Alleged Contradictions in the Bible

Good point, Iella.


In response to TragicLad's comments:

Why would the women be bringing spices to annoint the body when that had already been done? (John 19:39-40)

This doesn't really present any problems. John tells us about Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus anointing the body prior to his burial. It was very unusual for executed criminals to be treated in this way, so they probably anointed him out of sight of anyone else. Nothing suggests that the women knew anything about the two men anointing him on the Friday. So after the Sabbath, they went to anoint him themselves.


My reading of Matthew suggests that the women were present at the time of the Earthquake. The angel addresses the women, telling them not to fear. This occurs after the guards shaking with fear and apparently fainting dead away.

Here are the first five verses of Matthew 28:

1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.

3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.

4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified."


Verse one records simply that the women went to look at the tomb. Their arrival is not even hinted at.

Verses two to four talk about the earthquake and the guards' reaction to it, but does not mention how the women reacted to it. Nothing suggests the women saw it. Do you think that if a group of hardened Roman soldiers were so scared that they shook and became like dead men, that a bunch of women would still be standing around and then go walking into a tomb?

Verse five simply records what the angel said to the women (once they enter the tomb and see that Jesus' body isn't there, as expounded in Mark 16:5 - As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.)



If the women were not there - who then would have witnessed this event?

This can only be guesswork. Maybe the guards became believers after the event and relayed the account to Matthew. Maybe the Holy Spirit revealed it to Matthew as he wrote the gospel. We can never know for sure.


Wouldn't you find it odd for the gospel of Matthew to include events that no one witnessed (an earthquake, the guard's fear), yet excludes all the multiple appearances of Jesus to the deciples prior to their witnessing him in Galilee.

As discussed before, all the writers had their own agenda so picked the facts accordingly. No one tells us the whole story. For example, we know nothing about the events surrounding Jesus' appearance to Peter.


On the one hand, you're saying that Mary Magdeline returned alone running into Peter who returns with her to the tomb, and that the women said nothing out of fear - yet Luke 24:10 tells us that Mary along with the other women, talks to all of the disciples, at which point Peter runs to the tomb to see for himself. Do you honestly see Peter running to the tomb twice in that day?

Peter going a second time to the tomb was guesswork on my part (I added it in parenthesis), simply because we don't know where he saw him. For all we know, Jesus appeared to him while he was in the shower.

The thing about the women not saying anything is answered below, and in Luke 24:10 it tells us that all the women were there giving their testimony. It doesn't rule out that Mary Magdalene has spoken to John and Peter before. Don't forget, in John's account she'd not actually seen Jesus yet, but she told them the body was missing. Once she sees Jesus, she comes back to tell them. I'd do the same.


But why would one gospel report that the women said nothing while the other three report that they told the disciples? Would that no

 

I see nobody responded to the link I posted.

no issues with that?

 

Sorry DesertJedi, but TragicLad's kept me busy for the last couple of days.

I just had a look at your link about the latest "gender neutral" translation of the Bible.

Obviously the way that the Bible is translated is very important in reflecting the meaning of the text. But to honest, I can't comment on it until I see it. And that won't be till 2005 at the earliest.

What they say in the article is that it won't replace the existing NIV but be sold alongside it, and the examples it gives are valid ones, because "man" does also mean "mankind" in some contexts.

The examples they give of some of the changes are perfectly valid: "sons of God" to "children of God" in Matthew 5:9, and "a man is justified by faith" to "a person is justified by faith" in Romans 3:28.

Further than that, I really can't comment.

 

Makes sense to make it more neutral.

 

I haven't seen the gender neutral version, so I cannot comment on how valid it is. However, I would ask what is the point?

If the meaning is not changed, why bother bowing to the world's PC movement? If the meaning is changed, then obviously it is not the Bible.

 

When I heard about the gender-neutral Bible, at first I was amused. I'm still kind of amused... it definitely has its roots in the PC movement, and I don't really have any major problems with it, except that it's pretty much unnecessary. Also, the temptation to change more than the gender-specific words also exists.

 

Iella = threadkiller

 

Out of all the cruelties, absurdities, inaccuracies and impossibilities in the Bible they chose to take out misogyny?

I think that gender prejudice is really immaterial when we have a book filled with unbeliever hatred and fiery damnation.

 

Such negative people. Look at the flipside to that.


The Bible speaks a heck of a lot more on the kingdom of heaven than it does of hell. It's a very positive Book. You only choose to look at the negative side of things.


Don't like the punishment? Don't commit the crime.

 

If you've got the crime, we've got the time.
We're the Bloodhound Gang.

Human crimes are punished by the criminal justice system. In the united states and other free nations, thinking is not a crime. Thinking for yourself is actually encouraged. I think the problem many have is why should it be different in the after life? A heaven or hell where you are punished for the contents of your mind, for many people, is not that appealing.

 

No no no, Cydonia. You aren't condemned because of the "contents of your mind". You are condemned by disobeying God's Law, which, you did the first time you did something against your conscience. Something you knew to be wrong.


After you did that, you became unable to enter a perfect place. You had sin. Now you need a sacrifice of someone who didn't deserve the wages of sin, and yet took them upon Himself. That's where "thinking for yourself" comes in. And why not accept Jesus? You've said yourself many times that "Jesus is the Man". Now you're telling me you don't want to believe in Him? Is this out of rebellion, because people say that if you don't accept Him you're going to hell?


EDIT: BTW, when I say "you", I mean it in a plural sense. I mean you as in humanity.

 

I try to find the good things Jesus had to say about living everyday life. If you want to use that against me, so be it.

Sean Penn is one of my favorite actors, politically he makes me sick. I'm not going to say he's one of my favorite actors, and because of that, gee i should automatically accept his political beliefs as well. I love my human dad. At times i have told him the opposite. And at those times he did not kick me out of the house. Loving him was never a condition of him taking care of me. Just being his son was/is enough.

 

Very nice theology. Unfortunately (for you) we don't accept that as fact just because you state it. You can make all of the declarations and illustrations you want, but those not entrenched in religious dogma actually ask for evidence, which you are unable to provide.

Religion is magical thinking taken to the extreme. You don't fully understand the world around you, and you are frightened by the impersonal forces beyond your control. Your solution to this psychological issue is to believe in a God who will control these natural forces for you, and who cares about your every little need and concern. You have someone who will take away your culpability for the wrongs you commit. And, because you like to think that you are special, that you know more than everyone else, you have the doctrine of "justification by faith" so that you, and the others who belong to your little group, will survive death and go to eternal paradise, while those nasty rationalist thinkers who reject your doctrine will get their just desserts.

Humanity will reach its full potential when it abandons the flawed construct of religion and learns to solve problems by rational thinking, rather than by appealing to a mystical, personal God.

 

Alright, well, you aren't going to get any proof of anything. What you say is evidence of one thing, I say is evedince of another.


EDIT: Humanity didn't seem to be doing so well until started making laws. Without laws, there's no consequence for your actions. Without religion, well, after genrations have gone by, we'd probably kill ourselves off. And that's the real thing, isn't it? It's all about what humanity can do. Well, you attack my beliefs by saying I need to make-believe there's this personal, "mystical" Being, I can just as easily say that you don't want to face the facts that there just might be something bigger than you out there that has a little more power than us all-important humans, who have done little good in the past, but by far have done more bad.


Pride is man's biggest downfall. All sin branches off from this. You wish to worship mankind and his capability, then by all means, go ahead. But mankind will always fail you in some way.

 

Exactly. It's based upon faith. You have no right to talk about a faith-based doctrine as though it constitutes fact.

However, if you wish to try and convert me, go ahead. You will get a prized position on my watched user list and the knowledge that you have saved my soul.

 

201, do you believe we'll have the capacity to sin in Heaven? Think about the implications of either answer.

 

What's wrong with asking for proof? If you can't provide it, then you can't provide it. That's fine. Who created the universe, how they created the universe, why they created the universe, and what is expected of the inhabitants of the universe, these are big questions. Not to be treated lightly, and explanations of them are not to be accepted on a whim of someone's say so.

 

I'd be interested to hear your answer to Geist's question as well, JediMaster.

 

Sure, Geist, we'll be able to sin. But I doubt we will sin. I mean, we'll be standing in the presence of a perfect God. We'll already be ashamed of how much wrong we did down here, I doubt we're going to want to offend Him while standing in His presence.

 

Oh boy.

I'll wait for Geist first.

 

JediMaster, so you believe that in heaven, you have free will, is that correct? If so, why do you think God would allow that, what do you think the benefits of free will in heaven are?

 

I don't see the point.


We are given free will down here. Why would God just take it away from us when we get to heaven? The benefits don't matter. Down here, they are so only the ones that truly love Him will follow Him, and the ones that don't want to follow Him down here won't get the reward for following Him. Up there, well, as I said, the only ones that will be there are the ones that truly loved Him, and have a repentant heart. Free will will not be needed, as only the ones that followed Him out of free will will be there anyway. But as I said, God isn't just gonna take it away. What would be the point?

 

So in heaven, if they really wanted to sin, then they could. What would happen if in heaven, they chose free will to sin? Since the possiblity exists, what do you think God would do with them if they sinned?

 

Their sins have already been forgiven them through Jesus. If they truly love God, they will obey His commandments. The possibility to sin will be there, but it ain't gonna happen.


If, for the sake of this discussion, it does happen, they have forgiveness through Jesus's sacrfice. God might take a few blessings away, as we're all judged according to our actions. But He isn't going to condemn them to death. They've already been raised to life. Their sins will be forigven, the same as they are here on earth.

 

How could sin exist in God's presence though? Down here they sin and are condemned to death, up there they aren't condemned to death for the same thing? That's justice?

And since free will exists in heaven,it exists in hell too, right?