Christians?

Question

Can you tell me why the Bible contridicts it's self many times?
I'm not trying to be mean I am just wondering.

I have read the Bible but every time I read it I end up going back and reading it again because it seems to run in circles.

I don't mean to affend anyone. If I do I am really sorry.

Answer 1

It doesn't, you might need to have someone to explain it to you! God bless!

Answer 2

These new modern liberal altered texts change many doctrines of the Bible and deny the Deity of Christ.

This is why many modern day Trinitarian Theologians reject the King James Version (KJV) of the Scriptures and prefer the new modern liberal altered versions of the Bible.

The leaders of the False Church knew that the real Bible did not agree with their false teachings and their Trinity theory, So, they outlawed commoners from reading the Bible and that is a fact in history.

They also feared that they would lose their influence and power over the masses if the people found out the truth. No common Person was allowed to read, study or possess one. Any one who was caught having Bible would be put to death and you know too well the False Church early history. Religion helped Satan to invent his own counterfeit Jesus.

Again keep in mind, You have a right to know the Historical and Biblical facts for yourself.

Answer 3

We would need to discuss each passage individually to answer that question. If taken out of context, one passage might seem to contradict another. If you place the statements into their proper context, then you will see that the pieces actually fit together nicely. For instance, in the Old Testament, God authorizes genocide in that He commands the Hebrews to cleanse the land so that His people will not be polluted by the wicked inhabitants that were already there. In the New Testament, Jesus clearly teaches not to kill but to love your enemies, do good to them and pray for them. What is the difference? The Old Testament deals with a people that required daily commandments to keep them in remembrance of their relationship to God. They strayed easily. Their blessings and punishments were quick and very physical. Thus, without instant punishments (death was ordained for many infractions including disrespect for parents) the people would quickly forget God. In the New Testament, Jesus taught that the people were supposed to be able to remember God by writing His commandments in their hearts and in their minds without the daily physical reminders. Previously, they had to sacrifice animals as a symbol of the Saviors sacrifice. Later, they were to sacrifice their pride and vanity in remembrance of Christ's real sacrifice for all of us. We offer a broken heart (humility) and contrite spirit (penitent) in remembrance of His law and gospel and the Lord's atonement for us. This requires a more intelligent people. A people that can focus on the eternal goal without being so easily swayed by daily activities and temptations.
Bottom line, is times and people change requiring different approaches to teach and learn the same lessons.
Another reason is that the Bible has suffered many translations and each time it gets translated, some slight interpretation variations creep in until some of the meanings get changed. For instance, in the story of King David and King Saul, the Bible says that an evil spirit from the Lord came over the king. God doesn't sent evil spirits. The evil spirit that came over him was not from the Lord. Somewhere, in translations, the "not" got lost. Such small errors can make a big change in the meaning.

Answer 4

if you understand the writing styles of the authors,if you understand the history of the regions involved, if you put both the old testament and the new testament together with context then you will see no contradiction. when you pick and choose verses then more than likely you can make contradictions, i have seen many christians argue a point using differenent versus from the bible against eachother, however if they really sat down and put all the pieces together they could easily settle the arguement sadly sometimes it is made into i know more about gods word than you do....... when you use context you see the beauty and truth of the bible free from contradiction.

Answer 5

The bible does not contain contradictions, it contains descrepancies. Most notably in the Gospels. Honestly, any story told from four different points of view would differ between each person's interpretation of what they saw. The descrepancies occur with facts that are not a factor to the over all message the bible gives us. While it has a lot of grey area open to personal interpretation, overall I think God's Word is quite clear

Answer 6

It doesn't. There are many writers in the new testament and some times they have different view points. In the old testament the people were under a different covenant, so the rules were different. If you read the whole chapter and not take verses out of context, you will see there are no contradictions.

Answer 7

If we encounter seeming discrepancies in the Bible, it is good to realize that people often say things that appear contradictory but are easily explained or understood. For instance, a businessman may correspond with someone by dictating a letter to his secretary. If questioned, he would say that he sent the letter. But since his secretary typed and mailed the letter, she could say that she sent it. Similarly, it was not contradictory for Matthew (8:5) to say that an army officer came to ask Jesus a favor, whereas Luke (7:2, 3) said that the man sent representatives.

The foregoing examples show that Bible difficulties can be resolved. Hence, there is good reason to have a positive attitude toward the Scriptures. Such a spirit was recommended in these words appearing in a family Bible published in the year 1876:

“The proper spirit in which to deal with those difficulties is, to remove them as far as practicable, and to cleave and submit to the truth, even when every cloud cannot be cleared away from it. We should imitate the example of the apostles, who, when some of the disciples were offended by what they called a ‘hard saying,’ so as to forsake Christ, silenced every objection with this: ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life, and we are sure that Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ . . . When we see a truth seemingly in conflict with another truth, let us try to reconcile them, and show them thus reconciled to all.”—John 6:60-69.

Will you take such a position? After examining just a few examples demonstrating the harmony of the Scriptures, it is hoped that you agree with the psalmist who said to God: “The substance of your word is truth.” (Psalm 119:160)

Answer 8

Join a Bible Study or you can join a free one online.You will discover the hidden "treasures" in it. You won't find out unless you study it. Don't just listen to what other people say. Search it out for yourself. Form your own opinion.

in Jer 29:11-13 it says:
11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. 13 And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart

and Matt 7:7
7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

Ask the Lord your questions. He will reveal.

Answer 9

It was put together many years ago by Constantine the Great. There was a large council that decided what was in it and what was not. Of course people make mistakes and while deciding what was in or not, there was much discussion and a few discrepencies. They looked at hundreds of years of text and oral histories.

Answer 10

Many people come to the idea that the Bible contradicts itself. Like many other responders have said, specific examples would be helpful because, depending on one's use of "contradict", a claim of "contradiction" could be anything.

For instance, some people might say that the four Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) are not the same, or that they "contradict" because one book tells the story slightly differently, e.g. an extra detail in one author's account. But that doesn't mean they contradict each other. News articles today vary in their presentation of facts and details concerning the same thing. One author's view and involvement will be different from another's, so it's not necessarily a contradiction.

A more thorough explanation is here (and I've posted the specific portion below):
http://www.josh.org/apologetics/prev_quest.asp?Subject=The%20Bible#122002

Q. How do you explain the contradictions in the resurrection story?

A. The New Testament makes the assertion that the truth of Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The apostle Paul stated, "If Christ be not risen, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain, yea, and we are found false witness of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ … and if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain; you are still in your sins. … If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" (I Corinthians 15:14, 15, 17, 19, KJV).

A common objection to the fact of the resurrection is that the four Gospel narratives contain hopeless contradictions. If the four accounts were placed in parallel columns, a number of apparent differences would be highlighted. However, these apparent differences ultimately confirm the truthfulness of these accounts, rather than refute them.

If all four Gospels gave exactly the same story, in exactly the same order, with exactly the same details, we would immediately become suspicious. We could also wonder why all four writers did not simply attach their names as co-authors of one account. Obviously, this is not the case. None of the four Gospels gives all the details of what transpired.

Matthew is the only writer who records the first appearance to the women, while only in Luke do we find the account of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. The appearance of Mary Magdalene is omitted by both Matthew and Luke. Only John records the appearance of our Lord in the upper room, when Thomas was absent and the appearance on the Sea of Galilee. It is quite clear that all of the Gospels relate their portraits of Jesus differently. This is what we should expect. No four witnesses (or news reporters), all of whom witness a series of events, will write them up in exactly the same way, detail for detail. If they did, there would be obvious collusion.

If the differences concerned the main points of the story, then there would be justification for doubt, but when the salient points are agreed upon by every witness, insignificant differences add to, rather than subtract from, the validity. It should be noted, too, that none of the details necessarily flatly contradicts any others, but in some plausible way they correlate together to supply the larger picture. The variations in detail the different writers chose to include in the resurrection narratives consist of incidental things which in no way jeopardize the main plot of the story. One of the seeming contradictions that bothers people concerns the time women came to the tomb, related differently by John and Mark. Mark's account has the women coming to the tomb at the rising of the sun, while John states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb when it was dark.

This difficulty is solved when it is realized that the women had to walk quite some distance to reach the grace, since they stayed in Jerusalem or Bethany. It was dark when they left the place in which they were staying, but when they arrived at the tomb, the sun was beginning to shine. Therefore, Mark is speaking of their arrival, while John refers to their departure.

The area which has generated the most discussion concerns the angels who were at the tomb of Jesus. Matthew and Mark relate that one angel addressed the women, while Luke and John say that two angels were at the tomb. This seems to be a discrepancy, with Matthew and Mark knowing of only one angel while Luke and John speak of two. However, Matthew and Mark do not say that there was only one angel at the tomb, but that one angel spoke to the women.

This does not contradict Luke and John, for Matthew and Mark specify that one angel spoke, but they do not say there was only one angel present or only one angel spoke. Quite possible one of the angels served as the spokesman for the two, thus he was emphasized. There is no need to assume a discrepancy. Though they report some of the details differently, the Gospels agree in all important points. The accounts are in harmony on the fact that Jesus was dead and buried; that the disciples were not prepared for His death, but were totally confused; that the tomb was empty on Easter morning; that the empty tomb did not convince them that Jesus had risen; that Mary thought the body had been stolen.

The Gospel writers also concur that the disciples had certain experiences which they believed to be appearances of the resurrected Christ. That the normative first century Judaism had no concept of a dying and rising Messiah is a historical fact.

The disciples proclaimed the resurrection story in Jerusalem, in the place where Jesus had been killed and buried. All these facts considered together constitute a powerful argument for the validity of the resurrection story. The venerable scholar, Wilbur Smith, had this to say about the differences in the resurrection accounts and the areas in which the Gospels agree:



"In these fundamental truths, there are absolutely no contradictions. The so-called variations in the narratives are only the details which were most vividly impressed on one mind or another of the witnesses of the Lord's resurrection, or on the mind of the writers of these four respective Gospels. "The closest, most critical, examination of these narratives throughout the ages never had destroyed and can never destroy their powerful testimony to the truth that Christ did rise from the dead on the third day, and was seen of many" (The Supernaturalness of Christ, W. A. Wilde Company, 1954, p. 205).

Answer 11

this is so because besides there being many authors within the book with varying perspectives, the spiritual basis is the fact th@ the Highest of Enlightened Concepts is mixed so evenly with human speculation and myth, making it a compound journal of man's spiritual understanding at the time, and a book of Enlightnment for those who can discern what to learn and what perpective/ to have to the book.

Feel free 2 mail me 4 more info=)