Good points from Tom4Uhere, as usual.

Something I want to point out, is that a fair amount of the turbulence and ire of such arguments, is due to the fact that people are fiercely talking about completely different things, without realizing it.

Our thread hosts opening post itself shows this. He admits that there are seeming contradictions in various TEXTS, while insisting that they are invalid as complaints against his FAITH. His logic is correct, as far as he goes with it. From within ANY faith, the challenge to followers and believers is not to explain to non-believers, why the texts don't make sense to those non-believers. It is to find guidance within their texts which they can follow consistently themselves.

The point of view of both non-believers who are not hostile to the religion, and of believers who approach the texts from a purely scholarly, historical side, can lead to understanding of why the texts DO say what they do, the way that they do, in the context of the times they were written down BY PEOPLE.

There are differences as well, amongst the people who are pointing out textual inconsistencies, as to why they are doing so. In the case of pure historians, for example, the goal isn't to make complaints against the writings, or against the authors or scribes of the various texts, it is instead to UNDERSTAND those people more thoroughly. Their investigation doesn't care whether the texts show contradictions as such, rather they seek to know how the times they were written in, are more accurately revealed by the seeming contradictions.

Sure it is.
Your statement is a contradiction.

Words are used to construct sentences to convey meaning or content.
Often the words written do not convey the same meaning for everyone that reads the sentence. Commonality in reasonable understanding provides validity.

How does ones recorded behaviour in Scripture contradict Scripture?
How?

Ones behaviour, recorded in Scripture isn't a contradiction within Scripture.

Okay, first let me state that I am not trying to offend, just offering my view.
Scripture, in how I understand it, is the passages appearing in the Bible.
Ones behaviour recorded in Scripture makes that behavior scripture because it is used to reinforce or focus on an intent of the scripture. An example is being provided.
within Scripture implies that such an example is part of the scripture.
If the example shown, contradicts the intent of the scripture the scripture is contradictory.
This is why I wrote that your statement was contradiction.
Because what is written in scripture is scripture and if it contradicts that scripture is contradictory.
Now look at the quote and see if you know what I mean?


I don't have any examples of this to relate to you because I am not interested in reading to find them. I'm sure many others can quote contradictory scripture if they have the imperative, I don't.

Where I see the contradiction is the religious mindset verses practical application in reality. The religious mindset is often established thru scripture and sermon. The problem a lot of people have with religion is the tendancy to adopt the "Do what I say, not as I do" code of conduct.
This is a contradiction in the practical application of religion.

This isn't the case. Ones application regarding Scripture has nothing to do with Scripture itself in a contradictory manner.

It isn't a matter of " do what I say , not as I do"..., that has no bearing on Scripture being contradictory.
That is a matter of hypocrisy not contradictory.

Hey Blake, how about the real contradictions I posted? You said there aren't any, and I posted 2, with 100's more...

You are trying to use an example I gave as a foundation for my intent.
I don't study words. Most people don't study the words they see they look at the intent of the sentences those words imply.
Its the same with scripture, law, even love letters.
The contradiction may or may not be in the specific wordfs but in the intent of the sentence.
I'm not attacking anything or anyone but it seems that you are mind-set to defend, no matter what? This is common in all religion forum discussions.
Someone offers up a consideration and it is seen as an attack needing defended. The only time an religious discussion doesn't result in an argument is when someone fully agrees with you? Why is that?

There are examples of Do as I say, Not as I do in the Bible. NO, I'm not going to quote them out for you but I know they exist because I have read them. An eye for an eye, thou shall not kill, the sacrafice of a lamb and so on, just to get you started. Contradictions of intent. Didn't Jesus preach love for your fellow man then attack the merchants in the temple?
Do as I say, not as I do.
Contradictions invalidate for people not blinded by faith.

Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matt. 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman.

This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matt. 1:15) half-brothers.
Heli then died without a son , and so his (half-) brother Jacob married Heli's widow , who gave birth to Joseph.

This would make Joseph the "son of Heli" legally and the" son of Jacob" biologically.
Thus , Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph's) , but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological.

Tom I am just trying to clarify what you are trying to convey , that is all .
It is my duty to defend the Scriptures.

If the Scriptures are attacked I most certainly will defend them.

For example you use the word "attack" .
A lot of people do and they often do out of context.

Jesus did not attack the merchants.
That would be taking Scripture out of context.
I will explain why within the hour.

For example you use the word "attack" .
A lot of people do and they often do out of context.
Jesus did not attack the merchants.
That would be taking Scripture out of context.

Well, that makes sense but is what you wrote actual scripture or how multiple scriptures are implied. Would anyone encountering this be able to read those scriptures and understand what they imply? Could this be seen as a contradiction by someone less versed in the Bible? If the Bible is meant to be the foundation of a religion sanctioned by God, you would think it would be evident in all interpretations.
Then there is the whole coveting his half-brother's wife. Why didn't he find himself a virgin? I'm sure Jacob didn't just look at Heli's wife one day and say hey lets make a kid cause your husband is dead. Plus Joseph being Heli's son legally but Jacob's son biologically makes Joseph the bastard son of Jacob and Heli's wife.
My point is, unless you are a biblical scholar that studies biblical history the Bible can be seen as contradictory to itself. You may know more of the story but a lot of people don't.

Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matt. 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman.

This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matt. 1:15) half-brothers.
Heli then died without a son , and so his (half-) brother Jacob married Heli's widow , who gave birth to Joseph.

This would make Joseph the "son of Heli" legally and the" son of Jacob" biologically.
Thus , Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph's) , but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological.

That is why there are Pastors, teachers, elders, deacons, ect... to help aid and teach the Scriptures.

every insider knows the story of Job. Now:

1) Any of us can anytime be an experiment rat for suffering as a result of a pesky bet between god and devil.

2) What kind of an omnipotent god is this that he falls into trap of devil immediately and at once agrees to a bet based on suffering of Job - a totally innocent sinless man. Devil can cheat him immediately with 1-2 sentences.

3) god claims that life is very valuable, but is not ashamed to take lives of Job's 10 children and don't remember around 1500 animals just for a pesky bet. Those 10 children are gone, they are not brought back, i.e. irreversible process.

4) Giving suffering to someone - let alone it to an innocent man like Job - is not an exam, test or lesson, it is just a sadistic torture. From an exam I understand that totally with our free will and liberty of decision we are occasionally offered two choices (good and bad), and choose one way and thus show him our deeds and honesty.

5) god claims of the day of judgement when everybody will be judged. Then why are you so restless to test the honesty of Job in this world, as long as Job would anyway be judged on the day of judgement? what's the point and logic?

6) If god was omnipotent and omniscient, he should have known whether Job was believing with deep honesty and wouldn't ever need his pesky bet with the devil. He should have also known the tolerance threshold of Job for all the suffering and after which point Job would start coming to borders of blasphemy.

7) What was then the reason of this bet? To prove what to whom? Did he at the end tell devil "Didn't I tell you? Didn't I tell you? I won, you lost!". 10 innocent children are gone as an instrument of that bet.

8) god is continuously restless about the question mark whether he is loved by every creature. You can't force anybody to love you (which has no association with being a good or bad person). Wait for the day of judgement (whose timing you decide anyway), then judge all of us and punish the ones who were not loving you sincerely, if this is a sin, but otherwise leave us in peace! And moreover god claims to exist on his own without the need for any other existence in this universe, but yet can't stay alone, needs his toys, i.e. us, probably for some bets when he gets bored.

9) All what god can give as answer to Job is nothing else than his famous megalomania and exaggerated praising: "Where were you, when I created the universe?". Who cares whether you create millions of universes or not, as long as you are not ashamed to give tears to the faces of innocent sufferers?

10) Instead of engaging yourself in pesky bets, be a real god and do your responsibility and protect the needy and oppressed ones and people in great difficulty!

that's just one example. From wherever you hold the bible, it gets sticky in your hands.

Perhaps "smite" would be a 'better' word.
An expression of anger and intolerance towards the actions of the merchants in the temple. Eviction from the temple, scolding of their practices, however you want to word it, He lost His temper with them.

When I was a kid, my friends and I would go to church by ourselves.
One Sunday, we arrived early and got bored. My friend had some dice in his pocket from playing Yahtzee earlier so we were throwing the dice and playing a game to pass time till Sunday School started.
The preacher saw us and kicked us all out of the church and told never to come back. Yet the church sponsored Bingo in the basement on Thursday nights? A contradiction.