Expert: Mr. McClellan - 1/7/2006

Question
The question is pretty much only important to me.  It has actually caused me a lot of stress.  It seems that if scripture really has a discrepancy or something really contradicts then that is a real problem.  So far I have seen criticism that claims contradictions and discrepancies and have been able to get satisfactory answers that show these things to be superficial criticisms.  But, like you know, 'satisfactory answers' is a sort of subjective phrase and what is satisfactory to me is not to someone else.  I may think that God's purpose in inspiring an author to say "the sun stood still" was to explain a phenomenon in earthly terms which might not fly for your average internet infidel.  What I have stuck to is that scripture is inerrant in the original autographs.  So I answer these allegations as I go and this question is tough to answer.  

Concerning the resurrection accounts I'll first admit that the bulk of it appears in agreement.  The stuff about the sun rising, and it still being dark when Mary M. and others went to the tomb does not bother me.  I'm a surfer, and know that it is still dark at sunrise.  It is just Matthew's narrative that bothers me.

Thanks for taking the time to study!

-Andrew
Answer -
Hello Andrew,
Sorry for the delay in answering, I've had a lot to do lately.
I need a little more time to check out the things that you asked about, probably a couple of days. In the mean time, is there some reason that the question seems to be so important? If it has to do with the relative trustworthyness of what the writers of the Bible have to say concerning other issues then I completely understand. I studied this many years ago and it seems that I recall that there really is no discrepency but I'm going to go over it again with a fine toothed comb and get back to you.
Sincerely,
Mr. McClellan

Answer
Hi Andrew, I think maybe you missed my answer. I know what you were asking but I was trying to point out that unless the text plainly indicated that opposite things happened then no legitimate charge of a contradiction can be made. You actually answered your own question by coming up with other logical possibillties. A contradiction can only be legitimately claimed when it is clear that two actions could not have taken place at the same time. For example, if Matthew said that "only" Mary (Jesus'mother) went to the tomb alone and then Mark said that both Mary M. and Jesus' mother went to the tomb at the same time then you would have a contradiction. But, let's say for example, that Matthew said that Jesus' mother went to the tomb without mentioning Mary M., and then Mark said that both of them went at the same time, that would not indicate a contradiction since it could be that Matthew didn't mention Mary M. for reasons that only he could answer such as that mentioning Mary M. wasn't important to his purpose in relating the event. We do that kind of thing all the time in everyday conversations. Be aware that I only used the above example to make my point about how to properly identify a contradiction since you were wanting to determine if a contradiction actually existed concerning the seeming problem mentioned in your original question. I was not meaning to imply that I did not know what you were asking. It's just that there is no way that anyone could letgitimately claim that a contradiction existed in that instance. Understand? I hope that this is more clear to you. So many critics of the Bible are clueless and indicate a pure and ignorant pejudice against it. They simply are without correct understanding and do not know how to get at the original meaning of the authors. Know this however, everyone should assume that their may be a difference between knowing "the truth" and in knowing "the truth about what the Bible says." In other words, while it is entirely possible to know the truth about what the Bible says (What was originally meant by the writers of the Bible can actually be known beyond doubt), it may be that what it says is not true about some things. This is where you really have to be capable of knowing how to know, or how to discover, truth. You cannot afford to simply take the word of the writers of the Bible to be the truth unless there is very sound and rational reasons to do so. See Deut. 18:21-22 for example. It is clearly implied here that without presenting real proof, proof that any honest person could not deny, the people of Israel could not have been justly punished for disbelieving a person that claimed to have a message from God. Faith, the kind that pleases God, has to be based on sound reason rather than on a blind gullible guess. God is a fair and just God. He will not condemn people who cannot know if he exists or what his will is. If he does, then he is a tyrant and undeserving of our respect. Therefore, when two people disagree on what the Bible says, there are only these possibilities; one is wrong and the other is right, or both of them are wrong. It is not possible for two people to disagree and both be right at the same time. This is important because there is a false teaching going around, one that is ages old, that says that we are all right in our own way; that everyone that calls Jesus Lord is saved and that other religions are simply other ways of worshipping God acceptibly. This idea did not come from Jesus or his apostles and is anti-Christ in nature since it implies that Jesus lied and did not know what he was talking about. If that is true, then Jesus was not who he clearly claimed to be according to those that knew him and actually heard him speak, like John, and putting any faith in him is a mistake.
Sincerely,
Mr. McClellan