Bible Contradictions

[mwtech]

I used to be a Christian and only recently become an atheist after studying the Bible enough to notice the flaws. I believe the Bible in itself to be contradictory enough to prove itself wrong, and I enjoy discussing it with other people, especially Christians who disagree. I would really like to have a one on one debate with any Christian who thinks that they have a logical answer for the contradictions in the Bible. The one rule I have is that you can't make a claim without evidence, whether from the Bible or any other source. I am interested in logical conversation, and I don't believe that any Christian can refute the contradictions I have found without making up some rationalization that has no evidence or logical base.

[LightSeeker]

[Replying to Idealist]

Agreed.

The gospels are many. Not just a chosen few. While it's nice to read "the acts of Christ" in four of them, the teachings of Christ expanded into many writings. Many experiencing the apostolic teachings as well as others who heard Christ and dictated their own experiences (with the spirit).

Christ planted the seed, and the tree grows. Who has the right to say the tree is large enough? Who has the wisdom to prune it? The spirit is endless, and the knowledge knows no limits as well. To say its all in the Bible, draws limits to spiritual growth. The last verse in John's Gospel begs to differ. Yet men still think they have the "wisdom" to dictate what is and what isn't truth.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Goat]

A lot of people can feel that way. Here is another link.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte ... rticle=730

I don't know about you but for others reading nearly all these contradictions are known and have been considered by Christians long before. It's rarely the case that Christians are unaware of them.

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat]

A lot of people can feel that way. Here is another link.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte ... rticle=730

I don't know about you but for others reading nearly all these contradictions are known and have been considered by Christians long before. It's rarely the case that Christians are unaware of them.

Yes, they have been known for a long time. Yes, people have been trying to 'harmonize' them for as long as they have been known.

However, that the does mean that the attempts at re conciliating the contradiction is logical, reasonable or rational.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Goat]

A lot of people can feel that way. Here is another link.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte ... rticle=730

I don't know about you but for others reading nearly all these contradictions are known and have been considered by Christians long before. It's rarely the case that Christians are unaware of them.

Isn't the fact that these contradictions have been long known irrelevant? The real question is whether the contradictions have been successfully harmonized. They have not. This fact only questions the the reporters and their descriptions of the messenger, not the message itself. But this is a problem inherent in Christianity: the worship of the messenger instead of the message.

[Wootah]

We are harmonising in this thread. What's the next contradiction?

[Goat]

We are harmonising in this thread. What's the next contradiction?

I have yet to see one that is rational, reasonable or logical. Where a rational , reasonable and logical refutation of any that have been brought up.

It might convince someone who is grasping at straws.... but not to someone who actually reads in context.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 195 by Goat]

Hi Goat,

I think this is just tit for tat. We can even pretend we are just stuck on our preconceived sides if you wish. What's the next contradiction? Surely there is one that is irrefutable?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 195 by Goat]

Hi Goat,

I think this is just tit for tat. We can even pretend we are just stuck on our preconceived sides if you wish. What's the next contradiction? Surely there is one that is irrefutable?

Perhaps I misunderstand, but this post and the one preceding it is written as if the contradictions were harmonized. They were not.

Wootah:

I don't know about you but for others reading nearly all these contradictions are known and have been considered by Christians long before. It's rarely the case that Christians are unaware of them.

This is not a refutation of the contradictions. Neither is the site you referenced. When you have specifically refuted the Bible contradictions addressed, we can move on to others. But first, what are the arguments refuting the contradictions?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 195 by Goat]

Hi Goat,

I think this is just tit for tat. We can even pretend we are just stuck on our preconceived sides if you wish. What's the next contradiction? Surely there is one that is irrefutable?

It is my stated opinion that there is no passage that someone can't come up with a solution that statisfies them.. it just so happens that the solution is quite often totally absurd.

I have yet to see the 'solution' to harmonize any of the contradictions that you have attempted to 'harmonize' that make sense, or is rational.

[micatala]

[Replying to post 182 by micatala]

The time line gets reconstructed here. Galilee then Jerusalem.
https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-chri ... pearances/

Sorry, this explanation does not square with the various narratives. He leaves a number of issues unaddressed, and simply glosses over several logical and chronological difficulties, not to mention discrepancies in details. Your source says, for example:

Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. (Mark 16:14)

So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!� And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread. Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.� But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. (Luke 24:33–37, emphasis in original)

Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, “Peace be with you.� When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. (John 20:19–20, emphasis in original)

These appearances in Jerusalem are said to occur directly after the crucifixion.

However, in Matthew, the disciples leave Jerusalem before seeing Jesus, and go to a mountain in Galilee, as instructed.

Secondly, the appearance in John described here cannot be the same as that in Luke since in John, Thomas was not present. In Luke, all 11 were. Matthias would not have been part of the 12 for some time yet.


Your source says this:

We propose that Mary Magdalene separated from the other women after the initial visit to the tomb.

Firstly, there is no indication in any of the narratives that this happened.

However, can this be squared with the narratives?

1) In Matt., Mary Magdalene and the other Mary approach the tomb, see an Angel descend, and that Angel rolls the stone away, in their presence. It is a very dramatic event. The Angel tells them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee. On their way back, Jesus tells them the same thing, and they worship him and hold his feet. THen, they (plural of the women) report to the disciples that they (the disciples) are to go to Galilee. Verse 11 says "while they were going" some of the guard at the tomb went into the city to give their report. Thus, the disciples are already obeying Jesus' order to go to Galilee on that very day. All 11 see him there.

2) Mark's narrative starting in chapter 16:1 cannot even be squared with Matthew. Firstly, Mary and Mary are joined by Salome. Now, perhaps you can say Matthew simply did not note Salome's presence, but that is a stretch, as Matthew does seem to specify who was there and gives no indication of others.

More seriously, when the women arrive, the stone has already been rolled away. The angel is not sitting on the stone having rolled it away after the women get there, he is inside the tomb. He gives the same order as in Matthew, but here, the women say nothing to anyone.

Now, in verse 9 we have what is commonly acknowledged to be a later addition to Mark, not part of the original. However, be that as it may, we do have an appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene described, but the other Mary is not present, and she alone goes back to see the disciples.

However, this cannot square with Matthew, where both women saw Jesus. Is your source saying there was one appearance to both women, then Mary Magdalene goes off on her own, and Jesus appears to her again as if he did not already? We are also supposed to believe that Mary and Mary told the disciples Jesus was alive, and they believed her and followed the order to go to Galilee, but also that Mary alone separately told the disciples and they did not believe her?

Note that no location is specified for the appearances to the two disciples and later to the 11 that are described in the Marcan addition. Note also he appears only once to all 11 before he ascends into heaven. Note in Luke that the ascension happens from Bethany (as described in Acts).


3) Your source tries to square Matthew and Mark with John by having Mary M separate from the other Mary (and Salome), but your source leaves out details at odds with the appearance of Jesus to the Mary's in Matthew. First off, only Mary is there entering the tomb the very first time in John, and the stone is already rolled away. This is clearly inconsistent with Matthew as the stone is rolled away in the presence of the two Marys. Mary M then goes to see Peter and John without seeing an angel or Jesus. Peter and John see the tomb and then return home (whereas later, the disciples are in their secret room for fear of the Jews). Then Mary sees not one angel in the tomb (as in Mark) or one sitting on the stone (as in Matthew) but two inside the tomb. She then turns around and immediately sees Jesus.

Jesus here says "do not hold onto me." He gives her a different message to send to the disciples, that he is ascending. She does so.

Now, your source says "the other women" were involved with the appearances in Matthew, and they went and told all 11 the other message, but this simply cannot be, since Mary M was one of the two women who gave all the disciples the message to go to Galilee.

In all, you have:
1) Mary M alone telling the disciples she saw Jesus and to go to Galilee. They do not believe her. (Mark)
2) Mary and Mary telling the disciples they saw Jesus and to go to Galilee. The disciples evidently believe the women and leave while the guards are still reporting on the loss of Jesus' body and see Jesus in Galilee. (Matt)
3) Mary M alone sees Jesus, and reports a different message to the disciples, and ONLY 10 of them see Jesus later that same day. (John). The 11 see Jesus again a week later, and only go to Galilee some time after that.
4) In Luke, the stone is rolled away and the two angels appear after the women go into the tomb. The disciples (all 11) are ordered to stay in Jerusalem, and they do so according to both Luke and Acts.



Your source simply does not square all of these details. He ignores completely:
1) The contradictory orders given by Jesus in Matthew and Mark, versus Luke. Any reasonable attempt at reconciling these narratives has to address this issue. It is a very glaring discrepancy.

2) That in Matthew, the disciples apparently leave Jerusalem while the guards are still reporting. I suppose you could try to make the case that the "they will see m" in verse 10 which clearly refers to the disciples is different than the "they" in the next verse as part "while they were going" but that is rather a stretch. And, going back to the contradictory orders, why would Jesus say they would see him in Galilee, when in fact, he would see them in Jerusalem more than once before they got to Galilee?

3) The discrepancy regarding when the stone was rolled away in Matthew versus the other gospels.
4) The 11 being there in Jerusalem to see Jesus the first time as described in Luke versus the 10 in John (and both of these are inconsistent with Matthew).




He asserts a number of times that his narrative is "quite logical," but this is a ridiculous assertion. According to his timeline, Jesus appeared to the disciples as a group twice in Jerusalem (there are two appearances in John), and the third time in Galilee by the sea where we have the "feed my sheep" scene with Peter. Only after these three does Jesus appear on the mountain as described in Matthew. And yet, that is the only appearance even provided in Matthew, and it clearly reads as if it is the first one, not to mention that Matthew indicates the disciples leaving Jerusalem within a day of the crucifixion, while John has them in Jerusalem at least a week, and Luke has them in Jerusalem apparently for 40 days.


The problem is he is assuming the inerrancy of scripture and going through contortions in an attempt to justify that assumption. It is much more logical simply to accept that the accounts are the result of multiple oral traditions creating discrepancies in the details and the writers, because of their different emphases and audiences and source materials, reflecting these discrepancies.