New Testament Contradictions

[mattskramer]

Your not even asking the most obvious question...if there were contradictions, why would they still be there nearly 2000 years later?

Surely you don't believe they were only discovered this week.

Millions of theologians, historians, priests, pastor and parishioners have studied the Bible inside and out, backwards and forwards, translated it into every language, scrutinized every word and yet found not one contradictions.

Do your own homework then get back with us.

This is nonsense. A book that old could certainly have contradictions that aren't removed, particularly if there is reluctance to alter it (like, for example, it is a religious book).

In this case, the contradictions have been known for a long time, but I don't think they are considered by most to be material to the central message.

Chalk it up to wishful thinking. “The second paragraph has some confusing sentences in it. The 25th sentence seems to be contradicted by the 157th line, but look at the beauty of sentence number 129.” I’m sorry but one sentence in the Bible that can be contradicted leaves the entire Bible’s truth in doubt. Look up the fallacy of “appealing to authority”.

People will push logic and reasoning to the side if they think that they will live in peace forever after death. Have you read stories about families who refuse to give blood transfusions to their children? They will not listen to reason, logic, and modern medical science. Their children often become permanently disabled or die of easily treatable diseases as a result.

I'm sorry if I come across as condescending and I understand how you must feel. Keep believing if it makes you feel good.

 

[Amanda]

Your not even asking the most obvious question...if there were contradictions, why would they still be there nearly 2000 years later?

Surely you don't believe they were only discovered this week.

Millions of theologians, historians, priests, pastor and parishioners have studied the Bible inside and out, backwards and forwards, translated it into every language, scrutinized every word and yet found not one contradictions.

Do your own homework then get back with us.

This is nonsense. A book that old could certainly have contradictions that aren't removed, particularly if there is reluctance to alter it (like, for example, it is a religious book).

In this case, the contradictions have been known for a long time, but I don't think they are considered by most to be material to the central message.

Chalk it up to wishful thinking. “The second paragraph has some confusing sentences in it. The 25th sentence seems to be contradicted by the 157th line, but look at the beauty of sentence number 129.” I’m sorry but one sentence in the Bible that can be contradicted leaves the entire Bible’s truth in doubt. Look up the fallacy of “appealing to authority”.

People will push logic and reasoning to the side if they think that they will live in peace forever after death. Have you read stories about families who refuse to give blood transfusions to their children? They will not listen to reason, logic, and modern medical science. Their children often become permanently disabled or die of easily treatable diseases as a result.

I'm sorry if I come across as condescending and I understand how you must feel. Keep believing if it makes you feel good.

I'm no good with remembering all the names of the logical fallacies... what do they call that 1 where you pick an absurdly extreme case and act as if it applies to all? You know which 1 I mean, right?

As for believing to go to heaven.... I can't imagine being let in, but that's just me.

 

[Newby]

Jehovah’s Witnesses – I’d estimate about 3 times per year over a span of 20 years.
Strangers wanting to discuss Jesus with me – About 3 time per year to.
Of course when flipping channels one almost can’t avoid CBN or the Sunday religious television shows.

Unfortunately, I live in the Bible belt. Perhaps I should move.

Three times a year, huh? If you say so, but I'm finding that a bit hard to believe. Even at that, it's hardly 'shoving it in your face', and since you don't like it, I guess you would advocate that all religious programming be removed from television? How does that make you any different from what you say they are?

Of course I can change the channel. What irk are the Christians who practically will not take. “Leave me alone I am not interested” as an answer.

I still call 'bullshit' on the 'Christians won't leave me alone' statement. And what's ironic is that here you are, talking religion on a message board. Is some evil Christian holding a gun to your head?

 

[mattskramer]

Three times a year, huh? If you say so, but I'm finding that a bit hard to believe. Even at that, it's hardly 'shoving it in your face', and since you don't like it, I guess you would advocate that all religious programming be removed from television? How does that make you any different from what you say they are?

Of course I can change the channel. What irk are the Christians who practically will not take. “Leave me alone I am not interested” as an answer.

I still call 'bullshit' on the 'Christians won't leave me alone' statement. And what's ironic is that here you are, talking religion on a message board. Is some evil Christian holding a gun to your head?

I think that I may have implied (or that you may have inferred) that Christians are a big trouble for me. This is not the case. I find them (in general and based on my experience with some) to be a very minor annoyance. I am less bothered by non-Christians (or those who don’t wear their religion on their sleeves). I find them to me much more pleasant and of the “live and let live” variety.

 

[Smartt33]

I should add, by the way, that even Biblical Scholars see the contradictions in, for example, the gospels. I once read an article by a Biblical Scholar and devout Christian who was glad that the contradictions were still in there. In his opinion, it told him he was getting a book that was unchanged (because, as he correctly noted, it would have been easy over the years for someone to edit out the contradictions). I think he felt that the fact it was never 'edited' to remove contradictions was a sign that someone up there was making sure the book didn't get changed over the years by unscrupulous men or women.

Irrelevant. The fact remains that the "inerrant word of god" has contradictions.

Smartt: So, you think God's word is what is written on the page word for word? Actually, His word is the actual message presented, and not the words, or the perceptions of the men who put this message on paper.

The very fact that it was preserved word for word over the years, not changed to please people, and allowed to have errors in perception, etc, would be good evidence that God has something to say, and people can chopose to ignore it if they can find fault in the words used. That is pretty childish. When a child is told to do mething, he will stretch what he has been told to mean something different just because of how the insructions were worded. This is a lawyer's trick too.

However, these things don't change the truth, which is clearly written in the Bible.

 

[Missourian]

Here is how Hank Hanegraaf sums up his refutation of contradictions in the Gospels in his book "The Complete Bible Answer Book" (sorry, I cannot link to this as I am quoting from my personal copy):

'We can safely conclude that far from being contradictory, the gospel accounts are clearly complementory; a consensus of credible scholarship considers the core set of facts presented by the gospel writers to be authentic and reliable; and the unique perspectives provided by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John preclude the possibility of collusion.'
​

 

[Missourian]

From Wikipedia:

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was formulated in October of 1978 by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, held in Chicago. The statement was designed to defend the position of Biblical inerrancy against a perceived trend toward liberal conceptions of Scripture. The undersigners came from a variety of evangelical Christian denominations, and include James Boice, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, and R. C. Sproul.
Leading inerrantists regard the Chicago Statement as a very thorough statement of what they mean by "inerrancy". The statement elaborates on various details in Articles formed as couplets of "WE AFFIRM … and WE DENY …". Under the statement inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts (which no longer exist, but can be inferred on the basis of extant copies), not to the copies or translations themselves. Further, in the statement inerrancy does not refer to a blind literal interpretation, but allows for figurative, poetic and phenomenological language, so long as it was the author's intent to present a passage as literal or symbolic. (see Biblical hermeneutics)

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

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

A SHORT

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms, obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL

Article I

We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II

We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.

We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III

We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV

We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Article V

We affirm that God' s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII

We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII

We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article IX

We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

Article X

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII

We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.

We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historicaI exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizlng, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

Article XIX

We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church.

Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

 

[AllieBaba]

That's very cool. But way too much effort would be required by Christian-haters to comprehend it.

 

[JBeukema]

i've been drinking plenty of vodka, but i can't kill enough brain cells to throw reason aside and believe your ludicrous claims

 

[mattskramer]

I should add, by the way, that even Biblical Scholars see the contradictions in, for example, the gospels. I once read an article by a Biblical Scholar and devout Christian who was glad that the contradictions were still in there. In his opinion, it told him he was getting a book that was unchanged (because, as he correctly noted, it would have been easy over the years for someone to edit out the contradictions). I think he felt that the fact it was never 'edited' to remove contradictions was a sign that someone up there was making sure the book didn't get changed over the years by unscrupulous men or women.

Irrelevant. The fact remains that the "inerrant word of god" has contradictions.

Smartt: So, you think God's word is what is written on the page word for word? Actually, His word is the actual message presented, and not the words, or the perceptions of the men who put this message on paper.

The very fact that it was preserved word for word over the years, not changed to please people, and allowed to have errors in perception, etc, would be good evidence that God has something to say, and people can chopose to ignore it if they can find fault in the words used. That is pretty childish. When a child is told to do mething, he will stretch what he has been told to mean something different just because of how the insructions were worded. This is a lawyer's trick too.

However, these things don't change the truth, which is clearly written in the Bible.

For the sake of argument, I'll concede that the original foreign words and sentences in the original writings by the alleged original authors have not changed. I still do not hold much weight in that as an argument in favor of the Bible being inconsistent. The Bible has been translated and interpreted in many ways to suit different people - and there are still inconsistencies. Other classic and historic works have been kept as they originally were - Those works probably more accuracy and internal consistency than does the Bible.
By the way, is it still a sin to give aid to young widows?

 

[mattskramer]

From Wikipedia:

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was formulated in October of 1978 by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, held in Chicago. The statement was designed to defend the position of Biblical inerrancy against a perceived trend toward liberal conceptions of Scripture. The undersigners came from a variety of evangelical Christian denominations, and include James Boice, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, and R. C. Sproul.
Leading inerrantists regard the Chicago Statement as a very thorough statement of what they mean by "inerrancy". The statement elaborates on various details in Articles formed as couplets of "WE AFFIRM … and WE DENY …". Under the statement inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts (which no longer exist, but can be inferred on the basis of extant copies), not to the copies or translations themselves. Further, in the statement inerrancy does not refer to a blind literal interpretation, but allows for figurative, poetic and phenomenological language, so long as it was the author's intent to present a passage as literal or symbolic. (see Biblical hermeneutics)

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

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

A SHORT

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms, obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL

Article I

We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II

We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.

We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III

We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV

We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Article V

We affirm that God' s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII

We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII

We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article IX

We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

Article X

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII

We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.

We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historicaI exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizlng, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

Article XIX

We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church.

Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

Seriously, I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Okay. God speaks only the truth and provided inspired holy scripture (without error) to reveal himself to people. Yet, according to article XIII people are not to evaluate the scripture by applying it to logic and science. What an arrogant cop-out.

I contend that the moon is actually made of a substance called titrations plutonium hydroxide and it will vaporize if its temperature reaches negative 10,000 degrees. No logic or contemporary science is allowed to prove to me otherwise. LOL

By the way, doesn’t Isaiah 1:18 say that we may come together and reason? Ooops. I guess that we are not to evaluate this passage according to standards of truth.

Look. Truth is truth. It does not matter if it is a truth in math or a truth in a history book. If the Bible is truth then we should be free to evaluate it based on truth.

 

[mattskramer]

That's very cool. But way too much effort would be required by Christian-haters to comprehend it.

I, for one, am not a Christian-hater. I fully comprehend it. I do not agree with it.

 

[Missourian]

From Wikipedia:

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was formulated in October of 1978 by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, held in Chicago. The statement was designed to defend the position of Biblical inerrancy against a perceived trend toward liberal conceptions of Scripture. The undersigners came from a variety of evangelical Christian denominations, and include James Boice, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, and R. C. Sproul.
Leading inerrantists regard the Chicago Statement as a very thorough statement of what they mean by "inerrancy". The statement elaborates on various details in Articles formed as couplets of "WE AFFIRM … and WE DENY …". Under the statement inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts (which no longer exist, but can be inferred on the basis of extant copies), not to the copies or translations themselves. Further, in the statement inerrancy does not refer to a blind literal interpretation, but allows for figurative, poetic and phenomenological language, so long as it was the author's intent to present a passage as literal or symbolic. (see Biblical hermeneutics)

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

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

A SHORT

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms, obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL

Article I

We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II

We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.

We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III

We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV

We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Article V

We affirm that God' s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII

We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII

We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article IX

We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

Article X

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII

We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.

We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historicaI exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizlng, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

Article XIX

We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church.

Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

Seriously, I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Okay. God speaks only the truth and provided inspired holy scripture (without error) to reveal himself to people. Yet, according to article XIII people are not to evaluate the scripture by applying it to logic and science. What an arrogant cop-out.

I contend that the moon is actually made of a substance called titrations plutonium hydroxide and it will vaporize if its temperature reaches negative 10,000 degrees. No logic or contemporary science is allowed to prove to me otherwise. LOL

By the way, doesn’t Isaiah 1:18 say that we may come together and reason? Ooops. I guess that we are not to evaluate this passage according to standards of truth.

Look. Truth is truth. It does not matter if it is a truth in math or a truth in a history book. If the Bible is truth then we should be free to evaluate it based on truth.

Are you reading the same document I am? I don't see mention of restrictions on science or logic in article XIII. You are reading into it what you WANT to read...not what is actually there.

Here is what article XIII means:

"It is unfortunate that Andrew B. has seemingly accepted so readily charges of Biblical error and contradiction, especially given the unfortunate fact that those he lists are standard canards for which scholarly refutations have existed for decades, or in some cases, centuries.

His citation of Matthew 27:9, for example is readily resolved either by recognizing in it the Jewish practice of compound citation (see http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mkone2.html ) or of theme fulfillment (see http://www.tektonics.org/af/berryr01.html , item #34). His allegation regarding the death of Judas is similarly resolved by the application of Jewish exegetical technique (see http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html ).

Andrew B’s further recitation of alleged errors in the Easter accounts are also a failure to apply contextual scholarship (see series at http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln01.html ).

Sadly, and perhaps not entirely to his fault, far too many Christians read the Bible as though it were written yesterday with modern, precision-based standards of reportage in mind. They were not. Doctrinal position papers on inerrancy, such as the Chicago Statement , make it clear that the text is to be judged on the standard under which it was written, not our own, e.g.:

Article XII

WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Article XIII

WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

​

Understanding the roles played by editorial freedom in ancient writings, and such concepts as dischronologized narrative (that is, an author purposely reporting events out of chronological order, for some reason such as a thematic one — which has particular relevance to some of the examples Andrew B. cited) is critical to understanding why variations among the Gospels may not be regarded as errors simply because of the variations. Moreover, similar ‘errors’ are found in modern works by competent historians, and no one calls these ‘errors’.

​

I would recommend either my own account, http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.html , or John Wenham’s book Easter Enigma, should Andrew B. wish to check into the matter further.


​

Does the Bible teach error?
​

 

[mattskramer]

From Wikipedia:

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was formulated in October of 1978 by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, held in Chicago. The statement was designed to defend the position of Biblical inerrancy against a perceived trend toward liberal conceptions of Scripture. The undersigners came from a variety of evangelical Christian denominations, and include James Boice, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, and R. C. Sproul.
Leading inerrantists regard the Chicago Statement as a very thorough statement of what they mean by "inerrancy". The statement elaborates on various details in Articles formed as couplets of "WE AFFIRM … and WE DENY …". Under the statement inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts (which no longer exist, but can be inferred on the basis of extant copies), not to the copies or translations themselves. Further, in the statement inerrancy does not refer to a blind literal interpretation, but allows for figurative, poetic and phenomenological language, so long as it was the author's intent to present a passage as literal or symbolic. (see Biblical hermeneutics)

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

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

A SHORT

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms, obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL

Article I

We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II

We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.

We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III

We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV

We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Article V

We affirm that God' s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII

We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII

We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article IX

We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

Article X

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII

We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.

We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historicaI exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizlng, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

Article XIX

We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church.

Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

Seriously, I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Okay. God speaks only the truth and provided inspired holy scripture (without error) to reveal himself to people. Yet, according to article XIII people are not to evaluate the scripture by applying it to logic and science. What an arrogant cop-out.

I contend that the moon is actually made of a substance called titrations plutonium hydroxide and it will vaporize if its temperature reaches negative 10,000 degrees. No logic or contemporary science is allowed to prove to me otherwise. LOL

By the way, doesn’t Isaiah 1:18 say that we may come together and reason? Ooops. I guess that we are not to evaluate this passage according to standards of truth.

Look. Truth is truth. It does not matter if it is a truth in math or a truth in a history book. If the Bible is truth then we should be free to evaluate it based on truth.

Are you reading the same document I am? I don't see mention of restrictions on science or logic in article XIII. You are reading into it what you WANT to read...not what is actually there.

Here is what article XIII means:

"It is unfortunate that Andrew B. has seemingly accepted so readily charges of Biblical error and contradiction, especially given the unfortunate fact that those he lists are standard canards for which scholarly refutations have existed for decades, or in some cases, centuries.

His citation of Matthew 27:9, for example is readily resolved either by recognizing in it the Jewish practice of compound citation (see http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mkone2.html ) or of theme fulfillment (see http://www.tektonics.org/af/berryr01.html , item #34). His allegation regarding the death of Judas is similarly resolved by the application of Jewish exegetical technique (see http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html ).

Andrew B’s further recitation of alleged errors in the Easter accounts are also a failure to apply contextual scholarship (see series at http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln01.html ).

Sadly, and perhaps not entirely to his fault, far too many Christians read the Bible as though it were written yesterday with modern, precision-based standards of reportage in mind. They were not. Doctrinal position papers on inerrancy, such as the Chicago Statement , make it clear that the text is to be judged on the standard under which it was written, not our own, e.g.:

Article XII

WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Article XIII

WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

​

Understanding the roles played by editorial freedom in ancient writings, and such concepts as dischronologized narrative (that is, an author purposely reporting events out of chronological order, for some reason such as a thematic one — which has particular relevance to some of the examples Andrew B. cited) is critical to understanding why variations among the Gospels may not be regarded as errors simply because of the variations. Moreover, similar ‘errors’ are found in modern works by competent historians, and no one calls these ‘errors’.

​

I would recommend either my own account, http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.html , or John Wenham’s book Easter Enigma, should Andrew B. wish to check into the matter further.


​

Does the Bible teach error?
​

I read and comprehended part XIII very well and it is consistent with my argument – and my argument is consistent with it. It says “We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose.” I take issue with that in more than one way. It is proper to evaluate what is presented. Also, there are no different truths and errors. The number 144 in one instance is the same amount as is 144 in another instance. Facts are facts. True statements are true statements. That is all that there is to it.

 

[Missourian]

Seriously, I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Okay. God speaks only the truth and provided inspired holy scripture (without error) to reveal himself to people. Yet, according to article XIII people are not to evaluate the scripture by applying it to logic and science. What an arrogant cop-out.

I contend that the moon is actually made of a substance called titrations plutonium hydroxide and it will vaporize if its temperature reaches negative 10,000 degrees. No logic or contemporary science is allowed to prove to me otherwise. LOL

By the way, doesn’t Isaiah 1:18 say that we may come together and reason? Ooops. I guess that we are not to evaluate this passage according to standards of truth.

Look. Truth is truth. It does not matter if it is a truth in math or a truth in a history book. If the Bible is truth then we should be free to evaluate it based on truth.

Are you reading the same document I am? I don't see mention of restrictions on science or logic in article XIII. You are reading into it what you WANT to read...not what is actually there.

Here is what article XIII means:

"It is unfortunate that Andrew B. has seemingly accepted so readily charges of Biblical error and contradiction, especially given the unfortunate fact that those he lists are standard canards for which scholarly refutations have existed for decades, or in some cases, centuries.

His citation of Matthew 27:9, for example is readily resolved either by recognizing in it the Jewish practice of compound citation (see http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mkone2.html ) or of theme fulfillment (see http://www.tektonics.org/af/berryr01.html , item #34). His allegation regarding the death of Judas is similarly resolved by the application of Jewish exegetical technique (see http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html ).

Andrew B’s further recitation of alleged errors in the Easter accounts are also a failure to apply contextual scholarship (see series at http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln01.html ).

Sadly, and perhaps not entirely to his fault, far too many Christians read the Bible as though it were written yesterday with modern, precision-based standards of reportage in mind. They were not. Doctrinal position papers on inerrancy, such as the Chicago Statement , make it clear that the text is to be judged on the standard under which it was written, not our own, e.g.:

Article XII

WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Article XIII

WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

​

Understanding the roles played by editorial freedom in ancient writings, and such concepts as dischronologized narrative (that is, an author purposely reporting events out of chronological order, for some reason such as a thematic one — which has particular relevance to some of the examples Andrew B. cited) is critical to understanding why variations among the Gospels may not be regarded as errors simply because of the variations. Moreover, similar ‘errors’ are found in modern works by competent historians, and no one calls these ‘errors’.

​

I would recommend either my own account, http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.html , or John Wenham’s book Easter Enigma, should Andrew B. wish to check into the matter further.


​

Does the Bible teach error?
​

I read and comprehended part XIII very well and it is consistent with my argument – and my argument is consistent with it. It says “We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose.” I take issue with that in more than one way. It is proper to evaluate what is presented. Also, there are no different truths and errors. The number 144 in one instance is the same amount as is 144 in another instance. Facts are facts. True statements are true statements. That is all that there is to it.

Ahhh, I see, you mean article XII.

 

[Missourian]

Article XII

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
​

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

​

I reread article XII and I don't see the problem you do. I see nothing about not using logic and a scientific hypotheses is not a scientific fact.

Truth is truth and a hypotheses is a hypotheses.

 

[jeffrockit]

if the jews were bad, the xtians are little smarter

Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14

Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.

Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.

Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.

Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.

Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13

How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one. Just incase that they are not mutually exclusive then say that in Mark 16:6 it shows that one person was talking but in John 20:13 it shows two people talking. Now that is mutually exclusive.

Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17

Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olives. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51

The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.

Jesus took Peter, James and John up the mountain six days (Matthew 17:1) or eight days (Luke 9:7) after he told them that they will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 4:18-20 shows that Jesus talked to Peter and Andrew together and they both followed him together but John 1:40-42, shows Andrew followed Jesus first and then he went and informed Peter.

Are we saved by works as well as faith? Ephesians 2:8-9 says no and James 2:24 says yes.

James 1:13 says God tempts no man but Genesis 22:1 says that God tempted Abraham.

According to Mark, chapter 8, verse 12, Jesus says: "In truth, no sign shall be given (by me) to this generation (which refers to the generation of Jews who rejected his claims)." John chapter 12 verse 37 (cf. Acts chapter 2 verse 22) says, in evident contradiction, that Jesus gave "many signs" to this same disbelieving generation of Jews.

Mark, chapter 6, verse 5 says that Jesus "could do no miracle" on at least one occasion. The word is could (not would) which means it was not possible for Jesus to perform a miracle at that time. But Mark, chapter 10, verse 27 says just the opposite, that "with God all things are possible." Hence, Jesus is eliminated as a god.

In John, chapter 5, verse 31, Jesus supposedly says: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." But a little later he reportedly exclaims: "Even if I bear witness of myself, yet my witness is true (John 8:14)." Furthermore, to make matters even more confused and conflicted, this passage was added to the Christian Bible in the sixth century. It is first found in a paper called "Liber Appologeticus" in the fourth century. It is noted that the words are sixth century additions to the original text. The footnote in the Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says these words are "not in any of the early Greek manuscripts or in the earliest manuscripts of the Vulgate itself." It is interesting that the Catholic church, who originally added this verse would admit now that it a spurious addition to the Greek Testament!

It is supposedly the Last Supper. John, chapter 13, verse 36 has Peter ask Jesus: "Where are you going?" Then John, chapter 14, verse 5 has Thomas say to him: "We know not where you are going." But John, chapter 16, verse 5, has Jesus reply: "None of you are asking me where I'm going!"

In John, chapter 7, verse 38, Jesus reportedly says: "Scripture said: 'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water'." There is no such passage in the Hebrew Tanach or anything resembling it.

Matthew 2:23 says that: "He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene." There is no mention of this in the Ketuvim (the prophets). This narrated prophecy does not even exist! In the Old Testament (King James Version), the words "Nazareth" and "Nazarene" do not ever appear!

Jesus says that it was Zechariah, son of Berechiah, who was killed in the Temple courtyard (Matthew 23:35). Apparently Jesus didn't read the Bible very closely or he would have known it was another Zechariah, whose father was Jehoiada, who was killed there (II Chronicles 24:2-22).


Regarding Jesus' stepfather, was he Joseph son of Jacob son of Mattan son of Eliezer (Matthew 1:15-16) or Joseph son of Eli son of Mattat son of Levi (Luke 3:23-24)? And how can both sets of genealogical tables validly include Shealtiel and Zerubabbel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27), given that both of these men are descendants of Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:16-19), of whom G-d has said: "No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling any more in Judah" (Jeremiah 22-30)?

Who's to judge the sinner? According to Jesus in John, chapter 5, verse 22: "For the Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son" (meaning Jesus himself). But, then Jesus contradicts himself; "I judge no man" (John 8:15) and "I did not come to judge the world (John 12:47)." So who did? Listen to Jesus this time: "You (disciples) shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28). Unfortunately, this contradicts Jesus' original warning to them: "Not to judge, lest you be judged (Matthew 7:1)."

Paul says. "It is shameful for a man to wear his hair long" (I Corinthians 11:14) What of Samson?

"Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:8). Yet, Jesus asserted the contrary; that he "did not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword" in Matthew, chapter 10, verse 34.

John, chapter 14, verse 9 says: "he who has seen me (in reference to Jesus) has seen the Father." This would include his mother, disciples, and others. However, the Torah teacher that "He who has seen the face of G-d shall die (Exodus 33:20)." This Torah verse amounts to eternal damnation in fundamentalist Christian theology. (Note: Even in our times, thousands of Christians claim to have seen Jesus.). Also, isn't it said that moses looked upon god?

Acts 7:14 says that 75 souls went down to Egypt. Yet, Genesis 46:27 it says "threescore and ten" (70) went down to Egypt.

Continuing with Matthew 26, we find in verses 17 through 20 that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder. On the contrary, we find in John 19:14 that it was the preparation day for the Passover.

Hebrews, chapter 9, verse 22 says: "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin." But, the Bible, in Isaiah, chapter 43, verses 23 through 25 teaches just the opposite; "You (Israelites) have not honored me (G-d) with your (blood) sacrifices. (Nevertheless) I will forgive your sins." And Hosea, chapter 14, verse 2 says G-d accepts "words" of thanks (prayer in place of sacrifices).

Romans, chapter 10, verse 13: "For whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." But Matthew, chapter 7, verse 21 says "Not everybody who says to me (Jesus), Lord, Lord, shall enter the Kingdom." Thus, we learn that Jesus is not G-d or an emissary of G-d.

It is claimed in Ecclesians 1:4 that the earth does abideth forever. In II Peter 3:10, the opposite is stated.

The claim is made that Jesus "justified" the sinner (Romans 4:5; Romans 15:9). But, the Bible in Proverbs 17, verse 15 teaches that "He who justifies the sinner is an abomination to G-d."

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.
The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).

Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6). Although this misquote is rather insignificant, Matthew's poor understanding of Hebrew will have great significance later in his gospel.
Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).
In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel).

Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs, and that this was in fulfillment of prophecy.
This is a pure invention on Matthew's part. Herod was guilty of many monstrous crimes, including the murder of several members of his own family. However, ancient historians such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's crimes, do not mention what would have been Herod's greatest crime by far. It simply didn't happen.
The context of Jeremiah 31:15 makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, and has nothing to do with slaughtered children hundreds of years later.

John baptized for repentance (Matthew 3:11). Since Jesus was supposedly without sin, he had nothing to repent of

In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John's gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover (John 19:14).

Just who IS the naked man?

According to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests "weighed out thirty pieces of silver" to give to Judas. There are two things wrong with this:

a. There were no "pieces of silver" used as currency in Jesus' time - they had gone out of circulation about 300 years before.

b. In Jesus' time, minted coins were used - currency was not "weighed out."

By using phrases that made sense in Zechariah's time but not in Jesus' time Matthew once again gives away the fact that he creates events in his gospel to match "prophecies" he finds in the Old Testament.

In Matthew 27:7 the chief priests buy the field.
b. In Acts 1:18 Judas buys the field.

to Matthew 27:51-53, at the moment Jesus died there was an earthquake that opened tombs and many people were raised from the dead. For some reason they stayed in their tombs until after Jesus was resurrected, at which time they went into Jerusalem and were seen by many people.
Here Matthew gets too dramatic for his own good. If many people came back to life and were seen by many people, it must have created quite a stir (even if the corpses were in pretty good shape!). Yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening - historians of that time certainly know nothing of it - neither do the other gospel writers.

a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."

b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."

c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.

d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.


a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).

b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.

c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.

d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.

a. According to Mark 16:8, "they said nothing to anyone."

b. According to Matthew 28:8, they "ran to report it to His disciples."

c. According to Luke 24:9, "they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest."

d. According to John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord.

According to Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection.

According to Acts 1:9-12, Jesus' ascension took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection.

According to Matthew 5:18, Jesus said that not the tiniest bit of the Law could be changed. However, in Mark 7:19 Jesus declares that all foods are clean, thereby drastically changing the Law.

After Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem a sees a fig tree and wants some figs from it. He finds none on it so he curses the tree and it withers and dies (Matthew 21:18-20, Mark 11:12-14, 20-21).

1. Since this occurred in the early spring before Passover, it is ridiculous of Jesus to expect figs to be on the tree.

2. Matthew and Mark cannot agree on when the tree withered.

a. In Matthew, the tree withers at once and the disciples comment on this fact (Matthew 21:19-20).

b. In Mark, the tree is not found to be withered until at least the next day (Mark 11:20-21).

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus tells the eleven disciples to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

1. This is obviously a later addition to the gospel, for two reasons:

a. It took the church over two hundred years of fighting (sometimes bloody) over the doctrine of the trinity before this baptismal formula came into use. Had it been in the original gospel, there would have been no fighting.

b. In Acts, when people are baptized, they are baptized just in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). Peter says explicitly that they are to "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38).

2. This contradicts Jesus' earlier statement that his message was for the Jews only (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:24). The gospels, and especially Acts, have been edited to play this down, but the contradiction remains. It was the apostle Paul who, against the express wishes of Jesus, extended the gospel (Paul's version) to the gentiles.

Jude 14 contains a prophecy of Enoch. Thus, if the Book of Jude is the Word of God, then the writings of "Enoch" from which Jude quotes, are also the Word of God. The Book of Enoch was used in the early church until at least the third century - Clement, Irenaeus and Tertullian were familiar with it. However, as church doctrine began to solidify, the Book of Enoch became an embarrassment to the church and in a short period of time it became the Lost Book of Enoch. A complete manuscript of the Book of Enoch was discovered in Ethiopia in 1768. Since then, portions of at least eight separate copies have been found among the Dead Sea scrolls. It is easy to see why the church had to get rid of Enoch - not only does it contain fantastic imagery (some of which was borrowed by the Book of Revelation), but it also contradicts church doctrine on several points (and, since it is obviously the work of several writers, it also contradicts itself).

ey "stood speechless, hearing the voice..."

2. Acts 22:9 says they "did not hear the voice..."

3. Acts 26:14 says "when we had all fallen to the ground..."

Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt while Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old. Mt.2:13-16. (Note: Jesus' cousin, John, was also under 2 and survived without having to flee.)
Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not flee to Egypt, but remained for temple rituals. No slaughter of infants is mentioned! Lk.2:21-39.

Satan tempted Jesus. Mt.4:1-10; Mk.1:13; Lk.4:1,2.
Satan had no interest in Jesus. Jn.14:30.

Jesus begins his ministry after John's arrest. Mk.1:13,14.
Jesus begins his ministry before John's arrest. Jn.3:22-24.

Non-believers obtain mercy. Rom.11:32.
Only believers obtain mercy. Jn.3:36; Rom.14:23.
Only baptized believers obtain mercy. Mk.16:16.
Mercy cannot be predetermined. Rom.9:18.

A demon cries out that Jesus is the Holy One of God. Mk.1:23,24.
Everyone who confesses that Jesus came in the flesh is of God. 1 Jn.4:2.

Jesus said to honor your father and mother. Mt.15:4; Mt.19:19; Mk.7:10; Mk.10:19; Lk.18:20.
Jesus said that he came to set people against their parents. Mt.10:35-37; Lk.12:51-53; Lk.14:26.
Jesus said to call no man father. Mt.23:9.

Jesus/God said, "You fool…". Lk.12:20; Mt.23:17.
Paul calls people fools. 1 Cor.15:36.
Call someone a fool and you go to he

Ask and it shall be given. Seek and you will find. Knock and it will be opened to you. Mt.7:7,8; Lk.11:9,10.
Ask and you shall be refused. Seek and you won't find. Knock and you will be refused entrance. Lk.13:24-27.

# Jesus is thankful that some things are hidden. Mt.11:25; Mk.4:11,12.
Jesus said that all things should be made known. Mk.4:22.

Repentance is necessary. Acts 3:19; Lu.3:3.
Repentance is not necessary. Rom.11:29.

All who call on the "Lord" will be saved. Rom.10:13; Acts 2:21.
Only those predestined will be saved. Acts 13:48; Eph.1:4,5; 2 Thes.2:13; Acts 2:47.

The righteous have eternal life. Mt.25:46.
The righteous are barely saved. 1 Pet.4:18.
There are no righteous. Rom.3:10.

Believe and be baptized to be saved. Mk.16:16.
Be baptized by water and the spirit to be saved. Jn.3:5.
Endure to the end to be saved. Mt.24:13.
Call on the name of the "Lord" to be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
Believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:31.
Believe, then all your household will be saved. Acts 16:31.
Hope and you will be saved. Rom.8:24.
Believe in the resurrection to be saved. Rom.10:9.
By grace you are saved. Eph.2:5
By grace and faith you are saved. Eph.2:8.
Have the love of truth to be saved. 2 Thes.2:10.
Mercy saves. Titus 3:5.




God leads you into temptation. Mt.6:13.
God tempts no one. Jms.1:13.

Jesus founds his church on Peter. Mt.16:18.
Jesus calls Peter "Satan" and a hindrance. Mt.16:23.

Jesus responds that this favor is not his to give. Mt.20:23; Mk.10:40.
Jesus said that all authority is given to him. Mt.28:18; Jn

Peter’s second denial was to another maid. Mt.26:71,72.
It was to the same maid. Mk.14:69,70.
It was to a man and not a maid. Lk.22:58.
It was to more than one person. Jn.18:25.

Jesus was crucified at the third hour. Mk.15:25.
Jesus was still before Pilate at the sixth hour. Jn.19:13,14.

Version 1: “Eli, Eli …My God, My God why have you forsaken me” Mt.27:46.
Version 2: “Eloi, Eloi…My God, My God why have you forsaken me” Mk.15:34.
Version 3: “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit”. Lk.23:46.
Version 4: “It is finished”. Jn.19:30.

Upon their arrival, the stone was still in place. Mt.28:1 2.
Upon their arrival, the stone had been removed. Mk.16:4; Lk.24:2; Jn.20:1.

# Both “thieves” mocked Jesus on the cross. Mt. 27:44; Mk.15:32.
One “thief” sided with Jesus on the cross. Lu.23:39-41.

# Nicodemus prepared the body with spices. Jn.19:39,40.
Failing to notice this, the women bought spices to prepare the body later. Mk. 16:1; Lu.23:55,56.
# The body was anointed. Jn.19:39,40.
The body was not anointed. Mk.15:46 to 16:1; Lk.23:55 to 24:1.

# Jesus ascended on the third day after the resurrection. Lk.24:21,50,51.
Jesus ascended the same day as the crucifixion. Lk.23:42 43.
Jesus ascended forty days after the resurrection. Acts 1:3,9.

# At the time of the ascension, there were about 120 brethren. Acts 1:15.
At the time of the ascension, there were about 500 brethren. 1 Cor.15:6.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. Mk.3:29.
All sins are forgivable. Acts 13:39; Col.2:13; 1 Jn.1:9.

Sometimes God is responsible for unbelief. 2 Thes.2:11,12.
Sometimes Jesus is responsible for unbelief. Mk.4:11,12.
The devil causes unbelief. Lk.8:12.

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer. 1 Jn.3:15.
If anyone claims to love God but hates his brother, he is a liar. 1 Jn.4:20.
No one can be a disciple of Jesus unless he hates his brother. Lk.14:26

Men can choose whether or not to believe. Jn.5:38-47.
Only God chooses who will believe. Jn.6:44.

God wants all men to be saved. 1 Tim.2:3,4; 2 Pet.3:9.
God does not want all men to be saved. Jn.12:40.

God hated Esau and loved Jacob even before they were born. Rom.9:10-13.
God shows no partiality and treats all alike. Acts 10:34; Rom.2:11.

He that does not believe is damned. Mk.16:16.
Thomas did not believe and was not damned. Jn.20:27-29.

Jesus is God. Jn.10:30.
Jesus is the “image” of God. 2 Cor.4:4.
Jesus was a man approved by God. Acts 2:22.

# Those present at Paul’s conversion heard a voice but saw nothing. Acts 9:7.
Those present at Paul’s conversion saw a light but heard nothing. Acts 22:9.

The holy spirit forbids preaching in Asia. Acts 16:6.
Paul preaches in Asia anyway. Acts 19:8-10

It's too funny that a non believer would waste this much time to disprove something they don't believe in. If you think that a post on a message board is going to change someone's faith, you are wrong and have also wasted a lot of time for nothing. Not very smart or effective.

 

[Truthspeaker]

I'll second that last statement.

 

[JBeukema]

We must fight your ideology of hatred, ignorance, and violence until your ilk ceases to poison society

 

[jeffrockit]

We must fight your ideology of hatred, ignorance, and violence until your ilk ceases to poison society

Good luck with that. We are not going anywhere....Praise GOD!