Bible Contradictions?

Skeptical Challenge

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#341  Postby Jerome Da Gnome » May 31, 2015 2:53 am

Rumraket wrote:
It's paintings and drawings. There is no argument there. :lol:


Is the *story* inconsistent? Nope.

It could be a quirk of human evolution that caused a story written over thousands of years by dozens of authors to be a consistent story.

Anthropology probably has something to say on the subject.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Jerome Da Gnome
Banned User
 
Name: Jerome
Posts: 5719

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Bible Contradictions?

#342  Postby Jerome Da Gnome » May 31, 2015 3:12 am

Rumraket, why do you think this particular compilation of stories has had the unique history it has, up to this point?
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Jerome Da Gnome
Banned User
 
Name: Jerome
Posts: 5719

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#343  Postby scott1328 » May 31, 2015 3:17 am

What the fuck does that have to do with the manifest contradictions found throughout both old and new testaments?

And, how did Moses dictate the events of his own death
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8628
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#344  Postby Rumraket » May 31, 2015 3:39 am

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Rumraket, why do you think this particular compilation of stories has had the unique history it has, up to this point?

I don't understand the question. It seems to be so broad it's impossible to answer. Why did history happen the way it did? Well, uhh, because reasons?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13185
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#345  Postby Onyx8 » May 31, 2015 3:41 am

Come on jerome, who/what caused the demise of Saul? If you can lawyer your way around that question to answer some other question like 'a sword killed Saul', or 'his heart stopped beating which killed him' or whatever then you need to go back and answer the question you know is actually being asked. Or you can continue to avoid answering which is it's own answer.

It is blatantly contradictory, why do you wish to claim it isn't? Why would you care if some ancient book had some contradictions in it?
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 63
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#346  Postby iskander » May 31, 2015 3:01 pm

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
iskander wrote:The Jewish Study Bible translates 2 sam1:10 as follows.
"So I stood over him and finish him off , for I knew that he would never rise from where he was lying, then I took .."


This complements 1 Sam 31 . In 1 Sam 31 , Saul falls on his sword and in 2 Sam 1 he begs the Amalekite to finish him off.


Its more likely the truth of Saul's death by his own hand was given to David.

The Amalekite was not the instrument of death in either case.


Yes, I agree with you.

As a story it is not difficult to unravel.
1 Sam 31:

3 And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers hit him; and he was sore wounded of the archers. 4 Then said Saul unto his armour bearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armour bearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. 5 And when his armour bearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him. 6 So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armour bearer, and all his men, that same day together


Saul killed himself as narrated. And the defeat and his death was ' witnessed' by Israel.

7 And when the men of Israel that were on the other side of the valley, and they that were on the other side Jordan, saw that the men of Israel fled, and that Saul and his sons were dead, they forsook the cities, and fled; and the Philistines came and dwelt in them.


The following day the enemy found the dead in mount Gilboa and spread the news widely.

8 And it came to pass on the morrow, when the Philistines came to strip the slain, that they found Saul and his three sons fallen in mount Gilboa. 9 And they cut off his head, and stripped off his armour, and sent into the land of the Philistines round about, to publish it in the house of their idols, and among the people.


What about the Amalekite? Why is such an implausible story there? The liar is an Amelekite, that is the explanation .
It impossible to believe that David was ignorant of the outcome of the battle and the death of Saul three days after the battle.
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#347  Postby tolman » May 31, 2015 4:08 pm

iskander wrote:What about the Amalekite? Why is such an implausible story there? The liar is an Amelekite, that is the explanation .

What 'liar'?
You sure you don't mean it the other way round?

iskander wrote:It impossible to believe that David was ignorant of the outcome of the battle and the death of Saul three days after the battle.

Yet you suggest that the Amalekite did believe in David's ignorance (and in that ignorance being indefinitely prolonged), in a situation where the Amalekite had to somehow learn of the manner of Saul's death, and in a situation where you suggest there were multiple [if distant] eyewitnesses to Saul's suicide and where the details of Saul's death would have been essentially the top news item.

You seem to be suggesting less 'lying', more 'suicide-by-king'.

Yet, of course, if you're right, then the whole story about the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1 is nonsense, not simply the words of the Amalekite.
That story has David (who you claim absolutely must have already known about the death) and his men going through an elaborate charade of anguish and grief over the death of Saul both before and after killing the Amalekite, as a direct result of hearing his words.

Therefore you are claiming that whoever wrote 2 Samuel 1 just made up a pack of lies.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Bible Contradictions?

#348  Postby iskander » May 31, 2015 4:22 pm

tolman wrote:
iskander wrote:What about the Amalekite? Why is such an implausible story there? The liar is an Amelekite, that is the explanation .

What 'liar'?
You sure you don't mean it the other way round?

iskander wrote:It impossible to believe that David was ignorant of the outcome of the battle and the death of Saul three days after the battle.

Yet you suggest that the Amalekite did believe in David's ignorance (and in that ignorance being indefinitely prolonged), in a situation where the Amalekite had to somehow learn of the manner of Saul's death, and in a situation where you suggest there were multiple [if distant] eyewitnesses to Saul's suicide and where the details of Saul's death would have been essentially the top news item.

You seem to be suggesting less 'lying', more 'suicide-by-king'.

Yet, of course, if you're right, then the whole story about the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1 is nonsense, not simply the words of the Amalekite.
That story has David (who you claim absolutely must have already known about the death) and his men going through an elaborate charade of anguish and grief over the death of Saul both before and after killing the Amalekite, as a direct result of hearing his words.

Therefore you are claiming that whoever wrote 2 Samuel 1 just made up a pack of lies.


It is a story as any other one can find in a any book.
There is the death of a king and two versions of that death.
One version is more credible than the other.
The Amalekite in the story was lying when he spoke to David.

Why is the liar Amelekite in the story? to discredit the Amelelites who were then the local bogey men.
It is only my personal reading of what is for us now a trivial story.
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#349  Postby monkeyboy » May 31, 2015 4:29 pm

You fail to explain why upon hearing the news from the Amalekite, David and his men tear their clothes and grieve. If they knew about Sauls death, why do that? Why are they not recorded as denouncing the Amalekite as a liar if indeed the silly story is to discredit the Amalekites? Why would they need to do that anyway since Saul has already,prior to his demise, slain all the Amalekites anyway?
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5465
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#350  Postby iskander » May 31, 2015 4:49 pm

monkeyboy wrote:You fail to explain why upon hearing the news from the Amalekite, David and his men tear their clothes and grieve. If they knew about Sauls death, why do that? Why are they not recorded as denouncing the Amalekite as a liar if indeed the silly story is to discredit the Amalekites? Why would they need to do that anyway since Saul has already,prior to his demise, slain all the Amalekites anyway?


I am not explaining anything, I am only offering one interpretation.
There was the threat of civil war if his right to the throne was contested .The Amelekite was hoping to please David and that was a danger to peace .

David there and then decided to show his pain and to honour the king that had fallen in battle. Until then he may have been calmly reflecting on the next move.
.
Last edited by iskander on May 31, 2015 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#351  Postby tolman » May 31, 2015 5:00 pm

iskander wrote:It is a story as any other one can find in a any book.

Indeed. In any book of badly-edited fiction or bogus history.

iskander wrote:
There is the death of a king and two versions of that death.
One version is more credible than the other.
The Amalekite in the story was lying when he spoke to David.

Why is the liar Amelekite in the story? to discredit the Amelelites who were then the local bogey men.
It is only my personal reading of what is for us now a trivial story.

As I said, you're really saying that the entire story with the Amalekite in is made-up nonsense.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#352  Postby iskander » May 31, 2015 5:12 pm

tolman wrote:
iskander wrote:It is a story as any other one can find in a any book.

Indeed. In any book of badly-edited fiction or bogus history.

iskander wrote:
There is the death of a king and two versions of that death.
One version is more credible than the other.
The Amalekite in the story was lying when he spoke to David.

Why is the liar Amelekite in the story? to discredit the Amelelites who were then the local bogey men.
It is only my personal reading of what is for us now a trivial story.

As I said, you're really saying that the entire story with the Amalekite in is made-up nonsense.

Made up in the sense that the story uses the Amelekite as a device to inform the reader of the political situation at the time.
In chapter4 verse 10 , David explains the problem confronting him.
S E C O N D S A M U E L
CHAP. IV.10
When one told me, saying, Behold, Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidings, I took hold of him, and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I would have given him a reward for his tidings:
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#353  Postby tolman » May 31, 2015 5:37 pm

iskander wrote:
tolman wrote:As I said, you're really saying that the entire story with the Amalekite in is made-up nonsense.

Made up in the sense that the story uses the Amelekite as a device to inform the reader of the political situation at the time.

'Made up' in the sense of 'not true', and 'not even competently-written in the context of neighbouring stories'.

iskander wrote:
When one told me, saying, Behold, Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidings, I took hold of him, and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I would have given him a reward for his tidings:

That story also makes no sense in the context you claim was obviously the case, which was that David would clearly have already long-known of the facts of Saul's death, as would large numbers of other people.
The only context that and the more specific Amalekite story makes sense in is one in which David not only didn't obviously already know the news, but that the rational expectation among others would have been that he didn't already know it.

The Amalekite story seems an odd one to make up as a character assassination job on Amalekites, since the Amalekite in it is stating he did something to Saul which according to the other story, Saul had unsuccessfully asked his own faithful retainer to do.
If the point was supposed to be that Amalekites were untrustworthy, why all the delayed histrionics, and why not make a point of calling the Amalekite a liar before killing him?
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#354  Postby iskander » May 31, 2015 6:34 pm

tolman wrote:
iskander wrote:
tolman wrote:As I said, you're really saying that the entire story with the Amalekite in is made-up nonsense.

Made up in the sense that the story uses the Amelekite as a device to inform the reader of the political situation at the time.

'Made up' in the sense of 'not true', and 'not even competently-written in the context of neighbouring stories'.

iskander wrote:
When one told me, saying, Behold, Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidings, I took hold of him, and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I would have given him a reward for his tidings:

That story also makes no sense in the context you claim was obviously the case, which was that David would clearly have already long-known of the facts of Saul's death, as would large numbers of other people.
The only context that and the more specific Amalekite story makes sense in is one in which David not only didn't obviously already know the news, but that the rational expectation among others would have been that he didn't already know it.

The Amalekite story seems an odd one to make up as a character assassination job on Amalekites, since the Amalekite in it is stating he did something to Saul which according to the other story, Saul had unsuccessfully asked his own faithful retainer to do.
If the point was supposed to be that Amalekites were untrustworthy, why all the delayed histrionics, and why not make a point of calling the Amalekite a liar before killing him?


Yes, made up in the sense being only a literary device .


The story tell the Israelites that to kill the anointed king will never be allowed , and also that no one should ever even think that David is happy to benefit from the death of the king. David is a righteous man.


The story chooses an Amelekite because they were of no importance. It was safe to say anything of them, and safe to do anything to them.

It is only my interpretation, nothing more than that.
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#355  Postby tolman » May 31, 2015 7:51 pm

iskander wrote:The story tell the Israelites that to kill the anointed king will never be allowed , and also that no one should ever even think that David is happy to benefit from the death of the king. David is a righteous man.

Well, the story also says that God got pissed off with Saul for his sins, so he got some Philistines to shoot, even mortally wound Saul, who then ended up finishing himself off due to a bizarre dread of other people's dirty foreskins.

Surely a righteous man should have been happy at God doing the Right Thing?

To disapprove is to suggest God did the Wrong Thing, and that a Leader should be able to do anything to anyone, however barbaric or genocidal, without fear of consequence, which doesn't really seem very righteous.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Bible Contradictions?

#356  Postby iskander » May 31, 2015 8:44 pm

tolman wrote:
iskander wrote:The story tell the Israelites that to kill the anointed king will never be allowed , and also that no one should ever even think that David is happy to benefit from the death of the king. David is a righteous man.

Well, the story also says that God got pissed off with Saul for his sins, so he got some Philistines to shoot, even mortally wound Saul, who then ended up finishing himself off due to a bizarre dread of other people's dirty foreskins.

Surely a righteous man should have been happy at God doing the Right Thing?

To disapprove is to suggest God did the Wrong Thing, and that a Leader should be able to do anything to anyone, however barbaric or genocidal, without fear of consequence, which doesn't really seem very righteous.


David wanted to project the image of a righteous man for political reasons, and that is also compatible with a genuine religious belief.

The prohibition of killing the anointed king was also political, but in this case we know that David believed this to the right thing to do. David , when he was on the run from Saul, had spared the King's life on one occasion. ( I don't remember the verses).Foreign wars may kill the king of the opposing army .

For a religious mind god is the judge of all. In a religious book bad deeds bring the justice of god into operation .
I don't know why Saul killed himself. People killing themselves when they are defeated is a common occurrence in pagan history, Cato the Younger to avoid capture by Octavian is such one case.
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#357  Postby monkeyboy » Jun 04, 2015 10:40 am

iskander wrote:
monkeyboy wrote:You fail to explain why upon hearing the news from the Amalekite, David and his men tear their clothes and grieve. If they knew about Sauls death, why do that? Why are they not recorded as denouncing the Amalekite as a liar if indeed the silly story is to discredit the Amalekites? Why would they need to do that anyway since Saul has already,prior to his demise, slain all the Amalekites anyway?


I am not explaining anything, I am only offering one interpretation.
There was the threat of civil war if his right to the throne was contested .The Amelekite was hoping to please David and that was a danger to peace .

David there and then decided to show his pain and to honour the king that had fallen in battle. Until then he may have been calmly reflecting on the next move.
.


Do you really find that remotely plausible? In the narrative, the Amalekite is the news bearer to David of Saul's death. There is no prior mention of David learning of it. Any assumption that he would already know the news is just that, and at odds with the narrative which is consistent with him finding out confirmation of Saul's death from the Amalekite. David's recorded response, the tearing of clothes an grieving is in keeping with Jewish mourning practised by some to this day. That all reads like regular narrative. It also returns Saul's crown to David conveniently since the Philistines stripping the battlefield definitely wouldn't have handed them over.

In ye olde world, way before the internet, phones, telegraphs etc, news travelled by messenger and the recipient had also to be found. It isn't uncommon to read of the news of battles around Europe being relayed back home taking days, even weeks to be delivered. 3 days isn't the gulf in time it might appear to be now.

The Amalekite account reads as narrative quite easily, until that is, later when the other possibility comes in to play, that David, realising there is an opportunity to benefit from the events and clean up Saul's death a bit and remove the possibility of a dirty Amalekite behaving nobly and honourably and being murdered for doing so, actually lies himself, discredits the Amalekite as a liar and seeks to come out of things a little more cleanly.....oh and more righteously than appearing to be the sort of petty minded cunt that would shoot the messenger so to speak.

This all, interesting as it is, satisfies the challenge set in the OP of demonstrating contradictory accounts of events in the bible. We can go round and around as to why they are there and speculate but the fact is, they are there in the first place.
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5465
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#358  Postby iskander » Jun 04, 2015 11:31 am

monkeyboy wrote:
iskander wrote:
monkeyboy wrote:You fail to explain why upon hearing the news from the Amalekite, David and his men tear their clothes and grieve. If they knew about Sauls death, why do that? Why are they not recorded as denouncing the Amalekite as a liar if indeed the silly story is to discredit the Amalekites? Why would they need to do that anyway since Saul has already,prior to his demise, slain all the Amalekites anyway?


I am not explaining anything, I am only offering one interpretation.
There was the threat of civil war if his right to the throne was contested .The Amelekite was hoping to please David and that was a danger to peace .

David there and then decided to show his pain and to honour the king that had fallen in battle. Until then he may have been calmly reflecting on the next move.
.


Do you really find that remotely plausible? In the narrative, the Amalekite is the news bearer to David of Saul's death. There is no prior mention of David learning of it. Any assumption that he would already know the news is just that, and at odds with the narrative which is consistent with him finding out confirmation of Saul's death from the Amalekite. David's recorded response, the tearing of clothes an grieving is in keeping with Jewish mourning practised by some to this day. That all reads like regular narrative. It also returns Saul's crown to David conveniently since the Philistines stripping the battlefield definitely wouldn't have handed them over.

In ye olde world, way before the internet, phones, telegraphs etc, news travelled by messenger and the recipient had also to be found. It isn't uncommon to read of the news of battles around Europe being relayed back home taking days, even weeks to be delivered. 3 days isn't the gulf in time it might appear to be now.

The Amalekite account reads as narrative quite easily, until that is, later when the other possibility comes in to play, that David, realising there is an opportunity to benefit from the events and clean up Saul's death a bit and remove the possibility of a dirty Amalekite behaving nobly and honourably and being murdered for doing so, actually lies himself, discredits the Amalekite as a liar and seeks to come out of things a little more cleanly.....oh and more righteously than appearing to be the sort of petty minded cunt that would shoot the messenger so to speak.

This all, interesting as it is, satisfies the challenge set in the OP of demonstrating contradictory accounts of events in the bible. We can go round and around as to why they are there and speculate but the fact is, they are there in the first place.


Contradictions in a religious text are an opportunity for the religious to develop alternative interpretations. The ambiguity , even the contradictions, in any religious text allows ' one hundred flowers to bloom' as Mao Tse Tung apparently said about Marxism in China.

There are many contradictory items to be found in the Tanakh and in the Greek Testament. Some are very simple differences in names, geography, numbers, and so on, but some differences could point to evidence of a new understanding of the same subject.

How important are those contradictions in religious texts? Some are important only for those who like to argue, but other contradictions offer the religious an alternative path to a different world. A good example of the use of the religious ambiguities (contradictions) found in a religious text, is the Luther- Erasmus debate, but there are others .


I prefer to see David as a prince of the Renaissance schooled in the thinking of a Machiavelli.
Last edited by iskander on Jun 04, 2015 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
iskander
 
Posts: 201

Print view this post

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#359  Postby tolman » Jun 04, 2015 11:47 am

iskander wrote:Contradictions in a religious text are an opportunity for the religious to develop alternative interpretations. The ambiguity , even the contradictions, in any religious text allows ' one hundred flowers to bloom' as Mao Tse Tung apparently said about Marxism in China.

I think everyone understands the practical value of wiggle room.

It's just that wiggle-room-via-contradictions and inconsistencies is incompatible with the ideas of Divine Truth which a significant fraction of believers believe in, and an even larger fraction are likely to have been told they should believe in.

And that, of course, is the point of pointing contradictions out - to help that subset of people free themselves from the simplistic and sometimes dangerous approach they have to a book, and to graduate to either a more sophisticated and grown-up form of belief, or to non-belief.
Last edited by tolman on Jun 04, 2015 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Bible Contradictions?

#360  Postby monkeyboy » Jun 04, 2015 1:44 pm

One of the functions of pointing out contradictions serves is being able to show the lazy christian, the one who just ticks that box because they were brought up as one by the last generation of lazy Christian, that what they were fed is riddled with errors. In its narrative, in its claims to knowledge and presented 'facts' etc. So so many lazy Christians I encounter who are quick to throw one of the nice, cherry picked bits of the bible have never read it. They've remembered some of the cute bits they were spoon fed at school, Sunday school, church services etc but they are unaware of the garbage it contains and the moral debauchery within.
I find pointing out a few gentle contradictions first is less distressing for them.
I'm loving the recent film genre of bible stories being made for us. The lazy folks lap them up and it's a great chance to point out what has been made up and what the book actually says.
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5465
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest