An Incredible Interactive Chart of Biblical Contradictions

[BlueMTexpat]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by JudyM (a host of the General Discussion forum).

This is absolutely fascinating!

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2013/08/19/an-incredible-interactive-chart-of-biblical-contradictions/?fbclid=IwAR1_IqoFAJlx2i5PulMxJTCuHP49T6Fk4v_1SPtrdfOmsjATDOVZ-ptjBoo

A few years ago, computer science whiz Chris Harrison created a beautiful visualization linking up every cross reference in the Bible. So, for example, if a verse in the New Testament referred back to a verse in the Old Testament, there was an arc drawn between the two chapters they were in (the vertical lines at the bottom represent the number of verses in that chapter):

Amazing! Turns out there are 63,779 cross references in the Bible (and that many arcs in the image)! If it’s any indication of how complex this image is, the high-resolution version is more than 100MB large.

In 2009, graphic designer Andy Marlow used Harrison’s work as his inspiration to created a similar visual for Sam Harris‘ Reason Project. This time, though, he only included arcs representing contradictions in the Bible:
...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. of course there are contradictions. The bible isn't a single coherent book,

it's just a loose collection of old stories, myths and legends from numerous, mostly unconnected sources. How could there not be contradictions? The graphics are pretty, though.

[rampartc]

15. we are not fundamentalists

who believe that every word in the king james translation is literally true and inspired by god.

what they might say about these contradictions is that god put them there to befuddle the non believer. .

[exboyfil]

26. And these folks are using it to set public policy

They are welcome to believe anything they want, but when they start denying equal treatment under the law or engaging in anti-science magical thinking based upon it, then it is time to set the record straight.

[ProfessorPlum]

22. It seems obvious, doesn't it?

Even though there are lots of preachers who will claim otherwise.

[Faux pas]

2. This is a great way

to dispute the "quoters" thanks!

[BlueMTexpat]

5. You are most welcome.

Unfortunately, the link to the Bible Visualization site seems to have been tampered with.

[Wounded Bear]

3. One of the reasons fundies hate Thomas Paine...

is that his writings have numerous examples of contradictions in the various texts of the bible, including many references to places and times that don't add up when you do cross-references like this.

[BlueMTexpat]

6. They hate anyone who is

fact-based.

[BlueMTexpat]

4. Unfortunately, there seems to be some

problem with the BibViz.com site as provided in the link above.

The fundies must have gotten there first!

[dalton99a]

7. Well, The Lord works in mysterious ways.

not in the Bible BTW

But hey, it's all part of God's plan.

[BlueMTexpat]

9. And which "Lord?" eom

[dalton99a]

14. Take your pick

[maxsolomon]

8. God put those contradictions there to test our faith

when he wrote the Bible.

Real Christians believe all versions simultaneously, without question.

[BlueMTexpat]

11. There is certainly

an answer/excuse for everything.

[shenmue]

18. No.

[lagomorph777]

24. Schroedinger's Scripture?

[Newest Reality]

10. Contradictions

Contradictions and inconsistencies abound and you can find them in any system. Buddhism has many contradictions, but they tend to account for that in a reasonable fashion rather than merely avoid or ignore it, but then, that is a generalization. Under any umbrella or within any abstract container there are differences and dogma tends to avoid that fact.

That is one of the chief problems with dogma. While it tends to preserve a body of knowledge or belief, (which has its pros and cons) it also becomes less amenable to changes that could iron some of the more obvious contradictions and inconsistency in a doctrine.

So, I am not in anyway endorsing the validity one, particular book, but I don't expect otherwise and find that having consistency and no contradictions is a nice idea, but careful analysis shows that it is merely an idea or, perhaps, and ideal.

If having no contradictions where a test of validity, then most of us don't exist and the same applies to being consistent, if anything it would be part of a serious discipline of some sort and would possibly result in a rather stale and sterile persona Often, their contradictions are what make people interesting.

Again, I am applying this more universally and am no apologist nor am I making an endorsement.

[BlueMTexpat]

12. You make good points.

But the contradictions here are certainly interesting.

If the site ever does get "fixed," it is still worth looking at, IOM.

[Newest Reality]

17. Yeah!

Good point. I had a chuckle.

Be Well!

[safeinOhio]

19. As explained to me

by Lao Tzu.....

THE TAO THAT CAN BE TOLD IS NOT THE TRUE TAO

[qazplm135]

23. I don't think having contradictions

makes the Bible uniquely problematic in that regard...as you say, pretty hard to write anything of any heft or length without any contradictions showing up.

I think the problem is, that if something is divinely written or inspired, then having contradictions (or incorrect science) is problematic to the claim that it is divinely written or inspired. Because one of the side effects of being divine is usually being relatively error-free.

So when your purported divinely written/inspired book has two creation versions in the opening chapter, jumps from there being only two humans to a whole population of humans, has humans living to 1000 years old, has "corners" of the Earth, etc, etc etc...it makes it hard to believe that it is divinely written or inspired....unless you've got a pretty crappy deity.

[Newest Reality]

25. Yes, that is a problem.

The early Gnostics would agree with you about the "pretty crappy deity". From what I recall, they viewed JHVH as a demi-urgos, or you could say a "lesser" god or immature one, not the Ultimate by any means.

If you took the view that what humans believe and think is solely a product of mind, it all takes on a different perspective. We can only speculate, in those times, how people might have reacted to someone "coming up" with such elaborate ideas. So, prior to a more ubiquitous literacy, sans printing and media, the ability to even "imagine" the ideas of that caliber might have been rather "divine" or at least, a conceptual form of oneupmanship.

In some Eastern cultures, the idea that this divinity is in each person, at the core, then makes the whole argument goes full circle. The human mind is the creator and what it comes up with is what the mind thinks it is until somebody says otherwise and such. In that case, we just create God in our own image and there is not that much difference if you put it in the right category.

I do think that there are three eyes to look at things, so to speak, which Ken Wilbur pointed out quite adeptly and all side could come to a better understanding, even a truce, based on that. There is the eye of science that is empirical in method about the material world, its catechism would actually be, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., with each number only having a relationship with others; the eye of philosophy is about knowledge itself and how we know, and the eye of the spirit which is an umbrella term for everything from religion to spirituality to transcendental subjects and investigation of the nature of mind from within.

If they would each keep to their own view, then there would be less confusion and category errors in the process. That also means that any quest for dominance over the others might be seen to be erroneous and even have an ulterior motive, as per the effect of Western culture on indigenous peoples in the name of an assumed superiority.

Of course, those three facets or zones of the human view can interact, compare notes and come to an understanding. Is the nature of physical science about determining quanta or qualia, specifically? Philosophy has its particular means and venues as well, and religion/spirituality is not based on, nor is it qualified to determine the quanta of science, etc.

There has been and is a form of dialogue and reasonable interaction between certain spiritual modes, science and philosophy and sometimes those interchanges and debates prove to be rather fruitful. Consider the Dalai Lama's comments about science in relation to Tibetan Buddhism and its investigations of mind and his openness to scientific findings. There are several notable physicists who, due to the questions their research invoked, (especially concerning Quantum Mechanics) pushed them over the line in regards to the metaphysical realism of materialism and inspired them to investigate ancient teachings and to consult with masters and teachers of certain "spiritual" traditions, again, from the East.

[qazplm135]

27. as people who study quantum mechanics will tell you

no one actually understands quantum mechanics, so telling me that there might be some scientists who use it to jump to the metaphysical is not really surprising.

We navigate through this world and life using logic and reason. I see no reason why those tools change for things that we either don't have evidence for/information on (God, afterlife, etc) or for things we can't yet explain or don't understand.

This all boils down to fear of death. We don't want to die. We don't want to cease to exist. So we create a world outside of this world where death is a limited word, and existence continues in some form. There's not a lot of evidence for this world, but since you cannot logically prove that something does not exist, there's always hope for that world existing in some way we just haven't figured out yet.

I mean, I get it. I would love for there to be...something more, because I too don't want to cease to exist. I don't want to die.

Ultimately though, despite my desire for there to be something more, there's no evidence for it. Nothing that would stand up to any real scrutiny. Not God or gods, not life after death, not the metaphysical world or spirituality or religion or any of the other "spirit" things you discuss. I wish there were, truly. Like Mulder, I want to believe, but like Scully I need evidence to believe.

And unlike the X-Files, there isn't any. For any of it.

Having said that, that's ok. It brings comfort and peace of mind to billions of people. So whether it has some truth, or no truth, if it does that for people, then I'm ok with folks believing those things. Because fear of death is a tough thing to live with, and the vast majority of us do.

[BSdetect]

13. I find it disturbing that so many people cling to absolute belief in the bible despite the obvious

nonsense it purports

[underpants]

16. Thank God

I needed this.

Bookmarking

[Fullduplexxx]

20. Bible contadictions

[ProfessorPlum]

21. Just for some fun on this topic

check out the game show:

[chowder66]

28. Weird. When I go to bibviz.com it only shows where the domain is registered. nt

[JudyM]

29. Locking.

Interesting, but it doesn’t fit into the “religion” post exceptions of current events or church-state issues, so have to lock. Fine to repost in religion group.