xdisciplex
New Member
This is really confusing. 
When you compare different gospel accounts then very often they don't really match up. It's like this with the story of the centurion and it's also like this with the 2 demoniacs and also the 2 blind people. In one gospel it's 2 demonics and 2 blind people and in another one it's only 1 demonic and only 1 blind. How is this possible? How does this fit together with infallibility and inspiration?
Different accounts rather sound as if the writers had done research and simply gotten different information from different people. But when God told them what to write down why should God tell them different things?
http://www.carm.org/diff/Matt8_5.htm
http://www.carm.org/diff/Luke8_26.htm
Isn't this hair-splitting? I don't find this argumentation very convincing.
When you compare different gospel accounts then very often they don't really match up. It's like this with the story of the centurion and it's also like this with the 2 demoniacs and also the 2 blind people. In one gospel it's 2 demonics and 2 blind people and in another one it's only 1 demonic and only 1 blind. How is this possible? How does this fit together with infallibility and inspiration?
Different accounts rather sound as if the writers had done research and simply gotten different information from different people. But when God told them what to write down why should God tell them different things?
http://www.carm.org/diff/Matt8_5.htm
http://www.carm.org/diff/Luke8_26.htm
- Two men (Matt. 8:28) - "And when He had come to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs; they were so exceedingly violent that no one could pass by that road."
- One man (Mark 5:1-2) - "And they came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes. 2And when He had come out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him,"
- One man (Luke 8:26-27) - "And they sailed to the country of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee. 27And when He had come out onto the land, He was met by a certain man from the city who was possessed with demons; and who had not put on any clothing for a long time, and was not living in a house, but in the tombs."
A contradiction occurs only when one statement makes the other impossible. If Mark or Luke said that only one demoniac came to Jesus while Matthew says that two came out, then that would be a contradiction. But, if there are two demoniacs, then there is certainly at least one. Therefore, there is no contradiction.
The simple fact is that Matthew mentions two of the demoniacs while Mark and Luke only mention one. We do not know why they chose to mention only one.
- Two blind men (Matthew 20:29-30) - "And as they were going out from Jericho, a great multitude followed Him. 30And behold, two blind men sitting by the road, hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!"
- One blind man (Mark 10:46-47) - "And they *came to Jericho. And as He was going out from Jericho with His disciples and a great multitude, a blind beggar named Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the road. 47And when he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
- One blind man (Luke 18:35,38) - "And it came about that as He was approaching Jericho, a certain blind man was sitting by the road, begging...38And he called out, saying, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
There is no contradiction. Matthew 20:29-30 makes it clear that as Jesus was leaving Jericho that there were two blind men sitting by the road. If there are two blind men, then there is certainly at least one there as well. The one focused on was Bartimeaus. Both called out for healing (Matthew 20:29-30). But, Mark and Luke focus on Bartimeaus' account maybe because he was the loudest and most determined, a point worth focusing on for spiritual reasons because God wants us to be persistent in laying our needs before Him.
Isn't this hair-splitting? I don't find this argumentation very convincing.