I did some internet research on Biblical contradictions and recently printed out several sheets of supposed Biblical contradictions and in each case a chapter and verse was provided. I then looked up the “contradictions” and found the passages were written completely differently in the Bible than what was purported to have been said in the print outs. In the bible there were no contradictions-at least those that were mentioned online. I’m not sure where i can go from here. As this was an NIV Bible I am tempted to look at an older Bible and see if indeed those contradictions are there; could the contradictions have been eliminated over time so that the supporters of faith could argue that the Bible has no discrepancies? I say this because if you were to look at older Bible versions that were owned by family members from two generations ago the book of Genesis says that it is “the waters that have brought forth abundantly both fish and fowl”. Yes the Bible said birds come from the water. This almost seems to agree with evolutionary theory concerning where all life had originated. Take a look at a newer Bible however and you’ll find it doesn’t say this. It seems the fundamentalists have gotten to it in time to justify their position concerning evolutionary theory. Perhaps this is going on with the contradictory passages? And why not? That’s what the Canon is all about. The Apocryphal books raised too many eyebrows and the Canon was the answer to those problems. It seems there is an editorial group of people out there deleting and adding verses to support the religious conjecture of the day.
Do you have anything on this theory? I’d be willing to provide you with those contradictions vs. the actual Biblical statements if you like.
Jerry deCaire
http://www.comicartist.net
Posted: August 19th 2008
Eric_PK
Many people are surprised to learn that the bible was not originally written in English (I’m sure you know this, but others may not). Some people make a career of studying the various translations.
My understanding – and I have made neither a career nor a hobby of this – is that early english translations left a lot to be desired, and that the “canonical” king james version isn’t really a very good one. Later versions are supposedly more accurate renditions of the original text, though the mere act of translation always makes some changes.
I doubt that there is any underlying motive in the translations – they tend to be done by academics who don’t often have those sort of agendas to further, and I’m pretty sure there are annotated translations that amplify cases where the meaning isn’t true of where there were optional translations.
Fundamentalists don’t tend to be particularly scholarly or well read, so I think you can count them out.
Posted: August 28th 2008