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.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 199 by micatala]
I'll just have to break things down in your post. I can't respond to it all at once.

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.

Matthew 28:1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

There is no logical reason that I have to read that as 'in their presence.' Nor does it say the women saw the angel descend.

11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened.

This is talking about the women still and not the disciples.

[Wootah]

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.

This is not however a logical contradiction either.

[mwtech]

Matthew 28:1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

There is no logical reason that I have to read that as 'in their presence.' Nor does it say the women saw the angel descend.

It does if you keep reading.
5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. The women were clearly there with the angel. And if it desribes the magnificence of the angel and its appearance, it seems to indicate that the women felt the Earth quake and saw his countenance like lightning and raiment as white as snow.

Also, in Mark, the writer doesn't call the angel an angel or describe his appearance as something special to look at. It just calls him a young man in a white robe.

[mwtech]

[Replying to mwtech]

There are many meanings for the word "weary." For example, if I say that I grow weary of a person's constant complaining that has a different connotation from saying I grew weary from a long journey in the heat. And this is using English words, not the original language which the Bible was written in, which likely has completely different connotations of its own.

I do agree that the Bible is basically a book which has become stagnant because people seem unwilling to apply their learning to it. I'm not a student of the Bible, nor am I overly interested in what it has to say. I simply do not see it as any singular authority for the existence of God. However, isn't it just as wearisome to use the Bible to argue that there is no God as it is to use it as the main proof that there is a God?

Firstly, I do not use the contradictions in the Bible to disprove the existence of God. There is no way to disprove the existence of God, in my opinion. It is too abstract a concept, and since it was invented by people, it can be changed as they wish to make it a perpetually unfalsifible claim. I bring to light the contradictions of the Bible in order to get fundamentalist Christians to relaize that the Bible is not inerrant like they think it is.

Secondly, the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 40:28
Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.
is יָגַע, or yaga: to toil; grow or be weary

The phrase in Jeremiah 15:6
You have rejected me, declares the LORD; you keep going backward, so I have stretched out my hand against you and destroyed you— I am weary of relenting
is לָ�ָה, or Iaah. The definition is faint, grieve, loathe, be, make weary selves. It even includes in the definition faint, which is another thing God does not do according to Isaiah 40:28

The word weary in Isaiah 43:24
You have not bought me sweet cane with money, or satisfied me with the fat of your sacrifices. But you have burdened me with your sins; you have wearied me with your iniquities.
Is exactly the same word, yaga, as Isaiah 40:28.

So for Isaiah 40:28 to say that yaga is something God does not experience is a direct contradiction with him experiencing yaga in Isaiah 43:24

[micatala]

[Replying to post 199 by micatala]
I'll just have to break things down in your post. I can't respond to it all at once.

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.

Matthew 28:1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

There is no logical reason that I have to read that as 'in their presence.' Nor does it say the women saw the angel descend.

You left out what follows:

After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2 And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he[a] lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.� 8 So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

There is no reasonable way to read this other than the women were there when these events occurred. The guards were afraid and the angel tells the women not to be afraid. They clearly were witnessing these very dramatic events.

Note the angel tells them to come into the tomb.


Again, this is very clearly at odds with the other narratives where the women come and find the tomb open and enter on their own, and then see an angel or two angels.


To suggest that the women came along after the earthquake and the descending of the angel seems to me to willfully change the meaning. If you are willing to stretch the text to such a degree, one could understand a given passage to say almost anything.

11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened.

This is talking about the women still and not the disciples.

THat is perhaps true. My translation uses "they" in both spots. I see the NIV says the second 'they' is the women. I would not be able to critique the actual Greek, so the most I will say now is that it is possible, due to the ambiguity of the pronouns, that your understanding is possible. However, typically when two "theys" occur consecutively like this, they refer to the same noun.


Still, to suggest that the disciples hung around Jerusalem for at least a week before going to Galilee is quite at odds with the plain meaning of what is written. In the paragraph after the description of the Romans concocting there story, the disciples "went to Galilee." I'll grant it does not say specifically when this happened, but there is no indication of any lapse of time, and there is no indication from their reaction that they had seen Jesus several times previously.

[micatala]

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.

This is not however a logical contradiction either.

It is unless you assume one narrative purposefully left out some information for some reason. Certainly no one reading this would ever think there were more than two women unless they had already made the assumptions that the gospels were consistent with each other, and were entirely correct in all their factual statements. What would justify these assumptions?

The most logical explanation is that the various narratives have errors in some of the details, probably due to varying oral traditions.

[mwtech]

If we are going to discuss the discrepancies of the Gospels concerning the death and ressurection of Jesus, I will gladly supply my study notes that lay out each verse parallel to its counterparts in the other gospels.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EE- ... u6FSFk/pub

I would paste the document directly to the forum, but the tabel formatting wont show up here.

[Danmark]

If we are going to discuss the discrepancies of the Gospels concerning the death and ressurection of Jesus, I will gladly supply my study notes that lay out each verse parallel to its counterparts in the other gospels.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EE- ... u6FSFk/pub

I would paste the document directly to the forum, but the tabel formatting wont show up here.

Well done. These contradictions and others have been well documented and examined for many years. Tho' they provide argument against the reliability and first hand observation of events, I find them to be more indicative that the Gospels are not the 'Word of God' than that they show the events described never happened. It is normal to have even honest eyewitnesses to events disagree on many details.

I think the discrepancies show there were separate traditions that emerged and were recorded by different factions,* and published so there was no way of harmonizing them by a single group such as the Council of Nicea. If they were written and inspired by a supernatural, all powerful being however, we could expect such contradictions to be absent.


__________________
*As Micatala points out

[micatala]

I suppose I should forbear adding yet another example, but there is the issue of Judas' kiss.


Mark:

Immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived; and with him there was a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. 44 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.� 45 So when he came, he went up to him at once and said, “Rabbi!� and kissed him. 46 Then they laid hands on him and arrested him. 47 But one of those who stood near drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 48 Then Jesus said to them, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.� 50 All of them deserted him and fled.

There is a kiss.


Now John.

After Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with his disciples across the Kidron valley to a place where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered. 2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place, because Jesus often met there with his disciples. 3 So Judas brought a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief priests and the Pharisees, and they came there with lanterns and torches and weapons. 4 Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, “Whom are you looking for?� 5 They answered, “Jesus of Nazareth.�[a] Jesus replied, “I am he.� Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. 6 When Jesus[c] said to them, “I am he,�[d] they stepped back and fell to the ground. 7 Again he asked them, “Whom are you looking for?� And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.�[e] 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he.[f] So if you are looking for me, let these men go.� 9 This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken, “I did not lose a single one of those whom you gave me.� 10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus. 11 Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back into its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?�


12 So the soldiers, their officer, and the Jewish police arrested Jesus and bound him. 13 First they took him to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. 14 Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person die for the people.

Here, Jesus addresses the crowd before they even make their intentions known. Judas and the others present fall down. He tells them who he is, and there is clearly no kiss, as Judas along with the others had taken a step back and fallen down.


Again, there is no logical harmony between these two. WHere in John's account could you possibly put Judas' kiss and have it make any sense at all?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 205 by micatala]

There are numerous times in the bible where groups of people are implied even if only some names are mentioned.

The point here is that if

Source a says George and John and
Source b says Ringo and Paul

Neither contradict if we assume all four were there.