Three Bible Contradictions and the Dishonesty of J.P. Holding

Our own Matthew J. Green is on the warpath against J.P. Holding. In this Blog entry Matthew details three Biblical contradictions and how Turkel responds with dishonesty. The three cases have to do with: 1) the contradictory stories with regard to where the Holy Family went after Jesus was born, 2) the fact that there were no men with David in I Samuel 21:1-6, even though the Gospels say men were with him, and 3) the fact that the Gospels disagree over when the tombstone was rolled away on Easter.

Matthew does a number on Turkel, claiming he "abuses reason," is a "spin doctor," and that he "distorts and even lies by trying to rationalize away that which he cannot explain." Even if you are not interested in Turkel's dishonesty, Matthew lays out three solid cases for the Bible being in error. I highly recommend Christians read it.


Anonymous said...

To be a biblical innerrantist is to be dishonest by nature. It is impossible to claim the bible is without error and be honest. Its a simple equation.

exapologist said...

For a sampling of Holding's confused reasoning and obfuscating debate tactics, scroll down the page to this exchange between Holding and Keith Parsons:

I'm so happy this is posted. It's nice to see someone take the time to demonstrate in public that Holding is an obfuscating hack who couldn't find his hind-quarters with both hands.

Michael Ejercito said...

If there are errors in the Bible, then how are we to know the commandments of the LORD?

Anonymous said...

thats the point, you cant. how can you trust a god that says to stone little girls for not being virgins anyway, what a joke.

Jamie said...

It's nice to see someone take the time to demonstrate in public that Holding is an obfuscating hack who couldn't find his hind-quarters with both hands.

Debates aside, this site has exposed me to some of the most wonderfully clever insults I've ever had the pleasure to read!

exapologist said...

Hello Jamie.

True, it was insulting. However, I must confess that it's hard for me to feel bad in this case, though, since Holding plays dirty. He systematically and intentionally distorts what people say, and is a general, all-around purveyor of misinformation.

There are plenty of smart Christians and Christian scholars who do honest work. They're also civil in conversation, and favor the democratic exchange of ideas in pursuit of the truth, come what may. I love and respect such people, and enjoy their company. But Holding is not in that camp; quite the contrary. He intentionally stifles the pursuit of truth via the democratic exhchange of ideas, often shutting down the process entirely. The process is too valuable to let him muck things up for everyone involved.



Anonymous said...

EA is absolutely correct about this. I can vouch for the civil way EA treats anyone who wants to have a reasonable discussion with him. By contrast Holding is like a fart that never goes away.

Anonymous said...

Just because you find discrepancies or what you judge to be mistakes or contradictions in a document should not be the sole reason to deem it unreliable. If there is not an answer today, which probably there is, then there may be one someday.

Today there are numerous documents that are, according to your limited perceptions and prejudices, flawless and without contradictions and so forth. The authors crossed every t and dotted every i twice over but that does not mean that these documents are reliable.

So that being said neither should we view the gospels that way or simply write them off once and for all as unreliable.

That the gospels even exist today in the form that they are in is a miracle, but if they did not, there would still be that oral tradition from which it is assumed the gospels borrowed their material. In fact oral tradition is harder to "discredit".

The earliest gospel fragments known, for none earlier have been found, date back to the latter part of the first century. That does not mean that they did not exist before that, we just don't have proof that they did. And just because we can not prove without a reasonable doubt that they did exist does not mean that they did not. They could have.

Just the way O.J Simpson for example was acquitted of murder because the court could not prove without a reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes does not mean that he did not really commit them.

Many skeptics handle Matthew and Luke by saying that they copied from Mark but they cannot account for Mark. Also, skeptics use the date of the earliest fragments of John to cast doubt on its authorship but as I said before this is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Skeptics also look for contradictions in the letters of Paul to pit the Bible against itself, and there may be contradictions but this is a judgment call and whether they discredit the bible is another judgment call, however skeptics are still to deal with Paul's letters which for the most part speak of the resurrection and many other Christian beliefs and have been proven to have been written in the early part of the first century. They mention also other apostles that were of "THE 12". "The 12" very well could have been a title in the same way that "The Sons of Thunder" was.

There are just too many "could have beens" to say that the skeptic community has laid to rest the gospels for good. You are getting ahead of yourselves.

As for JP Holding, I don't know much about him but he seems to be getting to you guys so he must be saying some things that you can't reconcile your arguments with.

I have visited other sights like this but you all seem to be vindictive as if you have a personal vendetta or score to settle. If you do not believe in God or Jesus then why are you putting so much effort into this. Why aren't you doing other things with your precious time that is every moment fleeting since you do not believe in life after death. It is as if you have started your own religion and you are anti-Christians who worship an anti-Christ.

I know people who are atheists or who are not Christians, they actually have lives and are too busy for petty arguments like the ones I see on this forum. They RESPECT other people and their beliefs and they practice tolerance. They have no wish to hurt people or laugh at or mock them.

If you do not believe in Jesus then so be it. Move on, get a life. But the fact is, you do still believe but you do not want to, and so you try and create your own reality with these websites and these books and you try to give other people that same reality to make it more real. But in reality, you are all getting more and more out of touch with reality.

As to Richard Dawkings, he is the same as JP Holding, just on the other side of the fence, they both are throwing the same stones. You are all in business together and by starting these squabble with each other you line each others pockets by writing rebuttal's to the others arguments and publishing them. This is becoming an industry and both sides need the other to keep it going.

Dawkings' blasphemy challenge is a joke and shows how little he understands scripture. Desperation is the unforgivable sin because there is always hope in Jesus Christ.

I hope this helps.

Anonymous said...


For it is by grace we have been saved, through faith, and this not of ourselves, it is the gift of God.

There IS love, there IS hope

Anonymous said...

Atheists do not know how hard they are working for the leader of the fallen angels. It is truly a sign of the times.

Errancy said...

"Just because you find discrepancies or what you judge to be mistakes or contradictions in a document should not be the sole reason to deem it unreliable. If there is not an answer today, which probably there is, then there may be one someday."

The problem with this is that if we waited for all the evidence to come in before forming beliefs, we'd never believe anything. To decide now, we have to look at the evidence we have now.

The possibility of an answer to a biblical problem should be enough to make our belief in biblical errancy provisional, and perhaps even tentative, but it shouldn't be enough to prevent us from forming a belief.