Contradictions in the Bible

submitted by JasonCarswell from onthelineministries.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm sorry you insist on being wrong, but I take satisfaction in knowing the Bible is a more reliable authority on itself than you. What's that verse about "private interpretation?" LOL

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I gave you the Bible's authority on itself. It agrees with me. Your only support for your claim is because you say so, or you would demonstrate it instead of screaming "la la la la la no you're wrong I'm right!".

That "scripture is not open to private interpretation" verse was added by Catholic editors in the second century to make everyone obey them and their church against the spirit. But if it's not open to private interpretation, then you must take it as it is, and that includes Jeremiah 7-8 whether you like it or not. You can't pick and choose.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm not gonna go through 400 not-contradictions to pwn someone on the internet LOL

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not talking about those

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here's another one: are Jews better than gentiles? Romans 2-3 says no, except for 3:2-8 which says yes, and also praises the law as an advantage contrary to the rest of the letter. Then 3:9 is just dangling there, clearly a follow-up but not at all related to the previous passage, and it contradicts it. The solution is that Romans 3:2-8 is an anti-Marcionite interpolation by some scribe, most likely a church father, and does not belong there. Removing it we can clearly see how 3:9 is the real answer to the question in 3:1, and the passage is no longer made a word salad by 7 interrupting verses.

There aren't any manuscripts missing 3:2-8, although there must have been shortly before our earliest ones as it has an absurd amount of variants, and the same scribe may have added "first" to Jew in 1:16, which is missing from some. We can also be pretty sure it wasn't in the first ever canon of scripture, Marcion's Apostolikon, because if it had been surely all the church fathers would've used it against him.

This is only one example. There are a ton more.