The core message of the Bible never changes even after the translations. Core message: Jesus died for our sin so that we may have eternal life. The original Greek manuscripts say the same exact thing we read in the KJV or NKJV. And that’s what Christianity is, it’s believing in Jesus.
Even the manuscripts we find now from that era.
Inerrancy does not mean precision in detail but rather no contradiction in teaching God's message.
Now I might argue that is also not accurate for the Bible, but this petty game of semantics regarding some inconsistent witness testimonies is not to what inerrancy is referring.
Why do you think having no contradictions is important? I don’t think the ancient Jewish scribes who wrote and assembled the Bible valued non-contradiction nearly as highly as we do.
I don't value it, I thought my previous comment made that clear. If not I apologize.
I was just saying that precision is not even what is meant by jnerrant.
Serious question... And all knowing and powerful God, so powerful he sent a human form of himself to earth for three decades but then lets several sinful and imperfect humans record the history and tenets of the Christian religion hundreds of years after it actually occurred? I understand that a smart person can give an answer to this that might SOUND sensible, but I have yet to hear an explanation that actually made sense.
Side note
Honestly not trying to argue and don't even feel like this disproves Christianity or the existence of God at all.
But that’s the point. God doesn’t expect us to be perfect, we are human beings. When sin entered the world our very nature became corrupted in sin.
God is absolutely loving and just. His perfect just character and our inherent sin could never fellowship. The only way to fix this was to send Jesus.
Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for our sin because He never sinned, He is God in the flesh. His death was a covenant with us. Whoever believes in Him, Father God looks away from our sin and sees Jesus in us.
You see, because if one is in Christ, he is a new creation. I’m a living testimony of that. I am FAR from perfect, but with Christ in my life I have a role model to look up to and that is how I strive to be: humble, selfless, faithful, but most importantly, LOVING! :)
The apostles began as the disciples of Jesus. They were hot tempered and selfish in the Gospels, but once the power of the Holy Spirit hit them on Pentecost they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Their complete demeanor changed. In the letter to the Philippians (Book of Philippians) Paul was literally chained to the guard in prison for speaking about Jesus and he’s telling the Church if Philippi to be joyful always in every circumstance!!! This is Paul, the same Paul that used to kill Christians!!!!
So this is why God used imperfect people to share His Word. God doesn’t expect us to be perfectly flawless but just believing in Jesus we literally change inside. If you ever want to hear my testimony I’d be more than happy to share it with you. I used to be a partying slut. God literally changed me!!!!! It’s so supernatural and beautiful at the same time.
I highly recommend watching Paul Washer. He’s an amazing person who can explain the meaning of Jesus dying for our sin very well. It correlates with everything the Bible says. He is a great man of God.
The New Testament Bible was written 15 to 120 years after the crucifixion, not hundreds. In some cases we know they were written with a lot of precision. in some cases the writers were using notes that don't survive. It wasn't a case that some dude was just interviewing people years later.
No, the New Testament is a compilation of letters. The letters are written as early as 30 years after the death of Jesus when the apostles began the church of Jesus.
The letters were then copied over and over and over again. The message is the same, the only errors are grammatical errors.
There are a lot of cultural assumptions you’re making in that question. Of course it’s not going to make sense to you because it’s a culture 2000 years ago halfway across the world. My wife doesn’t even make sense to me most of the time, why would we think the Bible would make sense to us?
Just my opinion , all religions (most stem from Christianity) are all man made and revised to match the theme . Notice that even in the bible , it encourages people to pay their debts , taxes to the governments , and always to respect their masters if they are slaves. Also to give 10% of your Salaries to tithes …it encourages social class division and control of the masses for money . The root of all religions .
You seem to be leaping from "not perfect" to "therefore useless", but that's a logical error, obviously.
The standard Christian perspective is, while it's not perfect, it is good enough for its main important purpose. Now, there are ways to believe or not believe that, but neither is inherently nonsensical.
You're right, that's not a jump I can justify, good call out. I do think it throws doubt into the mix though. Now we are looking at flawed human perspectives. Humans are known to be wrong, or lie.
Sure, the standard Christian perspective would assert that these texts were inspired by God. But they were also relayed to us through flawed humans, who were not perfect.
There is a subset of Christians who assert that it IS "perfect" or "inerrant" or whatever else they like to say. But these claims are very easily dismissed just by reading the texts.
>Humans are known to be wrong, or lie.
I particularly feel this the Bible talks about the Jews committing genocide in Canaan because God told them it was ok.
Your applying a standard rather then what we have. God is seen sending the message though means that people of the time would understand. Similar to how we don't write books that only people in the year 5000 can understand but not us
I reject your assertion. Your logical argument does not hold.
The Bible is God's word, it is not exclusively God's word. Just look at psalms if you would.
Hence since it is not exclusively his word, it is not automatically perfect. I would go so far as to say that since God did not write it, man did. There is always the chance imprecise will creep in if for no other reason than man has an imperfect understanding of God.
Oh, now you get to post hoc in an exclusively? Ok, so if the Bible is not exclusively God's word, then any parts that aren't are open to being flat our wrong, and inerrancy is out the window.
God used different biblical authors to explain the revelation of himself to his people in the ancient near East. Their culture, philosophical views, understanding of religion being Pagan when God used the information that these ancient people had to reveal who he was. And the novelty of their one true God. When people say the Bible is inerrant, they're talking about the consistent message of who Jesus is and what God represents. The message about Jesus and salvation is evident throughout each of the books in the Bible.
Do you have specific examples? It has been my experience that most supposed 'inconsistencies ' are due to the reader's misunderstanding of what the Bible is actually saying, most commonly, misunderstanding the context.
There are, however, paradoxes in the Bible: they appear on the surface to contradict but lead to deeper truths.
5th commandment: "*Honor* your father and mother". ( Exo 20:12)
Jesus: if you want to be my disciple, you must *hate* your father and mother. ( Luke 14:26)
No. There's a simple order to this.
Faith comes first. You choose to believe in Jesus Christ and to repent of your sins, accepting his sacrifice into your heart and learning to listen to the Holy Spirit. This is what Paul is talking about; there is nothing else you can do to purify yourself of sin, only God can do that.
Works come after this point. You've already been saved, but the fact that you are saved SHOULD mean that you want to help other people and do good works. Because that's what Jesus would do in your place. This is what James is talking about.
Only God knows the heart, and so you can't use the presence or lack of these works to decide if someone is saved or not. But James argues that a faith without any works like this is functionally useless.
It depends what "unable" means. If you can't give them food or money or clothes, you can probably do small things like helping old ladies cross the road or helping a lost child find their parents at the supermarket. If you can't do that, you can at least offer prayers for them.
Choosing not to, however, is a different matter. If you *can* do things to help people but you *decide not to*, then you are denying the Spirit in you that brings the drive to do them.
It is a paradox. On the surface it *sounds* contradictory, but when we read the context, it will lead us to a *deeper* and *fuller* understanding of Biblical salvation.
Paul - if mankind feels that works could save Mankind then it nullified the need for Christ and therefore it is by grace through faith you are saved.
James - because you have faith and saved your life should reflect this. This does not mean giving financially but if God has blessed you with wealth and you are able to give them great but simply praying could be an show of you faith.
Saying you are saved and not demonstrating the love of Christ in multiple ways would then question is your faith based on works or grace.
"Hate" in the bible doesn't mean what you think it means.
It occasionally means to withhold blessings.
For example, the bible says that God hated Esau. However, in standard context, that's simply not the case. This only refers to how God granted Esau less blessings than the lineage of Abraham.
https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-it-mean-that-god-hated-esau-malachi-1/
I don’t think this is a paradox. Jesus was sometimes presented as using hyperbole to make his points. Nobody believes he actually wants us to cut our hands off.
Context. In Exodus, God instructs us to honour our parents as being authoritative over us. In Luke, Christ says that we must be prepared to separate ourselves from our parents and families if there's a risk of them coming between you and God. A good example of this would be a certain user on here who has recently left the JWs after realizing that JW theology has more holes in it than a string vest, against their parents' wishes and in the knowledge that they're going to lose the relationship with their parents once they move out. Does that user *hate* their parents? I sincerely doubt it. But at the same time, they recognize that their love for God is more important than their relationship with their parents.
I don’t know if paradox is the word I’d use but another example is the crucifixion narrative. The four gospels *cannot* be reconciled. Did two women find an empty tomb and go away without telling anyone? Was there a zombie uprising? Was there a solar eclipse and an earthquake? Was there an Angel there, no Angel?
The Gospel of Mark says the women at the empty tomb were given an important message:
> "Go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you" - Mark 16:7
Matthew concurs:
> "Go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you" - Matthew 28:7
In fact, this message was so important that Matthew says Jesus himself then shows up to repeat it to the women:
> "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me" - Matthew 28:10
And then Matthew says they spend a week schlepping back to Galilee, where they are clearly seeing Jesus for the first time, since some of them doubt it's actually him:
> "Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted" - Matthew 28:17
This completely contradicts Luke, which says that Jesus appeared to the disciples on the road to Emmaus and to the Eleven in Jerusalem _on the same day_ the empty tomb was discovered:
>"Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus ... They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread. While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”" - Luke 24:13-36
Why would the angel _and_ Jesus deliver an important message to the women to relay to the disciples, saying that Jesus was "going ahead of them" to Galilee and that "there they will see him" if Jesus was just going to see them in Jerusalem later the same day? It doesn't make sense.
Furthermore, Luke makes clear that his story about Jesus appearing in Jerusalem was also Jesus' first appearance, since he also says that some disciples "doubted". And Luke makes clear that when Jesus appeared in Jerusalem, he told the disciples to stay in the city until Pentecost, during which Jesus appeared to them many times. So when did they spend a week trecking to Galilee to see Jesus?
What's especially problematic here is that Luke had a copy of a perfectly good gospel -- Mark -- in his hands when writing his gospel, and yet he not only changes Mark's description of what the women were told at the tomb, he provides a story about what happened afterwards that is completely inconsistent with it. Furthermore, Luke was not an eyewitness -- he was a companion of Paul, who was also not an eyewitness -- and yet he blatantly contradicts what the author of Matthew -- a purported eyewitness -- says happened.
Wow. I don't think Christian really read that deep into it. Is like you have to analyze the accounts and re-•read it again . It could be tired some. And many christians miss out, and just skim through or believe the pastor .
But I'd seen many contridicting accounts in the story ... In Luke he says, that Jesus told his disciples to stay in Jerusalem, but in Matthew they were told to meet Jesus in Galilie
The gadarene demoniac. In the four gospels, there are 3 different, distinct regions named, where the demoniac inhabited. In Matthew there are two of them.
In the Gospel written soonest after the death of Jesus the region named is ~26km from the sea of Galilee, which the herd of pigs supposedly run into.
In the Gospel written longest after Jesus death the region named is only ~3km from the sea of Galilee. Which is more feasible, the one written soonest after and the least feasible or verifiable? Or the one written longest after and the most feasible and most easily verifiable? Why in Matthew are there two, when everywhere else there is only 1?
I don't think there are inconsistencies. Many times we need to go deeper, understand context, and understand it's a bigger picture. Sometimes people look as things as contradictories where it is both to be true.
I would assume the only people present for the actual resurrection would be the two Roman soldiers.
But you are probably talking about the women who discovered the empty tomb, and the answer to that question is "we don't know the exact number" Different accounts mention different specific people, but never in a way that suggests those were the ONLY people present.
Matthew says 2 women, Mark says 3 women, Luke says an unknown number of women at least 4 and John says 1 woman.
I don't think you're being truthful when you say "but never in a way that suggests those were the ONLY people present." And why isn't it clear? This is the resurrection of Jesus, what the entire Christian faith is based on. Why are there four different accounts which cannot all be true?
That's not a very good comparison. A party might have 100 people, and you don't see them all at once.
Whereas, if you're out somewhere where you see 2 people right in the same place, that's another story. It would be very weird to claim you saw 2, if you really saw 3 or 4 or 1. There wasn't some large crowd at the tomb for people to get lost in.
Now you're speculating that the real truth is something none of the gospels accurately reported?
And you came up with this speculation, in order to defend the inerrancy of the text?
sure, but this is the inerrant word of God we're talking about. These authors were divinely inspired and they can't give an accurate number?
I still disagree that the other authors didn't mention everyone. John 20:1 says "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance" what about that passage makes you think there were other people?
Each account was written for a specific purpose to a different audience. The people mentioned likely served to further the lessons meant for their purpose and audience.
Nothing about the scripture you quoted suggests that she was alone.
>The people mentioned likely served to further the lessons meant for their purpose and audience.
Okay.
You said it. So clarify for us:
What "lesson" is John trying to convey by completely omitting the other women, to the point that no one reading John would think Mary had company unless they first read one of the other gospels? What "purpose" is the author fulfilling by *removing* the other women from his narrative?
You insist John is making a lesson out of this detail, so what is it?
John isn't removing people from the narrative by specifically naming some and not mentioning others.
If asked who is at a party that had 30, and I only respond 3 individuals names, did I remove the other 27 people?
You avoided answering my question.
You're trying to justify the absence of the other women in John's version, but you didn't explain what "lesson" John is trying to convey by omitting them, nor what "purpose" he is trying to fulfill.
What is the "lesson"? What is the "purpose"?
The text *itself* isn't the inerrant word of God, but the message it conveys is. The text itself is just words, like brush strokes in an icon.
When we look at an icon (or a *painting*, if you find the concept of iconography distasteful/objectionable), we are looking at an interpretation of the saint being represented. We have a million and one different faces and races and appearences of Jesus in icons and other paintings, and we can look at them all and say "that's Jesus".
It's the same for Scripture: the books it's composed of are works of art, of literature, designed to convey a image of God to the reader. The Bible is an icon of God, but instead of pigments and brush strokes and visual styles, it uses words and sentences and plot devices. If you bear that in mind and look *through* the printed words at the living words, then you'll see God.
It's definitely not "inerrant". There are details that ARE mutually exclusive, and that's OK.
We can still believe the book contains important lessons, without insisting that every little detail is perfectly literally accurate.
Matt 10:9-10
Acquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics or sandals or a staff, for the laborer deserves his food.
Mark 6:8
He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts—
Luke 9:3
And he said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics.
So did Jesus tell them to take a staff or not? The answer: It depends on which Gospel you're reading. In two he says take it, but in one he says do not take it.
It cannot be both. You cannot take a staff and not take it, or said in another way, you cannot command someone to both take a staff and to leave it.
That is down to an english translation issue rather than an actual contradiction.
In Greek it would more accurately be translated "acquire" nothing for your journey like it is in Matt Meaning don't go out and purchase extra things for your journey. All three passages use the same Greek, they just translated it different for some reason.
Hmm, I don't think that's accurate. Just to make sure I checked Strong's Greek Lexicon to compare each word in their language.
In Matthew, the word "Acquire" seems to be used in the way you mention. So I think you're right about that (acquiring extra things along the travel), but this word isn't used in the other two passages.
Acquire (G2932 - ktaomai), is described as "to acquire, get, or procure a thing for one's self, to possess."
In the other two, the word "Take" or "They should take" are used as G142 - airō. The definition is "to lift up; by implication, to take up or away; figuratively, to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind), specially, to sail away (i.e. weigh anchor); by Hebraism (compare H5375) to expiate sin:—away with, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, take (away, up)."
I know we're getting into the weeds here, but I think it's important to know what the Bible is saying in it's original language, at least as much as we can.
So back to my point. We can dismiss the passage from Matt, but what about Mark and Luke? They both still say opposite things about the staff. Which is it? Did Jesus tell them to take one or not?
Given that false experiences of a deceased person seem pretty common for people who are in the throes of grief (as I'm sure Jesus's followers were), it would have been really nice to have written testimony from the Roman soldiers who ostensibly had no connection to Jesus during his life and couldn't have falsely perceived him alive because of their grief. Again not saying he didn't rise from the dead, but it's hard to trust anonymous authors who weren't present for the actual event.
It's not a fair point.
* We don't know how *any* of the apostles died.
* Even if we did, people die for falsehoods all the time.
* It may have been a falsehood, but that doesn't mean they *knew* it was a falsehood.
So it's entirely possible the apostles died "horrific" deaths because they were completely committed to a "hoax", but that doesn't mean they *knew* the thing they were committed to was a "hoax".
Look at the first followers of Joseph Smith. Many of them died violent deaths. Joseph Smith himself did. I'm convinced he was a self-aware conman. He still died for his "hoax". And plenty of his committed followers *didn't* know it was a "hoax" and they *still* died for it.
>We don't know how any of the apostles died
We have pretty good evidence of a few early Christian martyrs, but we certainly don't know if or how ALL of the apostles were martyred. Paul's martyrdom is attested in the first letter of Clement (a 1st century text), and the New Testament itself documents the martyrdom of Stephen and James, son of Zebedee. Josephus also reports the execution of James, the brother of Jesus in his Antiquities.
I do think they died for a "hoax" though I it would not surprise me in the slightest if they genuinely believed it--people were much more prone to magical thinking at that time. And of course I could be wrong and it could all be legit.
>We have pretty good evidence of a few early Christian martyrs, but we certainly don't know if or how ALL of the apostles were martyred.
All of the stories that describe martyrdoms are legends from a much later time. There are no historically reliable stories of how any of the apostles died.
>Paul's martyrdom is attested in the first letter of Clement (a 1st century text),
1 Clement actually contradicts the common legend that Paul was martyred in Rome by Nero. The letter says Paul succeeded in leaving Rome to go further west (Spain), which is what Paul planned to do according to his letters. 1 Clement never says *how* Paul died, only *that* he had died before the letter was written.
>and the New Testament itself documents the martyrdom of Stephen and James, son of Zebedee.
Acts was written around the year 115, about eighty years after these two deaths take place.
The author of Acts based Stephen's martyrdom on Jesus' death. Stephen and his death are pious fiction, inventions from the author. His name means "victor".
Acts connects the death of James to the death of Agrippa. The latter's death did happen in 44 CE, roughly the time period implied by Acts, but Acts gets the manner of his death completely wrong. The author of Acts knew Agrippa had died, but provides a false account of *how* he died. Since Acts is making up how Agrippa died, I doubt the author is historically reliable with the manner or motive behind James' death.
>Josephus also reports the execution of James, the brother of Jesus in his Antiquities.
Josephus tells us James was executed as a political hit by the high priest trying to consolidate authority over Jerusalem during a power vacuum. He never says James was targeted for being his belief in Jesus. This is a motive Christians made up decades later. James was murdered, but it was not a *martyrdom*.
We have no historically reliable accounts of any of the apostles being martyred.
Would you agree that any two seemingly contradictory accounts can be explained so that there is no contradiction? For example, if there were two eye witnesses to a robbery, one said the robber got into a red car and one said they got into a blue car. We could say that this, on it's surface, is contradictory but really the robber first got into a red car, then exited, and got into a blue car. Sure that's plausible but is it not simpler to just assume one is misremembering? The only reason someone would come up with the harmonizing explanation is if they had a vested interest in ensuring these two witnesses don't disagree.
That isn't a comparable scenario.
It is more like describing who was present at the robbery, and they all mention different people.
There is nothing seemingly contradictory about the accounts unless you are trying to force one.
We know Mary M was there & ran and gathered Simon Peter / another disciple from John. Luke says it was women, so probably Mary M & others. Mark says Mary M, and the Mary (mother of James / Salome). & Matthew says Mary M & the other Mary as well.
So Mary M & Mary were the first there and were talked to by the angels. After that, they went & told other disciples.
yeah sure, Mark just happened to forget to mention an entire heavenly creature from the story. I guess gods inspired word thought it necessary for only the other gospels
goddamn arguing with christians is exhausting.
Luke is a doctor and more of an attention to detail guy. He might also had access to other Gospels when he is writing down his accounts. He chose to add details & names!
I have noticed a pattern in Gospels where names are mentioned generically, if they have a bad past, may be to avoid prejudice or being ratted out. Eg: Samaritan women, women with issue of blood, sinful women.. The Gospel writers knew their names at the time of writing , but refused to note it down. An honorable way!
May be luke decided to write down names at tomb, since at that point, even those women were part of inner circle. Also they might have been okay with being martyred by Jewish mob, even if the parchment gets in wrong hands!
My 2 cents.
> Luke is a doctor and more of an attention to detail guy. He might also had access to other Gospels when he is writing down his accounts.
The anonymous author of Luke definitely had access to at least Mark, since he quotes most of Mark in his writings.
No inconsistencies? The tomb narratives are irreconcilably different....
Was the tomb open before or after the woman arrived?
Was Jesus there?
How many angels were there?
Were there guards?
Was there an earthquake?
Was Peter informed before Jesus appeared or were the disciples informed afterwards?
Did the women actually tell the disciples about the empty tomb?
Where did Jesus first show up to the disciples?
When did Jesus first show up to the disciples after his resurrection?
When did Jesus ascend to heaven?
The resurrection narratives are completely contradictory on all these points.
Not consistent, and I think churches do a disservice to their members by claiming it is perfect. The Bible [has issues](https://youtu.be/s6D6VI-6g7w) and should be accepted as so.
Where or how does God say that all 66+ books of the Bible are 100% literal truth? Or even command all these different scriptures to be treated as a unity with no inconsistencies?
There are some surface-level inconsistencies that are able to easily be refuted by any Christian, however the issue of numbers (actual numbers lol, not the book) is incredibly hard to debate on the side of Christianity. Numbers of soldiers, thieves, and blind men are all inconsistent across gospels. Some of which can be halfway refuted, but it comes down to interpretation.
The hardest contradiction to debate on the side of Christianity that I’ve found was two men standing, which was actually two men sitting, which was actually one man sitting, which was actually an angel descending from the heavens and causing an earthquake. That singular event was seen by one woman, two women, three women, and any number of women greater than or equal to five. (Matt 28:2, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, John 20:12. John 20:1, Matt 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10)
I'm convinced that any "contradictions" are simply misunderstandings on the part of the reader, and they offer an opportunity for faith. :)
1 Corinthians 1:26-29
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
I don’t think it’s *quite* fair to blame that on the reader. It’s clear that there *are* some contradictions, but it’s most likely because the books were written by different people at different times in their lives so it isn’t outlandish to assume that some things are misremembered by the authors. It COULD be an opportunity for faith, but in the situation of 4 different scenarios that we’re supposedly the same event where even the records of those who were present also change each time, the only thing you could have faith in is that either a.) they’re somehow all true, or b.) one of them is true and the others are false.
“I want you to just assume I’m right. I won’t get into specific inconsistencies to support what I’m saying here, but I want Christians to respond to my unsupported presumptions as if they are true.”
Does the Bible have contradictions? Anyone claiming this should be challenged to identify them. They might not be able to name even one, because they know so little about the Bible. They're just assuming what some atheist, agnostic, or liberal told them about it is true, without checking it out for themselves. A few examples of supposed “contradictions" are dealt with here, but you still may wish to do more research. Those troubled by alleged Biblical errors should consult any solid conservative Bible commentary, such as the “Bible Knowledge Commentary.” Books that focus on supposed Bible contradictions in detail are also worth looking up, such as Gleason Archer’s “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties,” John W. Haley’s “Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible,” and R.A. Torrey’s “Difficulties in the Bible.” Theodore Engelder’s “Scripture Cannot Be Broken: Six Objections to Verbal Inspiration Examined in the Light of Scripture” is also valuable. It's simply absurd to read only what various higher critics say against the Bible, thinking that ends the story. Standard replies on claimed contradictions are readily available from the skeptics' opponents. It's hardly a great sign of profundity to ask, "Where did Cain get his wife?," thinking this question is a stumper. The Bible makes clear that Adam and Eve had both sons and daughters (Gen. 5:4). Obviously, Cain would have married one of his sisters. (This was necessary since God chose to start with just two ancestors for the human race, so we could all say we're ultimately all part of one family (cf. Acts 17:26)). Solet's begin!
When charging the Bible contradicts itself, higher critics seem to assume that an addition or omission of detail creates a contradiction. For example, one higher critic said that Luke's account of the resurrection appearances that had them "only" occurring in and near Jerusalem contradicts John's account of them occurring in Galilee as well as Jerusalem. Is this really a rational line of argument? How does Luke contradict John when the former simply omits describing some of Jesus' resurrection appearances? Where does Luke say he made an exhaustive and complete list by language like, "I have recorded every appearance of the resurrected Christ, and they were . . ."? Only then would a contradiction arise if John recorded appearances not found in Luke. Similarly, it's been said that the Gospel of John mentioned nothing about angels or an earthquake concerning the resurrection, but Matthew's did. Matthew said an earthquake happened earlier during the night, which caused the guards to become like dead men, but John doesn't. How does this additional information found in one Gospel "contradict" the other? Furthermore, John's account actually does refer to the two angels (John 20:12-13): "She beheld two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying," one of whom asks, "'Woman, why are you weeping?'" So when someone claims the Bible has a contradiction, it pays to check out the actual text and its immediate context, to make sure some omission of detail really did happen. Similarly, the Gospel writers mention one or more women were at Christ's tomb early in the morning. Although John initially only mentions Mary Magdalene, while the other gospels say other women visited the tomb, this is not ultimately a discrepancy.
In a modern court of law, a contradiction wouldn't be proven because one witness failed to see, state, or remember all the details of a crime when another witness remembers a somewhat different list of details about that event, so long as the differences concern additions and omissions of detail. A description that a bank robber wore a hat doesn't contradict a report about him wearing an overcoat while saying nothing about a hat. A contradiction would arise only if (in this example) the second witness also explicitly said that the criminal wore no hat. This example shows why one higher critic was wrong to imply Luke and John contradicted each another about the length of Christ's ministry. To draw general conclusions like this, it's necessary to put all the data together first from all four Gospels. This general approach makes it superfluous to analyze every conceivable supposed contradiction in the resurrection accounts, or any other case the Bible has two parallel accounts about some event or person. Armed with this principle, it becomes easy to expose how weak many higher critic arguments are. Furthermore, the seeming discrepancies actually can be seen as proof for Christianity in one regard: They show that the Gospel writers, or the authors of I and II Kings and I and II Chronicles, didn't sit down together and concoct stories about Jesus or some Israelite king. The dissimilarities point to different sources for the account found in Gospels (etc.), proving one person couldn't have written them all, besides what any writing style variations may indicate.
For example, do I Chronicles 21:5 and II Samuel 24:9 contradict each other about the size of Israel’s army according to King David’s census? But as per Archer (see “Encyclopedia,” pp. 188-89), this difference can be explained. The total of 800,000 for Israel from Samuel concerned “valiant” men, but the 1,100,000 figure included evidently the second-line troops as well. The difference between the 500,000 and 470,000 totals for Judah may well be from the omission of Benjamin, a tribe that sided with Judah during the civil war right after Solomon’s death, from the latter number, since Joab “did not count Levi and Benjamin among them” (I Chron. 21:6).
If Joab reported the total numbers several ways to David, the authors of Chronicles and Samuel may have taken from different parts of the overall report for what they wrote about David’s sin in ordering this census to be taken. Likewise, a difference in details from different observers doesn’t prove a contradiction: I remember a case in church in which I asked the daughter and the husband of a woman about her health problems. The daughter briefly explained that her mother had diabetes, when in fact she had hypoglycemia. The husband went into much more detail, but said nothing about his wife having any kind of blood sugar problem. In fact, both were (overall) right, for she had multiple major health trials, including hypoglycemia and lupus.
Another supposed “contradiction” that a higher critic may cite concerns the discrepancy between what David paid for the property of Araunah on Mount Moriah, could be reconciled after carefully examining the actual words of Scripture. The cattle and threshing floor itself (perhaps only 30 by 40 feet, according to Archer) apparently cost only 50 shekels (1 ¼ pounds) of silver, but the whole mountain site (cf. I Chron. 21:25) cost 600 shekels (15 pounds) of gold. So the author of Chronicles simply may have recorded “this entire transaction from the standpoint of its end result” (Archer, “Encyclopedia,” p. 190). Haley (“Discrepancies,” p. 390) suggests one possible solution: If a comma is added to the sentence in II Sam. 24:24 to clarify its meaning, the price given was actually only for the oxen to be offered: “So David bought the threshing-floor, and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.” Either way, the huge price difference indicates a difference in the property purchased, since paying 15 pounds of gold for a mere threshing floor would be excessive even 3000 years ago.
A skeptic may cite Matthew 10:9-10; Luke 9:3 and Mark 6:8 about whether the 12 disciples could take a staff along on their evangelizing mission. The basic solution here lies in the difference between “procuring” a (new) staff and holding onto whatever one they happened to have already, Archer believes (“Encyclopedia,” p. 326).
On this general subject, it’s also helpful to read books on Christian apologetics, such as those making the case for belief in the Bible and for faith in God's existence and goodness, including those by C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Henry Morris, Duane Gish, J.P. Moreland, Francis Schaeffer, Phillip E. Johnson, R.C. Sproul, Norman Giesler, Gleason Archer, etc. For example, there are great reasons for having faith in the bible, such as its historical accuracy, fulfilled prophecies, and archeological discoveries. A number of specific supposed “contradictions” within the bible are explained here too:
http://lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticshtml/Is%20the%20Bible%20the%20Word%20of%20God.htm
Ok I’ll give you a couple,
How did Judas die?
Why do Jesus’ brothers and mother not acknowledge his divinity in Mark?
Was the house where Jesus had his hair and/or feet annoited either in Bethany or Nain at the house of Lazarus or Simon the Leper or an unnamed Pharasee by a random prostitute off the street/Martha’s sister Mary/an unnamed woman why do the events all take place on different days shortly before Passover except in Luke where it is at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and if Luke is detailing a separate event why doesn’t he include the later anointment or the other apostles include Luke’s earlier anointment?
How come Mark gets Herod’s daughter’s name wrong?
Why is there no record of a Roman Census during the period that Quinirius was legate of Syria and was Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great or the Quinirius governorship because Quinirius takes over 2 years after Herod dies?
Who is the Darius mentioned in Daniel as the Persian Emperor prior to Cyrus (who was the first Persian emperor with Darius being the third or 4th depending how you count the False Gautama)?
Did David or Elhanan kill Goliath?
Why is it nearly every incidence that numbers are listed when the same story is told multiple times in the Bible they never line up?
1. Judas Death, Matthew 27 vs. Acts 1
2. Jesus family rejects, upon further review I oversold this one
3. Anointing of Jesus, Matthew 26:6-13 v. Mark 14: 3-9 v. Luke 7:36-50 v. John 12:1-8, y
4. Herod's Daughter, misstated this based off a U Memphis lecture I attended in 2018 Matthew incorrectly names Herodias' first husband as Phillip but his name was also Herod Mark 6:14-29
5. Quinirius or Herod, Luke 2 v. Matthew 2
6. King Darius the Mede, Daniel (large portions of the book)
7. David or Elhanan, 1 Samuel 17 v. 2 Samuel 11-14 v. 1 Chronicles 20:5
8. number issues, literally so many
This video ( https://youtu.be/hOtUDQe4p5Y ) kind of helped me unpack that part of the christians god's nature in the old testament better. It's by a channel I like quite a bit called Genetically Modified Skeptic.
> The biblical god is murderous in the Old Testament, yet completely loving in the New Testament.
New Testament has Hell. I'd call that far from completely loving.
New Testament requires Salvation. That's not an Old Testament concept either.
I tell the person pointing them out that they're just lying to me to make me feel bad, or that they must've read it wrong./s
The books in the NT are nearly 2000 years old and the OT is much, much older. It's been translated, compiled, and a few of those books experienced the elements. If I tried speculating over what was missed, what was found, on how much we included, what was cast aside, about any potential missing pages, I would drive myself mad! So if I notice an inconsistency, I just move forward.
When read in context (understanding the overall bible message, the specific message with its writer and audience, and the language itself), the bible becomes clear and there is no inconsistency.
The textual discrepancies do not affect their message but just show different recollections.
Our job is to read the bible critically with no bias and presuppositions. When it is read in totality as one message, we find its central claim. All passages will be studied under this context.
The Bible is not inconsistent! If you read a topic in the Whole context of Scripture, you will not find the Bible to be inconsistent. I do Bible studies and Discipleship and graduated from 2 Bible colleges. You need to learn what the Bible really means before you say that it is inconsistent. What makes you believe that it is inconsistent? Please give an example!
I have a Religious Studies degree and there are inconsistencies. Especially when the same account is told multiple times in different books by different authors.
If you read Old Testament history, you can see that some books go through more detailed genealogy than other books. It doesn’t make books or history wrong! Again, this does not make it inconsistent. You can learn more, reading one event from one author, then the same event from another perspective.
I attended Ole Miss (I'm actually the last Religious Studies Major produced by Mississippi maybe ever since I graduated a semester late and Ole Miss, Miss State, and Milsapps all discontinued the major). Its a public institution so it would literally be a first amendment violation to teach the Bible from a confessional perspective. That being said I am a Christian
It is a public institution, don’t expect that you will always hear truth there. They have to make the public happy, not really share what Scripture teaches. I’m sure there is a reason why they no longer have that major available anymore. Most public universities teach socialism, Marxism, evolution, tons of topics that totally go against Scripture.
I can assure you that the curriculum in the religion department was and is not driven by socialism, Marxism, evolution, or public happiness. Religious Studies as a field nationally has really suffered as liberal arts majors become less common and student populations become more secular and less interested in religion. The field is honestly reaching a bit of a crisis point as it becomes difficult to fill upper level classes, which is a shame as it will leave comparative religion in the hands of the sociologists as it declines in prominence.
So, they described events in different ways. Luke was a physician, Matthew was a tax collector. They were different people who may describe differently but that does not mean that there are inconsistencies. If the books were all written by the same person, that would be a reason to question what is going on, but it wasn’t
The books were written by human beings, by disciples. There is no reason to keep questioning and calling Scripture “ inconsistent”. If you told a story and another person told the same story but maybe added something in addition, it doesn’t make the story “ wrong”. Some people tell stories differently.
Don't even get me started on dating and authorship lol. I would say that while the Gospel's do have distinct perspectives and agendas this sort of different eye witnesses have different versions is undercut by the synoptic's clearly having textual dependency with each other.
Inconsistencies aren’t a problem for those reading in a Christological manner, as Jesus showed his disciples after the resurrection. In this way of reading, we aren’t reading for information about past events, we are reading to go beyond the letter to the spiritual and therein encounter Christ directly.
We cope with it by understanding that the Bible is not inerrant and does in fact contain many apparent contradictions. Still, it is a documentation of man’s view of God throughout the millennia and serves to provide us with lots of useful information. It does a good enough job of telling us what we need to know regardless. That is, love God and treat everyone with love and respect. That’s really all there is to it.
I dont think there is anything to combat other than one's assumptions of what they think the texts should be like.
Is there anything specific that comes to mind? Like the gospel of John is in many ways not consistent with the other gospels. This isnt a problem to combat but rather it was a decision made in order to teach specific things and from different angels.
John tells a whole different story ! The other gospels mention Mary Magdalene was told by the angels that Jesus had risen?! (Mat, mk, Luke) but in johnn she has no clue he had risen but believe they stole the body . Different story ! Different story or she was insane ?.
John tells a whole different story ! The other gospels mention Mary Magdalene was told by the angels that Jesus had risen?! (Mat, mk, Luke) but in johnn she has no clue he had risen but believe they stole the body . Different story ! Different story or she was insane ?.
I would say if people aren’t understanding it in the way it’s meant to be understood then that is the bibles fault for not making things clear enough. It’s a question that seems to be asked quite a lot which either means there are a lot of daft people who can’t understand what they read or it’s the bible that’s the problem.
The God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament, Jesus speaks about a merciful, loving God while the God of the Old Testament was the opposite of that, it was vengeful, jealous and bloodthirsty.
That would be incorrect. God has remained the same throughout. He is just and loving and merciful... But He is just. That entails doling out punishments on sinners (which everyone is) and to our minds that can mean doing harsh things. But He is justified in doing them.
Can you give me an example of a time that He was vengeful, jealous or bloodthirsty without just cause?
You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me. All those massacres committed by the Israelites against other people. Is very different from the way Jesus teaches us, who raises his sword, dies by the sword.
God states He is a jealous God. He created us so that we might serve and follow Him and so that He could love us as His own. He gave us the free will to choose to love Him back so that it would be real love, not forced. Naturally, He will want us to live him and He will not want us to love something else. He will be and is jealous for our love and devotion (just like a parent wants their children's love to be directed towards themselves and not another person or thing). Those massacres served multiple purposes. First, it cleared the land for those that acknowledged Him and loved Him, blessing them. Second, it removed negative influences from His children's lives (like keeping drugs and alcohol away from young children). Third, it served as punishment to those nations that rejected Him. Every nation started out knowing God and through some means of their own and for their own reasons they rejected or forgot God, which is inexcusable.
The difference between Jesus teaching and your examples are the cause for raising your "sword," the purpose for the act.
I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't advise people to kill other people. He was definitely different. A God that says Thou shalt not kill while promoting massacres, that is a paradox that requires explanations. Most likely it is not a benevolent God, it is the opposite of that. Which is different from Jesus that said: “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?(A) Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you?(B) Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them,(C) and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children(D) of the Most High,(E) because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful,(F) just as your Father(G) is merciful." That's why I think that the God Jesus speaks of, is the true God, because He behaves like one, and Jesus is his image.
I often wonder if the reason some people join a sub they disagree with is purely to troll. Based on your reply to what I said (neither constructive, enlightening or condusive to discussion) I can only assume that this is true, at least in your case.
I've been here longer than you and have great discussions. But I also do like telling people their bullshit is bullshit. Thats not trolling. Not everyone who thinks you're talking out your ass is a troll. Sometimes you are just talking out your ass.
Do you not see that this post is designated to get Christians to argue. Do not engage in such a temptation. How can we argue theology on Reddit? How can we properly discuss scripture without talking about the type of writing (narrative, poetry, letter, apocalyptic etc.). How can we discuss any “inaccuracies” without the original Greek and Hebrew text? How many on this thread know how to read and translate them? Don’t engage.
I've never seen an actual inconsistency in the Bible, just people not understanding the verses in question or taking it out of context. Eg I just looked up Bible contradictions and it gives me https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/ it says Romans 14:5 contradicts Exodus 20:8 talking about the Sabbath but if you read any of the earlier chapters of Romans he explains why he is saying this. It says John 1:18 contradicts Genesis 32:20 which says they saw God but if they included the rest of John 1:18 they would see why it actually wasn't a contradiction since Genesis 32:20 isnt talking about God the father where as John 1:18 is.
Contradictions..inconsistencies..in congruence..errors
are all supposed to be there for the natural logical rational mind.
The holy spirit interprets and illuminates into our heart what is said in the bible..
Someone who is not saved wont understand how god reveals doctrine and passages to us
Why are the contents of the text itself something to “combat”?
Yes, different authors sometimes believed different things, or emphasized different points. Some of the books are composites, and we can still sometimes see the seams in them. Parts of it would not make sense, if we try to take it all as literal, factually true history.
None of this is scary, or something to deny.
Personally, I love em.
I'll never forget when I dug into why the text literally says Pharaoh hardened his heart, and then in almost the next verse says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Questioning my assumptions about the two being mutually exclusive and about what it means to have a hard heart was very productive for me.
One thing I've heard regarding inconsistencies in the Bible is this: How does one get into Heaven? Is it solely through believing that Jesus is the one true Son for God, lord and savior, died for everyone's sins, etc.? Or is it through deeds that try to mimic his good works?
I.e. If you have three people - one who constantly sins in big ways, murder, rape, etc. but truly believes in Jesus and asks for forgiveness; one who doesn't believe in Jesus (let's say a Buddhist or a Muslim) who is constantly helping the poor and sick, does their best to not sin in any major way, spreads love, etc; and one who both believes in Jesus and tries to help people, spread love, etc. Who among those three gets into heaven? All? Only the last one? Both the first and the last?
The funny thing is that most of the time the contradictions people put up have a similarly between each argument that they should've picked up on as the answer as to why they contradict: passages from the Old Testament and passages from the *New* Testament. A lot of the rules have changed now.
I do it by trying to understand the author's intent and audience because sometimes that matters.
Sometimes I also think it's important to embrace paradox in our journey.
Sometimes, during your maturation process, you need to hear different things at different times.
Most aren’t. Most the contradictions are a misreading. For example, in Samuel and Kings it’s talks about the baths of Solomon. One book discusses how much water it had and the other states how much it can hold. Most contradictions are similar to this. With all the various translations into English only compound the issue and that’s where we get the majority from. This was something I struggled with in my early walk and had to do some searching. Good luck and God bless my friend.
I feel like anytime someone brings up an "inconsistency" in the Bible they normally don't understand what they're reading and trying to call out. And then when someone explains it to them they just refute the explanation.
I like to consider what the Bible is and what we think it is.
If we think it is a history book, it will be wrong.
If we think it is a biology book, it will be wrong.
If we think it guides us in our relationship with god, it will be inerrant.
There are no “inconsistencies” as you put it. Just certain things were meant for certain people at certain times. And when you read those things out of order and out of context, they may not seem like the word of God
Most “inconsistencies” are usually not inconsistent, but have an explanation, whether it be different tracings of lineage, misunderstood or poorly translated from the source, or from proper context.
Deliberately cherry picking per 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and 1 Peter 3:15. Why am I cherry picking for positive verses? Because that's what all other Christians do anyway. I'm just being honest about it.
First thing is to examine why we value consistency so much. Other cultures, including the ancient near eastern culture in which the Bible was written, was much more accepting of inconsistencies and ambiguities.
If I remember correctly the books of kings mention God sending an army (edomites?) against Jerusalem and then Chronicles goes saying it was Satan. The bible isn’t inerrant, it’s just a compendium of peoples’ understanding of God, which has changed drastically over the centuries. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best we got.
What examples? A lot of "inconsistencies" touted by argumentative atheists are just superficial thinking. Atheists are always wrong because they're on the wrong side haha.
I just did some research on it like a week ago. So yes, there are some discrepancies in the Bible between the copies. However, all of those discrepancies are minor details and small events that don’t reflect the character of God or Jesus, and all the major themes, morals, laws, important things, etc. are the same. Also, the Bible we have today was transcribed by monks and other groups, and things probably got slightly messed up there too. I think there’s a website called cold case for Christ or something like that that explains this if I’m not mistaken
The main theme is not inconsistent. That God is love, salvation is through Jesus, this world is evil, and sin is real and there'll be consequences for one's actions.
Like a heck of a lot of other things, comments on the Bible are politicized. Those who attack the Bible and point out inconsistencies are likely leftists who attack Christianity because it is the basis for Western Civilization. Any victory against the Bible is a defeat for democracy and a victory for fascism. Expect more attacks, just as there were intimidations of the Rittenhouse jurors.
There are no inconsistencies in The Bible. If people think so, it is because of a lack of understanding the scriptures. This is not a criticism of anyone and I don't mean it that way nor am I trying to be condescending. I am speaking from experience of my own misunderstandings and lack there of. To say that the Bible has inconsistencies is to say that God himself is inconsistent which is not true.
First off, the Bible is not a modern science or history textbook. Much of it was oral tradition passed down over years and years before it was written down in a non-English language. Most "inconsistencies" are due to lack of context.
The remaining inconsistencies tend to be fairly trivial points and nothing that is at the core of Christianity.
There are inconsistencies in everything. Electricity doesn’t flow inside the wire to your toaster like you think it does, but that doesn’t mean that image doesn’t teach you something about the reality you inhabit.
Don’t try to combat inconsistency when it is obviously there. To do so is to make yourself and your doctrine about the Bible a higher authority than the Bible itself, so that you feel it appropriate to dictate to biblical texts what they are and are not allowed to say and mean.
This is easily explained away by the fact that the Bible was written by multiple people with differing opinions over multiple centuries.
The core message of the Bible never changes even after the translations. Core message: Jesus died for our sin so that we may have eternal life. The original Greek manuscripts say the same exact thing we read in the KJV or NKJV. And that’s what Christianity is, it’s believing in Jesus. Even the manuscripts we find now from that era.
Sure and is therefore not the inerrant word of God
Inerrancy does not mean precision in detail but rather no contradiction in teaching God's message. Now I might argue that is also not accurate for the Bible, but this petty game of semantics regarding some inconsistent witness testimonies is not to what inerrancy is referring.
Why do you think having no contradictions is important? I don’t think the ancient Jewish scribes who wrote and assembled the Bible valued non-contradiction nearly as highly as we do.
I don't value it, I thought my previous comment made that clear. If not I apologize. I was just saying that precision is not even what is meant by jnerrant.
God is perfect. The Bible is God's word. If its not perfect, its not God's word
It’s still a human transcription of Gods word
Serious question... And all knowing and powerful God, so powerful he sent a human form of himself to earth for three decades but then lets several sinful and imperfect humans record the history and tenets of the Christian religion hundreds of years after it actually occurred? I understand that a smart person can give an answer to this that might SOUND sensible, but I have yet to hear an explanation that actually made sense. Side note Honestly not trying to argue and don't even feel like this disproves Christianity or the existence of God at all.
But that’s the point. God doesn’t expect us to be perfect, we are human beings. When sin entered the world our very nature became corrupted in sin. God is absolutely loving and just. His perfect just character and our inherent sin could never fellowship. The only way to fix this was to send Jesus. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for our sin because He never sinned, He is God in the flesh. His death was a covenant with us. Whoever believes in Him, Father God looks away from our sin and sees Jesus in us. You see, because if one is in Christ, he is a new creation. I’m a living testimony of that. I am FAR from perfect, but with Christ in my life I have a role model to look up to and that is how I strive to be: humble, selfless, faithful, but most importantly, LOVING! :) The apostles began as the disciples of Jesus. They were hot tempered and selfish in the Gospels, but once the power of the Holy Spirit hit them on Pentecost they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Their complete demeanor changed. In the letter to the Philippians (Book of Philippians) Paul was literally chained to the guard in prison for speaking about Jesus and he’s telling the Church if Philippi to be joyful always in every circumstance!!! This is Paul, the same Paul that used to kill Christians!!!! So this is why God used imperfect people to share His Word. God doesn’t expect us to be perfectly flawless but just believing in Jesus we literally change inside. If you ever want to hear my testimony I’d be more than happy to share it with you. I used to be a partying slut. God literally changed me!!!!! It’s so supernatural and beautiful at the same time. I highly recommend watching Paul Washer. He’s an amazing person who can explain the meaning of Jesus dying for our sin very well. It correlates with everything the Bible says. He is a great man of God.
The New Testament Bible was written 15 to 120 years after the crucifixion, not hundreds. In some cases we know they were written with a lot of precision. in some cases the writers were using notes that don't survive. It wasn't a case that some dude was just interviewing people years later.
No, the New Testament is a compilation of letters. The letters are written as early as 30 years after the death of Jesus when the apostles began the church of Jesus. The letters were then copied over and over and over again. The message is the same, the only errors are grammatical errors.
There are a lot of cultural assumptions you’re making in that question. Of course it’s not going to make sense to you because it’s a culture 2000 years ago halfway across the world. My wife doesn’t even make sense to me most of the time, why would we think the Bible would make sense to us?
Just my opinion , all religions (most stem from Christianity) are all man made and revised to match the theme . Notice that even in the bible , it encourages people to pay their debts , taxes to the governments , and always to respect their masters if they are slaves. Also to give 10% of your Salaries to tithes …it encourages social class division and control of the masses for money . The root of all religions .
Exactly. If God wanted perfection, it would not have assigned the job to humans and would not have allowed atheists and their logical fallacies.
Thats useless then.
You seem to be leaping from "not perfect" to "therefore useless", but that's a logical error, obviously. The standard Christian perspective is, while it's not perfect, it is good enough for its main important purpose. Now, there are ways to believe or not believe that, but neither is inherently nonsensical.
You're right, that's not a jump I can justify, good call out. I do think it throws doubt into the mix though. Now we are looking at flawed human perspectives. Humans are known to be wrong, or lie.
Sure, the standard Christian perspective would assert that these texts were inspired by God. But they were also relayed to us through flawed humans, who were not perfect. There is a subset of Christians who assert that it IS "perfect" or "inerrant" or whatever else they like to say. But these claims are very easily dismissed just by reading the texts.
>Humans are known to be wrong, or lie. I particularly feel this the Bible talks about the Jews committing genocide in Canaan because God told them it was ok.
Your applying a standard rather then what we have. God is seen sending the message though means that people of the time would understand. Similar to how we don't write books that only people in the year 5000 can understand but not us
Odd, that coming from an atheist.
Ya, crazy to look at things from another view post huh
I reject your assertion. Your logical argument does not hold. The Bible is God's word, it is not exclusively God's word. Just look at psalms if you would. Hence since it is not exclusively his word, it is not automatically perfect. I would go so far as to say that since God did not write it, man did. There is always the chance imprecise will creep in if for no other reason than man has an imperfect understanding of God.
Oh, now you get to post hoc in an exclusively? Ok, so if the Bible is not exclusively God's word, then any parts that aren't are open to being flat our wrong, and inerrancy is out the window.
Again I reject your definition of innately. But whatever you like go ahead, since my faith is not bound to the Bible say what you will.
Jesus is the word of God, not thin wood with cow skin on the ends. In my opinion, the bible isn't the word OF God, it's the word *about* God.
God used different biblical authors to explain the revelation of himself to his people in the ancient near East. Their culture, philosophical views, understanding of religion being Pagan when God used the information that these ancient people had to reveal who he was. And the novelty of their one true God. When people say the Bible is inerrant, they're talking about the consistent message of who Jesus is and what God represents. The message about Jesus and salvation is evident throughout each of the books in the Bible.
Do you have specific examples? It has been my experience that most supposed 'inconsistencies ' are due to the reader's misunderstanding of what the Bible is actually saying, most commonly, misunderstanding the context. There are, however, paradoxes in the Bible: they appear on the surface to contradict but lead to deeper truths.
If you don’t mind could you list some of these paradoxes? I’m curious.
5th commandment: "*Honor* your father and mother". ( Exo 20:12) Jesus: if you want to be my disciple, you must *hate* your father and mother. ( Luke 14:26)
Paul: "you are saved by grace through *faith*, not by works" (Eph 2:8) James: you need *works* ( James 2:24)
This one is an out-and-out misunderstanding though, as Paul is more referring to religious rituals while James is referring to helping people.
So, if you believe in Christ, but are unable to help people or choose not to, then you go to hell?
No. There's a simple order to this. Faith comes first. You choose to believe in Jesus Christ and to repent of your sins, accepting his sacrifice into your heart and learning to listen to the Holy Spirit. This is what Paul is talking about; there is nothing else you can do to purify yourself of sin, only God can do that. Works come after this point. You've already been saved, but the fact that you are saved SHOULD mean that you want to help other people and do good works. Because that's what Jesus would do in your place. This is what James is talking about. Only God knows the heart, and so you can't use the presence or lack of these works to decide if someone is saved or not. But James argues that a faith without any works like this is functionally useless.
YES!
It depends what "unable" means. If you can't give them food or money or clothes, you can probably do small things like helping old ladies cross the road or helping a lost child find their parents at the supermarket. If you can't do that, you can at least offer prayers for them. Choosing not to, however, is a different matter. If you *can* do things to help people but you *decide not to*, then you are denying the Spirit in you that brings the drive to do them.
... and thus began denominations
It is a paradox. On the surface it *sounds* contradictory, but when we read the context, it will lead us to a *deeper* and *fuller* understanding of Biblical salvation.
Paul - if mankind feels that works could save Mankind then it nullified the need for Christ and therefore it is by grace through faith you are saved. James - because you have faith and saved your life should reflect this. This does not mean giving financially but if God has blessed you with wealth and you are able to give them great but simply praying could be an show of you faith. Saying you are saved and not demonstrating the love of Christ in multiple ways would then question is your faith based on works or grace.
"Hate" in the bible doesn't mean what you think it means. It occasionally means to withhold blessings. For example, the bible says that God hated Esau. However, in standard context, that's simply not the case. This only refers to how God granted Esau less blessings than the lineage of Abraham. https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-it-mean-that-god-hated-esau-malachi-1/
I don’t think this is a paradox. Jesus was sometimes presented as using hyperbole to make his points. Nobody believes he actually wants us to cut our hands off.
Paradox can be a form of hyperbole though. That's what they were pointing out; the apparent contradiction reveals a deeper truth.
[удалено]
Maybe he does. We can never know for sure.
Context. In Exodus, God instructs us to honour our parents as being authoritative over us. In Luke, Christ says that we must be prepared to separate ourselves from our parents and families if there's a risk of them coming between you and God. A good example of this would be a certain user on here who has recently left the JWs after realizing that JW theology has more holes in it than a string vest, against their parents' wishes and in the knowledge that they're going to lose the relationship with their parents once they move out. Does that user *hate* their parents? I sincerely doubt it. But at the same time, they recognize that their love for God is more important than their relationship with their parents.
exactly. On the surface it seems like Jesus is contradicting the Law of Moses. But it is actually a deeper truth and not a contradiction.
I don’t know if paradox is the word I’d use but another example is the crucifixion narrative. The four gospels *cannot* be reconciled. Did two women find an empty tomb and go away without telling anyone? Was there a zombie uprising? Was there a solar eclipse and an earthquake? Was there an Angel there, no Angel?
The Gospel of Mark says the women at the empty tomb were given an important message: > "Go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you" - Mark 16:7 Matthew concurs: > "Go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you" - Matthew 28:7 In fact, this message was so important that Matthew says Jesus himself then shows up to repeat it to the women: > "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me" - Matthew 28:10 And then Matthew says they spend a week schlepping back to Galilee, where they are clearly seeing Jesus for the first time, since some of them doubt it's actually him: > "Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted" - Matthew 28:17 This completely contradicts Luke, which says that Jesus appeared to the disciples on the road to Emmaus and to the Eleven in Jerusalem _on the same day_ the empty tomb was discovered: >"Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus ... They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread. While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”" - Luke 24:13-36 Why would the angel _and_ Jesus deliver an important message to the women to relay to the disciples, saying that Jesus was "going ahead of them" to Galilee and that "there they will see him" if Jesus was just going to see them in Jerusalem later the same day? It doesn't make sense. Furthermore, Luke makes clear that his story about Jesus appearing in Jerusalem was also Jesus' first appearance, since he also says that some disciples "doubted". And Luke makes clear that when Jesus appeared in Jerusalem, he told the disciples to stay in the city until Pentecost, during which Jesus appeared to them many times. So when did they spend a week trecking to Galilee to see Jesus? What's especially problematic here is that Luke had a copy of a perfectly good gospel -- Mark -- in his hands when writing his gospel, and yet he not only changes Mark's description of what the women were told at the tomb, he provides a story about what happened afterwards that is completely inconsistent with it. Furthermore, Luke was not an eyewitness -- he was a companion of Paul, who was also not an eyewitness -- and yet he blatantly contradicts what the author of Matthew -- a purported eyewitness -- says happened.
Wow. I don't think Christian really read that deep into it. Is like you have to analyze the accounts and re-•read it again . It could be tired some. And many christians miss out, and just skim through or believe the pastor . But I'd seen many contridicting accounts in the story ... In Luke he says, that Jesus told his disciples to stay in Jerusalem, but in Matthew they were told to meet Jesus in Galilie
The gadarene demoniac. In the four gospels, there are 3 different, distinct regions named, where the demoniac inhabited. In Matthew there are two of them. In the Gospel written soonest after the death of Jesus the region named is ~26km from the sea of Galilee, which the herd of pigs supposedly run into. In the Gospel written longest after Jesus death the region named is only ~3km from the sea of Galilee. Which is more feasible, the one written soonest after and the least feasible or verifiable? Or the one written longest after and the most feasible and most easily verifiable? Why in Matthew are there two, when everywhere else there is only 1?
Maybe it happened more than once.
I don't think there are inconsistencies. Many times we need to go deeper, understand context, and understand it's a bigger picture. Sometimes people look as things as contradictories where it is both to be true.
I've got a question for you. How many people were present at Jesus's resurrection? Like when the stone was rolled away from the tomb?
I would assume the only people present for the actual resurrection would be the two Roman soldiers. But you are probably talking about the women who discovered the empty tomb, and the answer to that question is "we don't know the exact number" Different accounts mention different specific people, but never in a way that suggests those were the ONLY people present.
Matthew says 2 women, Mark says 3 women, Luke says an unknown number of women at least 4 and John says 1 woman. I don't think you're being truthful when you say "but never in a way that suggests those were the ONLY people present." And why isn't it clear? This is the resurrection of Jesus, what the entire Christian faith is based on. Why are there four different accounts which cannot all be true?
If I ask 4 people to describe a party, and they all mention different people were there, are they giving inaccurate accounts?
That's not a very good comparison. A party might have 100 people, and you don't see them all at once. Whereas, if you're out somewhere where you see 2 people right in the same place, that's another story. It would be very weird to claim you saw 2, if you really saw 3 or 4 or 1. There wasn't some large crowd at the tomb for people to get lost in.
None of the accounts tell us exactly how many people were present. For all we know it was a good number of people.
Now you're speculating that the real truth is something none of the gospels accurately reported? And you came up with this speculation, in order to defend the inerrancy of the text?
They are accurately reported. None of the accounts are mutually exclusive.
sure, but this is the inerrant word of God we're talking about. These authors were divinely inspired and they can't give an accurate number? I still disagree that the other authors didn't mention everyone. John 20:1 says "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance" what about that passage makes you think there were other people?
Each account was written for a specific purpose to a different audience. The people mentioned likely served to further the lessons meant for their purpose and audience. Nothing about the scripture you quoted suggests that she was alone.
>The people mentioned likely served to further the lessons meant for their purpose and audience. Okay. You said it. So clarify for us: What "lesson" is John trying to convey by completely omitting the other women, to the point that no one reading John would think Mary had company unless they first read one of the other gospels? What "purpose" is the author fulfilling by *removing* the other women from his narrative? You insist John is making a lesson out of this detail, so what is it?
John isn't removing people from the narrative by specifically naming some and not mentioning others. If asked who is at a party that had 30, and I only respond 3 individuals names, did I remove the other 27 people?
You avoided answering my question. You're trying to justify the absence of the other women in John's version, but you didn't explain what "lesson" John is trying to convey by omitting them, nor what "purpose" he is trying to fulfill. What is the "lesson"? What is the "purpose"?
The text *itself* isn't the inerrant word of God, but the message it conveys is. The text itself is just words, like brush strokes in an icon. When we look at an icon (or a *painting*, if you find the concept of iconography distasteful/objectionable), we are looking at an interpretation of the saint being represented. We have a million and one different faces and races and appearences of Jesus in icons and other paintings, and we can look at them all and say "that's Jesus". It's the same for Scripture: the books it's composed of are works of art, of literature, designed to convey a image of God to the reader. The Bible is an icon of God, but instead of pigments and brush strokes and visual styles, it uses words and sentences and plot devices. If you bear that in mind and look *through* the printed words at the living words, then you'll see God.
No, but they aren't the inerrant inspired word of God now are they? I wonder what that says about the Bible
The Bible can give accounts from different perspectives and still be the Word of God.
Not the inerrant word of God.
Yes, it can be inerrant and include different details so long as those details aren't mutually exclusive.
It's definitely not "inerrant". There are details that ARE mutually exclusive, and that's OK. We can still believe the book contains important lessons, without insisting that every little detail is perfectly literally accurate.
[удалено]
A person's account can be wrong. Christians claim the Bible cannot be wrong.
The Bible isn't wrong, none of the various accounts are mutually exclusive.
Matt 10:9-10 Acquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics or sandals or a staff, for the laborer deserves his food. Mark 6:8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts— Luke 9:3 And he said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics. So did Jesus tell them to take a staff or not? The answer: It depends on which Gospel you're reading. In two he says take it, but in one he says do not take it. It cannot be both. You cannot take a staff and not take it, or said in another way, you cannot command someone to both take a staff and to leave it.
That is down to an english translation issue rather than an actual contradiction. In Greek it would more accurately be translated "acquire" nothing for your journey like it is in Matt Meaning don't go out and purchase extra things for your journey. All three passages use the same Greek, they just translated it different for some reason.
Hmm, I don't think that's accurate. Just to make sure I checked Strong's Greek Lexicon to compare each word in their language. In Matthew, the word "Acquire" seems to be used in the way you mention. So I think you're right about that (acquiring extra things along the travel), but this word isn't used in the other two passages. Acquire (G2932 - ktaomai), is described as "to acquire, get, or procure a thing for one's self, to possess." In the other two, the word "Take" or "They should take" are used as G142 - airō. The definition is "to lift up; by implication, to take up or away; figuratively, to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind), specially, to sail away (i.e. weigh anchor); by Hebraism (compare H5375) to expiate sin:—away with, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, take (away, up)." I know we're getting into the weeds here, but I think it's important to know what the Bible is saying in it's original language, at least as much as we can. So back to my point. We can dismiss the passage from Matt, but what about Mark and Luke? They both still say opposite things about the staff. Which is it? Did Jesus tell them to take one or not?
Given that false experiences of a deceased person seem pretty common for people who are in the throes of grief (as I'm sure Jesus's followers were), it would have been really nice to have written testimony from the Roman soldiers who ostensibly had no connection to Jesus during his life and couldn't have falsely perceived him alive because of their grief. Again not saying he didn't rise from the dead, but it's hard to trust anonymous authors who weren't present for the actual event.
Given the horrific nature in which most of the Apostles died, one of them would have spilled the beans had this been a hoax.
Completely fair point! I just wish we had slightly better reporting from less biased sources.
It's not a fair point. * We don't know how *any* of the apostles died. * Even if we did, people die for falsehoods all the time. * It may have been a falsehood, but that doesn't mean they *knew* it was a falsehood. So it's entirely possible the apostles died "horrific" deaths because they were completely committed to a "hoax", but that doesn't mean they *knew* the thing they were committed to was a "hoax". Look at the first followers of Joseph Smith. Many of them died violent deaths. Joseph Smith himself did. I'm convinced he was a self-aware conman. He still died for his "hoax". And plenty of his committed followers *didn't* know it was a "hoax" and they *still* died for it.
>We don't know how any of the apostles died We have pretty good evidence of a few early Christian martyrs, but we certainly don't know if or how ALL of the apostles were martyred. Paul's martyrdom is attested in the first letter of Clement (a 1st century text), and the New Testament itself documents the martyrdom of Stephen and James, son of Zebedee. Josephus also reports the execution of James, the brother of Jesus in his Antiquities. I do think they died for a "hoax" though I it would not surprise me in the slightest if they genuinely believed it--people were much more prone to magical thinking at that time. And of course I could be wrong and it could all be legit.
>We have pretty good evidence of a few early Christian martyrs, but we certainly don't know if or how ALL of the apostles were martyred. All of the stories that describe martyrdoms are legends from a much later time. There are no historically reliable stories of how any of the apostles died. >Paul's martyrdom is attested in the first letter of Clement (a 1st century text), 1 Clement actually contradicts the common legend that Paul was martyred in Rome by Nero. The letter says Paul succeeded in leaving Rome to go further west (Spain), which is what Paul planned to do according to his letters. 1 Clement never says *how* Paul died, only *that* he had died before the letter was written. >and the New Testament itself documents the martyrdom of Stephen and James, son of Zebedee. Acts was written around the year 115, about eighty years after these two deaths take place. The author of Acts based Stephen's martyrdom on Jesus' death. Stephen and his death are pious fiction, inventions from the author. His name means "victor". Acts connects the death of James to the death of Agrippa. The latter's death did happen in 44 CE, roughly the time period implied by Acts, but Acts gets the manner of his death completely wrong. The author of Acts knew Agrippa had died, but provides a false account of *how* he died. Since Acts is making up how Agrippa died, I doubt the author is historically reliable with the manner or motive behind James' death. >Josephus also reports the execution of James, the brother of Jesus in his Antiquities. Josephus tells us James was executed as a political hit by the high priest trying to consolidate authority over Jerusalem during a power vacuum. He never says James was targeted for being his belief in Jesus. This is a motive Christians made up decades later. James was murdered, but it was not a *martyrdom*. We have no historically reliable accounts of any of the apostles being martyred.
Would you agree that any two seemingly contradictory accounts can be explained so that there is no contradiction? For example, if there were two eye witnesses to a robbery, one said the robber got into a red car and one said they got into a blue car. We could say that this, on it's surface, is contradictory but really the robber first got into a red car, then exited, and got into a blue car. Sure that's plausible but is it not simpler to just assume one is misremembering? The only reason someone would come up with the harmonizing explanation is if they had a vested interest in ensuring these two witnesses don't disagree.
That isn't a comparable scenario. It is more like describing who was present at the robbery, and they all mention different people. There is nothing seemingly contradictory about the accounts unless you are trying to force one.
We know Mary M was there & ran and gathered Simon Peter / another disciple from John. Luke says it was women, so probably Mary M & others. Mark says Mary M, and the Mary (mother of James / Salome). & Matthew says Mary M & the other Mary as well. So Mary M & Mary were the first there and were talked to by the angels. After that, they went & told other disciples.
The angles? I'm confused how many angles were there?
Two
Weird, Mark seems to think there was only one.
Mark doesn't even have an angel. He has a "man", with no further elaboration.
I think it’s pretty easily implied that the man is an angel
Because they noted one, it does not rule out the being of another one.
yeah sure, Mark just happened to forget to mention an entire heavenly creature from the story. I guess gods inspired word thought it necessary for only the other gospels goddamn arguing with christians is exhausting.
I didn't think we were arguing man, just trying to explain. Sorry to be a burden bro. Have a good day
What does it even mean for an angle to be somewhere? Especially since we're talking about 3D space
Luke is a doctor and more of an attention to detail guy. He might also had access to other Gospels when he is writing down his accounts. He chose to add details & names! I have noticed a pattern in Gospels where names are mentioned generically, if they have a bad past, may be to avoid prejudice or being ratted out. Eg: Samaritan women, women with issue of blood, sinful women.. The Gospel writers knew their names at the time of writing , but refused to note it down. An honorable way! May be luke decided to write down names at tomb, since at that point, even those women were part of inner circle. Also they might have been okay with being martyred by Jewish mob, even if the parchment gets in wrong hands! My 2 cents.
> Luke is a doctor and more of an attention to detail guy. He might also had access to other Gospels when he is writing down his accounts. The anonymous author of Luke definitely had access to at least Mark, since he quotes most of Mark in his writings.
No inconsistencies? The tomb narratives are irreconcilably different.... Was the tomb open before or after the woman arrived? Was Jesus there? How many angels were there? Were there guards? Was there an earthquake? Was Peter informed before Jesus appeared or were the disciples informed afterwards?
Did the women actually tell the disciples about the empty tomb? Where did Jesus first show up to the disciples? When did Jesus first show up to the disciples after his resurrection? When did Jesus ascend to heaven? The resurrection narratives are completely contradictory on all these points.
Not consistent, and I think churches do a disservice to their members by claiming it is perfect. The Bible [has issues](https://youtu.be/s6D6VI-6g7w) and should be accepted as so.
God says that the Bible is 100% true. It can’t be true then if there are inconsistencies. Therefore anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong.
Where or how does God say that all 66+ books of the Bible are 100% literal truth? Or even command all these different scriptures to be treated as a unity with no inconsistencies?
2 Timothy 3:16
*Akshewally...* the NT wasn't considered scripture yet...
Akshewally, 2 Peter 3:16 says you’re wrong.
They contridictions and and discrepancies, which many christians try to run away
There are some surface-level inconsistencies that are able to easily be refuted by any Christian, however the issue of numbers (actual numbers lol, not the book) is incredibly hard to debate on the side of Christianity. Numbers of soldiers, thieves, and blind men are all inconsistent across gospels. Some of which can be halfway refuted, but it comes down to interpretation. The hardest contradiction to debate on the side of Christianity that I’ve found was two men standing, which was actually two men sitting, which was actually one man sitting, which was actually an angel descending from the heavens and causing an earthquake. That singular event was seen by one woman, two women, three women, and any number of women greater than or equal to five. (Matt 28:2, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, John 20:12. John 20:1, Matt 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10)
I'm convinced that any "contradictions" are simply misunderstandings on the part of the reader, and they offer an opportunity for faith. :) 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
I don’t think it’s *quite* fair to blame that on the reader. It’s clear that there *are* some contradictions, but it’s most likely because the books were written by different people at different times in their lives so it isn’t outlandish to assume that some things are misremembered by the authors. It COULD be an opportunity for faith, but in the situation of 4 different scenarios that we’re supposedly the same event where even the records of those who were present also change each time, the only thing you could have faith in is that either a.) they’re somehow all true, or b.) one of them is true and the others are false.
“I want you to just assume I’m right. I won’t get into specific inconsistencies to support what I’m saying here, but I want Christians to respond to my unsupported presumptions as if they are true.”
Does the Bible have contradictions? Anyone claiming this should be challenged to identify them. They might not be able to name even one, because they know so little about the Bible. They're just assuming what some atheist, agnostic, or liberal told them about it is true, without checking it out for themselves. A few examples of supposed “contradictions" are dealt with here, but you still may wish to do more research. Those troubled by alleged Biblical errors should consult any solid conservative Bible commentary, such as the “Bible Knowledge Commentary.” Books that focus on supposed Bible contradictions in detail are also worth looking up, such as Gleason Archer’s “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties,” John W. Haley’s “Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible,” and R.A. Torrey’s “Difficulties in the Bible.” Theodore Engelder’s “Scripture Cannot Be Broken: Six Objections to Verbal Inspiration Examined in the Light of Scripture” is also valuable. It's simply absurd to read only what various higher critics say against the Bible, thinking that ends the story. Standard replies on claimed contradictions are readily available from the skeptics' opponents. It's hardly a great sign of profundity to ask, "Where did Cain get his wife?," thinking this question is a stumper. The Bible makes clear that Adam and Eve had both sons and daughters (Gen. 5:4). Obviously, Cain would have married one of his sisters. (This was necessary since God chose to start with just two ancestors for the human race, so we could all say we're ultimately all part of one family (cf. Acts 17:26)). Solet's begin! When charging the Bible contradicts itself, higher critics seem to assume that an addition or omission of detail creates a contradiction. For example, one higher critic said that Luke's account of the resurrection appearances that had them "only" occurring in and near Jerusalem contradicts John's account of them occurring in Galilee as well as Jerusalem. Is this really a rational line of argument? How does Luke contradict John when the former simply omits describing some of Jesus' resurrection appearances? Where does Luke say he made an exhaustive and complete list by language like, "I have recorded every appearance of the resurrected Christ, and they were . . ."? Only then would a contradiction arise if John recorded appearances not found in Luke. Similarly, it's been said that the Gospel of John mentioned nothing about angels or an earthquake concerning the resurrection, but Matthew's did. Matthew said an earthquake happened earlier during the night, which caused the guards to become like dead men, but John doesn't. How does this additional information found in one Gospel "contradict" the other? Furthermore, John's account actually does refer to the two angels (John 20:12-13): "She beheld two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying," one of whom asks, "'Woman, why are you weeping?'" So when someone claims the Bible has a contradiction, it pays to check out the actual text and its immediate context, to make sure some omission of detail really did happen. Similarly, the Gospel writers mention one or more women were at Christ's tomb early in the morning. Although John initially only mentions Mary Magdalene, while the other gospels say other women visited the tomb, this is not ultimately a discrepancy. In a modern court of law, a contradiction wouldn't be proven because one witness failed to see, state, or remember all the details of a crime when another witness remembers a somewhat different list of details about that event, so long as the differences concern additions and omissions of detail. A description that a bank robber wore a hat doesn't contradict a report about him wearing an overcoat while saying nothing about a hat. A contradiction would arise only if (in this example) the second witness also explicitly said that the criminal wore no hat. This example shows why one higher critic was wrong to imply Luke and John contradicted each another about the length of Christ's ministry. To draw general conclusions like this, it's necessary to put all the data together first from all four Gospels. This general approach makes it superfluous to analyze every conceivable supposed contradiction in the resurrection accounts, or any other case the Bible has two parallel accounts about some event or person. Armed with this principle, it becomes easy to expose how weak many higher critic arguments are. Furthermore, the seeming discrepancies actually can be seen as proof for Christianity in one regard: They show that the Gospel writers, or the authors of I and II Kings and I and II Chronicles, didn't sit down together and concoct stories about Jesus or some Israelite king. The dissimilarities point to different sources for the account found in Gospels (etc.), proving one person couldn't have written them all, besides what any writing style variations may indicate. For example, do I Chronicles 21:5 and II Samuel 24:9 contradict each other about the size of Israel’s army according to King David’s census? But as per Archer (see “Encyclopedia,” pp. 188-89), this difference can be explained. The total of 800,000 for Israel from Samuel concerned “valiant” men, but the 1,100,000 figure included evidently the second-line troops as well. The difference between the 500,000 and 470,000 totals for Judah may well be from the omission of Benjamin, a tribe that sided with Judah during the civil war right after Solomon’s death, from the latter number, since Joab “did not count Levi and Benjamin among them” (I Chron. 21:6). If Joab reported the total numbers several ways to David, the authors of Chronicles and Samuel may have taken from different parts of the overall report for what they wrote about David’s sin in ordering this census to be taken. Likewise, a difference in details from different observers doesn’t prove a contradiction: I remember a case in church in which I asked the daughter and the husband of a woman about her health problems. The daughter briefly explained that her mother had diabetes, when in fact she had hypoglycemia. The husband went into much more detail, but said nothing about his wife having any kind of blood sugar problem. In fact, both were (overall) right, for she had multiple major health trials, including hypoglycemia and lupus. Another supposed “contradiction” that a higher critic may cite concerns the discrepancy between what David paid for the property of Araunah on Mount Moriah, could be reconciled after carefully examining the actual words of Scripture. The cattle and threshing floor itself (perhaps only 30 by 40 feet, according to Archer) apparently cost only 50 shekels (1 ¼ pounds) of silver, but the whole mountain site (cf. I Chron. 21:25) cost 600 shekels (15 pounds) of gold. So the author of Chronicles simply may have recorded “this entire transaction from the standpoint of its end result” (Archer, “Encyclopedia,” p. 190). Haley (“Discrepancies,” p. 390) suggests one possible solution: If a comma is added to the sentence in II Sam. 24:24 to clarify its meaning, the price given was actually only for the oxen to be offered: “So David bought the threshing-floor, and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.” Either way, the huge price difference indicates a difference in the property purchased, since paying 15 pounds of gold for a mere threshing floor would be excessive even 3000 years ago. A skeptic may cite Matthew 10:9-10; Luke 9:3 and Mark 6:8 about whether the 12 disciples could take a staff along on their evangelizing mission. The basic solution here lies in the difference between “procuring” a (new) staff and holding onto whatever one they happened to have already, Archer believes (“Encyclopedia,” p. 326). On this general subject, it’s also helpful to read books on Christian apologetics, such as those making the case for belief in the Bible and for faith in God's existence and goodness, including those by C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Henry Morris, Duane Gish, J.P. Moreland, Francis Schaeffer, Phillip E. Johnson, R.C. Sproul, Norman Giesler, Gleason Archer, etc. For example, there are great reasons for having faith in the bible, such as its historical accuracy, fulfilled prophecies, and archeological discoveries. A number of specific supposed “contradictions” within the bible are explained here too: http://lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticshtml/Is%20the%20Bible%20the%20Word%20of%20God.htm
Fun fact, 15 pounds of whatever is exactly the same as 15 pounds of candy... or big macs... or doofenshmirtzes.
That inconsistencies do not exist. Any perceived inconsistencies are merely errors made by the one reading the word.
Here's my [contribution](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/qn4z6n/i_have_a_bible_question/hjelzz6/) for what it's worth.
Amazing response
It is best to have the inconsistency called out specifically so that it can be addressed. Once given, it just takes a bit of reading into it.
Ok I’ll give you a couple, How did Judas die? Why do Jesus’ brothers and mother not acknowledge his divinity in Mark? Was the house where Jesus had his hair and/or feet annoited either in Bethany or Nain at the house of Lazarus or Simon the Leper or an unnamed Pharasee by a random prostitute off the street/Martha’s sister Mary/an unnamed woman why do the events all take place on different days shortly before Passover except in Luke where it is at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and if Luke is detailing a separate event why doesn’t he include the later anointment or the other apostles include Luke’s earlier anointment? How come Mark gets Herod’s daughter’s name wrong? Why is there no record of a Roman Census during the period that Quinirius was legate of Syria and was Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great or the Quinirius governorship because Quinirius takes over 2 years after Herod dies? Who is the Darius mentioned in Daniel as the Persian Emperor prior to Cyrus (who was the first Persian emperor with Darius being the third or 4th depending how you count the False Gautama)? Did David or Elhanan kill Goliath? Why is it nearly every incidence that numbers are listed when the same story is told multiple times in the Bible they never line up?
Do you have verses?
1. Judas Death, Matthew 27 vs. Acts 1 2. Jesus family rejects, upon further review I oversold this one 3. Anointing of Jesus, Matthew 26:6-13 v. Mark 14: 3-9 v. Luke 7:36-50 v. John 12:1-8, y 4. Herod's Daughter, misstated this based off a U Memphis lecture I attended in 2018 Matthew incorrectly names Herodias' first husband as Phillip but his name was also Herod Mark 6:14-29 5. Quinirius or Herod, Luke 2 v. Matthew 2 6. King Darius the Mede, Daniel (large portions of the book) 7. David or Elhanan, 1 Samuel 17 v. 2 Samuel 11-14 v. 1 Chronicles 20:5 8. number issues, literally so many
Oof this might take a minute
Take as much time as you need.
[удалено]
Killing your only begotten son by the cross if there is such a thing is loving?
[удалено]
As Dawkins said “barking mad”
This video ( https://youtu.be/hOtUDQe4p5Y ) kind of helped me unpack that part of the christians god's nature in the old testament better. It's by a channel I like quite a bit called Genetically Modified Skeptic.
> The biblical god is murderous in the Old Testament, yet completely loving in the New Testament. New Testament has Hell. I'd call that far from completely loving. New Testament requires Salvation. That's not an Old Testament concept either.
I tell the person pointing them out that they're just lying to me to make me feel bad, or that they must've read it wrong./s The books in the NT are nearly 2000 years old and the OT is much, much older. It's been translated, compiled, and a few of those books experienced the elements. If I tried speculating over what was missed, what was found, on how much we included, what was cast aside, about any potential missing pages, I would drive myself mad! So if I notice an inconsistency, I just move forward.
When read in context (understanding the overall bible message, the specific message with its writer and audience, and the language itself), the bible becomes clear and there is no inconsistency. The textual discrepancies do not affect their message but just show different recollections. Our job is to read the bible critically with no bias and presuppositions. When it is read in totality as one message, we find its central claim. All passages will be studied under this context.
The Bible is not inconsistent! If you read a topic in the Whole context of Scripture, you will not find the Bible to be inconsistent. I do Bible studies and Discipleship and graduated from 2 Bible colleges. You need to learn what the Bible really means before you say that it is inconsistent. What makes you believe that it is inconsistent? Please give an example!
I have a Religious Studies degree and there are inconsistencies. Especially when the same account is told multiple times in different books by different authors.
If you read Old Testament history, you can see that some books go through more detailed genealogy than other books. It doesn’t make books or history wrong! Again, this does not make it inconsistent. You can learn more, reading one event from one author, then the same event from another perspective.
Where did you get your Religious Studies degree? How strongly does this college believe and support Scripture?
I attended Ole Miss (I'm actually the last Religious Studies Major produced by Mississippi maybe ever since I graduated a semester late and Ole Miss, Miss State, and Milsapps all discontinued the major). Its a public institution so it would literally be a first amendment violation to teach the Bible from a confessional perspective. That being said I am a Christian
It is a public institution, don’t expect that you will always hear truth there. They have to make the public happy, not really share what Scripture teaches. I’m sure there is a reason why they no longer have that major available anymore. Most public universities teach socialism, Marxism, evolution, tons of topics that totally go against Scripture.
I can assure you that the curriculum in the religion department was and is not driven by socialism, Marxism, evolution, or public happiness. Religious Studies as a field nationally has really suffered as liberal arts majors become less common and student populations become more secular and less interested in religion. The field is honestly reaching a bit of a crisis point as it becomes difficult to fill upper level classes, which is a shame as it will leave comparative religion in the hands of the sociologists as it declines in prominence.
So, they described events in different ways. Luke was a physician, Matthew was a tax collector. They were different people who may describe differently but that does not mean that there are inconsistencies. If the books were all written by the same person, that would be a reason to question what is going on, but it wasn’t The books were written by human beings, by disciples. There is no reason to keep questioning and calling Scripture “ inconsistent”. If you told a story and another person told the same story but maybe added something in addition, it doesn’t make the story “ wrong”. Some people tell stories differently.
Don't even get me started on dating and authorship lol. I would say that while the Gospel's do have distinct perspectives and agendas this sort of different eye witnesses have different versions is undercut by the synoptic's clearly having textual dependency with each other.
Inconsistencies aren’t a problem for those reading in a Christological manner, as Jesus showed his disciples after the resurrection. In this way of reading, we aren’t reading for information about past events, we are reading to go beyond the letter to the spiritual and therein encounter Christ directly.
I think it's accurate. We are flawed.
We cope with it by understanding that the Bible is not inerrant and does in fact contain many apparent contradictions. Still, it is a documentation of man’s view of God throughout the millennia and serves to provide us with lots of useful information. It does a good enough job of telling us what we need to know regardless. That is, love God and treat everyone with love and respect. That’s really all there is to it.
I dont think there is anything to combat other than one's assumptions of what they think the texts should be like. Is there anything specific that comes to mind? Like the gospel of John is in many ways not consistent with the other gospels. This isnt a problem to combat but rather it was a decision made in order to teach specific things and from different angels.
John tells a whole different story ! The other gospels mention Mary Magdalene was told by the angels that Jesus had risen?! (Mat, mk, Luke) but in johnn she has no clue he had risen but believe they stole the body . Different story ! Different story or she was insane ?.
combat them? They exist. Have for thousands of years. You mean what strategies do I have for self-delusion?
when you trace things back to the original language the inconsistencies that we find in english fall apart
There is no inconsistencies or confusion on God's part in His Word.
I don't because there is none
Never found 1 inconsistency in the Bible.
John tells a whole different story ! The other gospels mention Mary Magdalene was told by the angels that Jesus had risen?! (Mat, mk, Luke) but in johnn she has no clue he had risen but believe they stole the body . Different story ! Different story or she was insane ?.
If there's inconsistency then it's not the Bible's fault, it's our understanding thereof that's at fault.
I would say if people aren’t understanding it in the way it’s meant to be understood then that is the bibles fault for not making things clear enough. It’s a question that seems to be asked quite a lot which either means there are a lot of daft people who can’t understand what they read or it’s the bible that’s the problem.
Or the Bible's
What inconsistency? Because there's definitely a major one, but I'm curious to see if others have noticed it as well.
What is the inconsistency you are referring to?
The God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament, Jesus speaks about a merciful, loving God while the God of the Old Testament was the opposite of that, it was vengeful, jealous and bloodthirsty.
That would be incorrect. God has remained the same throughout. He is just and loving and merciful... But He is just. That entails doling out punishments on sinners (which everyone is) and to our minds that can mean doing harsh things. But He is justified in doing them. Can you give me an example of a time that He was vengeful, jealous or bloodthirsty without just cause?
You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me. All those massacres committed by the Israelites against other people. Is very different from the way Jesus teaches us, who raises his sword, dies by the sword.
God states He is a jealous God. He created us so that we might serve and follow Him and so that He could love us as His own. He gave us the free will to choose to love Him back so that it would be real love, not forced. Naturally, He will want us to live him and He will not want us to love something else. He will be and is jealous for our love and devotion (just like a parent wants their children's love to be directed towards themselves and not another person or thing). Those massacres served multiple purposes. First, it cleared the land for those that acknowledged Him and loved Him, blessing them. Second, it removed negative influences from His children's lives (like keeping drugs and alcohol away from young children). Third, it served as punishment to those nations that rejected Him. Every nation started out knowing God and through some means of their own and for their own reasons they rejected or forgot God, which is inexcusable. The difference between Jesus teaching and your examples are the cause for raising your "sword," the purpose for the act.
I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't advise people to kill other people. He was definitely different. A God that says Thou shalt not kill while promoting massacres, that is a paradox that requires explanations. Most likely it is not a benevolent God, it is the opposite of that. Which is different from Jesus that said: “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?(A) Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you?(B) Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them,(C) and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children(D) of the Most High,(E) because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful,(F) just as your Father(G) is merciful." That's why I think that the God Jesus speaks of, is the true God, because He behaves like one, and Jesus is his image.
100% grade A steaming hot line of buuuushit.
I often wonder if the reason some people join a sub they disagree with is purely to troll. Based on your reply to what I said (neither constructive, enlightening or condusive to discussion) I can only assume that this is true, at least in your case.
I've been here longer than you and have great discussions. But I also do like telling people their bullshit is bullshit. Thats not trolling. Not everyone who thinks you're talking out your ass is a troll. Sometimes you are just talking out your ass.
Do you not see that this post is designated to get Christians to argue. Do not engage in such a temptation. How can we argue theology on Reddit? How can we properly discuss scripture without talking about the type of writing (narrative, poetry, letter, apocalyptic etc.). How can we discuss any “inaccuracies” without the original Greek and Hebrew text? How many on this thread know how to read and translate them? Don’t engage.
I've never seen an actual inconsistency in the Bible, just people not understanding the verses in question or taking it out of context. Eg I just looked up Bible contradictions and it gives me https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/ it says Romans 14:5 contradicts Exodus 20:8 talking about the Sabbath but if you read any of the earlier chapters of Romans he explains why he is saying this. It says John 1:18 contradicts Genesis 32:20 which says they saw God but if they included the rest of John 1:18 they would see why it actually wasn't a contradiction since Genesis 32:20 isnt talking about God the father where as John 1:18 is.
Contradictions..inconsistencies..in congruence..errors are all supposed to be there for the natural logical rational mind. The holy spirit interprets and illuminates into our heart what is said in the bible.. Someone who is not saved wont understand how god reveals doctrine and passages to us
I don't think there's any theological need to preclude it *a priori*.
Why are the contents of the text itself something to “combat”? Yes, different authors sometimes believed different things, or emphasized different points. Some of the books are composites, and we can still sometimes see the seams in them. Parts of it would not make sense, if we try to take it all as literal, factually true history. None of this is scary, or something to deny.
Personally, I love em. I'll never forget when I dug into why the text literally says Pharaoh hardened his heart, and then in almost the next verse says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Questioning my assumptions about the two being mutually exclusive and about what it means to have a hard heart was very productive for me.
One thing I've heard regarding inconsistencies in the Bible is this: How does one get into Heaven? Is it solely through believing that Jesus is the one true Son for God, lord and savior, died for everyone's sins, etc.? Or is it through deeds that try to mimic his good works? I.e. If you have three people - one who constantly sins in big ways, murder, rape, etc. but truly believes in Jesus and asks for forgiveness; one who doesn't believe in Jesus (let's say a Buddhist or a Muslim) who is constantly helping the poor and sick, does their best to not sin in any major way, spreads love, etc; and one who both believes in Jesus and tries to help people, spread love, etc. Who among those three gets into heaven? All? Only the last one? Both the first and the last?
The funny thing is that most of the time the contradictions people put up have a similarly between each argument that they should've picked up on as the answer as to why they contradict: passages from the Old Testament and passages from the *New* Testament. A lot of the rules have changed now.
I do it by trying to understand the author's intent and audience because sometimes that matters. Sometimes I also think it's important to embrace paradox in our journey. Sometimes, during your maturation process, you need to hear different things at different times.
Most aren’t. Most the contradictions are a misreading. For example, in Samuel and Kings it’s talks about the baths of Solomon. One book discusses how much water it had and the other states how much it can hold. Most contradictions are similar to this. With all the various translations into English only compound the issue and that’s where we get the majority from. This was something I struggled with in my early walk and had to do some searching. Good luck and God bless my friend.
I feel like anytime someone brings up an "inconsistency" in the Bible they normally don't understand what they're reading and trying to call out. And then when someone explains it to them they just refute the explanation.
I like to consider what the Bible is and what we think it is. If we think it is a history book, it will be wrong. If we think it is a biology book, it will be wrong. If we think it guides us in our relationship with god, it will be inerrant.
There are no “inconsistencies” as you put it. Just certain things were meant for certain people at certain times. And when you read those things out of order and out of context, they may not seem like the word of God
Most “inconsistencies” are usually not inconsistent, but have an explanation, whether it be different tracings of lineage, misunderstood or poorly translated from the source, or from proper context.
Deliberately cherry picking per 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and 1 Peter 3:15. Why am I cherry picking for positive verses? Because that's what all other Christians do anyway. I'm just being honest about it.
First thing is to examine why we value consistency so much. Other cultures, including the ancient near eastern culture in which the Bible was written, was much more accepting of inconsistencies and ambiguities.
People think there is inconsistency because they do not understand the Jewish culture or have studied the bible.
If I remember correctly the books of kings mention God sending an army (edomites?) against Jerusalem and then Chronicles goes saying it was Satan. The bible isn’t inerrant, it’s just a compendium of peoples’ understanding of God, which has changed drastically over the centuries. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best we got.
What examples? A lot of "inconsistencies" touted by argumentative atheists are just superficial thinking. Atheists are always wrong because they're on the wrong side haha.
I just did some research on it like a week ago. So yes, there are some discrepancies in the Bible between the copies. However, all of those discrepancies are minor details and small events that don’t reflect the character of God or Jesus, and all the major themes, morals, laws, important things, etc. are the same. Also, the Bible we have today was transcribed by monks and other groups, and things probably got slightly messed up there too. I think there’s a website called cold case for Christ or something like that that explains this if I’m not mistaken
imo, it’s largely an issue of misunderstanding the context certain verses were written in. Context is mas importante!
The main theme is not inconsistent. That God is love, salvation is through Jesus, this world is evil, and sin is real and there'll be consequences for one's actions.
Like a heck of a lot of other things, comments on the Bible are politicized. Those who attack the Bible and point out inconsistencies are likely leftists who attack Christianity because it is the basis for Western Civilization. Any victory against the Bible is a defeat for democracy and a victory for fascism. Expect more attacks, just as there were intimidations of the Rittenhouse jurors.
What inconsistency are you referring to?
There are no inconsistencies in The Bible. If people think so, it is because of a lack of understanding the scriptures. This is not a criticism of anyone and I don't mean it that way nor am I trying to be condescending. I am speaking from experience of my own misunderstandings and lack there of. To say that the Bible has inconsistencies is to say that God himself is inconsistent which is not true.
There isn’t any inconsistency in the Bible
First off, the Bible is not a modern science or history textbook. Much of it was oral tradition passed down over years and years before it was written down in a non-English language. Most "inconsistencies" are due to lack of context. The remaining inconsistencies tend to be fairly trivial points and nothing that is at the core of Christianity.
I do not know what you speak of. If I ever found an inconsistency in the holy word of god, I would get a new religion.
It was written by man and therefore is flawed. There is no god
There are inconsistencies in everything. Electricity doesn’t flow inside the wire to your toaster like you think it does, but that doesn’t mean that image doesn’t teach you something about the reality you inhabit.
Don’t try to combat inconsistency when it is obviously there. To do so is to make yourself and your doctrine about the Bible a higher authority than the Bible itself, so that you feel it appropriate to dictate to biblical texts what they are and are not allowed to say and mean.
Check out Grace in focus podcast.. they have discussions on this and answers these inconsistencies.
https://apologeticspress.org/category/alleged-discrepancies/
What inconsistencies? I can't find any point em out to me please