101 Contradictions in the Bible

[FreezBee]

This seems like a reasonable question actually:

And the answer is not far away:

Regarding the reckoning of time in the gospel accounts, what one must do is look at the various places where the "hour" is mentioned, and make a chart, placing that numbering system alongside clear cues as to time of day, such as 'dawn', 'early morning', 'night', 'noon' etc.

When this is done, several things do indeed become apparent. The gospel writers do appear to be using different methods of time measurement.

For instance, (for a starting point), Jesus says, "are there not 12 hours in a day?", whereas we might say something like, "are there not 24 hours in a day?".

In early times, "hours" were apparently based upon Roman 'watches' during the Occupation of Palestine in Jesus' time. A 'watch' seems to be roughly a 2 or 3 hour period.

The Greek word rendered 'hour' should not probably be taken as equivalent to modern time reckoning, since there may have been Sundials, but not 'clocks'.

Again, There may have been a difference between Jewish methods of keeping time and Roman ones (or Greek traditions from the previous empire), and the documentation for this may be found in studies on timekeeping and clock manufacture.

In other places in the gospels there are clues to a different set of scales, such as the '3rd hour' apparently being dawn, (= 6 o'clock?)

I hope this helps. You are likely to run into apologetic arguments attempting to 'harmonize' the gospel accounts, but a better start from a scientific point of view would be to begin with actual Greek, Roman, and Jewish timekeeping practices and archealogical timepieces from the period.

Hi Nazaroo

While I agree with your points here, I do see a problem. How do we know what all these words meant? Did Jesus mean 12 watches in a 24 hour day? Or did Jesus mean 12 hours daylight? The Romans used hour glasses to measure hours, so it's not as if an hour wasn't an hour to them -- at least sometimes.


- FreezBee

[John Powell]

ApologiaPhoenix:
John used the Greek form of reckoning time instead of the one the Jews used. First one explained.

POWELL:
So, suppose the person said "The sixth hour of the day." If the person were a Jew then what time would he mean? If the person were a Greek then what time would he mean?

ApologiaPhoenix:
Judas hung himself and his body fell and splattered all over the field. No contradiction there.

POWELL:
AFAICT, both Matthew and Luke noticed an omission in Mark: no end for the betrayer, Judas. So, they looked in the O.T. for the solution. They each found a different scripture and used what they found to give an end to Judas. Unfortunately for inerrantists, the solutions they came up with were different. Inspired by one O.T. passage, in Matthew's version, Judas tosses the money, hangs himself, and the priests use the money to buy a field. Inspired by a different O.T. passage, in Luke's version, Judas buys a field, falls in it, and explodes.

If Luke had meant that Judas hanged himself and then fell and exploded then he should have said so.

John Powell

[John Powell]

Nazaroo:
This seems like a reasonable question actually:

And the answer is not far away:

Regarding the reckoning of time in the gospel accounts, what one must do is look at the various places where the "hour" is mentioned, and make a chart, placing that numbering system alongside clear cues as to time of day, such as 'dawn', 'early morning', 'night', 'noon' etc.

When this is done, several things do indeed become apparent. The gospel writers do appear to be using different methods of time measurement.

POWELL:
Huh?

Nazaroo:
For instance, (for a starting point), Jesus says, "are there not 12 hours in a day?", whereas we might say something like, "are there not 24 hours in a day?".

POWELL:
Well, there are 12 hours in a day (on average). You do realize that there's a difference between day and night, yes?

Nazaroo:
In early times, "hours" were apparently based upon Roman 'watches' during the Occupation of Palestine in Jesus' time. A 'watch' seems to be roughly a 2 or 3 hour period.

POWELL:
Huh? AFAICT, the day was divided into hours and the night into watches. We now divide both into hours.

Nazaroo:
The Greek word rendered 'hour' should not probably be taken as equivalent to modern time reckoning, since there may have been Sundials, but not 'clocks'.

POWELL:
Huh? Their hour should be taken as roughly the same as our hour. However, near winter solstice their hours (of the day) would be shorter than a standard hour and near summer solstice their hours (of the day) would be longer than the standard hour.

Nazaroo:
Again, There may have been a difference between Jewish methods of keeping time and Roman ones (or Greek traditions from the previous empire), and the documentation for this may be found in studies on timekeeping and clock manufacture.

In other places in the gospels there are clues to a different set of scales, such as the '3rd hour' apparently being dawn, (= 6 o'clock?)

POWELL:
Huh? Where is that indicated?

Nazaroo:
I hope this helps. You are likely to run into apologetic arguments attempting to 'harmonize' the gospel accounts, but a better start from a scientific point of view would be to begin with actual Greek, Roman, and Jewish timekeeping practices and archealogical timepieces from the period.

Peace,
Nazaroo

POWELL:
What would that scientific study produce?

John Powell

[Nazaroo]

Hi Nazaroo

While I agree with your points here, I do see a problem. How do we know what all these words meant? Did Jesus mean 12 watches in a 24 hour day? Or did Jesus mean 12 hours daylight? The Romans used hour glasses to measure hours, so it's not as if an hour wasn't an hour to them -- at least sometimes.


- FreezBee

Greetings, FreezBee!

You are right in that the text as it stands appears ambiguous.

However, apparently Powell (see post above) thinks there were two different ways of keeping time, one for day, and the other for night. I'd like to see his evidence for this claim, but if true, then "12 hours in a day" could likely mean daylight hours, making the NT "hour" closer to modern sizes of "hour" (i.e. one hour long).

[FreezBee]

Greetings, FreezBee!

You are right in that the text as it stands appears ambiguous.

However, apparently Powell (see post above) thinks there were two different ways of keeping time, one for day, and the other for night. I'd like to see his evidence for this claim, but if true, then "12 hours in a day" could likely mean daylight hours, making the NT "hour" closer to modern sizes of "hour" (i.e. one hour long).

Yes, I read Powell's post, but I cannot say if he is right. Would the night be counted in watches? But even accepting that, how did the Romans know, how long a watch was?

- FreezBee

[rizdek]

Regardless how this debat comes out regarding whether the bible is inconsistent or if we just don't understand what was written well enough to judge, hopefully all debating here understand that an hour in the time period jesus was supposed to have lived and up to around 1300 was an elastic unit that was determined by the sun. They assumed 12 hours in a day, but the hours would be of different lengths depending on the latitude and the time of the year.

source: The Discoverers by Daniel Boorstin chpt5

[rizdek]

If such a diverse book, written by so many people over so many years were not inspired by God, why can't you find much more glaring and important "contradictions?"

To the atheists, agnostics and realists in general. Yes indeed why not focus on the real absurdity. These trifling little contradictions are just for fun. The real absurdity has to do with the christian god's need for BLOOD! Starting in Genesis, two offerings are brought, one is meat (with BLOOD) the other is grain or something. Anyways, god rejects the non-BLOOD; no reason given. The only difference, one is BLOOD the other isn't.

Then there are whole chapters in the bible almost solely dedicated to explicitly show how the Israelites are supposed to prepare their sacrifices of BLOOD. It's like this god can't get enough BLOOD. Did you ever read the dedication of the temple...how many animals were slaughtered to get enough BLOOD? Check out 2 Chron 7.

Then of course after the people spent thousands of years flaying and roasting livestock which god knew would never suffice, god's plan comes to fruition and along comes god's own son to be THE sacrifice of all time...and what's important? The BLOOD. Jesus is whipped until he bleeds, he's nailed to a cross so he bleeds, and then he's stabbed in the side so he bleeds. All part of god's wonderful plan. Think about it, the jews and romans didn't sacrifice Jesus, god sacrificed Jesus. God sacrificed himself to himself to pay for sins against himself.

What's with that? How does shedding BLOOD make god feel better about sin? It's like Jesus is the whipping boy, the scapegoat, or the sin-eater. He suffers so we don't have to. That's god's justice. Hell isn't for sinners, it's for those that reject the BLOOD of Jesus. The most heinous sinner....rapists, murders, abusers, anyone can, with sentence be covered by this BLOOD and spend an eternity in heaven right along side the church-goers and bible-readers. They don't have to be forgiven, they already are forgiven, they just have to accept the gift.

And christians eat this stuff up...literally. Can you believe christians celebrate this human sacrifice in a ritual known as communion every week, every month, every three months, whatever? They actually pretend they drink the BLOOD of Jesus and eat his flesh.

Lets' go back to the beginning. Here's god. He's so powerful that he can, with a thought create matter and energy, spread the universe across 10s of lightyears. From that matter and energy he creates life and even consciousness. The most powerful, intelligent, just person imagineable...not even imagineable, he's infinitely powerful, intelligent and just. Then how does he spend his time using this life and consciousness he created? The conscious (humans) have to take the life (BLOOD) of the created to continually appease the god that created it all originally. Talk about your biggest nonsense story.

Let me emphasize, the whole "people must shed BLOOD of livestock" and Jesus must "shed BLOOD" wasn't an after-thought that god came up with when he realized humans would...well, behave like humans. He created them that way on purpose. It wasn't just intelligent design, it was intentional design. He, Jesus and the Holy Spirit actually planned it all before creation, it's scriptural (Genesis 1:1 the word god is plural meaning to christians the trinity) and 1 Peter. They were all there and come up with the plan together. It's like they implemented it all so god could get his BLOOD fix forever. It seems the only reason god made the earth is he liked the idea of BLOOD flowing and meat from sacrifices being burned.

So stop already with the little trivial "contradictions" here and there and focus on the big BLOOD absurdity.

[dianalee4jc]

Rizdek... if my daughter does something wrong and I have to find a means of disciplining her--taking away television time or depriving her of her allowance, for example--it would make no sense at all to deprive her of something that didn't matter to her. I can't tell my daughter, "Pay me ten flower petals as punishment for your bad deed, and we'll call it square."

Blood didn't matter to God, it mattered to man.

Paying in livestock, at a time when a person's worth and livelihood depended on livestock, made the sacrifice significant. (Thus, the word "sacrifice." Man gave up something to pay for his sins.) Then along came the ultimate sacrifice that would end the entire system, paying for our sins once for all... Jesus. When we celebrate communion we don't re-sacrifice Jesus, we use a ritual symbolic of what He did on our behalf, to remember and honor him.

What God wants of us, what matters to Him, is faith and submission to Him... not blood.

Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced ;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require.

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

(Repeated numerous times in the New Testament, including words spoken by Jesus.)

[rizdek]

Rizdek... if my daughter does something wrong and I have to find a means of disciplining her--taking away television time or depriving her of her allowance, for example--it would make no sense at all to deprive her of something that didn't matter to her. I can't tell my daughter, "Pay me ten flower petals as punishment for your bad deed, and we'll call it square."

Blood didn't matter to God, it mattered to man.

Paying in livestock, at a time when a person's worth and livelihood depended on livestock, made the sacrifice significant. (Thus, the word "sacrifice." Man gave up something to pay for his sins.) Then along came the ultimate sacrifice that would end the entire system, paying for our sins once for all... Jesus. When we celebrate communion we don't re-sacrifice Jesus, we use a ritual symbolic of what He did on our behalf, to remember and honor him.

What God wants of us, what matters to Him, is faith and submission to Him... not blood.

Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced ;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require.

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

(Repeated numerous times in the New Testament, including words spoken by Jesus.)

It is clear from the OT (except for the few OT scriptures you pointed out) that blood sacrifice was expected acording to the bible. In no way was that just a "token" of something valuable. in Genesis 4 we see:

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor.

This clearly contradicts your supposition since Cain's sacrifice was not accepted but was just as valuable. I have heard the supposition that Cain did not bring his sacrifice with the right attitude, but that is pure conjecture. The only difference according to the scripture is that one was a blood sacrifice, the other wasn't.

Anyways, I could easily accept that the OT writers were mistaken in their understanding of what their God really wanted. But why then did God require a blood sacrifice of Jesus? What good did it do God to have Jesus killed? Clearly it was the shedding of blood that was important. That is what is celebrated in communion.

consider: John 6:52-54
52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Ephesians 2:12-14
12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Hebrews 10:18-20
18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. 19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

Hebrews 13:11-13
11For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. 12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

1 Peter 1:1-3
1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

1 John 1:6-8
6If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Revelation 1:4-6
4John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; 5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

These are "in context" clear references to the importance Jesus, as the son of the Christian God, places on his own BLOOD as the thing, and the only thing, that will cleanse us from our sins. So, your's is just an attempt to euphomize it as just "something valuable" that needs to be given so we'll feel the loss. That only masks the incredible barbarity of the foundation of the Christain religion. Besides if it needs to be something "valuable" to us that we "pay" to atone for our sins, how is God sacrificing himself as his son to himself supposed represent that "valuable thing we have to give up" like the ancient Hebrews giving up their valuable lambs or your daughter being forced to give up her TV? It seems it completely disqualifies your explanation. How useful would it be for you to "get your daughters attention" by you forcing yourself not to watch TV for a week when she did something bad?

No, Christians need to understand theirs is one of those "blood sacrifice" religions in which the only way to pacify their God is for something or someone to suffer really badly to atone for sin. If that gives you comfort, so be it, but don't redefine it, don't euphomize it into something civilized.