Debate: Islam Vs. Christianity
Side: Christianity

ARE THERE INCONSISTENCIES AND CONTRADICTIONS IN THE HOLY BIBLE?   By Nur el Masih Ben HaqUnlike the Qur'an, the Bible did not come from one person. Pathetically, the Muslims mistakenly see the Bible as the Christian equivalent of their Qur'an. So, like I said earlier, they cite wrong parts of the Bible to prove that the Christian Word of God is contradictory.Even then, logically, the seeming inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible are what confirm its genuineness. Such parts of the Holy Bible were observations and writings of VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS and under VARIOUS CONDITIONS. Scientifically, such reports are subject to INDIVIDUALITY and CONDITIONALITY unless they are edited. Therefore, this existence of 'INDIVIDUALNESS' and 'CONDITIONALITY' is logically a strong proof that the individual Biblical account have never been edited; and are not fictions in which case they would have been identically written by all the collaborators, but are true and historical events writen independently by various individuals.Example of CONDITIONALITY Mark (10:46-52) says that Jesus healed while LEAVING Jericho. But Luke (18:35-43) says while ENTERING Jericho. This, as a Western Reverend writer observes in his book, had been thought to be (as it is apparently) a sharp contradiction until the excavation of Earnest Sellen of the German Oriental Society (citing 'Archeology and Bible History page 295), when it was discovered that the Jericho of Jesus' time was a double city--Jewish (old) Jericho and Roman (modern) Jericho, such that LEAVING one could as well mean ENTERING the other.Therefore both Mark and Luke are perfectly right. Their various versions were caused by the CONDITION of the then Jericho namely, its double-city nature.Example of INDIVIDUALITY Because Mark and Luke (as in the case above) did not collaborate but rather independently wrote, INDIVIDUALITY became obvious in their judgments. Thus while one of them 'conservatorially' regarded regarded the original (Jewish) Jericho as the (actual) Jericho, the other 'modernly' regarded the administrative (Roman) Jericho as (currently) the Jericho.Other Examples i. Mark (1:6) says, "John's food was ONLY locust and honey", while Mathew (11:18) says, "John came NEITHER eating nor drinking.Here, while Mark considered the 'exact aspect' of John's feeding, Mathew on the other hand considered the 'comparative' or 'metaphorical' aspect .ii. According to John (19:17) Jesus bore his cross up to the Golgotha. But according to Luke (23:26), one Simon was later on forced to carry the cross to follow Jesus. 'A clear contradiction!! ', Muslims would exclaim. But the fact is that the then Jerusalem was a large and walled city and Golgotha was a place just outside Jerusalem. Normally, Jesus most have bore his cross from the Pilate's Court to as far as outside the Jerusalem Wall and within the premises of the Golgotha before the Simon, who was not even an accused, was nevertheless forced to just take over form the apparently too fatigued Jesus to the exact crucifixion spot.Therefore, while John ignored the 'negligible' contribution of Simon, Luke on the other hand, recognized it, perhaps for historical record.Naturally, 'INDIVIDUALITY' and 'CONDITIONALITY' variously manifest any time a historical event is independently reported by different individuals and or when there is a difference of condition.These types of situations are what Muslims simplistically referred to as contradictions in the Bible. iii. Matthew 20:29-34 says two blind persons, Mark 10:46 and Luke 18:35-38 say one blind person. It just means that there were two blind persons. One is active in asking Jesus, the other was barely involved. So, while Mark and Luke ignore the “insignificant” involvement of the reluctant blind man, Matthew felt it was important to acknowledge his inconsequential involvement. In other words, while Mark and Luke recognize only active presence, Matthew acknowledges non active presence. This was because there was no collaboration. Each of them wrote independently with different emphasis and different intended message. If the event was fictitious, the versions would have collaboratively looked very identical. It should be noted, however, that the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Qur'an can not be explained in terms of 'CONDITIONALTY' and 'INDIVIDUALITY' because the Qur'an as a whole was supposedly uttered by one person (God). Of course if there exist contradictions in the direct words of God in the Bible, they likewise can not be explained in that ways. But there is non in actual sense.    Contradictions or Lazy and Mischievous ScholarshipBeing the oldest surviving book in the World, contemporary intervening factors need to be taken into account when dealing with apparent inconsistencies in the Bible. A Cambridge University scientist, Professor Colins Humphreys tackled the biblical seeming inconsistency in which while Matthew, Mark and Luke all say the Last Super coincided with the start of Jewish feast of Passover, John implies it was before Passover.( http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110418/wl_uk_afp/britainreligionchristianseaster) ) The scientist believes it was due to a calendar mix-up between the one (a conservative Jewish calendar) used by Jesus – along with Matthew, Mark and Luke on one hand and the one (official lunar calendar) used by John on the other. Professor Humphreys, who used a combination of biblical, historical and astronomical research, then noted, "Many biblical scholars say that, for this reason, you can't trust the Gospels at all. But if we use science and the Gospels hand in hand, we can actually prove that there was no contradiction."Other claims of contradictions in the Bible are mere mischief of the Muslims and their paid agents, the normally greedy, materialistic and corrupt Western atheists.May the Almighty Yahweh open the eyes.