To Biblical Literalists:With all of the inconsistencies in the text, how do you maintain a literalist approach

Question

I'm not trying to insult anyone, just curious as to why you accept your current reading strategy. Just a couple of examples: 1. Matt., Mark, and Luke: Jesus is crucified after Passover, in John, he is crucified on Passover - 2. In Genesis 1, humankind is created last, in Genesis 2, created before vegetation and animals, 3. Mark, a young man sits in Jesus' tomb, in John 2 angels are there. There are others of course, but I'll stop there. I understand that these are just details, but if God allows the authors to err on the details, isn't also possible that the authors made mistakes on larger theological assertions?

Phreak: I have read the whole bible and translate it from the original languages. The inconsistencies are there, and even moreso.

Also, I love the Bible. I've studied it in some capacity my whole life. I just don't take it literally and I've found things in there that are quite profound.

p l gray: Have I ever read the whole Bible? Have you? You say that John doesn't specify the time of the crucifixion. Curiously, John 19:14 explicitly says "Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover, it was about noon." Just a few verses later Jesus is crucified. I've spent most of my life studying the Bible in some capacity, and earned 2 masters degrees and am working on a PhD. That doesn't make me right necessarily, but I can assure you I've read the Bible several times, and in its original languages. Have you?

Lisaw and Terry S.: I agree with you. Interpreting the Bible without the historical, social, economic, literal, etc. factors in mind almost by necessity causes the original context and meaning to be lost.

p l gray: I'm not trying to attack you, sorry if it came off that way. I was seriously interested in the extent to which you have read the Bible. I doubt we will agree, which is fine. Here is my assertion, in Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus is crucified after the Passover. In John, he is crucified on the day of the Passover. This doesn't mean the Bible is null and void of meaning, I'm just suggesting that it renders a literal reading of the Bible a little intellectually dishonest. Thanks for praying for me, I appreciate it. Take care bro,' I enjoy the dialog.

p l gray: We are probably just splitting hairs, but I still contend that the chronology of the crucifixion is different between the synoptics and John. In the synoptics, Jesus eats the Passover meal and then died the next day. In contrast, according to John, the Jews had not yet eaten the Passover meal (see 18:28) and Jesus dies later that day on the day of preparation for the Passover.

What about the different accounts of the creation in Genesis 1 or 2, or the different accounts of who showed up at Jesus' tomb between the gospels, or the different versions of angels or people waiting for Jesus' followers at the tomb?

I agree, I am biased in that I know there are inconsistencies and find them, just as you know there are no inconsistencies, and therefore they are not there for you. However, I do not look for these inconsistencies in order to devalue the Biblical text. I look for them in order to more fully flesh out what the individual authors were trying to say about Jesus.

For example, Matthew, Mark and Luke record that soldiers offered Jesus wine to drink before he was crucified. John waits until Jesus is on the cross and says that the soldiers offered him the sour wine on a branch of hyssop. Clearly a contradition, there must have been a reason why John changes the event. I believe that he is clearly relating the story of Jesus to the pre Exodus Jews who used hyssop to spread lamb's blood on their doorposts in order to be saved from death. In this way, for John, the cross now becomes the doorpost of the world through which salvation is effected. Also, in the synoptics, Simon of Cyrene carries Jesus' cross, whereas in John, Jesus himself carries it. For John, it was important that his Jesus, who is always in control, bear his own cross the whole way. To me, these inconsistencies simply make the Biblical story much more compelling, because they provide the reader with more insight into different theological understandings of Jesus.

Answer 1

Well.... I hate to say that you are wrong... but you are wrong.

Your first example... the Crucifixion of Christ as told by Matthew, Mark and Luke all agree on the time of the Calcification and the approximate hour of Christ's death. John doesn't state a time. I'm not sure how this is a contradiction. The differences in the "Passover" are a relation to the Passover holiday, a three day event versus the passover meal.... a specific event.

The whole inconsistency argument is crap... have you ever read the entire Bible? Are these your evidences of inconsistencies or is this simply what you have heard? Have you actually studied it??? If not, then I would suggest that you do some research before attacking something that you don't understand.



Added...

Interesting how you've turned this into a personal argument...

But yes I have read the Bible from a perspective of faith. And studied it in the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Secondly, your argument still is not an inconsistency. Read it again in your own words... about noon was what??? the Crucifixion??? No.

I really don't care about your credentials... I could list mine as well. It doesn't change that fact that your original ascertation is wrong. There are no inconsistencies in the Bible. You haven't proven one.

I'll still pray for you though.




Added....

Again, Jesus was crucified after the Passover meal during the Passover Holiday. Two seperate things happening in a timeline. Just like if I say I was born on a Tuesday after lunch in one sentence, then later tell you that I was born on Jan 8, 2004 at 11:30 am. They are not inconsistent... one is simply more specific than the other. Mark 15:42 The scripture also says that he was crucified before the passover sabbath, on Preparation day. Again, not an inconsistency, merely a different event on a timeline. I'm sure you've heard the story of the blind men and the elephant so I'll spare the detail... but it is an accurate illustration none the less.

When I look at the Bible, I look at a book inerrant and complete. Because of this perspective, that is what I find. When you look at the Bible, based on this dialogue, you look for inconsistency. Because of this bias, you find them. Just as I can find inconsistencies with any science book if I so chose to and if that was my mindset.

Answer 2

I think Terri got it right. You have to understand the history and human aspect of it. Jesus was the only person without fault, so it would stand to reason that if he sat down and wrote the Bible word for word then we wouldn't have this discussion, but he didn't. Honestly, I believe that the Bible was written by imperfect humans for the very reason of open discussion to understand "differences, or inconsistancies". Faith is based on a personal relationship...true?...words open us up for discussion and debate that only feed that relationship. Thank God for human inconsistancies!

Answer 3

To your first point, John was the last of the canonical gospels written. The author took the event and made it match the story he was trying to convey

Many scholar believe that the change in John was made to re-enforce the idea that jesus was "the lamb of god". jesus died on on the day of preparation for passover at approx noon. in ancient times, this was the approximate time that the high priests would be slaughtering lambs for the ritual passover meals for that evening.

It's these and other kinds of human "reinterpretations" that helped me come to my final destination of atheism.

Answer 4

Mathew ,Mark ,Luke an john are each giving there own account of how they saw things ,Similar to witnessing an accident ,each person would have seen it from there angle which would not line up with the rest but each would be similar
Mathew was writing to the Jews
Mark to the Romans
Luke to the Greeks
John to the church

Answer 5

As a Pagan I must say I admire your scholarship, sir, even if I don't share your faith. When something is written down it becomes subject to interpretation and then to manipulation, that is why our faith has no Holy Writ. Clearly, anything done by humans is subject to human error, to assume the Bible to be any different is unrealistic. Your question was both intriguing and thought provoking, your follow up comments as well. I both enjoyed them and have been instructed, thank you.

Answer 6

by putting a bumper sticker on your car that says " the bible says it, i believe it, and that settles it"... i am 66 yrs. old, I have tried to read the bible straight through so many times i have lost count...I was baptised and confirmed Catholic, although I have not been inside a Catholic church in over 50 yrs..I have tried other faiths,, It seems to always come down to the same thing with me, I am not good with the concept of "organized religion", however i do believe in a higher power, This didn't all just come together without some help in the beginning..but that is my opinion...good question by the way

Answer 7

Congratulations for getting many to finally wake up. However you do realize that many Christians will actually agree at the observations but just shrug them off and forget about it? You are proving glaring inconsistencies...inconsistencies that are the foundation of faith for thousands. Proves how absurd and how far people have taken this concept of religion to the extreme just to feel superior over one another.

Answer 8

If you have actually read the whole Bible you would stop seeing the so-called "inconsistencies". Try reading it with an open mind and you may find something you didn't know you were looking for.

Answer 9

Yes, ALL the contradictions are "taken out of context". Riiiiiiight...

Does anyone ELSE here think that this "get out of jail free card" has been played a few too many times? "Context" isn't a magic wand that makes legitimate mistakes just... dissapear.

Answer 10

***To Biblical Literalists:With all of the inconsistencies in the text, how do you maintain a literalist approach***

I'll just hold my nose and go on autopilot.
Yes, the contradictions are at times overwhelmingly repugnant.
Can't we just get together and fix at least the
more problematic verses.