Bible contradictions

[rstrats]

Let's save a lot of time and just discuss why anyone would expect there NOT to be contradictions in a collection of texts written over a long period of time by a lot of different authors focusing of a lot of different subjects.

That would be an issue for a different topic. Perhaps you might start one.

 

[Audie]

That would be an issue for a different topic. Perhaps you might start one.

No its an easy answer.
Everyone knows what it is.
Four words is enough.
Say it!

 

[rstrats]

No its an easy answer.
Everyone knows what it is.
Four words is enough.
Say it!

It's still an issue for a different topic.

 

[Esteban X]

No its an easy answer.
Everyone knows what it is.
Four words is enough.
Say it!

I must be dumb. What is the answer?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's save a lot of time and just discuss why anyone would expect there NOT to be contradictions in a collection of texts written over a long period of time by a lot of different authors focusing of a lot of different subjects.

I would agree. I do not think that the endless contradictions in the Bible refute God. But sadly many fundamentalistic Christians do have the odd belief of Bible inerrancy.

 

[Audie]

I must be dumb. What is the answer?

God-wont-allow- it.

 

[Audie]

It's still an issue for a different topic.

So dont prolong the distraction.

 

[PureX]

I would agree. I do not think that the endless contradictions in the Bible refute God. But sadly many fundamentalistic Christians do have the odd belief of Bible inerrancy.

It appears to me that those folks have decided to make the Bible their God. Which would be falsely idolizing a man made object and a sin even according to the Bible, itself.

... Speaking of contradictions.

 

[amazing grace]

Key words : " I dont see".

Key compsrison: mother denying her darling boy
caught in a lie with candy in his pocket would
ever lie or steal.

As I said "one can find contradictions if they LOOK for them . . . . I can't see any". If all accounts are studied together, they are very similar - some with more details than others but all in all they are very similar. A child will lie but God does not lie. It is my choice to see a correlation between the records - it is others choice to see contradictions.

 

[amazing grace]

So you think that Matthew's memory of Mary knowing that the Messiah was alive, and John's memory of her not knowing that He was alive, is not contradictory. How do you define contradictory?

BTW, any particular reason for leaving Luke out of it?

I do not see them as contradictory, as statements contrary to another, but taken as a whole, each record compliments the other.

I mentioned Matthew and John because that are the records you referred to and then I added Mark. Luke even goes further to say that not just Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were at the tomb but also "Joanna and the other women with them". Should I see that as contradictory or just that Luke added another detail?

 

[Audie]

As I said "one can find contradictions if they LOOK for them . . . . I can't see any". If all accounts are studied together, they are very similar - some with more details than others but all in all they are very similar. A child will lie but God does not lie. It is my choice to see a correlation between the records - it is others choice to see contradictions.

I know what you said. It doesnt improve
with repitition.
If it suits someone to " once over lightly" and
ignore or explain away or not even see
( your choice) errors, omissions, contradictions,
nonsense in what they read, so much the worse
for them.

Sign contracts you didnt read or understand
see what it gets you! And here the subject
is presumably what you think is your eternal
future!

I cant do that. Its not my nature, and i trained
as a researcher. Due diligence!!

You expect it of your doctor, lawyer, accountant!

But to you if someone actually reads the bible with
care, just looking to see whats there, thats
different. Thats "looking for".
Thats assuming theres contradictions
and by you, pouncing on things that are not
inconsistent and making them into what they
are not.

By that you are saying due diligence is
intellectual dishonesty; assumjmg a conclusion.

Which-btw- is exsctly what you are doing.
Exactly.
Your approach defines intellectual dishonesty.



At a guess, I'd say you will onve' over- lightly
what i wrote, take in none of it, and reply
accordingly.

Just a lil' clue though.

You wont be happy with your lawyer if you
go to jail because he " didnt see" the gross
contradictions in prosecution testimony.
Assumes cops never lie. That the prosecution
cannot be wrong.

" but thats different"

No, it isnt.

 

[rstrats]

I do not see them as contradictory, as statements contrary to another, but taken as a whole, each record compliments the other.

I just don't see how you can say that Matthew saying that Mary M. knew that the Messiah was alive while John is saying that she didn't know, isn't a contradiction. How do you explain it?

 

[amazing grace]

I know what you said. It doesnt improve
with repitition.
If it suits someone to " once over lightly" and
ignore or explain away or not even see
( your choice) errors, omissions, contradictions,
nonsense in what they read, so much the worse
for them.

Sign contracts you didnt read or understand
see what it gets you! And here the subject
is presumably what you think is your eternal
future!

I cant do that. Its not my nature, and i trained
as a researcher. Due diligence!!

You expect it of your doctor, lawyer, accountant!

But to you if someone actually reads the bible with
care, just looking to see whats there, thats
different. Thats "looking for".
Thats assuming theres contradictions
and by you, pouncing on things that are not
inconsistent and making them into what they
are not.

By that you are saying due diligence is
intellectual dishonesty; assumjmg a conclusion.

Which-btw- is exsctly what you are doing.
Exactly.
Your approach defines intellectual dishonesty.



At a guess, I'd say you will onve' over- lightly
what i wrote, take in none of it, and reply
accordingly.

Just a lil' clue though.

You wont be happy with your lawyer if you
go to jail because he " didnt see" the gross
contradictions in prosecution testimony.
Assumes cops never lie. That the prosecution
cannot be wrong.

" but thats different"

No, it isnt.

I choose to believe the records within Bible because I believe they are inspired by God but thanks for your opinion.

 

[amazing grace]

I just don't see how you can say that Matthew saying that Mary M. knew that the Messiah was alive while John is saying that she didn't know, isn't a contradiction. How do you explain it?

The only thing I can say for a certainty is that these four gospels narrate the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Four men were eyewitnesses to events that occurred. These four men wrote down their accounts. These similar accounts would not be identical to each other because each are distinct to the one giving the narrative.

In Matthew's narrative, an angel appeared and said "I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here for he has risen." Then they met Jesus.

In Mark's narrative, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Salome went to the tomb and the stone was rolled away and an angel appeared as a man " You seek Jesus of Nazareth. . .he has risen; he is not here. Mark added more information with the addition of Salome with Mary M. and Mary.

In Luke's narrative, he mentions no names but just says earlier "the women" then in the context of which we are speaking says "they found the stone rolled away" and that "they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus." Luke further adds that two men (angels) stood by them and say "He is not here, but has risen."

In John's narrative, two angels appeared to her and she says "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." She then turned around and saw Jesus but she did not recognize him until he said her name.

In all the narratives, she did not know where Jesus was until the angels told her "he is risen" whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke include that in their narrative, John doesn't.

 

[Audie]

I choose to believe the records within Bible because I believe they are inspired by God but thanks for your opinion.

You choose to believe your personally selected
version of what you think it means.

Your choice. I prefer to be honest with myself.
And not run from challenges.

 

[rstrats]

The only thing I can say for a certainty is that these four gospels narrate the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Four men were eyewitnesses to events that occurred. These four men wrote down their accounts. These similar accounts would not be identical to each other because each are distinct to the one giving the narrative.

And Matthew's and John's accounts seem to contradict each other with regard to what Mary M. knew or didn't know.

 

[paarsurrey]

Bible contradictions​

The only thing I can say for a certainty is that these four gospels narrate the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Four men were eyewitnesses to events that occurred. These four men wrote down their accounts. These similar accounts would not be identical to each other because each are distinct to the one giving the narrative.

In Matthew's narrative, an angel appeared and said "I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here for he has risen." Then they met Jesus.

In Mark's narrative, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Salome went to the tomb and the stone was rolled away and an angel appeared as a man " You seek Jesus of Nazareth. . .he has risen; he is not here. Mark added more information with the addition of Salome with Mary M. and Mary.

In Luke's narrative, he mentions no names but just says earlier "the women" then in the context of which we are speaking says "they found the stone rolled away" and that "they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus." Luke further adds that two men (angels) stood by them and say "He is not here, but has risen."

In John's narrative, two angels appeared to her and she says "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." She then turned around and saw Jesus but she did not recognize him until he said her name.

In all the narratives, she did not know where Jesus was until the angels told her "he is risen" whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke include that in their narrative, John doesn't.

four gospels narrate the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Four men were eyewitnesses to events that occurred.

None of them was an eyewitness to the event of Crucifixion of Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful and righteous Israelite Messiah, please, right?

Regards

 

[Betho_br]

paarsurrey said:
I don't know the Hebrew, kindly, just tell whether Jesus spoke the words on the Cross in Aramaic or not, please, right??


And one's argument for that, please?

Regards

Luke 4:17 Na28
καὶ ἐπεδόθη αὐτῷ βιβλίον τοῦ προφήτου Ἠσαΐου καὶ ἀναπτύξας τὸ βιβλίον εὗρεν τὸν τόπον οὗ ἦν γεγραμμένον·

The Greek verb "εὑρίσκω" (heurisko) and its aorist form "εὗρεν" (heuren) convey the idea of finding, discovering, or coming across something. What makes this word distinctive is its potential for discovery to occur unintentionally, in other words, by chance.

When associated with the famous "Εὕρηκα" (Eureka), attributed to Archimedes, it illustrates the sensation of making an unexpected discovery, often by happenstance. The concept revolves around finding something valuable without a deliberate search or conscious effort.

In the context of Luke 4:17, where Jesus unrolls the scroll of Isaiah and uses the verb "εὗρεν," it suggests that he found the specific passage not because he was actively seeking it but more spontaneously, as if the revelation came to him.

Therefore, the word "εὑρίσκω" not only emphasizes the action of finding but also underscores the potential for surprising discoveries, without prior intention or deliberate search, reflecting the notion of "Eureka" and discoveries by chance. This indicates that Jesus read the manuscripts of the time fluently.

Certainly, this understanding aligns with other passages in the New Testament.

Luke 24:27 Na28
καὶ ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ Μωϋσέως καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν προφητῶν διερμήνευσεν αὐτοῖς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς γραφαῖς τὰ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ.

For instance, in Luke 24:27, it is narrated that Jesus translated the Scriptures, involving at least two of the three prevalent languages of that period, namely Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. This implies that Jesus had a comprehensive understanding of the Scriptures, transcending the linguistic barriers of the time.

It is important to note that Marcion, a second-century Christian leader, although acknowledging some portions of the Gospel of Luke, made a specific selection of texts that aligned with his own theological beliefs, forming the Marcionite canon. Despite this selective acceptance, the fact that Marcion included any portion of the Gospel of Luke can be interpreted as a recognition of the source as legitimate, even though he modified the text to fit his theology.

Simultaneously, other Apostolic Fathers, such as Irenaeus, played a significant role in defending the Gospel of Luke. Irenaeus not only recognized the authenticity of the Gospel of Luke but also quoted and defended it in his works, contributing to the growing consensus among early Christian leaders. While Marcion presented a selective acceptance of the Gospel of Luke, Irenaeus reinforced the position of the gospel as a fundamental part of the Christian canon, emphasizing its validity and importance in the early Christian tradition.

Acts 26:14-15 KJV
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

According to the Book of Acts, Jesus revealed himself to Saul (Paul) in Hebrew.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only thing I can say for a certainty is that these four gospels narrate the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Four men were eyewitnesses to events that occurred. These four men wrote down their accounts. These similar accounts would not be identical to each other because each are distinct to the one giving the narrative.

In Matthew's narrative, an angel appeared and said "I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here for he has risen." Then they met Jesus.

In Mark's narrative, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Salome went to the tomb and the stone was rolled away and an angel appeared as a man " You seek Jesus of Nazareth. . .he has risen; he is not here. Mark added more information with the addition of Salome with Mary M. and Mary.

In Luke's narrative, he mentions no names but just says earlier "the women" then in the context of which we are speaking says "they found the stone rolled away" and that "they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus." Luke further adds that two men (angels) stood by them and say "He is not here, but has risen."

In John's narrative, two angels appeared to her and she says "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." She then turned around and saw Jesus but she did not recognize him until he said her name.

In all the narratives, she did not know where Jesus was until the angels told her "he is risen" whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke include that in their narrative, John doesn't.

If you think it's only a matter of different perspectives on the the same truth, I invite you to try Dan Barker's Easter Challenge:

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

[...]

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

Leave No Stone Unturned: An Easter Challenge For Christians by Dan Barker (August 2000)

By Dan Barker An Easter Challenge For Christians I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking

ffrf.org

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

According to the Book of Acts, Jesus revealed himself to Saul (Paul) in Hebrew.

Is this intended as a casual observation or as evidence for something?

Parenthetically, I've always found it interesting that the Tanakh references to the New Testament show a heavy reliance on the LXX rather than the MT. I would have thought that the Son of God would have spoken to Paul in Koine Greek if only as a courtesy.​