Contradictions in the Bible

[Christian Dude]

What were Jesus' last words?

Who was present when his tomb was found open?

Both of these seemingly contradictions you bring up are basically the same and a matter of not understanding who each gospel was written for, and thinking through the normal way different people might describe the same thing. Two of the gospels are direct eye witness accounts, Matthew and John. Mark’s could be an eye witness account or an account put together from the events told to him by other Apostles. Luke’s is definitely an account that is from the events being told to him by Apostles. All four gospels are inspired by God, but it is important to remember, God does not take over a persons’ body and they supernaturally write down words while they are in a trance. God inspires the person and their intellect and personalities come through while writing. Also, with God’s inspiration and guidance, they don’t make any mistakes. It is the same for all books of the Bible, Old and New Testament.

Say that you and I witnessed something and someone asked us to tell our account of what happened. I might describe the exact same thing with a difference in what was important. I might say that I saw three men go into a building. You might say that you saw two men go in, and then one man go in a little later. Both are true, but to me the important thing was that three men went in, I didn’t think it was that important that one went in a little later. But you, on the other hand, were more concerned with a deeper level of detail. I might also recount a conversation different that you by giving an account of what was said that differs from yours. I will account for what I thought was important and I may have been distracted and did not hear something said that you did. So, the person interviewing us does not dismiss anything ether one of us said if we are reputable people, he just puts it all together to get the complete picture. That is what is going on in the differences in the accounts in the four gospels.

I will take on the simplest one first, what Jesus’ last words on the cross were. Matthew and Mark do not tell what Jesus said just before he died. Luke and John tell us what Jesus said. Each is correct, Jesus didn’t say only one thing or the other, he said both. They are complimentary to each other. Put together they give us a more complete picture of what happened. Luke was a physician, he was writing to the Greek, the philosophers and thinking people so to speak. He presented Jesus as the perfect man. When he recorded the events as described to him, he put down what was important to presenting Jesus to the Greek. Since he was showing that Jesus was perfect, it was important to him to show his reader that the perfect man died gracefully.

John was writing to believers and presenting Jesus as God incarnate that came to redeem his beloved children. What was important to him was to show that the work of redemption was completed. Jesus said both things and we have the more complete picture because of the different accounts.

It is the same for the events at the empty tomb. So when you work it out an put the accounts from the four gospels together in the correct order, you find that the first people that are recorded to see the empty tomb are Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and Salome. Other women were following along behind bringing spices to anoint the body. The first three find the tomb empty, Mary M. immediately leaves to tell the disciples (Luke 23:55-24:9; John 20:1,2). The other Mary goes closer to the tomb and sees the angel (Matthew 28:2) She leaves to meet the other women who are coming along behind. While that has been going on, Mary M. has talked with Peter and John and the two men arrive at the empty tomb, inspect it and leave (John 20:3-10). Mary M. has made it back and sees the two angels and then Jesus (John 20:11-18). Then she leaves to tell the disciples what has happened as Jesus told her to do. And while all that was going on, the other Mary has caught up with the other women and they all show up together at the empty tomb and see two angels (Luke 24:4,5; Mark 16:5). They also receive an angelic message. They leave to go to the disciples and run into Jesus as well (Matthew 28:8-10).

They are accounts of the same morning given by four different men that are all true and provide the complete picture, almost; I wonder what Salome did that morning, not enough is said about her. Maybe she fainted and was passed out on the road side while all the commotion was going on. Or, maybe she just sat there with a huge smile on her face. As you can see, things like that are not truly important to what is really being communicated to us in these events in scripture. What is important is that Jesus is exactly who he said he is, and has risen, and has bridged the gap between God and man by his death and resurrection all for the forgiveness of our sins.

- Dude

 

[Ducky]

. All four gospels are inspired by God, but it is important to remember, God does not take over a persons’ body and they supernaturally write down words while they are in a trance. God inspires the person and their intellect and personalities come through while writing. Also, with God’s inspiration and guidance, they don’t make any mistakes. It is the same for all books of the Bible, Old and New Testament.


- Dude

Do you even see the inconsistency in that?

 

[Ryokan]

So that's how it is.

"There are no contradictions in the Bible, except those done by human mistake. Ignore them."

Gotcha.

 

[Ducky]

So that's how it is.

"There are no contradictions in the Bible, except those done by human mistake. Ignore them."

Gotcha.

Not only did he say that, he went on to say that God then makes sure no mistakes are made.

So there are, but there aren't, but there are, but they're arent mistakes.



Almost dizzying.

 

[Ryokan]

Almost dizzying.

Indeed, his own contradictions are almost... biblical

But I thank you, Christian Dude, for replying, although I must say I find your conclusions lacking.

 

[jjramsey]

All four gospels are inspired by God, but it is important to remember, God does not take over a persons' body and they supernaturally write down words while they are in a trance. God inspires the person and their intellect and personalities come through while writing. Also, with God’s inspiration and guidance, they don’t make any mistakes. It is the same for all books of the Bible, Old and New Testament.

Do you even see the inconsistency in that?

What inconsistency? Christian Dude is simply saying that instead of God using the Biblical writers as scribes for dictation, the Biblical authors mostly have the same level of autonomy that they would have if they were writing something secular, but God helps out here and there to make sure that they don't make any outright mistakes. Now you can certainly object that the evidence for this contention is lacking, but I would hardly call it an inconsistency.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Two of the gospels are direct eye witness accounts, Matthew and John.

No they are not; all of the gospels were written far too late for that. For John to have witnessed the crucifixion and understood it, and then to have put pen to paper 70 years later, means that he would have been at least 90 years old. Highly unlikely.
The fact is, the gospels were hearsay from the time they were written.

 

[Ducky]

What inconsistency? Christian Dude is simply saying that instead of God using the Biblical writers as scribes for dictation, the Biblical authors mostly have the same level of autonomy that they would have if they were writing something secular, but God helps out here and there to make sure that they don't make any outright mistakes. Now you can certainly object that the evidence for this contention is lacking, but I would hardly call it an inconsistency.

By saying God insipres the writing and their personalities come through in the writing he is skirting the statement they're only human and make mistakes. He then says God corrects mistakes made by the writers. Yet there ARE inconsistencies in the bible.

So by his logic, god inspires it, man makes mistakes, and god fixes them. Yet they aren't fixed.

 

[Palimpsest]

It is the same for the events at the empty tomb. So when you work it out an put the accounts from the four gospels together in the correct order, you find that the first people that are recorded to see the empty tomb are Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and Salome. Other women were following along behind bringing spices to anoint the body. The first three find the tomb empty, Mary M. immediately leaves to tell the disciples (Luke 23:55-24:9; John 20:1,2). The other Mary goes closer to the tomb and sees the angel (Matthew 28:2) She leaves to meet the other women who are coming along behind. While that has been going on, Mary M. has talked with Peter and John and the two men arrive at the empty tomb, inspect it and leave (John 20:3-10). Mary M. has made it back and sees the two angels and then Jesus (John 20:11-18). Then she leaves to tell the disciples what has happened as Jesus told her to do. And while all that was going on, the other Mary has caught up with the other women and they all show up together at the empty tomb and see two angels (Luke 24:4,5; Mark 16:5). They also receive an angelic message. They leave to go to the disciples and run into Jesus as well (Matthew 28:8-10).

*slow clap*

Bravo. Well done. Truly worth the wait. Just a few tiny nits to pick.

1. The angel mentioned in Matthew 28:2 rolled the stone away and scared the Roman guards who were keeping an eye on the tomb. How could the first three women have (a) found the tomb empty and (b) not seen the angel, who came down like lightning and caused an earthquake? Seems like that sort of thing'd be hard to miss.
2. Luke 24:10 says it's "Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others" who run back to tell the Apostles, not just Mary M. It's only John who says she ran back alone.
3. The angel mentioned in Matthew spoke to "the women", plural, not just the other Mary. Did he also address the group of spice-bearing women coming up behind?
4. Mark 16:1 mentions that Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and Salome were also bearing spices to anoint Jesus' body. Matthew 28:1 says they just went to look at the tomb. Which was it?
5. With all of this coming and going, you'd think some of these groups would run into each other. Don't you think it odd that Mary M didn't accompany the disciples to the tomb? What were the "other women" doing while Mary M and the disciples were schlepping up and down the countryside? Were they so far behind?
6. Did the women tell anyone at first? Mark 16:8 says they didn't.
   [/list=1]

 

[jjramsey]

What inconsistency? Christian Dude is simply saying that instead of God using the Biblical writers as scribes for dictation, the Biblical authors mostly have the same level of autonomy that they would have if they were writing something secular, but God helps out here and there to make sure that they don't make any outright mistakes. Now you can certainly object that the evidence for this contention is lacking, but I would hardly call it an inconsistency.

By saying God insipres the writing and their personalities come through in the writing he is skirting the statement they're only human and make mistakes. He then says God corrects mistakes made by the writers. Yet there ARE inconsistencies in the bible.

So by his logic, god inspires it, man makes mistakes, and god fixes them. Yet they aren't fixed.

I think this conflates two different issues: (1) whether it is valid to say that God's inspiration guarded the Biblical writers against error but didn't totally submerge their personalities, and (2) whether the Bible is in fact free of error. I'm not sure that I am reading you correctly, but I think that you are assuming that the "theory of inspiration" mentioned in point 1 is meant to cover and explain all the apparent contradictions in the Bible. It isn't. What it does do is give Christian Dude some wiggle room to write off certain kinds of apparent inconsistencies as not being errors at all. This apologetic tactic is not comprehensive but works mostly for cases where the apparent contradictions are arguably due to selective reporting and can be harmonized as ceo_esq does above in the case of Jesus' last words on the cross. Other kinds of apparent contradictions are explained away by other tactics.

 

[SezMe]

Both of these seemingly contradictions you bring up are basically the same and a matter of not understanding who each gospel was written for, and thinking through the normal way different people might describe the same thing. Two of the gospels are direct eye witness accounts, Matthew and John. Mark’s could be an eye witness account or an account put together from the events told to him by other Apostles. Luke’s is definitely an account that is from the events being told to him by Apostles.

CDude, I'm very limited in time tonight so I'll only gnaw on the very first bone I have to pick with your post.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did NOT write their respective pieces. Period. And they were not written by eyewitnesses as Kimpatsu has correctly pointed out already. Two (I'll give specifics later) have considerable overlap and are likely based on a common document called "Q".

But I'll agree with one point you made, namely, that the gospels can only be understood by understanding who the audience was. As I wrote in another thread long ago, these writings are not historical, they are political; they are designed to influence and convert various audiences over the 50-100 year period they were written.

More later.......

 

[Robin]

What inconsistency? Christian Dude is simply saying that instead of God using the Biblical writers as scribes for dictation, the Biblical authors mostly have the same level of autonomy that they would have if they were writing something secular, but God helps out here and there to make sure that they don't make any outright mistakes. Now you can certainly object that the evidence for this contention is lacking, but I would hardly call it an inconsistency.

I don't think anybody here has any problems with the idea that four different accounts of the same event might differ. But when you are claiming the Bible is inerrant then they must be consistent. The last moments of Jesus are quite clear - he recites two lines from Psalms 22, then says "it is completed" (ie the scripture is fulfilled) and then "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit".

So Matthew and Mark catch and report the first line of scripture. Luke does not catch any of the remarks about scripture. John misses the first line about scripture but gets the second and the comment "It is completed".

But Luke and John both state different final words, it is clear from the reading of these that they are claiming Jesus spoke and then died. It is silly to say that when Luke says "And after he said this he breathed his last" he meant "after this and some other stuff he breathed his last". Or to say that when John says "Then he bowed his head and gave up the spirit" he really meant. "Then after some other stuff he bowed his head and gave up the spirit".

This is a genuine (and to Christians that accept this quite trivial) example of a contradiction in the Bible. If you are claiming the Bible is completely inerrant then this shows you are wrong.

Really Genesis 1 and 2 are the killers for Bible contradictions, as well as the very nature of God.

 

[ceo_esq]

This is a genuine (and to Christians that accept this quite trivial) example of a contradiction in the Bible. If you are claiming the Bible is completely inerrant then this shows you are wrong.

I take it that you think my earlier attempt at reconciling these passages holds no water.

I'll be the first to admit that it is not the most natural interpretation of the four accounts, and not the one I would favor, but I disagree that it is silly or irrational.

 

[Christian Dude]

Do you even see the inconsistency in that?

No, there isn't one. You are missing the point. God does not use robots, he never takes away a person's individuality. Not even when they are writing a book of the Bible under inspiration.

 

[Christian Dude]

So that's how it is.

"There are no contradictions in the Bible, except those done by human mistake. Ignore them."

Gotcha.

Ryokan, you don't have to accept my explanation, but don't put words in my mouth that I did not say. There are no mistakes, the accounts are complimentary. They all work together to give us the more complete picture. You don't have to accept that if you don't want to, but your trite remark is not truthful. It is just a mean spirited dig trying to make it look like I said something I didn't.

 

[Robin]

I take it that you think my earlier attempt at reconciling these passages holds no water.

I'll be the first to admit that it is not the most natural interpretation of the four accounts, and not the one I would favor, but I disagree that it is silly or irrational.

I am sorry to say I didn't read it properly. Yes, what you say does make sense, he might be reporting the sense of the words.

 

[Christian Dude]

No they are not; all of the gospels were written far too late for that. For John to have witnessed the crucifixion and understood it, and then to have put pen to paper 70 years later, means that he would have been at least 90 years old. Highly unlikely.
The fact is, the gospels were hearsay from the time they were written.

Kimpatsu, how can you say the a person that actually was there at the time and watched these things unfold with their own eyes are not eye witnesses? Just because I tell the story of what I saw some time later, no matter how soon or not, I am still an eye witness.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Kimpatsu, how can you say the a person that actually was there at the time and watched these things unfold with their own eyes are not eye witnesses? Just because I tell the story of what I saw some time later, no matter how soon or not, I am still an eye witness.

Because none of the gospel writers were present at the crucifixion! It's that simple. They were recording tales they had heard second- or third-hand.

 

[Ducky]

No, there isn't one. You are missing the point. God does not use robots, he never takes away a person's individuality. Not even when they are writing a book of the Bible under inspiration.

So what you're saying is there is room for human error? But you also said God corrects that.

Which is it? Human error, or no error at all?

 

[cyborg]

Just because I tell the story of what I saw some time later, no matter how soon or not, I am still an eye witness.

Yes, but just because you tell the story that some local nutter CLAIMS he saw, no matter how soon or not, you are still not an eye witness. The Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses no matter how much you want to shout about it.

And I love the description of the Gospels as 'complimentary'. I could imagine a similar apologetic if someone were to create a book of US and USSR propaganda during the cold-war and claim it as a difinitive history of the world from 1946 - 1992.