Alleged Contradictions in the Bible

SkyBlade · Mar 17, 2013

shturt678 said:
As far as the Malefactor goes: Lk.23:43, "....today in company with me shalt be in the Paradise!" contextually and grammatically v.43 taken in context with v.42, "...when thou comest in connection with thy Kingdom!" meaning at the consummatiokn, no time concept, again remove the capital "T" from the A.V.

Far as Jesus goes: Jn.19:30 where Jesus, being both man and God had both spiritand soul, the immaterial part of Jesus. In the death of Jesus his human soul or spirit was separated from his body just as this separation takes place in our death.

The death of Jesus took place entirely in his human nature and in no way affected the union of the Logos with his human nature

Thank you

Zeleste · Mar 17, 2013

Jesus did not have two natures: human and divine.
In the cross did not die half of Jesus (the human half).

Achilles6129 · Mar 17, 2013

jd01 said:
Well it is a researched and fact based view as opposed to a supernatural view.

Not at all. I would say if you study the Bible and are impartial, intellectually speaking, you would come to the conclusion that it is true based upon fulfilled prophecy inside of the Bible.

jd01 said:
I am not sure that is the traditional view.

So according to your position then if there is a single contradiction in the least of the books then the Bible in its entirety could not be divinely inspired? If this were true then what would the Bible be?

Insofar as I am aware, it is the traditional view. Correct, if there is a single genuine contradiction in the Bible obviously it is not divinely inspired. But we're claiming that the original autographs (which we don't possess) were divinely inspired - not their copies. So contradictions could creep in throughout the millenia based on transmissional errors. However, I have not found one single genuine contradiction inside of the Scriptures.

SkyBlade said:
This is a great idea for a thread

Thanks.

SkyBlade said:
I have a question. Luke 23:39-43 tells about Jesus's hanging on the cross and how two criminals were next to him. One of them, who defends Jesus, says, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom" and Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." We knw that Jesus dies and rises again on the third day, then spends 40 more days on earth before going back. So when he says "Today you will be with me in paradise", is He referring to God the Father, since God is three-in-one?

Very good question. The answer has to do with how the text was originally written in Greek. The text was originally without punctuation marks; these were added later as they were translated or copied where scribes saw fit. Hence, Christ is really saying: "Verily I say unto you today, you shall be with me in paradise." It is a simply matter of a comma placed in the wrong position.

Zeleste said:
Acording to the Gospels, Jesus ministry extenden for litle more than 2 years. probably 1 or 2 moths longer than 2 years. That is for sure.

The Gospels also acount an exactly 3 times repeat of the teachings.

According to John it was at least 3 years since he records 3 passovers (Jn. 2:23, Jn. 6:4, Jn. 12:1).

Zeleste said:
Jew, Greek, Romans and absolutely all civilizations of the I century used the same reckon time. That is obvious in all John Gospel where we confirm John is using exactly the same time of the other Gospels.

This is not true. Romans used a different method to reckon time:

heritagebbc\archive1\0043.html

Remember one important thing. The Jews reckoned their time of day from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.. The Roman time was reckoned from midnight to noon to midnight, the same as we do today. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all use the Jewish time; whereas, John uses the Roman time. From John 18:28 to 19:15, Christ had been all night before Pilate and it was "about the sixth hour" (i.e. the Roman time of 6 a.m. in the morning.). Then, in John 19:16, Christ was delivered to be crucified. Now Matthew 27:45,46; Mark 15:33,34 and Luke 23:42-46 all record, in harmony, that Christ is on the cross at the sixth hour, which would be twelve oclock noon in Jewish time. (The sixth hour from the Jewish beginning of day at 6 a.m. would be noon.)

Jewish or Roman Time- Which

2. In John 19:14 we are told that Jesus was before Pilate for trial at the sixth hour. But in Mark 15:25 we are told that it was the third hour when he was crucified. The explanation is simple: John described the events by using the Roman time while Mark, who wrote much earlier, described the same events by using Jewish time. Otherwise there is a contradiction and Jesus was crucified before he was tried. Actually he was before Pilate at about 6: 00 A.M. and crucified at about 9: 00 A.M. If one does not recognize this principle, there is no sensible explanation possible.
TRUTH MAGAZINE, XV: 9, p. 12
January 7, 1971

Zeleste said:
HOW JOHN COUNT HOURS IN HIS GOSPEL

39He said unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
The tenth hour will be 4pm

The tenth hour will be either 10 AM or 10 PM.

Zeleste said:
6Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.
The sixth hour is noon

The sixth hour will be either 6 AM or 6 PM.

Zeleste said:
52Then inquired he of them the hour when he began to mend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.
The seventh hour is 1pm

The seventh hour will be either 7 AM or 7 PM.

Zeleste said:
14And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he said unto the Jews, Behold your King!
The sixth hour is noon

The sixth hour will be either about 6 AM or 6 PM. We know it was about 6 AM (perhaps 6:30 AM or so).

A Brief History of Roman Time

The Roman civil day was the same one familiar to us, a 24-hour day beginning at midnight.[1] The early Romans differed from other ancient societies in their choice of midnight to mark the start of the day: Greeks marked the day beginning from sunset, Babylonians from sunrise.[2]

Zeleste · Mar 17, 2013

Achilles6129 said:
According to John it was at least 3 years since he records 3 passovers (Jn. 2:23, Jn. 6:4, Jn. 12:1).

According to John it was a little more than two years since he records 3 passovers.

Zeleste · Mar 17, 2013

Achilles6129 said:
This is not true. Romans used a different method to reckon time:

heritagebbc\archive1\0043.html

Jewish or Roman Time- Which

The tenth hour will be either 10 AM or 10 PM.

The sixth hour will be either 6 AM or 6 PM.

The seventh hour will be either 7 AM or 7 PM.

The sixth hour will be either about 6 AM or 6 PM. We know it was about 6 AM (perhaps 6:30 AM or so).

A Brief History of Roman Time

What you are saying is not true.

The only difference of roman time and jew time is the next:
Roman count dates as we do, from midnight to midnight, while jew count dates from sunset to sunset.
Romans divide the night into 4 sectios, while jew divided into 3 sections.

a Roman is like this:
3rd section of night (vigilia in spanish)
4rd section of night
1st hour
2nd hour
...
...
sixth hour (that is noon, the time of the nap, the so called "siesta" from the latin "sista" meaning sixth)
7th hour
...
...
12th Hour
1st vigila
2nd vigilia

From senrise to sunset, the hours count exactly the same.

everything else is a invention of christians trying to explain the problem of times concerning the cross. all are lies invented for christians. christians defende the True (Christ) by mean of lies.

Zeleste · Mar 17, 2013

HOW JOHN COUNT HOURS IN HIS GOSPEL

39He said unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
The tenth hour will be 4pm. It was not 10 pm. We can not imagine Jesus and the disciples arriving back home that late in the absolute darkness of the night.

6Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.
The sixth hour is noon. It was not 6pm. The disciples went to get something to eat at noon, and Jesus was thirsty.

52Then inquired he of them the hour when he began to mend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.
The seventh hour is 1pm. The cure did not happes 7 am or 7 pm.

9Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walks in the day, he stumbles not, because he sees the light of this world.
The day count 12 hours from sunrise to sunset. There is not other explanation.

14And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he said unto the Jews, Behold your King!
The sixth hour is noon. It is impossible for meaning 6 am, and neither 6pm. At 6am Jesus was brought to the High Priest. At 6pm dont match with a crucifixion by 9am.

THIS IS HOW JOHN COUNT HOURS IN HIS GOSPEL

shturt678 · Mar 17, 2013

Achilles6129 said:
Not at all. I would say if you study the Bible and are impartial, intellectually speaking, you would come to the conclusion that it is true based upon fulfilled prophecy inside of the Bible.

Insofar as I am aware, it is the traditional view. Correct, if there is a single genuine contradiction in the Bible obviously it is not divinely inspired. But we're claiming that the original autographs (which we don't possess) were divinely inspired - not their copies. So contradictions could creep in throughout the millenia based on transmissional errors. However, I have not found one single genuine contradiction inside of the Scriptures.

Thanks.

Very good question. The answer has to do with how the text was originally written in Greek. The text was originally without punctuation marks; these were added later as they were translated or copied where scribes saw fit. Hence, Christ is really saying: "Verily I say unto you today, you shall be with me in paradise." It is a simply matter of a comma placed in the wrong position.

According to John it was at least 3 years since he records 3 passovers (Jn. 2:23, Jn. 6:4, Jn. 12:1).

This is not true. Romans used a different method to reckon time:

heritagebbc\archive1\0043.html

Jewish or Roman Time- Which

The tenth hour will be either 10 AM or 10 PM.

The sixth hour will be either 6 AM or 6 PM.

The seventh hour will be either 7 AM or 7 PM.

The sixth hour will be either about 6 AM or 6 PM. We know it was about 6 AM (perhaps 6:30 AM or so).

A Brief History of Roman Time

According to the text-critical works that I accessed + contextually with v.41, the A.V. is on the money just removing the capital "T" ... "Amen, I say to thee, today in company with me shalt thou be in the Paradise! as interpreted in my earlier post?

No correction, just trying to work with you.

Rheard22 · Mar 18, 2013

I believe that's what the other poster was stating about sin.

jd01 · Mar 20, 2013

Achilles6129 said:
Not at all. I would say if you study the Bible and are impartial, intellectually speaking, you would come to the conclusion that it is true based upon fulfilled prophecy inside of the Bible.

Sorry I don't follow that argument. Someone help me out here.

Achilles6129 said:
Correct, if there is a single genuine contradiction in the Bible obviously it is not divinely inspired. But we're claiming that the original autographs (which we don't possess) were divinely inspired - not their copies. So contradictions could creep in throughout the millenia based on transmissional errors. However, I have not found one single genuine contradiction inside of the Scriptures.

Well if you do not have the originals how can you claim there are no contradictions? What errors have crept in? Such as the Matthew and Luke difference in the year Jesus was born?

shturt678 · Mar 20, 2013

Achilles6129 came through again regarding "But we're claiming that the original autographs (which we don't possess) were divinely inspired - not their copies." A Clint Eastwood thing "make my day," and Achilles6129 sure did wrapping up my day.

Making a point only, after completing required "Summer's Essential of N.T. Greek then followed up completing with "Mounce" & "Daniel Wallace," omitting required Hebrew, One thing both stated repeatedly and have always remembered, from them, not me: "Always interpret from the ancient languages FOREWORD (I use the upper case part) to the English." My right hand man, e.g., Mr. A.T Robertson even stated something similar, forget exact wording. MY POINT:

IIPet.1:20, 21 using this approach, their is not one discrepancy, from the minors to the majors, that cannot be reconciled where all passages comport with each other concluding that the over 40 writers MUST OF HAD ONLY ONE AUTHOR, i.e., God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Even insignificant me haven't found one discrepancy that was not able to be reconciled for over, almost, three decades.

shturt678 · Mar 20, 2013

Achilles6129 came through again regarding "But we're claiming that the original autographs (which we don't possess) were divinely inspired - not their copies." A Clint Eastwood thing "make my day," and Achilles6129 sure did wrapping up my day.

Making a point only, after completing required "Summer's Essential of N.T. Greek then followed up completing with "Mounce" & "Daniel Wallace," omitting required Hebrew, One thing both stated repeatedly and have always remembered, from them, not me: "Always interpret from the ancient languages FOREWORD (I use the upper case part) to the English." My right hand man, e.g., Mr. A.T Robertson even stated something similar, forget exact wording. MY POINT:

IIPet.1:20, 21 using this approach, their is not one discrepancy, from the minors to the majors, that cannot be reconciled where all passages comport with each other concluding that the over 40 writers MUST OF HAD ONLY ONE AUTHOR, i.e., God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Even insignificant me haven't found one discrepancy that was not able to be reconciled for over, almost, three decades.

Achilles6129 · Mar 21, 2013

jd01 said:
Sorry I don't follow that argument. Someone help me out here.

Fulfilled prophecy obviously proves the Bible true.

jd01 said:
Well if you do not have the originals how can you claim there are no contradictions? What errors have crept in? Such as the Matthew and Luke difference in the year Jesus was born?

I would argue that there are no contradictions even in the present text. I was making a point about divine inspiration. There is no question that a very, very small amount of corruption has crept into the text (e.g., Alexandrian manuscripts, Western manuscripts, Byzantine manuscripts, etc.). But NT scholars say that they can reconstruct approx. 97-99% of the original NT. Also, no doctrine is really affected by the corruptions (with the exception perhaps of fasting).

So I would claim that there are no contradictions anyways.

shturt678 · Mar 21, 2013

Just a little 'moreover,' not condemning the modern English translated Bibles after 1901, ASV, RV, and the K.J.V. are the three that I use, as they are 97-99% on the money compared the the original, using the Primary order of pre-4th century Papyri and Uncials .... "How I found the Lord, or better yet, how He found me" via N.K.J.V., long ago," then later learned the ancient languages, along with the ancient manuscripts, my point, God's power is definitely, more than enough, in the Bible translations as great "aids" in understanding the original inspired structure of thoughts. Not really saying anything new, just in other words leading to the following:

First and foremost heartfully realizing that the English language contains a veiled paradox in that we can communicate the contents of Bible translations in unity, , yet extremely diverse in interpretations. Again, going from the ancient languages FORWARD to the Bible translations narrows down the "interpretations" to the point of only having a few to work with, resulting in the one true interpretation by the Holy Spirit, e.g., I'm still working on Rev.4:6b A.V. "beasts," along with many other passages, e.g., Gen.1:1 forward narrowing down to to just a few workable interpretations.

Almost 3 decades could meet with others at the local MacDonalds and kick around different interpretations with others of different denominations, today, each thinks they have the one true interpretation .... my point:

Try and find the one true interpretation of Rev.13:14b?

jd01 · Mar 23, 2013

Achilles6129 said:
Fulfilled prophecy obviously proves the Bible true.

The Koran also has fulfilled prophecy. So it is true also?
Joseph Smith made a series of prophecies that came true so the Book of Mormon is true?

Achilles6129 said:
I would argue that there are no contradictions even in the present text. I was making a point about divine inspiration. There is no question that a very, very small amount of corruption has crept into the text (e.g., Alexandrian manuscripts, Western manuscripts, Byzantine manuscripts, etc.). But NT scholars say that they can reconstruct approx. 97-99% of the original NT. Also, no doctrine is really affected by the corruptions (with the exception perhaps of fasting).

So I would claim that there are no contradictions anyways.

Hold on, earlier you said there were no contradictions and now there are? So there are contradictions but they don't affect doctrine? If Luke and Matthew cannot agree on the birth of Christ how can they be divinely inspired?

shturt678 · Mar 23, 2013

Just my two-bits: There are but a very few discrepancies with the pre-1902 English translated Bibles, as great aids in understanding the ancient languages; However there are innumerable discrepancies regarding "interpreting" the " 97-99%", correct translations, (thank you, using your numbers with your permission of course?) Locate one, just one discrepancy regarding the birth of Jesus, e.g., Luke and Matthew and not a doubt in my mind that it can be reconciled in lieu of IIPet.1:20, 21.

Achilles6129 · Mar 23, 2013

jd01 said:
The Koran also has fulfilled prophecy. So it is true also?
Joseph Smith made a series of prophecies that came true so the Book of Mormon is true?

I would like to see you cite fulfilled 'prophecies' in the Qur'an or made by Joseph Smith. It is my opinion that these fall under the description of ambiguous 'prophecies' that can be basically made to fit a whole number of events. In other words, 'Nostradamus-like' prophecies.

In essence, they are not very specific about events they are talking about. The Bible, on the other hand, has very specific events/prophecies that are not ambiguous at all (if you want a link to a thread I started about it, just ask). This separates the Bible from the Qur'an, Joseph Smith, and Nostradamus.

jd01 said:
Hold on, earlier you said there were no contradictions and now there are? So there are contradictions but they don't affect doctrine? If Luke and Matthew cannot agree on the birth of Christ how can they be divinely inspired?

No...I never said there were any contradictions. There aren't. And Luke and Matthew are in perfect agreement. Omitting events is not a contradiction.

jd01 · Mar 23, 2013

shturt678 said:
Locate one, just one discrepancy regarding the birth of Jesus, e.g., Luke and Matthew and not a doubt in my mind that it can be reconciled in lieu of IIPet.1:20, 21.

Doesn't Luke have Jesus born during the census of Qunirius 6 to 7 AD while Matthew has Jesus born during or just after Herod's reign about 4 BC? If Jesus was in his early thirties when killed then It seems as if Luke got his details wrong, after all he was researching 40 or 50 years later and would had to rely of very indirect information.

jd01 · Mar 23, 2013

Achilles6129 said:
I would like to see you cite fulfilled 'prophecies' in the Qur'an or made by Joseph Smith. It is my opinion that these fall under the description of ambiguous 'prophecies' that can be basically made to fit a whole number of events. In other words, 'Nostradamus-like' prophecies.

They are argued just firmly by their supporters as this thread does. For specifics just Google "Inerrancy of ... "

Hence the problem remains. Claims of inerrancy are problematic.

Achilles6129 said:
The Bible, on the other hand, has very specific events/prophecies that are not ambiguous at all (if you want a link to a thread I started about it, just ask).

Sure. What is your best case?

Achilles6129 said:
No...I never said there were any contradictions. There aren't. And Luke and Matthew are in perfect agreement. Omitting events is not a contradiction.

Sorry I thought you did. See my previous post. They are not omitting events, Someone (probably Luke) is wrong about the timing of Jesus' birth.

shturt678 · Mar 24, 2013

jd01 said:
Doesn't Luke have Jesus born during the census of Qunirius 6 to 7 AD while Matthew has Jesus born during or just after Herod's reign about 4 BC? If Jesus was in his early thirties when killed then It seems as if Luke got his details wrong, after all he was researching 40 or 50 years later and would had to rely of very indirect information.

The interpretation of Luke chapter 2, i.e., "aspect of the writer" + "context" = a discrepancy in the interpretation or no discrepancy, i.e., we are shooting for an inspired interpretation, making sure we are the same page with presenting a Bible discrepancy with a 'complete comparison.' Regarding "the date of the birth of Jesus" is not the intent of Luke. A glance at Lk.3:1, 2 shows how Luke proceeds when he is fixing an important date, i.e., It is at once apparent that, s far as Luke is concerned, the important thing to be dated most carefully is not the birth or death of Jesus, but the beginning of the work of the forerunner of Jesus. Thus, right from the start we have one side of the comparison, incomplete (false premise) hence not a valid discrepancy, i.e., either side invalid, makes both invalid; however let's continue and see what we come up with, curious? :bow:

Working with Luke because from past scrutinizing of Gospel's birth story, remember he was the clos :bow:

est. Cutting through the chase working backwards then forward to attempt to arrive at a closer date than 6 B.C. won't happen. Herod died in the spring of 4 B.C., and that Jesus was born a year or two before his death (Matt.2). Quirinius functioned in Syria during 7 B.C. and after that date, in a governing capacity. Also we know that Varus, who was afterword so thoroughly defeated by the Germans, was governor of Syria and administered its regular affairs in the year 6 B.C.

Although Luke and Matthew not concerned about the date of the birth of Jesus, both result in about 6 B.C. :clap:

jd01 · Mar 24, 2013

shturt678 said:
The interpretation of Luke chapter 2, i.e., "aspect of the writer" + "context" = a discrepancy in the interpretation or no discrepancy, i.e., we are shooting for an inspired interpretation, making sure we are the same page with presenting a Bible discrepancy with a 'complete comparison.' Regarding "the date of the birth of Jesus" is not the intent of Luke. A glance at Lk.3:1, 2 shows how Luke proceeds when he is fixing an important date, i.e., It is at once apparent that, s far as Luke is concerned, the important thing to be dated most carefully is not the birth or death of Jesus, but the beginning of the work of the forerunner of Jesus. Thus, right from the start we have one side of the comparison, incomplete (false premise) hence not a valid discrepancy, i.e., either side invalid, makes both invalid; however let's continue and see what we come up with, curious?

Working with Luke because from past scrutinizing of Gospel's birth story, remember he was the closest. Cutting through the chase working backwards then forward to attempt to arrive at a closer date than 6 B.C. won't happen. Herod died in the spring of 4 B.C., and that Jesus was born a year or two before his death (Matt.2). Quirinius functioned in Syria during 7 B.C. and after that date, in a governing capacity. Also we know that Varus, who was afterword so thoroughly defeated by the Germans, was governor of Syria and administered its regular affairs in the year 6 B.C.

Although Luke and Matthew not concerned about the date of the birth of Jesus, both result in about 6 B.C.

Rather than guess at Luke's intent or try for a supernatural explanation why not just read what it says; Luke puts Jesus birth during an event that has been independently confirmed as having taken place 6 - 7 AD while Matthew puts the birth at around 4-6 BC. Luke has made a simple error. He would have been ignorant of the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth and would have had to rely on rumors. This is reasonable. Lets move on.

If on the other hand we have to engage in an elaborate 'inspired' interpretation to fit a pre-conceived outcome then the whole project of examining and discussing the New Testament is a waste of time. You have the outcome you want already. Genuine examination, discussion, research has to be allowed to reach its own conclusions no matter how uncomfortable the results. We would except nothing less in medicine, engineering, at work, etc But why it is acceptable in faith is beyond me. How are we to build each other up by sharing ideas and knowledge?

It is not a big deal if the NT guys got stuff wrong from time to time, it does not invalidate Jesus. Jesus is the point not some doctrine.

Alleged Contradictions in the Bible

Active Member

Zeleste

Guest

Veteran

Zeleste

Guest

Zeleste

Guest

Zeleste

Guest

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Similar threads