Contradictions in the Bible?

Dear friends in Jesus,

Ever since I was Saved, I have been an avid reader of the Holy Bible, especially the New Testament. I love reading about all of the amazing things that Our Lord and Saviour Jesus did.

However, last week I noticed that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark appear to contradict each other when they describe what the women who visited Jesus' tomb did after they found that He was gone:

Matthew 28:8 - "So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell His disciples."
Mark 16:8 - "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

In addition to this, in the Gospel of Mark it says that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went to the tomb (Mark 16:1), but in the Gospel of Matthew, only Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" went to the tomb (Matthew 28:1).

As a fundamentalist, I believe that everything in the Bible is literal fact, but I am struggling to understand how both of these accounts could be correct, as they so obviously differ. Are they both true or is only one of them correct? If so, which one?

I would appreciate your opinions on this matter. Thank you, and may God bless you.

Scripture does not contain errors, but it does contain eyewitness accounts and is written with different emphasis in mind.
Sites like AiG often have exp.anations for problems understanding biblical passages.
Try:-https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/resurrection/christs-resurrection-four-accounts-one-reality/

Two different accounts of the same event can come out VERY different and yet both be accurate. Maybe this author thought it was important to add this detail into the story, yet the other didn't even mention it. May from where this guy was standing he never even saw the other woman standing over there. These are the kinds of "contradictions" you have to really think about. Different testimonies doesn't = contradiction.

If one account says such and such a person is there, but the other account does not report them there... it does not mean they weren't there.

It means the eyewitness either didn't see the person there (but they were there) .. or the eye witness was focused on a particular person or group of people.

Are the trying to report everything to exact detail, or what they saw?

But remember, the writers were not always present at the events. The Holy Spirit inspired what they wrote. There is a reason the Holy Spirit did not include some information that was not in other accounts.

Guess it would be more accurate to say God emphasized different parts of Himself in each account

Matthew 27:44
The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

In Luke you have one thief repenting, Matthew and Mark neither thief repents.

Never use this argument to people who can think.

If you ever say this, you are admitting the Bible is not God's word, but man's word and they will have a field day with you

Because its just man writing down history as if writing a news article. "Well he just didnt see it"

But wait? I thought the Bible says the Scriptures are GOD BREATHED??

This may need clarification. Surely you don't deny that the Bible uses metaphors, parables, etc. that are clearly not intended to be taken as literal facts?

I’m an avid reader and recently received a book I pre-ordered called, Jesus Contradicted, Why the Gospels Tell the Same Story Differently, by Michael Licona (Zondervan, 2024).

The fact that the Gospel authors tell things differently has been noticed from the earliest of times.
How readers account for these differences varies.
Licona notes three common responses:

1. the ostrich - notices them and doesn’t want to think about it.

2. the peacemaker (or harmonizer) - attempts to make all the accounts fit.

3. the cruel interrogator - twists and stretches Scripture in order to maintain their particular view. “There are no contradictions”. [referring to Hal Lindsell explanation of Peter and the cock crowing).

The author’s point is that the Gospels were written in a particular genera common to the time. The rules of use of this genera differ from those common to historical document written today.

Inerrancy has boundaries- clearly stated in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
With this approach, we can still maintain the idea of inerrancy but it has some additional restraints (refinements) - it can be held only within the bounds of historical use of the time it was written.

Rob

People such as Mike Winger, Frank Turek and J. Warner Wallace have made the point that if all four Gospels "agreed" in every single minute detail, that it would be more likely that they were made-up accounts.

However, the fact that each one is different and brings the author's "flavor" with it means that the accounts are true.

Also, keep in mind what Peter wrote about those who wrote the Scriptures, namely that they were "carried along by the Holy Spirit".

I don't believe that the Spirit, being the all-wise God, would "ignore" the unique perspectives of the authors He inspired.

Yea..I agree with Magenta. One person could have wrote from a point of what was happening and said 'I left my car there'

Another could say , John's car wasn't there in the evening.

Well that would mean it was there at a different time

Knowing that the Gospel are Inspired Accounts of the same story, I apply them into one big thought that shows the whole entire picture of what happened. I do not see contradictions but things that happened during the actual Event taking place. We see an empty tomb that brought fear, we see Angels proclaiming the Resurrection, we see Jesus being Resurrected and instructing Mary to tell the Disciples.

In 1 account it's like a basic outline, another account fills in the blanks of who was all involved, and a 3rd account of the experience emotionally.

So no contradiction but the entire picture of what happened, how they felt, how they reacted, how the events transpired, and ultimately we see Jesus as being Resurrected.

We can track the precise day that Jesus was crucified by counting forward or backward. Forward from John 12:1 or backward from the Passover (which is Nisan 14) or The feast of unleavened bread which was Nisan 15 ....at sunset of the 14th….. (as that is when the next day begins.)

There are no contradictions ... I shortened this considerably ....but check out the scripture on the days in question.

6 days before the Passover.

John 12:1 Then Jesus six days before the Passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom He raised from the dead.
We know from the Word that Passover was on the 14th of Nisan (formally called Abid)

Num 28:16 And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the Passover of the LORD.
17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.



∎ Thursday Nisan 8 - six days before Passover.
John 12:1


∎ Friday Nisan 9 - Jesus makes his first entry into Jerusalem (on an ass's colt.)

Mar 11:1-11 / Luk 19:29-44 / Jhn 12:12-19


∎ Saturday Nisan 10 - weekly sabbath / second entry into Jerusalem (ass “and” a colt) /the Passover lamb is selected

Mat 21:1-17 /Mar 11:12-19 / Luk 19:45 & 46





∎ Sunday Nisan 11 - first day of the week /Jesus taught in Temple confronted by Sadducees, Pharisees & Herodians.

Mat 21:18 - 26:5 / Mar 11:20 - 14:2 / Luk 20:1 - 22:2



∎ Monday Nisan 12 – Dinner at Simon the Leper / Jesus sends Peter & John to secure a place for Passover
Mat 26:6-19 / Mar 14:3-16 / Luk 22:3-13


∎ Tuesday Nisan 13 – Last supper (not Passover) / garden of Gethsemane / Jesus taken by solders possibly around 9 or 10 pm…. interrogated and tortured throughout the night and day of the 13th.

Mat 26:20 - 27:31a / Mar 14:17 - 15:20a / Luk 22:14 - 23:25 / Jhn 13:1-19a



∎ Wednesday Nisan 14 – Interrogation and torture continued late into the evening of the 14 and crucified at 9am on the morning of the 14th (nearly 40 hours of interrogation and torture.)

Jesus gave His life up at 3 pm (our time). He was wrapped in a linen by Joseph of Arimathea and placed in the tomb provided by Joseph. Shortly afterwards (sometime before sunset) Nicodemus came with the myrrh and aloes and did the grave wrappings on Jesus.

Mat 27:31b-61 / Mar 15:20b-47 / Luk 23:26-55 / Jhn 19:16b-42



∎ Thursday Nisan 15 - High day special sabbath. (Unleavened bread) No work to be done

Mat 27:62-66

∎ Friday Nisan 16 women buy the spices to perform proper burial “unaware of Nicodemus’s prior actions”.

Mar 16:1 / Luk 23:56a


∎ Saturday Nisan 17 weekly sabbath No work to be done God raises Jesus sometime before sunset 72 hours

Mat 28:1-4 / Luk 23:56b

💥Notation on Nisan 17: ⬇️

Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn “toward the first” of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

The word dawn is confusing…. the Greek word is epiphōskō used biblically of dusk. the women came to see = (theōreō) gaze upon, observe.
(epiphōskō is used in Luk 23:54 referring to dusk, not dawn)



∎ Sunday Nisan 18 - Mary sees Jesus/ First wave offerings

Mat 28:5-15 / Mar 16:2-14 / Luk 24:1-45 / Jhn 20:1-24

You made the above comment in response to Wattie, who said,
"If one account says such and such a person is there, but the other account does not report them there... it does not mean they weren't there."


Wattie is correct.
A.) You cannot draw conclusions from absent data.
B.) It violates logic to presume a conclusion from missing data: that's why this doesn't hold up in a courtroom, in a debate, or in science.

That's just how logic works.
Wattie is entirely correct.


.

This reminds me of another incident found in Scripture...

--in Luke 24:12, it records only about "Peter"... saying, "Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre...";


--but in John 20:3,4,6,8, it records this: "Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came unto the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. [...]; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, [...]. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulcre, [...]"



If one reads only the incident as recorded in Luke, it might seem Peter was alone (the "ONLY" one to have gone... but the passage doesn't say he was the "ONLY" one to go, in that scene).

The verse would have to say Peter was the "ONLY" one to go, for these two passages to be actual "contradictions"...

(unless we were to otherwise read of some sort of chronology issues related, in any given text or set of texts).



Your Matthew 28:1 passage doesn't say that those two were the "ONLY" women who "came" to see the sepulchre in that scene (not that *you were* saying the text stated such).

So the other recorded accounts are not "contradicting" this.

So are you a fundamentalist more than a Christian? Sounds like you need to stop being a fundamentalist, since you said it governs how you read scripture. Does it also govern how you hear God? Maybe you’re a rigidist since you’re very rigid and inflexible with your approach to the Bible. Also sounds like your rigidity is preventing God from revealing anything to you. If you’re asking for advice on here, then you have truly given up.

^ @Burn1986 , I guess it depends on how the OP was defining "fundamentalist"... as we know that its original meaning had to do with: "The Five Fundamentals of the Faith";
whereas in more recent times the term has morphed into something altogether different from this, as to meaning. The OP himself would have to inform us as to which he himself really means by the term.



Here's a very brief writing by one, as to its original meaning ("fundamentalist") -

[quoting]

"The Fundamentals of The Faith
Another important question to ask is, what are the fundamentals of the faith? Actually, the term, “fundamentalism,” implies that we know what the fundamentals of the faith are. Often five doctrines are described as the fundamentals of the faith: (1) inerrancy, (2) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, (3) the substitutionary atonement, (4) the bodily resurrection of Christ, and (5) the authenticity of miracles. Later, the authenticity of miracles was often combined with another doctrine, and the Second Coming of Christ is listed as number five.
"Where did this list come from? It came from the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in a document entitled “The Doctrinal Deliverance of 1910.” When the New York Presbytery ordained three men who refused to agree with the virgin birth of Christ, the General Assembly of 1910 instructed a denominational committee to draw up a statement which all future candidates would have to affirm in order to be ordained. The Doctrinal Deliverance that the committee constructed established these five articles of faith that were “essential and necessary.”
"These Five Essentials, however, cannot be all of the fundamentals of the faith, can they? They say nothing specific about justification by faith alone, for example. Of course, the conservative Presbyterians in 1910 had the Westminster Confession of Faith to support these five essentials and would have agreed that justification by faith alone was an essential of the Christian faith. But they apparently did not think that justification was an issue at that time. The list of five doctrines was intended to be a line drawn in the sand to keep the denomination from being taken over by theological liberals.4"

--L D Pettegrew ( A Brief History of Fundamentalism | SHARPER IRON ), 2020


[end quoting; bold and underline mine]

Easy,,,,, there where multiple visits to the tomb..

When they first ran to tell the disciples they where met with derision..

(Luke 24:10-11) "It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. {11} And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not."

Some of the woman had to go back and double check to convince themselves they had not be hilucinating. They decided to then tell the disciples that the body of Jesus had been taken to force the disciples to come to the tomb to verify that Jesus was no longer there..

(John 20:2-3) "Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. {3} Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre."

The different accounts are different Points of View of not one but a number of visits to the tomb the woman had to repeat to finally get the men to come and see that Jesus was gone..