Talk:Internal consistency of the Bible/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

NT Canon

“ The New Testament canon showed similar lack of consistency in the earliest days, as evidenced by the number of Gospels in circulation (the Gospels of Thomas, Judas, and Hebrews, among others). The creation of a unified canon began when the Church became the established religion of the Empire and set about defining orthodoxy, a process completed by the 4th century through a series of Councils and Synods backed by the authority of Rome. ”

OK, my difficulty here is: "canon inconsistent in early days" || "creation of canon BEGAN with Constantine" || "complete by end 4th C". Points 2 and 3 say Canon started in 300 finished by 400. Was canon non-existant or inconsistent in "early days"?

How about, no canon until 300, differing ad hoc regional lists of books, differing criteria for inclusion. With Constantine and the Empire getting involved, those with disparate views were encouraged to work through issues. By 400, consensus was reached, with one exception, Greeks didn't accept Rev.

I still maintain that canon and text are essential issues to this article, because they define what Bible means. It is only after we know what we mean by Bible that inconsistency of a previously undefined concept becomes possible. I think we also need to state what the grounds for inclusion of books of the Bible actually was. Bible = list of books deemed to be God's written foundation for the universal (little c catholic) Church. (Inspiration would seem to be the word to use to avoid inerrant / infallible issues.) Universal Church didn't quite happen until 300 (though that's a big theological question).

Given the size of the Empire and the complexity of the criteria, it sounds like a big enough deal to take committees of bible scholars a hundred years to sort out. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point: in truth, in the earliest days the very concept of canon didn't exist. What was inconsistent in the earliest days was the books regarded as valuable for instruction. These were the books read in churches, quoted by church leaders, and generally regarded as authoritative of divine truth. There was great variation from church to church, and no idea of a canon. So the paragraph needs to be re-written. I think in fact it should drop the idea of tracing a history and begin by stating that there's a common core of 27 books held in the canons of all modern Churches, plus a few extras for some of the minor churches (the Ethiopian conon includes a few more than the 27, and I think some others do also). Then maybe a brief note about the development of the idea of canon, and some basic history. PiCo (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The history of development of canons articles are very detailed. Internal linkage may be a good option. I still maintain that diversity of views about the Bible (what it is, what it says and what it means) are fundamentally different to inconsistencies in the Bible itself.

It's a question of how much foundational work is needed to clear away tangents and cut to the chase. The Bible makes claims inconsistent with science. No one doubts the inclusion of Luke in the canon of the NT, no one doubts he claims both death and later return to life for Jesus at the literal level. There are only three options: Luke was unusually metaphorical about this, the Bible is just wrong, or the Bible is actually right. We could gab on a bit about which commentators say what and when, but that would seem to me to be better in articles about Luke, the resurrection and in the bios of writers or reviews of their books.

Again, Exodus, whatever the history of the text that came to be reproduced in a canonical form, and irrespective of its author, has nonetheless a text that includes reference to plagues and parting of the yam suph (reed sea). Any diversity in copies of these texts does not extend to excluding these components of the narrative, and these components have been received into all canons. Nailed! Bible believers have either to defend their canonization by interpreting these narratives as theological mythical reconstructions of history, or even fabrications, valuable for their theology rather than historicity, or Bible believers have to accept their view is probably inconsistent with laws of physics as we know them.

The same thing goes for many of the narrative clashes you mention. Different reasons for the same event, for example. The ten commandments (Ex 20, Dt 5) also offer different reasons for the sabbath day. That issue worries no one but believers I suspect, but is easily reconciled.

It seems to me that some might want to say that the Bible is a product of Christian debate, and this has been very confused, from this alone we'd be expecting inconsistency in the Bible. Now, that would be fine, if it was a published assessment. However, the opposite seems to be more usual in academia at least. Inspiration and other ideas actually have value partly because they arose out of intense debate that reached broad contours of consensus, but left some quite specific and identifiable points of disagreement. It's the same in many disciplines today. Sometimes the evidence permits multiple plausible stances, but it also excludes many others and this is reflected in a diversity of positions, one of which is often an uncommitted position. I'm moderately familiar with education theory, it is certainly true that there are distinct schools of thought due to differences of opinion on theoretical questions.

I mention the above because documenting the history of schools of thought is very complex and not the subject of this article. There are limited, not endless, options for both the canon and text of the Bible. Nearly all these views are internally consistent. Different views of inspiration lead to different views of canon. But all that matters in this article is that we address inconsistencies in the text of the maximal canon. The works of Shakespeare are not in the canon (though some ancient Christians thought Plato was inspired). This article has a scope that must extend to all books of all canons, but cannot extend beyond that.

Given that some books in some canons do not have a well-defined textual history, text crticism becomes significant. In fact, text history, and even language of composition, have been issues considered in working out what ought to be canonical. Just as perceived inconsistencies in books is part of deciding canon also. Protestants perceive theological inconsistency between their canon and the Roman Catholic canon, for example.

But, to return to the point, which is the issue of what does this article intend to address, I'm urging we understand that text and canon are servants to the goal which is considering Internal consistency of the Bible. It is not concerned with diversity of views about what consistitutes the Bible, except to set scope, nor with variant readings, except where these might harmonize inconsistencies away (and there are some of those -- the Comma is one of them).

How does the process of attempting to circumscribe a canon describe the internal consistency or otherwise of the Bible?

One answer is it suggests that many people for a long time believed the Bible to be sufficiently consistent to be worth defining by providing list of its consituant parts. So many books were so consistent that it was hard to trim them down. But these or other conclusions seem unsatisfying and peripheral, even if we could source them. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've re-written the para in light of your comments - it now begins by making the point that there is very considerable consistency in the modern NT canon, while still pointing out that the achievement of this consistency has a history. I've left the Orthodox Christian Church out entirely, although they are the second largest Christian communion - they accpeted the Western canon around the 5th century, I think, so there's really not that much to say, although I'm open to correction.PiCo (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your current text looks good to me. In fact, it's a very nice blend, addressing multiple issues fairly, providing facts and rationale, and even some evaluation. All of this is well within consensus views, and can be verified in detail. In fact, I'd overlooked the important point you make, that Catholicism had less need of canon, because of the other forms of authoritative theological sources accepted. Anyway, the prose feels very "professional" to me, it is a very nicely nuanced, but clear, foundation for discussing the key issues the article needs to address. Well done! Thanks for your patience. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Church on inerranacy

In Catholicism it is heretical to say scripture has an error, PICO's quotation of Vatican II is correct but the conclusion he asserts is wrong, as Vatican II does not say inerrancy is limited only to matters of salvation. Pope John Paul II likewise said:

“[Galileo] declared explicitly that the two truths, of faith and of science, can never contradict each other, 'Sacred Scripture and the natural world proceeding equally from the divine Word, the first as dictated by the Holy Spirit, the second as a very faithful executor of the commands of God', as he wrote in his letter to Father Benedetto Castelli on 21 December 1613. The Second Vatican Council says the same thing, even adopting similar language in its teaching: 'Methodical research, in all realms of knowledge, if it respects... moral norms, will never be genuinely opposed to faith: the reality of the world and of faith have their origin in the same God' (Gaudium et Spes, 36). Galileo sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions”: John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (10 November 1979): Insegnamenti, II, 2 (1979), 1111-1112.

“For the sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Spirit, it contains things of the deepest importance, which, in many instances, are most difficult and obscure” (Prov. Deus, I, B, 2, b). He also says: “For all the books in their entirety...with all their parts, have been written under the dictation of the Holy Spirit”—Pope Leo XIII

When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.-Pope Pius XII,[ DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html]

The paragraph in question (I mean the paragraph in our article) is attempting to make a distinction between concepts of infallibility and inerrancy. The former is associated with Protestantism and the doctrine of the supremacy of Scripture: the Bible, as the word of God, contains no error and needs no special interpretation beyond that of which any informed believer is capable. The latter is associated with the Catholic Church and incorporates the idea of magisterium: the Bible, while being the word of God, can only be interpreted safely through the guidance of the Church. (It is, incidentally, quite incorrect to say that the Church holds the Bible to be the dictated word of God - if it were, there's be no reason for Divino Afflante Spiritu). PiCo (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I already provided quotes by popes and councils that explicitly call the bible "dictated by the Holy Spirit," it is quite incorrect to say the Catholic Church does not hold the bible to be dictated by GodTheruteger (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

Care is needed when interpreting the words of popes and church councils. For a start, note that in your first quote, the words "dictated by the Holy Spirit" come from Galileo, not John II. Galileo was being a good and careful Christian - to say anything less would have resulted in his being burnt at the stake for heresy, as you so rightly imply, and he was in danger of that fate at the time. John II's words were an attempt to explain to the faithful why the Church persecuted Galileo in the 17th century but now accepts his science. He does not, however, explicitly say that the Scriptures are the infallible word of God on scientific matters - if he had, he would have had to explain such matters as why the Bible implies that the Sun goes round the Earth and not vice versa. It's wrong also to quote Pius XIII as an authority on this subject - his ultra-conservative views have long since been repudiated by his successors, notably in Divino Afflante Spiritu, which opened up modern scholarly techniques of biblical criticism (notably source and form criticism) to Catholic scholars (Pius had been concerned to close off these forms of scholarship). The result of this is that the old tradition of Mosaic authorship for the Pentateuch, for example, is no longer Catholic dogma - which is important, considering that Moses was the one to whom those particular scriptures were traditionally supposed to have been dictated. PiCo (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You obviously are not a Catholic or are familiar with Catholic theology, I showed you popes directly saying the bible is DICTATED by the HOLY Spirit and it was NOT only restricted to Pope John Paul II quoting Galileo, Pope Leo and Pius and councils said it was, and it was not restricted to just faith and morals. In Catholicism DOGMA does not change, dogma refers to doctrine that are set in stone, unchangable. "old tradition of Mosaic authorship for the Pentateuch" can you prove that 1) it is dogma 2) that the dogma has changed. I know you can't prove it, chances are you will quote a document by a liberal scholar, lacking any authority. BTW Joshua 10 is where it says the 'sun stood still' but what most people conveniently ignore when citing this that the bible is making no assertion about the sun, it is citing the Book of Jashar, which says the sun stood still, the sun stood still to the PERCEPTION of Joshua. To say at that time the Earth stood still would make no sense to the people at all, and would presume the bible to be errant. Divino Afflante Spiritu cited for scriptural criticism, but it does not at all allow for doubting the divine inspirational, dictation, or calling scripture errant. Divino Afflant Spirtu made it ABSOLUTELY clear the bible is without error, over and over:

“It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”

Divino Afflant Spiritu also said:

"Not infrequently – to mention only one instance – when some persons reproachfully charge the Sacred Writers with some historical error or inaccuracy in the recording of facts, on closer examination it turns out to be nothing else then those customary modes of expression and narration peculiar to the ancients [e.g., the sun rises], which used to be employed in the mutual dealings of social life and which in fact were sanctions by common usage.”

The same Pope Pius issued Humanae Generis, condeming polygenesis, and explicitly condemned the idea that:

“...immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.”

To assert the Catholic Church believes anything to the other is to be errant.Theruteger (talk)

Theruteger, this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not theology. The section in question was not intended to be a forum for setting out the views of various denominations on the question of biblical consistency, but rather to show the range of possible approaches to consistency and perceived inconsistency. Your edits took the section away from that and turned it (or a large part of it) into a discussion of Catholic theology. I've retitled the section to show the original intention, and cut back the content to a single Catholic document that shows the alternative to inerrantism. We also have a secondary source (a reliable one, I might add) explicitly explaining this. 09:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The improvement to the article is correcting a THEOLOGICAL error concerning CatholicismTheruteger (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

I read the comment on why Cardinal Bea's statement demonstrating how Raymond Brown 'speculation' about Vatican II on inerranacy should be omitted, but I fail to understand it. Why should Brown's statement remain, is it because he's speculating, whereas Cardinal Bea was a first hand witness and writer therefore making it impossible for him to speculate, omitting the statement shows bias in this article. In any case I dont see how or why it would make sense to delete the statement.Theruteger (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC).

Theruteger, I can see that you're sincere in your edits to this article, and I want to treat you with the courtesy you deserve, But please try to understand why the edit keeps getting deleted: the point you are making concerns Catholic dogma, but the point the section is making concerns an intellectual position. Here's the paragraph:

Christians share the view that the Bible is the Word of God. The idea that it might contain inconsistencies appears to challenge this belief: in the words of Martin Luther, "God cannot lie." The various denominations have dealt with this challenge in a variety of ways. One reaction has been to assert biblical inerrancy, holding, like the Southern Baptist Convention, that the Bible "has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter", so that therefore "all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy."

An alternative view is Dei Verbum, one of the key documents adopted at the Second Vatican Council, which specifies that scripture teaches "solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation," Raymond E. Brown believed this to mean that Scripture can be regarded as inerrant "to the extent to which it conforms to the salvific purpose of God," without necessarily being reliable on matters such as paleontology or political history.

Analysing this sentence by sentence, it begins by explaining to the reader just why the internal consistency of the bible is important to believers: i.e., because it is regarded as the word of God, and God should be consistent. It then sets out the two broad ways in which believers have dealt with inconsistencies: either by asserting that inconsistencies are only apparent, or by saying that inconsistencies are real but do not impact upon the purpose of scripture, which is salvation. Our example for the first is a document from the Southern Baptists, for the second, Dei Verbum, interpreted by Raymond Brown. Now comes the important part: It doesn't matter whether Brown is right or wrong, or whether this constitutes Catholic dogma, all that matters is that this interpretation exists and has been put forward by a reputable, indeed eminent, theologian. In short, we are here illustrating the range of possible intellectual approaches to the problem on biblical consistency, not explaining Catholic dogma. Please try to understand what we are trying to do here. But also, please continue to be a contributor to the article, as you obviously have much to offer. PiCo (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia."

In what way? Flags like these are intended to be added in connection with a discussion on the talk page. Since nothing has been added here, how are we to discuss this? Unless there is an explanation added shortly, or someone attempts to rewrite it, I propose to delete this flag very soon. --Rbreen (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tone of the Examples section

This heading section currently has the short intro text:

There exist many points in the Bible which can be considered inconsistent in different ways, too many to list in this article. However, there are well-known types of inconsistencies that can be described more concisely.

This strikes me as having more of an advocacy tone than an encyclopedic tone - sort of a "we know it's riddled with innumerable inconsistencies, far too many to go into, but everyone knows that it has these broad types of problem, and we're going to explain them" feel. I'm exaggerating a bit here for effect, of course.

It seems to me that something more neutral could be written. As I understand it, what this introduction really needs to say is: 1) a wide variety of inconsistencies has been alleged; 2) they fall into a number of general categories; and 3) we're going to identify and discuss the more prominent of these categories, providing examples of each.

That doesn't take sides on the general question of the reliability of the Bible, or on the specific question of whether any particular issue represents a real inconsistency or can be reconciled. EastTN (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Chensiyuan (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like it - I agree it could be better phrased - then have a go at changing it. There's no need to use a flag. Be bold! --Rbreen (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the prose of our article can be improved, but bear in mind that the idea that idea that the inconsistencies in the bible are only "apparent" is in fact a point of view - one associated with the fundamentalist-inerrantist wing of American religious conservatism. (It is not, for example, a view associated with the Catholic or Anglican churches). It would not be appropriate for the article to use the phrase "apparent inconsistencies" without making this clear. The normative view among mainline scholars is that the inconsistencies are real - they are, in fact, the foundation of much of the toolbox of modern scholarship (source and form criticism, for example). PiCo (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, and haven't suggested the word "apparent." To maintain a NPOV we should steer a middle ground that recognizes that many people say (or allege, or assert, or suggest, or claim, or whatever word you like that doesn't take a position on whether they're right or not) while others say (or argue, or claim, or assert, or respond, or counter, etc. - again, without taking a position on whether they're right or not) that the inconsistencies are either only "apparent," or don't affect the validity of the underlying message, or arise from misunderstandings of the text, or are the result of textual corruption in the copying of manuscripts or whatever.

Just out of curiosity, what made you think I was suggesting that we use the phrase "apparent inconsistencies"? I wasn't trying to. EastTN (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for misunderstanding your point. Please feel free to go ahead and make your edits. I agree that the prose needs improvement. PiCo (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I went with "suggested," but I'm not wedded to that particular word. You may want to take a look and see if you can improve it further. EastTN (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Canonical" Inconsistency

I don't understand why that section is present at all. The article is INTERNAL consistency of the Bible. It is a given that the Christian Bible is different from the Jewish Bible or the Samaritan Bible. But how is that an "internal consistency" issue?

The issue the article is answering is: is this book on the table (the Bible) internally consistent? OK Samaritans, Jews, Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians all look at different books - and that should be pointed out - but that is nothing to do with internal consistency. If you say to a Protestant "your canon is different to the Jewish canon", their answer of course would be "the Jews are using the wrong Bible". It's not really that different to pointing out that the Protestant Bible is different to the Qur'an - the Protestant replies that the other book is wrong, so the internal consistency of the Protestant Bible is not affected. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly an issue of inconsistency, yet it's just as clearly not external. After all, it has nothing to do with whether the Bible says something inaccurate about the real world (such as pi=3), but rather what the Bible says about itself and about the existence of multiple Bibles (in terms of canonical selections, chosen translations and, of course, interpretations). Spotfixer (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No it's not, it's an inconsistency in the use of the Bible. Let's say I'm a Protestant who's curious about inconsistencies in the 66 book Protestant canon. How is this affected by the fact that some people use a shorter or longer canon? I would just say they're using the wrong Bible, or using the Bible wrongly. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, these are all real claims. When an apparent internal inconsistency is brought up, some respond by saying that it's a bad translation, or a non-canonical book or that the true Bible has been altered and is therefore no longer true. Controversy over what constitutes the Bible is part of the controversy over whether "the" Bible agrees even with itself.

Now, I suppose you're arguing for a three-way distinction: intra, extra and inter. However, that's not how this article is structured: it rests on the notion that there is such a thing as "the" Bible, so there cannot be inter-Biblical inconsistencies. Spotfixer (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, but I've inserted my reply ahead of Rider's because I'm answering Spotfixer) I'm arguing for saying up front that there are different canons (so that it is obvious that, for instance, a contradiction in the New Testament is of no concern to the Jewish Bible), but to not class it as an inconsistency. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If that were the only example, then I might agree. However, the issue isn't so much the OT vs. the NT as it is the NT vs. the NT. We already know that the NT is a distinct book, although there is still controversy over whether it contradicts the OT. However, I'm talking about apparent inconsistencies that appear in some versions of the NT but not others. Also, we must consider the various notable claims that the Bible as we know it is corrupt and that there are various corrections, some of which fix apparent inconsistencies. Spotfixer (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not a question of canon, that's a question of Textual criticism. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of each, but regardless, it's a matter of internal inconsistency. Spotfixer (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on both points. Take any disputed text - say, the ending of Mark - and the issue is not one of canon. Some Christians believe Mark 16:9-20 is genuine, some do not - but both groups believe Mark is in the canon. And even if a text is disputed, the question (generally) was it in error in the original copy. Anyway, I'd like to leave textual criticism (the "manuscript" section in the article) to one side for the moment, and first get some consensus on how to handle the canon: it's inconsistent use of the Bible, not inconsistency in the Bible itself. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's inconsistency about what constitutes the Bible in the first place, hence what defines "internal". If there's an inconsistency between Mark and Ecclesiasticus, this is not an internal inconsistency if we decide that the latter isn't canonical. Likewise, if my edition contains a contradiction but yours has been "translated correctly", then this is a matter of internal consistency. Spotfixer (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In many respects, Christians seem not to make a great deal about the existence of the Apocrypha. It is sort of acknowledged that the Orthodox churches (read RCC and Eastern Orthodox) have additional books in their Bible, but not a great deal is made over it. Obviously, I am painting with broad brush strokes here and I realize for some fundamentalists it is an issue, but they also think that Catholicism is a cult.

The topic is focused on in internal Christian bible (take your pick) and is it consistent; does it conflict with itself? If so how and why. This is closely related to Biblical inerrancy. Does that make sense? --^StormRider 02:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Apocrypha is a fine example of the existence of multiple canons, but it's not even the crucial issue here. Spotfixer (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Time to bring up a disagreement about the Gospel of Thomas: PiCo deleted my edit to remove it as an example of a book that was in the canon but has been removed, while I continue to ask for his source that says this. I can find no example of a canon online that includes it, while the wikipedia articles on the subject claim it was never a part of the canon. Either they need to be fixed, or it should be removed here. Plasmasphere (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "canon". The Wiki article on Gospel of Thomas says it was used by a very early Christian community in the vicinity of Nag Hammadi in Egypt around the 2nd century (and although the article doesn't say, it's clear from other fragments found at various paces that other communities were using it too); it was later not taken up by what became the dominant Christian communion in around the 4th century. In other words, it was "canonical" for one group at one time, but the group became extinct and the GoT was dropped. (There's no such thing as "the canon", by the way - canons have changed over time, and there are marked differences between Christian groups even today).PiCo (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

By "canon", I meant a list of Biblical books considered to be authoritative (such as Origen's list), but the definition used in this section is "collection of books deemed authoritative" (not necessarily a list), so I should use it in that sense. While the size of the group using it is debatable, the current wording of the section: "Books once regarded as authoritative" makes it appear as if apocryphal gospels were used by the majority of the Christians at the time. This needs to be reworded to make it obvious that not all Christians at any time were using the apocryphal gospels. Plasmasphere (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The section is trying to make the point that there's never been a time, in the past or now, when all Christians regarded the same group of books as authoritative ("authoritative" is a better word than "cononical", as the very concept of a canon kept evolving right down the Council of Trent). I'll have a look at the wording. PiCo (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Section New Testament - Epistles

I am editing the section about "Epistles" because it speaks about a contradiction between Paul's and James's view about faith and works. Only a superficial understanding of the New Testament can come to such conclusions. When Paul speaks about salvation and emphasizes God's grace he rejects the Jewish thinking that the Mosaic Law can save man. In this point James thought exactly the same, Moses's law cannot save man. When James argued that faith without works is dead he expresses that deeds have to follow the Christian believe otherwise it consists of empty words only. This Paul believes strongly as well. Nikil44 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I raise the issue again because what I have edited was removed but I do not see this as justified.
My editing is in bold:
"Paul claims several times that believers are saved by Divine grace, and that believers are therefore "not under law, but under grace"(Rom 6:14). The Epistle of James, in seemingly contrast, states that we are to obey the "whole law"(James 2:10-11), that "a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone", and that "faith without works is dead" (James 2:14–26). Paul argues against the Jewish thinking that the Mosaic law can save man. In this point James thought the same as Paul. When James says that faith without works is dead he wants to express that works have to follow faith otherwise it consists of empty words only. This Paul believed strongly as well (Titus 2:11-12, Ephesians2:10, Romans6:13, Galatians5:13 etc). Protestants, with their belief in salvation by faith alone, have had difficulty reconciling their contradiction, Martin Luther even suggesting that the Epistle of James might be a forgery, and relegating it to an appendix in his Bible (although he later came to accept its canonicity - see Antilegomena)."
The explanation for the removing was: "rm statements that contradicts the first para, james was referring to the Mosaic laws(whole law) as works"
It's clear that James means in chapter 2:10 the Old Testament Law. But that does not mean that he means works of the Old Testament law in 2:14-26 as well. Of course many deeds of a Christian (done out of faith) will be also according to the Old Testament but not every deed. He writes to Jewish Christians and argues mainly with examples of the Old Testament. If James had meant to keep the whole Old Testament law in a literal sense he would have taught to keep the sacrifices in the temple as well. But he was a Christian and wrote to Christians. Even if he still emphasized to keep a great part of the Old Testament law he did believe in Jesus as saviour. He speaks about the law of freedom and refers it to the New Covenant (1:25, 2:12). I do not want to argue further here but I think it's not fitting to speak about a contradiction between Paul and James. Both spoke about different things. What do others think? How should this paragraph be?
- Nikil44 (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, we should be reporting positions of experts. Those who allege a contradiction should be referenced otherwise this appears as OR. Second, there is an apparent contradiction between faith and works within the Bible if one only compares verses while ignoring the whole. Some, seemingly, ignore parts of the scripture. Our Protestant and/or Evangelical churches/ministers focus almost exclusively on grace. This issue of faith and works has been the source of countless debates, books, doctrinal disputes for several hundreds of years. Though I think some might think this is an example of an inconsistency, IMHO, it is not an inconsistency of the Bible, but an issue of misinterpret ion of the Bible by adherents of the numerous churches within Christianity. Cheers. --^StormRider 15:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think enough time has passed by now. I will edit this paragraph again by giving also reference to different scholars. - Nikil44 (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Some material in need of a home

I took this material out of the section abt NT because it's all abt OT - but I can't find a home for it in the article. I'll put it here in the hope someone else can.

The number of apparent inconsistencies in the biblical narratives is immense—Gleason Archer's encyclopedic work on the subject (from an inerrantist position) runs to almost 500 pages. Some concern plot (e.g. the question of which day of the week Jesus was crucified), some are arithmetical (the question of Noah's age after the Flood), some theological (why is there so much killing mentioned in the Bible and how does this square with "Thou shalt not kill"?).

PiCo (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

... of the House of David?

A recent revert claimed that the genealogy in the Gospel according to St. Matthew (showing Joseph's father Jacob's descent from King David) is valid for the fulfilment of the relevant prophecy that the Messiah would be from the House of David. No evidence was submitted to back up this claim; it was aimply stated that '"adoptive fathers" equates to "real fathers" in bible times'. Why then does St. Luke give the maternal lineage? Which Evangelist got it wrong? Can anyone throw light on this?

Would the prophets have allowed for adoption in their prophecies?

Could one join a tribe simply by having a step-father from that tribe?

Was formal adoption necessary? AFAIK there is no biblical mention of adoption having taken place.

In modern Judaism, if I understand it correctly, one has to have had both a Jewish mother and a Jewish upbringing by her to be considered truely Jewish, so perhaps the maternal line is more important after all. Was this the case "in bible times"?

Are there any experts out there who can help with these problems? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

St. Luke, so far as I can tell, did not give the maternal lineage. Here's the RSV:

Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jan'na-i, the son of Joseph...

That looks rather like the paternal lineage to me - just a different paternal lineage from what Matthew gives. Other versions (NIV, KJV) say the same thing - this line seems to be going through Joseph as well. I know that apologetics have treated this version as being Mary's descent, but that is not what the text says. john k (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ezra and Nehemiah

Would it be worthwhile making a separate article on this topic, then linking to it from this article? Or is it too specialised to bother? --Faith (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Anything is possible on Wikipedia, which comes as close as is humanly possible to the Infinity Drive. (I mean that there's room for an infinite number of articles). Just be aware that the Wiki-police are out there cruising in their Wiki-Squadcars, looking for articles that might merit deletion (the wiki equivalent of the death penalty). So your article has to prove that it's about a notable topic. One way to do this is to have as many links as possible. Another is to show that the topic is dicussed in the relevant literature. That should be easy enough in fact - your research while writing will turn up the relevant sources. Just a word of caution: your man Were doesn't seem very notable to me, given his background in a small bible college in Kenya if I remeber rightly. Better to go for someone like Archer, who is genuinely notable. It's also probably better not to to say things like "According to X..."; instead, state the argument and give your source in a footnote, and make sure you don't keep quoting the same source over and over. This just comes from my own experience in a little project I started, of creating wiki-articles for major contemporary bible-scholars - Van Seters, Lemche, people like that. The wiki-cops asked me to prove these people were worthy of articles. Biblical scholarship being a very small world, it wasn't easy to do. Good luck. (And your title should probably be something like "Census of Nehemiah" or some such - something more easily findable). PiCo (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got a project I should get back to at List of theology journals. This was my attempt to help the Wiki police realise the notability of theology (and/or Biblical studies). PiCo's work sounds even better. Just do it Faith! :) The Wiki police are not too bad and usually allow time, they often raise an article's profile so other interested people help with a project (or, at least, drop reference works into the article or onto the talk page). Alastair Haines (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the Ezra-Nehemiah subsection entirely: we simply don't have room to try to treat individual incidents at such length - Archer wrote a 900-page book on the subject, we can't have that luxury. Anyway, here's the entire subsection in case anyone wants to put it in the Book of Ezra article or make a separate article of it:

I think it should be shortened but not deleted. It's rather excessive having three different inerrantist explanations (Were, Scofield and Clarke/Jamieson). Or perhaps it could be converted into a general section on numerical inconsistencies in the Old Testament. But a wholesale delete seems to detract from the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter, we really can't have an article that discusses each and every example of inconsistency or perceived inconsistency in the Bible. As I noted above, Archer wrote 900 pages doing just that, and we don't have the room. PiCo (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember that the role of this article isn't only to give the inerrantist response to any possible difficulties - which then after much discussion gets deleted entirely when these become to complex. There aren't many places in the Bible where numerical figures are so clearly comparable as in Ezra/Nehemiah. I've added a short paragraph to the Torah section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.76.157 (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I've restored the first paragraph of this section. Just because the arguments get extended and extended by subsequent editors isn't a reason to remove the whole section! 217.206.76.157 (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ezra and Nehemiah

Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 list the "people of the province who came up out of the captivity of the exiles whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away to Babylon, and returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his city". Both give a total figure of 42,360 (Ezra 2:64, Nehemiah 7:66). A third version of the list exists in the apocryphal book 1 Esdras. However the numbers given within the lists differ, and do not add up to the total given.. Most scholars believe that the Ezra list is later than and secondary to the one given in Nehemiah. Many scholars argue that the list is a literary construction based on various sources, with at least a fifty year gap between them.

Nelson Were, a lecturer at Bomet Bible Institute, Kenya, argues that the disagreement in the numbers of people in each list can be explained by the fact that the narratives were written at different times, and that the differences may reflect changes of tribal population in the intervening period. He points out that certain numbers are associated with names in alternate forms—Ezra 2:18 and Nehemiah 7:24 which have 112 for the number of the children of Jorah/Hariph, and Ezra 2:44 and Nehemiah 7:47 which have among the Nethinims the children of Siaha/Sia—while in other cases the same information is given in different forms—Ezra 2:24 and Nehemiah 7:28 where the same group of people are referred to as children ("ben", i.e., son, boy, young one) and men ("ish") (compare also Ezr 2:20-21 with Neh 7:25-26). He suggests that another census could have been taken in the interim.

C.I. Scofield made a similar point which he supported with a timeline of the restoration:

1. The return of the first detachment under Zerubbabel and Jeshua (B.C. 536), Ezra 1.-6., and the books of Haggai and Zechariah;
2. The expedition of Ezra (B.C. 458), seventy-eight years later (Ezra 7.-10);
3. The commission of Nehemiah (B.C. 444), fourteen years after the expedition of Ezra. (Nehemiah 2:1-5).

Adam Clarke and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary summed up the differences in lists by pointing out that Nehemiah mentions 1,765 persons which are not in Ezra, and Ezra has 494 not mentioned by Nehemiah. They suggested adding Ezra's surplus to the sum in Nehemiah, and adding the surplus of Nehemiah to the number in Ezra, resulting in an equal deficiency of 10,777 from the numbers as summed up in the text, accounted for by the "registers were not found, or they were not of Judah and Benjamin, the tribes particularly concerned, but of the other Israelitish tribes".

This article is of poor quality and very disappointing

I came to this article hoping to find a specifics of consistency, and instead there is an essay about all sorts of topics about consistency. Nowhere is there a listing of places where consistency is lacking. Needs a major rewrite! --Fremte (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I added some tags. Hopefully this prompts some changes. Someone might be able to reorganize it. and fix it --Fremte (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional Inconsistent Material?

If Jesus is the son of god saying:"It's not the healthy but sick people who need the doctor." Why is it that god rules in heaven which consist of good/angel people?

Second, if everything comes forth from GOD, why did he created satan and still saying:"What I do is good".

Third, If god made everything good, why are all of his tries fail to 'make it right(what failed)'?

Fourth, Only with proof of god and that that particular god actually is 'the writer' of the holy scipture, then and only then you can be sure you don't believe in a 'fake-god', something that is also described in the bible, 'the which god is true and /or exists at all...'

Greetings from Holland, Niels K. binairy@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.29.183.137 (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that these aren't necessarily inconsistencies in the Bible but are rather specific ideas or interpretations of what is in the Bible. Inconsistencies would be found in the actual text of the Bible. Hailcanadien (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Above Supplemental

The OT teaches there is only the way of life and the way of death. The gain of being a true loyal follower of god is a nice promise of 'good life', e.g. 'the good part of Job'. However the NT explain suffering, etc, etc till death... Who sees the actual serious match? Isn't death equal to death? Does one need god to suffer..., is it part of the 'good life' promise?

Niels K. binairy@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.29.183.137 (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a part of the Bible where it actually says that if you follow God you will have a good life? Hailcanadien (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Examples of contradictions

Why go with some vague contradictions that can be harmonised, however implausibly, by apologists? Why not include contradictions that cannot be reconciled, like Jesus dying before the passover (John) and after the passover (Mark) and go from there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiditm (talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that that specific example isn't an area of concern (Mark 15:42 "It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the :Sabbath)." and John 19:14 "It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour." Both excerpts are from the NIV.) but I agree that we :should post only irreconcilable facts. Hailcanadien (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"rather dry"

I didn't read the whole article, but I did stumble across the sentence "...the answer to such rather dry questions as whether ancient Hebrew was or was not divided into dialects." What is considered dry or not dry is completely subjective and really does not have any place in an encyclopedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.53.138.179 (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Consistency and Inconsistency

Did I misread the title, or does this article mention very little about the internal consistency of the bible and rather only mention the inconsistencies? 124.148.241.24 (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Consistancy over time

The question of "Consistancy" is not about the consistancy of the Bible, but the consistancy of God. If God acted a certain way in the past, if He were consistant, he would act in the same manner today. If you say that God has changed since Exodus, what changed Him. What power in the universe could change an onmiscent God? If the Bible were "historical", if stories in the Bible "really happened", can you explain why God ingored the slaughter of 6 million Jews in the Nazi ovens? Can you explain why God allowed the killing of 8 million Vietnamese and 55 thousand Amricans in Vietnam, to name a few examples.

I submit that the consistancy of God precludes the literal nature of the Biblical stories. Many of the stories are "history remembered" and are metaphorical. Cecil B Demille version of Exodus protrays the story literally. The Israelites walked to the Red Sea (Bible has Sea of Reeds) and two verticle walls of water line a dry path of sand for the Children of Israel to escape Pharaoh. When the Pharaoh's army enters the sea, the walls close over them.

There is an interesting story in the Babylonian Talmud. God hears a great comotion in the 3rd Heaven. He goes down to investigate and sees the angels cheering and shouting and dancing about. He sees the Arch Angle Gabriel and asks him what is all the cheering about. Gabriel replies that the God children, the people of Israel have escaped the army of Pharaoh and are free. God then asks, "What of my children the Egyptians?"

Widgeon Drake (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Supposed Linkspam

I recently linked to BibViz in the external links section and this was reverted by Edward321 as link spam. Considering it is on-topic, uses multiple sources of data and provides a novel way of exploring biblical consistency issues I'm confused about why it was removed. It's certainly as useful as the Infidels.org link. Can anybody explain this or should I just try to add it again? New to this whole thing... 166.248.130.217 (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a site that's trying to sell things with no indication that it's reliable source. I'll take a look at Infidels.org, it might also fail Wikpedia standards for reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No Life found ahere

It seems this discussion--page is as dead as god... Unless god uphold 'his' word, ergo changing lies for trueth, there are 2 choices; There never was a god in the first place or he is dead(/passive/'no where').

Niels K.

ps. Anyone can claim to have 'all power'/'being the best at tennis' as long as that someone doesn't have to proof it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.29.183.137 (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that this has nothing to do with inconsistencies in the Bible... Hailcanadien (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place for ANTI-THEIST PROPAGANDA. Please utilise talk-pages in a civil manner, not offencive to religions of any sort. Thank you. Hendrick 99 (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Muslim

There is a new section on this. I don't see what the content has to do with the Internal consistency of the Bible. It seems to be concerned with the infallibility of the Bible. Myrvin (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears to adress both. The Muslims apparently believe that changes in the bible by Jews and Christians led to internal inconsistency and inaccuracy both.

The article is about inconsistencies (which is why it's called that). There is a point of view that the inconsistencies are the product of the text being corrupted, which is a claim made by various groups including some Muslims. The recently added section is problematic because while it asserts that Muslims believe the text to have been deliberately tampered with, it makes no connection to inconsistencies. It's not helpful. Besides, the debate about the Bible text has moved on - see Biblical criticism - and there is nothing in the section to indicate an awareness of this. It seems to be a completely different argument altogether.--Rbreen (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been trying to find examples of Tahrif more relevant to this article, it is appearant that these exist however I have been finding it hard to find good examples. If you can find any direct examples it would be much appreciated, since you seem quite interested in the topic. I have observed through your repeated edits on the article that you are probably a staunch Christian or just strongly disagree with Tahrif, and I respect that, but instead of trying to censor out other opinions, you should help make the article suitable for all readers. Even if it feels frustrating when articles sometimes document opinions you don't personally agree with, it feels more rewarding to improve the article as a whole. Other than your strong POV, you do seem quite knowledgeable on the topic, so your contributions would be extremely beneficial to the article as a whole. Thanks. Hendrick 99 (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It is probably uncivil, and certainly foolish, to make assumptions about the motivations of editors: such assumptions are almost certain to be wrong. I note the poverty of your imagination in thinking that the only options are that I must be a 'staunch Christian' (that's a laugh) or that I 'strongly disagree with Tahrif'. Neither is true, and I have explained my concerns above. The concept of tahrif is about the corruption (or at least the misinterpretation) of scripture, whereas this article has always been about the inconsistencies within the Biblical text, which is a different matter. I grant that it could be argued that the alleged corruption is the explanation of the inconsistencies, but it is not clear that this is the point being made, and in any case the original edit did not make that connection, nor did it make clear that the views expressed were made centuries ago, a point that needed to be clarified.--Rbreen (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

What I do care is about clear writing, balanced, that does not give undue weight to fringe viewpoints, and that is supported by citations from reliable sources. I have found and included other viewpoints that clarify some of these issues and show that the issue of tahrif is more complex than the original edit suggested.

You say that you have been 'trying to find' examples and you've been 'finding it hard'. You ought to know by now that this is not how Wikipedia works: you don't edit in the expectation that some time in the future you or someone else will find sources to back up what you feel sure must be true. If you cannot support your opinions by good citations from reliable sources, you should keep them to yourself until you can.

Then you have the audacity to revert the well-sourced edits I have gone to the trouble of making, and describing them as 'disruptive'. You seem not to have even looked at them. It is clearly your edits which are disruptive, and I suggest you stop doing this. I also suggest you stop accusing others of edit warring. I suggest you also avoid putting edit summaries in capitals, which looks like shouting and is certainly uncivil.--Rbreen (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Section: Consistency as evidence for the truth of the Bible

This section appears to be only a biased attempt to assert that the Bible is consistent. It uses POV sources and only contains propaganda. If the section can't be made NPOV, it should be removed.Hendrick 99 (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Give me time. I am trying to show why the question is important. I'll do what you say. Myrvin (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Moving my section and tagging it while I am still working on it is not what you should do. I think that this very flawed article needs to have a section at the front that explains why the question of the Bible's consistency is important. Please leave it alone until I have finished. Myrvin (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't remove neutrality tags, though I suppose the section should be at the front. Hendrick 99 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I am impressed with your improvements to the section, Myrvin|Myrvin. Good Job! Hendrick 99 (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Why thank you. I have been doing this for some time. Myrvin (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you please try to find some more substantial sources for this - the idea (of showing that the question of consistency is important to some believers) is a good one, but (a) your sources are mostly popular religious works, which have limited value as reliable sources, and mainly seem to represent a conservative American Protestant perspective, and (b) you mix modern sources with ones over a century and a half old, without any suggestion that opinions might have changed in the meantime. Also, right now this section is effectively a list of quotes on the subject from a variety of sources. It's pretty much a personal essay, with quotes. Can you try to give it some more substance, preferably citing from some modern scholarly sources? Thanks.--Rbreen (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. It reads like an order from on high. What do you want of me? There was nothing about the importance of the topic, so I provided a fairly detailed, completely cited section. Obviously, it's the religious ones who care most about the truth of the Bible; and perhaps it is a "popular" topic. Maybe Catholics have a different view that you can provide - I'll look myself. There is nothing wrong with citing "popular religious works". It was of interest to me that even in the 19th century there were people saying that the Bible was inconsistent - what is wrong with that? Perhaps you don't agree with what the authors say. Wikipedia should be fully cited, with quotes where it helps. Myrvin (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It was not easy to find, but I have added a modern Catholic view. It seems to be the same as the Protestant. I don't know if it substantial enough for you. Myrvin (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it wasn't meant to sound like an order from on high! It's just a request from a fellow editor. You've put a lot of effort into this, but it really needs more to meet the standards of WP:RS. It needs to have as broad a perspective as possible, and preferably academic sources. The problem with citing popular religious works is that they reflect only the views of the writers, and this is especially a difficulty when the selection of books to cite from is so narrow (US evangelical Protestants from very recent times, some US writers in the 19th century, one recent Muslim writer). You mention that it was of interest to you that 'even in the 19th century' people were writing about inconsistencies, but you surely must have read the rest of the article, which includes extensive discussion of the issue from centuries back. Even in the introductory paragraphs it mentions 17th and 18th century writers on the subject. It's an issue that has a long history and a broad range of opinions. It's not that I don't agree with what the authors say - we just need a wider selection of authors, a better sense of the context in which they are, writing, and some sources which explain the issue rather than ones which simply cite people's opinion of it - I hope that makes sense. I don't mean to question your good faith, but you mustn't be surprised if people chop and change what you've put here.--Rbreen (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Well it read like a series of orders from an experienced editor to a tyro. Your view of what reliable sources are seems to differ from WP:RS. I rejected all references that were not published by what I thought were "books published by respected publishing houses". I could be wrong and you could challenge that if you can. You seem to want something that the texts do not provide, but you are not clear what you do want - perhaps if you say what you want them to say, I could look for it. It was you that complained that my citations were old, and said that "that opinions might have changed in the meantime". Do you want it to say that nowadays Christians don't care if the Bible is consistent? I have one quote for that already, and maybe there are more. But I bet a lot of them do care, and care a lot. Myrvin (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

How can you say that my range of references is "so narrow", and then note that it has "US evangelical Protestants from very recent times, some US writers in the 19th century, one recent Muslim writer"? It also had a 19th century English theologian, and now two Catholic views. What sort of range do you need? Myrvin (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I still think it needs a historical perspective - which might need to be merged from the next section - but for simply touching on the issue of why this is important to people, the references are fine; what they need is some kind of context for who the writers are. For instance, John Barker was a Deist (at that time), and John Barton is a theologian who is writing about how people (not scholars like himself, but you have to look at pages not available on Google Books to see this) read the Bible. Also, we don't have to name everyone, and we don't need people saying the same thing, just a representative sample of views.--Rbreen (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your non-naming idea. Everyone should be named for something like this, so that people don't get the idea that the view expressed is generally agreed. There are many [who?] tags in Wiki when editors put "some people" and such like. I don't mind putting something about the writers themselves, put it can get tedious. If people want to know who these people are, and they are wikilinked, they can check. Do we really have to say Jim Jones, the Christian, thinks the Bible is true? As you can see from my rather convoluted wording about Terry Giles, I do describe who some are aiming at - when it is unclear from the quote. I don't mind a Historical section. It could be difficult though. I think I have scraped the barrel of available texts on this subject. Myrvin (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

On your non-naming point: please read WP:INTEXT and reconsider. I see you have left several names, but taken some out replacing them with "some x", "many x" etc., which I do not consider appropriate. You should also read Weasel words and WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Myrvin (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Barton

The part on Barton now seems to be very confused. In "believing Christians", is "believing" a verb or an adjective? If it means Christians who believe, then are there those who don't? Does it mean that B believes that Christians read the Bible in this way. The words should be recast. From the book, it seems to me that B is advocating something - but I can't tell what. There also seems to be an extraneous "and". Myrvin (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC) I've tried to fix this. Myrvin (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove scary tags.

This article has been transformed from the sad little thing it was. I propose we remove the tags from the lead. Myrvin (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Attribution of the books

Do we think that doubts about who wrote the books should be included? We have some words about this: Moses etc., but perhaps Solomon &c. and the NT should be included as well. Myrvin (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

There is already an article on this: Authorship of the Bible. So this article should include those questions of attribution that follow from the internal contents of the books. Myrvin (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I have started this. Myrvin (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

In fairness I've started an Internal consistency of the Quran page

....so, do with it what thou will. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"Alleged" inconsistencies

We can't say that inconsistencies are "alleged". This is wrong for two reasons: firstly because it strongly implies that the inconsistencies are imaginary [who is making these allegations?], and secondly because it takes a simplistic, binary approach to what is a complex question. That textual inconsistencies exist is not at issue. In the very simplest form, the fact that there are inconsistencies between elements of the text cannot be denied - eg the different figures given (as referred to in the text) in 1 Chronicles and 2 Samuel. The quotation from Bruce Metzger, certainly one of the paramount biblical scholars of his generation, concedes that such differences exist. The point of the article is to discuss various approaches to such inconsistencies - whether they call the inspiration of scripture into question or not, what they tell us about the aims of the writers and the challenge of interpretation they present to readers. Simply calling inconsistencies 'alleged' distracts from the real issues here. --Rbreen (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Divine inspiration vs internal consistency

I've taken out the statement that "Christianity and Judaism consider the Bible and Tanakh divinely inspired." StAnselm and I had a back and forth on this, for example: [1], but whether or not the bible has been "divinely inspired" is not the same as "consistency". Note that most modern Jewish scholars (even as summarized in this article) are not especially bothered by inconsistency. Thus the Torah, for example, can be taken as sacred, even if not rigidly consistent. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. It should probably be a "see also" link, although that list looks like it needs pruning. StAnselm (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, StAnselm. One thing to recognize, expecting holy texts and stories and myths to be rigidly and literally consistent is, I believe, a modernish Western idea. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. The medieval Rabbis bent over backwards to explain the slightest inconsistency in the Hebrew Bible. StAnselm (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but in the scheme of things, that is "modern" compared to the very ancient Torah. We're fine. Moving on and thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead now christocentric and utterly fails to summarize the article's contents

Where did the reference to the Jews go?

Also, out of a total two paragraphs, the lead now devotes half a paragraph to Celcus, Origen and textual corruption of the gospels (which has nothing to do with internal consistency), and another paragraph to a list of books that don't appear to be mentioned anywhere else in the article.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The lead is not good. I agree. Several issues: Given the history of the biblical texts, and the ancient cultures from which the bible emerged, rigid consistency was not necessarily sought or expected until much more recently. We couldn't, for example, even discuss consistency until their was some general acceptance of which books should even be in the bible. Also, Jews and Christians are not unanimous on whether or not there is or should be consistency. And, then, finally motivations for expecting consistency, such as beliefs held by some that the bible is divine, need to be kept in perspective (though can be mentioned) in an article that is, at least by title, about "consistency". These issues (and others) might be considered in fixing the lead, though I think getting a good lead is not going to be easy for this article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internal consistency of the Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508175506/http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2516 to http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2516

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

John 21 ending

Misquoting Jesus, p. 65: "the story is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts ... it's writing style is very different from what we find in the rest of John (including the stories immediately before and after); ... includes a large number of words and phrases that are otherwise alien to the Gospel."; p. 64: "scholars who work on the manuscript tradition have no doubts about this particular case." —PaleoNeonate – 01:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internal consistency of the Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615090018/http://religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1256 to http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1256
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114001045/http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/birth2.html to http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/birth2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Contradictions

I'm not up to trying to fix it just now, but in the Contradictions section there's an example that fits better under inconsistencies -- and alleged ones, at that. Concerning the slaughtering of animals, the article at present speaks of instructions for the Temple, but then proceeds to use an example from before the Temple was conceived, let alone built. So there is no contradiction, and whether it's an inconsistency depends more on theology than anything.

In the account of the slaughtering of an animal before the Temple, it states that the animal: "was killed at the entrance to the tabernacle, north of the altar, and cut up." The most natural interpretation of the Hebrew wording is that the slaughtering was done by the one making the offering rather than by the priest. If so, it contradicts Ezek 44:11, where it is done by the Levites, and 2 Chr 29:22, 24 where done by the priests.

The quote lacks a citation, which is a bit deceptive here since the actual passage is from Leviticus 1 and if cited in full plainly states that this has to do with "the tent of meeting", or Tabernacle, and not with the Temple. Dismalscholar (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Organization

It is weird that contradictions from three religions coexist in the same article. E.g a contradiction in Christianity may not be a contradiction in Judaism and Islam or vice versa. Different religions also has different ways of "explaining away" these contradictions. ImTheIP (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)