Is the Bible Literally True? No, of Course Not!

[Cypress]

What discrepancies?

One of Paul's letters acknowledges female leadership in the church, such as female deacons.
Another epistle says women should not be in church leadership positions.

John says Jesus is coequal and coeternal with God. No such claim is made in Mark, where the insinuation is that Jesus is son of God, which in Jewish tradition just tended to mean a human who acted with agency of the divine.

Luke and Matthew are inconsistent on the birth narrative and how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem.


On the other hand, I think atheists are making a mountain out of a molehill in freaking out about the inconsistencies. God did not write the gospels. God did not even sit down and dictate the gospels to their authors. If you read Luke at face value, he takes full ownership of writing his gospel. Humans are obviously fallible, and I don't see any reason the 27 books and epistles of the gospels are supposed to match up cleanly in every detail.

Gospel of Luke 1

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled*among us,*just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

 

[Yakuda]

One of Paul's letters acknowledges female leadership in the church, such as female deacons.
Another epistle says women should not be in church leadership positions.

John says Jesus is coequal and coeternal with God. No such claim is made in Mark, where the insinuation is that Jesus is son of God, which in Jewish tradition just tended to mean a human who acted with agency of the divine.

Luke and Matthew are inconsistent on the birth narrative and how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem.


On the other hand, I think atheists are making a mountain out of a molehill in freaking out about the inconsistencies. God did not write the gospels. God did not even sit down and dictate the gospels to their authors. If you read Luke at face value, he takes full ownership of writing his gospel. Humans are obviously fallible, and I don't see any reason the 27 books and epistles of the gospels are supposed to match up cleanly in every detail.

Citations for your claims of women leadership.

Taken individually some passages could be thought of as discrepancies or contradictions but not as a whole. Yes atheists do make a.mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[Cypress]

Citations for your claims of women leadership.

Taken individually some passages could be thought of as discrepancies or contradictions but not as a whole. Yes atheists do make a.mountain out of a mole hill.

Epistle to the Romans.

Paul refers to his companion Phoebe as a deacon of the church.

 

[Jarod]

If you are a Biblical literalist, as some of you may be, what I've just said most likely bothers you greatly. You believe, not only that the Bible is Divinely-dictated and error-free, but you also believe that whatever it says must be taken as literally and factually true.

Most people could care less whether it is or it isn't. If you're reading this, however, you probably care at least enough to read this.

To me, the Bible is important. It is for me the sacred story of the origins of my faith. In light of this, I could no more feel as if it were unimportant than a follower of Hinduism would feel the Bhagavad Gita is unimportant.

I do not believe, however, that the Bible is a Divinely-dictated book or a sacred text without error.

If you are a Biblical literalist, as some of you may be, what I've just said most likely bothers you greatly. You believe, not only that the Bible is Divinely-dictated and error-free, but you also believe that whatever it says must be taken as literally and factually true.

Furthermore, you feel, if the Bible is allowed to be a very human book, instead of a Divinely-dictated one...you would have to "throw the baby out with the bath water," so to speak. That, if you questioned any of it, you'd undermine all of it and the end result would not be good either for you or the future of your faith.

This also explains why you and other literalists may be among those who are concerned about the recent release of the Hollywood film Noah, starring Russell Crowe. Since the movie's creators have taken liberty to create a movie not tied to a literal reading of the story of Noah, you regard that as objectionable, even a blatant disregard, and perhaps even disrespectful, of a literalist reading of the story.

As far as I'm concerned, however, I am bothered neither by Hollywood's version of the story of Noah nor whether it conforms to a literalist reading of Genesis. If you've ever actually read the text for yourself, you will know there are actually two flood stories in Genesis, the one most familiar to people where God instructs Noah to preserve two of each species of animals (Gen. 7:15) and the other where God instructs Noah to preserve seven of each species of animals (Gen. 7:2). I am more bothered instead by such sacred stories being made into movies at all.

Why? Because these Bible stories were interpreted history, preserved for future generations, not for their factual accuracy, but their faith-generating component. When these movies are made, however, they are almost always recreated in a way resembling a literalist reading of the story. Which makes them about as believable as the movies Superman or Planet of the Apes. I can remember, for example, the first time I ever saw Cecil B. DeMille's classic story of Moses. As dramatic as cinematography would permit at that time, DeMille captured a compelling but literalist depiction of the Moses epic. Even as a child, however, I found it unbelievable.

The real Moses never wielded a staff with supernatural powers, the tip of which, when dipped into the Nile, turned the river into a cesspool of blood. Or, when dipped into the Red Sea, caused it to part so Israelites could pass to the other side on dry, not muddy, ground.

None of these Biblical stories, including the ones where Jesus is depicted as defying the laws of nature and performing miracles... as in, walking on water or giving sight to the blind or, most amazingly, raising dead people back to life were recorded as factual, or literal, eyewitness accounts. And, even if they were, they cannot be depicted as such today, if you want any of it to be believed... to be respected... or, to be read with any seriousness.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biblical-literalism_b_4966852

I am sure there are true parts of it.

 

[Cypress]

I agree. It’s damn interesting. And I get the message of Jesus and agree with it. Pretty radical for the times.

Too bad it’s been so distorted by his so-called followers.

I think the evangelical holy rollers are out on a limb claiming the bible is inerrant. I think they are also kidding themselves that the miracle stories don't push credulity to the breaking point. Walking on water has to be a later embellishment.

In my opinion the atheists are wrong that a bunch inconsistencies on dates and times amount to anything more than a molehill rather than a mountain. And they are probably wrong in complaining nobody wrote anything about Jesus for six decades after his death. Paul and Mark were writing when people who knew Jesus were still alive, 2 to 3 decades after the crucification. Luke makes absolutely crystal clear that in his day there were earlier writings about Jesus which no longer exist for us to read. Some scholars have hypothesized a Gospel of Q, and the 'L' and 'M' written sources predating the gospels, but now lost to history.

 

[BidenPresident]

I think the evangelical holy rollers are out on a limb claiming the bible is inerrant. I think they are also kidding themselves that the miracle stories don't push credulity to the breaking point. Walking on water has to be a later embellishment.

In my opinion the atheists are wrong that a bunch inconsistencies on dates and times amount to anything more than a molehill rather than a mountain. And they are probably wrong in complaining nobody wrote anything about Jesus for six decades after his death. Paul and Mark were writing when people who knew Jesus were still alive, 2 to 3 decades after the crucification. Luke makes crystal clear that there were earlier writings about Jesus which no longer exist. Some scholars have hypothesized a Gospel of Q, and the 'L' and 'M' written sources predating the gospels, but now lost.

Some atheists just don't find the religion of Christianity true or compelling.

 

[Cypress]

Some atheists just don't find the religion of Christianity true or compelling.

They don't have to.

But an honest student of history recognizes the Bible is the most important piece of literature in the history of western civilization, and it's no joking matter to study how people, cultures, and ideologies have interpreted it and interacted with it.

 

[BidenPresident]

They don't have to.

But an honest student of history recognizes the Bible is the most important pieces of literature in the history of western civilization, and it's no joking matter to study how people, cultures, and ideologies have interpreted it and interacted with it.

You think that. It is not true.

 

[Yakuda]

Epistle to the Romans.

Paul refers to his companion Phoebe as a deacon of the church.

That's not a citation a citation is Romans X:XX-XX

 

[ZenMode]

Moving on from the Bible not being consistent regarding what day Jesus died on..... let's talk about everything related to his birth.

Matthew and Luke are the only ones to talk about it in detail. Both are fairly lengthy, so I won't post the verses here. Matthew's version starts @ 1:18 and Luke's starts at 1:4.

Here's a summary of Matthew's version:

Joseph and Mary were planning to get married when she got pregnant...presumably not from Joseph because he plans to dump her (cheating slut that she is!) But, Joseph has a dream and the dream tells him that Mary got pregnant from God, so he doesn't leave her. They get married and go to Bethlehem where Jesus is born (another interesting story in itself). Wisemen hear about it and travel to Bethlehem by following a star (which is impossible if you've ever tried to figure out which house any given star is over....) On the way, they go through Jerusalem and ask where they can find the King of the Jews and then move on to Bethlehem. Herod finds out about this and isn't happy because HE'S the King. He asks the Wisemen to let him know where they find Jesus because he plans to kill him. A dream tells the wisemen to not tell him and go a different way home. Joseph, in yet another dream, is also warned about Herod's plans so they split, too. Herod has his guys kill everyone 2 and under (something there is no record of or evidence for), because apparently his troops can't tell the difference between a newborn and a toddler walking around.

Luke's version begin in 1:4.

His version includes a lady named Elizabeth who is the mother of John the Baptist even though she is barren. In Luke's version, Mary and Elizabeth are related, so Jesus and John the Baptist are apparently cousins of some sort. An angel visits Mary and tells her God is going to knock her up. Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem for a census that everyone in the empire is forced to participate in. The census something that there is also no historical record of and would be virtually impossible logistically. The shepherds are visited by an angel of some kind and are told go to Bethlehem, which they do. A few days later, Jesus is circumcised and two random people, Simeon and Anna, announce that Jesus is the Messiah.

Those are the two stories. Virtually nothing about them is similar and I see no way they can both be true.

 

[Cypress]

That's not a citation a citation is Romans X:XX-XX

I will thank you in advance for admitting I was correct in stating Paul acknowledged women could have leadership positions in the Church-->


Phoebe was a first-century Christian woman mentioned by the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, verses 16:1–2. A notable woman in the church of Cenchreae, she was trusted by Paul to deliver his letter to the Romans. Paul refers to her both as a "servant" or "deacon" and as a helper or patron of many. This is the only place in the New Testament where a woman is specifically referred to with these two distinctions. Paul introduces Phoebe as his emissary to the church in Rome and, because they are not acquainted with her, Paul provides them with her credentials.

 

[Cypress]

Moving on from the Bible not being consistent regarding what day Jesus died on..... let's talk about everything related to his birth.

Matthew and Luke are the only ones to talk about it in detail. Both are fairly lengthy, so I won't post the verses here. Matthew's version starts @ 1:18 and Luke's starts at 1:4.

Here's a summary of Matthew's version:

Joseph and Mary were planning to get married when she got pregnant...presumably not from Joseph because he plans to dump her (cheating slut that she is!) But, Joseph has a dream and the dream tells him that Mary got pregnant from God, so he doesn't leave her. They get married and go to Bethlehem where Jesus is born (another interesting story in itself). Wisemen hear about it and travel to Bethlehem by following a star (which is impossible if you've ever tried to figure out which house any given star is over....) On the way, they go through Jerusalem and ask where they can find the King of the Jews and then move on to Bethlehem. Herod finds out about this and isn't happy because HE'S the King. He asks the Wisemen to let him know where they find Jesus because he plans to kill him. A dream tells the wisemen to not tell him and go a different way home. Joseph, in yet another dream, is also warned about Herod's plans so they split, too. Herod has his guys kill everyone 2 and under (something there is no record of or evidence for), because apparently his troops can't tell the difference between a newborn and a toddler walking around.

Luke's version begin in 1:4.

His version includes a lady named Elizabeth who is the mother of John the Baptist even though she is barren. In Luke's version, Mary and Elizabeth are related, so Jesus and John the Baptist are apparently cousins of some sort. An angel visits Mary and tells her God is going to knock her up. Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem for a census that everyone in the empire is forced to participate in. The census something that there is also no historical record of and would be virtually impossible logistically. The shepherds are visited by an angel of some kind and are told go to Bethlehem, which they do. A few days later, Jesus is circumcised and two random people, Simeon and Anna, announce that Jesus is the Messiah.

Those are the two stories. Virtually nothing about them is similar and I see no way they can both be true.

Luke and Matthew were two humans who didn't know each other, and were relying to some extent on earlier written sources and oral traditions, although they both had access to Mark.

I would not expect two humans using different source materials to have matching stories in every respect.

God did not sit-down with Luke and Matthew and dictate what to write. Luke is crystal clear in taking ownership for the writing of his Gospel. Even if the NT authors felt inspiration to write, inspiration is no guarantee of matching stories. Some scholars think Mathew was using earlier written material called the M source, while Luke had earlier written material called the L source.

I think there is far more effective criticism of Christianity than searching for inconsequential discrepancies.

 

[gfm7175]

I know how days work for Jews and why they work that way and yes, if you ignore the details of what each account says, and just look at it very generally/broadly, you can make it seem like they agree.

What more detail are you looking for, specifically?

I broke it all out, day by day, and even provided you with a chronology of events during those days. Of course, there's debate as to whether Jesus died on a Friday, a Thursday, or a Wednesday (depending upon one's understanding of the "three days and three nights in the belly of the Earth" quote that Jesus made), but what is DEFINITELY correct is that Jesus died on Nisan 14 because Jesus WAS the "Passover lamb", and all the Passover lambs, per OT law, were slaughtered towards the end of Nisan 14 (roughly when Jesus died on the cross). See Exodus 12:6 (and surrounding text) for one such relevant description of Passover law.


John 18:28 makes note, after "The Last Supper", after Jesus' arrest, that it was "early morning". This is describing Nisan 14 (some time around 6am).

John 19:14 makes note, towards the very end of Pilate's attempts to get the people to allow Jesus to live, that it was the "preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour". This is about six hours into the sham trials, which would be some time after 6am but before 9am on Nisan 14.

John 19:31 makes note, after Jesus died, that it was the "day of preparation" and that the next day was "a high sabbath". This is still describing Nisan 14, but now towards the end of the day (before the next day's high sabbath).

Mark 14:12 (and surrounding text) makes note, during "The Last Supper", that it was the "first day of the festival of unleavened bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the passover lamb". This is, once again, per OT law, referencing Nisan 14 (at the very beginning of the day, during evening), which is the very same day that the John verses (see above) have all been referencing. THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION.

I realize that you can only copy/paste the thoughts of others, such as Bart Ehrmann, who is a complete moron regarding this topic (as are others like him), but do try setting him aside for a moment and simply reading through the Bible for yourself, as it and it alone is the authoritative reference here.

Read through Exodus (and other OT law books), learn what the customs for the Passover are, and from that (as well as the various scriptural references that Jesus himself IS "the passover lamb", one can only reasonably conclude that all of the Bible verses that I listed above are specifically making reference to the day of Jesus' crucifixion as being [NISAN 14]. THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION between the four Gospel accounts regarding this. They ALL state Jesus' death day as being Nisan 14.

 

[ZenMode]

Luke and Matthew were two humans who didn't know each other, and were relying to some extent on earlier written sources and oral traditions, although they both had access to Mark.

I would not expect two humans using different source materials to have matching stories in every respect.

God did not sit-down with Luke and Matthew and dictate what to write. Luke is crystal clear in taking ownership for the writing of his Gospel. Even if the NT authors felt inspiration to write, inspiration is no guarantee of matching stories. Some scholars think Mathew was using earlier written material called the M source, while Luke had earlier written material called the L source.

I think there is far more effective criticism of Christianity than searching for inconsequential discrepancies.

Absolutely true that the Bible was written by men. In many cases, we don't know which men. The question was whether or not the Bible was literal and/or inerrant. For a variety of reasons, there's no reason to believe it is inerrant or should be taken literally.

 

[Kafka]

Absolutely true that the Bible was written by men. In many cases, we don't know which men. The question was whether or not the Bible was literal and/or inerrant. For a variety of reasons, there's no reason to believe it is inerrant or should be taken literally.

The Bible is so transparently the work of humanity bereft any any supernatural insight that it always fascinates me that anyone would attempt to portray it as inerrant. If anything it weakens the position of the believer in espousing its inerrancy. It highlights every "error" because skeptics will seek them out and then question how the inerrant book could contain an error which leads to the most bizarre exegeses known to humankind...beggaring the imagination how an adult could accept it.

There's a lot of good stuff in the Bible. It is silly to gild the lily and add in something that patently is not there. We CAN learn good stuff from the bible (especially the NT) so why act as if it can contain no errors?

As for the differentiations between the various gospels this is easy enough to understand since they were written decades after the events and probably from radically different "traditions". Imagine if you had to tell someone what a person you didn't know personally did on any given week back in the 1980's. Highly unlikely.

It would be more troubling if the disjunct in terms of genealogy of Jesus was undertaken by two people who knew him well and remembered perfectly.

 

[Yakuda]

I will thank you in advance for admitting I was correct in stating Paul acknowledged women could have leadership positions in the Church-->


Phoebe was a first-century Christian woman mentioned by the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, verses 16:1–2. A notable woman in the church of Cenchreae, she was trusted by Paul to deliver his letter to the Romans. Paul refers to her both as a "servant" or "deacon" and as a helper or patron of many. This is the only place in the New Testament where a woman is specifically referred to with these two distinctions. Paul introduces Phoebe as his emissary to the church in Rome and, because they are not acquainted with her, Paul provides them with her credentials.

Right a deaconess (helper) not a leader. The church currently has deacons they are men but they aren't leaders. The church also has brothers and nuns (sister) again helpers not leaders.

 

[gfm7175]

Moving on from the Bible not being consistent regarding what day Jesus died on..... let's talk about everything related to his birth.

No. I'm not "moving on from" anything.

ZenMode to English translation: ZenMode has now realized that he's been mentally whipped on this particular subject so now he's attempting to divert away from it and towards another subject.

That's not how this works, ZenMode. I'm not discussing any additional subjects with you until you see this current subject through to completion (which is that you are mindlessly parroting the erroneous words of Bart Ehrmann instead of reading and studying The Bible for yourself).

There are no contradictions between the gospel accounts regarding the crucifixion day of Jesus (the 14th of Nisan).

 

[Uncensored2008]

On Today's Episode of ATHEISTS EVILSPLAINING TO CHRISTIANS - yet another atheist with an IQ near the temperature of freezing demands that those he hates and derides obey him in his interpretation of their religion - which he hates...

 

[ZenMode]

No. I'm not "moving on from" anything.

ZenMode to English translation: ZenMode has now realized that he's been mentally whipped on this particular subject so now he's attempting to divert away from it and towards another subject.

That's not how this works, ZenMode. I'm not discussing any additional subjects with you until you see this current subject through to completion (which is that you are mindlessly parroting the erroneous words of Bart Ehrmann instead of reading and studying The Bible for yourself).

There are no contradictions between the gospel accounts regarding the crucifixion day of Jesus (the 14th of Nisan).

lol. You haven't mentally whipped anyone or anything. There is enough gray area in the topic that it's very likely that there will be no agreement. That's the beauty of the Bible - people can usually find most anything they want to believe in it because its written so poorly and inconsistently. I knew someone who SWORE that you didn't have to believe in the Christian God to get into Heaven and he found plenty of verses to support his belief. So, I'm not going to spend any more of my time discussing that specific topic because, again, it's open to translation and claims of "understanding" things differently. My mind hasn't changed and neither has yours.

If that means you check out of other discussions, that's your choice. I couldn't care less.

 

[Cypress]

Right a deaconess (helper) not a leader. The church currently has deacons they are men but they aren't leaders. The church also has brothers and nuns (sister) again helpers not leaders.

I said a leadership role, not the top leader.

Deacon is an official Church office subordinate to Bishop or priest, but above the laity. Phoebe is also called a patron of the church.

The fact that Paul trusted Phoebe to be his emissary to the Church of Rome clearly insinuates she had credibility and authority.