Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does the Bible Contradict Itself?
Barber Tracts | Unknown | Wayne Jackson

Posted on 08/17/2005 11:56:02 AM PDT by TheTruthess

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 08/17/2005 11:56:05 AM PDT by TheTruthess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jan in Colorado; Just Kimberly; Rokke; jkl1122; asformeandformyhouse; Jack of all Trades; ...


2 posted on 08/17/2005 11:56:36 AM PDT by TheTruthess (love Him - live in Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess

BTTT


3 posted on 08/17/2005 12:01:31 PM PDT by BipolarBob (Yes I backed over the vampire, but I swear I didn't see it in my rearview mirror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess

NO


4 posted on 08/17/2005 12:02:09 PM PDT by biblewonk (A house of cards built on Matt 16:18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess
Someone once said to me that the Bible is full of fallacies because the Gospels can't even agree on fundamental parts of Jesus's life.

My reply was that the Gospels were mostly eye-witness accounts and the worst witnesses are eye-witnesses. Furthermore, if the Gospels did agree word-for-word with each other, he would probably call it collusion.

5 posted on 08/17/2005 12:03:03 PM PDT by N. Theknow (Be a glowworm. A glowworm's never glum. How can you be grumpy when the sun shines out your bum?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess
Uh, no Wayne it doesn't.

And you and I will understand that answer soon. (Soon, relative to God's time line)

5.56mm

6 posted on 08/17/2005 12:05:14 PM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess
One contradiction that I have heard of that apparently there are two different genealogies for Jesus.

The bible does in several places change what is directed. When the Second temple was built the rite were performed differently than in the First temple.
7 posted on 08/17/2005 2:07:39 PM PDT by Fraxinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow
My reply was that the Gospels were mostly eye-witness accounts and the worst witnesses are eye-witnesses. Furthermore, if the Gospels did agree word-for-word with each other, he would probably call it collusion.

You are right: The differences are strong evidence against collusion. I would add several other points:

(1) In some cases, the authors were probably not eye-witnesses. (Were Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John present at the birth of Jesus or the Transfiguration?) In such instances, they had to rely on the reports of those who were present.

(2) Even eye-witnesses will remember and describe the same events differently.

(3) The Gospels were written down decades after the events they report. People's memories fade, and their interpretation of events change.

(4) The Gospels appear to have been written to different readerships. Therefore, the authors might have chosen to emphasize different aspects of Jesus' life.

8 posted on 08/17/2005 3:03:10 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Fraxinus
One contradiction that I have heard of that apparently there are two different genealogies for Jesus.

Matthew 1:2-16 The legal inheritance of the Hebrews always passed through the men, that's why this genealogy is reckoned through Joseph who was not the father of Christ, but legally was able to pass the Scepter Promise on....Genesis 49:10

The genealogy in Luke 3:23 is through Mary. The Hebrews always did both because they were always sure who the mother was.

9 posted on 08/17/2005 3:15:24 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow
Someone once said to me that the Bible is full of fallacies because the Gospels can't even agree on fundamental parts of Jesus's life.

There is a book written by a Greek professor called, "The life of Christ in Stereo". It puts the four gospels together to read as one book; including all portions from each gospel, omitting none. Great book.

10 posted on 08/17/2005 7:30:19 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess
?....What?

?..................Does the Koran Contradict Itself?

Abraham's ONLY 'son'.......Isaac or Ishmael?

11 posted on 08/18/2005 3:54:38 AM PDT by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maestro

?....a public school education?


12 posted on 08/18/2005 3:55:41 AM PDT by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
There is a book written by a Greek professor called, "The life of Christ in Stereo". It puts the four gospels together to read as one book; including all portions from each gospel, omitting none. Great book.

Another good book is 'The Four-Fold Gospel'. It even puts the events in chronilogical order.

13 posted on 08/18/2005 7:21:25 AM PDT by asformeandformyhouse (I was going to respond to your post, but I thought I better wait til your meds kicked in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
Were Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John present at the birth of Jesus or the Transfiguration?

Mark 9:2  And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

14 posted on 08/18/2005 7:24:30 AM PDT by asformeandformyhouse (I was going to respond to your post, but I thought I better wait til your meds kicked in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: asformeandformyhouse
And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

You are, of course, correct. Nevertheless, my original point still stands. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all wrote about the Transfiguration, yet none of them were said to be present when it happened. They must have relied on the word of those who were there. (Strangely, John was present at the Transfiguration, but his Gospel does not mention the event.)

15 posted on 08/18/2005 11:09:14 AM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
(Strangely, John was present at the Transfiguration, but his Gospel does not mention the event.)

Just as Matthew is the only gospel that mentions that Matthew was previously a tax collector. I find these incidences also to be a testament to the truthfullness of the accounts. These authors were inspired by the HS to tell the gospel accounts but the individual humanity is still seen.

16 posted on 08/18/2005 11:25:14 AM PDT by asformeandformyhouse (I was going to respond to your post, but I thought I better wait til your meds kicked in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
They must have relied on the word of those who were there.

Or they wrote what the Holy Spirit told them to write.

17 posted on 08/18/2005 12:15:01 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess

Depends on your interpretaion I guess.


18 posted on 08/18/2005 12:16:05 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (If you think you're having a bad day, try crucifixtion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheTruthess

I believe the Bible cover to cover...and even the dust on the cover.


19 posted on 08/18/2005 12:26:36 PM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
Or they wrote what the Holy Spirit told them to write.

Well, the Holy Spirit was undoubtedly present at the Transfiguration!

Of course, that is not exactly what I had in mind when I said the Gospel writers relied on the word of those who were present. Whenever possible, the authors reported what they themselves saw and heard. However, when writing about events that they had not witnessed, they spoke to others who had been present.

Although I believe that the writers of the Gospels were inspired, that does not mean that they merely wrote what the Holy Spirit dictated to them. I agree with what asformeandformyhouse said (Post 16): "These authors were inspired by the HS to tell the gospel accounts but the individual humanity is still seen."

Most of the differences in the Gospel accounts are minor, but there are differences. Consider again, for example, the Transfiguration. This occurred after Jesus spoke about the requirements of discipleship. ("If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.") Matthew and Mark say that it was "after six days" that Jesus took Peter, James, and John up to the mountain; Luke says "about an eight days after these sayings."

Now, did the Holy Spirit tell Matthew and Mark to write six days and Luke to write (about) eight days? Or were they relying on someone's recollection of the events, perhaps told many years after the events? The latter explanation seems more reasonable to me.

Either way, the Gospel writers agree on the main point, which is that Jesus took Peter, James, and John up to a mountain, where they saw Moses and Elias and heard the voice of the Father.

20 posted on 08/18/2005 1:49:45 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson