Do some Christians acknowledge Bible contradictions?

[Tcg]

.
Some accuse atheists of not understanding the Bible given that they acknowledge that the Bible contains contradictions.

An example of a contradiction is included in the story of the demons cast into a herd of 2,000 pigs. Both gospel Mark (5:2) and gospel Luke (8:27) state that Jesus met "a man." The gospel Matthew (8:28) claims that Jesus met "two demon-possessed men."

Matthew clearly contradicts both Mark and Luke. Some may argue that this isn't a contradiction because neither Mark or Luke state Jesus met one and only one man. They may explain that Jesus in fact met two men, but that Mark and Luke only mentioned one of them.

I suppose we could stretch this further and claim that there were actually four demon possessed men. Matthew mentioned two of them, Mark mentioned one, and Luke mentioned the last. We could of course push it further and claim there were 98 demon possessed men and the gospel authors only mentioned four of them.

None of these are reasonable explanations. It is clear that Matthew's count contradicts both Mark and Luke's.

Is it only atheists who acknowledge Bible contradictions like the one above?

Do some Christians acknowledge Bible contradictions whether or not it includes the one mentioned above?


Tcg

[Tcg]

…None of these are reasonable explanations…

Is the reason that atheism needs that?

Atheism needs nothing. It is quite simply the lack of belief in god/gods.

The above quote is my evaluation. My evaluation is based on the contradiction in the text and the faulty explanations given in an attempt to resolve it.

If Bible doesn’t have contradictions or mistakes, is it really so bad problem, that one needs to make artificial contradictions so that Bible would look wrong and person would not need to believe it?

The question under consideration is whether or not some Christians acknowledge Bible contradictions. We have a clear answer that, yes, some do. I am not aware that any of them created artificial contradictions to support that conclusion nor that any have ceased to believe the Bible because of the contradictions they acknowledge are there.


Tcg

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

On the Caananites. The Jews thought they were worshipping God but Jesus basically is telling them they abandoned God long ago. Jesus would say do as the Caananites/Jews say not as they do.

Now you have God creating Jews that are utterly stupid. How's that supposed to help the problem?

Fallacy of extremes.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 16 by Zzyzx]

You refute yourself by taking the tack you do. You say the Bible can be comprehended well enough to find a contradiction and then you follow up saying the Bible cannot be comprehended.

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 16 by Zzyzx]

You refute yourself by taking the tack you do. You say the Bible can be comprehended well enough to find a contradiction and then you follow up saying the Bible cannot be comprehended.

Correction: I say nothing about the Bible being comprehended. If you think otherwise quote me verbatim -- or kindly retract your false accusation.

Care to attempt a reply to what I actually posted or address the questions asked -- rather than creating a straw man? In particular, "How can it be determined which, if any [Bible tales], relay truthfully and accurately events in the real world?"

[1213]

… My evaluation is based on the contradiction in the text and the faulty explanations given in an attempt to resolve it.
…

Please explain why it is faulty explanation? And is “evaluation� just fancy word for your opinion?

[Tcg]

… My evaluation is based on the contradiction in the text and the faulty explanations given in an attempt to resolve it.
…

Please explain why it is faulty explanation? And is “evaluation� just fancy word for your opinion?

I've already done so in the O.P. If you review that post, you'll also see that the question under consideration is, "Do some Christians acknowledge Bible contradictions?"

Feel free to address that question. If memory serves, you haven't done so yet.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

An example of a contradiction is included in the story of the demons cast into a herd of 2,000 pigs. Both gospel Mark (5:2) and gospel Luke (8:27) state that Jesus met "a man." The gospel Matthew (8:28) claims that Jesus met "two demon-possessed men."

DOES MATTHEW CONTRADICT MARK AND LUKE ON HOW MANY DEMONIZED MEN JESUS MET AT GERASENES?

ANSWER No. One must, when reading any text, be able to distinguish between a contradiction and an omission. Matthew simply adds detail the other writers chose not to include. Omitting a detail can only reasonably considered a contradiction in tthe presence of a statement of absolute. In other words a statement that the information given contains no omissions. Such statements are rare in any context, and practically inexistent in the bible narratives. All the accounts can be true as long as Luke or Mark do not state catagorically that there was no more than one man present.

To illustrate:

STATEMENT #1 On the way home from work, Craig met Philip and his wife Sandra.

STATEMENT #2 On the way home from work, Craig met Philip

STATEMENT #3 On the way home from work,Craig met Sandra, Philip's wife.

Can all three statements be true? Yes of course. If Craig met Philip and his wife (#1:true) , he obviouly met Philip (#2:true) and he met Sandra (#3:true) . One may have assumed (reading statement #2 in isolation) that his wife was not present, but (and this is the point) that is an assumption not a contradiction.

Now watch what happens when I add a negative statement of absolute

STATEMENT #1 On the way home from work, Craig met Philip and his wife Sandra.

STATEMENT #2 On the way home from work, Craig met Philip. Philip was alone.

STATEMENT #3 On the way home from work, Sandra, Philips wife. Philip was not with her.

In the above case, we may well be dealing with a contradiction since Sandra could not have been both present and not present at the same time.

(To mix my metaphores): Look at the picture below and decide if the statements that follow are TRUE or FALSE.

• The man is holding a green apple
• The man is holding a red apple
• The man is holding two apples

If all three statements can be TRUE dispite not being exhaustive, they are not contradictory.

CONCLUSION Neither Mark nor Luke state there was not a second demonized man. They may have chosen to focus on one becsuse he spoke for them both or was paricularly violent. In any case their omission cannot logically constitute a contradiction since if Jesus met two men, that would include meeting the one Luke and Mark focus on.



JW


RELATED POSTS

Ten or Eleven? How many Apostles Witnesses Jesus first group appearance?
viewtopic.php?p=1063528#p1063528

What is a contraction?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 52#p999252

Is the bible "inerrant"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 12#p985512

Are OMISSIONS contradictions [legion]?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 6#p1005966

[Tcg]

CONCLUSION Neither Mark nor Luke state there was not a second demonized man.

Neither Mark nor Luke state there weren't 500 demonized men either.

As is obvious from the O.P., the contradiction presented was simply an example. The main question for debate is, "Do some Christians acknowledge Bible contradictions whether or not it includes the one mentioned above?" Perhaps you'd care to address it.


Tcg

[Difflugia]

DOES MATTHEW CONTRADICT MARK AND LUKE ON HOW MANY DEMONIZED MEN JESUS MET AT GERASENES?

♦ANSWER No. One must, when reading any text, be able to distinguish between a contradiction and an omission.

And in most cases, the omission is a contradiction unless one is attempting a disingenuous harmonization.

If in context, it's obvious (as it is in Matthew, Mark, and Luke) that the author is attempting to accurately and completely describe the details of the event, "Jesus met a demoniac" and "Jesus met two demoniacs" are contradictory.

Look at the picture below and decide if the statements that follow are TRUE or FALSE.

• The man is holding a green apple
• The man is holding a red apple
• The man is holding two apples

If all three statements can be TRUE dispite not being exhaustive, they are not contradictory.

This is the logic puzzle style of apologetics. In most contexts, those three statements would be contradictory because the author would be implicitly answering the question, "what is the man holding?" There are contexts where they wouldn't be intended as exclusive, but that's not what we find in Matthew, Mark, or Luke.

Mt. 8:28-29:

And when he arrived at the other side into the country of the Golden Delicious, there met him a man holding two apples, coming forth out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no man could pass by that way. And behold, they looked crisp and delightful.

Mk. 5:1-2:

And they came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Granny Smith. And when he was come out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with a green, tart apple; and it was so sour that no man could make a pie with it, no, not with an ephah of sugar.

Lk. 8:26-27:

And they arrived at the country of the Red Delicious, which is near Galilee. And when he arrived upon the land, a certain man out of the city met him there, who had a sweet, red apple; and for a long time he had eaten only raw apples and made no pies, for there were no ovens in the tombs.

If you read Mark and Luke, it should be pretty obvious that there's no unspoken, second apple (or demoniac) off in the wings. These aren't abbreviated accounts or abridged for clarity. All three accounts are equally detailed, but they have conflicting details. Without a dogmatic reason to harmonize the three, Mark and Luke are describing an encounter with a single demoniac. There's no hint of "at least one" or that there's a group with a spokesman, or anything like that. The pronouns are consistent. Mark and Luke knew what they wanted to say and it wasn't, "Jesus was met by one demoniac (of a pair)."

If there was a second demoniac, then Mark and Luke didn't know about him. We can start down the path of saying that the Holy Spirit knew and made sure they didn't technically write something untrue or some such, but at that point, we've given up all hope of discerning authorial intention. In that case, we've decided that the actual meaning of the text is far less important than doctrinal purity.

CONCLUSION Neither Mark nor Luke state there was not a second demonized man.

"A certain man out of the city" is pretty specific. To infer a second demoniac is simply disingenuous.

[1213]

… "Do some Christians acknowledge Bible contradictions?"
…

My answer is no, because there are no contradictions.