Did Mark lie or did Jesus?

[skepticlogician]

I have many more biblical contradictions and errors I will continue to share. Here's another example of how the Bible cannot be inspired if its authors are going to continually provide inaccurate information.

To be brief, there are three points that are worth raising:

1. Did Mark get his facts wrong?
2. Did Jesus lie? I cannot say he got his facts wrong because he was supposed to be god, remember?
3. Maybe both Mark and Jesus are innocent and this is just a result of a human written book, full of errors, therefore not divinely inspired.

This is a double jackpot, not only Jesus gets the name of the priest wrong, but he also clearly says that David came with other man, which contradicts the story in the book of Samuel.


Mark 2:25-26 (King James Version)

25 - "And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?"

26 - "How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?"


1 Samuel 21:1 and 6  (King James Version)

1 - "Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?"

 6 - "So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away."


So, any excuses, theists?


Edit: Bolded the second contradiction...

[Gordon Freeman]

Interesting... I don't know about the contradictions you are posting, but I'll keep an eye on you, boy (-:
I would like to learn something here and your posts look promising.

[Nam]

Jesus never spoke in the Bible. So, if "Mark" lied or not, is irrelevant. People are speaking on behalf of a person named Jesus who they state is the Messiah and/or their deity/son of deity.  So, I would have to say, to answer your question: No, Jesus didn't lie.

-Nam

[Aaron123]

As I recall, the standard respond is to say "in the days of..." can refer to any point in which this guy was alive, therefore, no contradition.  Of course, this strikes me as rather weak, as it's like referring to 1985 as "in the days of president Barack Obama..."  Sure, he was alive back then, but you shouldn't call him by that title for those times.

[Gordon Freeman]

^^ But as we can see, in both cases there is the very same situation, so to say that one doesn't necessary apply to the other is lame. The difference is only the name of the guy, so if we apply the Occam's Razor, there is only one conclusion... The contradiction.

[skepticlogician]

Jesus never spoke in the Bible. So, if "Mark" lied or not, is irrelevant.

I know there's no real evidence that "Mark" wrote the gospel of Mark. Most xians don't know that (or don't want to know), but we don't even need that to disprove the Bible.
Anyway, forget about that for a second, in what sense do you think that 'Mark lying' is not relevant?
I mean, obviously is not relevant for us, non-believers, as we know that the Bible is no different than any other good'ol mythology book. But I'd like to know how is that not relevant from a xian's point of view, fundie or non-fundie.

[Nam]

I mean, obviously is not relevant for us, non-believers, as we know that the Bible is no different than any other good'ol mythology book. But I'd like to know how is that not relevant from a xian's point of view, fundie or non-fundie.

I'm not thinking in those lines. I find there's no relevance based on the perception of the writer. The writer no doubtedly researched from other religious texts of the time to come to the conclusions in which are written in the Book of Mark; so it's varying sources that "he"[1] based his work(s) on; therefore, if that's true, and I'm betting it is (based on the varying differences from one book to the next, and some similarities from several books, which may have been written by the same author) then the "lie", if there is one, comes from the research material, and not the author themselves.  The misconception comes from the author, nothing more.

-Nam

1.	I quote "he" 'cause despite that it may just as well be a man who wrote it, it is quite possible a woman did. the speculation is there that women had a part in the writing of the Bible yet it's always "men" who take the credit; as most religions reflect

[skepticlogician]

... then the "lie", if there is one, comes from the research material, and not the author themselves.  The misconception comes from the author, nothing more.

Gotcha, I think I can agree to that.