Contradictions in the Bible

[Woodrow]

I thank you for the clarification regarding the authority of the hadiths. I indeed thought that they were taken at the same level of authority with the Qur'an. One of the reasons is a recent discussion I had with respect to the belief that music is haraam in Islam. As I understood it, that view came out of the hadith, not the Qur'an.

So, I am ignorant. I am also trying to learn. As to your ability to expose and refute others arguments, what does the Qur'an have to say about false pride? The Bible does repeat the same themes over and over again. To not see that is, in the words of Jesus, to strain out gnats and swallow camels.

And in saying that Jesus did not fulfill the the role of Messiah shows that you simply do not accept Jesus' teaching regarding the role of the Messiah. Whether it is because of ignorance or unbelief I do not know.

Peace,

Before you or others get mislead the highest level hadith do have a very similar level of authority as the Qur'an. The Hadith do have different levels of authority. The Authentic and highest level of Ahadith have no discrepancies with the Qur'an. A quick rule is at any time there seem to be a difference between hadith or Qur'an the Qur'an over rides the hadith.

 

[back_to_faith]

Respectfully, I thought the approach Keltoi took with his explanation of the apparently conflicting events of the resurrection was the same as the lesson I learned here about the Qur'an. One verse in each of two gospels seem to conflict. The meaning and timeline was were fully explained by examining the whole story as represented by the examination of all four gospels.

I know from the Muslim perspective the whole tale of the resurrection is false, and I respect that position, but was not Keltoi's logic the same as I should apply when studying the Qur'an?

Do I make some sense, or am I once again down the wrong path?

Greetings Don,

"...but if the witnesses are inspired of God then there is no reason for their disagreeing on anything, and if they do disagree it is a demonstration that they were not inspired...." Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 11, p. 295


Once inerrancy goes, once the Bible is shown to be fallible, then it's no more reliable or divine than any other book on the shelf.

If Matthew 28 :1.10 speaks truth(Mary Magdalena was told that Jesus came back to life and she met and touched him too), John 20:1.3(Mary M said that his body was stolen and know nothing about where is He) speaks falsehood; and if John speaks truth, Matthew speaks falsehood: and as there is no authority for believing one more than the other, there is no authority for believing either

What was the reason for John to totally contradicts Mathew Regarding Mary Magdalena ,if both of them were inspired by the same holy spirit?!!!!!
It is not a copiest error or numerical contradiction, it is a contradiction in The narratives describe events surrounding the most crucial episode in Christology

Did Mary Magdalena knew that Jesus was resurrected and touched him?
Matthew 28:1.10 (YES)
John,20:1 (NO)
If that is not a contradiction ,so what a contradiction is!!!

The narratives describe events surrounding the most crucial episode in Christology, the alleged resurrection, but they do not describe the event itself. The evangelists could not see the resurrection event from different perspectives since they did not personally witness the resurrection.

Truth is an uniform thing; and as to inspiration and revelation, were we to admit it, it is impossible to suppose it can be contradictory. Either then the men called apostles were imposters, or the books ascribed to them have been written by other persons, (USING A FALSE HEARSAY AS THEIR SOURCE) and fathered upon them.


Again anyone care to discuss it he is welcomed ...
thanx Don for your good intentions and for your care to seek the truth.

 

[Umar001]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about people who preach a whole sermon around a simple little word. Preaching on one larger passage alone is indeed the standard way that most sermons are developed, mine included. I think the process of textual criticism I outlined above gives me the level of confidence you speak of short of having an actual video of the event. (Even then, we know how people we different things in video replays of sporting events.)

With regards to the latter part of the statement, I don't know how you can conclude as such. You have pieces of writing of which the authors are not sure whom they are and also there is a history of adding and taking away from those scripture, the amount added and taken away cannot be known.

Your video could be of an edited, cut and pasted Jesus, or could be of a cut and pasted, edited interpretation of stories of Jesus, handed over by an unknown camera man.

Personally, I trust the integrity of the church more than you do. During the first generation, there were always others present who had been witnesses to Jesus' ministry. It is when that generation starts to die out that we find the gospels written -- I believe with the express purpose of preserving a record that they know no one will be around to not only share, but to correct if the story is change. In my opinion the transfer from communicating the gospel orally to having a written record occured before the loss of those who could cooberate or testify against what was written. I simply do not concur with those who hold for late dates for the writing of the gospels.

But even if the disciples passed on traditions, we still would have to wonder if the Gospels now are the ones that have recorded the right traditions. There were different views, different Gospels. Even if the Disciples did state the right case, how can you know that that statement was captured in the four now and not others?

 

[Trumble]

there we go again !!
My friend, all you know about Jesus comes from Scripture. The validity of Jesus depends upon the validity, reliability and accuracy of Scripture.
how do you know Jesus except as he is presented to you in the Bible? If the Bible is not God's Word and does not present a picture of Jesus Christ that can be trusted, how do you know it is the true Christ you are following? You may be worshipping a Christ of your own imagination."

Of course! Well, applied to Christians, anyway. Just as you worship an Allah of your own imagination. That doesn't change even when the words haven't.

Let me put it another way. Everything we know about the classical world is from sources with identical weaknesses (as is pretty much all we know about early Islamic history, come to that) Yet nobody disputes that Socrates took poison to end his life. Or that Alexander conquered the Persian Empire. Or Hannibal won at Cannae. But does it matter if Caesar ever said "veni, vidi, vice" or not? Nothing in Jesus' teachings as they are recorded seems to indicate a need to nit-pick regarding the precise words. As I said, the concern is a muslim one; nobody else is bothered.

It is crystal clear for me that the posts of non muslims in such topic (Bible contradictions)are negative, and they repeat themselves with the straw ('errors' and 'contradictions' doesn't matter)!!!
so from now and on I will reply only to the positive,direct posts that relate only to the topic(clearing up Bible contradictions).

That's up to you. I think it would be rather ridiculous to ignore people, or assume their contributions are 'negative', just because you disagree with them. I would have thought whether such Biblical 'contradictions' actually mattered or not was an essential consideration if the question is to be considered in terms of comparative religion rather than within a purely Islamic context. What may seem obvious to you may not, on occasion be obvious to others - and one reason for that just might be you who are wrong, or at least that you are unwilling to consider other perspectives on the same issue.

Look at it purely empirically, if you like. It's not as if these 'contradictions' are exactly new discoveries. Some, as has been said, are easily explained. Others are genuine differences, the accounts coming from different people. Yet, despite that, a quarter of the world's population are Christian. It is 'crystal clear' that what may such a 'killer' point to you is of little relevance to them; but you need to make some effort to understand their perspective before you will understand why.

 

[back_to_faith]

Mary did NOT see and touch Jesus before leaving the tomb and going to get the disciples. She left the tomb afraid, and probably not fully understanding, and so went to the disciples still thinking the worst. It wasn't till she returned with them and met Jesus at the tomb that she understood that Jesus wasn't just not there, but actually risen.
Actually, of bigger concern to me is Mark's account (16:8) "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Even this I think can be harmonized with the other accounts:


1) Mary goes the tomb with the other women and discovers it empty. (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-4, Luke 24:1-3, John 20:1-2)

2) An angel tells them what happened (Matthew 28:5-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-8, not in John)

3) They leave with some of the women scared to say anything, but Mary goes and tells the disciples (Matthew 28:8, Mark 16:8, Luke 24:9-11, not in John; also implied in Luke 24:23)

4) Mary returns with the disciples Peter and John to the tomb (not in Matthew, not in Mark, Luke 24:12, John 20:3-9)

5) Peter and John leave the tomb and return to the other disciples (not in Matthew, not in Mark, Luke 24:12, John 20:10)

6) Jesus appears to Mary (not in Matthew, Mark 16:9, not in Luke, John 20:11-17)

7) Mary returns to tell the disciples that she has seen the risen Lord (not in Matthew, Mark 16:10-11, not in Luke, John 20:18)

8) Jesus appears to the other women who had run from the tomb (Matthew 28:9-10, not in Mark, not in Luke, not in John)

9) Jesus appears to the disciples on the road to Emmaus (not in Matthew, Mark 16:12-13, Luke 24:13-35, not in John)

10) Jesus appears to the disicples in the Upper Room (not in Matthew, Mark 16:14, Luke 24:36-49, John 20:19-23)

Your try to harmonize the Resurrection narratives is filled with holes:

You claim (Mary did NOT see and touch Jesus before leaving the tomb and going to get the disciples. She left the tomb afraid, and probably not fully understanding)

Well, thank you very much for that quibble . Now would you care to answer the argument? Let's begin by getting your answers to some simple questions. They are all based on what Matthew's narrative said.

1. Did Mary M encounter an angel at the tomb?

2. Did the angel tell Mary M that Jesus had risen?

3. Did the angel tell Mary M to tell the disciples that Jesus would go before the disciples to Galilee?

4. Did Mary Magdalene run from the tomb with great joy?

5. Did Mary Magdalene meet Jesus as she was running to find the disciples?

6. Did Mary Magdalene touch Jesus?

If your answers are not yes to all of these questions, then you must have a reading comprehension problem.


You said in point 2 and 3 of you try to harmonize
2) An angel tells them what happened (Matthew 28:5-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-8, not in John)

3) They leave with some of the women scared to say anything, but Mary goes and tells the disciples (Matthew 28:8, Mark 16:8, Luke 24:9-11, not in John; also implied in Luke 24:23)


with all due respect,that is absured !!! You ask why?

in number (2) you claim that :An angel tells them what happened (Matthew 28:5)The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead.


in number (3) you claim that Mary goes alone and tells the disciples .

Question 1: What is she supposed to tell the disciples?
answer: What the angel tells them(Mary and the other women) what happened (is not here; he has risen, just as he said)..

Question 2:what did she tell the disciples?

Answer : John (20:1)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. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"


Nice try my friend

 

[Umar001]

The method used is I think exactly what should be used for Quran or Hadith.

Whether That method worked for the scripture Keltoi used it for, thats a different discussion.

The above is wrong. I dont think the above Method is neccesarily the same for the Quran as it is for the Bible.

 

[back_to_faith]

I thank you for the clarification regarding the authority of the hadiths. I indeed thought that they were taken at the same level of authority with the Qur'an. One of the reasons is a recent discussion I had with respect to the belief that music is haraam in Islam. As I understood it, that view came out of the hadith, not the Qur'an.

So, I am ignorant. I am also trying to learn. As to your ability to expose and refute others arguments, what does the Qur'an have to say about false pride? The Bible does repeat the same themes over and over again. To not see that is, in the words of Jesus, to strain out gnats and swallow camels.

And in saying that Jesus did not fulfill the the role of Messiah shows that you simply do not accept Jesus' teaching regarding the role of the Messiah. Whether it is because of ignorance or unbelief I do not know.

What matters is not accepting Jesus' teaching regarding the role of the Messiah, it is What the old testament teaches about the promised messiah.
If the writers of the new testament taught ideas of the Messiah that did not fulfill the qualifications for the old testament Jewish Messiah,then their propaganda is without merit.

they intentionaly distoted and took some old testaments out of context and tried to convince the reader that these passages are Messianic prophecies.
for example: Have you ever read the so called (Virgin birth prophecy) in Isaiah? I don't think so !! christians always read what is written in the NT .. and rare to take a look at the OT.
to begin with ,Just take a look at Isaiah 7:1.18 ,and see If the context suggests a messianic prophecy......
If you think it is so ,then explain for us How such passage could be rendered as messianic prophecy and How Jesus fulfilled it as it was written.

Note: I never treat others with arrogance ,and regarding the matter of Hadiths .i blamed you because i don't like if discussing a matter and read a reply with off topic contents like yours.....here the topic Bible contradictions....not Islamic topic.

 

[ManchesterFolk]

You mean to tell me that you think its worth studying hebrew to then only come up with illogical explanations that one text says something which it doesn't in order to reconcile contradictions then boy some are really out to extert themselves.

No, it is nessesary to learn Hebrew if you do not wish to make a fool out of yourself, when pointing out contradictions in the text when in reality, it is your misunderstaidng of the text and the sayings in hebrew.

 

[Grace Seeker]

With regards to the latter part of the statement, I don't know how you can conclude as such. You have pieces of writing of which the authors are not sure whom they are and also there is a history of adding and taking away from those scripture, the amount added and taken away cannot be known.

Your video could be of an edited, cut and pasted Jesus, or could be of a cut and pasted, edited interpretation of stories of Jesus, handed over by an unknown camera man.




But even if the disciples passed on traditions, we still would have to wonder if the Gospels now are the ones that have recorded the right traditions. There were different views, different Gospels. Even if the Disciples did state the right case, how can you know that that statement was captured in the four now and not others?

Don't know what to tell you. I've read enough of your posts to know that you are a logical thinker. I know that you are even willing to grow in your knowledge and be corrected if you find enough evidence to suggest a different conclusion than that which you have heretofore believed was true. So, I know that you are not just being argumentative. I'm not trying to be either. As to the elements of textual criticism I would love to simply walk you through the documents, but can't think of how to do that in this setting. I think then you would understand why I don't have many of the concerns you express. I don't mean to suggest that you wouldn't still have some of your own doubts, but I think you would understand why I am not fazed by your objections and have few doubts of my own.

As to my like of credence in the other writings that were not accepted as gospels. They simply did not conform to the standards of the early church. It is the "rejected" ones -- though I hate to use such a heavily loaded term, because it isn't like they were voted on and then rejected, they just weren't accepted by the church as a whole as being as trustworthy as those that were -- that were written in the 2nd century and later. They were the writings of dubious authorship and lack of any discernable connection to the actual apostles who were companions of Jesus.

But in essence it comes down to my trust of the work and integrity of the early church of the first 100 or so years of its existence to desire to preserve not some theology of human creation, but that which they received regarding the good news of Jesus.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Your try to harmonize the Resurrection narratives is filled with holes:

You know I admit to some of the irregularities in the story. I think it was an exciting time, and that no two people were going to remember the events precisely the same. If they had, disbelievers would say that they copied from one another. Isn't that the major complaint about Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that they all used the same source? I think it highly reasonable that they may not have all of their facts straight, but I don't think that means they created the story as an invention.

In my attempt to provide a harmonization, I wasn't saying that I had THE answer, but a possible way of fitting the pieces together. Surely you will admit the possibiltiy that some of the apparent contradictions may not be so obvious to others as they seem to be to you.

Nice try my friend

Why do I think you don't really see me as your friend? I think that Woodrow and Al Habeshi, though we disagree on many points, perhaps do perceive me that way as I do them. I always take what they have to say seriously because I know them to be sincere. I must say, there is something in what you have written that just comes across as desiring to be contentious. Now, that probably isn't your true nature, and maybe it has appeared only as a response to something that I have said. Please forgive me if I have some how egged you on to respond thusly.

 

[don532]

The above is wrong. I dont think the above Method is neccesarily the same for the Quran as it is for the Bible.

Eesa can you explain? Why would the Qur'an be understood as a whole, with verses in one place further explaining verses in another, but not the Bible to be read as a whole? I thought multiple accounts should be complimenting and clarifying a lesson or story being taught. Your insight would be much appreciated.

 

[back_to_faith]

You know I admit to some of the irregularities in the story. I think it was an exciting time, and that no two people were going to remember the events precisely the same. If they had, disbelievers would say that they copied from one another.

In fact ,without any reasonable doubt ,Yes they copied from one another
91% of Mark's content is found in Matthew, and 53% of Mark is found in Luke
Agreement in the order of the content is the strongest indication of a documentary dependence, especially when the agreement touches topical arrangements instead of chronological (e.g. both Matthew and Mark relate the death of John the Baptist in a flash-back). Therefore most scholars have not found purely oral theories plausible.

You Ask: Isn't that the major complaint about Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that they all used the same source?

No,the major complaints are:

1-The authors of the Gospels are anonymous .
2- the Dating of any of them is mere speculation without strong basis.
3-even the place where they were written is unknown.
4-some Gospels were discovered almost as old as the 4 Gospels ,if not older .reveals other points of view regarding the nature,teachings,message ,death of Jesus christ.that the church considered as non-canonical gospels without any basis to discard them.

"The canon is neither a total nor a random collection of early Christian texts. It is both deliberate and selective and it excludes just as surely as it includes. I would even say that you cannot understand what is included in the canon unless you understand what was excluded from it. When the [extracanonical] gospels are played over against the four canonical gospels, both the products and the processes of those latter texts appear in a radically different light." — John Dominic Crossan, Prof. Religious Studies, DePaul Univ.


"None of those books have the appearance of being written by the persons whose names they bear, neither do we know who the authors were. They come to us on no other authority than the church of Rome, which the Protestant Priests...call the ***** of Babylon." Ibid., p. 365

 

[Joe98]

…..I think it was an exciting time, and that no two people were going to remember the events

This is the very point that Muslims don’t understand.

After the events, the disciples went out to preach. The preaching was based on their memories of the events.

Most people those days were illiterate. The preaching was verbal. The gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, were most likely written by their followers. In some cases, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John may even have died before the gospels were written!

So if there is a discrepancy between them this makes it more likely to be true. If they were all exactly the same this makes it more likely to be false.

So, when Muslims point to differences, Christians stand up and cheer!

-

 

[Grace Seeker]

In fact ,without any reasonable doubt ,Yes they copied from one another
91% of Mark's content is found in Matthew, and 53% of Mark is found in Luke
Agreement in the order of the content is the strongest indication of a documentary dependence, especially when the agreement touches topical arrangements instead of chronological (e.g. both Matthew and Mark relate the death of John the Baptist in a flash-back). Therefore most scholars have not found purely oral theories plausible.

You Ask: Isn't that the major complaint about Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that they all used the same source?

No,the major complaints are:

1-The authors of the Gospels are anonymous .
2- the Dating of any of them is mere speculation without strong basis.
3-even the place where they were written is unknown.
4-some Gospels were discovered almost as old as the 4 Gospels ,if not older .reveals other points of view regarding the nature,teachings,message ,death of Jesus christ.that the church considered as non-canonical gospels without any basis to discard them.

Well, I am glad to see that you are educated in these matters. Truly, I hear the other complaint most frequently here.

"The canon is neither a total nor a random collection of early Christian texts. It is both deliberate and selective and it excludes just as surely as it includes. I would even say that you cannot understand what is included in the canon unless you understand what was excluded from it. When the [extracanonical] gospels are played over against the four canonical gospels, both the products and the processes of those latter texts appear in a radically different light." — John Dominic Crossan, Prof. Religious Studies, DePaul Univ.

I would concur with the majority of this statement.

"None of those books have the appearance of being written by the persons whose names they bear, neither do we know who the authors were. They come to us on no other authority than the church of Rome, which the Protestant Priests...call the ***** of Babylon." Ibid., p. 365

I do not concur with this statement other than that they are not signed by their authors and the authorship was ascribed to them by the church. *Note: When giving "Ibid" as a reference, usually there is a source work previously cited. I assume you are referring to some work written by John Crossan who either is or was a professor at DePaul University, but you don't actually name the source work. Page 365 of what?



Though I am not sure how any of this related to the thread's theme of biblical contradictios, I will continue to respond here as this is where the questions have been raised. And then perhaps we can start a new thread to further discuss any magnifcations on these ideas....

Yes, I tend to believe the prevailing view that you have alluded to with respect to what are called the synoptic gospels. Namely, that Mark wrote his gospel account. And then Matthew and Luke borrowed both from it and from some other unknown source document, in addtion to including their own original material. Some people call this other source Q. I have seen more than a few Muslims suggest that there was an original Aramaic gospel of Matthew. I find that unlikely, though not out of the realm of possibility. And John wrote completely independently.

I think all of this was completed before the end of the first century. The other non-canonical gospels that people refer to are all later than the first century. I think it worth noting that we speak of the canon or non-canonical writings. This tells us something about how the church perceived these writings. Canon is a Greek word for denoting a straight rod; it came to be used for a bar or ruler and was variously applied to special objects. Certain metaphorical applications eventually developed out of the literal meaning, such as standard. The Patristic writers of the early church apply it to the rule of faith or the standard of apostolic teaching handed down within the Church. That teaching, when put forth in the earliest creeds and the Didache was known as the canon of truth. By a natural development the apostolic writings were designated as canonical to indicate their authoritative character and to distinguish them from other (non-standard, non-authoritative) Christian writings. Ultimately the noun was employed for the body of writings that gained general recognition in the Church. This body of literature was collected in one place. Being in one place it became known as the Bible (meaning library).

As to the principles by which some writings were considered to be worthy of the title of canon (i.e. standard of faith) and some where not, though there was no formalized process, the following appear to be keys:
1) apostolic origin -- though not necessarily having to have been penned by one of the twelve, apostle was a term sometimes used with a narrow and sometimes used with a broader meaning, thus Paul of Tarsus and Clement of Rome were also referred to as apostles.
2) reception of the writing by the original churches with the continued knowledge and use of these writings by later generations (as per the testimony of Origen)
3) consistency of doctrine with the standards already in practice by the church thus allowing the church to expose and repudiate heretical writings such as those of the gnostics

 

[Joe98]

One afternoon, Jesus and his disciples arrived at a town and stayed the night. According to the bible, Jesus went in and cleaned the temple.


The Christian view: Jesus did not place himself above the cleaning woman. He was happy to clean the temple. People should not place themselves above other people. All people are equal.


The Muslim view: One gospel says he cleaned the temple in the evening and another that he cleaned the temple the next morning. Due to this discrepancy, the event never happened. There is nothing to learn here.

 

[Muezzin]

Joe, do you think all Muslims like to take potshots at other religions?

 

[back_to_faith]

One afternoon, Jesus and his disciples arrived at a town and stayed the night. According to the bible, Jesus went in and cleaned the temple.


The Christian view: Jesus did not place himself above the cleaning woman. He was happy to clean the temple. People should not place themselves above other people. All people are equal.


The Muslim view: One gospel says he cleaned the temple in the evening and another that he cleaned the temple the next morning. Due to this discrepancy, the event never happened. There is nothing to learn here.

How absured !!
It seems that you have no idea about the problem under discussion...
it doesn't relate to a contradiction in timing ....I could have provided such kind of contradictions such as :

What time did the women visit the tomb?

just after sunrise" Mark:16:2
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

But I posted a serious one regarding the actions not the timing,pity if you think that the problem of non christians are due to the existence of numerical or timing contradictions,The Bible contains incredible number of false prophecies, primitive scientific concepts ,historical, mathematical, ethical, philosophical, geographical, and chronological difficulties.

 

[NoName55]

rather ironic to see thread titled " Contradictions in the Bible" then being told don't mention them

 

[Grace Seeker]

One afternoon, Jesus and his disciples arrived at a town and stayed the night. According to the bible, Jesus went in and cleaned the temple.


The Christian view: Jesus did not place himself above the cleaning woman. He was happy to clean the temple. People should not place themselves above other people. All people are equal.


The Muslim view: One gospel says he cleaned the temple in the evening and another that he cleaned the temple the next morning. Due to this discrepancy, the event never happened. There is nothing to learn here.

Thanks for the help Joe. I appreciate your perspective. I think I'm just going to say it before someone chimes in and says you're wrong because Jesus didn't clean the temple in the sense of getting out the Hoover vacuum, but of chasing out people he didn't think should be there. It was more like he cleared-out the temple.

But, I do appreciate what I understand as your point that Christians view the same event through different lenses and thus have a different idea as to not only what is going on, but what is important regarding the event.

 

[Keltoi]

Joe's point is well taken though. It does seem that many Muslims are so caught up in what each individual sentence says, which is understandable since their perspective of the Quran is one of the literal word of God. Christians are more concerned about the spiritual message contained within the Bible and the New Testament in terms of their relationship with Jesus Christ.

There is nothing wrong with focusing on contradictions that might exist, but that is far from "proof" that Christianity got it wrong somehow. Some of the authors of the Scriptures tell a story in a different way than others, but the end result is the same and the message is the same, which as Joe mentioned, is more of a sign of the Gospel's veracity than error, at least to Christians.