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

[1213]

.

…Did gospel writers (whoever they may have been) ever copy from one another or from a common source?

I don’t think we have enough evidence to claim so.

Likewise, it seems as though some people are desperate to believe tales in their favorite religious book – and will make up all sorts of excuses to 'explain' and/or deny defects.

On my behalf it is not problem, if atheist love more their own interpretations that make Bible look wrong. My only goal in this is to show that it can be also understood without contradiction. And when it is possible, it is wrong and dishonest to claim it is contradictory, when it is only the interpretation that is contradictory.

[Tcg]

On my behalf it is not problem, if atheist love more their own interpretations that make Bible look wrong.

As has been shown numerous times in this thread, atheists are far from the only ones who acknowledge Bible contradictions. Some Christians and other non-Christian theists also acknowledge them. This acknowledgement isn't based on any peculiar interpretation, but rather on a plain reading of the text.

My only goal in this is to show that it can be also understood without contradiction. And when it is possible, it is wrong and dishonest to claim it is contradictory, when it is only the interpretation that is contradictory.

It requires peculiar interpretations to avoid the fact that the Bible contains contradictions. There is nothing wrong or dishonest in recognizing these contradictions as some Christians, non-Christian theists, and atheists do.

This acknowledgement is based on the flaws in the text not on any nefarious intent or peculiar interpretation by any of these individuals whether theist or atheist.


Tcg

[Clownboat]

On my behalf it is not problem, if atheist love more their own interpretations that make Bible look wrong.

As has been shown numerous times in this thread, atheists are far from the only ones who acknowledge Bible contradictions. Some Christians and other non-Christian theists also acknowledge them. This acknowledgement isn't based on any peculiar interpretation, but rather on a plain reading of the text.

My only goal in this is to show that it can be also understood without contradiction. And when it is possible, it is wrong and dishonest to claim it is contradictory, when it is only the interpretation that is contradictory.

It requires peculiar interpretations to avoid the fact that the Bible contains contradictions. There is nothing wrong or dishonest in recognizing these contradictions as some Christians, non-Christian theists, and atheists do.

This acknowledgement is based on the flaws in the text not on any nefarious intent or peculiar interpretation by any of these individuals whether theist or atheist.


Tcg

We must consider that many Christians are indoctrinated to believe that a god will spew the lukewarm ones from his mouth.

Revelation 3:16
New International Version
So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Some Christians will defend the contraditions because they feel they must, or they will be considered as lukewarm Christians. This kind of Christian is not allowed to consider that the Bible (the true object being worshipped my many IMO) may have contradictions.

I was indoctrinated to believe that being lukewarm was worse than being a atheist. Fortunately, I was set free from my beliefs and have been a more Christlike person since losing my beliefs.

[1213]

…Some Christians will defend the contraditions because they feel they must, or they will be considered as lukewarm Christians. This kind of Christian is not allowed to consider that the Bible (the true object being worshipped my many IMO) may have contradictions. ….

I don’t know why any Christians would not be allowed to consider that Bible could have errors. But can you explain, why should anyone choose contradictory interpretation rather than non-contradictory? Maybe I also should start to interpret what atheist say so that it would look like they are insane and contradictory?

[Zzyzx]

.

Maybe I also should start to interpret what atheist say so that it would look like they are insane and contradictory?

Feel free to 'interpret' what this Non-Theist says -- and to try to make it sound insane or contradictory. Don't be shy.

1) I find no reason to accept god tales or associated threats and promises as true and accurate.

2) Any of the thousands of 'gods' proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, and fought over by humans MAY actually exist, awaiting verifiable evidence.

[Tcg]

Maybe I also should start to interpret what atheist say so that it would look like they are insane and contradictory?

Why would you apply this practice only to atheists?

As we have seen repeatedly on this thread, atheists are far from the only ones who acknowledge Bible contradictions. Some non-Christian theists and some Christians do as well. It's odd that neither of these groups are included in your consideration.


Tcg

[Clownboat]

…Some Christians will defend the contraditions because they feel they must, or they will be considered as lukewarm Christians. This kind of Christian is not allowed to consider that the Bible (the true object being worshipped my many IMO) may have contradictions. ….

I don’t know why any Christians would not be allowed to consider that Bible could have errors. But can you explain, why should anyone choose contradictory interpretation rather than non-contradictory? Maybe I also should start to interpret what atheist say so that it would look like they are insane and contradictory?

First of all, I'm an ex-Christian, not an atheists. Therefore you will need to form actual arguments, not just lump me into a bin (atheist bin) and pretend I'm the enemy and considder yourself justified.

I was one of those Christians that believed tha the Bible was the spoken work of a god. Therefore to acknowledge a contradiction was to lack the faith required to believe the Bible was the spoken word of a god. The fear of being lukewarm (even questioning the Bible) was worse then being an outright atheist.

Any Bible worshipper (which I believe is far more Christians than even most Christians will acknowledge) cannot acknowledge the contradictions that are in the Bible.
(Save examples where they might claim a translation error where man can be blamed).

So, to the OP.
Some Christians as has been demonstrated do acknowlede Biblical contradictions.
IMO, those who worship a book (and they may pretend they are worshiping a god behind the book) will not acknowledge the contradictions. I was one such Christian for many years (in my defense, I was indoctrinated into such a belief).

[Difflugia]

…Did gospel writers (whoever they may have been) ever copy from one another or from a common source?

I don’t think we have enough evidence to claim so.

We do. There are far too many structural and verbal similarities between the Synoptics than could plausibly be attributed to coincidence.

Matthew 3:7-10 (ESV)"

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Luke 3:7-9 (ESV):

He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.�

The similarity is as strong in Greek as in English. Keep in mind that since the Baptist would have been ranting in Aramaic, the wording here is a translation and even between similar languages (German into English, say), it's hard to get a translation that's identical to someone else's. Greek, though, has so many more verb tenses and aspects than Semitic languages that it beggars belief that two independent authors would arrive at the same Greek rendition of a remembered Aramaic address.

[Difflugia]

As an addendum to my previous post, I found a 1915 book about the sources of the Synoptic Gospels. The first part of the book lays out a comprehensive argument for the dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark. There are more modern studies that employ more sophisticated statistical methods, but the book discusses other classes of evidence than simple verbal agreement to show not only that the Synoptics show a level of similarity that can only arise through copying, it examines the differences in order to conclude that Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark.

Sources of the Synoptic Gospels by Carl S. Patton is in the public domain and free to read. A short section entitled "Some Remarkable Verbal Resemblances" begins on page 93. I also see that it's at Project Gutenberg, complete with transcribed polytonic Greek text and formatted tables.

[Wootah]

Has any single Christian on this site acknowledged a specific contradiction yet?