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.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 175 by Danmark]

When I say "mindful," I am not necessarily referring to a God such as man has tended to turn to. I'm saying exactly what I mean - that there might well be an intelligent force or input which directly affects the unfolding of reality, just as the wind affects a drifting leaf.

I'm glad for you that you are able to feel such certainty that a non-living universe just happened to one day give birth to life, ....

Since you persist in misstating what I write, and even claiming the opposite of what I write, I suggest you quit trying.

Instead, I recommend you actually quote me in context and then respond with an argument aimed at what I've actually written. BTW, I don't believe in anything "to an absolute certainty," tho' I confess to believing some opinions are absurd.

[micatala]

Just as another contradiction to throw out there, as I have not seen this one debated before, consider the actions of Jesus and the Apostles post-resurrection among the four gospels. There are many discrepancies that are hard to reconcile, but one in particular stands out.


In Matthew, first an angel, and then Jesus, appears to the women who came to the tomb. Both tell the women to tell the Apostles to meet Jesus in Galilee, and that he will see them there. "WHile they were going" the Roman soldiers report the disappearance of Jesus' body and a story is concocted to explain the occurrence.

We then are told that the disciples are in Galilee and see Jesus there.
There are no appearances of Jesus to the disciples in Jerusalem described in Matthew, and from the text, it is pretty clear the first such appearance is the one described in Galilee.


Contrast with Luke. Here, Jesus appears to two disciples on the road to Emmaus and then to the 11 in Jerusalem. Jesus then orders the disciples personally to stay in Jerusalem until they have been clothed with power from on high. He then walks out with them to the nearby town of Bethany and ascends to heaven. The disciples return to Jerusalem.

This is repeated in Luke's second volume, the Book of Acts. It is added that Jesus appears to them over 40 days. Apparently, the disciples follow Jesus' explicit order, given in both books, to stay in Jerusalem. No mention of the disciples going to Galilee occurs.



These two narratives are pretty clearly contradictory. How could Jesus give the two contradictory orders, and have both of those orders apparently followed?

John complicates matters further. Jesus appears first to the 10 (without Thomas) in Jerusalem the day after the crucifixion. He appears again to all 11 a week later, in Jerusalem. The absence of Thomas contradicts the appearance as described in Luke. Furthermore, what is explicitly said to be the third appearance of Jesus to the disciples occurs by the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee, some time later.

John would seem to contradict both Matthew and Luke. In Matthew, the disciples leave immediately to go to Galilee, right after the women give them Jesus' order, while in Luke they are in Jerusalem for 40 full days before Pentecost, and there is in fact no movement of all the 11 or even a significant subgroup to Galilee at all.





Is there any rational explanation that can square all of these narratives?


And keep in mind, this does not even get into the other details, including the very dramatic appearance of the angel and the women witnessing the rolling away of the stone in Matthew, as opposed to what happens when they show up at the tomb in the other gospels, not to mention who exactly and how many women are there.



As a final detail, in John Jesus' explicitly tells Mary not to hold on to his feet as he has not yet ascended to the father, but she does exactly that in an earlier gospel.




I point this out not because I do not believe the Bible is inspired, but I do not believe it is inerrant. I believe inerrancy is an erroneous interpretive assumption to make.

[LightSeeker]

[Replying to micatala]

An agreeable scenario.

If one believes every word of the Bible as truth (from God), IMO they can be misled. What proof is there that words cannot be merely changed since the earliest documentation comes from centuries after Christ. And consider Luke was not an eye witness, but gathered information. Even Matthew and John could have been written by presbyters rather than the disciples themselves.

It is the teachings from the spiritual source of Christ that does not contradict. Not the physical actions or views of what men write about. Those who stoned Stephen didn't see what Stephen saw, but could only "say" what he said he saw. The spiritual mind see's the image of truth, where others see an image contrived by words. Words that can be changed, or misunderstood.

[Idealist]

[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?

[Idealist]

[Replying to post 179 by LightSeeker]

I too see the personal reasons some have for feeling a need to physically link Jesus with all the prophecy, the bloodline, etc. This usually seems most important to those same people who see the Bible as the Authority and Proof of God. I personally look for evidence of a creative force in the physical world around me. I don't understand why people today should be incapable of the same the same authoritative events and experiences as the people of more than two-thousand years ago, and who instead look to antiquity for the evidence of what is true today. It would seem to me that all evidence is important, and therefore the Bible should be an ongoing publication.

[Idealist]

[Replying to post 181 by Danmark]

I apologize if you feel I've misquoted you. That was certainly not my intent. And I was not being snide when I said that I was happy for you for seemingly having found something you can truly believe in, as I wish that I could accomplish that myself.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 182 by micatala]

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

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 183 by LightSeeker]

There's too many early manuscripts to doubt that the books in the Bible we have today isn't from the letters and documents they had then.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 182 by micatala]

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

[Goat]

[Replying to post 182 by micatala]

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

But, that doesn't address what the actual text is, but makes things up.

I tend to find the 'answers in genesis' responses to be very illogical and unconvincing.