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 204 by micatala]

It's clear there are reasonable ways to read the texts. Some women

The disciples are hardly known in the gospels for being the best or smartest. Lingering for a week to discuss it all does not seem improbable at all. One presumes they all checked out the tomb, etc.

[micatala]

[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.

Well, I won't belabor this particular point past this post. I will grant it is possible information was simply omitted. But the assumption that all four were there is an assumption, and depending on the particular phrasing, may be quite at odds with what is written.


It would be rather odd if John, Paul, George, and Ringo were going to the club, and a narrator only said that George and John went, not even saying some others unnamed may have been with them.


However, I will grant that this is among the least problematic issues that I brought up.

Even so, note that this explanation continues to assume all the gospels can or should be harmonized, and it does so by violating the spirit and meaning of the individual gospels.

No one reading Matthew would probably even think to consider that there were more or less than two women. No one reading John would think that anyone but Mary saw Jesus at the tomb.


However, I will leave the issue of who exactly among the women was at the tomb. However, there is still the major differences in exactly what they saw, what they were told, and the other discrepancies having to do with the 11 and other disciples.


One issue that cannot be dealt with in the manner you suggest here is whether there were 10 or 11 of the twelve for the narrated appearances of Jesus to the disciples in Jerusalem.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 204 by micatala]

matthew:28 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.

It doesn't say that the woman saw the angel roll the tomb stone back. So I am at a loss to understand the issue being raised.

Is there a version that says they saw the angel roll the stone back?

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 204 by micatala]

matthew:28 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.

It doesn't say that the woman saw the angel roll the tomb stone back. So I am at a loss to understand the issue being raised.

Is there a version that says they saw the angel roll the stone back?

The text does not need to explicitly state that the women watched the angel roll away the stone. It would be redundant if it was there. Surely, you can't pretend that you don't follow the sequence of events here
Step 1: The women go to look at the tomb
Step 2: Suddenly, the earth quakes and an angel appears and rolls away the stone
Step 3: The guards were so afraid they fainted
Step 4: The angel spoke to the women.

Are you trying to claim that between verses 1 and 4, they insert a 2 second long flashback about describing the angel and then went right back to the present moment at verse 4? This would be very incoherent and unnecesarry. It would also raise the question of why the other gospels followed such a different style of writing if this one was written in a very broken up way. Or, we could eliminate all those issues and assume the logical conclusion, that these sentences actually mean what they say, and not what the other gospels wirtten by completely different people in different years said.

If I were to write "Yesterday, I went to see the doctor. The doctor came in wearing a white lab coat. He told me to take tylenol for my headache." would you waste your time trying to argue that I didn't actually say that I saw the doctor come into the room? I hope not, because that would be a completely unnecessary position to take, edging on absurdity. Clearly I went there, and then he came in and spoke to me. He didn't come into the room, then I showed up and he spoke to me. If that was the case, I wouldn't have told you about him entering wearing a coat, and if the earth shook when he came in, i probably wouldn't mention that either since I wasn't there to witness it.

[Wootah]

[Replying to mwtech]

Verses 2, 3 and 4 are clearly descriptions and not designed as a minute by minute retelling.

To accept your version you are saying that the earthquake occurred when the women were at the tomb, whereas I think it simpler to accept the women experienced the earthquake on the way to the tomb.

Your interpretation is much worse. It's like this. We went to the tomb and then there was an earthquake and then an angel zoomed down and then the guards were afraid and then the angel started talking.

It makes the text childish and there is clearly an interpretation that resolves the forced contradiction you are wishing to make.

[mwtech]

[Replying to mwtech]

Verses 2, 3 and 4 are clearly descriptions and not designed as a minute by minute retelling.

To accept your version you are saying that the earthquake occurred when the women were at the tomb, whereas I think it simpler to accept the women experienced the earthquake on the way to the tomb.

Your interpretation is much worse. It's like this. We went to the tomb and then there was an earthquake and then an angel zoomed down and then the guards were afraid and then the angel started talking.

It makes the text childish and there is clearly an interpretation that resolves the forced contradiction you are wishing to make.

It is not at all clear that the descriptions are out of order. The only reason to assume it is not told in chronological order is if you don't want it to be because of your bias. This is a very clear case of confirmation bias.
And I assure you, changing the order of events makes it no more childish than it would be otherwise.
In your version it would read
"There was a big earthquake because this awesome angel rolled away a rock, and when we got there he told us all about it."
You can make something sound childish by editing the wording no matter what order the events occur in. And in light of the other ridiculous stories in the bible that sound like children's tales, this would fit right in.

[micatala]

[Replying to Wootah]

Here is the full paragraph, in the NRSV

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. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!� And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.�

Anyone reading only this narrative would clearly take the order of events as noted by nwtech. In addition, notice the "but" beginning verse 5. This would typically indicate what follows came immediately after what went before.

nwtech alludes to the question of who is doing the narrating. Unless you want to assume, again without any reasonable justification, that there were more people there at dawn at this grave site than the guards and the women, it would have to be one of those groups who bring us these details.

Is it conceivable these details came from the guards? That would be quite a stretch. The are said to be like dead men before the angel speaks, for one. Secondly, there only concern would be to avoid getting executed for not fulfilling their duty.


Now, if you want to create a narrative that is actually 'childish,' to use your words, let's put ALL the details from ALL the accounts into one narrative. I will make an attempt to put these in rough order for now, although, as you will see, there are some insurmountable difficulties. I will equate events between gospels that can be clearly seen to be the same.

1. John: Mary M alone, while it was still dark (clearly this would be well before dawn) comes to the tomb and finds the stone already rolled away.
2. John: She runs to tell Peter (and John) that they have taken the Lord away. I will grant she may have reached this conclusion without looking into the tomb.
3. John:Peter and John run to the tomb, see it is empty. At this point, there is clearly no reason for these two to be told that Jesus' body is missing.
4. John:Mary alone now looks into the tomb, sees no body and two angels.
5. John:Mary sees Jesus, at first thinking him to be the gardener. Jesus tells her specifically not to hold onto his feet.
6. John: She goes and tells the disciples what she has seen and what Jesus told her. No indication of disbelief on the part of the disciples. Clearly, only Peter and John were informed the first time, and now the others are. I will grant it does not say Peter and John are not with the others now, but they DO already know Jesus is missing. If they ARE present at this event, one wonders why they did not inform the others themselves, but that is a minor point.

So far this is all from John and can be taken in chronological order.

However, it would be unclear how to align the Matthew with the John.

7. Matt/Mark/Luke The two Mary's, at dawn, go to the tomb (Matt). In Mark, we have Salome with them, and they have brought spices to anoint Jesus' body. They very clearly expect to find him there. Luke also specifies at dawn, and Mark says this happened after the sun had risen. It is clearly not dark. Luke includes Joanna and other women unspecified in this group.
7a. Mark only: They ask themselves who will roll away the stone.
8. Matt. Earthquake, and angel descends.
9. Matt. Guards fall down as dead men.
9a?: Mark/Luke: There is no quake or angel, they simply 'look up (in Mark)' and see the stone is rolled away.
10. Matt. Angel tells women not to be afraid, but to come into the tomb, and to tell the disciples Jesus will see them in Galilee.
10a. In Mark/Luke, the women go into the tomb, and then see an angel, as they are entering. (In Luke, they see two angels, but only AFTER they are already inside). These one/two angels tell the women more or less the same thing the one angel in Matthew did, but in Mark they specify Peter. So, CLEARLY AT THIS POINT, THE EVENT 2 in JOHN has not yet occurred. If 2 had, Peter would already know Jesus had risen and would not need to be told again.
11. Matt. Both women see Jesus, and he reiterates the 'go to Galilee' instruction. THey hold his feet, which Jesus told Mary not to do in John, because he had not yet ascended. So clearly, 11 comes after 5 from John.
12. Matt/Luke The women evidently to return to the disciples, and give them the instruction, which they are said to obey. Again, in Matthew there is no indication they do not believe the women's story. In Luke, it specifically says the women tell 'the 11' of all this. Peter and John are clearly there for the telling. However, in Luke, the disciples do call this an idle tale.
13. Luke only: Peter, with no indication of being accompanied by John, goes to the tomb. Conceivably, this by itself, ignoring the rest of the narratives, could be the same as 3, except it would again be odd not to mention John.


Now, 7 cannot be the same event as 1 since 1 is clearly earlier in the day.

I would ask Wootah to insert 7 into the narrative from John wherever he thinks it might make any sense at all. I cannot.

From what we have here, one implied order would be.

1 < 2 < 3 = 13 < 4 < 5 < 11 < 12 < 13

Unless you say 5=11, in which case you have a contradiction regarding whether or not the women/woman hold his feet. Even so, you have 13 occurring some time after 13 occurs.

And this is not even taking into account that 7 has to happen long enough after 1 for dark to turn into dawn or even later than dawn. if 7 happens after 3, you of course have a completely hopeless muddle.

If 7 happens between 1 and 2, then it seems everything up to at least 10 also has to happen before 2. On the other hand, 2 clearly cannot be the same as 12, since 2 has only Mary telling only Peter and John, and only later in John's gospel are the others informed. This would put 2 before 10.




How on earth can all this not be considered (several) clear contradictions?

[micatala]

[Replying to mwtech]

Verses 2, 3 and 4 are clearly descriptions and not designed as a minute by minute retelling.

To accept your version you are saying that the earthquake occurred when the women were at the tomb, whereas I think it simpler to accept the women experienced the earthquake on the way to the tomb.

Your interpretation is much worse. It's like this. We went to the tomb and then there was an earthquake and then an angel zoomed down and then the guards were afraid and then the angel started talking.

It makes the text childish and there is clearly an interpretation that resolves the forced contradiction you are wishing to make.

Just on these 4 events, clearly

2 has to happen before 3, or at least 2 must begin before 3 begins. Otherwise, the narrative is completely nonsensical.

1 and 2 have to happen before 4. If there is no angel present, he cannot speak to the women.

To claim 1 happens after 3 is more than a bit odd.
If we are willing to abuse the narrative as Wootah is, in my view, doing, you might as well suggest 3 happened after 4.


If we dismiss the notion that the narrative proceeds chronologically, why pick 2 < 3 < 1 < 4 over 2 < 1 < 4 < 3 or 1 < 4 < 2 < 3?

[jcb]

I think a good place to start is with the definition of the Law of Contradiction (or Non-contradiction as some prefer). Put simply, the law states that something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time. Put another way, something cannot be one thing and its opposite at the same time. Therefore, it is illogical to say that Rover is a dog and Rover is not a dog. The animal can be one or the other, but it can't be both at the same time -- at least, not according to the laws of logic.

Given that definition, can you point out some specific examples from the Bible that you consider contradictory, that is, examples that break that law?

Acts 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 22:8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Verses 9:7 and 22:9 as typically understood is unquestionable contradiction.
Answer 1.. He that has ears to hear, let him hear.
Example: a teacher explains whatever to the class, and later asks a student a reply. Then says to the student. 'Did you not hear the explanation?' The student says 'Yes, but i did not correctly understand it.'
Answer 2.. the word of God was written to deceive the deceived.

Answer 1 explains itself.

Answer 2.. if you want the evidence just tell me from which bible you want it.

[micatala]

I think a good place to start is with the definition of the Law of Contradiction (or Non-contradiction as some prefer). Put simply, the law states that something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time. Put another way, something cannot be one thing and its opposite at the same time. Therefore, it is illogical to say that Rover is a dog and Rover is not a dog. The animal can be one or the other, but it can't be both at the same time -- at least, not according to the laws of logic.

Given that definition, can you point out some specific examples from the Bible that you consider contradictory, that is, examples that break that law?

Acts 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 22:8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Verses 9:7 and 22:9 as typically understood is unquestionable contradiction.

I would agree, as stated, Paul's description of the event changes from chapter 9 to chapter 22. With respect to an ordinary narrative, this would certainly be explainable as faulty memory developing over time.


With respect to biblical interpretation, it does raise a number of questions.
Again, for the record, I hold that the Bible is inspired, but do not take that to mean inerrant.

First, if Paul errs here in his testimony, does that not suggest what he writes elsewhere in the NT may contain errors?

Second, we should allow this passage is written by Luke about Paul. Perhaps Luke erred in his description of what Paul said? In this case, we have Luke called into question regarding what he writes elsewhere, including in his gospel. Also, the fact that Luke, apparently either not being careful or not caring, left such a discrepancy in his writing is suggestive of how he and perhaps others of his day considered such writings. Perhaps inerrancy is a concept that was irrelevant in that day?