Biblical Contradictions

[sojourner]

Well for the sake of the analogy we'll say there is no source(obviously we'd have sources that show what the president ate) And it doesn't matter if they both don't include the same thing. Maybe I just don't see what the president ate for dessert as that improtant to my overall report. And there's a possibility that the other writer doesn't see the president eating cheese pizza as that improtant to his overall report.

And so they write two conflicting accounts that contradict each other.

 

[Melki]

Do not be afraid that this discounts what happened. Every police officer knows that if 12 people witness a traffic accident, an investigation will reveal 12 different versions of what happened. No one doubts the accident happened even though human failings may produce different viewpoints of the event itself.

No I'm not afraid, as I said I couldn't find it. I searched it, someone show me a link or something, but I don't read wikipedia, cause it used creative commons the license is just too long and has so many version. I prefer sites that are original and has user friendly licenses.

 

[Road Warrior]

Try checking the references at the bottom. The best way to check out the veracity of an article on Wiki is the number and quality of references detailed at the bottom. However, if you don't want to read it, that is your choice.

 

[Vadergirl123]

No I'm not afraid, as I said I couldn't find it. I searched it, someone show me a link or something, but I don't read wikipedia, cause it used creative commons the license is just too long and has so many version. I prefer sites that are original and has user friendly licenses.

Here's a link that talks about the bible as a whole(It's very informative and I enjoyed it), They mention some of the Mark ending at the very end. Just scroll down History of the Bible: How The Bible Came To Us

 

[tumbleweed41]

For Vadergirl123,

In another thread you indicated some ignorance on what was in the Bible, particularly the OT.

Have you began reading the Bible yet?

 

[Me Myself]

Mark doesn't FINISH the story. Yes the women were afraid and didn't tell anyone. But according to Matthew Jesus meets up with them and tells them they don't have to be afraid and to go tell his disciples( then they obey him). Did you follow along in the bible with the verse references? It's NOT a contradiction...it's just leaving a cliffhangar that the other accounts adress.

Completely 100% wrong .

I n mathew they were already GOING to tell the other disciples when they founf Jesus in the way. So still a copmlete and blatant contradiction. In Mathew they were going to tell the disciples, in mark they told no one. Actually, in Mark the angel had already told them that they shouldn´t be afriad, yet it says they were afraid and told no one what happened.

Furthermore, in Mark they were wondering who was going to remove the stone from the tomb, and WHEN THEY LOOKED it was ALREADY removed. this copmletely contradicts Mathew in which THEY SAW how the angel removed the stone from the tomb. Furthermore, in Mathew they leave ad "the instant" after they saw the angel, so they wouldn´t be able to have been inside the tomb, given that they saw the angels when removing the rock. In luke, the rock was also already removed when they got there, and they found the angels inside, not outside the one angel removing the rock but inside wo angels talking to them.

Furthermore, in John, when they speak to Simon WITHOUT having talked to the angel NOR Jesus they say to him "they took the body of ourlord and WE DONT KNOW where they put it". If they had talked already with Jesus before talking to Peter, they would know Jesus was already alive and walking and would have said that. this was not the ¡case in John, because it is copmletely different to the others.

So as you see, the contradiction persists.

 

[kellykep]

In any case, I would like to think that none of the desciples of Jesus was with the women who, along with Mary (Magdalene), went to the tomb to annoint His body on the resurrection morning.
Nonetheless, what is written of the resurrection is an account of these women told to the desciples who also had some personal encounters with the angels and Jesus after His resurrection.
It is also stated in the Bible that Jesus was not resurrected alone. Other saints in the tombs in the cemetary in which He was laid also rose with Him. They also told of the occasion of resurrection. It must have been a very bewildering and astounding experience for the general public in Jerusalem at that time and in the subsequent days. What is intriguing here is the finding that this very public commotion that was ensuing after the resurrection morning somehow could not find a haven somewhere in the historical records of the Jews and Romans. Not even Gibbons or other historians could tell us that this very public event had ever occured.
Or could it be that the bible is telling a story very contrary to what the clergy and the government of the day would want to have us believe in the aftermath of resurrection? If this is so, then I presume that we are seeing the contradictions of the gospels because:
1. The bible has been tempered with in alot of ways and
2. one evidence of this could be the contradictions found in the bible including the contradictions of the Gospels.

I wonder....

 

[kellykep]

In any case, I would like to think that none of the desciples of Jesus was with the women who, along with Mary (Magdalene), went to the tomb to annoint His body on the resurrection morning.
Nonetheless, what is written of the resurrection is an account of these women told to the desciples who also had some personal encounters with the angels and Jesus after His resurrection.
It is also stated in the Bible that Jesus was not resurrected alone. Other saints in the tombs in the cemetary in which He was laid also rose with Him. They also told of the occasion of resurrection. It must have been a very bewildering and astounding experience for the general public in Jerusalem at that time and in the subsequent days. What is intriguing here is the finding that this very public commotion that was ensuing after the resurrection morning somehow could not find a haven somewhere in the historical records of the Jews and Romans. Not even Gibbons or other historians could tell us that this very public event had ever occured.
Or could it be that the bible is telling a story very contrary to what the clergy and the government of the day would want to have us believe in the aftermath of resurrection? If this is so, then I presume that we are seeing the contradictions of the gospels because:
1. The bible has been tempered with in alot of ways and
2. one evidence of this could be the contradictions found in the bible including the contradictions of the Gospels.

I wonder....

 

[Vadergirl123]

For Vadergirl123,

In another thread you indicated some ignorance on what was in the Bible, particularly the OT.

Have you began reading the Bible yet?

I didn't say I was "ignorant" I said I hadn't finished some of the OT. I study the bible everyday, but no I'm not finished with the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and a few of the prophets

 

[Vadergirl123]

Actually, in Mark the angel had already told them that they shouldn´t be afriad, yet it says they were afraid and told no one what happened.

The angel didn't ease their fears, Jesus did.

Furthermore, in Mark they were wondering who was going to remove the stone from the tomb, and WHEN THEY LOOKED it was ALREADY removed. this copmletely contradicts Mathew in which THEY SAW how the angel removed the stone from the tomb.

Matthew DOESN'T SAY the women saw the stone being removed.

they found the angels inside, not outside the one angel removing the rock but inside wo angels talking to them.

There were a total of two angels, the one outside went inside the tomb sometime after removing teh stone, andbefore the women came.

Furthermore, in John, when they speak to Simon

Mary's the only ONE who talked with Simon and the other disciple(John 20). The rest of the women stayed at the tomb. Mary didn't hear what the angels said b/c she wasn't there. Had she been there she would've explained to Peter and the other disciple what had happened to his body.

 

[Vadergirl123]

1. The bible has been tempered with in alot of ways and
2. one evidence of this could be the contradictions found in the bible including the contradictions of the Gospels.

I wonder....

Okay and again this page is for biblical contradictions, if you want to talk with me about how you believe the bible is a false book then please PM me. I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

 

[kellykep]

Okay and again this page is for biblical contradictions, if you want to talk with me about how you believe the bible is a false book then please PM me. I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

Ok. I was just trying to make you see that this exercise is futile. I'm sorry. There is no place for contradictions or corroborating contradictions, etc, in the bible. Only convictions and repentence. This is brought about by the Holy Spirit - the same agent responsible for inspiring the words of the Bible.

 

[tumbleweed41]

For Vadergirl123,

In another thread you indicated some ignorance on what was in the Bible, particularly the OT.

Have you began reading the Bible yet?

I didn't say I was "ignorant" I said I hadn't finished some of the OT. I study the bible everyday, but no I'm not finished with the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and a few of the prophets

And I never said that you said you were ignorant. You have, however, indicated some ignorance of what is contained in the Bible.

And even now you use apologetics websites to attempt to discredit claims of discrepancies while at the same time admitting a lack of knowledge of half of the OT.

 

[Jove]

So I'm going to attempt to refute the 463 contraditcions in this linkSAB Contradictions It'll probably take awhile so please bear with me

Start with an important one…is Jesus god or man……good luck, you will need it.

 

[Jove]

And I never said that you said you were ignorant. You have, however, indicated some ignorance of what is contained in the Bible.

And even now you use apologetics websites to attempt to discredit claims of discrepancies while at the same time admitting a lack of knowledge of half of the OT.

Ignorance is not an insult….I am ignorant to a great many things, as I am not claiming to be anyone’s god, or have access to gods’ will and or desires…run from those that claim otherwise, they are sworn to kill you if you don’t acknowledge the god in them…dangerous those little Christians.

 

[sojourner]

Ignorance is not an insult….I am ignorant to a great many things, as I am not claiming to be anyone’s god, or have access to gods’ will and or desires…run from those that claim otherwise, they are sworn to kill you if you don’t acknowledge the god in them…dangerous those little Christians.

Wha...???

 

[Quagmire]

[FONT=&quot]I contend that they are eyewitness accounts and the historical reliability of the scriptures and the scriptures themselves support this.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]“The internal evidence supports these early dates for several reasons. The first three Gospels prophesied the fall of the Jerusalem Temple which occurred in A.D. 70. However, the fulfillment is not mentioned. It is strange that these three Gospels predict this major event but do not record it happening. . ."

Not strange at all: the Gospel Narrative only deals with events within the time-frame immediately following the crucifixion. The authors would have had to jump ahead almost 30 years to mention the actual destruction of the temple.

 

[InChrist]

Not strange at all: the Gospel Narrative only deals with events within the time-frame immediately following the crucifixion. The authors would have had to jump ahead almost 30 years to mention the actual destruction of the temple.

[FONT=&quot]Matthew, Mark, and Luke all contain the prophetic words of Jesus concerning the destruction of the temple and other last day prophetic information. The gospels give a significant amount of attention to the crucifixion/ resurrection, but they are not limited to this event or time frame. The writers often highlighted fulfilled prophecies. Something as significant as the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophetic words concerning the temple would have surely been shown. Not to mention that an event as major and important as the temple’s destruction would have been included in the gospel narratives, if it had occurred before or while the gospels were written. It would not have been jumping ahead if it was an event which had already taken place. The fact that it isn’t mentioned at all is a very good indication that the destruction of the temple had not yet happened and that the gospels were written before 70 A.D.[/FONT]

 

[mycorrhiza]

[FONT=&quot]The fact that it isn’t mentioned at all is a very good indication that the destruction of the temple had not yet happened and that the gospels were written before 70 A.D.[/FONT]

I would say that it isn't. Since they all stop shortly after the ressurection, adding a "btw, the temple actually was destroyed 40 years later" would break the style of the gospels.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

[FONT=&quot]The fact that it isn’t mentioned at all is a very good indication that the destruction of the temple had not yet happened and that the gospels were written before 70 A.D.[/FONT]