What is the biggest bible contradiction?

Yes.Take history writing as an example. We only have the author’s opinion of what happened, the process of putting together the sources, selecting what is and isn’t relevant, constructing the thesis is all done in the mind. Correct, we do not know for sure if what an author claims was information from a non-human source or not. How can we know information came from God if we cannot demonstrate that this entity exists?Also, even if we could prove there was a God, the information that someone writes onto a page was constructed in their mind, we do not know if the information from God was copied down 100% accurately, humans are not perfect. The early authors are not automatically labelled as untrustworthy, they may well have written what they believed was inspired, but how do we know this info is reliable. They may simply have believed they were communicating with God but were in actual fact just writing down what they themselves had believed and their experience was just a self fulfilling prophecy.As far as the church writers go, we do know that Eusebius advocated lying as long as it furthered the teachings of Christianity. This is down to faith. The Bible cannot be trusted as an accurate history book for two reasons. Firstly, it wasn’t written as a history book, it was written as a story of God’s relationship with his creations. Secondly, the ”history’ in the Bible has been shown to be extremely inaccurate in many instances. Thus, inaccurate information plus theological agendas equals untrustworthy. Well it is down to faith again. Many Christians believe that the Bible is accurate because their faith hangs on the text, and if any of the text is inaccurate then their faith crumbles. It is a pretty weak faith that does this.I’m sure psychologists can give many reasons for religion.Historians certainly can.Brian.

I haven't been following this thread. I stumbled upon it and have read that there is some objection to the way John has worded it...? Is that accurate? I've gathered that the thrust of the argument is that John's synopsis on when Jesus and the disciples had "the Last Supper" runs into time problems for getting Jesus on the cross during the Passover... Is that accurate?If so, what verse are we talking about here so that I can juxtapose between the rest of the gospels?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

I don't know about this. 'Gospel' is from an old word meaning good news. Is it the good news of John? No, it is the good news of Jesus, from John. In other words, the Gospel (of Jesus) according to John. Look, what I am saying is that the authors of the Gospels did not write the words 'according to' on there at all. Now again, I will not stubborn it out and insist that they were all first hand accounts; I know they are not, with the slight possibility of some parts of John. But when it comes to drawing weighty conclusions from the words on the title page, it is better to understand what the words actually mean, and that they were put there after the fact, than to think that you were the first to discover this 'proof'. This is about the meaning of a word, not the motives of the speaker. I did not say that the authors of any texts believed they were true. I said the person who put the words 'according to John' on the title page believed that it was the work of John, some John, any John, presbyter John, disciple John. Sure maybe he had ulterior motives for putting the words there, but more likely the title page exists with the secret motive of seperating the books in your Bible. I think it is a shame to detract from the debate with this clearing up of things which have been taken out of context. If you really want to get skeptical, we can never prove if we have original text, or just oldest existing texts. There could be many reasons why the authors did not identify themselves. But I may just as well ask you the same question; if the gospels are some form of propaganda, don't you think the authors would be more likely to identify themselves? A spiritual writer will not be as concerned about making a name for themselves as a political writer might be.

Agreed. That was supplied after-the-fact by the early church. John's actual words begin at, "In the beginning was the Word." We know that Mark is likely a secondhand account and possibly Luke, but I doubt that John or Matthew were anything but eyewitness accounts. Personally, my favorite gospel is Matthew for a variety of reasons, but most noteworthy is that he captures the essence of Jewishness in his gospel. He ties Yeshua to the Tanakh better than the others. Aside from which, his gospel supplies the most detail. I think what others might be arguing against is a lack of detail in the other scriptures, not that somethings conflict. I don't think there is any ulterior motive to supply that information. Its for clarification as to who wrote it. Some books we still don't know who the author is. We don't know who wrote Job, for instance. But the early church did know who wrote Mark, Luke, John, and Matthew and added that for clarification to the reader. If we were to nitpick on Scripture, we could easily say that since there was no punctuation in the original manuscripts that its somehow heretical that it was supplied later.Brian asks:John did. He even writes it in chapter 21, when he says,"Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” (JOHN)Jesus answered, “If I want him (JOHN) to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple (JOHN) would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."But even if he didn't, it wouldn't much matter. The focus isn't on John, its on Jesus and always should be. These are superfluous elements at best for some clarification and a proper accounting. But it isn't critical information. We're doing just fine not knowing the authorship of Job, fir instance. And furthermore, we know that Paul authored most of the epistles, but that doesn't seem to make anyone believe in his testimony at all. This is a dubious plea by adding irrelevant circumstances to try and bring the gospels into disrepute.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : add italics and quotes

---

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

The authorship of the Gospel of John is universally accepted as not being John by critical scholars today, most of whom are Christian. A few of the reasons are here Gospel of John.
Some of the most significant reasons are as follows:1. The Gospel doesn’t claim to be by John. The name was tacked on by Catholics in the second century. Chapt 21 mentions the “beloved disciple”, but chap 21 is a well known later addition, not part of the original gospel.2. The description of the Palestinian world of the time is off in many places - a native would know better.3. The Jesus is completely different - if we are to go by the GoJ, then Jesus never tells a parable, never casts out a demon, openly proclaims his identity as the messiah, never institutes communion at the last supper, and on and on. If the other gospels are by and large correct about Jesus’ life, then John can’t be by an eyewitness.There are other good reasons too, like the date of writing. Another interesting one is that the synoptics talk about the transfiguration (Mk 9:2, etc.). Note that in that story, Jesus takes James, John and Peter up and glows for them. That’s in the synoptics, none of which even claim to be by James, John or Peter. In GoJ, the transfiguration doesn’t happen. Whaaaaa? Perhaps the greatest event other than the resurrection, and it’s not even mentioned by someone who was there? Really?Apologists have told me that John didn't write it down because he didn't consider it important. Really? John records the name of a Pharisee Jesus has an offhand discussion with, but doesn't consider the freakin' transfiguration significant enough to mention? Hmmm..
Take care-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

A couple of questions regarding the authorship of Matthew. Are you familiar with the synoptic problem? When we put Mark, Matthew, and Luke through textual analysis, we find out that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. Why would an eyewitness copy text from a source you admitted was probably not an eyewitness?Also, if the author of Matthew is an eyewitness, presumably he is a disciple of Jesus and therefore a Jew from Galilee. In the Gospel of Matthew it is clear that when he quotes the Old Testament, he is quoting from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) and not directly from the Hebrew. So, why would a disciple of Jesus and a Jew from Galilee quote from a Greek translation instead of Hebrew?

Anastasia wrote:

quote:

---

First let me tell you that when I say 'John is an eye-witness' it does not mean I walk around believing everything I hear. In the tradition of the church he is thought of that way, and in the case of his elaboration on the Last Supper, it seems credible enough to note.

---

Um, there is no capital "Last Supper" in GoJ. There is a regular dinner, but no special "do this in memory of me" stuff with bread nor wine. Your attribution of a "Last Supper in GoJ makes me wonder if we are all on the same page - we are discussing the 4th gospel, the one with all the different storied compared to the other three (most stories found in the synoptics are not in John, and vice versa).Scholar (except of course for fundamentalists) agree that the Gospel of John is anonymous, and that there are many reasons (a few are mentioned in my last post) to doubt that GoJ is by the disciple John. More than that, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that John wrote the fourth Gospel has no evidence beyond what 2nd century catholics thought. Can you provide any other good reason to think that John wrote the GoJ? Thanks-Edited by Equinox, : No reason given.

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

quote:

---

What is the biggest bible contradiction or flaw in your opinion?
Just simply, what doesn't make sense in the bible sdf

---

Well, some of the ones that come to mind for me are these:
The geneologies between Chr and Mt from adam to David disagree, even though they claim to be describing the same thing. Apologists respond as usual by making words mean things other than what they mean, (such as “father of” not meaning “father of”), but even that doesn’t work, since they have different numbers of generations, and Mt even makes it a point to count them, and counts them wrong.The Ten commandments in Ex 20 and 34 disagree. The most common apologetic response is that the 34 set isn’t really the ten commandments, even though Ex 34:28 is clear that they are exactly that.The Birth year of Jesus in Mt and in Lk irreconcilably disagree. Mt and Lk mention herod, but then Luke mentions Quirinius, who ruled long after Herod had died. A longer explanation is at http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/Quirinius.html.The place where GoJ changes the day of Jesus’ death to make a theological point (that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb) - but that’s already being discussed.Peter denying Jesus 3 times before the cock crows in mark, and 3 times after the cock crows in John. Well, was it before or after? Fundamentalists say that both must be correct, and Peter must have denied Jesus 6 times! Silly - just like Jesus clearing the temple at the start of his ministry in John and at the end in the synoptics, fundamentalists take the same tack there, saying Jesus just must have trashed the temple twice. One would think they’d get tired of that and ban his admission or something. There are so many other things just like that that I better stop or I’ll be here all day.Some of the more notable ones between the gospels are when it must be from the holy ghost. For instance, in the speech before pilate, no disciples or bystanders are there - just Jesus, Pilate, and probably some guards. Of course the disciples didn’t interview pilate or the guard later, so how did the gospel writers get the stories? Must be straight from the holy ghost’s mouth (or whatever he has). Then why are they different between the gospels?One other is the transfiguration thing I mentioned above, or the many disagreements between Kngs and Chr when they tell the same stories. For instance, they’ll have the same person die a different way in a different city, list different sizes of armies, etc.That’s probably a lot more than you want, but only a small sample of what's in the half million words of the Bible. Have a fun day-Edited by Equinox, : typoEdited by Equinox, : No reason given.

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

This may be slightly off-topic, but it kind of sums it up. You speak with scorn about Fundementalists taking things too literally. I don't blame you. Using the Bible to prove the Bible, with something like circular reasoning, is odd.Q. How do you know the Bible is from God?
A. Because it says so!
Q. How do you know what it says is true?
A. Because God wrote it.Hmmm.....But what is even more odd, is disproving the Bible with the Bible.Q. How do you know John did not write the gospel?
A. Because the Bible doesn't say so.I still think there is no excuse for all this literalism. How do we know how many times the cock crowed? We don't. It does not make much sense to say the cock crowed before Peter's denial, or Peter would have had an advanced reminder, but that is beside the point. Thing is, we don't know when the cock crowed, how many times, or if it even happened at all.The story of Peter's denial is like much of the Bible. It is a moral written into a plot. It is on the one hand a possible historical happening, on the other, all parable/metaphor/allegory type writing. Proving the historical insignifigance by looking for contradictions is only half the battle. Take away the moral and you will have won me over. The contradictions mentioned have taken nothing away fron the meaning behind the story of the money changers, for example, and these spiritual lessons are what is thought of as being inspired. Not the history, not the science.I am still not sure how GoJ changed the day of Jesus' death. He says 'the parasceve of the Pasch', the evening before the Passover. But a parasceve is only before the Shabbat, or Saturday. So either John meant that this was the Shabbat within the week of Passover, (which seems likely because he called it a high day, and not just a normal Sabbath), or that Passover would start on the night of Shabbat, which seems unlikely, since when this happens, some preparations for passover take place on on the Thursday before. Among these is a fast, and the disciples are not seen to be fasting on Thursday.

God knows what you are trying to pull now I think we all know that the ”Gospel of John’ refers to the book credited to him in the New Testament. So why are you trying to be silly?To be accurate, the word ”gospel’ was used by early Xians to refer to the entire scriptures in an attempt to keep them distinct from the Tanakh. It was recognised that the Xian texts were split inot 2 groups, Prophets (Old testament) and Gospel )NT).But the word became a technical term for the particular books that recorded the story of Jesus’ life, message, and death. To keep the idea of the ”Good News’ united into one area of scripture the early texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were put together and called “The Gospel according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John”. (Lutterworth Bible Dictionary (1994) page 342.But, the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are known as the ”Gospels’, every Sunday school kid knows that. How do you know they didn’t?Since there are no original mss there could have been anything written on them! Hallelujah. So, how do you decide which parts are from ”John’ and what parts aren’t? I know what the words mean, it isn’t me having the problem and dancing all over the place.Once again you repeat that they were put there after the fact without having any proof of this! When did I claim this? Indeed, and if the motive of the speaker in ”John’s’ Gospel was to convince the reader that Jesus was God incarnate then it follows logically that he would say whatever it takes to convince the reader. So the person who put the words ”according to John’ means that he thought the Gospel was written by John or written by someone who wrote this down because he thought this was the Gospel according to John?But, yet again, you jump to a conclusion without considering alternatives. You claim whoever put the words ”according to John’ on the title page believed that they were the words of John, but this is not the only possibility. He may have put them there to give more weight to the historicity of Jesus, he may have thought that the more texts they had from the disciples the more chance that people would be convinced of Jesus divinity. So, the person who placed the words ”according to John’ may not themselves have even believed it was John’s work, he only had to believe that other people would believe it was John’s work. Remember the early church were happy to lie to promote Jesus. I think it is a shame I have to repeatedly correct people who misrepresent what history and source criticism are, but hey ho. This is nothing to do with being sceptical; these are two plain and simple facts. We do not have any original text of any Biblical text, new or old testament, nothing sceptical about it. Yes, and we will never know for certain what the true reason is. This is just a fact of historical enquiry. Again though, you do not know IF they did identify themselves or not. But, in the first few centuries after Jesus death the great majority of the population was illiterate, and especially so in Xian circles as Xianity appealed greatly to the poor and ignorant. This meant that the Good News was spread initially by word of mouth and the audience would have been told who the author was, or was supposed to be. It is nothing to do with making a name for themselves, it is the simple fact that the information would carry more credibility if it was said to have been recorded by someone who witnessed these events.Think about it for yourself. Who do you find more credible, someone passing on information ”from a friend’ or someone who saw the incident(s) first hand?Brian.

You know this because?Brian.

A "well-known later addition?" I've never heard of that and I try to keep up to date on such conspiracies. I've never heard this postulate before now. Besides, unless you can demonstrate how it was inserted later, it has no credibility, in which case, it should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. How have you deduced this? Can you expound on this argument? I'm not understanding your objection. The gospel of John places its greatest focus on the spiritual attributes of Jesus, to include Him as the Messiah. One only has to read the first chapter to surmise this. Why must he mention the Transfiguration in order to make him a credible witness? Matthew did not mention the Transfiguration but gives an account of it based on the testimony of those present-- namely, John, James, Peter, and Jesus. The motives for not mentioning is spurious and superfluous element to add out of pure conjecture. We don't know why he didn't mention it. It simply doesn't matter. Aside from which, the Gospel of John isn't about John, its about Jesus. Trying to come up with reasons for why he didn't write it, both pro and con, are pointless semantics. He didn't mention it and that's all that needs to known.

---

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

So, the early xianists spoke Old English? To be accurate, they did not have the word 'gospel' at all. No silliness, Brian. Look it up.
World Book Dictionary definition of 'according to';a. in agreement with
b. in proportion to
c. on the authority of; as said byYou are using the first definition. Definition c. is correct for the titles of the gospels. So you think all 4 of these books coincidentally say 'according to' on the first page of the original text? And you also think the authors did not identify themselves? How? Yep.

Yes. What does this textual analysis consist of that you could definitively assert that of the texts were copied? First of all, I do believe that Mark very well could have been an eyewitness of Jesus, simply for the fact that he was the son of Mary and the cousin of Barnabas. I don't think that he witnessed many of the events, however, I want to make it clear that its possible he knew Jesus. He was a direct disciple of Peter, which is, no doubt, where most of his knowledge concerning Jesus came from. What? Why is clear that he was quoting from the Septuagint? Matthew was indeed a Jew, but I'm not sure why you think his gospel was originally penned in Greek. It is entirely plausible that he spoke Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Aramaic, based on his employment as a tax collector in Roman occupied Palestine. Nonetheless, all early christians assert that Matthew was written in Hebrew. Eusebius might be able to shed some light on it because he posited that Matthew was written in both Hebrew and Greek, the first copy in Hebrew. Even in the event it was only written in Greek shouldn't present a problem because that was the most widely spoken language in the world at that time. That was the commercial language, similar to what English is today. Its entirely possible that if he only wrote in Greek it was to expand his audience, similar to why Paul, a Jew and a Roman citizen, wrote his epistles in Greek.

---

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 is a verse, and I can not find it now, in which John says 'these signs and many more did He do' or something similar, which makes many feel that this was the end of the book, and that it was picked up later on by someone else.