On the Bible being inerrant.

[nobspeople]

I came across a post the other day as follows:
"My argument doesn’t rely on the Bible being inerrant."
It has meaning in the context of that discussion, of which I wasn't privy. But it got me thinking:

Does (or should, if you wish) a christian believe the bible is inerrant?

There seems to be a couple camps on the subject:
1) A christian should believe the bible is 100% true and accurate in every way
1a) This seems to indicate the bible was 'god written' (by whatever means you think necessary)
2) A christian should believe the bible is capable of being wrong or inaccurate
2a) This seems to indicate the bible may or may not have been 'god inspired'
2a1) To what extent is it god inspired and when do you know it is and when it isn't?
2b) To what percentage is the bible capable of being wrong or inaccurate?
3) A christian should be able to pick-n-choose their beliefs when they fit their chosen lifestyle agenda (this seems to be a popular choice for obvious reasons)

For discussion:
Do you believe the bible is infallible or not?
Why or why not?
How did you come to this belief?

NOTE: This should be about one's belief and why, not taken as a challenge to 'prove' the bible is or isn't correct and or devoid of errors, contradictions, lies or ½ truths.

[We_Are_VENOM]

This seems to be a common tactic. When the issue is obvious, you have no idea what anyone is talking about.

If I don't know, I don't know.

I don't need to address all the handwaving in the PDF (the detailed explanation you speak of) because the scripture directly contradicts it. You seem to be missing (likely on purpose) the actual words written in the Bible.

The Bible says "Jacob the father of Joseph". I don't know about you, but that means Joseph's father's name is Jacob.

The Bible says "Joseph the son of Heli". I don't know about you, but that means Joseph's father's name is Heli.

Ooops.

The PDF authors attempt to claim we are talking about Joseph's line and Mary's line is irrelevant (and wrong). The scripture says who Joseph's father is twice and it gives a different name each time. At least 1213's attempt to claim these are the same person referred to by a different name was a logical (if misplaced due to the different number of names) attempt to explain this. The separate Joseph/Mary apologetic is an immediate fail.

I see what you are saying now First of all, again, a true contradiction would mean that it cannot be possibly reconciled. As you admit, 1213's explanation is logical.

I will provide my own explanation, which is that Joseph's father may have died (Jacob) and he was adopted by Heli (or vice versa). So one account is his biological father, and the other account is his adoptive father.

This is isn't far fetched, considering that Joseph himself is included in the genealogy of Jesus, and we know that Joseph isn't Jesus' biological father.

So if it can work for Jesus, then it can work for Joseph.

The point is, as long as this is even possible, that makes it not a contradiction, which is what you are aiming for when you present this issue.

What I find really interesting and telling is that Norman Geisler had to write a 552 page document to try and address all the issues in the Bible.

Yeah, and the even more interesting part about it is; most of the issues raised, aren't even issues. In the beginning of the book, he lays out common misconceptions and presuppositions that critics have when raising these alleged issues.

The problem is with the critics, not with the Bible.

Honestly, I'm surprised it's that short.

Yeah because according to you, every sentence of the Bible is in error, huh.

Thanks for the PDF though, it's amusing reading.

[Miles]

.


Speaking of the problem with Jesus's genealogy here, we, of course, also have this: Aside from two lists of names from David on down that seldom match, Luke squeezes 16 generations into Matthew's genealogy. Or is it a matter of Matthew leaving out 16 generations? Obviously both can't be correct so one has to be wrong (or perhaps both are ---if one can be wrong why can't both?). One more instance showing the Bible is not inerrant, and hardly "some small translation error" as VENOM would have it, but an ENORMOUS error.


............................................


.

[benchwarmer]

One more instance showing the Bible is not inerrant, and hardly "some small translation error" as VENOM would have it, but an ENORMOUS error.

You mean you don't buy the apologetic of multiple fathers and adoption and maternal/paternal lineages and two names for the same person and .... ??

It's hilarious how many different ways different apologists try and solve the same issue.

I find the Bible accounts a fascinating look into the minds of the authors. What is likely going on is one author is actually disagreeing with another previous author and attempting to fix it such that it now makes sense (in their mind). The author of Luke even spells this out in the introduction. In other words, the accounts are meant to be different.

It's quite plausible to see the various Bible authors actually trying to correct each other. In that light, the idea that someone would come along and try to reconcile them all such that they are all correct is actually ironic. The poor authors were trying to clear things up and now present day apologists are undoing everyone's work such that none of the authors views are actually left intact.

[benchwarmer]

I will provide my own explanation, which is that Joseph's father may have died (Jacob) and he was adopted by Heli (or vice versa). So one account is his biological father, and the other account is his adoptive father.

So does this mean you are now bailing out on the paternal/maternal lineages and going with adoptive parents on the paternal lineage? That's quite a few adoptions going on in the longer account of this lineage.

Does this mean you now consider Norman Geisler's long explanation baloney as I do? I think if you and I agree on something the rapture might start, so be careful

[Miles]

One more instance showing the Bible is not inerrant, and hardly "some small translation error" as VENOM would have it, but an ENORMOUS error.

You mean you don't buy the apologetic of multiple fathers and adoption and maternal/paternal lineages and two names for the same person and .... ??

It's hilarious how many different ways different apologists try and solve the same issue.

Yeah. With so many it wasn't worth bringing them up, but rather await to see which VENOM picks, and how he justifies it. . . . . . . if at all.



.

[We_Are_VENOM]

So does this mean you are now bailing out on the paternal/maternal lineages and going with adoptive parents on the paternal lineage? That's quite a few adoptions going on in the longer account of this lineage. Does this mean you now consider Norman Geisler's long explanation baloney as I do?

No, it means that I see his answer, and I see my answer; and I like my answer better.

His answer is perfect for the paternal/maternal lineage, but my answer is better for the Jacob/Heli thing.

I think if you and I agree on something the rapture might start, so be careful

If I want to continue my consecutive streak of being correct with things that I say...I can't agree with you on much.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You mean you don't buy the apologetic of multiple fathers and adoption and maternal/paternal lineages and two names for the same person and .... ??

It's hilarious how many different ways different apologists try and solve the same issue.

I find the Bible accounts a fascinating look into the minds of the authors. What is likely going on is one author is actually disagreeing with another previous author and attempting to fix it such that it now makes sense (in their mind). The author of Luke even spells this out in the introduction. In other words, the accounts are meant to be different.

It's quite plausible to see the various Bible authors actually trying to correct each other. In that light, the idea that someone would come along and try to reconcile them all such that they are all correct is actually ironic. The poor authors were trying to clear things up and now present day apologists are undoing everyone's work such that none of the authors views are actually left intact.

I disagree with everything you say here...ESPECIALLY your assessment of Luke's preface..if that is what you got out of Luke's preface, then it is no wonder that you are so lost (no disrespect).

[1213]

#1 The genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17 vs Luke 3:23-38).
#2 God needs to rest or not? (Isaiah 40:28 vs Exodus 31:17)
#3 Man can see God or not? (Genesis 32:30 vs John 1:18)
#4 What were Jesus's last words? (Mark 15:34 vs Luke 23:46 vs John 19:28)
#5 How many animals did Jesus ride on into Jerusalem? (Mark 11 1:7 vs Matthew 21 1:7)
#6 Does God change his mind? (1 Samual 15:28 vs Exodus 32:14)
#7 Was Jesus betrayed with a kiss or did He see it all coming and pre-emptively ask the soldiers who they wanted and told them who He was? (Matthew 26:47-50 vs John 18:4-8)
#8 Did God or Satan incite David to take a census? (2 Samuel 24 vs 1 Chronicles 21)
#9 How many pairs of clean animals and birds was Noah directed to take on the Ark? (Genesis 6:19-20 vs Genesis 7:2-3)
#10 Is Jesus's own testimony about himself true or not? (John 5:31 vs John 8:14)

Next up:

#11 When was Jesus crucified? Morning or afternoon? (Mark 15:25 vs John 19:13)
...

I understand that some need to see Bible with errors. For those who don’t have the need, here is the explanations why those are not really contradictions:

#1 The genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17 vs Luke 3:23-38).

It is certain that Matthew and Luke have different list of names. Possible explanations for the differences are for example that people have had to names. For example, if Matthew is really saying that Jacob was the father of Joseph and Luke says the father was Heli, it may be that the fathers whole name was Jacob Heli. When that is possible, it means there is not necessary contradiction in that part.
One problem with the genealogies is also that as Luke 1:60-61 says, it was common for people to have same name as their ancestors had. This leads to situation where there can be several people who are for example called Joseph. Obviously, this can be one reason who people have begun to have not only one name. But, this can also lead to situation where it becomes difficult to follow the genealogies. If for example there would be three Josephs in a row, they could be mixed in to one later.

His mother answered, “Not so; but he will be called John.” They said to her, “There is no one among your relatives who is called by this name.”
Luke 1:60-61

However, even though the idea of two names and use of same name could explains some differences, there still may be question about how the number of people is different in the two Gospels. One explanation for that may be that Matthew is speaking of “the book of generations”, he lists generations. And it does not necessary mean that his list is really the genealogy of Jesus, but instead list of generations of his family. One example of this is Solomon and Nathan. According to 2 Sam. 5:14, they both are sons of David and so they are same generation. Solomon is more important person in the Bible, the king, so his generation would probably be called the generation of Solomon. This is why appears that Matthew is listing generations, not genealogy.

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham became the father of Isaac. Isaac became the father of Jacob. Jacob became the father of Judah and his brothers… …Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Christ, fourteen generations.
Matthew 1:1-17

So, is there really a contradiction in Matthew and Luke, in this issue? It is possible that they are not in contradiction, because of the reasons explained above. And as long as it is possible to see it without contradiction, it can’t be proven there is a contradiction in this.

#2 God needs to rest or not? (Isaiah 40:28 vs Exodus 31:17)

Neither of these says “God needs to rest”.

Have you not known? have you not heard? The everlasting God, Yahweh, the Creator of the ends of the earth, doesn’t faint, neither is weary; there is no searching of his understanding.
Isaiah 40:28

It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.’”
Exodus 31:17

Isaiah tells God doesn’t faint (=a sudden loss of consciousness) and is not weary (feeling or showing tiredness, especially as a result of excessive exertion or lack of sleep). Exodus 31:17 doesn’t say God was weary, or fainted. It tells God rested, which in this case means, he didn’t create things as in previous six days. Exodus tells God was refreshed. Being refreshed doesn’t necessary mean one was weary.

#3 Man can see God or not? (Genesis 32:30 vs John 1:18)

I think this is classical case of “contradiction” that is based on ignorance. If one reads the whole chapter of Genesis, he sees that the one that was called a god was really a man.

The man said, “Let me go, for the day breaks.” Jacob said, “I won’t let you go, unless you bless me.” He said to him, “What is your name?” He said, “Jacob.” He said, “Your name will no longer be called ‘Jacob,’ but, ‘Israel,’ for you have fought with God and with men, and have prevailed.” Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” He said, “Why is it that you ask what my name is?” He blessed him there. Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for, he said, “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”
Genesis 32:26-30

The word “god” is in this case “elohiym”, which can mean several things, rulers, judges, divine ones, angels, gods, the true God. If person doesn’t need to see contradictions, the one who fought with Jaco was not the one and true God that has not been seen directly.

No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.
John 1:18

#4 What were Jesus's last words? (Mark 15:34 vs Luke 23:46 vs John 19:28)

By what the Bible tells, Jesus still lives and has not said his last words. Bible doesn’t say, “these were the last words of Jesus”, therefore the whole question is quite absurd. But, if the question is, what were the last words of Jesus, before he died, we should look accurately what the scriptures tell.

Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit.
Matthew 27:50

Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and gave up the spirit.
Mark 15:37

Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" Having said this, he breathed his last.
Luke 23:46

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished." He bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.
John 19:30

Now, by what Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus “cried with loud voice” before his death. Matthew and Mark don’t tell what he cried in loud voice, Luke tells that it was "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!". Because it was said in loud voice, it probably would have been heard by many, even those who were not near Jesus. So, the only difference really seems to be in what John says. To understand the difference, it would be good to notice, the disciples were scattered and John as close to Jesus, when he died.

Behold, the time is coming, yes, and has now come, that you will be scattered, everyone to his own place, and you will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.
John 16:32
But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Therefore when Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son!"
John 19:25-26

Because of this, "It is finished." is probably the last words before death. They were said not in loud voice, therefore those who were not close, didn’t necessarily notice it. Therefore, there really is no contradiction in this. The people report what they witnessed. Those who were not close, tell what they heard and saw and John tells what he saw and heard. They are not in contradiction, just small part of a bigger picture.

#5 How many animals did Jesus ride on into Jerusalem? (Mark 11 1:7 vs Matthew 21 1:7)

Also, in this case it is possible that Mark tells only part of the story. he knows there was at least one young donkey, which is the same as a colt, but he doesn’t say there could not have been another also. However, Matthew doesn’t exactly say that Jesus was on top of two animals. Matthew tells the disciples laid their clothes on top of the animals and Jesus sat on them. Jesus sat on the clothes, not necessarily on both animals. And because of what Mark says, it can be said Jesus sat on top of young donkey that can be called a colt also. That is not in contradiction with Matthew.

… They brought the young donkey to Jesus, and threw their garments on it, and Jesus sat on it.
Mark 11:1-7

…“Tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, your King comes to you, Humble, and riding on a donkey, On a colt, the foal of a donkey.”… …and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their clothes on them; and he sat on them.
Matt. 21:1-7

#6 Does God change his mind? (1 Samuel 15:28 vs Exodus 32:14)

Do the scriptures say, “God changes his mind”? Not really. Changing action is not necessary the same as change of mind.

Samuel said to him, Yahweh has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours who is better than you.
1 Samuel 15:28

Yahweh repented of the evil which he said he would do to his people.
Exodus 32:14

#7 Was Jesus betrayed with a kiss or did He see it all coming and pre-emptively ask the soldiers who they wanted and told them who He was? (Matthew 26:47-50 vs John 18:4-8)

Both of those are correct. Judas betrayed Jesus by kiss, then, after it, Jesus went forth and said “Who are you looking for?”. This should be clear, because even John says that Judas betrayed Jesus.

While he was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priest and elders of the people. Now he who betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, “Whoever I kiss, he is the one. Seize him.” Immediately he came to Jesus, and said, “Hail, Rabbi!” and kissed him. Jesus said to him, “Friend, why are you here?” Then they came and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.
Matthew 26:47-50

Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were happening to him, went forth, and said to them, “Who are you looking for?” They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I AM.” Judas also, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When therefore he said to them, “I AM,” they went backward, and fell to the ground. Again therefore he asked them, “Who are you looking for?” They said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus answered, “I told you that I AM. If therefore you seek me, let these go their way,”
John 18:4-8

#8 Did God or Satan incite David to take a census? (2 Samuel 24 vs 1 Chronicles 21)

If you don’t need to see contradictions, these are not in contradiction, if for example you understand that “anger of Yahweh” can be the same as “Satan”. Samuel doesn’t really say God incited, it says “the anger of Yahweh”.

Again the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah.
2 Samuel 24

Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.
1 Chr. 21

#9 How many pairs of clean animals and birds was Noah directed to take on the Ark? (Genesis 6:19-20 vs Genesis 7:2-3)

As Genesis tells, seven pair of clean animals. One pair of unclean animals. I think this should be easily clear to all. Both of them are true at the same time.

Of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come to you, to keep them alive.
Genesis 6:19-20

You shall take seven pairs of every clean animal with you, the male and his female. Of the animals that are not clean, take two, the male and his female. Also of the birds of the sky, seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed alive on the surface of all the earth.
Genesis 7:2-3

#10 Is Jesus's own testimony about himself true or not? (John 5:31 vs John 8:14)

In this case there is no contradiction, because “My witness is not valid” is not the same as “my testimony is true”. Jesus can know that his testimony is true. But still, for others it is not necessarily valid.

If I testify about myself, my witness is not valid. It is another who testifies about me. I know that the testimony which he testifies about me is true.
John 5:31-32

Jesus answered them, “Even if I testify about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from, and where I am going; but you don’t know where I came from, or where I am going.
John 8:14

#11 When was Jesus crucified? Morning or afternoon? (Mark 15:25 vs John 19:13)
Perhaps it would be good to first understand what Jews mean with third hour, or sixth hour of the day.

The hour has a special meaning in Jewish law. "The third hour of the day" doesn't mean 3:00 a.m., or three sixty-minute hours after sunrise. Rather, an hour in halacha is calculated by taking the total time of daylight of a particular day, from sunrise until sunset,1 and dividing it into twelve equal parts.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... /Hours.htm

So, if for example sun would rise at 6:30 am and set at 18:30, third hour would be at 9:30 and sixth hour at 12:30. Because John says ”about the sixth hour”, he is not stating exact time. So, Mark can be more accurate in this, especially if we notice that the word “about” can be translated also “before”. It seems John is saying it happened before sixth hour, which obviously is not in contradiction with Mark.

It was the third hour, and they crucified him.
Mark 15:25

When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called “The Pavement,” but in Hebrew, “Gabbatha.” Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, at about the sixth hour. [noon] He said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!”
John 19:13-14

[TRANSPONDER]

#1 The genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17 vs Luke 3:23-38).
#2 God needs to rest or not? (Isaiah 40:28 vs Exodus 31:17)
#3 Man can see God or not? (Genesis 32:30 vs John 1:18)
#4 What were Jesus's last words? (Mark 15:34 vs Luke 23:46 vs John 19:28)
#5 How many animals did Jesus ride on into Jerusalem? (Mark 11 1:7 vs Matthew 21 1:7)
#6 Does God change his mind? (1 Samual 15:28 vs Exodus 32:14)
#7 Was Jesus betrayed with a kiss or did He see it all coming and pre-emptively ask the soldiers who they wanted and told them who He was? (Matthew 26:47-50 vs John 18:4-8)
#8 Did God or Satan incite David to take a census? (2 Samuel 24 vs 1 Chronicles 21)
#9 How many pairs of clean animals and birds was Noah directed to take on the Ark? (Genesis 6:19-20 vs Genesis 7:2-3)
#10 Is Jesus's own testimony about himself true or not? (John 5:31 vs John 8:14)

Next up:

#11 When was Jesus crucified? Morning or afternoon? (Mark 15:25 vs John 19:13)
...
Sorry for butting in, but 'contradictions' (as some may have noticed ) is what I see as the key to sussing the NT./quote]

I understand that some need to see Bible with errors. For those who don’t have the need, here is the explanations why those are not really contradictions:

#1 The genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17 vs Luke 3:23-38).

It is certain that Matthew and Luke have different list of names. Possible explanations for the differences are for example that people have had to names. For example, if Matthew is really saying that Jacob was the father of Joseph and Luke says the father was Heli, it may be that the fathers whole name was Jacob Heli. When that is possible, it means there is not necessary contradiction in that part.
One problem with the genealogies is also that as Luke 1:60-61 says, it was common for people to have same name as their ancestors had. This leads to situation where there can be several people who are for example called Joseph. Obviously, this can be one reason who people have begun to have not only one name. But, this can also lead to situation where it becomes difficult to follow the genealogies. If for example there would be three Josephs in a row, they could be mixed in to one later.

His mother answered, “Not so; but he will be called John.” They said to her, “There is no one among your relatives who is called by this name.”
Luke 1:60-61

However, even though the idea of two names and use of same name could explains some differences, there still may be question about how the number of people is different in the two Gospels. One explanation for that may be that Matthew is speaking of “the book of generations”, he lists generations. And it does not necessary mean that his list is really the genealogy of Jesus, but instead list of generations of his family. One example of this is Solomon and Nathan. According to 2 Sam. 5:14, they both are sons of David and so they are same generation. Solomon is more important person in the Bible, the king, so his generation would probably be called the generation of Solomon. This is why appears that Matthew is listing generations, not genealogy.

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham became the father of Isaac. Isaac became the father of Jacob. Jacob became the father of Judah and his brothers… …Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Christ, fourteen generations.
Matthew 1:1-17

So, is there really a contradiction in Matthew and Luke, in this issue? It is possible that they are not in contradiction, because of the reasons explained above. And as long as it is possible to see it without contradiction, it can’t be proven there is a contradiction in this.

Short answer is, they are different. Not just fiddling different names to be the same, but they are different lines, one through a collateral line that never ruled and the other through a line that was broken by the exile and restored through the Persian appointee, Zerubbabel. They are clearly different lineages, but both end in Joseph. It says so.

#2 God needs to rest or not? (Isaiah 40:28 vs Exodus 31:17)

Neither of these says “God needs to rest”.

Have you not known? have you not heard? The everlasting God, Yahweh, the Creator of the ends of the earth, doesn’t faint, neither is weary; there is no searching of his understanding.
Isaiah 40:28

It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.’”
Exodus 31:17

Isaiah tells God doesn’t faint (=a sudden loss of consciousness) and is not weary (feeling or showing tiredness, especially as a result of excessive exertion or lack of sleep). Exodus 31:17 doesn’t say God was weary, or fainted. It tells God rested, which in this case means, he didn’t create things as in previous six days. Exodus tells God was refreshed. Being refreshed doesn’t necessary mean one was weary.

It's al very well to say that God doesn't need to rest but the point is that Genesis says He did.

#3 Man can see God or not? (Genesis 32:30 vs John 1:18)

I think this is classical case of “contradiction” that is based on ignorance. If one reads the whole chapter of Genesis, he sees that the one that was called a god was really a man.

The man said, “Let me go, for the day breaks.” Jacob said, “I won’t let you go, unless you bless me.” He said to him, “What is your name?” He said, “Jacob.” He said, “Your name will no longer be called ‘Jacob,’ but, ‘Israel,’ for you have fought with God and with men, and have prevailed.” Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” He said, “Why is it that you ask what my name is?” He blessed him there. Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for, he said, “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”
Genesis 32:26-30

The word “god” is in this case “elohiym”, which can mean several things, rulers, judges, divine ones, angels, gods, the true God. If person doesn’t need to see contradictions, the one who fought with Jaco was not the one and true God that has not been seen directly.

No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.
John 1:18

That again seems to be the point - John says that no -one has seen God (no human, anyway - presumably in heaven they see God) but in the OT they can see God, though it's as risky as handling a nuclear leak. You are opening a can of worms to say that God (when he can be seen) is not actually God at all, because how do you know God is really God even if not seen?

#4 What were Jesus's last words? (Mark 15:34 vs Luke 23:46 vs John 19:28)

By what the Bible tells, Jesus still lives and has not said his last words. Bible doesn’t say, “these were the last words of Jesus”, therefore the whole question is quite absurd. But, if the question is, what were the last words of Jesus, before he died, we should look accurately what the scriptures tell.

Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit.
Matthew 27:50

Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and gave up the spirit.
Mark 15:37

Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" Having said this, he breathed his last.
Luke 23:46

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished." He bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.
John 19:30

Now, by what Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus “cried with loud voice” before his death. Matthew and Mark don’t tell what he cried in loud voice, Luke tells that it was "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!". Because it was said in loud voice, it probably would have been heard by many, even those who were not near Jesus. So, the only difference really seems to be in what John says. To understand the difference, it would be good to notice, the disciples were scattered and John as close to Jesus, when he died.

Behold, the time is coming, yes, and has now come, that you will be scattered, everyone to his own place, and you will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.
John 16:32
But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Therefore when Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son!"
John 19:25-26

Because of this, "It is finished." is probably the last words before death. They were said not in loud voice, therefore those who were not close, didn’t necessarily notice it. Therefore, there really is no contradiction in this. The people report what they witnessed. Those who were not close, tell what they heard and saw and John tells what he saw and heard. They are not in contradiction, just small part of a bigger picture.

Ah. The 'weaving together'. Again we are asked to believe that one witness remembered 'Abba, Abba..., (quote from Psalms, like that's probable) another remembered obedient resignation (which is odd when Jesus knew he'd be resurrected) and another heard John's 'I win' cry of triumph, but none of the other. The answer is that..as in the rest of the gospels, pretty much, Jesus expired with a loud cry (it says) and that wasn't good enough, so the others added contradictory last words according to their own preferences.

#5 How many animals did Jesus ride on into Jerusalem? (Mark 11 1:7 vs Matthew 21 1:7)

Also, in this case it is possible that Mark tells only part of the story. he knows there was at least one young donkey, which is the same as a colt, but he doesn’t say there could not have been another also. However, Matthew doesn’t exactly say that Jesus was on top of two animals. Matthew tells the disciples laid their clothes on top of the animals and Jesus sat on them. Jesus sat on the clothes, not necessarily on both animals. And because of what Mark says, it can be said Jesus sat on top of young donkey that can be called a colt also. That is not in contradiction with Matthew.

… They brought the young donkey to Jesus, and threw their garments on it, and Jesus sat on it.
Mark 11:1-7

…“Tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, your King comes to you, Humble, and riding on a donkey, On a colt, the foal of a donkey.”… …and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their clothes on them; and he sat on them.
Matt. 21:1-7

I love this one. The fact is that there is only one animal in all the gospels but Matthew. If there were two (and why would there be if it was made ready next morning, according to John) why take both along? Even if the colt tagged along behind, Jesus wouldn't sit on both. No, the problem is that Matthew was over - literal, seeing an ass and the foal of an ass as meaning two animals, where a Jew who knew his scriptures would know that it meant 'an ass; that is, a colt, the foal of an ass'. That is, the prophecy designates one animal - a young ass. This means that Matthew messed it up, did not know his OT and could not have been an eyewitness.

#6 Does God change his mind? (1 Samuel 15:28 vs Exodus 32:14)

Do the scriptures say, “God changes his mind”? Not really. Changing action is not necessary the same as change of mind.

Did God know he's 'repent' about doing the Flood? Then why do it? ( cue - 'God has his reasons')

Samuel said to him, Yahweh has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours who is better than you.
1 Samuel 15:28

Not sure what this signifies, but it looks like explaining why God seemed to drop His people in the loam so often.

Yahweh repented of the evil which he said he would do to his people.
Exodus 32:14

Exactly. I suppose one could argue that He was sorry beforehand about what he'd have to do, but that still doesn't explain the Flood. Ok he had to wipe out his creation, but why a flood? Especially one that leaves no geological trace?

#7 Was Jesus betrayed with a kiss or did He see it all coming and pre-emptively ask the soldiers who they wanted and told them who He was? (Matthew 26:47-50 vs John 18:4-8)

Both of those are correct. Judas betrayed Jesus by kiss, then, after it, Jesus went forth and said “Who are you looking for?”. This should be clear, because even John says that Judas betrayed Jesus.

While he was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priest and elders of the people. Now he who betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, “Whoever I kiss, he is the one. Seize him.” Immediately he came to Jesus, and said, “Hail, Rabbi!” and kissed him. Jesus said to him, “Friend, why are you here?” Then they came and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.
Matthew 26:47-50

Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were happening to him, went forth, and said to them, “Who are you looking for?” They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I AM.” Judas also, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When therefore he said to them, “I AM,” they went backward, and fell to the ground. Again therefore he asked them, “Who are you looking for?” They said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus answered, “I told you that I AM. If therefore you seek me, let these go their way,”
John 18:4-8

Well, there are differences in the accounts.
Mark. Judas identifies Jesus with a kiss 'Master!'. Matthew the same but adds 'why are you here?'
Luke Judas intends to identify Jesus with a kiss but Jesus reproaches him.
John. No kiss. The dialogue is different, too. I have seen before this apologetic of pasting in contradictory text and saying 'no contradiction'. Of course something like this can be passed off as eyewitness mis-remembering, but more serious contradictions that can't be explained away so easily makes these lesser ones look more suspicious.

#8 Did God or Satan incite David to take a census? (2 Samuel 24 vs 1 Chronicles 21)

If you don’t need to see contradictions, these are not in contradiction, if for example you understand that “anger of Yahweh” can be the same as “Satan”. Samuel doesn’t really say God incited, it says “the anger of Yahweh”.

Again the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah.
2 Samuel 24

Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.
1 Chr. 21

Understood that Satan is the gofor for God, but that's putting the whole Satan is to blame, not God' excuse for Evil into an odd light, isn't it? The problem of evil is sometimes blamed on Satan, but if Satan is just God's doer of dirty work, it's down to God, isn't it? And it's easy to try to accuse the doubters as being biased, but aren't the Bible apologists moti
cvated to explain away the problems?

#9 How many pairs of clean animals and birds was Noah directed to take on the Ark? (Genesis 6:19-20 vs Genesis 7:2-3)

As Genesis tells, seven pair of clean animals. One pair of unclean animals. I think this should be easily clear to all. Both of them are true at the same time.

Of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come to you, to keep them alive.
Genesis 6:19-20

You shall take seven pairs of every clean animal with you, the male and his female. Of the animals that are not clean, take two, the male and his female. Also of the birds of the sky, seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed alive on the surface of all the earth.
Genesis 7:2-3

Slight correction. How many of each kind of animal? Not clean animals. Well, two of each. And 7 pairs of the clean ones. The reason being that Noah has to sacrifice after the flood. There is not really a contradiction there. The Flood problems are not really on 2 or 7 but how such breeding pairs could work without ruined genetics and how you could either get all kinds onto the ark (including dinosaurs, because their footprints are in supposed 'flood levels') or just basic 'kinds' (Baryma) that could be comprehensibly fitted on the ark but have to super -evolve in just 1,000 years into all species.

#10 Is Jesus's own testimony about himself true or not? (John 5:31 vs John 8:14)

In this case there is no contradiction, because “My witness is not valid” is not the same as “my testimony is true”. Jesus can know that his testimony is true. But still, for others it is not necessarily valid.

If I testify about myself, my witness is not valid. It is another who testifies about me. I know that the testimony which he testifies about me is true.
John 5:31-32

Jesus answered them, “Even if I testify about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from, and where I am going; but you don’t know where I came from, or where I am going.
John 8:14

I get the idea that claims about himself re not valid, but God's testimony is. But since we only have Jesus' word that God is validating him, it's back to Jesus testifying about himself. It is of course the 'signs' that are supposed to do the validation.

#11 When was Jesus crucified? Morning or afternoon? (Mark 15:25 vs John 19:13)
Perhaps it would be good to first understand what Jews mean with third hour, or sixth hour of the day.

The hour has a special meaning in Jewish law. "The third hour of the day" doesn't mean 3:00 a.m., or three sixty-minute hours after sunrise. Rather, an hour in halacha is calculated by taking the total time of daylight of a particular day, from sunrise until sunset,1 and dividing it into twelve equal parts.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... /Hours.htm

So, if for example sun would rise at 6:30 am and set at 18:30, third hour would be at 9:30 and sixth hour at 12:30. Because John says ”about the sixth hour”, he is not stating exact time. So, Mark can be more accurate in this, especially if we notice that the word “about” can be translated also “before”. It seems John is saying it happened before sixth hour, which obviously is not in contradiction with Mark.

It was the third hour, and they crucified him.
Mark 15:25

When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called “The Pavement,” but in Hebrew, “Gabbatha.” Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, at about the sixth hour. [noon] He said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!”
John 19:13-14

Explaining that Jewish hours aren't like ours (night hour 1 began when 2 evening stars appeared, not at midnight) doesn't explain why 3rd hour is the same as 6th. Essentially your apologetic is that they are the same because 'about' means 'before'. Excuse me, but calling at least 2 hours before the 6th hour '6th hour' makes no more sense than referring to a governorship 'before' Quirinus rather than saying whose governorship it actually was.

And, as I have said before, these are piddling problems compared to the really serious ones.

[benchwarmer]

I understand that some need to see Bible with errors.

This is not correct. I have no NEED to see the Bible with errors. It's just that as I read it and studied about it many errors were found.

Why do apologists always assume people are looking for errors? I used to be a committed Christian that was trying to study the Bible to further understand God. Like many others, this backfired and I could no longer continue with my cognitive dissonance.

Now that I've stepped away from the 'religious shackles' that held me to believing what church doctrine teaches, the Bible has actually become more interesting. I find it an interesting snapshot into the various phases of Christianity and the religions that came before it.

For those who don’t have the need, here is the explanations why those are not really contradictions:

1213, I really do appreciate your attempt. Sadly none of it is convincing to me. Perhaps you will help some of our readers learn something and that's great. It's always good to see all sides to any given issue and let people judge for themselves. In the end, that's all I'm really here for. When I was a Christian, I never saw all sides, I only saw one.

Cheers my friend!