Contradictions in the Bible

[pgwenthold]

I still want to know how

1) God can be love, and
2) God can be jealous, but
3) Love is not jealous

It is an explicit logical contradiction. Bible passages are listed above.

 

[Atlas]

And I still want to hear how Matthew and Chronicles differ by three the generations between Joram and Jotham.

Matthew 1
6 …David became the father of Solomon, …
7 Solomon became the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asaph.
8 Asaph became the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah.
9 Uzziah became the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah.
...
17 Thus the total number of generations from Abraham to David is fourteen generations; from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations; from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah, fourteen generations

1st Chronicles 3
10 The son of Solomon was Rehoboam, whose son was Abijah, whose son was Asa, whose son was Jehoshaphat,
11 whose son was Joram, whose son was Ahaziah, whose son was Joash,
12 whose son was Amaziah, whose son was Azariah, whose son was Jotham,
13 whose son was Ahaz, whose son was Hezekiah

Did God inspire Matthew to shoehorn reality into 14 generations by leaving out 3 generations of Jews?

 

[pgwenthold]

And I still want to hear how Matthew and Chronicles differ by three the generations between Joram and Jotham.

I guess they'd rather bicker over these things that they can bicker over. It's a lot better than facing the blatent, irrefutable issues.

 

[Robin]

I guess they'd rather bicker over these things that they can bicker over. It's a lot better than facing the blatent, irrefutable issues.

Like the contradiction between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God.

The Old Testament God was a primitive, savage Deity prepared to sanction genocide but the NT God says "Love your enemies". Just doesn't gel unless we subscribe to some really audacious form of moral relativism.

If the Bible is the inerrant and authoritative word of God then clearly the implication is that God sanctions the massacre of children. Most of us could not even imagine in our darkest moment even harming a child, yet God orders their massacre without qualm.

So if the Bible is inerrant then any religion based on it is clearly morally indefensible.

 

[ceo_esq]

I still want to know how

1) God can be love, and
2) God can be jealous, but
3) Love is not jealous

It is an explicit logical contradiction. Bible passages are listed above.

On a similar note, I'd like to know how

1) Breadcrumbs are better than nothing, and
2) Nothing is better than a nice juicy steak, but
3) A nice juicy steak is better than breadcrumbs.

Seriously, though, there's no contradiction in your example as long as the word jealous is being used in two different senses (like the word nothing in my example).

Take your pick from the following, non-exhaustive list of definitions of jealous found in the OED:

• Devoted, eager, zealous
• Ardently amorous; covetous of the love of another, fond, lustful
• Zealous or solicitous for the preservation or well-being of something possessed or esteemed; vigilant or careful in guarding; suspiciously careful or watchful
• Resentful towards another on account of known or suspected rivalry
• Feeling ill-will towards another on account of some advantage or superiority which he possesses or may possess; grudging, envious
• Having a love which will tolerate no unfaithfulness or defection in the beloved object

As long as you use any two definitions that are not themselves mutually incompatible, there is no logical contradiction.

 

[pgwenthold]

On a similar note, I'd like to know how

Seriously, though, there's no contradiction in your example as long as the word jealous is being used in two different senses

Let me translate:

There is no contradiction if jealous does not mean jealous, but means something else.

 

[jjramsey]

Like the contradiction between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God.

The Old Testament God was a primitive, savage Deity prepared to sanction genocide but the NT God says "Love your enemies".

The NT God certainly demands kindness and niceness from his followers but still reserves the right to be brutal himself. Remember that the book of Acts has the account of Ananias and Sapphira being struck dead for lying about giving all that they had to the Church, and of course, there is HELLFIRE. The difference between the OT God and the NT God is that the latter doesn't delegate his cruelty but does it himself. There is a change in the demands on followers, but not a real change in the character of God from OT to NT.

Not that any of this makes God look good.

 

[ceo_esq]

Let me translate:

There is no contradiction if jealous does not mean jealous, but means something else.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should interpret jealous to mean something else, if by "something else" you mean "something that does not correspond to a valid definition of jealous."

You have two different words in two different languages used in two different contexts at two different times by two different writers, both rendered into English as jealous, a word known to lend itself to different usages. Somehow, I don't think anyone else is going to get too stirred up about this fact. Certainly, it is insufficient to establish a formal contradiction.

 

[Christian Dude]

Guys, on this genealogy stuff. You are missing a few important facts. First if you look at genealogies all through scripture, you will find differences in them for the same people in when different books give the genealogy of the same person. The reason for this is in ancient Hebrew culture it was acceptable to skip over a dad or granddad or two if the writer didn’t think those people were important in the line he was talking about. So bad dudes got left out or guys that didn’t do a whole lot got left out all the time.

Now, for the differences in the genealogy for Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Fizzer is right, they are two different genealogies. Matthew’s is his legal one, written to the Jew to show Jesus’ legal claim to the throne. It is traced through his earthly, but not blood related dad Joseph. Luke is his genealogy through Mary his mom. Luke is writing to show that Jesus is the perfect sinless man. It is Mary’s line that is important in this. Here are the two items that show this is true. If you look at the son of king David listed in each line, you will see that they are different sons, Solomon in Matthew and Nathan in Luke. One is a granddad in Joseph’s line, one is a granddad in Mary’s line. The other distinction that shows Luke is tracing Mary’s line is the verse Luke 3:23 where Luke says “Jesus... being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph”.

*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]

1. 
   
   1) Why do you think that this all had to happen in a very close time frame? The women could have been somewhere they didn’t hear and see all the commotion. All they did is show up and find the stone rolled away and the tomb empty at first.
   2) Yes, this is relating the time all of them had finally made it back to talk about all this.
   3) This is the other Mary and Salome.
   4) It does not say that they “just” came to look at the grave. I don’t understand why they can’t do both.
   5) If they did or didn’t run into each other; why do we have to be given a level of detail that is not important to what is being communicated here. Those things are not important to what has happened to Jesus, he is risen and he is already ministering to his beloved children.
   6) When they were walking back, apparently they passed people on the way and did not say anything to them. Who the people were, maybe just strangers or not, is not given. Again a level of detail not reveled to us because it is not important to what is being communicated here in scripture.
   
   

   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.

   I believe that all four men are the writers of the books that bear their names, and two for sure, maybe even three, were eyewitness’ to the crucifixion and all events there after. What you bring up is a whole different debate. I do not have time, nor desire, to get into that one now. I can’t keep up with the stuff I already am discussing here on this forum.
   
   

   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?

   
   No, I am not saying there is room for human error. What I am saying is that you see the personalities and intellect of each writer in scripture in the books they write. That means, when they are giving eyewitness accounts, what they found important comes through, and who their audience is, also directs what is important to what is being communicated. They also might have missed a detail another writer didn’t miss. They never lie or make up anything in their own account, it is the true account of what happened from their prospective. And it is not a distorted prospective, God makes sure that their prospective is completely correct. Just because a writers account does not contain absolutely every little nit-pick’n detail does not make it inaccurate or incomplete in what is important to communicate. The accounts contain what is important to the writers audience and what they are trying to get across to them.
   
   That is why I say putting the accounts together, accounts that are not inaccurate, gives us a more complete picture. They compliment each other, not contradict each other. God does insure to us that the original manuscripts are inerrant. He did help them in not making errors, but that did not make them scribe robots without their own personalities and intellect coming through.
   
   -Dude

 

[Ashles]

Guys, on this genealogy stuff. You are missing a few important facts. First if you look at genealogies all through scripture, you will find differences in them for the same people in when different books give the genealogy of the same person. The reason for this is in ancient Hebrew culture it was acceptable to skip over a dad or granddad or two if the writer didn’t think those people were important in the line he was talking about. So bad dudes got left out or guys that didn’t do a whole lot got left out all the time.

So the people writing the Bible may have left certain things out according to their own cultural preferences?

 

[Ipecac]

Luke is his genealogy through Mary his mom. Luke is writing to show that Jesus is the perfect sinless man. It is Mary’s line that is important in this. Here are the two items that show this is true. If you look at the son of king David listed in each line, you will see that they are different sons, Solomon in Matthew and Nathan in Luke. One is a granddad in Joseph’s line, one is a granddad in Mary’s line. The other distinction that shows Luke is tracing Mary’s line is the verse Luke 3:23 where Luke says “Jesus... being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph”.

I see. And exactly WHERE in the bible does it say specifically that the Luke genealogy is Mary's line?

 

[Ducky]

I see. And exactly WHERE in the bible does it say specifically that the Luke genealogy is Mary's line?

this was dealt with on page 1 of this thread.

Luke 3:23 When he began [his ministry], Jesus was about thirty years old, being the son, as it was thought, of Joseph son of Heli

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob fathered Joseph the husband of Mary; of her was born Jesus who is called the Christ.

They both show it as Joseph's lineage.

Old news.

 

[Ipecac]

this was dealt with on page 1 of this thread.


They both show it as Joseph's lineage.

Old news.

*I* know that! I'm trying to see if Christian Dude does. He's the one who insists it's Mary's.

 

[Ducky]

*I* know that! I'm trying to see if Christian Dude does. He's the one who insists it's Mary's.

Sadly, I don't think we'll get an answer from him on this, though kudos for the try.

 

[Palimpsest]

1) Why do you think that this all had to happen in a very close time frame? The women could have been somewhere they didn’t hear and see all the commotion. All they did is show up and find the stone rolled away and the tomb empty at first.
2) Yes, this is relating the time all of them had finally made it back to talk about all this.
3) This is the other Mary and Salome.
4) It does not say that they “just” came to look at the grave. I don’t understand why they can’t do both.
5) If they did or didn’t run into each other; why do we have to be given a level of detail that is not important to what is being communicated here. Those things are not important to what has happened to Jesus, he is risen and he is already ministering to his beloved children.
6) When they were walking back, apparently they passed people on the way and did not say anything to them. Who the people were, maybe just strangers or not, is not given. Again a level of detail not reveled to us because it is not important to what is being communicated here in scripture.

Let's quote the original attempt, shall we?

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).

1) Because when there is only a sentence break between two events, one assumes they are closely related temporally (without further information, of course). The angel sat on the stone after rolling it away (Matt 28:2). Or did he go away when the women approached, and then come back? Was he invisible?

2) So, the second trip to tell the Disciples? Then you shouldn't quote Luke 24:4 side-by side with John 20:2. Also, Mark 16:5 only mentions one angel, not two like Luke does.

3) The same Mary and Salome who Matthew says ran from the tomb to tell the Disciples? (ie: not to meet the women coming up behind) And who, upon meeting these women, apparently do not tell them about the angel but instead let them all walk back to the tomb and see for themselves? Why else would they wonder about not seeing Jesus' body, if they already got the message that he was risen?

4) And I don't understand, if they intended to do both A and B, why some Gospel writers said A and some said B (and one said neither). This is not being complementary, this is being misleading. Either the women's intent is relevant, in which case why lie by omission? Or, their intent is irrelevant, in which case why include it at all?

5) So why not just say that? Why inspire five different, individually misleading accounts of the resurrection that caused numerous headaches to believers and caused some to drop their faith because they couldn't reconcile them? Why not just say: "He is risen. He is alive. End of story."

And the question of whether they ran into each other or not in this little scenario of your is important: because don't you think they would have said something? Some were coming up to check out an empty tomb, some were coming down to talk about angels or resurrected messiahs, some just expected to mourn and make with the spices. Seems like words would have been exchanged. Doesn't it?

6) Mark 16:8 says the women had no intention of telling anyone, even the disciples, because they were afraid. What changed their minds? Jesus' appearance on the way back to town?

 

[Atlas]

4) And I don't understand, if they intended to do both A and B, why some Gospel writers said A and some said B (and one said neither). This is not being complementary, this is being misleading. Either the women's intent is relevant, in which case why lie by omission? Or, their intent is irrelevant, in which case why include it at all?

The resurrection story is the most important story that God has to tell. Jesus can say he's the son of God all day long, anybody can, but if anybody can rise from the dead - by his own authority, no less - it gives the guy some street cred.

Why would a God - who can do anything - not articulate a clear, coherent, unarguably true, communication to those he clearly wants to save?

Maybe he really doesn't want to save. Leave the story inconsistent and ambiguous. Sure, tell everybody that he died for ALL their sins but let's make heaven only for the gullible, unskeptical, and unquestioning. They're much easier to control.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

As if clearing up the contradictions will make it all true, and about 4 billion people ignorant of the true God...

What a bunch of arrogant asses.. ( Christians, that is .. )

 

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
Guys, on this genealogy stuff. You are missing a few important facts. First if you look at genealogies all through scripture, you will find differences in them for the same people in when different books give the genealogy of the same person. The reason for this is in ancient Hebrew culture it was acceptable to skip over a dad or granddad or two if the writer didn’t think those people were important in the line he was talking about. So bad dudes got left out or guys that didn’t do a whole lot got left out all the time

You've got it backwards CD. It was Matthew who left out 3 generations. He had a point to make. It wasn't about skipping the unimportant. He said:

Matthew 1:17 Thus the total number of generations from Abraham to David is fourteen generations; from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations; from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah, fourteen generations

14, 14, and 14 generations. 3 tuplets of 7. It's an example and proof of God's beautifully symmetrical plan.

The question is, why did Chronicles add in 3 fakes? Do you know if that was another thing the Jews did to the truth they were inspired to write?

By the way, I'd never heard of your explanation of leaving out the bad and unimportant. Do you have a Rabbinic source for that? They seemed to retain so much of the bad and unimportant, to hide 3 whole generations seems absurd.

 

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Palimpsest
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?


Originally posted by Christian Dude
4) It does not say that they “just” came to look at the grave. I don’t understand why they can’t do both.


Originally posted by Palimpsest
4) And I don't understand, if they intended to do both A and B, why some Gospel writers said A and some said B (and one said neither). This is not being complementary, this is being misleading. Either the women's intent is relevant, in which case why lie by omission? Or, their intent is irrelevant, in which case why include it at all?

As reasons to reject the resurrection go, this has got to be at the bottom of the list. Why should Matthew feel a huge need to mention the spices? It's an interesting detail, but a trivial one, and not nearly as important as having them be at the tomb to witness the angel saying Jesus has risen.

6) Mark 16:8 says the women had no intention of telling anyone, even the disciples, because they were afraid. What changed their minds?

Mark 16:8 did not say that the women had no intention of telling anyone, but that they were simply scared silent by what was presumably an angel (the "man in white"). They are portrayed as having an emotional reaction, not as making a conscious decision. I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that Mark expected his readers to presume that the women got over their fright and did what the angel told them to do.

 

[Palimpsest]

As reasons to reject the resurrection go, this has got to be at the bottom of the list. Why should Matthew feel a huge need to mention the spices? It's an interesting detail, but a trivial one, and not nearly as important as having them be at the tomb to witness the angel saying Jesus has risen.

You tell me: why should Mark or Luke feel a huge need to mention the spices? If it's such a trivial detail, why is it in even one gospel, let alone two?

Mark 16:8 did not say that the women had no intention of telling anyone, but that they were simply scared silent by what was presumably an angel (the "man in white"). They are portrayed as having an emotional reaction, not as making a conscious decision. I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that Mark expected his readers to presume that the women got over their fright and did what the angel told them to do.

Yes, it is a stretch because that's where the gospel ends, at least the earlier versions. You don't get to decide what the author meant to say, especially if your assumption contradicts the verse which says quite explicitly "They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."