robin hood

"Did Michal Have Children?
II Samuel 6:23: Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death.
sons = zero
II Samuel 21:8: The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul.
sons = five"

this search revealed several resources/answers in line with Scripture: https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=did+michal+have+children%3F

Here's the shortest one, in agreement with Scripture: copied from a believers resource: Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

8. the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel—Merab, Michal's sister, was the wife of Adriel; but Michal adopted and brought up the boys under her care.

That's also true in cases where a man is raising the children of his deceased brother.   Sometimes, nephews are called sons in genealogies in the Bible.   Atheists have, in the past, tried to jump on this as a discrepancy, that a man's nephew is called his son and so the Bible can't be inerrant.   But in the ancient near east, that is not a problem because to have one's nephews considered as one's sons was a common concept, especially if one's brother died and you were obligated as his brother to raise his sons as your own.

Any help with the verses about Jacob's burial ?

I am struggling with them .

It's really not a problem.   They simply moved the body to Shechem.  He was originally buried in the cave and later the body was moved so that Jacob and his sons would be buried in the same place.   Stephen was aware of that later fact even though it was not spelled out in the OT.  

What do you think?

 

This Robin Hood individual appears to delight in either spewing untruth to antagonize, or to make assertions about the faith and the Bible from a standpoint of being quite uninformed. That Jesus never mouthed the words "Born again Christian" is a hermeutical error any elementary Bible student can answer.

For example Robin Hood does not realize Jesus spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic and did not even utter the precise words "born again."  And if he is going to be a stickler for precise legal detail Jesus did not say "born" "again" "Christian" then his or her own reason is flawed and should be cast out as nonsense.

Point being what did Jesus mean by what he said? In English, 2000 years or so after the people Jesus was referring to were called Christians at a later date (but shortly after his statement) he was referring to what is today in English called born again Christians or born again believers in Jesus.

If this Robin Hood individual will not believe because they are so uniformed and is apparently unwilling to study the Bible enough to learn these things then his or her futile attempts to cause controversy are not worth  trifling with. As my first year Bible teacher used to say to such challengers, bone up or shut up!

Really, personally attacking him like this only demonstrates you didn't understand what it was he was trying to say.

I like this ! Thanks RH. What's next ?

Thanks . Okay this is one the secularists come up with.....

Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the Hittite. ......"  For his sons carried him into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a burying place of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre." (Genesis 50:13) .

He was buried in the sepulchre at Shechem bought from the sons of Hamor......."Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem." (Acts 7:15-16) .

 

You know a secularist who knows this verse?  Wow!  I have never seen these verses being used to question the Bible.  The primary ones that I have seen used by people concern the virgin birth or other things that the movie Zeitgeist brought up.  I have been in forums where secularists think they are experts on the Bible because of their understanding of things that the movie Zeitgeist brings up.  Although, I would imagine that there are other sources with similar information and that all of these people aren't worshiping Zeitgeist.  

The only other ones that get brought up in my experience are the ones concerning creation because apparently every secularist is also a scientist and they are experts and capable of debunking the Bible with this superpower.  

I would almost love to meet someone who knew this verse; however, I don't see whereas this verse provide a lot of material for disputing the Bible.     

 

 

I like this ! Thanks RH. What's next ?

Robinhood,  I can appreciate your desire to be ready an answer to answer those who would deny the bible based upon supposed contradictions.  Has it ever occurred to you that that is why they are there?  Please allow me to explain a bit.

I spent time in 2013 in complete insanity.  I was sitting alone at home.with a bible studying voraciously thinking that it was all being revealed unto me in truth.  I had vast layouts of prophetic events all in chronological order consisting of both historical events and matching scriptures that pointed to times and dates in the immediate future for the unravelling of the end time events to begin on a certain day.  Nobody could tell me otherwise.  I was convinced.  Anyone who detracted was blind and experiencing the lie that God would send.  But the day came and went without incident.  I was wrong.  It was all delusional.

I met a man who would become my mentor.  He told me to put my bible on a shelf before I hurt myself or someone else.  He began to teach me by example accompanied by instruction what Christ taught about Christian behavior.  As I began to follow his instruction, I also began to have my thinking clear up.  I began to see how and why I became so delusional.  He never had to address my false beliefs about prophetic events.  He only needed to show me where I had not been being loving, peaceful, patient, considerate or humble.  He patiently showed me my ungodliness and as I obeyed truth I was awarded with clarity of mind.

Today I understand that exercising myself unto godliness is the only way I can see and accept the truth about God and the bible.  Jesus told us that if we remove the beam from our own eye then we would see clearly how to remove the mote from our brothers.  Hidden in plain sight is the truth that I am to remove my own blindness so that I can see that others need to do the same.

The issue is never that we don't have an acceptable answer for their many accusations against scripture.  The issue is that we don't have an acceptable God for their hearts desire.

If we live it out before them as did Jesus then our works will convict them of their folly.  Then and only then is there hope that they may become converted and know the truth.  All of their vain attempts to discredit the bible are but a smokescreen for their hatred of God and his Christ and his way of life.

Peace unto you and godspeed on your journey to godliness brother!

Gary what you say is so true......People living out the teachings of Jesus are true evangelists .

I wonder if St Paul was thinking along your lines when he wrote : " You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. ".....I'm sure he was .

 

This is an attempt to deal with some difficult verses from the Bible which opponents of the Bible use to discredit the Bible .

Non-Christians pick on certain verses and claim that they show the Bible to be full of contradictions and inconsistencies ......hence , they claim , the Bible cannot be truthful .

This thread is related to another thread I started , but which I admit I botched up a little ......so perhaps it will be second time lucky .....I hope .

All the verses I use on this thread are verses , KJV ,which secularists , atheists , non-Christians etc. use in an attempt to disprove the Scriptures . I must admit that I struggle and don't have an answer for some of them . So input from members of the forum will I hope be helpful .

So I start with some verses from Genesis with the sort of comments made about them . I repeat , these comments will not be mine .....they will be those of anti-Christians , and we ought to be able to come up with some good responses .

If anyone thinks this ain't a good idea , just say so and I will stop .

So In Genesis.......There were many languages before the Tower of Babel. ...." By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations." (Genesis 10:5)....."These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations. " (Genesis 10:20) .

                   There was only one language before the Tower of Babel......"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." (Genesis 11:1) .

 

 

 

Well it's very simple.  Those verses in Genesis 10 are synopsis of history.  Genesis 10 tells us what eventually happened, the peoples were divided.  Genesis 11  and the tower of babel goes back before that list of divisions occurred.   Unbelievers tend to lack an understanding of how ancient near eastern writers thought.   Not everything historically chronological.  

 

I don't think Jesus necessarily spoke of Jonah as a real historical person .

If Jonah was not a real historical person, then Christ would not have said that He was greater than Jonah.  So why don't you read and meditate on what is actually stated?  One does not compare oneself to fictitious characters.  

Are you sure that's always true? Some fictional characters are so well-known that they can be used for comparison. We can say that someone is "richer than Midas" or "meaner than Scrooge", for example.

A fictional character is not a sign.   Only what actually exists or has existed can be a sign.

And yet we can talk of 'life imitating art'. What is first only imagined can later become reality.

 

I don't find either of these arguments for the historicity of Jonah at all convincing. The best evidence, for me, is when Jesus says: "the  men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah." (Matthew 12:41) I don't believe we shall be seeing fictional characters on Judgement Day.

Thanks , Deborah , for pointing this out .

On the basis of the words of Jesus which you have quoted I can only say that I was wrong in regarding the Book of Jonah as a parable .

I take Jesus at his word , and now believe that there is historical truth , and not just parable , in the Book of Jonah , otherwise Jesus would not have said what you quoted him as saying .

I was wrong on this issue .

Well praise the Lord, I don't see that near often enough on here....   Thank you.

And thank you for your words .

Painted Smile ,  I understand what you are saying......but if we take one account LITERALLY , doesn't it rule out the other account ? ......I must emphasize LITERALLY .

. Depends on what you mean by literally.  Can you explain that for me.

 

let me ask you this...If a headline reads "Bears kill the Cowboys"...do you read it literally? 

A good suggestion......literal comes from the Latin word LITTERA meaning LETTER.....leading to the word LITERALLY......and in the context of this thread I mean a letter for letter , a word for word interpretation of the Bible ,...... an adherence to the exact letter and word .

 

Thanks.  Allow me one more clarification question.  To you,  taking the bible literally would men we have to believe that at the last supper the disciples were eating the actual flesh of Jesus and drinking his actual blood since that is the terminology that Jesus used.  Is that correct? 

In addition to my other post by which I tried to answer your question I add the words of Martin Luther......

 

" Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.."

 

I don't think Jesus necessarily spoke of Jonah as a real historical person .

If Jonah was not a real historical person, then Christ would not have said that He was greater than Jonah.  So why don't you read and meditate on what is actually stated?  One does not compare oneself to fictitious characters.  

Are you sure that's always true? Some fictional characters are so well-known that they can be used for comparison. We can say that someone is "richer than Midas" or "meaner than Scrooge", for example.

A fictional character is not a sign.   Only what actually exists or has existed can be a sign.

And yet we can talk of 'life imitating art'. What is first only imagined can later become reality.

 

I don't find either of these arguments for the historicity of Jonah at all convincing. The best evidence, for me, is when Jesus says: "the  men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah." (Matthew 12:41) I don't believe we shall be seeing fictional characters on Judgement Day.

Painted Smile ,  I understand what you are saying......but if we take one account LITERALLY , doesn't it rule out the other account ? ......I must emphasize LITERALLY .

. Depends on what you mean by literally.  Can you explain that for me.

 

let me ask you this...If a headline reads "Bears kill the Cowboys"...do you read it literally? 

A good suggestion......literal comes from the Latin word LITTERA meaning LETTER.....leading to the word LITERALLY......and in the context of this thread I mean a letter for letter , a word for word interpretation of the Bible ,...... an adherence to the exact letter and word .

 

Thanks.  Allow me one more clarification question.  To you,  taking the bible literally would men we have to believe that at the last supper the disciples were eating the actual flesh of Jesus and drinking his actual blood since that is the terminology that Jesus used.  Is that correct? 

Painted Smile ,  I understand what you are saying......but if we take one account LITERALLY , doesn't it rule out the other account ? ......I must emphasize LITERALLY .

. Depends on what you mean by literally.  Can you explain that for me.

 

let me ask you this...If a headline reads "Bears kill the Cowboys"...do you read it literally? 

A good suggestion......literal comes from the Latin word LITTERA meaning LETTER.....leading to the word LITERALLY......and in the context of this thread I mean a letter for letter , a word for word interpretation of the Bible ,...... an adherence to the exact letter and word .

 

Thanks.  Allow me one more clarification question.  To you,  taking the bible literally would men we have to believe that at the last supper the disciples were eating the actual flesh of Jesus and drinking his actual blood since that is the terminology that Jesus used.  Is that correct? 

I'm sorry Robin Hood, but I must ask, what is your point to all these topics where you have seemingly questioned the validity ( and / or ) authority of the Bible ? Please, for us simple folk, spell it out.

I don't believe that he is questioning either the authority or the validity of the Bible. What he is questioning is the unthinking and all-embracing use of the term 'literally'. Nobody here takes every single word of the Bible literally - even if they claim they do. We all make allowances for metaphor and poetic language - it's just that we disagree on the details.

Painted Smile ,  I understand what you are saying......but if we take one account LITERALLY , doesn't it rule out the other account ? ......I must emphasize LITERALLY .

. Depends on what you mean by literally.  Can you explain that for me.

 

let me ask you this...If a headline reads "Bears kill the Cowboys"...do you read it literally? 

Back to the OP.......To what extent do we take the words in the Bible literally ?
 

The following was mentioned by a friend who was a Jehovah's Witness .........not a big issue........but a problem for her who claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses viewed the Bible to be totally accurate and to be taken literally .....but of course we know they don't .

According to Matthew Jesus was given a scarlet robe ......"And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe."

According to Mark and John  Jesus was given a purple robe...."And they clothed him with purple"......."they put on him a purple robe" .

All three can't be true.....so my Jehovah's Witness friend said that the colour looked different because of the sunlight shining on the robe.......one problem......the Bible says nothing about the sun shining on the robe .

Not a problem at all.   The colors referred to are a deep red color, like what the ancients like to wear.   It was almost like what we would call purple.  The translators are using the closest words in English to communicate the thought.

There is nothing contradictory because they all claim that the soldiers put an expensive, royal robe on Jesus.  The nuances of the exact color are immaterial and you are trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist.  The history of the account is preserved in more than one Gospel.    So you have not really presented an actual problem.

It has never been a problem for me if you read my post .

Just as things in the creation accounts in Genesis are not a problem because they are not scientific or historical accounts.......rather they are symbolic narratives in the nature of creation myths.......not myths in the sense of being false......but myths as traditional stories concerning prehistory and the involvement of the divine . So the following are not problems for me.......

On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness........"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. . And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day......"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

Animals were created before man was created. ....."And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Man was created before animals were created......."And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul......And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. "

Man and woman were created at the same time. ......"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Man was created first, woman sometime later.......And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul......And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

 

 

 

 You are confusing two different ways to tell the same story and thinking it is an error. One is chronological,  one is as a narrative.   

since many people watch football I will use it as a example.

Same game described different ways...

 

1.  The Raiders scored the first touchdown followed by a field goal. Then the Chiefs scored a TD, followed by the Raiders again.

 

2.  In the game last night the Raiders scored three touchdowns and a field goal while the Chiefs only scored twice. 

I understand what you are saying , but if we take one account literally doesn't it rule out the other ?..... I emphasize LITERALLY .

Back to the OP.......To what extent do we take the words in the Bible literally ?

The following was mentioned by a friend who was a Jehovah's Witness .........not a big issue........but a problem for her who claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses viewed the Bible to be totally accurate and to be taken literally .....but of course we know they don't .

According to Matthew Jesus was given a scarlet robe ......"And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe."

According to Mark and John  Jesus was given a purple robe...."And they clothed him with purple"......."they put on him a purple robe" .

All three can't be true.....so my Jehovah's Witness friend said that the colour looked different because of the sunlight shining on the robe.......one problem......the Bible says nothing about the sun shining on the robe .

Not a problem at all.   The colors referred to are a deep red color, like what the ancients like to wear.   It was almost like what we would call purple.  The translators are using the closest words in English to communicate the thought.

There is nothing contradictory because they all claim that the soldiers put an expensive, royal robe on Jesus.  The nuances of the exact color are immaterial and you are trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist.  The history of the account is preserved in more than one Gospel.    So you have not really presented an actual problem.

It has never been a problem for me if you read my post .

Just as things in the creation accounts in Genesis are not a problem because they are not scientific or historical accounts.......rather they are symbolic narratives in the nature of creation myths.......not myths in the sense of being false......but myths as traditional stories concerning prehistory and the involvement of the divine . So the following are not problems for me.......

On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness........"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. . And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day......"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

Animals were created before man was created. ....."And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Man was created before animals were created......."And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul......And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. "

Man and woman were created at the same time. ......"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Man was created first, woman sometime later.......And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul......And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

 

 

 

 You are confusing two different ways to tell the same story and thinking it is an error. One is chronological,  one is as a narrative.   

since many people watch football I will use it as a example.

Same game described different ways...

 

1.  The Raiders scored the first touchdown followed by a field goal. Then the Chiefs scored a TD, followed by the Raiders again.

 

2.  In the game last night the Raiders scored three touchdowns and a field goal while the Chiefs only scored twice. 

?  so ?  Scripture is True.  the source of the other and contradictory information is not.   I didn't edit the search to take out what may be contradictory to Scripture, 

they provide a good example of the error you post,  and where it comes from. (That's perhaps why Shiloh asked for 

your source, since your source is wrong).

Scripture remains true and unchanged and unruffled. 

what you just posted doesn't show, nor mean, that Yahweh created adam and havah (eve) at the same time.

but first,  you didn't answer Shiloh about the source of the errors in red further below.

what is written in Jonah is true.  not false. and fits all of Scripture and Jesus Word perfectly, and true history.

Jonah 4:11

And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

Jonah 3:5

So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.

Jonah 3:6

For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.

1. Jonah 3:3 Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to Nineveh ...biblehub.com/jonah/3-3.htm‎
   So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days' journey in breadth.
2. Jonah 3:3 Parallel: So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh ...biblehub.com/parallel/jonah/3-3.htm‎
   So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days' journey in breadth.
3. here - Tektonics.org Bible apologetics and educationwww.tektonics.org/lp/ninsize.php‎
   Jonah 3:3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.
4. [PDF] 
   How Big Was Nineveh? Literal versus Figurative ... - Charles Haltonawilum.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/01-haltonwm.pdf‎
   Dec 1, 2008 ... Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days' journey in ... Now Nineveh was a very important city—a visit required three days. (niv).

 

The Book of Jonah.....It is impossible that Nineveh , the ruins of which have been explored , could have been a city of "three days' journey" .

A city of 120 000 infants implies a total population of over a million , far too large for Nineveh .

Our knowledge of Assyria , both from Assyrian and biblical records , leaves no room for a conversion of Nineveh to the worship of Yahweh . 

The title "King of Nineveh" never appears in Assyrian or biblical records . It is always "king of Ashur" .

The literary type of the book is didactic fiction or parable .

........

Have you read the contents of your links ?

One says : " A figure commonly given for the length of a typical daily journey in the ancient world is 20 miles per day.5 When this number is combined with the translation of Jonah 3:3 as “a three days’ walk across” (nrsv), one might envision a city 60 miles in breadth. While Nineveh was certainly large, based on evidence from ancient texts and archaeological reconstructions, we can be sure that Nineveh was far smaller than this figure. "

Back to the OP.......To what extent do we take the words in the Bible literally ?
 

The following was mentioned by a friend who was a Jehovah's Witness .........not a big issue........but a problem for her who claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses viewed the Bible to be totally accurate and to be taken literally .....but of course we know they don't .

According to Matthew Jesus was given a scarlet robe ......"And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe."

According to Mark and John  Jesus was given a purple robe...."And they clothed him with purple"......."they put on him a purple robe" .

All three can't be true.....so my Jehovah's Witness friend said that the colour looked different because of the sunlight shining on the robe.......one problem......the Bible says nothing about the sun shining on the robe .

Not a problem at all.   The colors referred to are a deep red color, like what the ancients like to wear.   It was almost like what we would call purple.  The translators are using the closest words in English to communicate the thought.

There is nothing contradictory because they all claim that the soldiers put an expensive, royal robe on Jesus.  The nuances of the exact color are immaterial and you are trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist.  The history of the account is preserved in more than one Gospel.    So you have not really presented an actual problem.