merciless 11:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that there is no textual inconsistency. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus only knew five commandments, where should we put this in the article?

In Matthew 19:17-19, Jesus lists the six(??) commandments as "Thou shalt do no murder" (6th commandment, not the first), "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (7th commandment, not the second), "Thou shalt not steal" (8th commandment, not the third), "Thou shalt not bear false witness" (9th commandment, not the fourth), "Honour thy father and thy mother" (5th commandment, he's got one in the right order), and "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (this is not one of the commandments! ) .

In Mark 10:19, Jesus lists the six(??) commandments as "Do not commit adultery" (7th commandment, not first), "Do not kill" (6th commandment, not the second), "Do not steal" (8th commandment, not the third), "Do not bear false witness" (9th commandment, not the fourth), "Defraud not" (this is not one of the commandments! ), and "Honour thy father and mother" (5th commandment, not the sixth).

In Luke 18:20, Jesus lists the five(??) commandments as "Do not commit adultery" (7th commandment, not first), "Do not kill" (6th commandment, not the second), "Do not steal" (8th commandment, not the third), "Do not bear false witness" (9th commandment, not the fourth), and "Honour thy father and thy mother" (5th commandment, he's got one in the right order).

I believe this is significant, but I'm not sure where to put it in the article. Any ideas? Dionyseus 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's only significant if he said that this was a complete list of the commandments; or if one of them was not included in the Torah. ^rossnixon 01:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

But it uses the article "the". If it had said Jesus lists five commandments instead of the five cmmandments, then it would not be inconsistent. Otherwise there is a problem there. 66.248.160.235 19:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake. Please don't hang arguments on things which almost certainly arose out of translation issues. john k (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparent Contradictions

So where would one discuss why the given passages aren't actually contradictions? If the encyclopedia has passages that contradict, there needs to be a spot where these contradictions can be answered. It is the duty of wikipedia to provide arguments for both sides. So where would this be done?

Actually it doesn't -- see WP:UNDUE. It only has a responsibility to acknowledge viewpoints that have a reasonable level of (academic) support. Admittedly, this objection may also apply to the argument for there being a contradiction, if it cannot be cited back to a serious academic source. Hrafn42 06:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself. Perhaps there could be another section created for the article? Ivellius 23:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing, indeed many of the so-called contradictions that are listed are specifically resolved elsewhere in scripture... Also, many of these examples are taken blatantly out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.146.195.205 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I've made this comment under the wrong heading--but no matter. The specific contradictions or inconsistencies enumerated below are generally spurious. They should simply be revised. The author is extremely dishonest in his [Yes, his -- Do not reveal your ignorance by protesting. If you cannot comprehend the meaning of the word epicene you have no right to use English, for you do not understand English as it is. His is the epicene possessive pronoun in English. There is no room for debate.] use of ellipsis. Whole books of the Bible are skipped, quotations run both backward and forward, in terms of the order of the received text and chronology both, with nary an indication that we are not actually reading individual passages. This, stormRider, was my objection, which you took no time to consider when you undid my edit. Obviously I did not intend my edit to stand, but it was an argument in itself to anyone who could really read English that there was no merit to the section in which it was placed. Look, for example, at the version of Matthew 5:48. It appears to be similar to the Weymouth translation, but the actual wording is one I could not find! Is it a personal translation? There is no note of any of the versions utilized, and it is not as though each verse were straight from the pages of the Authorized Version. I cannot fathom the motivations of a person who is in such a rush to critique that it makes no difference whether or not there is in fact an error to correct!! The clearest instance is that you reinserted a comma error, and it was not a subtle one. It was a comma between a noun and an accompanying verb, which is NEVER acceptable in English. Could someone please sift out a gnat and a camel? Erik53081 04:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There are potentially hundreds of supposed contradictions in the Bible. Why does this article include the ones that it does? Many of the ones currently listed are extremely easy to resolve (e.g. the one about the year that Ahaziah began to reign). Sarsaparilla (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

However, both of the references given are to Ahaziah of Judah, not of Israel. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But if a WP:RS can be found arguing that, it should be included. Along with a WP:RS refuting it. That's a major problem with this whole article: it just drops in contradictory (or in some cases, apparently contradictory) verses, with no WP:RS discussing them. I agree with Sarsaparilla - the list of contradictions is very ad hoc. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It can be refuted by reading the surrounding verses. But is the Bible a reliable source in itself, or do we have to quote some celeb who can read? Hence the minefield of "original research"... --Robert Stevens (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bible is a primary source. Though I personally believe it is very reliable (though not perfect), it is not a "Reliable Source" as defined by WP. See WP:PSTS, which says in part, "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source". By quoting reliable secondary sources (in this case, recognised bible commentators and critics), we avoid the WP:Original Research which is rife in this article. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

However, from WP:NOTOR: "Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation. Present the material within the context contained in reliable sources, but avoid presenting the information in a way that "begs the question". An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' "benefit". Let the reader draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition." This would indicate that prsenting the Bible verses which identify Azahiah as king of Judah (in both cases), without adding further comment, would be merely presenting facts and letting the readers draw their own conclusions from them.

Yes, but who selects which pairs of verses go in the list? And if the heading of the table says they are in apparent contradiction, isn't that "begging the question"? Furthermore, in some of the cases, there is a commonsense resolution of the apparent contradiction which is not apparent if only the two verses are put side by side from a particular translation (e.g. "thou shalt not kill"), so commentary is appropriate.

I would add (and this is the vital component), it is not only a commonsense resolution, but a published one. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, there's another issue here: no source advocating Biblical inerrancy can qualify as a "reliable source" anyhow, as per the guidelines on extremist/fringe sources. It would have to be a mainstream source, and most contradictions are accepted as such by these sources. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting argument. But I think I would disagree, I think the better scholarship qualifies. Automatically ruling it out would be taking a POV. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Animals on the Ark

I've removed a para abt a contradiction in the Genesis 6-7 story of the animals aboard the Ark - it said Genesis says there were seven of each clean animal, therefore a contradiction when Gen.7 says they entered in pairs. The para also quoted an apologetics website quoting some explanation or other. Both sides are guilty of not knowing their Hebrew, which says seven pairs, not seven individuals. Literally, it says the equivalent of "seven-seven", but any Hebrew scholar worth his salt knows this means seven pairs - both the "bible is wrong" and the "bible is never wrong" camps are off-beam.PiCo 15:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Is www.tektonics.org a WP:RS?

This site, which is referenced profusely in this article, appears to be the self-published apologetics site of one James Patrick Holding. He only claims to have a Masters' Degree in Library Science.[1] This does not make him an expert on Biblical scholarship, nor does he appear qualified to speak on behalf of all Biblical inerrantists. I would suggest that any citation, that is not simply for his personal opinion on an issue (or for a random Inerrantist) be removed. Hrafn42 15:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a single genuine biblical scholar (defined as someone who publishes in the big-name reviews) who would bother to get involved with a subject like this - it's pretty much in the hands of people very like the Tektonics site, which I guess makes it an acceptable source. On the other hand, it would indeed be better to quote from more than a single source. I must say though that the Tektonics discussion of Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7 does admit that a problem exists. I wonder what he has t say abt Jeremiah 52:12-13 and 2 Kings 25:8-9?PiCo 16:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What is it about Tektonics that makes it "acceptable"? It is a self-published source lacking any relevant expert qualification. That makes it no better than any person picked at random off the street in terms of reliability. There is a wide range of expertise between your "genuine biblical scholar" and Tektonics' essentially 'no valid claim to Biblical scholarship whatsoever' (e.g. somebody with a PhD, Masters or even Bachelors degree in Ancient Languages/Biblical Studies/etc). Hrafn42 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You can say the same thing about many of sources referenced the article. Also much of the article is unreferenced. (Bible verses are primary sources so don't count). Given that, an amateur source like Tektonics is probably better than none. By all means find better sources, but I think we've got to live with the fact that there are many amateur sources, on both sides, when it comes to things like Bible reliability. Peter Ballard 00:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The internet is chock full of people prepared to offer an opinion on anything, based on little or no serious foundation. That is not a valid rationale for giving such ill-founded punditry credence on wikipedia. Also I suspect that you're wrong to claim that genuine experts aren't working in this field. My impression is that there are quite a few who study Biblical inconsistencies in order to attempt to trace the development of the Bible (and thus of Judaism and later Christianity). Bart D. Ehrman would be one, Karen Armstrong would be another (although not a Biblical scholar, she is at least a published author on the subject), and I'm sure there are more. In my opinion citations to sites like Tektonics are worse than no citation at all, as they give a completely false impression that a statement has legitimate support when in fact it has none. I reiterate my recommendation that all citations to this site (and similar ones) be removed as not being (even close to) WP:RS. Hrafn42 04:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hrafn42 on this issue. Tek is hardly worthy of a the name reputable reference. That is not to say it is unworthy, but that it does not hold a lot of weight in scholarly circles. Bart. D Ehrman is an excellent resource, Armstrong, White, and there are several others that have published authors and experts in the field. Tek was/is unfamiliar to me other than reviewing the site this evening; I am surprised that someone would use him as a reference; must be a devotee. I suggest we replace most of the refernces with quotes/cites from more reputable scholars for no other reason than to add more credibility. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And how is that different from the four listed Pro-Errancy external links? Especially the last two? Peter Ballard 06:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC) p.s. Not that I'm a fan of tektonics.org, but we shouldn't exclude him just because he's self-published. Peter Ballard 06:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>'External links' have a different an somewhat less strict set of requirements than citations (WP:EL vs WP:RS), however even there some minimal standards apply (and if the links don't meet them, then they should be deleted). And tektonics.org most certainly should be excluded as a citation, because he is self-published -- see the template at the top of the article: "A self-published source may only be cited as a primary source in an article about the author or source itself and not as an authority." Can you get any clearer than that? That doesn't mean that we can't continue to have a link to Tektonics in the 'External Links' section (as long as it meets the requirements for inclusion there). Hrafn42 07:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a lot of the argumentation in favour of retaining Tektonics misses the point. The question is not "do we want to retain Tektonics?" but "Does Tektonics meet the requirements to be a WP:RS?" If it does not meet these requirements, then we cannot retain it as a source for citations. Some sources may be in a 'grey area' for this, but I think that this is not the case for Tektonics, which is unambiguously an unreliable source. Hrafn42 07:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha, I get it. I only checked the refs at the end of the article, and assumed Tektonics was only in the External Linls. I didn't realise the alternate ref style (URL only) was used for the Tektonics refs. Well... delete them perhaps, if you really think they're better than no ref. But really, the quality of referencing in the article is appalling throughout. Peter Ballard 12:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the general quality of referencing. But I think it's better to make a fresh start than to continue to hide the issue. Once we have cleared out the bad citations, we can see what sections & statements are in need of (good) citations, tag them, and then either find them or, if good citations cannot be found for them after a reasonable space of time, consider deletion of them. We should also consider moving to an all ref-tag style -- half & half is extremely messy & confusing. Hrafn42 13:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I vote for a fresh start. Explain the history of inconsistencies and their explanations from Origen to Simon, explain how this led to the birth of secular text-criticism in the Enlightenment, how the reaction against this gave birth to fundamentalism in the US in the 19th century while the Europeans made their peace (the Pope doesn't trouble his head over inconsistencies). Bring in names like Sayce and Gleason Archer, cite Tektonics and Answers in Genesis as an example of the impact of the internet.PiCo 13:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've cleared out the Tektonics citations (except for the main one in external links) & turned the remaining URL-only citations into ref-tag ones, so they are more visible & easily evaluated for quality. Hrafn42 13:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, good. PiCo, I think the history of the doctrine belongs in Biblical Inerrancy, and this page should devote itself purely to the inconsistencies themselves. IMHO anyway. BTW Bible verses don't belong in footnotes in my understanding, because they're references to a primary document. Peter Ballard 13:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this needs a lot of work to raise it to a usable standard - the recent changes are very helpful. Can I suggest that Old Testament and New Testament need to be treated as clearly separate major sections, and existing sections moved within these? My understanding is that scholars tend to focus on one or the other of these, and readers may well be interested mainly in one or the other? Of course, we also need a third section that looks at consistency between the two. Rbreen 14:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Hrafn42 14:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of WP:RSs on this subject, I recently came across this blog entry from Pepperdine University Associate Professor of Religion R. Christopher Heard. If you look down to the section on "Jesus" he discusses some inconsistencies. It's possible that further scratching around on his blog and/or other writings will pull up further information. Hrafn42 04:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(Undent, because I want to write several paragraphs and it's easier without an indent to worry about). Yes, Heard is good. But still, sources on this topic are hard to come by - serious scholars just don't address biblical inconsistencies. Anyway, here are some possible section headings for a revamped article (the paragraphs after the headings are outlines for the content of the sections): 1. Background: The bible is a collection of texts from a large number of authors and a wide variety of times. Given this, it is not surprising that it contains many inconsistencies. And given that, for Jews and Christians, it is a sacred, not a secular, text, it is not surprising that these inconsistencies have been the subject of much debate and have given rise to many attempts at reconciliation. (Potential problem: this is stating outright that inconsistencies exist, which I fear will not be acceptable to many editors). 2. Types of inconsistency: Inconsistencies can be: (a) narrative (sequences of events, incompatible dates, unexplained changes of characters, etc); (b) theological (incompatible statements on the nature of the divinity, misuse of the OT by NT writers, etc); chronistic (anachronisms); others if I can find my source again - this all comes from some article I read somewhere, but I don't know where. (An example of two for each type will be enough - one of the big problems with the present article is that it tries to list every possible inconsistency). 3. Responses: The various responses - how the listing of inconsistencies by 17th/18th century philosophers/theologians gave rise to secular textual criticism in the 19th century, the theological response of the Catholic, ANglican and Lutheran churches, and the very different response of evangelicals in the US, including the birth of American fundamentalism as a reaction to European scholarship of the bible.

As I said before, getting sources will be a problem. PiCo 09:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think the historical/theological responses belong instead in Biblical Inerrancy. Like I said, that one deals with the history + theology. This article should restrict itself to the inconsistencies themselves. Peter Ballard 12:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just list them? You could go on forever, and every inconsistency would attract a note explaining why it's not really an inconsistency at all. PiCo 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He who is not with me is against me

The article contains the following three quotes (all RSV):

• Mark 9.40: "He that is not against us is for us."
• Matthew 12.30: "He who is not with me is against me."
• Luke 9.50: "He that is not against you is for you."

Then, the following statement is made:

"Matthew's version is in diametric opposition to the versions of Mark and Luke, whose versions express inclusivity, while Matthew's version is exclusive, and means exactly the opposite of the other two statements."

That statement needs more explanation, because to me the quotes from Jesus seem logically consistent. An analysis:

• Suppose U is the set of all people ('U' from universe)
• A is the set of people who are "for us"
• B is the set of people who are "against us"

In Mark, Jesus says: "All members of U who are not in B are members of A."

From that statement, it follows that the members of U are in set A or in set B, but not in both. From that, it follows logically that "He that is not for us (not in A) is against us (in B)."

That is perfectly in line with the quotes from Jesus in Matthew and Luke.

So, I think the article must first explain why some people consider the texts from Mark, Matthew and Luke to be contradictory. Johan Lont 09:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

False logic. The texts in Mark and Luke are inclusive in a way that the text from Matthew is not. The Mark and Luke texts say that anyone who is indifferent (not against) is for, the Matthew text says that anyone indifferent (not with) is against. Two completely contradictory meanings. This is simply a matter of reading comprehension. The sets you establish with your letters are in line with Matthew (and black/white thinking), but not in line with Mark and Luke, so I cannot use your system to explain this. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus' people ("us" and "you" in Mark and Luke) are not to be exclusive, censorious or objectionable so as to divide people according to how they react to us. However, Jesus ("me" in Mt 12:30) is unavoidably divisive. Therefore there is no contradiction.

The context of each passage makes the difference clear. Mark and Luke refer to an encounter with someone who was not one of their group. Matthew is dealing with an accusation against Jesus that he worked by the power of the devil. If required I can find refs to show this is not WP:OR, but it's all pretty clear once the verses are read in context. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Enough of this WP:OR from both sides. Every example in the article should cite a Secondary Source explaining why it is a contradiction (and why it is important enough to merit inclusion in this article), as well as a Secondary Source purporting to resolve the contradiction, if one exists. Peter Ballard 03:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Accepted. - Fayenatic (talk)

This passage is specifically cited in John Shelby Spong's The Sins of Scripture, citing how the Matthew interpretation has been abused by so-called Fundamentalists. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Does Spong claim that the cited verses are contradictory? If so, that'll do for one of the two refs that this section needs. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He does indeed say the verses are contradictory. I believe he uses the phrase "diametrically opposed," but I do not have it in front of me to state definitively. --Scottandrewhutchins 18:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I only just noticed that you reverted my edit in which I (i) cleaned up this section, (ii) added references, (iii) explained the reason for partial deletion in the edit summary. Why? It seemed NPOV to me. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like POV apologism to me. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was at least a decent cleanup, and sourced. I'm going to reinstate it, changing it slightly to avoid POV. Please then challenge any specific sentences that you still don't like, rather than reverting wholesale. By all means put Spong back in, stating his contribution to the point under discussion. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been some time since a last looked at this talk page. I hadn't seen the reactions to my remark before. I wish to thank Scottandrewhutchins for the discussion of my remark and Fayenatic for presenting some other perspectives on the issue. Johan Lont (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Rbreen also deserves credit for work on this part of the article. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation errors

I looked at a few of the citations, and noticed that some of them are for the wrong verses, and I doubt that others actually exist at all. Also, what translation does this article use? Sounds like an offbrand NIV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor Azure (talk • contribs) 03:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you give specific examples? Peter Ballard (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In terms of translation, we ought to use a more scholarly translation than NIV, I think - I'd prefer RSV, I think. NIV emphasizes readability, and as I understand it, its readings are often very far from the literal meaning of the Hebrew or Greek. This isn't very useful when we're trying to discuss the text. john k (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the NIV is OK - it's more widely used, and also easily searchable at Bible Gateway. The NIV is (in the opinion of some people, including me) occasionally guilty of choosing the wording which most covers up difficulties, but where that is an issue the article can mention it. Besides, if there is a possible translation which resolves the error, perhaps it's not a good example of an error anyway. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's more widely used for Bible reading. It's not used at all in scholarship, as far as I'm aware, and it's explicitly evangelical. The RSV is more scholarly and a more literal translation. The fact that the NIV is available on a website and widely read does not make up for its other disadvantages, imo. john k (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly seen it used in evangelical scholarship. And this is an encyclopedia for a general audience. If you want to go through and replace with RSV citations, I won't stop you, it doesn't fuss me. (I'm an NRSV user myself, and can't stand the mix of archaic and modern English in the RSV). But I think you'll have trouble enforcing it. Contributors use what they're familiar with. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

But none of this answers the original question. :) Peter Ballard (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The RSV's style perhaps leaves much to be desired, but it seems like it's considerably closer to the sense of the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew than the NIV, while also being more modern and containing fewer errors than the KJV. I agree with you that, in particular, the way the RSV generally uses "you," but uses "thou" for God, is particularly annoying. NRSV's gender inclusive language, I think, like the NIV's conscious evangelicalism, gets us further away from being a useful scholarly translation. My sense is that the RSV is used for, for instance, undergraduate religion classes, which is why I prefer it - our articles on the Bible ought to take mainstream scholarship into account the same way that articles on other subjects do. But NIV is alright, I guess - it's not as though we're using "The Message" Bible for articles. john k (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The NIV is translated with an evangelical agenda and should be avoided. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that was my point. john k (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I have a citation for that? I was trying to find one for the NIV article a while ago, and couldn't find one. You can leave it at Talk:New International Version if you want. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, take a look at the description at Bible Gateway, for one. The NIV was conceived by the Christian Reformed Church and National Association of Evangelicals - both Evangelical organizations. Also - "The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form." john k (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

But why can't evangelicals do a good Bible translation? What I am looking for is a source directily criticising NIV. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not that it's done by evagelicals, but that it has an agenda, deliberately mistranslating lines to make them seem consistent with the contemporary Fundamentalist worldview, such as translating "effeminate" as "homosexual," a term that was not even coined until the late 19th century, and altering the inconsistency about Paul's companions hearing in Acts, as two examples. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Peter Ballard (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Koine Greek word "arsenokoi," means those who take the passive role in gay sex. Effeminate is not a sufficient translation these days. ^rossnixon 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue about Paul's companions in Acts is actually already cited in the New International Version article. In general, I think a translation which takes as its premise the idea that the Bible is "infallible" is problematic - it's going to guide translation. I came upon a review of the NIV in JSTOR which basically says that it does a lot of interpretation unnecessarily, and that the RSV is probably the best translation (this was pre-NRSV) overall, and the KJV was the best for literal translation. Completely aside from the issue of an Evangelical bias, it seems to me we ought to try to stick with a more literal translation for this article. I suggest RSV because it was a more secular, scholarly translation and thus has less bias than most others, and that it's apparently a good balance of fairly literal translation, using the most modern textual scholarship, and being in comprehensible modern English, while avoiding the sectarian assumptions of many of the other similar translations (ESV and NASB, for instance, seem to be essentially Evangelical responses to the RSV). john k (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I favor KJV since it is the most literal translation. Sarsaparilla (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

KJV is relying on more recent texts (the textus receptus, notably), and the language is often confusing to modern readers. john k (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

KJV isn't the most literal translation, where did that idea come from? I've seen it suggested elsewhere as well as on Wikipedia that the New American Standard Bible is the most literal, and this site [2] warns against the KJV--Doug Weller (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the Hebrew and Greek, I think the NASB is the most accurate, which is one reason I made the changes from the KJV in the article (the other is as John said). Faith (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

This article needs more than one reference. .
Mcapplbee (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Twelve -- though that's still too few. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Gnostic + Marcionite views

I've deleted the entire section. There are few if any Gnostics or Marcionites alive today. Though it is relevant to articles like the development of Christianity or the development of the Bible canon, it is irrelevant to the current topic, which is just what ways the Bible is internally inconsistent. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Trimming "Synoptics and the Gospel of John"

I've removed things which are merely differences between John and the synoptics, leaving only things where they directly disagree. IOW, only things concerning "Internal consistency of the Bible". A fuller list of differences is linked to anyway, with the pointer to Omissions in the Gospel of John. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah 8:8 says the Bible has been altered into a lie

"How can you say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a LIE. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.143.68 (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A Few Contradictions in the Bible! ( source http://www.answering-christianity.com/101_bible_contradictions.htm )

1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? God did (2 Samuel 24: 1) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel? Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9) One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

3. How many overseers did Solomon appoint for the work of building the temple? Three thousand six hundred (2 Chronicles 2:2) Three thousand three hundred (I Kings 5:16)

4. Solomon built a facility containing how many baths? Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26) Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5)

5. How many were the children of Azgad?

One thousand two hundred and twenty-two (Ezra 2:12) Two thousand three hundred and twenty-two (Nehemiah 7:17)

6. How many were the children of Adin?

Four hundred and fifty-four (Ezra 2:15) Six hundred and fifty-five (Nehemiah 7:20)

7. Who killed Saul?

Saul took his own sword and fell upon it.... Thus Saul died... (I Samuel 31:4-6) An Amalekite slew him (2 Samuel 1:1- 16) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.143.68 (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)