Bill O’Reilly: The Bible contradicts itself

WND ^ | 3/1/13 | Unknown

[TBP]

Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly, who is writing an upcoming book titled “Killing Jesus,” proclaimed on his program Wednesday night that “a lot of the Bible is allegorical,” and the New Testament Gospels contradict themselves.

O’Reilly made the remarks during an interview with “Touched by an Angel” star Roma Downey and her husband Mark Burnett, executive producers of “The Bible” TV miniseries which begins this Sunday night on the History Channel.

[Yosemitest]

" if we are listening to God's word, and God's voice
would he not be the first one to warn us of danger ?"

I think so, BUT He may have already warned us "THROUGH THE BIBLE".
So I believe it's better to watch todays events and look for fulfillment of the prophecies in the Bible.

"God is the only one worth listening to."

Then why listen to a Pastor?
NO, I don't agree with that, because God uses His messengers to highlight the passing of His prophesies.
We should listen with a grain of salt, because He had warned us of the false prophets to come.
Hey, I'm just a student of the Bible, so take what I say in that light.
Read the Bible, and listen to what it says. That's all I'm saying.

North Korea, I've got 5 remote tours over in South Korea.
So it's something to be concerned about, but the greater danger is WHO the North Koreans are selling their weapons to.
I believe the attack against the U.S. will come from a cargo ship launching a nuclear missile and we'll have very little warning. But what do I know?

[Cvengr]

Our God is a living God, not a God of the dead.

What seems like contradictions, in most situations, are conflicted meanings being read into the text, rather breathing in the Word of God and allowing Him to act upon it within us.

A soulish perspective will not understand the above statement. It will attempt to normalize the natural man and Scripture as though it is simple academics and a soulish endeavor.

The Word of God provides food for the human spirit, something not possessed by the natural man, so he cannot perceive it and considers it foolishness.

[21twelve]

>>>> Is not Jesus referred to as the “stumbling stone” <<<<

SEE! SEE!!! Right THERE. So his Jesus a rock - or a Man!? It is all FULL of contradictions.

I like the book Evidence Demands a Verdict by Josh MacDowell(?). Lawyer and former athesist out to “prove” the Bible wrong. Ends up a Christian instead. One point he makes is that with just like at a crime scene - different people have different points of views and see/hear different things depending on the time, where they were, and what they were focused on.

[RoadGumby]

Good morning AC,

I love that you have brought this out about the serpent.

It is believed that Genesis was written by Moses. I would say that Moses probably knew little or had never heard of the theory of ‘evolution’. Yet here, the Bible seems to record that serpents (snakes) at one time did not go on their bellies.

I have a large snake, a Yellow Anaconda, named Ducky. If you look on him, he has, near his tail, two spurs. These spurs are attached to small skeletal pieces. Evolutionists will call these ‘vestigial legs’.

Shortly after I got married almost 4 years ago, I was telling and showing my wife these spurs and their ‘explanation’. After a little discussion, we decided to check the Bible.

And there it was, God telling the serpent he would go forth on his belly, from now on. Not ‘evolution’, but Gods command.

You have a great day AC.

[TennesseeProfessor]

>> TennesseeProfessor desperately wishes to believe that there are contradictions. <<

Incorrect. Please refrain from telling other people what [you think] I believe in the future.

[Squidpup]

You are wrong - TennesseeProfessor has demonstrated a refreshing openness to additional information. My post #105 was intended for you apparently.

[ravenwolf]

God uses the weak things of this world to bring down those things that are high and mighty.

---

Amen to that.

[rusty schucklefurd]

re: “Those are interesting points, but I think it still requires some contortionist types of reading.”

I don’t think I’m contorting the passage at all. Genesis 1 clearly has plants and animals created before man. Genesis 2 does NOT specifically contradict that order.

“18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.” (NIV)

You seem to think that because after the passage mentions that God wanted a suitable/compatible creature for Adam, and it mentions God bringing the animals to him to name - you think that means an order of creation (man, then animals), but as it says, “Now the Lord God HAD formed out of the ground all the wild animals” - this means the animals were created earlier, prior to Adam, then God later brought to animals to him to name. There is no apparent contradiction.

As I demonstrated previously, things are not always mentioned in chronological order in this chapter. The NIV isn’t the only translation to use “had formed” (clearly past tense). Some of the other translations don’t always say “had”, but it is implied from the whole passage.

Actually, verse 18 is a set-up to the need for someone who was totally compatible with Adam - the animals clearly weren’t, so God made Woman from Man. That’s the point of this passage. Chapter 2 is a summary of the creation account and also gives more details on some of the creation events, but not necessarily in chronological order.

[editor-surveyor]

Actually, it was past experience from which I spoke.

Posting histories just don’t go away.

[avenir]

“SEE! SEE!!! Right THERE. So his Jesus a rock - or a Man!? It is all FULL of contradictions.”

LOL.

Sad, but LOL.

[NELSON111]

Wrong. I see NO contradictions. I see difficulty in in interpretation...but no contradictions...and none of the seminaries I went to taught that. You gave some contradictions...and I cleared them up. Those are very easy. Problem is you want there to be contradictions...otherwise you can find explanations for them and they go away.

Bottom line is this: You are not a Christian. You do not except the Bible as the Word of God and that is a damnable heresy.

[NELSON111]

>>>There are conflicting accounts of the Christmas story. In one version, the family goes to Egypt. In another, they go back home to Galilee.

Your so called contradictions are actually just extreme ignorance on your part. You really do not know what you are reading.

There is no contradiction in the Christmas story. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the Magi visited...Herod got jealous. An Gabriel came and told Joseph to flee to Egypt and they did. After that Herod died, they returned to Nazareth.

It's REALLY simple and the Bible spells it out. Each Gospel writer tells a part of the story. Your problem is you don't want to try and piece it together or for some reason you think God owes you the full story in chronological order in one book.

There is no contradictions in the crucifixion...just your ignorance at how the events unfolded.

Part of your problem with Paul is you have no clue about the original Greek and you are in complete ignorance of the context. It's not a mystery to most bible scholars...and IF I were a more patient man and actually thought you would listen...I would explain it...but I see an agenda from you more than a willingness to learn.

And again...you are VERY wrong. Every scholar does not know it. I can name a hundred of the best Biblical scholars in history who would fight you with Apologetics for even saying they think that. You are making a false statement. The only "scholars" I know of that think the way you do are very liberal and seek to undermine the bible at any turn.

And citing Bart Ehrman IS PROOF that one can be a "biblical scholar" and not know what the heck they are talking about. Because people like him look at the Bible with an agenda...instead of looking to what God has to say. They come into the debate with the attitude that the bible is wrong...that somehow they are smarter than God. Bart Ehrman is not a believer...and therefore does not have the Spirit of God in him...and thus: Is blind.

1 Cor 1:26, 27 - "For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;"

Romans 1:21, 22 - "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools"

[NELSON111]

>>>All of which is irrelevant. He happens to be one of the finest New Testament scholars on the planet.

OH...My.....WORD.

You cannot be a biblical scholar OR Theologian when you are an agnostic. PERIOD.

You may KNOW a lot about the facts...but you are NOT guided by the spirit...and your understanding is darkened...and you are blind.

Which is why you see contradictions. Your understanding is darkened. You cannot learn the truths of God when you deny Him. That's a promise. Why? Because you do not understand INSPIRATION and thus you seek to dismantle the Bible.

The fact you think this guy is "all that" tells me everything I need to know.

Neither you or the professor will understand the Word of God until you know God.

I urge you to place your faith in Christ for your salvation...and renounce the hidden things of darkness.

As for debating contradictions...I will not do it with someone who doesn't believe in inspiration. It's debating a fool...and God tells me not to do that.

[NELSON111]

>>>Many early Jewish and Hebrew word concepts are lost in our translations.

With the exception of Matthew, the NT was written in Koine Greek. Most of the quotes of the NT quotes of the OT are taken from the LXX (Greek OT).

Most Hebrews spoke Greek. Hebrews was used for ecclesiastical purposes...much like Latin is for Catholics. Most Jews of the day spoke Greek and only have a working knowledge of Hebrew.

But your point is taken. Many of the phrases and figures of speech are lost...it's not the translation...it's the context. An example is the term "outer darkness and gnashing of teeth." We tend to read OUR context into scripture...which is a no no.

That's why when I study for a sermon, one of the resources I use is a book which has a list of idioms/figures of speech.

[CommerceComet]

I mentioned Rush only to reference what he has said about the main stream media's constant mantra of organized propaganda to re educate the public every day.

My mention of Rush Limbaugh had nothing to do with yours. I intended it as an insult to Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck neither of whom has 1/10th the personality or insight of Rush. Nothing but poor-quality wannabes.

[Diamond]

That we do not have the originals is a simple statement of fact. The earliest copies we have are from the 2nd and 3rd Centuries. By then, they had probably already been altered. There have been numerous alterations after that. Translation (especially multiple translation) is another problem

The earliest copies we have are from the 2nd and 3rd Centuries? And what kind of 'alterations' are you talking about? Any that are actually substantive in nature, or are the scribal errors that do exist essentially the equivalent of our modern typos? The manuscript evidence for any other ancient literature pales in comparison to that of the extent and quality of N.T. manuscript evidence:

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.2

Author	Date Written	Earliest Copy	Approximate Time Span between original & copy	Number of Copies	Accuracy of Copies
Lucretius	died 55 or 53 B.C.		1100 yrs	2	----
Pliny	61-113 A.D.	850 A.D.	750 yrs	7	----
Plato	427-347 B.C.	900 A.D.	1200 yrs	7	----
Demosthenes	4th Cent. B.C.	1100 A.D.	800 yrs	8	----
Herodotus	480-425 B.C.	900 A.D.	1300 yrs	8	----
Suetonius	75-160 A.D.	950 A.D.	800 yrs	8	----
Thucydides	460-400 B.C.	900 A.D.	1300 yrs	8	----
Euripides	480-406 B.C.	1100 A.D.	1300 yrs	9	----
Aristophanes	450-385 B.C.	900 A.D.	1200	10	----
Caesar	100-44 B.C.	900 A.D.	1000	10	----
Livy	59 BC-AD 17	----	???	20	----
Tacitus	circa 100 A.D.	1100 A.D.	1000 yrs	20	----
Aristotle	384-322 B.C.	1100 A.D.	1400	49	----
Sophocles	496-406 B.C.	1000 A.D.	1400 yrs	193	----
Homer (Iliad)	900 B.C.	400 B.C.	500 yrs	643	95%
New Testament	1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.	2nd Cent. A.D. (c. 130 A.D. f.)	less than 100 years	5600	99.5%

As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing.  The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure.  That is an amazing accuracy.  In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages.  The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century.  If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years.  This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings.  In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out.  But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts.

Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.).  This is extremely close to the original writing date.  This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.

Below is a chart with some of the oldest extant New Testament manuscripts compared to when they were originally penned.  Compare these time spans with the next closest which is Homer's Iliad where the closest copy from the original is 500 years later.  Undoubtedly, that period of time allows for more textual corruption in its transmission.  How much less so for the New Testament documents?

Important Manuscript Papyri	Contents	Date Original Written	MSS Date	Approx. Time Span	Location
p52 (John Rylands Fragment)3	John 18:31-33,37-38	circa 96 A.D.	circa 125 A.D.	29 yrs	John Rylands Library, Manchester, England
P46 (Chester Beatty Papyrus)	Rom. 5:17-6:3,5-14; 8:15-25, 27-35; 10:1-11,22,24-33,35; 16:1-23, 25-27; Heb.; 1 & 2 Cor., Eph., Gal., Phil., Col.; 1 Thess. 1:1,9-10; 2:1-3; 5:5-9, 23-28	50's-70's	circa 200 A.D.	Approx. 150 yrs	Chester Beatty Museum, Dublin & Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Michigan library
P66 (Bodmer Papyrus)	John 1:1-6:11,35-14:26; fragment of 14:29-21:9	70's	circa 200 A.D.	Approx. 130 yrs	Cologne, Geneva
P67	Matt. 3:9,15; 5:20-22, 25-28		circa 200 A.D.	Approx. 130 yrs	Barcelona, Fundacion San Lucas Evangelista, P. Barc.1

If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper.  On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others.  The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing.  It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament.
http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Cordially,

[rusty schucklefurd]

By the way, cothrige, I want to thank you for the cordial discourse we are having. It’s so nice to discuss these things without a lot of drama.

I was just thinking about what you were saying, and in your defense, if there were no chapter 1 of Genesis, if all we had was chapter 2, looking at some English translations, it could appear that man was created before the animals. This is because some translations render the passage in simple past tense, “God formed” rather than as a plu-perfect, “God had formed”.

According to Biblical language scholars (I am not one of those), either translation is permissible, but both assume that animals were created prior to man based on the information in Chapter 1. The simple meaning of verse 19 is, “God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed”, or in other words, the animals were already around, it is just that NOW God brought them to the man for him to name. This explanation is from two highly respected Biblical language authors (see Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Again, chapter 1 gives a chronological order of creation (stars, sun, moon, animals, then man/woman etc.) while Chapter 2 is only giving somewhat of a recap, plus some added detail in regard to man being placed in the garden, and that man needed a compatible companion – woman.

[21twelve]

Thanks for a great resource! Amazing stuff.

[MarDav]

Simply incorrect. Even “great scholars” can be incorrect. This is a case in point. Christ is the Son of God - the very reason for which the Jews delivered Him to Pilate. God’s Spirit is seen “hovering over the face of the Earth in Genesis.

In Genesis 1:1 it says, in the beginning (beginning of beginnings - talking about timeless existence), God (Elohim - plural). From the opening line of the scriptures God and not man, and not a rabbi, establishes who He is. God chooses to express Himself in this way (triune) and it is for man to see, understand, accept. John 1 establishes this same thought, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. And the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. Again, God, and not man, expresses Himself how He wills and it is for man to see, to understand, to accept.

You also er when you (or is it the rabbi) say that, “since man was created in the likeness of the angels...” This is no where supported in scriptures. But look what it does say:

Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

We are not made like the angels, but in the image of God. That’s why the angels [might] envy.

We, a fallen race of beings, experience the grace of God and experience a new birth and are thus given a special knowledge of God that Peter writes about:
1Pe 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
1Pe 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

That’s why the angels [might] envy.

Paul declares that “the glory of God is revealed in the face of Jesus Christ.

John declares, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”

We made in His image, He made like one of us. He the Son of Glory, We, the sons of a fallen race but one day will be brought to glory (Heb. 2).

[MarDav]

Christ as the Eternal Son speaks of His position of power and glory, as well the humble character of God.

But then again your question, is not a serious one, so how will the mind that generated it ever entertain a serious answer to it?