Discrepancies and Contradictions in the Bible
One of the primary doctrines of the church of Christ is that the Bible is perfect, with no contradictions or discrepancies, and that every word of the Bible is literally true and able to be proven scientifically. I believed this when I was young. But when I started reading the Bible for myself, word for word and not just the passages I needed to read to fill out the workbook for my Bible class, I saw that there are indeed discrepancies in the Bible. Here are a few examples.
1. Job 26:7 says that the earth hangs upon nothing. Psalm 104:5 says that the earth sits on a foundation (some translations say "pillar") that can't be moved. If we must view these verses literally, instead of poetically or metaphorically, then one of them must be wrong because their assertions contradict each other.
2. There are a few discrepancies in the accounts of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. Acts 9:7 says that Paul's companions could hear the voice that was talking to him but saw nothing. Acts 22:9 says that the companions saw the light but didn't hear the voice.
3. Did David's son Absalom have children? In II Samuel 14:27, it says that Absalom had three sons and a daughter, but II Samuel 18:18 says that Absalom set up a monument to himself because he had no children to carry on his name.
4. Is sexual intercourse during menstruation wrong? Leviticus 15:24 says that it merely causes uncleanness for seven days. Leviticus 18:19 forbids it outright but does not specify a punishment, and Leviticus 20:18 says it's a capital offense and that both parties must be executed.
That's just a sample of contradictions I've noticed in reading the Bible. The thing is, if we are allowed to interpret passages nonliterally (e.g., as metaphor, as poetry, as symbolism), then those discrepancies don't matter because they are no longer issues of doctrine. It's only when we're boxed into a literal interpretation with no wiggle room that it becomes problematic. Discrepancies must be resolved because there can only be one true and right way to interpret the scriptures. The COC could stop wasting all that time on trying to resolve the unresolvable discrepancies in the Bible if only it would admit that there might be more than one acceptable way to look at each passage and at the Bible as a whole...but then that would be an admission that other churches could be right in their interpretations, and the COC will never concede that point.
1. Job 26:7 says that the earth hangs upon nothing. Psalm 104:5 says that the earth sits on a foundation (some translations say "pillar") that can't be moved. If we must view these verses literally, instead of poetically or metaphorically, then one of them must be wrong because their assertions contradict each other.
2. There are a few discrepancies in the accounts of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. Acts 9:7 says that Paul's companions could hear the voice that was talking to him but saw nothing. Acts 22:9 says that the companions saw the light but didn't hear the voice.
3. Did David's son Absalom have children? In II Samuel 14:27, it says that Absalom had three sons and a daughter, but II Samuel 18:18 says that Absalom set up a monument to himself because he had no children to carry on his name.
4. Is sexual intercourse during menstruation wrong? Leviticus 15:24 says that it merely causes uncleanness for seven days. Leviticus 18:19 forbids it outright but does not specify a punishment, and Leviticus 20:18 says it's a capital offense and that both parties must be executed.
That's just a sample of contradictions I've noticed in reading the Bible. The thing is, if we are allowed to interpret passages nonliterally (e.g., as metaphor, as poetry, as symbolism), then those discrepancies don't matter because they are no longer issues of doctrine. It's only when we're boxed into a literal interpretation with no wiggle room that it becomes problematic. Discrepancies must be resolved because there can only be one true and right way to interpret the scriptures. The COC could stop wasting all that time on trying to resolve the unresolvable discrepancies in the Bible if only it would admit that there might be more than one acceptable way to look at each passage and at the Bible as a whole...but then that would be an admission that other churches could be right in their interpretations, and the COC will never concede that point.
Comments
COC the abbreviation for the "Church of Christ?'" Are they the same group that says if you point to discrepancies in the bible that you are an enemy of God?
But although they might seem 'new' when you first encounter them, the fact is that they they are all well-known by bible scholars almost since the bible was first printed. They have all been thoroughly researched and the various debates are available for all to see.
Nearly all the allegations are completely spurious, and the very few that appear to be copyist errors cause no difficulty at all with any aspects of New Testament doctrines.
I've got a blog that deals with this subject at my Christian Resources Blog>
Happy researching!
Des Scahill
God created the universe but demonstrates no understanding of any of these creation mechanisms in the good book? The universe could not come about on its own but a god infinitely more sophisticated could emerge out of nothingness?
Lev 18:19 Just talks about revealing her menstruation. There is no mention of sexual contact here.
Lev 20:18 Concerns the act of a man and a woman using her menstruation as some sort of perverted sexual experience.
Acts 9:7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.
If Luke wrote this book, one can understand the "him" as being Paul.
Act 22:9 "And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me.
The "me" here is most likely Luke who was with a different group of men than Paul was.
Mystery solved. Discrepancy debunked.
At the beginning of verse 18 above it says "in his lifetime..." This most likely happened before he had children. As prideful as he was it would not be surprising that he would erect a monument to his own name.