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

[Difflugia]

…Creationists, ….antivaxxers, moon landing hoaxers, …, climate change skeptics, and … are all objectively wrong. They've been shown to be so, over and over again …

Sorry, I have not seen any intelligent and good reason to believe you in this.

I'll bet you have. Whether you acknowledged it as such is the question.

…Matthew wrote that Judas died by suicidal hanging after throwing his money to the priests. Luke wrote that Judas fell to his death while strolling in a field that he bought with the money. Those two cannot be simultaneously true…

Yes, they can. It is possible that Judas hang himself and the rope was cut and he fell.

Since that's neither Matthew's nor Luke's story, it's not possible if either of them is inerrant.

In Matthew, Judas died by suicidal hanging. In Acts, he died by falling and exploding.

In Matthew, Judas threw the money away and hanged himself as Jesus was being led to his execution. In Acts, he had time to buy a field before his death and then visit it, where he subsequently died.

In Matthew, the potter's field is called Field of Blood because the priests bought it as a place to bury destitute strangers. In Acts, a field that Judas bought is called Field of Blood because he died in a gory mess in the middle of it.

Now, despite this only being two sentences in Acts, there are three irreconcilable, factual contradictions with Matthew. In addition, the morals of the stories are different; in Matthew, Judas repented of his evil and committed suicide, but he is struck down by God for dishonestly enriching himself in Acts (a common theme in Acts, by the way). Those two are theologically contradictory unless God makes a habit of striking down the remorseful and penitent. The only detail that isn't contradictory is the name of the protagonist.

Even if you've somehow managed to avoid seeing all of the other contradictions demonstrated through the many forum posts in the past, you now have four in one place. Now we can test whether at least one, particular inerrantist will acknowledge proven contradictions.

[Elijah John]

…Quite obviously, those Christians who acknowledge Bible contradictions disagree with your assertion that they don't exist. In spite of your continued protestation, some Christians do in fact acknowledge Bible contradictions. …

But no one has been able to prove there is contradiction. So, why would we care, if some people claims there is contradictions, if they cannot prove it?

Do people really need to prove the obvious? Water at room temperature is wet, prove it. Some things are simply self-evident.

We can give you examples, as we have. I reiterate a major theological contradiction. Example, the unknown author of the book of Hebrews asserts that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin". Yet the author of Luke tells us that John "performed baptisms of repentance for the forgiveness of sins". How is that not a contradiction, and a major one at that? There was no blood-shedding in John's baptisms, yet forgiveness was proclaimed. John baptized in the River, John did not offer blood in the temple or on an altar.

There are many other examples of forgiveness without the "shedding of blood" as Hebrews insists. The Lord's prayer, the Parables, the Beattitudes,, Hosea 6.6, Micah 6.6-8, etc, etc.

[Wootah]

The forum has always been very helpful for Christians with doubts. It would be nice if the Christians that acknowledge bible contradictions would post their contradictions so we can resolve them.

[Difflugia]

The forum has always been very helpful for Christians with doubts. It would be nice if the Christians that acknowledge bible contradictions would post their contradictions so we can resolve them.

I would prefer it otherwise (since I couldn't be part of it), but that might need to be a Holy Huddle discussion. Unless those Christians simply don't know what the apologetic arguments are (which is possible, but I'm guessing that's not it), then there must be reasons that the Christians don't find the apologetic arguments satisfying. Since those reasons might start sounding too much like atheist reasons, I suspect there might be too much temptation to circle the wagons, hurting the dialog.

[Zzyzx]

.

The forum has always been very helpful for Christians with doubts. It would be nice if the Christians that acknowledge bible contradictions would post their contradictions so we can resolve them.

I would prefer it otherwise (since I couldn't be part of it), but that might need to be a Holy Huddle discussion.

Perhaps Christians who have doubts about Bible stories or contradictions SHOULD post in open forums rather than 'Christians Only' sub-forums. Here in C&A they have a chance to evaluate the merits of pro and con views rather than 'resolving' with only the pro view presented.

In church or in Holy Huddle there is little or no check on maintaining there is no contradiction between saying yes in one place and no in another (regarding the same matter).

Being exposed to Non-Christian views may present 'doubters' with ideas that make more sense than church propaganda.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 50 by 1213]

It is possible that Judas hang himself and the rope was cut and he fell.

Why would both accounts differ so radically if they are describing the same event?

[1213]

…In Matthew, Judas died by suicidal hanging. In Acts, he died by falling and exploding…

Now this man obtained a field with the reward for his wickedness, and falling headlong, his body burst open, and all his intestines gushed out.
Acts. 1:18

Acts don’t tell the reason for death was the fall. It only tells Judas fell, not that it killed Judas.

…In Matthew, Judas threw the money away and hanged himself as Jesus was being led to his execution. In Acts, he had time to buy a field before his death and then visit it, where he subsequently died...

Acts doesn’t tell judas bought the field. It tells Judas “obtained� it. Judas got the field, because the priests brought it with his money.

….In Matthew, the potter's field is called Field of Blood because the priests bought it as a place to bury destitute strangers. In Acts, a field that Judas bought is called Field of Blood because he died in a gory mess in the middle of it….

It became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem that in their language that field was called 'Akeldama,' that is, 'The field of blood.'
Acts 1:19

Acts doesn’t really say the reason was something else. It tells about what happened to Judas (got the “blood money�, by which he obtained the field) and thus the reason can be the same as in Matthew. So, sorry, I think you failed.

[1213]

…We can give you examples, as we have. I reiterate a major theological contradiction. Example, the unknown author of the book of Hebrews asserts that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin". Yet the author of Luke tells us that John "performed baptisms of repentance for the forgiveness of sins". How is that not a contradiction, and a major one at that? There was no blood-shedding in John's baptisms, yet forgiveness was proclaimed. John baptized in the River, John did not offer blood in the temple or on an altar…

If you mean this:

"This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you." Moreover he sprinkled the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry in like manner with the blood. According to the law, nearly everything is cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.
Heb. 9:20-22

I understand that it means, according to that law, everything is cleansed with blood and no remission without blood. Is it not correct that according to the law Hebrews 9:20-22 is speaking of, there is no forgiveness without blood? I don’t see any reason to think Hebrews is saying that God can’t forgive without blood.

[1213]

[Replying to post 50 by 1213]

It is possible that Judas hang himself and the rope was cut and he fell.

Why would both accounts differ so radically if they are describing the same event?

Because witnesses see things differently, they notice different things and don’t see same things as necessary as others may see. If you would go and ask from people who witnesses car accident, what did they see, you would not get the exact same message. And interesting thing is actually that, if the messages would be the exact same, people would say, “yes, the others copied the message, which is why it is not true�. It seems to me that it doesn’t really matter what is said, if people don’t want to believe.

[Tcg]

Now this man obtained a field with the reward for his wickedness, and falling headlong, his body burst open, and all his intestines gushed out.
Acts. 1:18

Acts don’t tell the reason for death was the fall. It only tells Judas fell, not that it killed Judas.

It tells us much more than that Judas fell. It tells us that, "his body burst open, and all his intestines gushed out."

Are you suggesting he recovered from his body bursting open and all his intestines gushing out?


Tcg