Contradictions in the Bible

[ICHTHYS_follower]

That was nothing more than a statement that you believe a loosely-connected prophecy came true. It explains nothing about how the eclipse happened, and you specifically stated nothing more than you believe it was done supernaturally.

There were two posts, the second one explained how the eclipse happened supernaturally. If you do not believe that the eclipse happened supernaturally, then how do you explain the fact that the ancients recorded it as a solar eclipse when this was naturally impossible? Do you believe that they had not seen this type of eclipse before, or were they just all drunk when they recorded their observations?

But again, "this is how it happened" is a knee-jerk reflexive response to a challenge of "how could it possibly have happened?" The question here is how could the authors of Mark, Luke, and John have missed, ignored, or omitted it, assuming that it did happen?

John omitted many of Jesus' signs and other things that Jesus did. He writes in
[John 20:30] And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book;

[John 21:25] And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

 

[Sandwich]

I was watching the news tonight.....

Errr... with all due respect you are making our point.

When MAN makes two (or four) stories about an event, there are varying tales, with varying and conflicting details.

There is a claim that the Bible is different. Inspired. A Work of God. There shouldn't be these varying tales. Conflicting details.

If you are comparing the Bible to news reports, you are making our point. It is simply a book made up by men, with different details. Hence the contradictions.

Probably best not to compare the Bible to news reports (or witness statements as is commonly done.)

 

[Serapha]

And here's another point:

Each of the Gospels (and other books of the Bible) is written in the author's own unique writing style or "voice". This virtually eliminates a "word for word" inspiration by God to the author, as all the books of the Bible would share the same voice (God's).

This gives birth to the question, if these are not "word for word" inspirations, how much "ad-libing" did each author do? As anyone versed in literature knows, a simple slip up of ONE word can change the entire slant or meaning of the text.

A case of this recently happened with our local newspaper. A newspaper reporter, who was covering a highway accident, stated: John Doe was charged FOR vehicular manslaughter." What the reporter meant to say was: "John Doe was charged WITH vehicular manslaughter." However, due to his slip-up, the paper was sued for liable, because the use of "for" implied guilt.

God of Love

Hi there!



Given that Greek and Hebrew are highly inflexive and English is not, how do you create a literal word-for-word translation? What is the definition of soul? In English, it takes several words to define, in Hebrew and in Greek, it only takes one word because the word in Hebrew and in Greek is a concept and not a word. Same thing with "spirit."

I like this defining of "inspiriation"...


Joseph Free and Howard Vos record an accurate statement concerning the verbal inspiration of The Holy Bible in their book, "Archaeology and Bible History," Revised, 1992, Zondervan.





"Bible believers hold that this record of God's revelation is not only vital for all humankind but is accurate in all respects. We also hold that the Bible writers exercised their own personality, used their own vocabulary, and drew on their own memories, intuitions, and judgments and that at the same time they were prevented from making errors and were so guided by God that they expressed exactly what God wished to make known. This guidance was not so vague that it assured merely the general idea or concept that God wished to convey, but rather it extended even to the choice of words when it would be essential to convey his message. The foregoing description sets forth my view of "verbal inspiration," namely that God guided even to the choice of words when necessary."



~serapha~

 

[Serapha]

There shouldn't be these varying tales. Conflicting details.

Hi there!



define conflict. ... not in your terms but profession definition and then tell me how the text is in conflict.


~thanks~

 

[Serapha]

No because Ezekiel is quoting God and clearly talking about the same laws.

Hi there!



I'm sorry, you didn't read my response.

I said the term for Exodus 20 was commandment, the term for Ezekiel was statute. They have an entirely different meaning in Hebrew (and in Greek)... so... God was NOT clearly talking about the same laws... If God were talking about the same laws, He would have used the same terms.

In Hebrew.. when it is "commandment" it is always the same term, when it is statutes, it is always the word for statutes. They are not the same term.


Don't move forward until you go back and READ the reply that was provided... for God CLEARLY did not use the same word.


~serapha~

 

[Serapha]

Are you suggesting that "the news" and "Kerry" are inspired by God to the same extent of the authors of the gospels supposedly are, and would have access to the same "truths" to which these authors would have been privy?

Hi there!



I did look to insure that I had the right personage when I replied....


You missed the point entirely, so let me use single syllables.

Are you suggesting that "the news" and "Kerry" are inspired by God to the same extent of the authors of the gospels supposedly are,

"no"

would have access to the same "truths" to which these authors would have been privy?

"no"

~serapha~

 

[Alencon]

Hi there!




These texts say the same thing... that if one divorces his wife on any grounds except for being unfaithful, and she marries another, then he has cause her to commit adultery... and if he marries another, he commits adultery.


The text does not say fornication is an exception, does it?



Mark 10:11 compares to Matthew 19:19, referring to the husband who puts away his wife so he may marry another woman... that's adultery.

Mark 10:12 which you didn't cite, compares to the Matthew 5:32 which is about the wife who commits adultery.

Luke 16:18 compares to the Matthew passage also... in the Luke passage, the previous context is this..."What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's eyes"

The Jewish laws from Moses onward had become permissive concerning the interpretation of divorce. Jesus arrested that thought, and stated God's law and not man's interpretation of God's law.... aka... as they say, "Back to the Bible"....

The wronged wife is free to marry.

If she is divorced because of her own adulterous acts, yes, he is committing adultery.

But the texts do complement each other when you don't take them out of context.


It should be mentioned at this time that the sin of adultery can be forgiven.


~serapha~

A number of points.

1. You're wrong about Mark 10:12. It talks about a woman who divorces her husband not about a woman divorced by her husband which are two very different things. The fact that a woman had no right to do that in Judean society is why it was probably corrected by deletion by Matthew and possibly Luke.

If you are going to quote scripture, please include the scripture that you are quoting in the post

Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

2. I didn't take anything out of context because Mark 10:12 does not refer to a husband divorcing his wife and the passage you quoted in Luke doesn't affect the next passage in any way shape or form. Something being out of context is important IF leaving something out affects the interpretation of the text (otherwise EVERY bible quote would be "taken out of context"). This is a valid counter argument BUT you must not only supply the missing text but also point out WHY it's inclusion changes the interpretaion.

3. Matthew CLEARLY says that divorce is ok on account of fornication and by the way fornication does not simply refer to being "unfaithful," that would be adultery. Fornication is much broader and includes sex between any two folks not married including pre-marital sex. In other words, it would be ok to divorce your wife, according to Matthew, if you discovered she wasn't a virgin when you married her.

4. The text doesn't say anything about a woman being divorced because of her own adulterous acts being the case where her remarriege results in adultery. I consider this interpretation a bit of eisegesis.

5. If the divorced woman is free to remarry, why does Matthew say in 5:32 that the divorcing husband causes the wife to commit adultery.

Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

You are quoting opinions which are not supported by the text. You are entitled to your interpretation, but the idea is to buttress those interpretations with quotes and explanations.

 

[Serapha]

I'm confused about how you think this is analogous. I don't think that these accounts are consistent, do you? I would say that the presence of multiple sources which have very different views but who both agree on the same facts, namely that an election occured with Kerry and Bush as candidates, that we can reasonably conclude that an election did occur. I would go on to say that there is some inconsistent interpretations about the validity of the election.

How do you think this is related to the bible?

Hi there!




I would say that the presence of multiple sources [of the gospel] which have very different views but who both agree on the same facts, namely that a [resurrection] occured with [Jesus Christ] as [the resurrected one], that we can reasonably conclude that a [resurrection] did occur.

I would go on to say that there is some inconsistent interpretations about the validity of the election.

The initial posting said nothing about interpretation. That was your own added "interpretation". I find that interesting. Because if you are interpretating more into the text than is there, then when you read the Bible, you are probably interpretating more into the text than is there also. We are creatures of habit.

~serapha~

 

[radorth]

Fascinating. Then perhaps you can explain to me precisely the definition of adultery that Jesus put forth based upon the accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke?

Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

First of all is fornication an exception or not? Matthew says yes, Mark and Luke are silent on the subject. Is the poor wronged wife guilty of adultery or not if she remarries? Matthew says yes in verse 5:32, but then is silent about this point in 19:9 and neither Mark nor Luke say this. Is the guy that marries the divorced woman guilty of adultery? Matthew and Luke say yes but Mark doesn't say that?

Silence hardly proves a contradiction. Speaking of bad logic.

Applying the idea that the gospels are complimentary would force one to accept 1) that fornication is an exception and 2) that the divorcing husband, if he remarries, and the poor wronged wife, if she remarries, and her new husband are all guilty of adultery. But that would mean that each of the individual statements is wrong due to incompleteness since none of them contain all of the information about adultery!

This strikes me as pretty sloppy work for writings supposedly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I love it because it keeps the incorrigible nitpickers and legalists out of heaven. You are swatting gnats and swallowing a camel because Jesus' point is abundantly clear- he is telling those who pretend a piece of paper makes divorce OK in God's eyes is in for a shock. Read the context. Divorce is a sin and you cannot just marry somebody else after you get a legal divorce, and claim before God that you did not commit adultery. You did.

That's why the skeptic-historian historian Durant calls your "contradictions" minutiae- his word and calls Jesus' sayings and parables as brilliant as anything in literature. H.G Wells, the atheist says pretty much the same things.

Rad

 

[Serapha]

A number of points.


You are quoting opinions which are not supported by the text. You are entitled to your interpretation, but the idea is to buttress those interpretations with quotes and explanations.

Hi there!




I quoted "nothing"... I cited the meaning of Jewish culture, which is not my interpretation, but theirs.

If you want footnotes, please ask...

And in our future conversations... we go to the Greek because you are not comprehending the King's English. The Greek will fare better. If you don't know Greek, or cannot read a commentary, then just say so, and I will lecture, and you may listen and ask questions.


~serapha~

 

[Serapha]

I'm sorry, can you direct me to your post again? I can't seem to find it.

hi there!





#27


~serapha~

 

[Alencon]

Hi there!



I'm sorry, you didn't read my response.

I said the term for Exodus 20 was commandment, the term for Ezekiel was statute. They have an entirely different meaning in Hebrew (and in Greek)... so... God was NOT clearly talking about the same laws... If God were talking about the same laws, He would have used the same terms.

In Hebrew.. when it is "commandment" it is always the same term, when it is statutes, it is always the word for statutes. They are not the same term.

Don't move forward until you go back and READ the reply that was provided... for God CLEARLY did not use the same word.


~serapha~

I read you're response, I just don't agree with it. Especially since the two statements are referring to the exact same action, the worship of idols.

Exodus 5:19 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Exodus 5:20 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Ezekiel 18:12 Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination,

The references here are to the same law, the same commandment. I don't buy that the use of the "statute" changes the laws to which the book is referring. All of these terms, commandment, law and statute are used when referring to the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

 

[Serapha]

okay,

the original posting was...

Originally Posted by: OccamsLaser
Interesting, but irrelevant. We're not questioning whether an earthquake could happen, but rather how it could have been missed or ignored by the authors of the other three Gospels.

Let's not forget about all of the other people who were writing at the same time and place. Were they so jaded with earthquakes and the walking dead that they neglected to mention it?

​

The writers who were contemporaries or lived within one century of Jesus were:

Caius Suetonius
Josephus
Philo-Judæus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones
Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna
Justus of Tiberias

source: John E. Remsburg, "The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence".

What is the evidence that any of those people were in Jerusalem on the day of Christ's crucifixion?


~serapha~

 

[Serapha]

The problem is that the books of Mark, Luke, and John don't even mention the Resurrection of the Saints, much less "add to" or "complement" anything asserted in the book of Matthew.

Hi there!



I would recommend that you pick up a copy of Dwight Pentecost, "The Words and Works of Jesus Christ" as he put the four gospels in chronological order. That would give you the "big picture" that you aren't seeing.

You know, not seeing the forest for the trees.


~serapha~

 

[michabo]

I would say that the presence of multiple sources [of the gospel] which have very different views but who both agree on the same facts, namely that a [resurrection] occured with [Jesus Christ] as [the resurrected one], that we can reasonably conclude that a [resurrection] did occur.

That is a good point, but not that good

In your external example, you gave both supporters and detractors, yet in the bible we only have supporters. Second, the authors have a clear motive to present only one side. As you have shown in your election example, even in an age where scepticism, reporting and accounting are common, there are still disputes about certain issues. Why should we uncritically accept conflicting accounts of an extraordinary event written by people with an obvious bias when there is a disturbing lack of corroboration in extrabiblical sources?

If you wish for an analogy, perhaps a better one would be three people all describing a UFO encounter, and selling tickets to a seminar where they teach you how to prevent alien abductions. Even if their stories matched perfectly (unlike those of the bible), would you trust them?

The initial posting said nothing about interpretation. That was your own added "interpretation". I find that interesting.

Two people observe an election. They arrive at different conclusions about the validity. That is an interpretation. What is so interesting, or are you looking so hard to make insinuations? Perhaps you are so used to defending against different interpretations of the bible that you overreact to this word?

 

[Alencon]

I would recommend that you pick up a copy of Dwight Pentecost, "The Words and Works of Jesus Christ" as he put the four gospels in chronological order. That would give you the "big picture" that you aren't seeing.

You know, not seeing the forest for the trees.


~serapha~

Hmmm. So in what order does Pentecost (that can't be his real name can it?) place them?

Most scholars believe the order was Mark, Matthew, Luke and last John, although a minority still believes that Matthew was first followed by Mark, Luke and John. This was the order believed during the early days of the church and why they are in that order in the Bible.

 

[Serapha]

No because Ezekiel is quoting God and clearly talking about the same laws. Consider where he describes the righteous behavior and the iniquities.

18:9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.

18:12 Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination

18:13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.


Remember Ezekiel is quoting God not speaking on his own. Besides the conversation starts with:

18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?

18:3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.

The proverb quoted here is based upon the law that the iniquity of the father is visited upon the children. According to Ezekiel God is changing the rules. The book says nothing about civil law. All of the statements are attributed to God and about God's law.[/QUOTE]


It is your opinion that the proverb is based upon the law, I have told you that it was based upon the statutes which is what the Hebrew (and English) says. The word "commandment" is not used in the entirity of Ezekiel.

God did not change the rules, the statutes for civil living are not the same as the commandments of God. BTW.. The book does say "statues" in Ezekiel 18.

All of the statements are attribued to God... and are about "God's laws" but there are different words for "God's laws" and you are not taking into consideration, even though I have told you several times that there are numerous words for "law" and "commandment" in the Old Testament.


statutes and commandments are different in the Bible.

~serapha~

 

[michabo]

What is the evidence that any of those people were in Jerusalem on the day of Christ's crucifixion?

Philo was born before Jesus and died after Jesus was supposed to have been crucified lived and wrote in Jerusalem. Jesus was supposed to have gathered huge crowds, performed miracles, caused enormous strife in the cities, and eventually been resurrected. Yet Philo never mentions him at all. Not in passing, not a single time.

 

[OccamsLaser]

There were two posts, the second one explained how the eclipse happened supernaturally. If you do not believe that the eclipse happened supernaturally, then how do you explain the fact that the ancients recorded it as a solar eclipse when this was naturally impossible?

Quite simply. The authors needed a dramatic element to spice up the story at that point. Fiction is a very common literary device.

Do you believe that they had not seen this type of eclipse before, or were they just all drunk when they recorded their observations?

Either one of those explanations would suffice, and would be favored by my namesake, Occam's Razor, since they do not involve the much more complicated element of a supernatural, metaphysical, paranormal God.

The question is why was this supernaturally-caused eclipse not noticed in any other part of the world, and not even noticed by three of the four Gospel authors. From what I know about eclipses, the sun and moon are both sufficiently far away that the shadow paths of eclipses are not exactly localized. Even if God for some reason decided to locally dim the lights, if it was as impressive as the author of Matthew made it out to be, it must have been noticed by the authors of the other Gospels, unless they were rock-stupid - or drunk, as you suggested might be an explanation.

John omitted many of Jesus' signs and other things that Jesus did. He writes in
[John 20:30] And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book;

[John 21:25] And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

In a similar way, that indicates to me that either the author was tired of writing at that point, closing his book as a careless college freshman might wrap up a poorly thought-out essay. It's essentially similar to the common ending "And they lived happily ever after - The End."

The author of John described even mundane details of Jesus's life before the crucifixion, but neglects to give very many specific details of all these wonderful works of Jesus after He was resurrected. The few details he gives in John 21 involve Jesus eating, and repeating a few phrases that are not terribly spectacular. The author devotes 23 verses to the routine activities, one verse asserting he is telling the truth, and one verse to wrap up all these wonderful, unidentified miracles. Very suspicious.

 

[michabo]

#27

That seems most inadequate to me. That merely describes the books, but doesn't touch on the much more important issue of what a contradiction is. On the assumption that you think the bible is a special book because it is free of contradiction, I assume that you see contradictions elsewhere but not in the bible. So:

1. What is a contradiction?

2. What criteria should we use to decide?