You haven't answer my questions. Are you a Christian?
It appears that more than a few of your respected "experts" are in the same league with the Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens atheist types. They certainly have a vested interest in disproving the Bible. They think that by doing so, they can prove Christianity, and all religions, as false. So, what is YOUR motive for citing them?
I noticed one of your links boastfully dares anyone to prove his so-called contradictions are not. He even states he would humble himself and post whatever they say as their proof. BUT...he covers his rear by deciding for himself what is "real" proof. I noticed he has very little posted in those columns. If, on the other hand, you ARE honestly seeking for real answers, you should have no qualms about at least looking into the links I and Diamond have posted. Here are a few more that address some this Scott dude challenges on:
Who wrote Hebrews - a defense of Pauline Authorship
A Scribal Error in 2Chronicles 22:2? NO
Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus Christ
No, most are theologians. None has any interest in "disproving the Bible." That is a positively crazy idea. But the idea that the Bible is the literally true, internally consistent, absolute Truth is one that these scholars' study of the Bible disproves.
When you assume that anyone who disagrees with your point of view must have some ulterior motive -- and a bad one, at that -- you argue like a liberal. Very revealing.
Your articles are by people who have taken it upon themselves to "defend the faith" by assumption and circular reasoning. They assume that the Bible MUST be inerrant, then use that assumption to prove that it IS, in fact, inerrant. I must give them credit -- the logical twists and turns they do in defense of that position are truly amazing feats.
The crucifixion accounts paint very different pictures of Jesus as he went to be crucified.
Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26 - Jesus gets help from Simon of Cyrene.
John 19:17 - Jesus carries his own cross the whole way.
Those are discrepancies you can’t reconcile. Either he carried it the whole way himself or he got help. One of these accounts must be an error. One of them must be wrong.
What about the two thieves who were crucified alongside Jesus?
Mark - The two thieves are mentioned, but there is no conversation.
Matthew 27:44 - The two thieves taunt Jesus.
Luke 23:39-42 - One thief taunts Jesus and is criticized by the other. Jesus promises the 2nd thief that they would be in Paradise that day, though John and Acts say he did not ascend to heaven until 40 days after his resurrection.
John - The two men aren’t described as thieves.
So which of these accounts is the inerrant, inspired Word of God?
What does Jesus drink on the cross?
Mark 15:23 - Jesus is given wine mixed with myrrh, but he doesn’t drink it.
Matthew 27:48, Luke 23:36 - Jesus is given vinegar, but he doesn’t drink it.
John 19:29-30 - Jesus is given vinegar and he drinks it.
What about the Romans who witness the crucifixion?
Mark 15:39 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was the son of God!”
Matthew 27:54 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this was the son of God.”
Luke 23:47 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was innocent.”
John - No centurions say anything.
Matthew and Mark are fairly consistent here, but they are in flat contradiction of John and different in a notable way from Luke.
What about the women?
Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:55, Luke 23:49 - Several women watch Jesus from afar.
John 19:25-26 - Several woman are close enough that Jesus could talk to his mother, contrary to Roman practices.
So were they watching from afar or from nearby? It can’t be both.
When did the Crucifixion occur?
Mark 15:25 - Jesus was crucified on the “third hour.”
John 19:14-15 - Jesus was crucified on the “sixth hour.”
Matthew, Luke - It’s not stated when the crucifixion starts, but the “sixth hour” occurs during the crucifixion.
All three cannot be correct.
What were Jesus’s last words?
Mark 15:34-37, Matthew 27:46-50 - Jesus says: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (but they use different Greek words for “God” — Matthew uses “Eli” and Mark uses “Eloi”).
Luke 23:46 - Jesus says: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.”
John 19:30 - Jesus says: “It is finished.”
So we get the portrayal of a Jesus who is abandoned (or feels abandones, anyway), or one who accepts his mission, or one who is simply resigned to the events. So again, which is it? It can’t be all of the above.
And these just deal with the crucifixion. This is just one of many subjects on which there are discrepancies. There are enough to fill a book — and they have. Several, in fact.
More on the Crucifixion:
Matt. xxvi, 20, 21; Mark xiv, 18: Jesus announces that one of his Apostles will betray him at teh Last Supper.
Luke xxii, 20, 21; John iii, 2-21: He doesn’t do so until after supper. In fact, in John, he washes his disciples’ feet before he says this.
Matthew xxvi, 25: “Then Judas which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said”
John: “Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot.”
Matt. xxvi, 48, 49; Mark xiv, 44, 45: “Now he that betrayed him, gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; hold him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master, and kissed him” But according to John, Judas did not betray him with a kiss.
In Matthew xxvi, 50, Jesus says to Judas, “”Friend, wherefore art thou come?”
According to Luke xxii, 48, he says, “Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?”
What of the 30 pieces of silver Judas received?
Matthew tells us: “Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders.... And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed.”
But John tells us: “Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity.”
So which is it?
What happened to Judas? Did he commit suicide or die by a rather grotesque accident?
Matthew xxvii, 5: He “went and hanged himself.”
Acts i, 18: “Falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”
Which is it? Both cannot be correct.
Was he questioned by Annas or Caiaphas? Teh writers disagree.
So many discrepancies.
As for the Epistles, most scholars agree that Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians were definitely written by Paul. There is disagreement among scholars on teh authorship of Ephesians, Colossians, 1& 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. The latter three are generally regarded as pseudepigraphical works. Most scholars reject the idea that Paul is the author of Hebrews.
A good discussion from Wikipedia of the methods used by Biblical scholars to make determinations on these issues, similar to the methods described in Professor Ehrman’s books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
Criteria used by scholars
Scholars use a number of methods of historiography and higher criticism to determine whether a text is properly attributed to its author. The primary methods used are the following:
[edit]Internal evidence
This consists of what the author tells us about himself in the letter, either explicitly — the author clearly identifies himself — or implicitly — provides autobiographical details. This evidence is important in spite of its problems. For example, because the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews never identified him or herself, scholars as early as Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century suspected that Paul was not the author.
[edit]External evidence
This consists of references, again either explicit or implicit, to the text, especially during earliest times by those who had access to reliable sources now lost. Explicit references would be mentioning the text or letter by name, or a recognizable form of that text. Examples include a list of accepted biblical books, such as the Muratorian fragment, or the contents of an early manuscript, such as Papyrus 46. Unfortunately, these witnesses are often either damaged or too late in date to provide much help.
Implicit references are quotation from Paul, especially indirect or unattributed, or expressing ideas and phrases that appear in his works. This use or reference implies the material quoted was in existence at the time the external evidence was created. For example, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is named by Irenaeus in the mid-2nd century, as well as Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch; it is impossible for this letter to have been written after their time. On the other hand, lack of witness by ancient sources suggests a later date, an argument from silence. However, use of this line of reasoning is dangerous, because of the incompleteness of the historical record: many ancient texts are lost, damaged, or have been revised.
[edit]Historical setting
An independently written narrative of Paul’s life and ministry, found in the Acts of the Apostles, is used to determine the date, and possible authorship, of Pauline letters by locating their origin within the context of his life. For example, Paul mentions that he is a prisoner in his Epistle to Philemon 1:7; based on this statement, J. A. T. Robinson argued that this captivity was Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea,[6] while W. M. Ramsay identified this as Paul’s captivity in Rome,[7] while others have placed the captivity in Ephesus. One difficulty with this position is the limited data available on Paul’s historical setting, and this is especially true with the conclusion of the narrative of Acts prior to Paul’s death. It also assumes that the book of Acts was written by an actual traveling companion of Paul’s. However, as A.N. Sherwin-White has noted, in travel romance literature of this period, it was a normal literary convention to use the first-person plural while characters were on a shipboard voyage, and “we” passages in Acts coincide with such voyages.[citation needed]
[edit]Language and style
Vocabulary, sentence structure, employment of idioms and common phrases, etc. are analyzed for consistency with the author’s other known works. A similar style implies common authorship, whilst a radically divergent vocabulary implies different authors. For example, E. J. Goodspeed argued that the vocabulary of the Epistle to the Ephesians showed a literary relationship with the First Epistle of Clement, written around the end of the 1st century.[8] Similarly, E. Percy argued that the speech and style of Colossians more strongly resembled Pauline authorship than not.[9] Of course, style and language can vary for reasons other than differing authorship, such as the subject of the letter, the recipient, the circumstances of the times, or simply maturation on the part of the author.
[edit]Contents and theology
Similar to internal evidence, doctrinal consistency and development are examined against the author’s other known works. Theological themes like the eschaton or the Mosaic Law could reappear in different works, but in a similar manner. A consistent point of view implies a common author; contradictory or unrelated teachings imply multiple authors. For example, W. Michaelis saw the Christological likeness between the Pastoral Epistles and some of Paul’s undisputed works, and argued in favor of Pauline authorship.[10] A problem with this method is analyzing the coherence of a body of diverse and developing teachings. This is seen in the disagreement between scholars. For example, with the same epistles mentioned above, B. S. Easton argued their theological notions disagreed with other Pauline works, and rejected Pauline authorship.[11] G. Lohfink argued the theology of the Pastoral epistles agreed with Paul’s, but took this as proof someone wishing to enjoy the authority of an apostle copied the famous church leader.[12]