101 Contradictions in the Bible

[Sparko]

pat if you take out the word "second" and "twice" in the Markian account, then the cock doesn't crow after the first denial, or the second. The earlier manuscript don't have those words in there.

66While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. 67When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him.
"You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus," she said. 68But he denied it. "I don't know or understand what you're talking about," he said, and went out into the entryway.


ONCE.


69When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, "This fellow is one of them." 70Again he denied it.


TWICE





After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean."

71He began to call down curses on himself, and he swore to them, "I don't know this man you're talking about."

THREE TIMES.


72Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: "Before the rooster crows twice you will disown me three times." And he broke down and wept.

Why do you think there are so many denominations? There’s all kinds of disagreement about what the Bible says concerning salvation and doctrine.

Differences in how people interpret what the passages might mean, but that is not a contradiction or error in the bible. That is disagreement from the readers.

Why don't you show me some real contradictions in serious parts of the bible instead of stupid copy errors or numerical differences?

[Teallaura]

To Minn:


My last post was over the line. I apologise.

-Teallaura

[Minnesota]

My last post was over the line. I apologise.

-Teallaura

I understand. Don't give it another thought.

[lilpixieofterror]

Thanks so much. I just love it when Christians unwittingly make my case for me.

This should be great.

You have worded it very nicely. They don’t claim the copies we have are without error. Obviously they’re not without error.

Still waits for a point... of course we'll see the card, 'we don't have the orgionals, so we don't know if they are without error.' However; it seems our fundy atheist friend has never heard of textual critism (you know, the process we use to find out what the orgional said). Don't expect any answers on this post, he's too busy trying to salvage his destroyed pride...

blah blah blah..

The rest of his post is just a long ramble like we see above, so the answer above works for the rest of his obessive ramble.

Right, and that’s basically all I’ve been saying. You made it up. Great. Enjoy your little made up beliefs that let you cling to the concept of inerrancy (which may or may not be true of the originals).

Don't expect any answers here... why grab a commentary or bother to look up word usage when you can claim to be an expert on everything! Let's all bow down to somebody who knows more than trained bibical scholars!

Once again, I don’t need excuses. Obviously you do. That’s why you say things like he hung himself on a cliff and toppled down so that he landed on his head. There is only one reason why you would come up with this fantasy death and that’s because you have to reconcile the discrepancies.

Yep, still no answer ... does not tell us why it's impossible and refuses to look at the pictures were you can clearly see all the hills and cliffs in the area? When will he tell us where Acts says Judas died by having his insides spill out? How long till he learns, not to mess with me? I don't think the world will ever know...

Well since you’ve already admitted it above I won’t need to bother any more.

Yep, hear that people! The old card, "You are lucky I even pay attention to you, stupid!" Don't expect any answers to any objections... this would require some research and study...

Great, so we are in agreement then that the Bible that I can pick up at my local Christian Book and Music Store contains copies that have errors, right? I’m cool with that. Glad we can agree.

Still no answer, just the card, 'The English translations are in error' as if God is under some kind of obligation to make perfect English translations.

Pointing out contradictions isn’t anything to cry over. It’s kind of a fun sport. Having you agree that the Bible contains flawed copies which contain errors is just great.

And having you refuse to read these things called 'scholars' or 'commentaries' is a fun sport too. Will you ever answer me? Will you ever get it though your thick skull that we know this maybe a transcribe error becuase we find the word different in other manuscripts? I'm also waiting for you to tell us why God is under obligation to provide perfect, manuscripts... free from error... Anyone want to take a guess what trick he'll pull out of his hat for this?

Oh I wouldn’t ignore that. That’s one of the reasons why there are contradictions in this flawed book.

Yep, hear this people! He's done all the research in the area of bibical study and is far more of an expert than trained Bibical scholars! Such as Matthew Henery's commentary or Bruce Metzger. When did you find the time to do all this?!

Sure, because Jerusalem has hills that means Judas hanged himself on the side of one? Try one of those logic classes. I can assure you it’ll help.

Here is the real translation, "I'm just making up evidence as I go along, I'll now say that logic disproves her case, will I prove it? Nope, Becuase who needs to give explinations?! Just claim to be an expert on everything." I'm sure next he'll 'logical' explain why it is impossible for a rope or tree branch to break and for Judas to roll down a hill...

And of course we have for a third time you ignoring my favorite contradictions. Do you realize you have no credibility left?

Translation: "Ouch you gored my ox, so I'll tack this on at the end to salvage my lost pride." Don't expect any answers from Pitchforkpat, he's far too busy thinking God is under obligation to provide perfect error free translations, to do his homework before he opens his mouth. Thanks for another lession in 'open mouth insert foot'.

Crystal

[Sparko]

eh, I figure Pat is just young and clueless. I was once that way myself to my embarassment. One day he may come to realize the truth. We can only pray. The rest is up to God and Pat.

[lilpixieofterror]

eh, I figure Pat is just young and clueless. I was once that way myself to my embarassment.

I'm only 22 and I know how to take 15 minutes to look up something before I open my mouth. I don't find it that hard to do... Maybe it's that whole 'male pride' thing?

One day he may come to realize the truth. We can only pray. The rest is up to God and Pat.

Maybe, as soon as he get's past the question, "Why doesn't God provide perfect, error free translations?" All we can do is pray... .

Crystal

[Sparko]

girls mature faster than boys.

[Pitchforkpat]

pat if you take out the word "second" and "twice" in the Markian account, then the cock doesn't crow after the first denial, or the second. The earlier manuscript don't have those words in there.

Either you don’t really know what you’re talking about or you’re being deceitful. It sounds good if you say “earlier” manuscripts don’t have those words, but that’s not accurate at all. All the footnotes say is that “some early manuscripts” don’t have this word or that word. Again you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say that only the originals were without error, and yet you try to explain this one away.

Your problem is that in order for their not to be a contradiction you’d have to have the stars all lining up for you. It says some early manuscripts say “he said, and went out into the entryway and the cock crowed.” This is actually all I need to prove a contradiction because that would mean the cock crowed after the first denial. But the Bible also says later “and the cock crew a second time” and Jesus says “Before the rooster CROWS TWICE”. The fact that SOME early manuscripts don’t have “and the cock crew a second time” and others don’t have “crows twice” does not mean you have solved the problem. The only way to avoid the contradiction would be if a manuscript existed that didn’t have “went out into the entryway the cock crowed” and also didn’t have “the cock crewed a second time” and also didn’t have “before the rooster crows twice.” Does such a manuscript exist? What manuscript is this that omits all three? Mark’s version simply does NOT agree with Johns. You have to play around to try to make it fit. I don’t have to play around with anything because I don’t claim inerrancy. I think your fallback position of the non-existent originals being without error is your best bet. That way no one can challenge your belief.

It really doesn’t make sense for you to try and explain the cock crowing problem away and yet tacitly admit by omission that the demon example is a contradiction.

eh, I figure Pat is just young and clueless. I was once that way myself to my embarassment.

Don't flatter yourself. Try explaining away the demoniac discrapancy and I'll explain why that doesn't work either. They're excuses that work for you because you need to believe it. You may not be young any more, but you're still clueless.

[Pitchforkpat]

I'm only 22 and I know how to take 15 minutes to look up something before I open my mouth. I don't find it that hard to do... Maybe it's that whole 'male pride' thing?

Well why haven’t you taken the time to look up rules of grammar and sentence structure so that you don’t keep making the embarrassing errors you’ve made in this thread. I even pointed a malapropism out to you (like you’d heard of that word) and you committed it again in the following post.

Maybe, as soon as he get's past the question, "Why doesn't God provide perfect, error free translations?" All we can do is pray

And why didn’t he? It would make your case stronger if the writers God had chosen to ‘dictate’ his word to had gotten all their facts straight. That would make your whole fabricated belief system more believable. As it is, it’s full of holes.

[Sparko]

Either you don’t really know what you’re talking about or you’re being deceitful. It sounds good if you say “earlier” manuscripts don’t have those words, but that’s not accurate at all. All the footnotes say is that “some early manuscripts” don’t have this word or that word. Again you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say that only the originals were without error, and yet you try to explain this one away.

You are making no sense. I said that the earlier manuscripts didn't have the words second and twice in them. I was referring to the manuscripts mentioned in the footnotes.

Your problem is that in order for their not to be a contradiction you’d have to have the stars all lining up for you. It says some early manuscripts say “he said, and went out into the entryway and the cock crowed.” This is actually all I need to prove a contradiction because that would mean the cock crowed after the first denial. But the Bible also says later “and the cock crew a second time” and Jesus says “Before the rooster CROWS TWICE”. The fact that SOME early manuscripts don’t have “and the cock crew a second time” and others don’t have “crows twice” does not mean you have solved the problem. The only way to avoid the contradiction would be if a manuscript existed that didn’t have “went out into the entryway the cock crowed” and also didn’t have “the cock crewed a second time” and also didn’t have “before the rooster crows twice.” Does such a manuscript exist?

Again you don't bother reading the footnotes. The footnote In Mark 14:68 says: Mark 14:68 Some early manuscripts entryway and the rooster crowed

So in this case SOME early manuscript do have "and the rooster crowed"

So you want to claim that SOME early manuscripts that don't have "twice, or "second time" don't count, but that SOME early manuscripts that have "entrance and the rooster crowed" do count.

You are as biased as you claim I am.

It really doesn’t make sense for you to try and explain the cock crowing problem away and yet tacitly admit by omission that the demon example is a contradiction.

There is no contradiction. Ommision is not contradiction. Its omission. Get a dictionary.

You may not be young any more, but you're still clueless.

How old are you pat?

[Pitchforkpat]

You are making no sense. I said that the earlier manuscripts didn't have the words second and twice in them. I was referring to the manuscripts mentioned in the footnotes.

No, you’re not getting it. I’ll go over it again and see if you understand the real question, a questions that you either ignored unconsciously or deliberately.

Stop repeating your assertion that “earlier manuscripts” didn’t have the words “second” and “twice” as if ALL earlier manuscripts didn’t and earlier ones are more reliable. You need to read the footnotes more carefully. First of all it says SOME earlier manuscripts. That means some earlier ones do have “a second time” and “twice”. Now once again here’s your problem.

The footnotes in question refer to words and phrases INDIVIDUALY. They are not taken as a team. Nowhere that I see does it say that some earlier manuscripts omitted “and the cock crowed,” and “a second time” and “twice”. In order for there not to be a contradiction in some manuscript somewhere, it would have to omit all three. My question to you is do you know of any where all three are omitted?

So in this case SOME early manuscript do have "and the rooster crowed"

Yes and they, therefore, contain a contradiction. When you come up with your manuscript that omits all three, then you may have one with no contradiction.

There is no contradiction. Ommision is not contradiction. Its omission. Get a dictionary.

There’s no contradiction in the Gadarene demoniac story? But you haven’t explained why you think that. Mark and Luke say there was one demoniac; Matthew says two. Who’s right? What’s the omission. If you think Mark and Luke just didn’t bother mentioning the other one, then you have to explain that with some analysis of what they wrote. It is nice and clear that in there story there was only one.

How old are you pat?

Why do you ask? It had better not be patronizing.

[Sparko]

No, you’re not getting it. I’ll go over it again and see if you understand the real question, a questions that you either ignored unconsciously or deliberately.

Stop repeating your assertion that “earlier manuscripts” didn’t have the words “second” and “twice” as if ALL earlier manuscripts didn’t and earlier ones are more reliable. You need to read the footnotes more carefully. First of all it says SOME earlier manuscripts. That means some earlier ones do have “a second time” and “twice”. Now once again here’s your problem.

The footnotes in question refer to words and phrases INDIVIDUALY. They are not taken as a team. Nowhere that I see does it say that some earlier manuscripts omitted “and the cock crowed,” and “a second time” and “twice”. In order for there not to be a contradiction in some manuscript somewhere, it would have to omit all three. My question to you is do you know of any where all three are omitted?

Do you know that they don't? Get real pat, you are really stretching things to keep from conceding you have no case. Nobody claims that copied manuscripts are error free. Nobody claimed that the modern bibles we have today are error free. We claim that the originals are inspired by God and innerrant. And yes, it is an article of faith. But backed up by scientific scholarship and study of the manuscripts. Using such methods we KNOW what errors there are (by comparing the thousands of manuscripts) and can say that there are no significant errors in today's bible. That's why you can only come up with silly garbage like how many times a rooster crowed and now many people were here or there.

There’s no contradiction in the Gadarene demoniac story? But you haven’t explained why you think that. Mark and Luke say there was one demoniac; Matthew says two. Who’s right? What’s the omission. If you think Mark and Luke just didn’t bother mentioning the other one, then you have to explain that with some analysis of what they wrote. It is nice and clear that in there story there was only one.

Mentioning only one does not exclude that there were two. He never says there was ONLY one demoniac. Therefore there is no contradiction. Just an omission.

Why do you ask? It had better not be patronizing.

I just want to know who I am talking to. I am 45.

[Pitchforkpat]

Nobody claims that copied manuscripts are error free.

Oh yes they do. I talk to them all the time. And if you admit this, why are you on here trying to make excuses for apparent errors, especially if you consider them to be insignificant?

We claim that the originals are inspired by God and innerrant

And again, since we can’t check, then we don’t know. It’s just a belief that you have. Enjoy.

Mentioning only one does not exclude that there were two. He never says there was ONLY one demoniac. Therefore there is no contradiction. Just an omission.

No your right, it doesn’t. However, the way it’s worded the only way you’d even imagine there’s an omission is because Matthew says two.

““And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains…And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones…But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him. And cried with a loud voice”

““When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. "What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"

You know, if you’re happy reconciling this by saying it’s an omission, that’s really fine by me. It could never work for me and, in my opinion, God would not have allowed these discrepancies in what should be his perfect book.

I just want to know who I am talking to. I am 45.

Wow, so am I. Right on the nose.

You’ve been pretty civil on this thread, Sparko. Thanks for that.

[lilpixieofterror]

Well why haven’t you taken the time to look up rules of grammar and sentence structure so that you don’t keep making the embarrassing errors you’ve made in this thread. I even pointed a malapropism out to you (like you’d heard of that word) and you committed it again in the following post.

Skeptic rule #234:

"When a Christian disproves your favorate 'contradiction' try picking on their spelling and grammar and hope that your oppent goes for your Ad Hominem so you can run away and save some face."

Sorry, not going for your bait buddy. Please tell me why you are attcking my grammar rather than my logic? Is this you trying to salvage your lost pride?

And why didn’t he? It would make your case stronger if the writers God had chosen to ‘dictate’ his word to had gotten all their facts straight.

The old "God should do what I want to exist". I'm sorry, that all you have left is a red herring and you refuse to answer my points. Trying to salvage your lost pride? How does it feel to be sent to the bottom of the sea?

That would make your whole fabricated belief system more believable. As it is, it’s full of holes.

It's funny that you have not offered any proof that your claims are true and mine are false. The only things you have done is:

1. Use an ad hominem by attacking my grammar rather than my logic.
2. Using a Red Herring (aka Emotional appeal) saying that God should make the copies error free, but offering nothing more than 'argument by outrage'.
3. Ignoring evidence that proves you are most likely mistaken or just wrong.

Basicly, you are on your last leg trying despertly to salvage whatever pride you have left... Getting mad that a 22 year old women who makes 'embarrassing errors' in grammar (Which this only goes to show that you can't answer me, so you are now scanning my post for spelling and grammar) made you look like a total fool? Thanks for giving me another trophey on my wall. Come back when you decided to open up some books and enlighten yourself.

Crystal

[Sparko]

speeling and grammir is uv teh deval.