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

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 10 by Zzyzx]

Prepare for what you call wordplay.

No man has seen God in his full glory is John's point. Second Jacob may not understand what he encountered. Do you think he could wrestle God and live for realz? He did experience God and live and perhaps for that time that was better than anyone had done but it still doesn't change the fact that he did not see the full glory of God (or he would have died).

[Divine Insight]

The most extreme contradiction I see in the Bible have to do with the overall stories, not in any specific verses.

For example, the Canaanites had supposedly rejected God, but they were sacrificing their babies to God.

That's a clear contradiction that cannot be resolved.

Christians try to resolve it by claiming that the Canaanites were sacrificing their babies to a "false God". In other words, a God that doesn't exist. But that apology doesn't fly. Because in order for that apology to be true God would have had to have created Canaanites who are stupid beyond belief. And that cannot stand. We can't have a supposedly benevolent intelligent creator creating people who are so stupid they can't even comprehend the simplest of things.

So there's a contradiction right there that can never be resolved.

The only way to resolve it would be to go back and rewrite the Bible and have the Canaanites simply reject God and refuse to offer anything up to God, period. In fact, they couldn't even become atheists (i.e. non-believers in God).

The only way the story of the Canaanites can be made to work, is if they actually believe in and KNOW that God exists for sure, have flat out refused to obey him, and have not turned to worshiping other false make-believe Gods.

But that's not the Biblical story.

Therefore the Bible is clearly a contradictory saga. It cannot be made to work.

Why anyone continues to support these obviously false stories is beyond me. What will it take for them to realize that these stories cannot be true?

There's no hope for the Bible, yet theists refuse to let go of it. You can point out these obvious contradictions till the cows come home and the theists just remain in extreme denial.

You just can't have a benevolent intelligent God creating people as stupid as the Canaanites would have needed to be. That just doesn't make any sense. That simply wouldn't be a benevolent intelligent God. The only resolution to this contradiction would be to claim that God is either an idiot, or totally inept. And neither of those excuses make any sense.

And this is just one of many contradictions in the Bible. Contradictions started in Genesis chapters 1 thru 3. It was already dead in the water by the third chapter of Genesis. No need to even bother reading anything further at that point.

[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.

[Divine Insight]

[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?

[Mithrae]

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

Liberal and progressive Christians would be some obvious major streams of Christian thought which accept biblical fallibility and errors. Even most evangelicals pay lip service to at least the possibility of 'errors in transmission' and so on, of course

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

• Liberal Christianity, also known as liberal theology, is a movement that seeks to reinterpret and reform Christian teaching by taking into consideration modern knowledge, science and ethics. It also emphasizes the authority of individual reason and experience. Liberal Christians view their theology as an alternative to both atheistic rationalism and to traditional theologies based on external authority (such as the Bible or sacred tradition).[1]
  
  Liberal theology grew out of Enlightenment rationalism and romanticism of the 18th and 19th centuries. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was characterized by an acceptance of Darwinian evolution, a utilization of modern biblical criticism and participation in the Social Gospel movement.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Christianity

• Progressive Christianity is a "post-liberal movement" within Christianity "that seeks to reform the faith via the insights of post-modernism and a reclaiming of the truth beyond the verifiable historicity and factuality of the passages in the Bible by affirming the truths within the stories that may not have actually happened."[1] Progressive Christianity represents a post-modern theological approach, and is not necessarily synonymous with progressive politics.[1] It developed out of the Liberal Christianity of the modern era, which was rooted in enlightenment thinking.[1]
  
  Progressive Christianity is characterized by a willingness to question tradition, acceptance of human diversity, a strong emphasis on social justice and care for the poor and the oppressed, and environmental stewardship of the earth. Progressive Christians have a deep belief in the centrality of the instruction to "love one another" (John 15:17) within the teachings of Jesus Christ.[2] This leads to a focus on promoting values such as compassion, justice, mercy, and tolerance, often through political activism. Though prominent, the movement is by no means the only significant movement of progressive thought among Christians.

[Zzyzx]

.

Prepare for what you call wordplay.

Warning not needed. I am accustomed to debating here and encountering word play as well as other evasive tactics in lieu of actual, verifiable evidence to support claims and stories.

No man has seen God in his full glory is John's point.

Opinion noted.

Evidently 'John' needs help to get across a simple point – from someone who does NOT know what 'John' was thinking or intending (unless they are omniscient or a time traveler or are a reincarnated 'John'); but is guessing in a direction that favors apologetics.

Second Jacob may not understand what he encountered.

Yes, Bible characters and writers may not have understood what they thought they saw or 'experienced'. Any of them may have been confused, drunk (see Noah), deceived, delusional, hallucinating, OR making up their story.

How can it be determined which, if any, relay truthfully and accurately events in the real world?

Do you think he could wrestle God and live for real?

I consider the entire story preposterous – along with most other Bible stories (talking donkeys and snakes, worldwide flood, virgin birth, Earth ceasing rotation, resurrection of long dead corpses, levitating into the sky, etc, etc).

He did experience God and live and perhaps for that time that was better than anyone had done but it still doesn't change the fact that he did not see the full glory of God (or he would have died).

Opinion noted.

What verifiable evidence can you present to assure readers that 'he would have died' had he 'seen the full glory of God'? What do you have other than tales told in an ancient book written by possibly 'confused' (or deceptive) people?

[otseng]

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

Yes, I acknowledge there can be contradictions in the Bible. I touched on this in Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?

[Difflugia]

For instance, I am reading now about the 153 fish they catch.

https://theopolisinstitute.com/153-large-fish/

Is it symbolic or does the literal and symbolic collide in the Bible because God is melding symbolism and historical events simultaneously?

If it is symbolic and the event didn't happen it seems to me to be a case for the Bible being false.

A strikingly similar story was told of Pythagoras, as noted by Strauss in his The Life of Jesus Critically Examined and in On the Pythagorean Life by the third century neoplatonist Iamblichus (an alternate public domain, but abridged translation is here).

ETA: If anyone's interested, here is the Pythagoras story in Greek.

[Tcg]

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

Yes, I acknowledge there can be contradictions in the Bible. I touched on this in Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?

Thanks for that link. I had hoped to add a reference to that thread it but couldn't find it.


Tcg

[1213]

…None of these are reasonable explanations…

Is the reason that atheism needs that? 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?