Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb

by JosephAlward 67 Replies latest watchtower bible

speechless

Let me clarify once and for all my logic:
(and I apologize to Joseph for distorting the primary arguement of this tread! I will be more considerate next time!)
Since there undoubtedly, without arguement!, remains knowledge yet to be discovered, it be true that we have not yet conceived all there is to conceive. Now, since we have not yet conceived all there is to conceive, we can not without a doubt say that "what we can not conceive does not exist."
Imagine the epiphany if we, humanity, one day arose as said "what we can not conceive does not exist"?
Humanity is habitually seeking what we cannot conceive!
Our limited conceptions, then, do not permit an unbiased, without a doubt, disproving of God nor the Easter Bunny. This may sound completely irrational, but it is ultimately rational.
Now, if it be true that God and the Easter Bunny could exist, then the burden is upon "conscious" reverence of our conceptions.
ianao

Oh man, I just had a flashback of dunsscott.
Abaddon

RWC; have a nice weekend, before I forget to say...
Your arguement that the alleged testimony of certain characters in the book called the Bible should be admissable is not one that I would accept. Obviously you do.
As for reasons why this testimony should not be believed... well, what if I quoted the Illead to prove the existance of Zeus, or the Book of Mormon to prove the existence of whatever their weird-ass space god is called? There are eye-witness accounts of the golden plates that the Book of Mormon was transcribed from. Does that mean it's true? Does the existance of written accounts of Zeus ravishing the maiden Leda in the form of a swan mean it happened? What if civilisation ends tomorrow, and a thousand years from now an archaeologist unearths a partial copy of the Lord of the Rings that contains no signs of it being a fictional book (chop the forward and the appendices and you have a internally consistant fantasy world). Does that mean that the Lord of the Rings will have happened then, because it is writen down?
The fact that there are these accounts in a book, essentially means nothing unless you could present an incontravertable case showing that all events in the Bible one could find parrallel evidence for were 100% accurate, and this is not the case, or at least, is not provable beyond reasonable doubt as the lack of agreement over the interpretation of the Bible shows.
I know you argue that "to say that the Illead maybe in part archeologically correct doesn't validate the Greek Gods, does not invalidate the Bible. The Illead will have to stand or fall on its own. We are hearing proving the case for God.", and I agree with you.
The Bible has to stand or fall on its own too, and even IF the Bible was proven to be a total mish-mash of fable, this in itself would not be proof that god did not exist, as god has to stand or fall on its own. It is more than possible, you realise (I do mean realise, I don;t mean accept) that it is possible there is a god, but that the Bible is a mish-mash of fables that has nothing to do with god?
The point is, you can't realistically use the Bible to validate god's existence, any more than the Illead to prove that Zeus was factual.
Finally, I disagree with your statement "most criminal trials are prosecuted on circumstanital evidence". I actaully think, unless there is a lot of pressure to produce a suspect, the police won't touch a case unless they have eye-witness (as in people who have to appear in court, a letter written by a dead person isn't as valid) tesitimony or hard evidence.
Maybe the US legal systen is different; since the death penalty was reintroduced more people sentenced to death have had their sentences over-turned (i.e., they didn't do it, I'm not talking about people who had sentences commuted) than have been executed. This is a clear demonstration of what can happen if circumstancial evidence is allowed to determine peoples' lives. (I don't know if circumstancial evidence is that legally allowable in the US, I'm using the regular miscarraige of justice in capital trials to illustrate how unrelaible and damaging circumstancial evidence could be).
I am not entirely sure I follow you with regard to your point about the Holocaust. Whether or not the people who do such things think they are right or wrong is not the point. Why should the actions and thoughts of people who are almost Universally repudiated be taken as a proof of god creating laws that otherwise would not exist?
Our revulsion over such an event is the basic tribal non-killing taboo, amplified by several thousand years of sociological development, so that it extended beyond tribal boundaries and became a principle, essentially still based on "I don't kill you, you don't kill me", but with wider scope. Add to this the ability of humans to imagine the horror of it happening to them and their freinds and family, and it's even more understandable why most people would think such a thing wrong... and would do even if tomorrow we could prove god did not exist. Are you saying that atheists are not as moved by a film like Schindlers List becasue they don;t believe in god?
You can't use the bad guys to prove your point... they are no more representative of humans than Torqemada (the chief Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition) is of men of faith.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", is not divine wisdom, it's common sense for building a society where people can live lives without fear.
As always, nice discussing things with you.
speechless; "Our limited conceptions, then, do not permit an unbiased, without a doubt, disproving of God nor the Easter Bunny. This may sound completely irrational, but it is ultimately rational.
Now, if it be true that God and the Easter Bunny could exist, then the burden is upon "conscious" reverence of our conceptions."
I understand all the words you use speechless, but I can't make head-or-tail of what you mean by them. You're not related to Anita Loomba are you? Not being rude, but I had to read essays by her last year, and boy, did she have a command of obscuring the obvious;
"the burden is upon "conscious" reverence of our conceptions."
Sounds like a late '60's Beatle lyric...
Are you saying "I can't prove god exists, but I feel the need to believe, which for me is proof enough god exists"?
If so, fine; I have no business telling you what opinion should be in that.
Or are you saying "You can't prove god doesn't exist, so therefore, we should act like he does just in case"?
Because I disagree.. whatever, it's Friday, I'm going home...
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
JosephAlward

RWC asked,
"Why don't you find a "contradiction" in one Gospel where it says that Jesus did not arise from the dead and one says he did"
I'm more concerned with showing the Bible has errors in it, and not just small ones, but important ones.
Before you can ask people to believe the gospel writers' statements that Jesus was resurrected, you have to show that they knew what they were talking about. Evidently, they did not know what happened, really, at the tomb, because one of the writers thought that Mary saw a "young man" in the tomb, and said nothing about two angels, while another writer said nothing about a young man, and instead thought Mary saw two angels.
Please explain why this is not an error.
Also explain, if you will, why one author said that Mary met Jesus while she was running, full of joy, from the tomb, but another author said that a sad Mary encountered Jesus while she stood near the tomb. These accounts are utterly incompatible. If not, why not?
I reprint below for your convenience, the evidence I've used to allege Bible error. All of this was posted earlier; there is nothing new below.
Mary Met Jesus as She Was Running with Joy from the Tomb
So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me." (Matthew 28:5-9)

Mary Met Jesus While She Stood Crying Outside the Tomb
Mary stood outside the tomb crying [because the tomb was empty]...she turned around and saw Jesus standing there... Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" (John 20:11-18)

There Was a Young Man in the Tomb
As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side (Mark 16:5)

There Were Two Angels in the Tomb
Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. (John 20:11-12)
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
RWC

Joseph,
Your response reflects that my analogy about the trip was correct. You are concerned about showing that the Bible has errors in it to show that the Gospels writers didn't know what they were talking about, thus you cannot believe in what they wrote. However the alleged inconsistencies that you point out do not support that conclusion. You show different versions of the same event with some differences in the account, yet the event is never contradicted. All of the Gospels say that Jesus rose from the dead. All say that Mary discovered he had risen from the dead at the tomb , that she met him, and that she talked to angels and that she went to tell the disciples. You cannot find an alleged difference in the end result of that account.
To answer your question though:
Matthew mentioned one angel who spoke to Mary, John mentions two. Maybe John was more inclusive than Matthew, but the essense of the accounts match.
Matthew mentions that Mary was filled with joy when she met Jesus, John says that she was filled with joy after she realized she was speaking to Jesus. In both accounts Mary sees and speaks to Jesus and is filled with joy.
Are you saying that the truth in these stories cannot be believed because they are not exactly alike word for word? To me it is nothing more than a rationalization for choosing not to believe.
Abaddon, Have a great weekend.
I am not saying that an atheist would not be moved by Schindler's List. Of course anyone who has feelings for their fellow man would regardless of their belief in God. My point was that I cannot attribute to mere societial evolution that this disgust at that behavior would be so universal. Man's history doesn't show that without a believe in God, man would have developed that sense of justice. Societies that have attempted to be built without a religious basis or that even allowed religious practice have not proven that this type of justice can be achieved. Man on his own is incapable of seeing past himself enough to develop the sense of common good for all involved. This even happens when religious organizations are corrputed and lose sight of their calling as you pointed out with the Spanish inqusition. Bur my point is that at somw point in our distant history, man collectively had to begin thinking that there was a greater good and that they were more than merely surviving so that they devolped emotions and moral that went beyond survival of themselves or those that they cared about. These led to universal moral truths. That thinking in my belief had to come from God because man has not been shown to develop that on his own.
God bless
Seeker

Matthew mentioned one angel who spoke to Mary, John mentions two. Maybe John was more inclusive than Matthew, but the essense of the accounts match
In my opinion, that makes little sense. We're talking about something amazing, something that supposedly had happened only a few times in history. We're talking about a time of heightened emotions of despair turning to joy. And Matthew forgets to mention a materialized angel?! This is astounding stuff that is supposedly happening, and to Matthew it's just so much window dressing that he only bothers mentioning the one angel needed to propel the story?
It makes a lot more sense when you realize there were no eyewitness gospel accounts, that all the stories are second-hand, and the details started to get garbled over time.
JosephAlward

RWC,
Matthew claims that Mary was running away from the tomb when she encountered Jesus, while John says Jesus appeared to Mary as she stood at the tomb.
Do you think both of these writers were correct about this?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
RWC

Joseph,
Were her feet moving or were they not? I don't know. How far did she run, from the tomb when she met Jesus? Was she still at the tomb and had only run a few feet? Had she stopped running and was she standing still when she met Jesus?
Do you see how silly this becomes when you try to find a contradiction that is of no substance? The story is the same. The result is the same. One writer says it slightly different than another. So I say, so what? Does that invalidate the account completely?
JosephAlward

RWC,
Your admission that the accounts of Matthew and Mark leave you wondering whether Mary was running away from the tomb when she encountered Jesus, or standing AT the tomb when she met Jesus makes it clear that the gospel writers did not do their job well. You also don't know whether there was just one young man in the tomb, or two angels.
The events surrounding the alleged resurrection are the most important ones since the dawn of time, so if an all-knowing god had inspired men to write down what happened, he certainly would have given them the power and wisdom to write down accounts which were not ambiguous, don't you think?
Since the God you believe in had the power to guide his writers to write stories that wouldn't leave readers such as you, two thousand years later, in doubt about the details of what happened at the resurrection, why shouldn't we take the obvious ambiguities and seeming inconsistencies as strong evidence that your God did not guide the Bible writers? And, if God didn't inspire them, why should we take on faith that what they wrote is accurate?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
RWC

Joseph,
I do not think that the Gospels are ambiquous as you imply. I was simply pointing out that you can ask for alot of details that were not included in every Gospel to the point of being silly in an attempt to disprove them. The fact is that each writer wrote what he thought was important for his intended audience in his own writing style. The essence of each Gospel is the same and the accounts match on the truths attempting to be conveyed.

Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb

Share this