Bible contradictions: a philosopher and a historian

Ok, I would like to get the debate I was in earlier to downsize. A veteran of online debates, I have found the debates here a little too broad. Now, onto the point. I have seen the most popular rebuttal used in anti-Christian debates to be the supposed contradictions in the Bible. Those here who have debated with me on this site know what my stance is on this topic, but for those who haven't, I believe that some of the questions would be plausible, if it were from a philosopher's point of view. However, from a historian's point of view, the Bible is completely reconciled. To take a popular example, I will use the ressurection scene. People look at the four gospels and see a few differences. Here is a list:

The time of morning. Two gospels say that it was dawning, while the other two say it was not yet light.

The people there. The names aren't lined up perfectly from one to another. There were either two angels there or two youths.

The events after. One says they ran for the hills (not literally). Another says they ran with joy and fear, telling everyone they saw, and met Jesus somewhere along the path. Another says they ran for it, and told the disciples.

Now, these may seem to be irrefutable differences, but not from a historian's point of view. A philosopher would look at it and say, "Oops! There's a contradiction, let's throw it out." However, a historian would look at it and say, "I see some contradictions, however, I see something about them. They are all in the secondary details. I see that, while there are differences, these stories have a historical backing.

For good measure, I can clear up some of these seeming contradictions:

1. Most likely just two different names for the same point of time

2. The Bible does draw the common consensus that a gaggle of women followers of Jesus were there. This has the added bonus of being something that no writer back then would admit, least of all the disciples. Back then, women were so low on the ladder that they weren't even allowed to testify in court. To admit that women discovered the empty tomb is shameful at best for the disciples to admit, and definitely not something that would have been put there if it were legendary.

3. Differences in writing styles could clear this up. Luke, the detail oriented doctor, told exactly what happened and in what order it happened. Mark, the young, action film writer, as he is called by some, liked to emphasize fear, so mentioning joy or Jesus in the scene or even telling the disciples, would get rid of the fear. Matthew, the straight to the point person, cut to the chase by taking them straight to the upper room where they reported to the disciples.

From this, and other examples, I have seen that the Bible is easy to accept as credible. I am now opening the floor to questions, answers, and all others.

remember the Bible is just collation of books selected by bishops for spreading gospels to people. that Bible has 26 books (currently right?) when there are more than 60 in all out there.. so those books that wasn't in Bible are banned. Bishops does not want to share other books because some book show a way out of sins.

all of those books are not written by same authors so you have too many authors and they are not written in same timeline.. ie: written in different years or whatever.

I already posted a link to that "Banned from the Bible" somewhere in AD.
*shrugs*


yeah: http://www.alldeaf.com/showpost.php?p=563498&postcount=116

Boult said:

remember the Bible is just collation of books selected by bishops for spreading gospels to people. that Bible has 26 books (currently right?) when there are more than 60 in all out there.. so those books that wasn't in Bible are banned. Bishops does not want to share other books because some book show a way out of sins.

all of those books are not written by same authors so you have too many authors and they are not written in same timeline.. ie: written in different years or whatever.

I already posted a link to that "Banned from the Bible" somewhere in AD.
*shrugs*

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the gnostic gospels are not even near to accurate. For one, they were written more than a hundred years AFTER Jesus died. At the time, none of the authors that were claimed were the actual writers. There are no copies that can be corroborated to the claimed date. Tell me which of the following two biographies you would trust:

one written three hundred years after the death of it's character, or,
one written 30 years after the death of it's character.

That, and the fact that the canon was compiled in the Codex Alexandrus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus outside of the Catholic church's reign. Anyways, every gnostic and apocryphic book contradicts the Bible at just about every turn. They are good sources as ways of getting to know the people at the time, but nowhere near the level of the inspired canon.

sculleywr said:

one written three hundred years after the death of it's character, or,
one written 30 years after the death of it's character.

Click to expand...

A. Most of the Gnostic gospels were written in the second and third century--only 200 years after, not 300
B. Christian Scripture wasn't finished being written until 70 years after the death of "its character"

You're exaggerating the time differance.

Teresh said:

A. Most of the Gnostic gospels were written in the second and third century--only 200 years after, not 300
B. Christian Scripture wasn't finished being written until 70 years after the death of "its character"

You're exaggerating the time differance.

Click to expand...

Mark, Matthew and Luke are all accepted to have been written before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Also, 70 years, that is a very short time in their timetable. In comparison to other biographies, that is a breaking news report. 200 years. Definitely not written by contemporaries. At least be honest. None of the gnostic gospels have even an offchance to have been written by the people they claim to be written by. Shoot, without the testimony of the very early church, the gospels in the canon would be, with the exception of Luke, anonymous. Luke would only be a shot in the dark, comparing his gospel to the book of Acts.

Oh, Boult, although you might not have been watching, History Channel recently aired a show refuting the Da Vinci Code, in which they took Dr Erwin Lutzer's advice, investigated the gnostic gospels, and refuted themas part of removing the thought that she was an apostle. When historians team up with well-known Christians, there is definitely something there.

You're taking quite a popular example. In fact, your example is so popular it's widely debated and refuted, though there are those who are so closed-minded and don't want to admit they're wrong continue to believe. You'll need a better example.

sculleywr said:

The time of morning. Two gospels say that it was dawning, while the other two say it was not yet light.

The people there. The names aren't lined up perfectly from one to another. There were either two angels there or two youths.

The events after. One says they ran for the hills (not literally). Another says they ran with joy and fear, telling everyone they saw, and met Jesus somewhere along the path. Another says they ran for it, and told the disciples.

Now, these may seem to be irrefutable differences, but not from a historian's point of view. A philosopher would look at it and say, "Oops! There's a contradiction, let's throw it out." However, a historian would look at it and say, "I see some contradictions, however, I see something about them. They are all in the secondary details. I see that, while there are differences, these stories have a historical backing.

For good measure, I can clear up some of these seeming contradictions:

1. Most likely just two different names for the same point of time

2. The Bible does draw the common consensus that a gaggle of women followers of Jesus were there. This has the added bonus of being something that no writer back then would admit, least of all the disciples. Back then, women were so low on the ladder that they weren't even allowed to testify in court. To admit that women discovered the empty tomb is shameful at best for the disciples to admit, and definitely not something that would have been put there if it were legendary.

3. Differences in writing styles could clear this up. Luke, the detail oriented doctor, told exactly what happened and in what order it happened. Mark, the young, action film writer, as he is called by some, liked to emphasize fear, so mentioning joy or Jesus in the scene or even telling the disciples, would get rid of the fear. Matthew, the straight to the point person, cut to the chase by taking them straight to the upper room where they reported to the disciples.

From this, and other examples, I have seen that the Bible is easy to accept as credible. I am now opening the floor to questions, answers, and all others.

Click to expand...

You've missed two books that describe Jesus' resurrection. Acts and I Corinthians. In those books and the books you've cited, they state the number of disciples that Jesus met with. Of course, since Judas was dead, there were only 11 left. But I Corinthians 15:5 says TWELVE! Come on, man, you've got to consider all the books if you're going to say that there's no contradictions in the entire Bible.

Fine, you want something that goes against God's word?

Check out Genesis 6:3:

And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Click to expand...

So, now, you've got God saying no one will live beyond 120 years old. Hey, that's pretty clear here. It's really pretty impossible for anyone to live that long right now. But there are PLENTY of people who live in the bible after that who are over 120 years old. What's up with that? They're in Genesis, even! The same author said God said this and then contradicted himself later! Oh, wait, that's right, God's rules change willy-nilly, he must have willed those people to live longer because, you know, they make for a good story. My bad. The book is FAKE.

Dennis said:

You're taking quite a popular example. In fact, your example is so popular it's widely debated and refuted, though there are those who are so closed-minded and don't want to admit they're wrong continue to believe. You'll need a better example.



You've missed two books that describe Jesus' resurrection. Acts and I Corinthians. In those books and the books you've cited, they state the number of disciples that Jesus met with. Of course, since Judas was dead, there were only 11 left. But I Corinthians 15:5 says TWELVE! Come on, man, you've got to consider all the books if you're going to say that there's no contradictions in the entire Bible.

Click to expand...

You bring up a good point. :prepares to pounce on the argument:
These are two possible arguments.
1. Now, if you read later in Acts, it says that they had elected a new disciple. Because of the timeline in the books, with them having met twice in the upper room since Jesus died, it is not certain when the selection of Matthias was made. It is possible that he was already part of the desciples when Jesus was ressurected. (I do NOT ascribe to this argument, as it is very sketchy.)
2. The second argument is based on Paul's other writings and the culture. Paul frequently referred to the disciples as "The twelve." Now, they were still the disciples, and back then, the ascribed name given to them sticks, whatever the makeup of the group. Although they were only numbered as eleven, they were still called "the twelve." (This seems to me the more likely answer.)

Fine, you want something that goes against God's word?

Check out Genesis 6:3:

So, now, you've got God saying no one will live beyond 120 years old. Hey, that's pretty clear here. It's really pretty impossible for anyone to live that long right now. But there are PLENTY of people who live in the bible after that who are over 120 years old. What's up with that? They're in Genesis, even! The same author said God said this and then contradicted himself later! Oh, wait, that's right, God's rules change willy-nilly, he must have willed those people to live longer because, you know, they make for a good story. My bad. The book is FAKE.

Click to expand...

If you would read the Bible and look at a Hebrew lexicon, you would see what it says more clearly. The Hebrew word used there is "Yowm" pronounced "Yome". Here is a definition of it:
1) day, time, year

a) day (as opposed to night)

b) day (24 hour period)

1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

2) as a division of time

a) a working day, a day's journey

c) days, lifetime (pl.)

d) time, period (general)

e) year

f) temporal references

1) today

2) yesterday

3) tomorrow

Now, The context used here is that of a temporal reference. And it's tense suggests that sometime in the future, that is going to be how old men will be able to live to. As you can see, in the future, people didn't live near as long as they did in the pre-flood days. And even then, the number of people living to that age would be low, given the instability of the government systems. People would most likely die of unnatural causes because of that.

No matter how apparent the contradictions are, Christian fundies just won't see them, they try everything to "harmonize" contradictions. If they see contradictions in other religious books, they would say, "look at contradictions" and ignore the attempted explanations by the religious people.

Christian fundies simply don't have logic when it comes to the Bible.

netrox said:

No matter how apparent the contradictions are, Christian fundies just won't see them, they try everything to "harmonize" contradictions. If they see contradictions in other religious books, they would say, "look at contradictions" and ignore the attempted explanations by the religious people.

Christian fundies simply don't have logic when it comes to the Bible.

Click to expand...

I think you need to get over yourself and quit giving silly comments. There are things in the Bible and of God and Jesus that you CANNOT place logic. Get logic out of your mind and maybe you'll start to understand. That's a great start for you. You are the one who don't seem to get it. That's what people CAN'T do when it comes to explaining certain things. You CANNOT exaplain God. If you have a problem with the Bible--ask God himself, feel it inside. Looking for logical sources in books and writing to explain God and the Bible is wasting your time. You cannot explain some things, so don't question Christians who don't even know a bleeping thing sometimes. They are humans who don't know a thing just like you do.

There is no logic in Bibles or God or Jesus. Logic is a human thing of analyzing and looking for proof on paper and a pattern. I just roll my eyes at people who use the word "logic" every time they question Christianity things.

It's okay to question things in the Bible sometimes, but it's not okay to criticize Christians by saying they are hypocrites and not logic. That's what the Bible is--to challenge your faith and have questions.

That's what God, Bible and Jesus is A MYSTERY. If everything was logic, I don't see the point in being here.

Netrox: You might want to give something that has some substance, otherwise, I am going to request that a moderator come in and remove your posts. This is the section for ON-TOPIC DEBATES. Now, kindly, post some sense.

Clearsky: I agree that men do not know everything there is to know. A lot of what God did defies human logic. However, there is a logical way to refute the purported contradictions and show how they match together.

sculleywr said:

Mark, Matthew and Luke are all accepted to have been written before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

Click to expand...

Wiki:Gospel disagrees with you on that, stating that the general consensus is that only Matthew predates the destruction of the Temple.

sculleywr said:

At least be honest. None of the gnostic gospels have even an offchance to have been written by the people they claim to be written by.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that statement. The point was to clarify the dates and eliminate the exaggeration, not to say that the Gnostic gospels are accurate or should be regarded as canon.

Teresh said:

Wiki:Gospel disagrees with you on that, stating that the general consensus is that only Matthew predates the destruction of the Temple.

Click to expand...

There is no known evidence of this, and, with wikipedia being open to editting, it needs to accompany another source.

I don't disagree with that statement. The point was to clarify the dates and eliminate the exaggeration, not to say that the Gnostic gospels are accurate or should be regarded as canon.

Click to expand...

The exageration in this point is still negligible, since changing the date by 100 years doesn't change the situation they find themselves in. It is something you could have hammered out on PM.

Netrox: You might want to give something that has some substance, otherwise, I am going to request that a moderator come in and remove your posts. This is the section for ON-TOPIC DEBATES. Now, kindly, post some sense.

Click to expand...

I am still talking about the topic and that concerns the contradictions of the Bible, where is the posting that it's off-topic?

The contradictions are there, you just won't accept them as contradictions. You feel threatened by contradictions and feel that if contradictions are true, your interpretation would fall apart (and it should).

I believe Atheists fear God the most. Because they are the one that know more about the Bible and always talk about God.

After they died, Atheists will look for Heaven.

sculleywr said:

You bring up a good point. :prepares to pounce on the argument:
These are two possible arguments.
1. Now, if you read later in Acts, it says that they had elected a new disciple. Because of the timeline in the books, with them having met twice in the upper room since Jesus died, it is not certain when the selection of Matthias was made. It is possible that he was already part of the desciples when Jesus was ressurected. (I do NOT ascribe to this argument, as it is very sketchy.)
2. The second argument is based on Paul's other writings and the culture. Paul frequently referred to the disciples as "The twelve." Now, they were still the disciples, and back then, the ascribed name given to them sticks, whatever the makeup of the group. Although they were only numbered as eleven, they were still called "the twelve." (This seems to me the more likely answer.)

Click to expand...

Oh, very nice, always looking to find an out. So, they used some kind of label 2000 years ago for the disciples. "Yo, introducing, like, the hippest Christian group on the planet, The Twelve!" Uh huh. It wouldn't make any sense to ascribe a group as the "twelve" when there are other possible combinations of 12 in history. The author doesn't use any other kind of "familiar" language throughout the book.

If you would read the Bible and look at a Hebrew lexicon, you would see what it says more clearly. The Hebrew word used there is "Yowm" pronounced "Yome". Here is a definition of it:
1) day, time, year

a) day (as opposed to night)

b) day (24 hour period)

1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

2) as a division of time

a) a working day, a day's journey

c) days, lifetime (pl.)

d) time, period (general)

e) year

f) temporal references

1) today

2) yesterday

3) tomorrow

Now, The context used here is that of a temporal reference. And it's tense suggests that sometime in the future, that is going to be how old men will be able to live to. As you can see, in the future, people didn't live near as long as they did in the pre-flood days. And even then, the number of people living to that age would be low, given the instability of the government systems. People would most likely die of unnatural causes because of that.

Click to expand...

A temporal reference that doesn't state when it goes into effect? So, someone literally can pick and choose when it means the case? That doens't fit with God at that time, always being perfect and closing loopholes by adding laws. Why would he leave this up for interpretation, when the way you say it, it could mean he never meant for it to take place because it's "some time in the future" That's like me saying, "well, eventually, something will 99% of the time" when it only works 10% of the time. It'll get there -- eventually -- but until it's actually 99% of the time, you'll say, "Well, it's not that time yet, so hold on, it'll be 99% eventually." Since 99% never comes, no matter how close you come to 99%, you'll always be able to say, it hasn't happened yet, the time isn't right, come back later and check"

Dennis said:

Oh, very nice, always looking to find an out. So, they used some kind of label 2000 years ago for the disciples. "Yo, introducing, like, the hippest Christian group on the planet, The Twelve!" Uh huh. It wouldn't make any sense to ascribe a group as the "twelve" when there are other possible combinations of 12 in history. The author doesn't use any other kind of "familiar" language throughout the book.

Click to expand...

Paul was the author of quite a few books in the Bible. Secondly, you are making the mistake of looking at it from our culture's viewpoint. This isn't modern American culture we are dealing with. In their culture, things stuck, that included the names ascribed to a group.

A temporal reference that doesn't state when it goes into effect? So, someone literally can pick and choose when it means the case? That doens't fit with God at that time, always being perfect and closing loopholes by adding laws. Why would he leave this up for interpretation, when the way you say it, it could mean he never meant for it to take place because it's "some time in the future" That's like me saying, "well, eventually, something will 99% of the time" when it only works 10% of the time. It'll get there -- eventually -- but until it's actually 99% of the time, you'll say, "Well, it's not that time yet, so hold on, it'll be 99% eventually." Since 99% never comes, no matter how close you come to 99%, you'll always be able to say, it hasn't happened yet, the time isn't right, come back later and check"

Click to expand...

Look, if you woud like to view the Hebrew definitions, go to www.blueletterbible.org. Considering the fact that it is all translated, it has all been up for interpretation. And from the syntax, it meant that in the future their lives would be 120 years long.

netrox said:

I am still talking about the topic and that concerns the contradictions of the Bible, where is the posting that it's off-topic?

The contradictions are there, you just won't accept them as contradictions. You feel threatened by contradictions and feel that if contradictions are true, your interpretation would fall apart (and it should).

Click to expand...

Again, I said that this is a DEBATE. You aren't known by whatever credentials you may or may not have. I want some credible arguments. In other words, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

I accept any bibles as history. Remember, any bibles are only faith book, we like to collect and learn, not worship or do what the bibles say. I have a life, I worry about than worry what the bible says. I consider the bibles as history, period.

Liebling:-))) said:

I accept any bibles as history. Remember, any bibles are only faith book, we like to collect and learn, not worship or do what the bibles say. I have a life, I worry about than worry what the bible says. I consider the bibles as history, period.

Click to expand...

Some are history, and some that apply to us also. The problem many have no clue about the Bible and understand the point. This is hand down to us. Like King Asa, who is very young. His time, he has no clue of the scroll till foound it and discovered the people and himself did wickedness and ripped his clothes in torment and people likewise and many have repented. If there is no Bible and use just history, not life application, then this will be similar as Asa. Also, Bible and life does not separate. Bible does, many dont see it. Bec I myself have, Bible, science as I see where Bible coming from and getting the picture. And also my everyday life. Bec what I see in the Bible is no difference as today. You may think so, but I don't. Do my own way of reading the Bible gets me nowhere. But by the help of the Holy Spirit, that is where I begin to see. Non believers still have veil in their eyes, couldn't see the point of it and think its foolish. Bec I've been there and experience and seeing the point. Bec I am just human like everyone else, my own "logic" and do my own effort I see is totally useless. My God is higher and far more much higher than me.