Biblical Contradictions

[Vadergirl123]

The gospels are not stories, they are eye witness accounts. As with all eye witness accounts even in a courtroom setting different people see and highlight different details of the same event. This observation of different details by different observers gives a more complete picture of what took place and rather than discredit the accounts shows authenticity.

I agree 100%

 

[Vadergirl123]

Maybe John and Luke just omitted the mention of the other angels and the marching band.

Now if one of the accounts mentioned a marching band or extra angels then I'd see what you're getting at. But why should I believe soemthing that's NOT mentioned in ANY of the accounts. None of them mention a marching band or more than two angels...so there's NO REASON to believe there were four angels or a marching band.

Sorry, Vadergirl. I don't mean to be cruel or make fun of you, but I do disagree that omission is okay in some circumstances but not in others. It's inconsistent. It's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole or make the results of an experiment fit the hypothesis. It's wrong.

I don't think you're being cruel. You've brought up some good points.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Those 12 witnesses aren't inspired by God like the writers of the bible were, ...

How do you know the writers of the bible - whoever they might have been - were inspired by God?

 

[Vadergirl123]

How do you know the writers of the bible - whoever they might have been - were inspired by God?

Do you mind if I just message you my answer?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you mind if I just message you my answer?

Not at all.

 

[sojourner]

I'm talking about the resurrection accounts NOT the entire gospels

Discussing the resurrection accounts would be like discussing chapters in a novel. the pericope of the resurrection is but a section of a much larger story. They have to be talked about in context of the rest of their stories.

You also didn't say WHICH theological message I was ruining in the resurrection account?

Which resurrection account? (There are four).

You don't, and can't know for sure that the resurrection didn't happen

Whether it actually happened or not is of no consequence to what we're discussing. What we're discussing are stories about the resurrection -- not the resurrection itself.

The story doesn't end there

It does for Mark -- hence, the contradiction.

If one person decides to end my day at 4 P.M and not mention anything else does that mean NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED during the rest of the day. Does it eman my day was DONE??

It represents a contradiction between what was told and what "actually happened."
So, the question remains, which gospel account (if any) accurately describe "what actually happened?" I contend that none of them do, and that the details contradict each other.

What I posted about the resurrection account fit together into a cohesive story based on the accounts.

Unfortunately, your story isn't the same as any of their stories. In fact, it contradicts all of them.

Again how does my combining the accounts ruin the theology of the resurrection?

My dear, it's not the theology of the resurrection we're talking about. It's the theology of the entire gospel account that we're talking about (of which the resurrection pericope is part).

I'm not talking about the WHOLE book of Mark, I'm talking about the resurection account, and how the gospels don't present contradicting views.

and that's what's messing you up. You can't take part of a whole story, glom it together with pieces parts of other stories, create a Frankenstein's monster, and then say that "it doesn't present contradicting views." Of course it doesn't, because you've bastardized four perfectly good stories to create one of your own that presents your view. In this day and age, we call that "plagiarism." And just plain bad scholarship. In the meantime, Mark's POV, Matthew's POV, Luke's POV and John's POV are completely lost in the ensuing "Vadergirl soup."

 

[sojourner]

This is the problem with treating the gospel stories as if they were factual accounts, instead of stories. When you do that, you then have to weigh the veracity of each account to see whether Mark or John is "wrong." But what actually happened is that each gospel writer used sources -- most likely oral ones -- in order to craft a theological story about the life of Jesus (as opposed to a factual biography of Jesus). Each writer has a theological idea that he wishes to put forth, so he crafts the details of the story in order to highlight that agenda. If you glom details together from various sources in order to "make 'the story' work," you lose the individual character and message of each individual gospel story, in some vain pursuit of "factual detatails." The writes all wrote different stories that do contradict each other somewhat.

You'll notice the same thing in the OT. The most obvious is Gen. 1 and 2. Instead of glomming together details of two separate stories in order to dream up one story with no contradictions, the redactors simply posted both stories side-by-side -- even though they contradict each other, as well as known scientific fact. They did this because they felt it was important to preserve all the Tradition, not just something made up that "fits."

 

[Vadergirl123]

Discussing the resurrection accounts would be like discussing chapters in a novel. the pericope of the resurrection is but a section of a much larger story. They have to be talked about in context of the rest of their stories.

No it's not like that. If you had four different books(that ALL told the same story) and each one had a chapter that talked about the SAME event then you could look at those chapters and combine them b/c they talk about the same thing.

Which resurrection account? (There are four).

There's one account. Jesus rose from the dead ONCE. However what do you think the "Four" theological messages are that I'm "ruining?"

Whether it actually happened or not is of no consequence to what we're discussing. What we're discussing are stories about the resurrection -- not the resurrection itself.

Yes it is of consequence. You look at the resurrection account and seem to think Jesus died four times and that something different happened at each of those times. I look at the resurrection account as an actual event which was recorded in all the gospels, and each event tells soemthing taht happened on that day.

It represents a contradiction between what was told and what "actually happened."
So, the question remains, which gospel account (if any) accurately describe "what actually happened?" I contend that none of them do, and that the details contradict each other.

The contraditcions don't remain, and I'm growing tired of saying the same thing over and over. What I posted by combining the four accounts DIDN'T contradict each other. In fact you KEEP pointing to Mark. I KEEP telling you Mark just chose not to write about what happened after the women were afraid, and you KEEP insisting that the resurrection account ends with the women, which it didn't.

Unfortunately, your story isn't the same as any of their stories. In fact, it contradicts all of them.

My post is a COMBINATION of the four stories, and if the did "contradict" I wouldn't have even been able to combine them. And the only contradiction you keep pointing to is Mark 16:8.

My dear, it's not the theology of the resurrection we're talking about. It's the theology of the entire gospel account that we're talking about (of which the resurrection pericope is part).

I'm talking about the resurrection account. That's all I've been talking about. So, again, please tell me how my combining the four accounts contradicts the resurrectiona ccount???

and that's what's messing you up. You can't take part of a whole story, glom it together with pieces parts of other stories, create a Frankenstein's monster, and then say that "it doesn't present contradicting views." Of course it doesn't, because you've bastardized four perfectly good stories to create one of your own that presents your view. In this day and age, we call that "plagiarism." And just plain bad scholarship. In the meantime, Mark's POV, Matthew's POV, Luke's POV and John's POV are completely lost in the ensuing "Vadergirl soup."

I took ONE account and showed how it was cohesive. If you were to actually take a bible and follow along you'd probably see that. The accounts all start at the same time,a nd they talk about the same thing. Christ's resurrection. I don't understand why you keep telling me I can't combine them because it ruins the story. I gave you the May 18th analogy to try to help yu see how the stories work. Did you even read over it? DO you think it's wrong for someone to combine different accounts of things that happen on the same day??

 

[Vadergirl123]

No. 100 Did Jesus say before the bird crows or before the bird crows twice? So this isn't a contradiction. If a bird crows twice it's still crowing. Matt, Mark, and Luke say, "crow" John says, "crow twice." Matthew, Mark, and Luke just chose not to say the exact number of crows the bird would do. John, however chose to say the exact number. There's no contradiction.

 

[Vadergirl123]

No. 101 Did Jesus ask God to save him from crucifixion? In Matthew, Mark, and Luke He prays basically"Lord if it be your will let this cup pass, but not what I will but what you will." Jesus knows he's going to die, however he choses to pray to his father in his anguish. In the passage in John( a few days before the passover) he tells his disciples that he came "for this hour" There's no contradiction here.

 

[Vadergirl123]

No. 106 Who carried Christ's cross? In Matt, Mark, and Luke it says Symon carried it, and in John it implies Jesus carried his own cross. The answer is both. There's no reason to not believe he carried his own cross some of the way and then Symon carried it. There's no contradiction.

 

[Vadergirl123]

No. 130 Did Jesus drink on the cross? John says he drank a "spunge filled with vinegar." Mark says they gave him, "wine mingled with myrrh." However he didn't drink it. These are different drinks he drank the one with vinegar and didn't drink the wine. These aren't a contradiction

 

[Vadergirl123]

No. 149 When was Eve created? Genesis 1:27 it says, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them." And in Genesis 2:20-22 It talks about Adam giving names to the animals and when he fell asleep, God created woman(Eve) from his rib. There's no contradiction in these verses. The first verse is just an overview of God creating both man and woman. Genesis 2:20-22 talks about the process in depth.

 

[Vadergirl123]

No. 168 How long did the flood last? Genesis 7:17 says the flood was, "forty days upon the earth." Genesis 7:24 and Genesis 8:3 say the waster prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days(7:24) and after the end of the 150 days were abated(8:3) The writer of Genesis isn't saying the flood waters had receded by forty days, that's how long it rained(vs 4&12 of chapter 7) This verse just says that the "flood was forty days upon the earth." the waters didn't start to recede, or be abated, until the end of 150 days(8:3)

Looking Unto Jesus - How long did the flood last? - Limestone Church of Christ, Kingston, Ontario, Standing for New Testament Christianity, Bible, faith, Bible study, word of God, Christianity, Christian, church, truth, atheism, answers, gospel, salv

 

[Vadergirl123]

No. 167 How long was the Ark afloat? Genesis 8:4 says the ark" rested in the 17th day of the 7th month, on the mountains of Ararat. Genesis 8:5 says, "The waters decreased continually until the tenth month, on the first day of the tenth month were the tops of the mountains seen." It's quite possible for a boat can get snagged on something, which is hidden under the water's surface, and since there's the possibility it could have this isn't a definite contradiction.

Looking Unto Jesus - How long was the ark afloat? - Limestone Church of Christ, Kingston, Ontario, Standing for New Testament Christianity, Bible, faith, Bible study, word of God, Christianity, Christian, church, truth, atheism, answers, gospel, salv

 

[mycorrhiza]

While not a contradiction between different verses, here's a logical contradiction in the Genesis account.

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the first day."

"And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so."

How was there day and night before the Sun?

 

[Vadergirl123]

While not a contradiction between different verses, here's a logical contradiction in the Genesis account.How was there day and night before the Sun?

I'll look into it ..my immediate answer is that God's able to keep track of time and the earth was still rotating even though there wasn't a sun yet.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Define day and night...

Day and night as in day and night. I don't think that they need to be defined as we all have surely seen both day and night. Genesis already defines it. The portion of the day that is bright is "day" and the portion of the day that is dark is "night". Regular days and nights.

 

[Vadergirl123]

here's a logical contradiction in the Genesis account.How was there day and night before the Sun?

Here's a link, which gives a good explanation
Sunlight Before the Sun

 

[sojourner]

No it's not like that. If you had four different books(that ALL told the same story) and each one had a chapter that talked about the SAME event then you could look at those chapters and combine them b/c they talk about the same thing.

They're not telling the same story, though. They're telling different stories. That's what I'm trying to get across to you.

There's one account.

There are four.

Jesus rose from the dead ONCE.

And for different people wrote four different stories, based on several different sources.

However what do you think the "Four" theological messages are that I'm "ruining?"

That's not the topic here, and if we begin, it will derail this topic.

Yes it is of consequence. You look at the resurrection account and seem to think Jesus died four times and that something different happened at each of those times.

No, I'm simply looking at four completely different stories about the resurrection of Jesus, as told by four different people.

I look at the resurrection account as an actual event which was recorded in all the gospels, and each event tells soemthing taht happened on that day.

Except that -- once again -- these aren't factual accounts (as we think of them). They are stories.

The contraditcions don't remain, and I'm growing tired of saying the same thing over and over. What I posted by combining the four accounts DIDN'T contradict each other. In fact you KEEP pointing to Mark. I KEEP telling you Mark just chose not to write about what happened after the women were afraid, and you KEEP insisting that the resurrection account ends with the women, which it didn't.

There is no "one resurrection account" -- except what you've made up out of whole cloth. There are four separate resurrection pericopae, each part of a larger story. According to Mark, the story ends there. (Who are you to refute what one of the bible writers actually says???) According to Matthew, it doesn't end there. Whatever happened, we have to take each story on its own merits -- separately -- because each story is a separate story, written by four separate people, who did not collaborate with each other. To treat the stories as collaboration is to treat them falsely. If you wanna talk about Matthew, talk about Matthew. But don't drag Mark into that particular discussion. It does no real good to talk about any resurrection account out of the context of its parent gospel.

My post is a COMBINATION of the four stories, and if the did "contradict" I wouldn't have even been able to combine them.

It's a false combination, as I've repeatedly shown.

I'm talking about the resurrection account. That's all I've been talking about. So, again, please tell me how my combining the four accounts contradicts the resurrectiona ccount???

Did you read what you wrote? "...my combining the four accounts contradicts the resurrection account?" How can you have "accounts" and account?" Answer: You can't.
There are four gospels and, therefore, four accounts of resurrection. Creating one account out of four accounts is wrong.

You're doing it again here:

I took ONE account ... The accounts all start at the same time

Honey, you're confused. You don't know whether you're dealing with one account or four. How can you possibly be able to analyze that which you can't understand well enough to be able to tell if it is singular or plural???

DO you think it's wrong for someone to combine different accounts of things that happen on the same day??

Yes, I do -- for reasons I've more than adequately laid out.