The Bible has no contradictions

Unfortunately the originator isn't participating anymore. So we probably won't have anyone presenting the apologetics. The originator didn't claim the Bible had no errors.There are enough true contradictions without flopping out useless number differences. Since we don't have the originals, copyist errors are the obvious answers and even I came up with other possible reasons that don't deal with doctrine. These types of discrepancies don't impact the point of the writing. Save these types of discrepancies for when someone claims there are absolutely no errors in our current copies of the Bible.The apologetic response is copyist errors. So if their response to why it isn't a contradiction is because it is a copyist error, then they are looking at the literal meaning of contradiction. As I said, an error is not a contradiction.

If you're going to make a fine distinction between contradictions and errors, we're going to need a clear definition of each. Otherwise, apologists can handwave away the discrepancies as off-topic without even giving a proper apologetic.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

The real problem is the relatively modern idea that the Bible is one book, one story. It's not, and was never meant to be seen as one book or one story. Most of the so called contradictions are simply due to thinking that what is in one Book of the Bible should correspond to what is in any other Book. People even refer to the "Books of the Bible" but somehow fail to make the connection that "Yup, they are separate books by separate authors who each had their own story to tell; and many of the books are really two or more different stories by different authors with often contradicting theologies that have just been smushed together."

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I "restarted" this thread hoping for an answer to my question regarding a long dead debate.Apologists state the sixth hour in John was six AM, since John was using Roman time.Yet I cannot find a single piece of evidence that suggests the Romans started their days at midnight.Also, what year and who invented the concept of starting a day at midnight?Thanks.

But that is a "whatever" type question.What possible difference could it make?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I'm not exactly sure what your response is refering to. I asked the question bc I was curious. I was reading the thread from the start and came across a debate regarding the contradiction found in the gospels regarding when Jesus was upon the cross.An apologists typical response to "solve" this contradiction is that its refering to Roman time. Yet from what I can gather, Roman "time" did not start a day at midnight.Hence my questions. Is there evidence that the Romans started their "day' at midnight? That the sixth hour is six AM?Also, who were the first to use midnight as a starting point?Those were my questions, based upon my curiosity. Not sure what a "whatever" type question means, as per your statement.

quote:

---

The real problem is the relatively modern idea that the Bible is one book, one story. It's not, and was never meant to be seen as one book or one story. Most of the so called contradictions are simply due to thinking that what is in one Book of the Bible should correspond to what is in any other Book. People even refer to the "Books of the Bible" but somehow fail to make the connection that "Yup, they are separate books by separate authors who each had their own story to tell; and many of the books are really two or more different stories by different authors with often contradicting theologies that have just been smushed together."

---

Exactly! Many of the books weren't written simultaneously or even in the same century. The writings evolve as the religion does. I haven't looked to see if one author actually contradicts himself. Of course the problem there is that copyists could still have made changes to fit the political and religious needs of the time.

I searched the web from various angles and this article seems to clear things up a bit concerning how the Romans supposedly viewed time. Roman Time KeepingFrom what I could tell, at one point the Romans did use the sunset to sunset view of the day, but that changed at some point. Hard to tell when, but it didn't seem to change the way the daylight hours were addressed. They apparently still started the divisions with sunrise. See bottom of the article.IOW, even though the day started at midnight the "first hour" is still dawn. The originator's argument in Message 78 doesn't really hold water.He missed the whole point that Mark and John are speaking of completely different days. The time argument is irrelevant.

Thanks for your reply. Although I do have one "issue" with your statement: I'm not sure why you feel the time element is irrelevant. Its a contradiction thread. John has a different time when Jesus was placed upon the cross than than does Mark. Mark has the third hour, John the sixth. Hence the contradiction.

quote:

---

I'm not sure why you feel the time element is irrelevant. Its a contradiction thread. John has a different time when Jesus was placed upon the cross than than does Mark. Mark has the third hour, John the sixth. Hence the contradiction.

---

If one man is talking about Saturday and another is talking about Tuesday, what does the time matter. They aren't talking about the same day.The author of John has Jesus die at the same time as the Paschal Lamb. So Jesus died before the Passover Meal. In Mark, the author has Jesus die after the Passover Meal.That was the contradiction that nator brought up in Message 51. See her response in Message 98.When we're talking about two completely different days, the time issue is irrelevant. Even if they had all given the same time of the day, it still isn't the same time because it's a different day.Understand? The author of John just flat out wrote a different story.

It does matter. You could have two different days, yet both authors could claim X occured at 9am. Its a contradiction thread. Its just another list of contradictions. Yes, they both have different days, but they also have different times. Its not irrelevant! Its a contradiction thread. Again, yes they're talking about two different days, but the entire story could have tens upon tens of contradictions within. I could very easily say the day itself doesnt matter, that its the time that is crucial. Yes, John wrote a different story, about a different day, with different times, with different aspects and other assorted contradictions.It does not matter per se that its a different day, if I'm debating someone over the contradiction about when Jesus was placed upon the cross time wise.

Apparently you don't understand. My comments were in relation to the originators response to nator. The time differences are irrelevant concerning the contradiction nator presented.IMO, when stories conflict, it doesn't make sense to address line items, but that's your choice. Enjoy!

A-HA! So its you who does not understand!!! I jumped started this thread due to post 78, a response by an apologist, Conspirator. He started this thread, he made a comment on his own thread regarding Roman time. Hence why I asked the questions.Anyway, thanks for the info about Roman time.

So: no contradictions in the Bible, eh?Book of Job. "For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and shall not keep anger forever."Book of job, a bit further along; God speaking. "Thou hast kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever."TFS

Welcome Theflyingsorcerer,Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior.
Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Familiarize yourself with the various functions of EvC by using the Practice Makes Perfect Forum.When referring to scripture in a post, please remember to provide the verse numbers for the verses you share. Please direct any questions or comments you may have concerning this post to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread. Do not respond in this thread.Again, welcome and fruitful debating.
AdminPD