Conflicting statements in the bible

[Aedrone1]

It's not even funny to look at these things in the Bible anymore, I've seen so many un-realistic pictures of stuff like this. Also I think Luke 22:7/Luke 23:54 - Day of Unleavened Bread/Day of Preparation, Mark 14:12/Mark 15:42 - Day of Unleavened Bread/Day of Preparation, Matthew 26:17/Matthew 27:62 Day of Unleavened Bread/Day of Preparation, John 18:28/19:31 - Near Passover/Day of Preparation. I think these are the answers to your problems. I'm atheist, but I like to read the many Various bibles to see what I can find.

[Tex]

1. I expected the apologetic bullshit and you didn't disappoint. Others, with clearer heads, perhaps, have already conceded the point.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonabl...crucified/

So in Mark, Jesus was nailed to a cross at 9am the day after the Preparation of the Passover. In John, Pilate is about to send Jesus to his death at 12pm on the day of the Preparation for the Passover.

It's a plot device for a point "John" (or whoever) was trying to make. It is not history. But it IS a contradiction with the other 3.

Evening is the start of a Jewish day. Western society goes sunrise to sunset. Jews go sunset sunrise. The evening signifies a new day.

2. "Luke is wrong. " Yes..or Matty is wrong... but one of them is wrong which is the whole point. They contradict each other and believe me, finer minds than yours have tried to reconcile this one and failed.

Luke's data is wrong because it isn't consistent with Luke. This doesn't bother me. This is not a significant issue and doesn't change Christianity.

3. "I don't even understand what the issue is." Of course you don't.

Nonetheless, it is there...plain as day. In Mark "jesus" barely speaks, in John, he rattles on.

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/3...-nazareth/

here are also a few examples of John reacting to Synoptic precedents, making his preferred changes to them. John actually tells us why he rejected Gethsemane: “Should I say, Father save me from this hour? No, for it was for this purpose that I came to this hour!” [12:27] And: “The cup the Father has given me: shall I not drink it?” [18:11]

This is a literary response to a literary invention by Mark which John did not approve of. It’s a slap in the Synoptic face.

Similarly, John also repudiates Jesus’ meek silence before Pilate by having him engage in a disputation with the governor.

He also rejects Simon of Cyrene because Jesus is quite capable of carrying his own cross all the way, thank you very much. Jesus “carried his own cross,” John declares.

Now both may be, but one must be, wrong. "Jesus" either gabbed like a teenage girl on a cell phone or not but he could not do both at the same time. This is a contradiction.

John didn't "disprove" of it. I omit data as well when I tell stories. You're falling for a rorschach test, pulling anything out in the worst light possible. If these count as contradictions in your book, so be it. They affect nothing.

4. "The women show up, see, run back, and tell the guys."

No. Mark 16,8 - (the original ending before some monk tried to improve it.)

8 The women fled from the tomb, trembling and bewildered, and they said nothing to anyone because they were too frightened.

And verse 7? "But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." The other accounts don't have them telling the people they pass on the way, do they? No, they run to the apostles.

5. But they are NOT the same words. They are different which means that there are contradictions between them.

Also doesn't really matter. My ESV bible doesn't match my NIV bible. I guess that prove that the whole bible is one big contradiction.

I am not making an argument that any of this bullshit is right or wrong. Understand that it is all literary invention. But it takes a particular kind of myopia not to see that they do not even agree with each other. I regard this as your problem.

There is no problem, mostly because they agree just fine. What this really sounds like is 4 people writing at least semi-independently.

[Kayenneh]

My favorite contradiction is when talking about [passage x], it's supposed to be taken literally and when talking about [passage y] it's "just a metaphor!" or "no, that doesn't concern us, only jews!".

[Gilgamesh]

I think out-of-context is the new in-context when trying to convey that the bible doesn't have contradictions.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

The existence of contradictions is one of the things that goes into my
made in Alexandria premise.

How could they possibly exist? IF they were created over time then the younger would have been written in light of the older and no contradictions could result. Do we have to suggest deliberately introduced contradictions?

To claim there were different "traditions" requires a different tradition for each contradiction which means thousands of traditions which is also not reasonable for a handful of writers in Jerusalem.

The simplest explanation I can come up with which we know has happened is many writers on roughly the same subject creating stories as in TV series. In them almost none care about continuity, Babylon 5 being a noteworthy exception. In TV continuity is only very general and as long as a contradiction is not glaring and adds to the episode there is no problem.

I do not have direct evidence for this as yet. I simply point out the closest analogy we have which has exactly this issue.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Tex, do you agree that the Bible is not literal and should be considered fiction?

If not, how can you believe in the Bible's literal statements and take it seriously with so many controdictions?

[archangle]

only bible literalists worry about such things.

[Minimalist]

The evening signifies a new day.

Yes. The Day of Preparation begins on the evening of the day before and ends the following evening when passover begins. "John" (or whoever) understood this much better than you.

Luke's data is wrong because it isn't consistent with Luke.

What? It is not consistent with Matty. And the other two didn't give a shit about the nativity story.

John didn't "disprove" of it. I omit data as well when I tell stories.

A silly argument. One book says one thing and the other books say something else. That is what "contradiction" means. I am not interested in determining which account is right or wrong. I think they are all horseshit. I am merely pointing out to you that your allegedly inerrrant holy books tell different stories. This then becomes your problem and I see you have chosen to put your holy blinders on and pretend that reality does not exist. Again, your problem.

The women fled from the tomb, trembling and bewildered, and they said nothing to anyone because they were too frightened.

And verse 7?

This ignored it and "said nothing to anyone." Period. The story ended at that point until later scribes found that unsatisfying and made some rather silly additions to it.

Also doesn't really matter. My ESV bible doesn't match my NIV bible. I guess that prove that the whole bible is one big contradiction.

Now, you're getting warmer.

What this really sounds like is 4 people writing at least semi-independently.

By George....now you are getting it.

Different stories for different audiences at different times.

And all of them a load of crap.

[Statler Waldorf]

2) This one is a bit more tricky. I went looking and looking for the answer, and never found it. There is no answer here. Luke is wrong. Luke 2 has Quirinias for the birth and then its 29 A.D., so Jesus is a max of 23 and he's starting his ministry (which Luke says is about 30). Luke had to have flubbed a number in his math or something and then oopsied with the ruler from there. If he simply didn't carry the one, it puts Jesus at 6 B.C. rather than 6 A.D., fitting with Luke's account much better.

This actually isn’t an example of a contradiction at all. Let’s not forget what a contradiction actually entails (A and not A in the same relationship and at the same time). If a true contradiction exists remember that no amount of explanation or rationalization can explain it away; that’s why contradictions are nearly impossible to prove in these circumstances.

What we will see with this situation is that the alleged contradiction is rather easy to explain away. We know that at least three censuses were taken in the area, one in 8-7 BC (during Herod the Great’s reign and also right before Christ’s birth), one in 2 BC (After Herod’s death), and one in 6 AD (after Herod’s death and during the time Quirinius was official Governor of Syria.

We also know that Quirinius was a procurator in the area from the time he led an effort to throw down a rebel uprising around 8 BC until his Governorship in 6 AD. Does Luke really say that the census took place while Quirinius was officially Governor of Syria? No he does not; the Greek term for Governor is “legatus”, but this is not the title Luke uses. Rather, Luke uses the title “hegemon” which is far more general and only means a ruling officer or a procurator. Since we already know that Quirinius was a ruling officer at the time of Jesus’s birth around 6 BC it is not unreasonable to assume that Quirinius as one of Augustus’ most loyal and competent followers was put in charge of the 8-7 BC census by Augustus.

Luke: Mary was pregnant with Jesus when the first census was issued while Quirinius was a procurator (hegemon) in Syria (8-7 BC).
Mark: Jesus was born while Herod the Great was King (sometime before Herod’s death in 4 BC.)

These two statements are not contradictory and are still true to what the Biblical texts say.

[Faith No More]

Luke: Mary was pregnant with Jesus when the first census was issued while Quirinius was a procurator (hegemon) in Syria (8-7 BC).
Mark: Jesus was born while Herod the Great was King (sometime before Herod’s death in 4 BC.)

These two statements are not contradictory and are still true to what the Biblical texts say.

Did you actually type that with a straight face?