What is the biggest bible contradiction?

How's this:Luke, presumably writing under divine inspiration, is giving the actual account, but Paul, with no claims of divine inspiration being made, was relying on his memory and may have had a few details mixed up. People can mix up details in their memories even for very important events.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

Any evidence of when Aramaic was first recognized as a language? Or, any possibility it was still called Hebrew at times?

Possible, but I would expect Paul's version to be most accurate because he was the one who lived through it. Maybe it was Luke who mixed up the details after Paul gave his testimony to Luke. I don't know.In either case, its a noticeable discrepancy that I still don't know how to resolve logically.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Maybe Luke wasn't concerned with the voice at all. Maybe he said 'they heard the voice but saw no one' to point out that even though Paul was blinded, no one else saw a speaker either.

Yes, about 3000 years ago I believe.Off the top of my head, and related to biblical studies, we have the Tel Dan Stele, dated 9th-8th c. BCE, which is written in Aramaic.There are older inscriptions from tombs and other monuments, I can be more specific if you want. I didn't know the two were ever confused, unless it is a later form of Aramaic. Aramaic is an older language than biblical Hebrew and both are Semitic languages, but are not the same.Have you found someone who confuses the two?Brian.

I dunno, nem. If Luke made a mistake I would think he would have put the same mistake into Paul's mouth, too.On the other hand, I suppose, Luke might have meant to write the same words in both places by miswrote one of them -- people do things like that, two.But I would think that Luke, being divinely inspired to write an inerrant work, would be the one to trust: both as to what actually happened and as to what Paul said what happened. But then I don't believe the Bible is inerrant, so maybe this is too naive?Anyway, both versions seems "logical" to me; what logical problems do you see? Are you thinking illogical in terms of inerrancy?What do you think about the possibility of scribal errors? That is, perhaps copyists made minor errors in transmitting these works, which were originally inerrant?

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

I don't think the incident itself, however reported, is in the least bit historically plausible.It is contrary to everything we know about Roman history.Brian.

Exactly! Does every single scribe ever have had to be inerrant? If that were the case, I do not think translaters today would keep daring to come up with 'better' versions! Strangely enough, the more literal fundementalist-type sects tend to use the more recently updated bibles.

I remember you mentioned the Pax Romanum earlier, and said it was illogical that Christians were being persecuted by Rome, right? Rome would probably not care too much initially about rifts in the Jewish religion. I am thinking it was more of Jewish persecution of Christians, but I will hold the thought till I know for sure what you said.

No.I said it was illogical that Rome would allow a Jewish hit squad led by Saul to persecute another religious group.Pax Romana promoted freedom of religion.It is even more illogical when we read in the Bible that Christians were allowed to preach in Synagogues, well as far as I recall Paul claimed he did. Is there evidence of Jews persecuting Christians during the first century BCE?Brian.

I thought about that too, but it still wouldn't explain the discrepancy of what they heard through Luke's testimony, but didn't hear through Paul's.I've also considered it to be an allegory, as in like Jesus saying, "though seeing they do not see, though hearing, they do not hear or understand." But it would still seem out of place without giving a discourse on that. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

There was something call the Bar Kochba, a Jewish persecution of Christians, but not until 135 CE. Before that, there could have been something more like sectarian rivalry. Nero is said to have persecuted Christians around 53? and I think there is enough probable cause, according to historians, for the Romans to have fueled the fire of the Jews. Firstly, they were afraid of the christians talk of a 'king'. Second, any perceived dissension and hostility between the sects, could be, and apparently was, frowned on, with both sides being punished. It is possible that orthodox Jews could be enlisted to control the dissident christians, more with political goals and fear of upheaval in mind. Any one of these things could also happen from time to time, as an exception to a rule, or unnoticed to the rulers. Because there are so many possibilites, and mankind is known to break every law in every conceivable way, I would view Paul as a rare glimpse into history. There is enough evidence, IMO, to take his writings seriously on this matter, since so many other things add up.

BTW, Paul is said to have died in 65 during Nero's persecution. This has been written about by contemporary writers (Nero, not Paul) apart from the Bible. Christians were not officially banned from synagogues until 90, so Paul may well have preached in them, though there may have been different sentiments between one area and another. There may have been christian-friendly rabbis, or Roman leary ones.

Wasn’t the Bar Kochba rising a revolt against Romans? I don’t recall the Bar Kochbas singling out Christians; do you have anymore on this?As you say, it isn’t first century anyway, but it sounds interesting as I thought I knew quite a bit about the Bar Kochbas. IOW, there is no evidence, just your opinion? Nero wasn’t Jewish., and I think this has been greatly exaggerated anyway. Why? There was hardly any Christians in 53 CE, and technically speaking there was no such thing as a Xian then, the name was applied later, but I know what you mean. But, why would Rome have to employ the Jews to do anything? Evidence? Yet Paul was seemingly allowed to carry out hostile attack on groups of Xians? This is really supporting the unlikelihood of the Damascus road episode being true. But why? The Romans were more than capable of squashing a small group of dissident Jews.Who were these dissident Xians that you are talking about?As far as I know the Christians were a very sedate sect who walked joyfully into martyrdom without putting up a fight. It is okay for you to speculate like this but you really need something of substance to support these claims. Anything is possible, but we need have examples to try and work out the plausibility of these claims. Don’t know if I agree with this. Just seems like more speculation to me. What you need is some evidence of Christians being allowed to persecute the Jews in a Roman province. While you are at it, doesn’t it seem unusual to you that the Sanhedrin would have any power in Syria? I would take everything Paul was alleged to have said with a huge pinch of salt. Could you perhaps post some of this evidence? I disagree. I would say that the available evidence means we should not trust Paul on this matter. Religions were allowed freedom from persecution, Paul’s episode is riddled with contradictions, Jews had NO power in Syria, and what’s more the Jews could not sentence anyone to death during the first century CE.Paul’s Damascus road episode smacks of fiction, a great story to help convert the gullible. BTW, there are two different versions of how Paul died, either by beheading or in prison, even his death isn’t recorded correctly. Nero’s persecution of Christians was recorded by whom? Doesn’t this just give my claim even more support?It is sort of contradictory to persecute Xians on one hand and on the other allow them to preach in your synagogues! It really doesn’t add up. I think Xians did preach in Synagogues, but I don’t think Paul’s Damascus road episode has any credibility at all. So all you have is speculation?Brian.

Brian,
I will reply in more detail later, but for now, I will say that some of what I said is indeed speculation. I am not an expert on the matter, and even experts disagree. But, when you said Jewish persecution of Christians is illogical since it goes against what we know of the Pax Romanum, was that not a speculation based on one fact, also? I am doing the same thing, I am saying that since we know some things, we can speculate logically about others.