Originally Posted by Roland

This is why I find it hopeless and pointless even discussing contradictions with Bible defenders; they just make things up as they go along. "Thomas apparently leaves..." Apparent to you maybe but certainly not to anyone else reading the text. I mean, I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't leave in the middle of a tale from a couple of guys had just arrived all breathless claiming to have seen a person I loved and worshipped and whom I believed to be dead miraculously walking around and having a conversation with them (the text says that Jesus appeared to them all "while they were telling these things"). That must have been one pressing engagement Thomas had.

It's amazing how many people just drop silently out of these narratives when convenient (the same with Mary M in the resurrection account). Since John records this as having taken place in a locked room with the disciples cowering in fear of the authorities, it seems odd that Thomas would go wandering outside at just the crucial moment when Jesus makes his grand appearance, but, hey, when you gotta go you gotta go, I guess.

Originally Posted by Roland

I'm not sure if you are one of those who believes Mark 16:9-20 is part of the inspired Bible or not, but whoever wrote this passage also clearly believes that Jesus appeared to the eleven:

14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Well, what does the text tell us. We read that the men traveling to Emmaus returned and spoke to the "eleven." We then read that Jesus appeared to the same group after that but that Thomas was not there. You conclude that we make up the idea that Thomas had left. I stand amazed at the illogic used to contrive contradictions that do not exist.

Do you attach no significance or meaning to the word, "Later," at the beginning of the verse? Do words mean nothing to you? Does Luke refer to the "ten" reclining at the table? Gather the facts, put them together and let them tell the story especially as it relates to the presence or absence of Thomas.

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then regathered to its homeland. It's political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the "lowliest of kingdoms." No self-respecting biblicist, however, would allow minor details like these to deter him in his insistence that the Bible is inerrant, so all sorts of attempts have been made to show that this is not a prophecy failure.

The fulfillment is yet future: Some inerrantists admit that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, but they insist that it will be someday. This explanation ignores some rather explicit language in the prophecy. It began with Yahweh telling Ezekiel to "set [his] face against Pharaoh king of Egypt" and "to prophesy against him" and to say, "Behold I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (29:2-3). Specific language is also directed to "Pharaoh king of Egypt" in 30:21-22, 25; 31:2, 18; and 32:2, 31-32. Furthermore, the prophecy was very clear in stating that this desolation of Egypt would be done by Nebuchadnezzar, who would be "brought in to destroy the land" and to "fill the land with the slain" (30:10-11). Needless to say, the rule of the pharaohs ended in Egypt centuries ago, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead even longer, so if the total desolation of Egypt and scattering of its population did not happen in that era, it is reasonable to say that the prophecy failed. Inerrantists, however, are not reasonable when the integrity of the Bible is at stake, so some will go so far as to say that even though the rule of the pharaohs has ended, it will be restored someday, at which time Yahweh will bring about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, possibly by a ruler who will come from the same region as Nebuchadnezzar.

Although seriously proposed by some inerrantists, this "explanation" is such a resort to desperation that it hardly deserves comment. It makes Yahweh a petty, vindictive deity who will punish Egyptians in the distant future for something that their ancestors did, and it makes possible the explanation of any prophecy failure in any religion. Believers in the prophecy could simply say that even though it has not yet been fulfilled, it will be "someday." That type of "logic" may impress biblical fundamentalists, but rational people will see it for exactly what it is--desperation to cling to belief in prophecies that have been discredited by time.

The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This "explanation" may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view. By rationalizing that plain language in the Bible was actually "figurative," they are able to convince themselves that the prophecy was fulfilled. (2) Other proponents of the figurative view number themselves with the futurists. They accept that the prophecy was obviously predicting a total devastation of Egypt, and they admit that this has not happened yet. They use the figurative argument to explain away not the descriptions of destruction but Ezekiel's references to Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaoh's of Egypt. To them, it doesn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs are long gone, because they contend that these were only "figures" or "symbols" of the rulers who will be in power when Yahweh finally brings about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. This "explanation" of the prophecy is really no better than the one that sees a futuristic restoration of the Egyptian pharaohs and Babylon's former empire. It reduces the god Yahweh to a petty, vindictive deity who will punish future Egyptians for what their ancestors did. It's most obvious flaw, however, is that it resorts to unlikely scenarios to try to make the Bible not mean what it obviously says. In rather plain language, Ezekiel predicted a total destruction and desolation of Egypt that would last for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.

Originally Posted by Roland

Actually, words mean a lot to me. I'm the one who is reading the texts for what they actually say, not inventing scenarios out of whole cloth (Mary obviously leaves, Thomas obviously leaves) to make them fit with other versions of the story.

In Mark, the "later" comes BEFORE he appears to them. "Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating" and then rebukes THEM (meaning the eleven) for their lack of faith. But in John's scenario Jesus rebukes only ten of them while they're eating, not eleven, since he chastises Thomas separately and at another time. Therefore, either Mark or John has the story wrong.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Why did God tell a lie? At the very least, God was deceptive. A loving, perfect God would never be deceptive.

Please be advised that I have many more Bible contradictions to discuss.

Originally Posted by aa5874

This one is just plain dumb. The soldiers are to tell people that Jesus body is stolen, while Jesus is appearing alive to the disciples.

Matthew 28.12-13, "And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, his disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.

Originally Posted by Gullwind

I've always liked Ahaziah's age difference between II Kings 8and II Chronicles 22. The newer translations correct it, but it's quite entertaining to watch a KJVO'r try to work out how a guy could be two years older than his father is when his father dies. It's also such a simple mistake - just a wrong number written down somewhere along the line, but it is so effective against innerrantists, because they can't even have that.

Another one is the different accounts of what happened to Saul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9 versus Acts 22). What did those with him see and hear?

Originally Posted by figuer

1. That there are two different versions of the creation of men.

2. That there are two conflicting genealogies of Jesus that both end in Joseph (who wasn't his father).

Originally Posted by Father Gottisttot

I'm particularly fond of the first one I ever found, on my own when I was still a bible-thumper. I was in the midst of reading the four gospels for my theology class when I noticed that one gospel (Matthew 12:30) had Jesus saying "All who are not with me are against me." and then another (Mark 9:40 and later Luke 9:50) had him saying "All who are not against me are with me." That was the very first step on my road to atheism.

Though it is not a contradiction, I am also fond of the story of the rotten underwear found in Jeremiah 13, especially verse 11 wherein god basically calls himself a divine wedgie.

Originally Posted by username

For me it's "For God so loved the world that..." he sends tsunamis to wipe out millions of people as a punishment for the US tolerating gays.

Originally Posted by tjakey

I like the two completely different accounts of creation in the first two chapters of the book...good start, that.

The two different ways that Judas died. God must have been really pissed to kill that poor fucker twice, two different ways.

And then there are the different stories surrounder the first Easter Sunday. The most important even of all human history, (if you believe the fundies) and they couldn't get the story straight.

Originally Posted by OneInFundieville

A quick read through all the verses that use the word "mercy" should do the trick.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...lewordsonly=no

Can't imagine how hard it used to be to study the Bible before all these online tools.

Originally Posted by Atheos

As a general rule I like numeric contradictions. Numbers don't lie and can't be explained away.

Matthew makes a big deal about 14 + 14 + 14 = Number of generations from Abraham to David, David to Babylonian Captivity, Babylonian Captivity to Jesus. But I Chronicles 3 lists 4 additional "generations" that Matthew ignores in order to come up with his magical 14's. Even Matthew's own list only adds up to 41 generations (14+14+14=42).

Mark 1 says that immediately after he was baptized Jesus went into the wilderness and was tempted by Satan for 40 days. John 1 says that the day after he got baptized (and the dove descended, as detailed also in Mark) Jesus was walking around among them and called his first two disciples, Peter and Andrew). The next day he called Philip and Nathaniel. On the 3rd day he attended a wedding in Cana of Galilee where he turned water into wine.

But I guess my overall favorite contradiction is not numeric at all. It's the silly little lie Jesus told in John 7:8 "I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come". But two verses later it says "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."

Black is White. Believe it or perish.

Originally Posted by John Kesler

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...07#post3699307

Originally Posted by waked

My favorite is the cursing of the fig tree.

Originally Posted by Gracchus

Of the four accounts of the resurrection, no two agree. And this is supposed to be the most important doctrine of Christianity.

Originally Posted by mike@jordanlawyer.co

My favorite contradiction is one that seems astonishing to me, but no one ever mentions: what were Jesus' last words, "It is finished" (John), "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" (Matthew, Mark) or "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke).

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

Several have already mentioned my favorites, such as the conflicting creation stories or the disagreements found in the Gospels. So I'll pick three others:

1) Matthew 1:16----And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

or

Luke 3:23----And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

2) In Genesis 1:25-26, God first creates beasts and then man. In Genesis 2:18-19, the order is reversed.

3) In Genesis 7:2, Noah takes seven pairs of "clean" beasts & two pair of "unclean" beasts, while in Genesis 7:8, the clean and unclean beasts as well as the fowl & the creepers are taken in pairs.......

Originally Posted by Toby Beau

Matthew's Account of the empty tomb and resurrection appearances (Matt 28)

* 2 Women go to the grave (28:1) [contradicts Mark, Luke and John]
* Stone is still in place over the tomb (28:2) [contradicts Mark, Luke and John]
* Guards are at the tomb, faint from fright (27:65-66, 28:4) [contradicts Mark, Luke and John]
* An (1) angel appears and rolls the stone away (28:2) [contradicts Mark, Luke and John]
* Jesus first meets the women and tells them to tell the brothers (28:9-10) [contradicts I Corinthians and Luke]

Plenty more where that came from!
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfvpb73w_89chngzj

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

I would agree with Miller's logic if he could prove three things: (1) an entity known as the Holy Spirit actually exists, (2) this entity known as the Holy Spirit is both omniscient and omnipotent, and (3) this Holy Spirit verbally inspired all of the writers of the Bible in everything that they wrote. Unfortunately for Miller's confidence in Bible inerrancy, these are all very big ifs, none of which he could actually prove if his life depended on it. This underscores the major problem in the Bible inerrancy doctrine: it is based on unprovable assumptions. Any belief founded on assumptions is worthless.

Even if we grant Mr. Miller the first two of his assumptions, he would still have a very high hurdle to clear in the third one. That hurdle, of course, would be to establish the truth of the biblical claim that its writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit. A claim is only a claim and must therefore be examined before its truth can be confirmed. Mr. Miller can never prove the truth of the biblical claim of divine inspiration. Claims of divinely inspired books are almost a dime a dozen. The Book of Mormon claims to be a "latter day" revelation from God; the Avesta claims that it was divinely inspired; the Koran claims that it was revealed to man by the angel Gabriel. So what evidence can Miller give us to prove that we should accept the biblical claim of inspiration over all the many others? Christian apologists have tried to give us such proof, but Miller made no attempt to do so in his article. Like so many Bible fundamentalists, he just made the claim and expected his readers to accept it. In the publication in which his article originally appeared, he could get away with this, because the paper is aimed at a predominantly fundamentalist audience. However, more rational readers, which we believe The Skeptical Review has, will insist on much more than what Mr. Miller gave them in the reprint of his article.

Miller listed three categories of "alleged"errors in the Bible and declared that the Bible has "weathered" all attempts by skeptics to prove that these are actual errors. "(T)he Bible has consistently been vindicated," he boldly asserted, "and demonstrated to possess the unequaled characteristic of internal harmony, accuracy, and consistency."

This is typical fundamentalist rhetoric. There are hundreds of Bible scholars who would instantly reject such a claim as this, because their biblical studies have made them aware of many inconsistencies and discordant themes in the Bible text. Dozens of these have been identified and discussed in The Skeptical Review, yet Mr. Miller, who is on our mailing list, has never taken pen in hand to explain to us how that these errors aren't really errors. I have challenged him to debate the inerrancy issue, but he has never responded to my letters. One has to wonder why he refuses the opportunity to discuss in public forum a doctrine that he claims is easily defendable and at the same time absolutely essential to Christianity. Could it be that his confidence in Bible inerrancy is not as resolute as he pretends when writing to a sympathetic audience?

Miller asserts that the Bible possesses an "unequaled characteristic of internal harmony" (p. 3). This is a familiar claim that makes good sermon fodder for gullible pulpit audiences, but it simply isn't true. Admittedly, there is considerable harmony in the Bible, but there is no reason to see divine intervention in this. The so-called canonical books were selected by committees and councils of rabbis, clerics, and "church fathers," who discussed and debated various books and finally selected the ones that were to be considered "inspired" or canonical. Quite naturally, the theological themes and doctrines of these books were considered before they were selected, so a high degree of harmony and consistency of themes would be expected in a compilation that had gone through such a rigid editing process. Anyone who doubts that the books of the Bible were selected in just a manner as this should read volume one of The Cambridge History of the Bible. If he should bother to read it, Mr. Miller would find historical facts about the evolution of the biblical canon that would reduce his miracle of internal harmony to nothing but sheer ordinariness.

Despite the editing process by which the canonical books were selected, the biblical text is still fraught with inconsistencies that make Mr. Miller's claim of "unequaled internal harmony" a myth that is believed only by gullible bibliolaters who haven't bothered to investigate the claim. As noted in an earlier article ("A Perfect Work of Harmony?" TSR, Spring 1990, p. 12), whoever wrote 2 Kings 10:30 obviously believed that Jehu's massacre of the Israelite royal family was the will of Yahweh, but the prophet Hosea just as obviously disagreed and pronounced a curse upon the house of Jehu to avenge the "blood of Jezreel" that Jehu shed in the massacre (Hosea 1:4). Apparently, the "inspired" prophets and biblical writers had their theological and political differences as much as modern-day religious leaders.

Any present day inerrantist would affirm with his dying breath that the book of Ezekiel was unquestionably inspired of God, yet the rabbis who made the canonical selection were of a different mind. A bitter controversy surrounded this book before it was finally selected for inclusion in the Hebrew canon. The rabbis were bothered by chapters 40-48, which contained information that was difficult to reconcile with the Torah. Ezekiel 46:6 is just one example of the problems the rabbis had to deal with in these chapters. Here Ezekiel said that the sacrifice for the new moon should consist of "a [one] young bullock without blemish, six lambs, and a ram," but the instructions for this same sacrificial ceremony in Numbers 28:11 stipulated two young bullocks, seven lambs, and a ram." The discrepancy or, if you please, lack of "internal harmony" is readily apparent to anyone who wants to see it.

At least it was apparent to the rabbis who had to decide whether the book should be considered canonical. According to Hebrew tradition, Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah retired to a room with 300 "measures of oil" and worked day and night until he arrived at explanations that would "dispose of the discrepancies" (The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, Cambridge University press, 1970, p. 134). One wonders why such an undertaking as this was necessary to decide the canonicity of a book that exhibits "unequaled internal harmony." Could it be that Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah was merely the Bible inerrantist of his day, who rather than accepting the face value of what was written spent several days searching for innovative interpretations that would make doctrinally embarrassing passages not mean what they obviously were intended to mean?

Originally Posted by rhutchin

It would help if you included the verses that you have read. I cannot find the verse in John that says that Jesus rebuked the ten while they were eating. You make a claim about what the Bible says; I look for it and don't find it. Gives us some help here and include the verses (or citations) so I (or anyone else) can follow your argument.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Iron chariots have been known to scare men so that they think that God cannot keep His promises causing them to run from battle when they should attack but they are hardly kryptonite.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK. Now put the to statements together. "Hath never forgiveness" and "is in danger." A person may have no possibility of forgiveness under some conditions but not under other conditions. A person may be in danger under certain conditions and not under other conditions. The phrase, "hath never forgiveness," can be conditioned on the surrounding text. The person who is blaspheming the Holy Spirit "hath never forgiveness" but the person who stops blaspheming the Holy spirit (by acknowledging that Christ is God) hath forgiveness.

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

And where do you get the passage that reads:" ... is in danger"? It's not in my NIV.

Originally Posted by RSV

[28] "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;
[29] but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" --

Originally Posted by Darby

28Verily I say unto you, that all sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and all the injurious speeches [with] which they may speak injuriously;

29but whosoever shall speak injuriously against the Holy Spirit, to eternity has no forgiveness; but lies under the guilt of an everlasting sin;

Originally Posted by NIV

28I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

Originally Posted by TNIV

28 Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin."