Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Grimace · 07-18-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Welcome, Grimace!

That was a very good first post, but I think it is a little harsh to say that the gospel writers fabricated their stories. It is more likely that they had heard different oral versions of them. This is consistent with how there are both similarities and differences between the stories. For example in the case of Judas' death, both stories say the field was purchased with the money from the betrayal, that Judas died in that field, and that the field got its namre from these events. Then they are different about some details, like the manner of Judas' death, who actually purchased the field, and the exact reason for why it got its name. This is consistent with how stories that travel by word-of-mouth change and gets embellished over time. But it would be remarkable if two persons independently fabricated stories so similar (to the degree that they are similar). However, the story may have been fabricated originally by someone we don't know about.

Cheers!

Thanks for the kudos.

And that's true, I may have been a little harsh on the gospel writers. It just seems to me that a topic of this importance (how the betrayer got his comuppance) would be something they would have taken great pains to make as accurate as possible. It's not a simple case of each of them recording different parables that Jesus told, for instance. Of course both "Matthew" and "Luke" were writing at different times and places, so it's entirely possible they both heard different stories about the death of Judas.

This all comes down to whether you believe the bible was "divinely inspired" or a human production. If it's divinely inspired, then there HAS to be consistency, regardless of how ridiculous the convolutions required to make them harmonize.

jab · 07-18-2008, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

with the information you have provided me with, this is not a contradiction.

Judas hung himself and he fell from wherever he he had hung himself (a tree probably) and burst asunder in the midst.

JW:
Yea, that's a tough one. But maybe all of the above happened during a game of Twister and "Matthew" and "Luke" are just providing different excerpts. Or maybe Simon said "burst asunder" but Simon didn't say "hang yourself". Or, my personal favorite, maybe there were two different Judases who betrayed Jesus. One who betrayed "Matthew's" Jesus and one who betrayed "Luke's" Jesus (mental image of JP Holding scratching chin and saying "maybe he's got something there").

Here's another apparent contradiction which is my favorite. The grand-daddy of all genealogical errors:

Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier (2006)

I'll take the burden of proof and provide a summary of the argument:

Relative to each other "Luke's" Dating of the supposed birth of Jesus is at least ten years after "Matthew's" Dating of the birth of Jesus. The Key pieces of information are as follows:

1) Per "Matthew" Herod the Great was King when Jesus was born.

Outside support:

Pseudo-Matthew 16

2) Per "Matthew" Archelaus succeeded Herod the Great as to part of the Kingdom when Herod the Great died.

3) Per Josephus Archelaus ruled 10 years.

Outside support:

AJ 14.389 & 14.487 & Appian BC 5.75 (Herod the Great receives Kingdom),

AJ 17.191 & WJ 1.665 (succession by Archelaus of Herod the Great)

AJ 17.342

Roman coins minted in Judea (start around 6 CE which is when Quirinius became Governor of Syria)

4) Per Josephus Archelaus was removed and Quirinius was made responsible for his territory at the time Quirinius was made Governor of Syria.

Outside support:

AJ 17.342 (removal), 17.354, 18.1, 18.26, 20.102

Cassius Dio 55.27.6 (removal)

WJ 2.117 & 2.433 & 7.252 (census reaction)

5) Per "Luke" Jesus was born after Quirinius became Governor of Syria and started a Census.

Outside support:

Justin Martyr ''First Apology'' 1.34, 1.46

Pseudo-Matthew 13

Julian ''Against The Galileans''

Conclusion:

Quirinius did not become governor until 6 CE. His census occurred ten years after the death of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE. This contradicts "Matthew's" claim that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great.

dr lazel, I invite you to try and create significant doubt regarding the points above. If you do not meet my demands in 3 days I will fire my dr "lazer". Oh do behave.

If you are unable to resolve this apparent contradiction, fear not. In an Irony that "Mark's" Jesus would really appreciate, having "Matthew's" Jesus and "Luke's" Jesus have two different births supports "John's" Jesus who asserts that you must be born again in order to enter heaven.

Joseph Powers (Yea Baby!)

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Someone--the good dr himself perhaps--dealt with this on another thread. Sort of like Q in the Star Trek series, Q in the gospels time travels, you see. ..---Uh, no, that's God who time travels, I'm getting my characters, and the apologatics for them, all mixed up. What REALLY happened with the Biblical Q was that Q held the position twice, but we only have clear info about the second time--after all, records from way back then are incomplete and unreliable (except for the Bible).

JoeWallack · 07-19-2008, 08:25 AM

JW:
DLH fails to deliver but has an attitude. I was kind of hoping he would:

Apologist Duck Hunting Season Is Open:

From the Home Temple in Jerusalem King Dave's Stupid Apologist Tricks:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

JW, I don't read links. If you have a reference give it,

Dave: Hee, heee!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

but put some thought into it, won't you? There is nothing about your post which is your own

JW:
The web-site I referred to is mine and the outline of the argument for error was written by me. For those who are suspicious about how this is turning out let me issue the usual disclaimer:

I do not know DLH and have never worked with him before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Skeptics not unlike yourself cling to the idea that only one census was taken while Publius Sulpicius Quirnius was governer of Syria around 6 C.E. which sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots. (Acts 5:37) In fact that was really the second registration under Quirinius, because inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor's legate in Syria. (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W. Ramsay, 1939, pp. 285, 291) The Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon’s French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360 says: "The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria." Many scholars say that Quirinius' first governorship was somewhere between the years 4 and 1 B.C.E. and probably from 3 to 2 B.C.E. The method used for determining these dates are, however, not solid. His second governorship included 6 B.C.E. Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 26 (ii, 1)

JW:
I'll repeat here the key points of my argument for error:

Quote:

Relative to each other "Luke's" Dating of the supposed birth of Jesus is at least ten years after "Matthew's" Dating of the birth of Jesus. The Key pieces of information are as follows:

1) Per "Matthew" Herod the Great was King when Jesus was born.

Outside support:

Pseudo-Matthew 16

2) Per "Matthew" Archelaus succeeded Herod the Great as to part of the Kingdom when Herod the Great died.

3) Per Josephus Archelaus ruled 10 years.

Outside support:

AJ 14.389 & 14.487 & Appian BC 5.75 (Herod the Great receives Kingdom),

AJ 17.191 & WJ 1.665 (succession by Archelaus of Herod the Great)

AJ 17.342

Roman coins minted in Judea (start around 6 CE which is when Quirinius became Governor of Syria)

4) Per Josephus Archelaus was removed and Quirinius was made responsible for his territory at the time Quirinius was made Governor of Syria.

Outside support:

AJ 17.342 (removal), 17.354, 18.1, 18.26, 20.102

Cassius Dio 55.27.6 (removal)

WJ 2.117 & 2.433 & 7.252 (census reaction)

5) Per "Luke" Jesus was born after Quirinius became Governor of Syria and started a Census.

Outside support:

Justin Martyr ''First Apology'' 1.34, 1.46

Pseudo-Matthew 13

Julian ''Against The Galileans''

Conclusion:

Quirinius did not become governor until 6 CE. His census occurred ten years after the death of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE. This contradicts "Matthew's" claim that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great.

JW:
I'll keep repeating this until you either directly address it or go to wherever the hell Jesus has been for the last 2,000 years. Apologists normally don't last very long against this when they realize what they are up against. In an irony that "Mark's" Jesus would really appreciate I say that I'm trying to make it easy for you but I'm actually trying to make it hard for you to avoid my argument by not dealing with it directly, arguing against someone else's argument or creating your own argument.

So now I need to look at your argument and determine what part of mine it relates to. So Holdingish. Speaking of which I've already reviewed every argument I could find trying to argue against error here:

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?tit...dit&section=22

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

In fact that was really the second registration under Quirinius

JW:
Ah, the old second registration under Quirinius Apology. That's the second time today it's being used on me. Would you believe it? The second time.

Now to match it up to my outline of the argument for error:

Quote:

4) Per Josephus Archelaus was removed and Quirinius was made responsible for his territory at the time Quirinius was made Governor of Syria.

Outside support:

AJ 17.342 (removal), 17.354, 18.1, 18.26, 20.102

Cassius Dio 55.27.6 (removal)

WJ 2.117 & 2.433 & 7.252 (census reaction)

5) Per "Luke" Jesus was born after Quirinius became Governor of Syria and started a Census.

Outside support:

Justin Martyr ''First Apology'' 1.34, 1.46

Pseudo-Matthew 13

Julian ''Against The Galileans''

JW:
So you are asserting that the census under Quirinius that "Luke" refers to is not the census under Quirinius that Josephus refers to. Your evidence that this ("Luke's") was a census under Quirinius about 10 years earlier is:

"inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor's legate in Syria."

"The Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon’s French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360 says: "The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria."

"Many scholars say that Quirinius' first governorship was somewhere between the years 4 and 1 B.C.E. and probably from 3 to 2 B.C.E."

JW:
I'll spare you the quoting of your:

"His second governorship included 6 B.C.E."

Your second and third assertians are appeals to authority but I'm looking for primary and direct evidence which leaves your 1st assertian.

Quote:

inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor's legate in Syria

JW:
This is a long way from supporting Quirinius as governor of Syria and conducting a census of Israel c. 4 BCE. Let's look at the source to see what you really have:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...l#Homanadenses

Quote:

The Antioch Stones

The only other real material evidence mentioning Quirinius to date is a pair of stones found in two different Muslim villages outside Pisidian Antioch in 1912 and 1913. The stones had been removed from wherever they originally lay and then were reused as wallstones. Both are commemorative inscriptions, originally parts of the bases of statues of a certain Gaius Caristanius Sergius (possibly later named Julius Caesianus Fronto, unless these are the names of two different men). Both stones happen to mention as one of his offices the deputy management of a duumvirate held by Quirinius. Once again, the first inscription mentions no date and itself can only be dated by conjecture to sometime between 11 and 1 B.C. The second inscription offers no clues at all, though it was most likely set up after the first, since it mentions additional posts, apparently gained in the interim. Though even earlier dates are remotely possible, later dates are much less likely. Only a sketch exists of one of them, but a photo survives of the other.[7.1] They read as follows:

First Antiochene inscription, JRS 3 p. 255 GAIUS CARISTA[NIUS...]
SON OF GAIUS, SERGIUS FRONTO
CAESIANUS JUL[IUS...]
OFFICER IN CHARGE OF WORKS, PONTIFEX,
PRIEST, PREFECT OF
PUBLIUS SULPICIUS QUIRINIUS THE DUUMVIR,
PREFECT OF MARCUS SERVILIUS.
BY THIS MAN, THE FIRST OF ALL [WITH A]
PUBLIC DECREE OF THE DECEMVIRATE COUNCIL, THE STATUE
WAS SET UP.

Second Antiochene inscription, JRS 3 p. 254 BY GAIUS CARISTANIUS ...
FRONTO CAESIANUS
JULIUS, OFFICER IN CHARGE OF WORKS, COMMANDING OFFICER
OF THE TWELFTH LIGHTNING LEGION, PREFECT OF THE BOSPORAN COHORT,
PONTIFEX, PREFECT OF PUBLIUS SULPICIUS QUIRINIUS THE DUUMVIR,
PREFECT OF MARCUS SERVILIUS, PREFECT...

The only item here that allows any guess at the date the first statue was erected is the fact that it mentions that this was the first man to set up a statue by public decree (in other words, the city legislature voted to pay for it). Since this presumably would not be long after the city was founded (no more than five or ten years), if we can figure out when Pisidian Antioch was established, we will have some idea of when it was set up, though nothing like an exact date. This is not the most famous Antioch (in Syria), founded in 300 B.C. and one of the largest cities in the world at the turn of the era, but "Antioch near Pisidia," possibly as old but refounded sometime after 25 B.C. under the new name "Colonia Caesareia" (Caesarean Colony), for Roman veterans, definitely in the reign of Augustus, but we actually don't know for sure when. Only after this date would "decemvirs" be issuing public decrees, since these were the officials comprising the city council under a Roman colonial charter. When all things are considered, we can speculate Quirinius' duumvirate was held between 6 and 1 B.C. (see box below).

But even with other dates, the inscription offers no proof of a second governorship of Syria. First, there is no particular connection between being governor and being the Duumvir of a city. The one does not entail or even imply the other. Second, this city is well outside of the Roman province of Syria, on the border between Lycia-Pamphylia and Galatia (near modern day Egridir lake in Turkey). Indeed, it is even Northwest of Cilicia, on the other side of the Taurus Mountains. This makes any connection between this office and a governorship of Syria impossible. No one would range so far from his province or have any major connection with a city so thoroughly separated from his area of control.

Even so, this has not stopped some Christians from telling tall tales about what these inscriptions prove. For example, one Christian periodical reports to its readers, as if it were a simple fact:

Luke had stated that Quirinius was the Governor of Syria at the time of Jesus' birth, however secular records showed that Saturninus was the governor at that time. An inscription was later found in Antioch which showed that Quirinius indeed was governor of Syria at the time.[7.2]

This short statement doesn't even address the possibility that, if Matthew's date is correct, either Saturninus or Varus could have been governor at the time (as mentioned above). But what it really gets wrong is the claim that the Antioch inscription proves Quirinius "was governor of Syria at the time." Every single thing in italics here is false. As we've seen, the stones (and there are two, not one) only report that Quirinius was a Duumvir, not a governor, and not in Syria, but well outside that province. And they give hardly any reliable clues as to the date. Only pure speculation can set the date between 9 and 4 B.C., and what little argument could be advanced for a date between 6 and 1 B.C. actually goes to prove that Quirinius was fighting a war in Galatia at the time (see box below) and that refutes the possibility that he was governing Syria (see below), so there is in the end no evidence in these stones regarding any Syrian governorship of any date.

Yet essentially the same claim regarding these stones, with the addition of a false appearance of precision ("Quirinius was indeed governor of Syria in 7 BC as well"), is made by Doug Raymer in his 1999 online essay "The Accuracy of the Bible." I have traced this particular claim to its source, since it also appears in Kirk R. MacGregor's online essay "Is the New Testament Historically Accurate?" MacGregor at least tells us where he heard this: he cites page 160 of John Elder's book Prophets, Idols, and Diggers: Scientific Proof of Bible History (New York: Bobbs Merrill Co., 1960). Elder's credibility is certainly in question. He reports that the Antioch stone (he, too, only seems aware of one) says that Quirinius was Prefect as well as Duumvir. Obviously, Elder never actually read the stones, for they are about the Prefecture of Caristanius, not Quirinius. He also asserts as if it were a fact that the stone "records his election to the post of honorary duumvir...in recognition of his victory over the Homanadenses" yet I have placed in italics precisely what the stones do not say. Scholars only propose these as possible interpretations, yet Elder seems blithely unaware of the difference. Furthermore, Elder thinks this inscription "proves that Quirinius was in the area as a commander" but he does not seem to understand that it places him well outside the province of Syria, where no governor of that province would have been. Thus, when Elder asserts, again without any qualification, that the date of the inscription "can be fixed as somewhere between 10 and 7 B.C." we know he is not to be trusted. He claims that the names on the inscription set that date, yet does not explain how. In fact, the names fix no date at all (see box below). It is clear that Elder did not actually read or study the inscription himself--he must be relying on some other scholar, yet he cites no one.

The moral of this story is: always be suspicious of an unsourced "fact" that goes against the common consensus. From an online archive I came across a likely source for Elder's claims: the hopelessly outdated early 20th century work of G. L. Cheesman.[7.3] Cheesman dates the Duumvirate on the conjunction of two speculations: that the Dummvirate coincided in some way with Quirinius' war against the Homanadenses--a likely possibility, but hardly a known fact--and that the war happened between 10 and 7 B.C.--a very unlikely possibility in light of more recent archaeological evidence (see box below), but at any rate nothing like a known fact. This teaches us another lesson: in the arguments of Christian apologists, the speculations and inferences of other scholars suddenly and inexplicably become definite facts. For example, on Franke J. Zollman's online "Dustface Chart" of "Biblical Characters Whose Existence has been Confirmed from Archaeological or Secular Historical Sources" he declares matter-of-factly: "Inscription found in Antioch of Pisidia names Quirinius as legatus." The position of Legatus (a title that implied, but did not entail, being the governor of a consular province) is nowhere mentioned or implied in the Antioch stones.

Arguing for the date of these inscriptions as between 6 and 2 B.C. is a long and tedious task and is included next only for those who want to explore the issue in depth. Others can skip it.

JW:
DLH, you need to translate the above into Quirinius as governor of Syria and conducting a census of Israel c. 4 BCE. The General problem is no ancient author gives direct or even indirect evidence that Quirinius was Governor twice. The Specific problems are:

1) No clear dating of the stones.

2) No support for a Governorship (only a city).

3) The city was not Syrian.

The Jewdie Mind Trick of arguments by association don't work here:

1) An old stone was found in Syria.

2) The stone mentions Quirinius.

3) Quirnius must have been Governor of Syria.

4) Quirnius must have had a census at this time.

5) This is not the Census "Luke" was looking for.

6) Move along to the next error.

Homily don't play that game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Maybe the author of your link knew that, though I doubt it. All I have to go by is your pathetic representation. Get a thought of your own.

JW:
Listen Schotzkee, save this attitude for Tweeb where there is virtually no real scholarship and attitude is used in lieu of research. Check out the Shattering the Christ Myth Thread there where perhaps even more Amazing than Jesus' supposed resurrection is that in 35 pages of commentary and counting no one has had anything of significance to say on the subject (kind of says it all). Here on these holy Boards posts are based on logic, reason and research. You're in the Majors now so try to act like you belong here.

Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

thentian · 07-19-2008, 08:53 PM

Ack, I'm afraid our friend DLH has left us for happier hunting grounds, one's where people don't go around actually checking his claims!

Reason · 07-19-2008, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Ack, I'm afraid our friend DLH has left us for happier hunting grounds, one's where people don't go around actually checking his claims!

Aww, and he seemed like such a nice young man. So full if shit life and everything. :frown:

JoeWallack · 07-27-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

The claim in question is that Jews at that time wrote "son" when they were talking about a "son-in-law". I do not see backup for that in your previous post, but may have missed it. Enlightenment?

Okay ... [laughs]

From my original post - Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: 'Genus matris non vocatur genus ( "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant")' ('Baba bathra,' 110, a)." Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.

JW:
It would appear that the Excalbians were correct when they said that it would appear that Evil retreats when forcibly confronted by Good. From the very good ErrancyWiki:

Matthew 1:16

Quote:

Conclusion

So in Summary, the evidence that "Matthew's" identification of Jacob as the father of Joseph is contradicted by "Luke's" identification of Heli as the father of Joseph, ranked by weight of evidence is:

1) They are clearly two different names in Greek and Hebrew.

2) There are many more examples of "Matthew's" problems with names in the genealogy.

3) Origen confesses to us that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names. This would have been well before any extant manuscripts.

4) In Appeal to Authority, Raymond Brown testifies Contradiction.

5) Early Church Father testimony indicates it was recognized as a serious problem but there was no history of a reasonable explanation.

6) "Matthew's" sequence of Jacob, Joseph and Jesus looks like it was contrived based on the Jewish Bible.

7) "Matthew's" Primary Source, "Mark", Does Not Mention Jesus' Father

8) One of Jesus' brothers was Named Joseph so it would have been unlikely for Jesus' father to have the same name.

So in Summary, the evidence that "Matthew's" identification of Jacob as the father of Joseph is not contradicted by "Luke's" identification of Heli as the father of Joseph, ranked by weight of evidence is:

1) Because JP Holding says that Glenn Miller says so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH

In my original post I made it absolutely clear without a doubt that the genealogy given in the gospels were never questioned by the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' time. They would have questioned it if there were any reason to do so. Why do you question it?

JW:
It would appear that based on the above everyone early on was questioning the genealogies, critics of Christianity as well as the early Church Fathers. Ironically, in light of DHL's post, the only group we have no direct evidence that questioning/not questioning the Genealogies was even an issue was "the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' time". For those who want to believe that the Talmud does refer to GJ (Gospel Jesus) there are a few references in the Talmud to a Jesus who was the son of a Roman soldier, Panthera. My guess is this had nothing to do with GJ but the Rabbi's attitude was if the Christians want to believe it does than if the Jew fits...

In an Irony that "Mark's" Jesus would really appreciate it was DHL's suggested theory that "Luke" was giving the genealogy of Mary that Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Christians of Jesus time, the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' time, Pagans of Jesus' time, the Early Church and everyone until the Middle Ages had never heard of.

Joseph

GENEALOGY, n.
An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

mike.davis · 08-04-2008, 07:09 PM

If you read the Bible, and pay attention, the contradictions just jump out at you. A few examples: 1) Acts 26:23 says that the Christ would be the first to rise from the dead, but Lazarus (John 11:43-44), Jairus's daughter (Mark 5:22-24; 35-43), and the widow's son (Luke 7:12-15) were already raised from the dead before Jesus; 2) Should we pray in public? No (Matthew 6:6); Yes (1 Timothy 2:8); 3) Jesus says "I spoke nothing secretly." (John 18:20) BUT: Jesus previously told his disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (Matthew 16:20) 4) Did Paul's traveling companions on the road to Damascus hear the voice from the sky? Yes (Acts 9:7), No (Acts 22:9) And this one cannot be explained away by Arndt's argument about genitive and accusative cases following akouo. See Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p.133.
There really is no reason people should still be questioning whether the Bible has contradictions. See more examples at bibleblunders.com or atheistsbiblecompanion.com or just read the Bible.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-19-2008, 08:53 PM	#234
thentian Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Norway Posts: 694	Ack, I'm afraid our friend DLH has left us for happier hunting grounds, one's where people don't go around actually checking his claims!

08-04-2008, 07:09 PM	#237
mike.davis Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 9	If you read the Bible, and pay attention, the contradictions just jump out at you. A few examples: 1) Acts 26:23 says that the Christ would be the first to rise from the dead, but Lazarus (John 11:43-44), Jairus's daughter (Mark 5:22-24; 35-43), and the widow's son (Luke 7:12-15) were already raised from the dead before Jesus; 2) Should we pray in public? No (Matthew 6:6); Yes (1 Timothy 2:8); 3) Jesus says "I spoke nothing secretly." (John 18:20) BUT: Jesus previously told his disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (Matthew 16:20) 4) Did Paul's traveling companions on the road to Damascus hear the voice from the sky? Yes (Acts 9:7), No (Acts 22:9) And this one cannot be explained away by Arndt's argument about genitive and accusative cases following akouo. See Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p.133. There really is no reason people should still be questioning whether the Bible has contradictions. See more examples at bibleblunders.com or atheistsbiblecompanion.com or just read the Bible.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.