-55 votes

3 Good Examples of Bible Errancy

- Daniel 12:2 raises the prospect of a third class of people, who will not be resurrected to a glorious afterlife, nor to an inglorious punishment, but will simply stay dead. This is not in keeping with the traditional Christian teaching on such matters, which is based on passages like John 5:28-29

UPDATE: Kudos to tfichter who has succeeded in finding a potentially valid resolution for Daniel 12:2 by using a different original language literal translation than the one I used. "tfichter"'s comment can be found here:
- http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2857934

However, because Gods chosen translators/linguists were apparently unable to correctly translate this verse for modern day Bibles, a red flag needs to be raised, that perhaps Gods original choice of words for this verse was less than perfect. Remember, God claims to have invented the languages and to know the future (this supposedly all-knowing God would therefore have foreseen this ambiguity). And how many of even todays Christians in third world countries could reasonably be expected to search out the correct meaning of this verse? Most of them do not even have access to the Internet. And we still do not know with certainty that tflichter's explanation is the correct one. It's almost as if the Bible was soliciting to receive a black eye here (this seems woefully sloppy).

- The Bible (apparently regardless of which translation we look at) clearly contradicts itself regarding Jesus' last words on the cross:
Luke 23:46 ""Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last."
John 19:30 ""It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

Note: There Can Only Be One Final Phrase Uttered. Neither of the above two verses were stated in context to possibly be the second or third to the last phrase uttered by Jesus, but rather the final phrase uttered.

- God's name Yahweh, was given to Abraham (in Genesis), and yet later (in Exodus) was stated to have been kept from Abraham and others:
Genesis 15:7 "And he said to him [Abram], I am Yahweh who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess."
Exodus 6:3 "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob [each individually], as God Almighty, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them."
[The reader can verify the use of the name Yahweh in these verses from the original Hebrew using the online Interlinear translation at http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm ]

Bonus: Christian Bible Scholar Reluctantly Says Jesus Did Not Die On Cross

- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7849852/Jesus-did-n...


The Positive Message Behind This Post:

Many organized religions, including those stemming from Christianity/The Bible, have misrepresented the most important thing in the universe, which of course is love. Without understanding the true principles of love in the proper context, humanity is helplessly hindered from achieving world peace.

This is why I wrote the article "Sowing The Seeds For A Peace Revolution". It offers the opportunity for the general public to properly understand the truth of this matter. People really ought to read this article in its entirety:

- http://www.dailypaul.com/241312/sowing-the-seeds-for-a-peace...

It is well and good if people wish to offer their two cents regarding the 3+ prospective Bible contradictions discussed throughout this thread. However, MORE THAN A THOUSAND TIMES OF GREATER IMPORTANCE is correctly understanding and applying the true essence of love.

So who then will be the first Christian to acknowledge that to this end I have INDEED spoken the truth?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What POSSIBLY Would Be The Purpose For ...

all-knowing God to have included in the Bible the words "my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to [Abraham]" if it was not intended to mean for all time prior?

What was God trying to accomplish by including these words, if it only meant for that instance? To me it would seem rather silly to include these words if it only meant for that instance.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

Of course the Bible is filled

with contradictions; it was written by fallable human beings--over a long period of time--and has been edited many times (with certain texts having been pulled / excluded for political reasons) over the intervening centuries. Whether or not the message is true, the messengers have made many mistakes--nevermind errors in translation. (Kinda why it doesn't make sense to take it as iron-clad, literal truth to every minute detail or event... no matter how beautiful, instructive, and relevant a tome it is.)

What would the Founders do?

Resident volunteer Pastor

...is needed ar DP to answer these questions and and secular humanist high commander for the evolution thinkin people imo.

donvino

Anyone who proclaims he is a pastor (teacher) is potentially...

Anyone who proclaims he is a pastor (teacher) is potentially already headed down the path to hell 2 Peter 2.

Most who claim this authority are actually just "brute beasts" 2 Peter 2:12 and Jude 1:10 with the potential to tear you to shreds...

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=brute+b...

2 Peter 2

Destructive Doctrines

2 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.

Doom of False Teachers

4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.

Depravity of False Teachers

12 But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, 13 and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, 14 having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. 15 They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet.

17 These are wells without water, clouds carried by a tempest, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.

Deceptions of False Teachers

18 For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage. 20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

----------------

Jude 1

Greeting to the Called

1 Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James,

To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ:

2 Mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you.

Contend for the Faith

3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Old and New Apostates

5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. 9 Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10 But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. 11 Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.

Apostates Depraved and Doomed

12 These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; 13 raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.

14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, 15 to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

Apostates Predicted

16 These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage. 17 But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: 18 how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts. 19 These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.

Maintain Your Life with God

20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22 And on some have compassion, making a distinction; 23 but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.

Glory to God

24 Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling,
And to present you faultless
Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,
25 To God our Savior,
Who alone is wise,
Be glory and majesty,
Dominion and power,
Both now and forever.
Amen.

.

OK

What about the secular humanist High Commander?

Surely there must be a false teacher there. We hear them on the campuses getting their 'BREAD' from so called settled science.

donvino

Does your post, have an intent or purpose?

you have just now became aware of 3?
this book has been intensely studied. for MANY years.

can YOU define what YOU believe?

and if so, what?

Just because you don't follow

Just because you don't follow any man made religion doesn't mean that you do not believe in anything. I for one believe that I can still help my fellow man, live a virtuous life, and strive for good without attending these institutions that are meant to keep us divided and attain our money through manipulation of our good nature.

Don't you see? I do believe in a god, this world and nature work in such harmony that there has to be a design. I feel that my main mission in this life is to take complete advantage of the pursuit of happiness for myself and my family. I educate myself and come to my own conclusions. I simply cannot buy all of the hypocritical arguments. They preach love and forgiveness yet point fingers at gay people, other religions, Atheists. I have looked to churches when I was younger and found most of the religious are too full of hatred for me. Jesus taught peace and forgiveness but I'm afraid that our religions breed hatred and contempt for others whose views may not match your own. Man made religion is one of the biggest breeding grounds for hatred and war. Why can't we all just strive to be good people without the guidance of another person claiming to be a messenger of God. Please

My Purpose

Apparently you missed the part of my post which stated "For more excellent examples please read my article ..."

The purpose of my post is to announce that I have now added these three contradictions to my long standing article "Sowing The Seeds For A Peace Revolution - The New Bible"

- http://www.dailypaul.com/241312/sowing-the-seeds-for-a-peace...

Believe it or not I actually believe we were designed, but it is not clear by who. Who knows, perhaps we were even genetically modified from another designed race.

The Book Darwin's Black Box makes a scientific case from the perspective of a Christian microbiologist that a human cell is irreducibly complex, and therefore had to have been designed.

For more on what I believe please read my article as I truly am on to something!

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

your wrong

first of all in Daniel, that is very in line with what the Bible teaches as if you study it out you find out one day all of mankind will stand before God and all of man kind will find out all of every mans sins except for those who found repentance. So there will certainly be lots of shame and contempt.

the "contradictions" you found in the gospel are not really contradictions. The gospels are written in themes, Jesus simply spoke both of those sentiences at the time of his death luke recorded one for his theme, and john recorded the other for his. thats one of the reason why there are lots of stories in the gospel where it only appears in one of the books, each gospel is showing a different aspect of Christ. Mathew is Jesus the King of the jews, Mark is Jesus the suffering servant, luke is Jesus the perfect man, and John is Jesus the Son of God. All were written to different audiences. Mathew was written to the jews, mark to the romans, and luke to the greeks and John was written latter to all the churches.

the last one you mention is interesting as it is actually referring to different aspects of God. Heck over 26 times in the old testament does the Bible use the phrase to know I am Jehovah. Heck throughout the scriptures there is 7 different things associated with the name Jehovah. Also in Jeremiah 16:21 it says "they shall know that my name is Jehovah" obviously they already know his name but what it is referring to is knowing a particular aspect of God through experience. In many way Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not know God like Moses and the children of Israel did so it is just simply referring to their experience with God.

I apologies as it is getting late and I do not have time to track down all the references but good night.

My Claim Still Stands Correct

The 2 phrases I cited as Jesus' last words on the cross are a contradiction regardless of how they came about. Even if one of the phrases was out of earshot to one of the two apostles, the end result shows that the Bible fell short of its own standard: "As for God, his way [or method of inspiring scripture] is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless...." (Psalm 18:30)

The last item you mention seems vague as I am not able to clearly follow what you are saying.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

they are not contradictions

they are simply two of the last phrases he said then he died it doesnt mean anything except that luke focuses on one phrase and john on another. eye witness accounts are often proven to be true because different people point out different things that they saw, in fact the best way to tell people are lying about an eye witness account is by having them say the same exact things, so two different people seeing different things during the same scene actually proves authenticity.

You need to define flawless and perfect. The Bible even though it contains history and eye witness accounts is not a history book, every word is in there for a reason, you could say all the fat has been cut out.

Basically the phrase about not knowing Gods name is found through out the old testiment and it is always referring to people not knowing a characteristic of God.

You need to take a logic class

You don't seem to know what a contradiction is..

If someone says the man was "tall", and someone else says the man was "fat", that is not a contradiction. They are just different bits of information about the same man who is tall AND fat. For it to be a contradiction, one would have to say the man was "tall", and the other would have to say he was "not tall". The two claims need to be mutually exclusive for it to be a contradiction.

Regarding Jesus, all the phrases mentioned in the different gospel accounts were part of his last words. It does not say in any of them that he "didn't" also say the phrases mentioned in other accounts, so there is no "contradiction", no mutual exclusivity. One point you should learn is that the Bible doesn't claim to be exhaustive in its history. The fact that the Bible doesn't mention Jesus going potty doesn't mean that he didn't go potty.

I would recommend that you get Gleason Archers 'encyclopedia of bible difficulties' from amazon or something if you want to see accurate handling of more difficult parts of the Bible, but what you've mentioned here could be answerable by prepubescent Sunday school students.

Also, you ought consider the philosophical principle of charity in your assessment of Christianity and biblical inerrancy: http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

There Can Only Be One Final Phrase Uttered

The two claims are mutually exclusive in my interpretation. Neither of the verses were stated in context to possibly be the second or third to the last phrase uttered by Jesus, but rather the final phrase uttered.

If it helps, truth be told, I once tested out as a logical genius, and later went on to become gifted in computer science. So thanks, but I think I'll pass on the logic class suggestion.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

...

the words 'last phrase uttered' doesn't appear in the text, so you are using some sort of eisegesis, and adding non-existent boundaries, when exegesis is the proper hermeneutic. but If his last words included all of the phrases mentioned by the different gospel accounts, each phrase could be considered some of his last words, so again, there is no mutual exclusivity. But regardless, the passages give orders of events, and they all fit together. Logic is not so much a matter of interpretation, but rather a matter of truth values. If you use eisegesis, it's like introducing new premises to an argument which aren't justified, thus you introduce your own problems ruining an argument or causing contradictions.

Assuming Everything You Say To Be True ...

... the way these two verses are presented in the Bible are sloppy at best. They could easily have been stated in a more clear and technically correct manner, and so they ultimately fail to live up to the Bible's standard of perfection.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

you mean your standard of perfection.

It's notable that you don't use a literal word for word translation in your example verses. It looks like you are using the NIV which is not the most literal type of translation. The translators of the NIV took more liberties there to convey what they think the gist of a sentence is saying:

Your choice of translation:
Luke 23:46 ""Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last."
John 19:30 ""It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

Traditionally, luke23:46 is thought to be the actual last phrase he uttered, but it is notable that in most other translations of John 19:30 the phrase "with that" does not exist. but instead it says "and".. here are a few examples:

(NASB) Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

(ESV) When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

(GSB) Als nun Jesus den Essig genommen hatte, sprach er: Es ist vollbracht! Und er neigte das Haupt und übergab den Geist.

(KJV) When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

(Geneva) Nowe when Iesus had receiued of the vineger, he saide, It is finished, and bowed his head, and gaue vp the ghost.

(DRB) Jesus therefore, when he had taken the vinegar, said: It is consummated. And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost.

(EMTV) Therefore when Jesus received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

"with that" is more inclusive than "and" which most translations use.

But despite your poor choice of translation, John 19:30 mentions that after he said "it is finished", he gave up his spirit, or his last breath, and Luke 23:46 shows that Luke 23:46 happens when he has his last breath, which is after the utterance of John 19:30:

John 19:30 ""It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
Luke 23:46 ""Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last."

You could insert Luke's account like this:

"It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit [and in giving up his spirit with his final breath he said:] "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.").

The giving up of the spirit is not exhaustively explained in John, but Luke tells more about it, and John does not say that Jesus said nothing during the giving up of his spirit, so there is no mutual exclusivity.

It's hard to say if he bowed his head while or after saying "it is finished", but it is clear that it wasn't before he said the final phrase from Luke and breathed his last .

Simon Greenleaf detailed the positive significance of the normal eyewitness accounts, and how they prove the account is more reliable than if all accounts were written exactly the same since they would then give the appearance of collusion. and if they were written the same, I'm sure you would object to that as well. What you see as imperfection in your view is actually very good from Greenleafs legal perspective.

The gospels do contradict

Who was in Christ's tomb? Depends which gospel you read.

This doesn't discredit christ or his teachings.. it only discredits fundies who need every word to be directly from god for Christ's teachings to have any meaning.

You don't seem to know what a contradiction is either

You don't seem to know what a contradiction is either.
Those accounts are complimentary, not contradictory. There is no mutual exclusivity.

Here are the verses in question:

Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

John 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

Luke 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

Matt 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

It is easily harmonized: When they entered, they saw two angels sitting, who looked like men, wearing shining garments of which at least one was white and long, then they stood up and at least one of them spoke. where is the contradiction?

You should also look into the principle of charity since it's part of a sound philosophical assessment and includes the following provision:
"We seek to understand the ideas in their most persuasive form and actively attempt to resolve contradictions. If more than one view is presented, we choose the one that appears the most cogent."
http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

Now you're claiming Mark "didn't see" the second angel.

Or was he lying by omission? Or was the account faulty? By trying to combine these stories, you've created new questions.

The truth is, these accounts were never meant to be combined--their authors had no idea the others existed, save for the sources from which any of them were compiled. I don't deny christ existed, but anyone could work all the details from entirely disparate accounts of his existence into one overwrought tale and claim it isn't contradictory. Anyone who wasn't born into a literalist interpretation.. let alone any real biblical scholar.. will beg to differ from such very personalized approximations.

Remember that your summary writeup that ties all these together was not itself in the Bible. You've in essence created your own version of the religion by trying to reconcile these different accounts.

8 -0 thats my expression sideways

wow, you really don't get it.

It doesn't say what temperature it was that day so are all of the gospels lying by omission? you didn't tell me if you ate anything while typing, so are you lying by omission? No account anywhere is completely exhaustive about every bit of information like the alignment of electrons at a given moment during a certain event being reported. A lie would have to be deception, and there is no reason to believe that there was a deception about how many angels were in the tomb. Normal human language leaves out details all of the time, you probably do it too, you might tell someone that you went to the store, but didn't see a point in telling them that you went to the gas station on the way back, does that make you a liar? Remember to use the principle of charity to avoid unfounded and unnecessary accusations. I'm amazed that you really don't know what a contradiction is. There are no mutually exclusive claims in any of the gospels, that means there are no contradictions. A vastly different account isn't a contradiction if there is no mutual exclusivity. I'll say it again to you.. you can call a man fat, and you can call the same man tall, but there is no contradiction because tall and fat do not negate each other; they are compatible concepts. If there is any possibility of harmonizing two accounts, even if that harmonization wasn't the true state of affairs, there is still no contradiction. The mere possibility of harmonization demonstrates the lack of mutual exclusivity, so it really doesn't matter how it is harmonized if all you are trying to demonstrate is that there is no contradiction. You need to take a logic class and learn the basics.

"The truth is, these accounts were never meant to be combined--their authors had no idea the others existed, "

That only adds to the reliability of the testimonies and rules out collusion. Check out Simon Greenleafs legal examination of the testimonies of the evangelists according to the rules of legal evidence of which he wrote the books used in courts.. He wasn't christian but was asked to study it under his rules and he became a christian in the process.

"It doesn't say what temperature it was that day"

Yes, but that detail wasn't actually relevant to discuss for the gospels. The facts of who all was present in the tomb and *why*, by comparison, are clearly important. How do we know this? Because otherwise not every gospel would even cover the tomb scene.

The fact still remains that your compiled version of the accounts of all four gospels is in no way Biblical; in fact, another Christian may even disagree with you on those details. That's entirely your own work. You'd have much less work to do if only you could accept that the accounts do not all need to agree on everything. There's a reason why much that appears in John is not corroborated by the others, and trying to, say, stick elements from John in the others completely loses sight of several aspects of that narrative that are unique to it.

As for lying by omission--ever heard of Secret Mark? What about the Johannine Comma? Google 'em. I bring these up not to call doubt on the gospels, but rather to show that imperfect men were present at all phases of the scribal process to mar and maul the original works.

I actually agree with you that the lack of knowledge any of the acccounts had of the others speaks to the credibility of Matthew, Mark and Luke (though keep in mind that all of three of them source much of their material from Q), but this idea of every translated and retranslated word being inspired by god and not at all tainted by the hands of men is an absolute fairy tale to anyone who's familiar with the fallibility of the scribal process throughout man's history.

You're sort of changing the subject.

You're sort of changing the subject. My point was that there was no contradiction in the text you suggested. Do you concede the point?

Each Gospel had a slightly different purpose, a slightly different audience, and slightly different perspectives. While the tomb is important in all of them, I have no reason to believe that every minutia of detail is necessary, despite your assertion.

"You'd have much less work to do if only you could accept that the accounts do not all need to agree on everything."

Not sure what you are talking about. The only thing I was doing was demonstrating that your accusation of contradiction was erroneous. It doesn't, matter if someone else wants to harmonize it a different way, it would still prove that you are wrong. I have to wonder if you really paid attention when reading my posts.

"(though keep in mind that all of three of them source much of their material from Q),"

There is no manuscript evidence for Q, it's just a hypothetical explanation of similarities in the gospels.

I know about the textual transmission, variants, and gnostic gospels. I majored in linguistics and have studied this kind of stuff at the university level. You should watch this video I mentioned to someone else: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiayuxWwuI Its a bit slow for the first 10 minutes or so though, but it might shed some light on the scribal process for you, because I think you're only seeing one slanted view of it. Nobody but KJV-only-ists thinks that translation is inspired, but translation is not an issue because we have the original language texts. The history of the Bibles open textual transmission performed by numerous fallible scribes (in many languages and places) who could make scribal errors actually adds to the reliability of the text because of the multiple lines of transmission, it allows people to see textual families and locate the source of variants and changes; the video gets into that. If a bunch of people are simultaneously making copies, and people copy those copies, it creates textual families you can compare and perform textual criticism on to reconstruct the original text despite variants and fallible scribes. The extremely large number of new testament manuscripts we have makes the new testament one of the most reliable texts of antiquity

"Do you concede the point?"

No. Those gospels don't concur. I didn't change the subject; you downplayed the importance of the details regarding who was present in the tomb and offered an account that is a cumulative, personalized understanding of the gospels that's based in your own rejection of any notion that Biblical texts could contradict. I feel as though you'll have an answer prepared for any plain contradiction I could point out in the Bible, but even then, that solution would be entirely your own--that reconciliation itself is not in the bible.

That's moreso what I was addressing: whether the gospels contradict doesn't really matter. You're combining them to conveniently quell any concept of contradiction. My assertion is that you don't need to combine aspects from stories that were not meant to be combined. None of the gospels knew about the others; certainly they would not care to be mixed with other accounts which they would have probably deemed erroneous.

"There is no manuscript evidence for Q"
yeah i know

You still don't get what a contradiction actually is.

"You're combining them to conveniently quell any concept of contradiction. "
huh? I'm combining them to refute the ONLY concept of contradiction. contradiction is not an array of concepts, it is only one specific thing. You still don't get what it is. It is something in particular, it signifies something very specific in philosophy, and the only thing that needs to be demonstrated to disprove a contradiction in logic is to demonstrate that there is no mutual exclusivity. You seriously need to take a logic class, and I don't mean that as an insult, I think you would actually benefit from one. What the uninitiated think of logic is usually erroneous, and thought to be opinions that make sense to them, but logic is much closer to math than opinions or rationalizations. You need to use truth tables, venn diagrams, etc, because you are not seeing it. It doesn't matter whether or not a man is actually fat or thin in my argument, if one calls him tall, and another calls him fat or thin, there is no "contradiction" (see definition) in either case.. if one calls him fat and another calls him thin, THEN there would be a contradiction. Why can't you get that? It is so basic a child could understand. I don't understand why you refuse to see it for what it is. Instead you think that since the account of one man saying Joe was fat was never 'meant to be combined' with another account that Joe was tall, that there is some sort of problem, and you call it a contradiction but you don't even know how to recognize one.

Did you check out the link to the principle of charity I mentioned earlier? can you demonstrate how you are using that principle?

The way I harmonized the passages is not important to my argument, I could have said there were 4 angels in the tomb and it would not contradict the passages because none of them said there were only 2 or no more than 2 angels. So if there is another way to harmonize it, it still proves non-contradiction even if the harmonization is inaccurate, but the way that I harmonized it just took explicit information from both accounts and attempted to apply the principle of charity to it, which is the proper philosophical method of assessment here. I was not adding new information to the accounts in my harmonization. You could never be a decent judge or detective if you think two accounts could never be harmonized unless they were 'meant to be combined' in some mysterious way that supposedly doesn't apply here. What is 'meant to be combined' supposed to mean? If two accounts of the same event are not meant to be combined, then what is?

also

You need to keep in mind that the authors of each of the four gospels would likely have dogmatically denied the details of the other accounts where any difference existed. Instead you're bringing all of them together for a group hug and expecting them to play nice. They don't exist to play nice with each other; they never did. They differ because details in certain cases were added or dropped where appropriate to the narrative. You are truly naive if you think scribes and communities do not alter materials in their own self-interest.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Why should anyone believe that the authors of the gospels would deny each others details? Not only is there no reason to believe that, there is reason to not believe it since they all promoted the same religion. But regardless, what you are saying is that if two witnesses to a crime don't like each other, then the judge can't consider both of their testimonies about a single crime they witnessed. But you are obviously wrong. The problem with arguing that scribes and communities altered stuff is that the biblical texts were copied with multiple lines of transmission.. they were never isolated as the Koran was at the uthmanian revision. They were copied into multiple regions into multiple languages into multiple societies and multiple continents, by every tom joe and harry who had the means to copy them. If people in the roman church corrupted it, then the churches in india established by the apostle Thomas on the malabar coast which didn't have contact with the roman church for hundreds of years would have had different gospels. They could also be compared with the manuscripts in africa, the ones in syria, turkey, etc. the corruptions would be at odds with the ante-nicean biblical quotations by the church fathers prior to canonization. and they could be compared with translations of bibles from outside of the roman church like wulfias gothic bible from around 300ad. There is no loss of the original text. Alterations, variants, and scribal errors can be seen and corrected through textual criticism because of the multiple lines of textual transmission. Even the anti-christian bible scholar bart ehrman acknowledges the tenacity of the biblical text as better than any other work of ancient history; tenacity is the ability of the transmitted text to retain the original content despite copying, isolated corruption and variants. you have no argument here.

Bad analogy. Witnesses to a crime have no investment

..in perpetrating a certain view of a story or reality. They would need to be enemies in regards to the context of the crime for that to even be an applicable comparison.

Remember that this is religion we're talking about--everyone has their own little club, nuanced interpretation, or what have you, which
also represents to that person their own individuality. Do you think the hundreds and hundreds of Christian sects extant today are each more concerned with reconciling their own emphases / interpretation with the others, or with having their own island to cling to? Certainly there won't be much squabbling among Protestants over details, but keep in mind also that these divisions would not exist without this individualistic impulse. The same is true of communities 40-200AD that tried to compile details--why would they have known of one another? If they believed their account to be so correct, why would they have cared about the others'?

"they were never isolated"--the authors of the synoptic gospels were not "isolated"? Curious definition you have of "isolated". I'd love evidence that the early schools of Christian thought each knew (or even cared) of the other schools' existence. Otherwise they sound pretty isolated to me.

And even if they were wise enough to care about accumulating other accounts, would that other account or interpretation have behooved their local community the way their existing account did? Recognize also that one's love of Christ's character in the narratives (not just his philosophy) is very often the love of one's own identification with him. Interpretation of said narrative can be more about one's self than it is about Christ.

"There is no loss of the original text"

You talk much of counter-referencing for validity, but all these examples come far after Christianity's crucial development period the first century or two after his death. Within that veiled timeframe, the details are slim. And even today, "secret mark" and the johannine comma are not common in modern bibles. (That wasn't a "loss"?) But wait, there were "multiple lines of transmission"! Well guess what, there's also a huge church that has in its own self interest the perpetration of a brand of christianity that necessitates.. a huge church, among other things. I think around here is the crux of your naivete.

"by every tom joe and harry who had the means to copy them"
And how many toms, joes and harrys were literate in the first century AD? How many of those literate toms, joes and harrys were not greek? How many in Christ's immediate presence do you think could write, let alone read?

Yeeeeah....

Once it came to any among those three dudes, it'd already been transferred orally at least couple times. You probably are thinking I'm saying this to cast doubt on Christ. I'm not. All I'm saying is, contradictions between narrative accounts are not the huge deal you're making them out to be.

"I don't expect a story teller to be explicit about every detail, but apparently you do."
These are your words: "None of them said there were ONLY two". I don't expect them to be that specific. I'm not the one who expects these stories to reconcile so cleanly. I know human stories can change quite a bit over the course of a century because human minds are imperfect media for these things. By this I can't expect all accounts to be reconcilable. Whereas in your case, none of this makes sense UNLESS all the stories can be combined: "The only new stuff in one account is from the other account". To you it's a given that these all even can be combined.

But things are not so simple--all the sacrificial lamb and Passover fullfilment overtones in John are John's alone; to the community that produced John these details would have been extremely important, while the other synoptic communities may have found these details to be a mere distraction. But from your (confused) cumulative view, all the lamb details in John would have utmost importance to the other stories. YOU project from your own modern reckoning what is important or unimportant ONTO these stories in your "harmonization" of them.

And now we have the gospel of judas. If this account were vetted and found to be from before even 200 AD, would you similarly compile its details into the others? What about the gospel of thomas? Are you simply going to discard any validity of these more recently discovered accounts to avoid cognitive dissonance?

I'm glad every day that I wasn't born into a religion which I have to cling to so tightly that any one who questions it must be treated as an enemy or a fool.

you miss the point

"But from your (confused) cumulative view, all the lamb details in John would have utmost importance to the other stories. YOU project from your own modern reckoning what is important or unimportant ONTO these stories in your "harmonization" of them."

To recap, You offered what you thought was a contradiction between gospels, I offered a harmonization to show there is no mutual exclusivity. I merely compared the texts as you compared them, only with a different conclusion. This talk of cumulative views and importance of stories is all irrelevant. It doesn't matter who wrote any of the accounts or even if they are false accounts to make my point. In a logic class you deal with arguments, some of them may have obviously untrue premises, but you accept them provisionally to examine the argument form for the purpose of learning the forms and how to recognize things like contradictions and other logical fallacies. You still don't know what a contradiction is. I don't know why your mind shuts off every time I say this: "If any harmonization is possible between truth values, even if the harmonization is not an accurate representation of what happened, and even if the accounts are not true, then there is no contradiction." I haven't really addressed whether or not the Bible is true, just that what you've offered is not a contradiction. it's a very simple point, I don't know why you over complicate it with irrelevant stuff. Perhaps you are a relativist who does not believe in truth or logic?

"Curious definition you have of "isolated". I'd love evidence that the early schools of Christian thought each knew (or even cared) of the other schools' existence. Otherwise they sound pretty isolated to me."

What are you smoking? I specifically mentioned the uthmanian revision, which is where Uthman collected all variants of the koran and burned them so that there was only one version left. Something like that never happened with the Bible. There are thousands of ancient new testament manuscripts which have been recovered from different geographic regions in different languages from different textual families showing that they were not isolated textually. If they were isolated there would not be different textual families.. as for how many scribes knew how to write, that's irrelevant because of the thousands of ancient new testament manuscripts have been found. On top of what was found, consider how many must have been lost to age, decay, and persecution of Christians, and then you might get a better idea of how many people were copying these texts they thought were from God. I've conveyed an argument from textual criticism but you've taken it as something else, bringing all sorts of irrelevant information into it. You don't seem to understand arguments very well, at least that is how you come across. Though it's also irrelevant, try reading the ante-nicean church fathers and read about the disputes Christians had over doctrine to see different schools of thought within Christianity, but I really don't think that that is what you mean by schools of thought, I'm under the impression that you have some strange mythology about church history in your head which has no basis in reality, but rather in a mangled view of anti-christian liberal scholarship.

"why would they have known of one another?"
Irrelevant again. has no bearing on harmonizing a contradiction. Aside from that, are you talking about Matthew Mark Luke,John and their scribes? The apostles ate dinner together with Jesus, they were chosen by Jesus and had fellowship together, they aren't total strangers. The gospel accounts were circulated among churches early on, this is why we have textual families in such widely different geographic regions with different textual variants in different languages. There were many groups of Christians consider those on the Malabar coast of India which were isolated from the western church and had gospels from a Syrian textual family. When they finally came in contact with the western church, they discussed things and united with them for a while until they realized they didn't totally agree on things.

"even today, "secret mark" and the johannine comma are not common in modern bibles. (That wasn't a "loss"?) But wait, there were "multiple lines of transmission"!"

I'm under the impression that you aren't familiar with the things you throw out there.. did you find these on an atheist website and just throw them out there without looking into them? The johannine comma IS in just about every bible, but they include a footnote pointing out that it is not in the oldest most reliable manuscripts. That is thanks to textual criticism and multiple lines of transmission. It is because there were multiple lines of transmission, that we are able to see that the johannine comma was a later interpolation, but again, this is totally irrelevant. Jehovas witnesses and other arians are usually the only people that care about that variant. Everything in the johannine comma is taught elsewhere in scripture. It could have been a footnote some scribe wrote in for their own personal reminder and then another scribe who copied it didn't realize it was just a note and included it in their copy, and then all subsequent copies in that textual family had it. Secret mark is a different story, but there will always be people who try to lend validity to gnostic gospels and other absurdities despite their obvious failings.

"And now we have the gospel of judas. If this account were vetted and found to be from before even 200 AD, would you similarly compile its details into the others? What about the gospel of thomas? Are you simply going to discard any validity of these more recently discovered accounts to avoid cognitive dissonance?"

I've read the gospel of Thomas and found it to contradict the biblical gospels, so in answer to your question, I would at least "compare" it even though some think the liberal scholars are wrong about it's dating, but I would not necessarily believe it is true or accurate. It has no semblance to the Thomas of the Bible or to the tradition of the churches he established in India. I will consider it before I discard it, you are the one saying that comparisons shouldn't even be considered.. but you contradict yourself because you compare gospels to allege a contradiction, but you oppose comparison to provide a harmonization of the alleged contradiction, so you have a double standard.

"the ONLY concept of contradiction"--not really

You've shown me that the idea of Biblical contradiction is one you can not stomach to the point that you think Biblical contradiction is a singular thing. It isn't. There are many contradictions within the new testament, let alone the many, many, many contradictions between the old and the new. I could bring them up but I know you'd have apologist reckoning ready for me--the idea of contradiction is precluded by your apparent belief that the entire Bible is inspired by god. You see multiple contradictions as one because you will deny this possibility no matter what.

"Why can't you get that?

none of them said there were only 2"

An account DID say there were two. It's asinine to expect it to say there were ONLY two. Who tells a story in such a way?

"Judy, Jake and I went to the movies. There were three of us."
"ONLY Judy, Jake and I went to the movies. There were NO MORE THAN three of us."

You'd seriously expect any storyteller to be this explicit? Please.

Your "harmonization"--I'm tee-heeing at that title--is a work your own. Your interpretation of the Bible is your own. Got news for you, buddy--claiming "account X decided not to mention others present in the room", as you are doing, is absolutely, undeniably inserting new information into an existing work. By combining these accounts you're creating assumptions regarding who chose to include or neglect what detail. You shouldn't condescend to me about logic if you can't even grasp this.

This is the problem with orthodox religion--everyone has their own exalted-self, and doubt towards that self-made god is taken as an insult towards the self as well. On top of that, the notion of certain authors adding elements that were not present in the original story is one entirely foreign to you.

Well, have fun with that. This discussion seems fruitless. You'll believe in your contrived, self-convenient cobbled-together account until you die.

you have no idea

You have no idea what I am talking about. When I say there is only one concept of contradiction, I am not talking about the Bible, I am talking about the fact that a contradiction is a contradiction. a Contradiction is when two points are mutually exclusive, one point has direct conflict with another, to the point that no harmonization is possible. Again, I am not talking about the Bible, I am talking about Logic.

And now to talk about the bible; contradiction does not appear in the Bible, if it did, it would be demonstrable by showing mutual exclusivity between two points. you have not done that.

please please please take a logic class. you don't know what you are talking about. if you did take a logic class, believe me, you would understand what I am saying even if you didn't agree with me about the truth of the Bible, but right now you don't know what I'm talking about. you would learn the difference between 'if' and 'if and only if' .. logic is more important than arithmetic, so I am concerned about your other choices and thoughts in life as well.

"An account DID say there were two. It's asinine to expect it to say there were ONLY two. Who tells a story in such a way?
"Judy, Jake and I went to the movies. There were three of us."
"ONLY Judy, Jake and I went to the movies. There were NO MORE THAN three of us."
You'd seriously expect any storyteller to be this explicit? Please."

I don't expect a story teller to be explicit about every detail, but apparently you do. you are saying there is a contradiction because one account didn't mention the other angel who was in the tomb. To say there were three of us at the movies is a true statement even if there were four of us. if there are four people, and you start counting, can you get to three? yes, it is possible to count to three when you have the option to count to four. But the Gospel account was not a test question response as to how many were in the tomb. but really what difference does it make how many angels were in the tomb aside from atheists looking for something to complain about? Do you think it really mattered to that Gospel writer how many angels were there? Do you know what the point of that account was? did that point have anything to do with the number of angels in the tomb? you are majoring in the minors, focusing on a peripheral piece of information as if it was the focus of the communication and then faulting them for not being more specific. You still have not shown mutual exclusivity, and you never will be able to in this instance, you've pretty much admitted that by acknowledging that it doesn't say there were only a specific amount there.

""account X decided not to mention others present in the room", as you are doing, is absolutely, undeniably inserting new information into an existing work. By combining these accounts you're creating assumptions regarding who chose to include or neglect what detail."

Nonsense. I'm not inserting new information, Both accounts already existed, I'm merely showing that they are compatible. The only new stuff in one account is from the other account, and that is what you do when you compare accounts, you see if they fit together. If one witness says there was only one burglar and he had white shoes, and another witness says the burglar had a red hat, you don't assume they saw different people, you look for a burglar with a red hat and white shoes. Why is it that you say the different accounts were never meant to go together, but then you put them together to erroneously claim there is a contradiction which there isn't? you fail your own criteria of analysis, and your criteria is not used by anyone, not even you. I'm beginning to wonder if you are even serious.

Again.. take a logic class.. you need it. but understand, I don't mean logic in the street sense of basic understanding, I don't suggest the class as an insult. I mean it in the formal sense of a philosophical course on logic, which is sort of like a math class dealing with logic. you would benefit from understanding the terminology and how things work.