GoodK please give your top 5 biblical contradictions

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK,

I posted the entirety of both chapters in question. Feel free to copy/paste from those. They're both from BLB/KJV. If you put the verses in question in one post and restate what you see as the contradiction, I'll be glad to try to address it.

Like I stated,

Mark 15:25 - 3rd hour

John 19:14 - 6th hour

Is this clear enough for you to address yet?

And again, are you aware that 3rd hour means 9:00 AM?

GoodK,

Are you saying that Mark 3rd hour and John 6th hour for crucifixion?

If that is so, Christ isn't crucified in John at the 6th hour.

[_Jersey Girl]

And again, are you aware that 3rd hour means 9:00 AM?

Based on what, GoodK? Could you demonstrate, explain or provide a link that explains this?

[_richardMdBorn]

Major contradictions regarding Jesus:

Acts says Mary was impregnated by a man (2:30).
Matthew says she was impregnated by the Holy Ghost.

What translation are you using for Acts 2:30???? The NAS states

30"And so, because he [David]was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE,

KJV:

[30] Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Many assert that the Luke's geneology shows that Mary was a descendant of David. Thus, Jesus is a fruit of David's loins. No impregnation by a man is needed.

Seems like a stretch Richard. What is the meaning of "the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh"?

Speaking of Jesus' genealogy, Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31 can't agree on Jesus' genealogy. Matthew starts with Abraham, Luke traces his roots all the way back to Adam.

I assume that it means a descendant. And for that matter, a king like David had many kids, grandkids, etc.

[_Jersey Girl]

Speaking of Jesus' genealogy, Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31 can't agree on Jesus' genealogy. Matthew starts with Abraham, Luke traces his roots all the way back to Adam.

That one starts with Abraham and one starts with Adam, is not a disagreement, GoodK.

[_Jersey Girl]

Contradiction #1

Matthew says Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see Jesus at his tomb.
Mark says Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome were there.
John says it was just Mary Magdalene.

That Matthew says-------Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
That Mark says-----------Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome
That John says-----------Mary Magdalene

Does not rule out all three women or more women. None of the above passages state "only" the names listed were present.

John does in no way indicate that Mary Magdalene was alone. He never states that it was "just" Mary. He simply reports on Mary.

The above are not contradictions.

You don't think they are contradictions. If all three were there, then they would have been mentioned by name.

Why do you think that?

Because there is no reason, that I can see/think of, to mention one person, or two, but and not mention third. Maybe you can think of a reason.

What possible difference does it make, GoodK? That one author mentions one, two or three persons, does not rule out that all three (or more) were present.

John F. Kennedy rode in a motorcade through Dallas on November 22, 1963.

John F. Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline rode in a motorcade through Dallas on November 22, 1963.

John F. Kennedy, his wife Jacqueline, Governor John Connally and his wife Nellie rode in a motorcade through Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Governor John Connally rode in a motorcade through Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Governor John Connally and his wife Nellie rode in a motorcade through Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Governor John Connally and John F. Kennedy rode in a motorcade through Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Jacqueline Kennedy and Nellie Connally rode in a motorcade through Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Jacqueline Kennedy, Governor John Connally and his wife Nellie rode in a motorcade through Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Jacqueline Kennedy and Governor John Connally rode in a motorcade through Dallas on November 22, 1963.

And so on and so forth.

All of the above statements are true.

[_GoodK]

I assume that it means a descendant. And for that matter, a king like David had many kids, grandkids, etc.

But that doesn't make any sense. Why would he be a descendant of any man, if his father was God and his mother was impregnated by the Holy Spirit?

Why would he have any genealogy if this is the case?

[_GoodK]

Are you saying that Mark 3rd hour and John 6th hour for crucifixion?

If that is so, Christ isn't crucified in John at the 6th hour.

Really? When does John say he is crucified if not at the 6th hour? Mark clearly says he was crucified at the third hour - 9:00 AM.
John says at about the 6th hour he was delivered to be crucified. Earlier you said that John was using Roman time. If that is true, Jesus must have been chillin' for about three hours before he was delivered to be crucified-- if both passages are not in disagreement.

What possible difference does it make, GoodK? That one author mentions one, two or three persons, does not rule out that all three (or more) were present.

This is reminiscent of the same logic that you used to argue that the global flood wasn't really global, Jersey Girl.

I can't/won't adapt the way I read plain english to accomodate the way you interpret words and sentences.

Can you even come up with a plausible hypothetical scenario of why the authors give three different accounts of who was there?

Your JFK scenario isn't relevant, because we know that all of those statements are true. We don't know if any of the statements in the Gospel are true. Big difference.

And again, are you aware that 3rd hour means 9:00 AM?

Based on what, GoodK? Could you demonstrate, explain or provide a link that explains this?

You know enough about time to know John was using Roman time, but you don't know what 3rd hour means? I have a hard time believing this, Jersey Girl. Google can work wonders...

[_dartagnan]

I can't/won't adapt the way I read plain english to accomodate the way you interpret words and sentences.

And that is a problem skeptics have. They insist on reading an ancient text in "plain English" when the text was never written in plain English. There is an entire science dedicated to biblical interpretation, and the scholars are still uncovering new things that shed more light on alleged "contradictions." The Roman time as understood by John, is just one of many things that dissolves another juicy "contradiction" perceived by skeptics.

Can you even come up with a plausible hypothetical scenario of why the authors give three different accounts of who was there?

I think it has already been provided. There are three different authors so one would expect three different accounts since neither of these authors were there they are relying on portions of the story they had been told. All of these things are consistent with what we know about testimony of real events. And what you don't seem willing to accept is the fact that different accounts are not necessarily contradicting accounts.

I have a police detective in my family, and what amazes him is how so many eye witnesses can give different accounts of the same event. Three men charge into a bank and overrun it at gunpoint. One witness in the back only sees two men and describes them as black men. Another witness describes the culprits as 6'1" at 200 lb Mexicans, whereas another witness who was laying on the floor perceived them to be around 6'5" 280 lbs. Now imagine how much more we should expect the testimonies to differ if the documented testimonies were given second hand!

[_GoodK]

The Roman time as understood by John, is just one of many things that dissolves another juicy "contradiction" perceived by skeptics.

Even if John used Roman time, that still leaves a three hour discrepency between the stories.

Now imagine how much more we should expect the testimonies to differ if the documented testimonies were given second hand!

You are right, and we wouldn't/shouldn't believe them without other evidence. You seem to be implying that because they are inconsistent, they should be believed. That doesn't make much sense to me. If this were a court of law, there would be more than enough reasonable doubt regarding the Jesus myth.

[_dartagnan]

Even if John used Roman time, that still leaves a three hour discrepency between the stories.

Here is what my buddy JP wrote about this:

"Contradiction is sometimes alleged in that Mark reports the crucifixion at the third hour (Mark 15:25) while John says the sixth. The basic reply is that Mark and the other synoptics are using Jewish time (sunset to sunset; third hour = 9 AM); John is using Roman time, which is like ours (sixth hour = 6 AM - note that John says about the sixth hour; he's estimating). (The former method is still used in the Middle East, and we and other Western nations use the latter.) We know from the Synoptics that the crucifixion took over 6 hours. If John's sixth hour is really the Jewish sixth hour - noon, as unfortunately, even the Living Bible says - then the crucifixion lasted past the time when the Sabbath started. John 19:31 says that the Jews didn't want the bodies left up over the Sabbath, which obviously means that the Sabbath hadn't started yet. So either John is giving us an extraordinarily short crucifixion, or he is giving us the time in Roman. Since crucifixions were usually extended affairs, the latter assumption is more valid."

So there seems little doubt that John was using Roman time, and he estimated the time of the crucifixion which was reasonable since it was an event that lasted many hours. These kinds of skeptical arguments only serve to refute the idiots who insist God wrote an inerrant text here. Hardly anyone believes that sense of inerrancy anymore.

You are right, and we wouldn't/shouldn't believe them without other evidence.

That isn't what I said, so how can I be right? You asked for a hypothetical scenario and I provided. The fact is these discrepancies are not contradictions, and these are exactly what one would expect from testimonies of real events. If the entire thing was a concocted fable, one wouldn't expect varying versions at all. It would have been masterminded and put into harmony as most fictitious stories are. How many wolves are involved in the "three little pigs"? How many reindeer does Santa have? Are there contradicting accounts? Of course not. Because they are fictions that were designed. They are not based on real events.

You seem to be implying that because they are inconsistent, they should be believed

No, they are consistent. The gospels are overwhelmingly consistent. But there are some minor details that vary in the accounts. These are expected if these are accounts of true events. If someone masterminded the whole legend of Jesus, one wouldn't expect any discrepancies.

If this were a court of law, there would be more than enough reasonable doubt regarding the Jesus myth.

The same court of law that set OJ free?