Contradictions in the Bible

[jjramsey]

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?

Who knows? Who cares? All right, you care. Mentioning the spices adds a little color, and that might have been one reason Mark mentioned it. What, you think it has some special allegorical meaning?

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."

Here's a thought experiment. Pretend that you are a Christian reading Mark, so you actually believe what was written in it. Now if the women never said anything to anyone, ever, how would Mark even know about them? Presuming that Mark is telling the truth--which is what the intended audience of Mark would assume--at some point, the women would have had to break their silence just for Mark to know that they had been silent in the first place. Does it really take a genius to figure that after the initial shock that kept them silent had faded, they would go and do what the man in white had said, which was to go tell the disciples that Jesus had risen?

Your interpretation that the readers of Mark would conclude that the women's fear kept them clammed up permanently is much more of a stretch.

 

[Palimpsest]

Who knows? Who cares? All right, you care. Mentioning the spices adds a little color, and that might have been one reason Mark mentioned it. What, you think it has some special allegorical meaning?

No, it's just one of many inconsistencies, big and small, between the gospels. And you just made my point for me. Also, opened up a big can of worms. So the bit about spices just adds a little colour? What else is in the gospels just to add a little colour? Some good parables? A couple of nifty miracles to make the crowds go "ooooo" when it's read aloud? How much did the authors of the gospels just make up?

Here's a thought experiment. Pretend that you are a Christian reading Mark, so you actually believe what was written in it. Now if the women never said anything to anyone, ever, how would Mark even know about them? Presuming that Mark is telling the truth--which is what the intended audience of Mark would assume--at some point, the women would have had to break their silence just for Mark to know that they had been silent in the first place. Does it really take a genius to figure that after the initial shock that kept them silent had faded, they would go and do what the man in white had said, which was to go tell the disciples that Jesus had risen?

Your interpretation that the readers of Mark would conclude that the women's fear kept them clammed up permanently is much more of a stretch.

No, I don't think it's much of a stretch at all. The gospel of Mark never claimed to have been written by an eyewitness. So any Xian readers back then would think it was inspired by the Holy Spirit or whatever. And really, any reader that reached the end of the gospel without being bothered by all the absurdities and magic won't be fazed by this. Just ask Kathy or Christian Dude.

 

[RebeccaBradley]

Hi people. Haven't been around for a while--came back to find this lovely thread in progress. Last year I posted a precis of Gleason Archer's hilarious "harmonization" of the resurrection narratives, which I think would bear repeating. (In fact, Scot was kind enough to mention it, early on in this thread.) Here's the link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1870664648#post1870664648

On the topic of inspiration and inerrancy, I grew up among cover-to-cover hardline Fundamentalists who would not even consider that a single word of the Bible might be in error. My uncle the Fundamentalist minister (hereafter MUTFM) preached that not only were the original scribes divinely and inerrantly inspired, but the translators were too. But not all the translators--only the ones that produced the KJV. All the other translations, he claimed, were demonic snares and delusions meant to lure God's people into false cults and watered-down sissy-pants ecumenical movements. So yeah, some people do believe it 100%.

 

[Dr Adequate]

All the other translations, he claimed, were demonic snares and delusions meant to lure God's people into false cults and watered-down sissy-pants ecumenical movements.

Demonstrating the sort of grasp on the relationship between cause and effect that has kept religion in business for the last few millennia.

 

[jjramsey]

What, you think it has some special allegorical meaning?

No, it's just one of many inconsistencies, big and small, between the gospels.

Leaving out--emphasis on "leaving out"--an interesting but unnecessary detail is hardly worth calling an inconsistency.

By the way, you do know that the gospel of Mark is probably the first Gospel, right? And that Matthew and Luke share Mark's outline of events and much of his material? If a detail is included in Mark but left out of Matthew, it is most likely that the author of Matthew left the detail out.

And you just made my point for me. Also, opened up a big can of worms. So the bit about spices just adds a little colour? What else is in the gospels just to add a little colour?

No, you just showed that you failed to understand the difference between mentioning a pre-existing detail to add color, and embellishing to add color. Mind you, I would not assume that the Gospel writers didn't embellish, but your particular argument for the detail of the spices being an embellishment is rubbish, especially since it seems to presume that Mark is using Matthew as a source and not vice versa.

Presuming that Mark is telling the truth--which is what the intended audience of Mark would assume--at some point, the women would have had to break their silence just for Mark to know that they had been silent in the first place. . . .

Your interpretation that the readers of Mark would conclude that the women's fear kept them clammed up permanently is much more of a stretch.

No, I don't think it's much of a stretch at all. The gospel of Mark never claimed to have been written by an eyewitness. . . . So any Xian readers back then would think it was inspired by the Holy Spirit or whatever.

The eyewitness aspect is irrelevant. I'm not talking of the women telling Mark directly, or Mark seeing what the women did, but about the women breaking silence, and telling somebody who eventually told Mark. The idea that the readers of Mark would presume that Mark knew of the women's silence due to holy clairvoyance, rather than due to the women having broken their silence at some point, isn't totally ludicrous, but it is an unnecessary complication. It is clear from the text that the women were dumbstruck from emotional shock, and it is far simpler for a reader to presume that once the shock faded, they stopped being silent.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Leaving out--emphasis on "leaving out"--an interesting but unnecessary detail is hardly worth calling an inconsistency.

Really? For anal retentives like me, that's totally damning. I'm a boring raconteur precisely because I omit nothing; exactly what a sin of omission is not. It's certainly not divine.

 

[Palimpsest]

Leaving out--emphasis on "leaving out"--an interesting but unnecessary detail is hardly worth calling an inconsistency.

No, you just showed that you failed to understand the difference between mentioning a pre-existing detail to add color, and embellishing to add color. Mind you, I would not assume that the Gospel writers didn't embellish, but your particular argument for the detail of the spices being an embellishment is rubbish, especially since it seems to presume that Mark is using Matthew as a source and not vice versa.

It doesn't presume any such thing. Whether Mark added the bit with the spices or Matthew took it out is not the point. You're arguing that adding or leaving out an irrelevant detail doesn't make for a contradiction. But my point is that it begs the question: which details are relevant and which details are not? Arguing that all inconsistent details are irrelevant smacks of ad hoc rationalization to me.

The eyewitness aspect is irrelevant. I'm not talking of the women telling Mark directly, or Mark seeing what the women did, but about the women breaking silence, and telling somebody who eventually told Mark. The idea that the readers of Mark would presume that Mark knew of the women's silence due to holy clairvoyance, rather than due to the women having broken their silence at some point, isn't totally ludicrous, but it is an unnecessary complication. It is clear from the text that the women were dumbstruck from emotional shock, and it is far simpler for a reader to presume that once the shock faded, they stopped being silent.

Maybe. And? So what if it's an unnecessary complication? This is a holy book we're talking about. Logic and streamlined plots don't have to enter into it.

And the eyewitness aspect is extremely relevant. You seem to be assuming that the author of Mark wouldn't have included the bit with the silent women unless it actually happened. But maybe it's just an embellishment, to add colour. Maybe he was just recycling an urban legend about the messiah's resurrection.

 

[jjramsey]

You're arguing that adding or leaving out an irrelevant detail doesn't make for a contradiction.

Yes, I am.

But my point is that it begs the question: which details are relevant and which details are not?

A little common sense here, Palimpsest! What is the general thrust of the empty tomb accounts? People come to the tomb and see it empty, and maybe see an angel or Jesus himself explain that he has risen. Even in the accounts that mention the detail about the spices, that detail drops out of sight and gets overshadowed by other events in the account. The emptiness of the tomb and the explanations of its significance are clearly more important to the Gospel writers.

Arguing that all inconsistent details are irrelevant smacks of ad hoc rationalization to me.

And arguing that there is no such thing as an unimportant detail that a writer might choose to exclude is patently silly.

You seem to be assuming that the author of Mark wouldn't have included the bit with the silent women unless it actually happened.

No, I am assuming that Mark is writing for readers who presume that he is telling the truth. I am also assuming that Mark's readers would not even bother to think that Mark was clairvoyant since there was nothing in the text of Mark that would force one to assume that the women stayed silent permanently.

 

[Palimpsest]

And arguing that there is no such thing as an unimportant detail that a writer might choose to exclude is patently silly.

Depends who you're talking to. This is the Bible, after all. Inspired by God, some say. Dictated word-for-word by God in Elizabethan English, some others say. In a book like that, is there such a thing as an unimportant detail?

No, I am assuming that Mark is writing for readers who presume that he is telling the truth. I am also assuming that Mark's readers would not even bother to think that Mark was clairvoyant since there was nothing in the text of Mark that would force one to assume that the women stayed silent permanently.

Well, yeah, you could make assumptions 'til you're blue in the face about people dead for 2,000 years. Of course it's always possible to ask "Then what happened?" and add eleven verses at the end of the gospel. Or make up your own. Lots of people were doing it at that time, I understand.

 

[jjramsey]

Here's another thought experiment for you, Palimpsest. Pretend that you have come across two ancient historical documents with the following parallel accounts:

Account 1: Mary and Salome went to the tomb of their late master, Rabbi Yeshua, bringing spices to anoint his body. They found the tomb empty, without the body. The linen grave clothes were found ripped up in a loose pile, and a few bones strewn about. Salome cried out, "They stole our teacher's body!"

Account 2: The women went to see the tomb of Rabbi Yeshua, but found his body missing and his grave clothes in disarray. They realized that their master's body had been stolen, and they wailed.

Now neither of these accounts have miracles in them, and they aren't from the Bible. Do you consider them contradictory?

And now that I've wound you up about a phantom contradiction about the spices, here is a real one:

Mark 16:1-2
When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.

Luke 23:55-56
The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment.

You were so insistent on making a contradiction out of Matthew leaving out the detail of the spices that you neglected that the real problem was the timing of when they were bought.

 

[Dubium]

JJ Ramsey - Is it possible for you to engage in debate without belittling the person with whom you are debating?

 

[Palimpsest]

Here's another thought experiment for you, Palimpsest.

Hre's a thought experiment for you, jjramsey. How about you address my point?

And now that I've wound you up about a phantom contradiction about the spices, here is a real one:

Please don't flatter yourself. Who winding up whom? You're the one who's focusing on a couple of my objections to CD's account, while being quite insulting about it.

You were so insistent on making a contradiction out of Matthew leaving out the detail of the spices that you neglected that the real problem was the timing of when they were bought.

Thank you. Of course that's the only reason I could have missed that. Well, I'll be sure to bring it up to Christian Dude when he comes back.

 

[jjramsey]

Hre's a thought experiment for you, jjramsey. How about you address my point?

If your argument is, gosh, the Bible can't have any unimportant details, because, well, it's the Bible, then there is little to address. You have then adopted a straw man that is hardly consonant with the viewpoints of most conservative Christians, including the fundies.

Please don't flatter yourself. Who winding up whom? You're the one who's focusing on a couple of my objections to CD's account, while being quite insulting about it.

I got insulting because your arguments in those couple objections seemed to be in bad faith. You made a mountain out of the molehill of Matthew leaving out the detail of the spices and absurdly claimed that to be a contradiction. You also seemed to willfully miss the obvious reason why the women would break their silence. In short, you seemed more interested in bashing the Bible, even if it involved poor arguments, than in getting at the truth.

Is it possible for you to engage in debate without belittling the person with whom you are debating?

Sure. It helps if I think that they are playing fair in their arguments and not being willfully obtuse.

 

[Palimpsest]

If your argument is, gosh, the Bible can't have any unimportant details, because, well, it's the Bible, then there is little to address. You have then adopted a straw man that is hardly consonant with the viewpoints of most conservative Christians, including the fundies.

Is it? Possibly. But I'm interested in CDude's viewpoint He's said that some things that happened weren't recorded because they're irrelevant to the message of the gospels. Also, that the gospel writers never lie or make up anything. So anything that's in the gospels is both factual and relevant. This is my understanding of CDude's beliefs, which he's welcome to clarify. So my question to CDude still stands:

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?

I got insulting because your arguments in those couple objections seemed to be in bad faith. You made a mountain out of the molehill of Matthew leaving out the detail of the spices and absurdly claimed that to be a contradiction. You also seemed to willfully miss the obvious reason why the women would break their silence.

No, I didn't miss it. I just didn't think it'd be appropriate to apply Earth logic to a legend in a holy book. It's just like asking, "Then what happened? Did the prince and the princess really live happily ever after? They didn't have any fights? He didn't get bored and go slaying dragons again? She didn't get tired of waiting for him to come back from his quests, and start fooling around with that hot young stableboy? Really? Happily ever after. Okay."

 

[Skeptical Greg]

O.K., How many real contradictions do we have to come up with, to cast doubt on the idea that The Holy Bible is the primary means of communication between the creator of the Universe and the people ( that it created ) on the planet earth.

The following seems like a contradiction to me..

_______________________________________________
Genesis 6
7
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


John 3
16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
__________________________________________

 

[Beerina]

Personally, I like the one where they mention the Titans of Olde or whatever, who came down and mated with mortal women; their sons became ye olde Men of Reknown.

Then the Noah and the Ark incident happens, providing a choke point for human genetics.

Then later on it refers to other quasi super-humans also descended from those same old Titan/angels/whatever. Clearly Noah must have been part of this line of descent or such descendents after the Ark incident could not exist.

Since that is silly, others must have survived the Flood besides Noah & Co., or the Flood never actually happened; in either case, the Bible is wrong.

 

[Z]

I'm too lazy to look it up myself... Beerina, would you mind posting references? Thanks.

Very interesting point.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Personally, I like the one where they mention the Titans of Olde or whatever, who came down and mated with mortal women; their sons became ye olde Men of Reknown.

Then the Noah and the Ark incident happens, providing a choke point for human genetics.

Then later on it refers to other quasi super-humans also descended from those same old Titan/angels/whatever. Clearly Noah must have been part of this line of descent or such descendents after the Ark incident could not exist.

Since that is silly, others must have survived the Flood besides Noah & Co., or the Flood never actually happened; in either case, the Bible is wrong.

If we were discounting ' silly ', there wouldn't be much point in going over the contradictions.


" God works in mysterious ways. "

Translation


" God can do all the silly stuff he wants. "

 

[timokay]

Regarding the flood

The flood story always interested me.

Firstly, I assumed that God had predetermined everything, knows every atom and every thought of every being, from before the time of man... yada yada....

And yet often he is wrathful, angry, etc...

How are you angry if you are pulling the strings on everything? If it is all "Your Plan", then how do you get teed off concerning any aspect of it?

Ok, back to the flood. If the purpose of the flood was to kill off every sinner (mind you, you knew this was gonna happen, predestiny and all that), so you come up with basically what comes down to drowning the cat in order to remove sin from the world.

Well, it didn't work.

Did God fail? Why not?

 

[Yahweh]

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.

Nitpicking: I thought was fairly well-established that the Gospels were anoynomous works, see the Catholic Encyclopedia - Title of the Gospels:

The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles ..., which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings.

Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Strom., I, xxi), and St. Irenæus (Adv. Hær., III, xi, 7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made.

The titles of the Gospels are not the names of the authors or the eyewitnesses, the titles were attached to each of the Gospels long after they were written.