This FAQ is an attempt to summarize the contradictions that people often claim are present in the Bible. It is followed by a response from one of our learned contributors, explaining many of them. I feel it necessary to add my own comments to the list, because in many ways the original posting is not as strong an attack as it should have been. It tends to focus on matters of intrepretation, which I believe can be reasonable resolved. I think when most people talk about contradictions they are thinking more of clear factual contradictions. The following are typical examples. I've tried to choose a variety, to give an idea of the kinds of things people have cited: Noah: how many pairs of animals was he told to take into the ark? Gen 6:19-20, and 7:8: one pair Gen 7:2-3, 7 pairs of the ritually clean This is typical of the contradictions that lead people to think there are multiple sources behind the OT historical books. Numbers of people involved in battles: 2 Sam 10:18 (700 chariot drivers) vs 1 Chr 19:18 (7000) Num 25:9 (24000 killed) vs 1 Cor 10:8 (23000) Number and species of entities in the empty tomb: Mat 28: 1 angel, not in tomb, Jesus apparently not there, because it is said he has gone before them to Galilee Mark 16: 1 young man, in tomb, Jesus will see them in Galilee Luke 24: 2 men in bright clothes John 20: 2 angels in tomb, plus Jesus This is only one of many possible examples from the Gospel. It's widely known the Mat, Mark, and Luke are quite parallel. I invite you to sit down and read a couple of chapters in Mark, and then the parallels in Mat and Luke. It doesn't really matter which ones you pick. They all have the same features. The basic account is the same, but the exact words Jesus says are not, and there are various other differing details. Note that our modern translations somewhat misrepresent the nature of the quotations. By putting quotation marks around Jesus' sayings, they give the impression that they are intended to be verbatim. The originals did not have quotations marks, much less Jesus' words in red. The whole modern assumption that quotations represent verbatim transcripts is a result of widespread written history, and more recently, tape recorders. A modern history would be scandalized if he quoted a source and it wasn't exact. But this was impossible in the ancient world. Historians attempted to preserve the sense but not necessarily the exact words. The whole mentality behind quotation marks did not exist, and of course the marks themselves did not either. Inaccurate quotations of the OT: Mat 2:23. The passage he claims to quote does not exist. (Mat seems to quote from memory. This is not the only one he gets wrong.) None of these contradictions is substantial. It causes problems only for people who believe that God guarantees the accuracy of every detail. There are also archaeological and geographical issues, i.e. references to cities that didn't exist at the time, etc. Unfortunately I'm not good enough with that sort of detail to be able to tell which of these make sense. Thus I'm not including any here. As people in this group know, I believe that the Bible is based on accounts by reliable witnesses, but that like any human witnesses (particularly when the accounts have passed through other hands) they are not going to agree on every detail. I note that both Jews and Christians were honest enough to preserve the multiple accounts. In the OT, the accounts are generally woven together by an editor, whereas in the NT, they are separate Gospels. I don't say that this was done specifically to provide 20th Cent. critics with the ability to assess the amount of variation among the sources. But at least it indicates that the editors did not pretend that they had agreement where their sources did not agree. Many critics believe that these contradictions weaken the believability of the Bible. Quite to the contrary, I believe they strengthen it. They show us that the editors preserved the variety of evidence available to them, even when it was not in complete agreement. From: markn@ecs.comm.mot.com (DX560 Mark Nowak) Subject: Biblical Contradictions Sender: stc@ecs.comm.mot.com (DX504 Software_Tech Center) Organization: trunking_fixed Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 18:40:39 GMT Thank you all for your submissions to my list of Biblical Contradictions. I know it is far from complete, but I don't have the time to devote any more energy to this project. My original intention in compiling this list was to point out to a fundamentalist friend of mine that he was simply wrong in taking the Bible completely literally. At the time of my posting I did not realize that there were books that already covered this topic. They are listed at the end of this compilation. So without further ado, here's what fell into my mailbox: MN PS I tried to send copies to all who requested them. Some mail did bounce back. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The most famous contradiction is the "Conflicting Genealogies of Jesus" found in Matthew and Luke. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The one that sticks out so much for me as a Lutheran is the general tone of Romans (justification by faith) and James (salvation by works). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would suggest classifying them into different categories: (1) direct "spelled out" contradictions like the final directions from the Jesus that Mary saw at the tomb; they differ in one of the Gospels (Luke). (2) Message contradictions; like "get married" and be "celibate"; and (3) theological inconsistencies: like the tremendous differences between the God and the devil of the Old Testament and the GOD and the devil of the new one! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judging 1 Cor 3:15 " The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV) 1 Cor 4:5 " Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God." Good deeds Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV) Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Being at school at the moment I can't recall the chapters in Acts, however, toward the beginning of Acts and toward the end the conversion of Paul is recounted. Paul was one to have put forth a great deal of effort in persecuting Christ's following but received a heavenly manifestation while traveling with some others. In the first account it is said that those with Paul heard the messenger but could not see him (or vice versa) and in the second account it is reversed -- saw but did't hear (or vice versa). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As I recall there is a contradiction in Titus but I don't remember the exact verse. To paraphrase, it says, "Cretians always lie, this is true because a Cretian said so." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- there are too many. the posting would be a multi-volume book. also, there are several different levels of contradiction: - internally inconsistent (genesis chapters 1 and 2) - externally inconsistent (giving modern names to cities before they were renamed, e.g., calling Petersburg Stalingrad before 19xx) - contextual inconsistency (Moses supposedly wrote the first 5 books, so how can he refer to his own death in the past tense?) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How about the different accounts of Judas and the Field of Blood? One is in Matthew (27:9??) and the other around Acts 1:19. In one, Judas buys the field, and dies when his guts burst open, and the field is called 'field of blood' because of that. In the other, Judas gives the money back to the Jews, who cant keep the money because it is 'blood money'. They buy a potter's field with the money; it is called 'field of blood' because it was bought with blood money. Judas hangs himself, instead of bursting open. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've always found Genesis chapter 1 and 2 a good place to start. The order of the creation of animals, man, etc doesn't jive between the two chapters. If you go back to the older texts in hebrew and greek, you will notice that one of the chapters refers to god as Yaweh and the other uses Elohim. The translations that I've heard for Elohim mean more a pantheon of gods than a single 'being'. Of course, the Catholic church can use the trinity concept to explain that away. Yaweh, on the other hand does seem to translate to a proper name of a singular being. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Between the thick lines are Loren Petrich's "Biblical Satanic Verses." I don't consider all of the statements to be contradictions, but I don't feel like editing today. MN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ I think that it would be helpful to consider how the Bible bangers would react to much of the contents of the Bible, if they judged the Bible by the same standard that they judge other books. I know that this posting may look like like an anti-Bible hatchet job, but when those who blindly worship the Bible indulge in similar hatchet jobs on whatever they do not like, then it is only fair to present them with what may be taken as an anti-Bible hatchet job. Some of the indictments I make here are for things I myself do not consider wicked; but those I criticize would certainly consider them wicked, and that is what counts. I call what is to come my "Biblical Satanic Verses" because they might seem wicked to many people. ********** Individual, Sexual, and Family Conduct ********** Nudity -- (Genesis 2) In that garden in Eden, a.k.a. the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were naked. (1 Samuel 19:24) King Saul strips naked and "prophesies" before Samuel. To someone who does not like the thought of nudity, these may be taken as glorifications of nudity -- that being nude is being like that primordial couple and that stripping naked will help one receive messages from God himself. "Indecent exposure" -- (Genesis 9) When Noah drank some wine, he got drunk and let his "nakedness" (King James translation) show. Ham got a sight of that and told his two brothers. They cover him up, carefully looking the other way. An angry Noah curses Ham and his innocent son Canaan. (Exodus 20:26) One should not climb upon an altar, because one would then expose oneself to it. Though concern with this question is much like concern with what a Scotsman wears under his kilt, it will be relevant later on when considering whether or not women may wear pants. Dirty dancing(?) -- (2 Samuel 11) David watches Bathsheba bathe and falls in love with her. Possible bad example -- David wanting Bathsheba and getting her husband Uriah killed; in all fairness, the prophet Nathan made him repent of this tacky action. Incest -- The children of Adam and Eve, the first two people (according to the second creation story), had to practice incest in order to produce children of their own. (Genesis 19:32) Lot's daughters want to produce some heirs, so they make him drunk each night and have sex with him. They become the ancestors of the Ammonites and the Moabites, two groups of people considered very wicked. Sexual exploitation(?) -- (Genesis 19) Lot wants to protect two angels from some of the wicked men of Sodom, telling them that they can have his two virgin daughters but not the angels. The angels, however, don't need that kind of help -- they strike the men blind. Why didn't they tell him in advance, so he does not have to consider letting his daughters be gang-raped? And why does he not break down in tears thereafter when he considers what he had thought of? Sexual suggestiveness (Bible porn?) -- the whole Song of Solomon. [it has actually been banned as pornographic when printed separately from the Bible (Vern and Bonnie Bullough: _Sin, Sickness, and Sanity: A History of Sexual Attitudes_)] Just Say No To All Sex (a logical consequence of Bible-banger opposition to sexuality) -- (1 Corinthians 7:1, 7:8) Paul became celibate, and recommended that course of action for even those who are married. On marriage, Paul recommended that as a safety valve for those who could not manage celibacy -- he was obsessed with the supposed wickedness of "fornication" (Greek _porneia_; properly "prostitution"). Jesus Christ recommends removing parts of one's body that lead one astray (Matthew 5:29-30); and even states that (Matthew 19:12), along with natural-born eunuchs and those made that way by other people, that "there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven". Thus, we have a "Final Solution of the Sexuality Question" -- that one should castrate oneself. He evidently revoked the Old Testament on this subject, which states (Deuteronomy 13:1) that a man who has been castrated or has had his penis cut off cannot be a proper member of the community. Absence of Reference to Masturbation (mentioned because Bible bangers tend to despise this act, even though even many of them perform it) -- Nowhere does the Bible mention masturbation; Onan, that famous alleged masturbator, had not masturbated at all, but had pulled it out. This is significant because there is no shortage of denunciations of sexual mischief in the Bible, with the death penalty being prescribed in many cases. Anti-family -- It is most likely that Jesus Christ never married. He was a wandering religious prophet, living off the charity of his friends and followers. There is no mention of his wife, if he had been married; the poor woman (if there ever was such a one) seems ignored. He proclaimed (Matthew 10:35-37) that he was going to come and set son against father, daughter against mother, and daughter-in-law against mother-in law, and that whoever loves father or mother than him is not worthy of him. He also proclaimed (Luke 14:26) that if you do not hate your parents, your brothers and sisters, your wife or husband, or your children, you cannot follow him. His mother? When he was 12 years old, he told her (Luke 2:49) "Don't you know I must be about my Father's business". At Cana, he told her off (John 2:4) "Woman, what have I to do with you?" Elsewhere (Matthew 12:46-50) he ignores his family -- his "real" family is his circle of followers. Anti-divorce (some Bible bangers actually pride themselves on this one) -- Jesus Christ laid down the law that a man cannot divorce a woman unless she has been unfaithful (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:9); if they remarry, they effectively commit adultery. In the latter reference, after one of his followers suggests that it may be better not to marry, Jesus Christ makes his remarks about eunuchs. The unfaithfulness exception is absent elsewhere (Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18). He had revoked an Old Testament law (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) allowing men to divorce their wives if they so see fit. Child Abuse(?) -- (Proverbs 13:24) -- spare the rod and spoil the child. Polygamy -- David had several concubines, (1 Kings 11:3) King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, (2 Chronicles 11:21) King Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines, and (2 Chronicles 13:21) King Abijah had 14 wives. Surrogate motherhood -- (Genesis 16:1-4) Since Abraham's wife Sarah was barren, she gave Abraham her maid Hagar, to have children for her. She produces a son, Ishmael. There is even surrogate fatherhood (the Levirate). (Genesis 38) Onan refuses to have sex with his brother's widow, and God strikes him with lightning. Obsession with prostitution -- Prostitutes are mentioned so many times in the Bible that its authors seem to reveal a fixation on that activity, a fixation that is evident even in those who denounce it. Sexism (it is hard to get a Bible banger on this one, but some of them vehemently deny being sexist) -- In Genesis 2, Adam and Eve get kicked out of the Garden of Eden just because Eve was conned into eating that fruit by a certain mischievous snake. In one of the "Ten Commandments" (Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 5:21), one is not supposed to desire one's neighbor's land, house, wife, slaves, cattle, donkeys, or anything else of his. Notice how women are lumped in with the rest of a man's property. Jesus Christ was rather rude to his mother at Cana. Paul states that (1 Corinthians 11) women are to be subject to men in the same way that men are subject to God; that women exist for the sake of men, and not men for the sake of women; that men are the image and glory of God, while women are the image and glory of men; and that women should keep their heads covered to indicate that they are under their husbands' authority. Women should wear their hair long in order to cover their heads, while men are to keep their hair short; this is because men are the image and glory of God, while women are the image and glory of men. Also, (1 Corinthians 14:34,35) women are to be silent in church, and should let their husbands instruct them. (1 Timothy 2:11,12) Women are supposed to learn and not teach. (1 Peter 3:1-7) Women should submit to their husbands and should look plain; they should call their husbands their masters, as Sarah had called Abraham. Ethical relativism -- in the Book of Ecclesiastes (3:2-8), we find that there is a time to do one thing and a time to do just the opposite. Anti-materialism -- Jesus Christ's assertions that material wealth is fundamentally worthless, that (Matthew 6;24) "One cannot serve both God and money", that the love of money is the root of all evil, the one ought to "sell everything one has and give the money to the poor", and (Matthew 19:24) "a camel [or rope] is more likely to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man is to enter the Kingdom of God." Those who value the accumulation of wealth will not appereciate such teachings. Opposition to moral condemnation -- Jesus Christ said that one should not pass judgment on others (Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:37-38,41-42), and that one should not call people insulting names (Matthew 5:22). Opposition of displays of piety -- Jesus Christ said that you should not try to impress other people with how pious you are by praying in public (Matthew 5:5-8) and looking sad while fasting (Matthew 5:16-18). This would mean an end to all officially sanctioned prayers, such as in school. Petulance -- (2 Kings 2:23,24) Elisha cursing the children who taunted him about his baldness [we are told that two bears came and killed 42 of them] and (Mark 11:13-20, Matthew 21:19-20) Jesus Christ cursing a certain fig tree because it wasn't in season for figs (we are told that it died the next day [Mark], or that it died immediately [Matthew]). (Matthew 20:12-13, Mark 11:15-17) Jesus Christ drives the moneychangers out of the Temple, declaring that they have turned into "a den of thieves." (Exodus 2:11-16) Moses murders an Egyptian overseer who had murdered an Israelite slave. Not being able to cover up the body or the deed, he fled from Egypt. Note that one of the "Ten Commandments" states: "Do not commit murder" [modern translation]. (Exodus 32:19) As Moses was coming down with the tablets with the Law written on them, he noticed that his people were worshipping a golden calf (really a young bull, a common symbol of strength and fertility). He got so furious that he broke those tablets. Curiously, neither Moses nor God felt too bad about this possibly sacrilegious act -- God made new tablets to replace the old ones. Noah's cursing of Ham qualifies in this department also. Glorification of alcohol consumption -- At the Cana wedding feast, (John 2:1-10) Jesus Christ miraculously turns water into wine. He would certainly be willing to drink it; he is a "wine-drinker" / "drunkard" (depending on what translation you read) (Matthew 11:19). No haircuts or shaving -- One must not cut one's hair on the sides of one's head or trim one's beard (Leviticus 19:27). Food prohibitions -- (Leviticus 11) Pork and shellfish are prohibited. This chapter also states that rabbits are not OK even though they are ruminants (they have the wrong kind of feet), and that of four-legged animals, grasshoppers are OK. [Actually, rabbits do not ruminate and grasshoppers have six legs] A very curious prohibition is (Exodus 23:19) that one should not cook a young sheep or goat in its mother's milk. However, these prohibitions are revoked in the New Testament. Unmotivated proscriptions of mixing -- (Leviticus 19:19) Don't crossbreed livestock, plant two kinds of crop plant in the same field, or wear clothes made from two different kinds of fabric. (Deuteronomy 22:9) One must not plant crops amidst vineyards, (Deuteronomy 22:10) yoke an ox and a donkey together for plowing a field, or (Deuteronomy 22:10) wear clothes with both wool and linen fibers. Cross-dressing forbidden (some Bible bangers actually pride themselves on this one, however) -- (Deuteronomy 22:5) Men and women may not dress in the others' clothes; however, exactly what garments are appropriate for what sex are not specified. Judging from Exodus 20:26, one must conclude that pants are an atypical costume -- it is evident that the people typically wore costumes that allowed a clear view of the genitals from the surface below. In Exodus 28:42-43, we find that the High Priest is to wear linen shorts inside the Holy of Holies, in order not to expose himself to any of the structure. This specification suggests something atypical, and is consistent with the hypothesis of the atypicality of pants. Thus, the Bible states nothing about whether or not it is appropriate for women to wear pants -- because pants are hardly ever mentioned. Additional support can be found in Deuteronomy 25:11-12, which describes an act that is easier without underwear -- a woman grabbing a man's genitals. All one has to do is reach underneath... ********** Social and Political Questions ********** Pacifism -- Isaiah's prophecy that the lion will someday lie down with the lamb, and Jesus Christ's teaching that one must love one's enemies and turn the other cheek. Anti-business -- Jesus Christ driving the moneychangers from the Temple at Jerusalem. His anti-materialism may also qualify. Communism -- (Acts 4:32-35) The early Christians had all things in common, with the property administered by the apostles. Extreme punishments -- (Leviticus 20:10) Adultery is to be punished by death [a penalty still used in Iran], as are homosexual acts (which are "disgusting" or an "abomination") (Leviticus 20:13) and sex acts with an animal (either sex; both human and animal must die) (Leviticus 20:15-16). Also, (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) if two men are fighting and the wife of one grabs the genitals of the other, her hand it to be cut off without pity. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) A rebellious and disobedient son is to be stoned to death. Note also that stoning to death is a commonly prescribed punishment in the Bible. Interestingly, Paul goes even further than the Old Testament; he seemingly implies that death is a punishment for sin in general. Violence (this and the next bit actually contradict the "pacifism" part -- but don't expect consistency from these characters) -- the Bible has almost too many examples to mention. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is especially gory. Genocide -- After concluding that most of humanity is wicked beyond redemption (isn't he capable of reforming anyone?) God decides to slaughter all but 8 of humanity in Noah's Flood. Also, (Deuteronomy 7:12), we learn that the Promised Land is for the Israelites, and not for the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, or the Jebusites; these peoples are to be exterminated without mercy. The Israelites proceed to do just that (according to their own account); they kill (Numbers 21:25, Deuteronomy 2:34) the Amorites of Heshbon, (Numbers 21:34,35) the followers of Og, (Joshua 6) practically all the people of Jericho, (Joshua 10:28-40) all the people of Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Gezer, Eglon, Hebron, and the surrounding landscape, (Judges 1:18-19) the people of Gaza, Askelon, and Ekron, (Judges 3:29) 10,000 Moabites, (Judges 1:4) 10,000 Perizzites and Canaanites, (Judges 4:16) "all the hosts of Sisera", (Judges 8:10) 120,000 Midianites, (1 Samuel 14:12,13,20) the Philistines, (1 Samuel 11:11) the Ammonites, (1 Samuel 15:3,7) the Amalekites, etc. etc. etc. About this last, we are told that Samuel found fault with King Saul because he did not try to kill all the sheep and cattle; killing all the people evidently was not enough. There is an interesting exception, we find (Numbers 25:16,17, 31:7,8) that the Israelites were supposed to kill all the men and married women of the Midianites; the unmarried women who have not gone to bed with any man the Israelites can keep for themselves. Such is the "Final Solution of the Canaanite Question". The only justification other than "the land is for us, not for them" that is ever presented is given in Leviticus (which describes none of these great victories), where we are told that they practiced homosexual acts and other wicked things -- right after where it states that male homosexual acts should be punished by death to all participants. Not only Canaanites were to suffer, consider (Psalm 137) a lamentation of being exiled to Babylon, where we learn that "Babylon will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back, who takes your babies and smashes them against a rock." That this activity is contrary to a certain one of the "Ten Commandments" nobody seems to notice. Acceptance of slavery -- All of the Bible takes slavery for granted, and states that slaves should simply obey their masters. (Ephesians 6:5) Slaves are supposed to obey their masters almost as if they were Jesus Christ himself. The only concession in the opposite direction is that masters should be good to their slaves. Elsewhere, (1 Peter 2:13-18) we find that one should simply obey one's superiors, and that's that. Rejection of democracy -- Nowhere in the Bible is an elected leadership featured. The only theory of government featured is the Divine Right of Kings. The Old Testament refers to the Israelite kings as "sons of God" (presumably just adopted) and (Romans 13:1-7) Paul states that all governments are set up by God himself and that virtuous people need not fear getting into trouble. No comment on governments that officially worship "false" gods, such as that of the Roman Empire. It is somewhat surprising that the Bible bangers have not denounced the American Constitution as an act of rebellion against God, since it traces ultimate authority to "we the people" instead of God. Though the Declaration of Independence does mention a God (though not necessarily the one in the Bible), it seems to treat government as a purely human invention, with no direct connection to any deity whatsoever. Significantly, it does not quote the Bible, perhaps because no Bible quotes can be found to justify its position. ********** Textual Questions ********** Greek (pagan) influences -- (Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:35) The Virgin Birth story was almost certainly inspired by the numerous tales of pagan gods making mortal women pregnant. Even such historical people as Pythagoras, Plato, and Alexander the Great were imagined to have divine paternity -- Apollo for the first two and Zeus for the third. And since Mary was already betrothed to Joseph, if not actually married to him at the time, a miraculous conception must qualify as spiritual fornication / adultery. Babylonian influences -- The story of Noah's Flood appears to have been inspired by some remarkably similar Babylonian flood legends; the long lives of the earlier people in the Bible appear to have been inspired by Babylonian legends of early, long-lived kings. Even the two creation stories appear to have Mesopotamian inspirations; creation story #1 is somewhat similar to the Babylonian creation epic _Enuma elish_, while creation story #2 has some similarities to Sumerian creation stories -- notably the references to an eastern garden and to a woman being referred to as the mother of "life" or a "rib". The two words are similar in Sumerian, making a pun -- a pun which did not translate into Hebrew. Egyptian influences -- the wording of the "Ten Commandments" strongly parallels the wording of parts of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, instructions that one is to be buried with so one may find one's way around in the Next World. At one point, one is to announce that "I did not kill ... I did not steal ... I have not offended god ...", etc. Contradictions -- The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark -- is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem -- a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ'f father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan. The two creation stories: In what order? #1: Sky, earth, ocean, plants, Sun, Moon, and stars, birds and sea animals, land animals, humanity (both sexes). #2: Earth, a garden, first man, various animals, first woman. How orderly? #1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days". #2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. How satisfied? #1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied. #2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. Unstated assumptions -- There are a number of places in the Bible that imply various things that its writers would have taken for granted, but which may not seem so obvious to others. The proscription of cross-dressing is one such thing; there is no hint of what clothing is to be for what sex. Genesis 1 offers another example; there are "evenings", "mornings", and "days" -- all before the Sun was created (whose apparent motions create day and night, mornings and evenings). Genesis 2 contains no mention of the question of whether Adam had been created with (male) genitals, or whether he was given them later. Since God had not originally intended to create Eve, it is a serious question how Adam was supposed to reproduce without the help of a female partner -- if he was to reproduce at all. Unsubstantiated history (this is working from the contents of assorted ancient texts, which the Bible bangers seem to consider very reliable sources of information) -- Judging from the genealogies, Noah's Flood would have taken place about 2400 to 2200 BC. However, there are continuous written records in both Egypt and Mesopotamia at the time (especially in the former); the Egyptian and Mesopotamian scribes kept writing their chronicles through that time as if nothing whatsoever had happened. There is no Egyptian record of the events of the Exodus, had they happened as described in the Bible. The confrontation with the Israelites, the natural disasters, the pursuit of the Israelites, and the drowning of the Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea are all events that could not have escaped the notice of any Egyptian chronicler. Joshua's telling the Sun to stop moving across the sky (Joshua 10:12-14) would have been recorded in numerous chronicles; it allegedly happened around 1200 BC, when there were scribes at work not only in Egypt and Mesopotamia, but also in ancient Turkey and Crete. In the Book of Jonah, we find that Jonah got the people of the Assyrian capital of Nineveh to repent of their sins. This remarkable event is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible, or in the chronicles and libraries of Nineveh or any neighboring city. The Star of Bethlehem and the massacre of baby boys ordered by Herod (Matthew 2) are events mentioned nowhere else in the Bible, or by any outside historians, some of whom describe Herod in great detail. There are similar stories surrounding the births of other notable people in antiquity, which are just as convincing. The peculiar census-taking method (Luke 2), which required people to go back to their ancestral villages, is also not mentioned by any other source. It is not a typical method of census-taking (census takers usually track people down at their current residences) and it also would have been needless trouble for census-takers and the people being counted. One conceivable response to criticisms of this sort is that the Bible expresses higher truth than literal history, but those who make this argument should make their views explicit, should not try to defend the Bible as history, and should not complain about criticisms of it as such. History Unsubstantiated Archeologically -- There is little archeological evidence for the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites and the genocide that they, according to their own account, allegedly practiced on the previous inhabitants. So the Israelites may never have practiced this genocide after all. Quotes Out of Context -- The efforts in the New Testament to demonstrate that Jesus Christ was indeed the Messiah rely on a number of Old Testament quotes, quotes that are typically out of context. Matthew's quote of Isaiah 7:14-16 on the Messiah ignores the fact that Isaiah was referring to some would-be contemporary king. Micah 5:2, which describes the origin of the Davidic dynasty in Bethlehem, is quoted out of context to sound like the prediction of a Messiah. In reference to Herod's massacre of baby boys, Matthew quotes a lament in Jeremiah as a "prophecy"; the original had referred to the exile of Israelites by a conquering king. Hosea 11:1 was used to demonstrate that Jesus Christ would be taken to Egypt and back, even though it was really a complaint about worshipping other gods rather than the one who brought them out of Egypt. Late Writing (from internal evidence; again, especially reliable in a Bible banger's mind, since it is from the Bible itself) -- there is internal evidence that certain parts of the Bible were put together long after the events they (allegedly) described happened. In the first five books (the Pentateuch), traditionally ascribed to Moses, we find several things being described as being true "to this day" and a list of Edomite kings (Genesis 36), some of whom lived after Moses. Moses himself is always described in the third person, and his death and burial (Deuteronomy 34:5-8) are actually described. (Deuteronomy 34:10-12) "There was no prophet like him", we are told, and (Numbers 12:3) "he was the humblest man who ever lived", we are also told. Both statements suggest the work of someone who had plenty of experience with other people who lived after Moses, and neither statement sounds like the self-description of a very humble person. Matthew 27:8 states that a certain field is called "The Field of Blood" -- "to this day" -- an indication that at least one of the Gospels was composed well after Jesus Christ had lived. This line of evidence demonstrates that at least these parts of the Bible are not eyewitness history. ********** Theological Issues and Related Questions ********** Evasions -- After laying down the law that divorce is forbidden, Jesus Christ is asked if it would be better not to marry. He responds with his famous remarks about eunuchs. That does not seem like a direct reply to the question. When confronted with the question of whether one ought to pay taxes using idolatrous coinage, he made the remark (Matthew 21:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:20-26) that one should "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" -- without specifying which belongs to whom. Involvements with evil spirits -- Jesus Christ drove out demon after demon after demon from people possessed with them. In one such episode (Matthew 8:28-54, Mark 5:1-20, Luke 8:26-39), he came upon someone possessed with demons, and conversed with these demons through him. Since they knew they were about to be driven out, Jesus Christ let them enter some nearby pigs. These unfortunate animals proceeded to stampede into a nearby lake and drown. Going to mediums (a.k.a. channelers; I mention this because it smacks of the "occult", which Bible bangers tend to hate and fear) -- (1 Samuel 28:7-19) When King Saul was out of luck, getting no answer from dreams, Urim or Thummim, or prophets, he turned to a medium in Endor ("the witch of Endor") for help. Though she was reluctant to help someone who had driven people like her out of Israel, she did what he asked, and brought back the ghost of the prophet Samuel, whom Saul proceeded to consult for advice. Jesus Christ's Sabbath-Breaking -- (Matthew 12:1,2, Mark 2:27) Jesus Christ said that it was OK to pluck grain on the Sabbath if one was really hungry, commenting that "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Also, he worked some miraculous cures on the Sabbath. These actions are contrary to one of the "Ten Commandments," as some contemporary critics of his had noticed. Does God Revoke His Own Laws? -- Several people in the New Testament revoke Old Testament laws, which are described as having been presented to Moses by God himself. Paul revokes the laws requiring circumcision and forbidding the eating of pork and other "unclean" meats. Jesus Christ revoked several, notably the ones forbidding all work on the Sabbath, allowing divorce, seemingly glorifying self-castration, and (Exodus 21:22-25, Leviticus 24:19-20, Deuteronomy 19:21) prescribing "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and the like in certain cases. About the latter, he teaches (Matthew 5:38-44, Luke 6:27-30) that one should love one's enemies, turn the other cheek, etc. This is despite his claim (Matthew 5:17-18) that all of the Old Testament Law still stands. He claimed that it could all be summarized in the familiar Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31) "Do for others (just) what you would want them to do for you" [a modern-English translation; the word in ()'s is found in Luke but not in Matthew]. However, there is much in the Old Testament Law that (1) does not follow from this principle, like the Sabbath and the dietary laws, and (2) contradicts this principle, like intolerance of other religions. Elsewhere in this document, you will find many examples of activities glorified in the Bible that are contrary to the Golden Rule, such as Jesus Christ cursing that unfortunate fig tree for not bearing fruit when he wanted to eat, just because it was out of season. If he was a fruit vendor and he did not have some fruit that a customer wanted, just because it was out of season, would that customer have the right to murder him? Insensitivity, intolerance, and persecution directed at other religions (this is something that the Bible bangers bitterly bewail when anything like it is directed at them, even though they all-too-often direct that at others) -- Worship of gods other than Yahweh is labeled "idolatry" -- the worship of statues (Exodus 20:4-5, 23:24,37-33, Leviticus 19:4, 26:1, Deuteronomy 4:15-19,25-28, 5:7-9, 27:15); these are described as "gods" of wood and stone, that can't see, hear, eat, or smell (Deuteronomy 4:28). This insult to the traditional religions of the neighbors of the Israelites, and of some of the Israelites themselves, is repeated many times in the Bible. These gods are often labeled "disgusting" or "abominations." (2 Kings 1:2-6) The god of the Ekronites is labeled Beelzebub -- "The Lord of the Flies". One must destroy altars and images of the gods of conquered peoples (Exodus 34:13, Deuteronomy 7:25-26). (Exodus 22:20) The death penalty is prescribed for worshipping other gods. (1 Kings 18:16-20) The prophet Elijah challenges 450 prophets of the god Baal to see who had the more powerful god. They sacrificed and they prayed, but only Elijah's sacrifice was consumed by fire. The onlookers seized the prophets of Baal, and Elijah killed them all. (2 Kings 18:25) King Jehu announces a festival in honor of Baal, his worshippers show up, but all get killed instead. (2 Kings 23:4-20) King Josiah orders the destruction of objects connected with other deities, like Ashtoreth, Chemosh, Milcom/Moloch, Asherah, and the Sun, Moon, and stars. He also kicks out the priests of these gods and their temple prostitutes. Magic, divination, and contacting the spirits of the dead are forbidden; there is a death penalty for that also (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 19:26,31, 20:6,27). (Acts 19:23-41) Paul provokes the worshippers of the Greek goddess Artemis at Ephesus (Roman name: Diana) by implying that their religion is false. Not surprisingly, (1 Corinthians 8) he shows contempt for other religions. Even "insiders" do not escape -- consider how Jesus Christ vilified those Scribes (Teachers of the Law) and Pharisees. (Matthew 23) He called them "hypocrites" and "blind guides" who "strain out a gnat while swallowing a camel" and "snakes and sons of snakes" who will not escape being sent to Hell. Animal sacrifice (mentioned because some present-day people snicker at it as "barbaric") -- The Book of Leviticus contains detailed directions for various animal sacrifices. When King Solomon dedicated the Temple, he ordered the sacrifice of (we are told) 22,000 cows and 120,000 sheep. When Noah made burnt offerings from the sacrifices he had made, God relished the smell. In all fairness, animal sacrifice in the Old Testament, like animal sacrifice among many ancient societies, was simply a ritual surrounding the slaughter of a meat animal. Part of it was to be shared with whatever gods were worshipped by the sacrificer; the gods always seemed happy with the parts that their worshippers did not like. Human sacrifice -- (Genesis 22) Abraham is willing to sacrifice his son Isaac to Yahweh, only to be told at the last minute that it was only a test. (Judges 11:39) Jephthah proposed to sacrifice whatever came out of his house when he returned if he won a battle, but was very disappointed to discover that it was his daughter (and not, for example a dog) that he had to sacrifice. In the letters of Paul, we learn that the execution of Jesus Christ was really a human sacrifice; one that will serve as substitute punishment of the sins of anyone who chooses to believe in him (you can be as wicked as you want, but as long as you believe in Jesus Christ...). Anthropomorphism (I include this because this generally gives the appearance of an impoverished imagination; the Bible bangers are quick to notice such things in religions other than theirs) -- the God of the Bible is persistently described in anthropomorphic terms; he (note the male pronoun) is described as having an abundance of human emotions and "hands" and "feet". (Isaiah 40:22) God is described as sitting on a throne above the sky, which he had stretched out like a tent over the Earth, which was evidently believed to be flat. In the first creation story (Genesis 1:26-27) God is described as creating the first people in his likeness (both sexes in the likeness of a (presumably) male being); the resemblance must go both ways. In the second creation story (Genesis 2), we learn that God "plants" a garden, that he forms the first man out of dirt and brings him to life by breathing on him, that he creates animals and plants in much the same fashion, and even that he puts the man to sleep and forms the first woman from a rib of his that he extracts. Continuing, we find (Genesis 3:8) that he had been "walking" in that garden in Eden, and (Genesis 3:21) that he made clothes from animal skins for that wayward primordial couple. In the flood story, we find that (Genesis 7:16) that he shuts the door of the Ark behind Noah and (Genesis 8:21) that he sniffs the sacrifices that Noah makes after the flood ends. The more sophisticated kind of theologians have maintained that anthropomorphisms are essentially a mental crutch for the purpose of picturing the otherwise difficult-to-picture, but there is no statement of that hypothesis anywhere in the Bible. Is God Really Omniscient? -- In Genesis 2, we learn that God has to fix his creation as he goes, as if he could not anticipate everything that was necessary. In Genesis 7, we learn that God was very unhappy about the way humanity had turned out -- he had never anticipated that people could be so wicked (though we are not given too many details on that). So God is not really omniscient after all -- he could not anticipate the consequences of some of his actions, at least according to the Bible. Gross-outs (I'm not sure where this should go, but in any case, I recommend reading only on an empty stomach) -- (Proverbs 26:11) "A fool doing some stupid thing a second time is like a dog going back to its own vomit". (Acts 1:18) Judas Iscariot tripped and fell; he burst open and his guts flowed out [in a rival version (Matthew 27:5), he hanged himself]. During a confrontation (Isaiah 36:12), an Assyrian official stated that the people of Jerusalem will end up having to "eat their own dung and drink their own piss". ********** Responses to Criticisms ********** Not surprisingly, I have received several types of criticism for the contents of my "Biblical Satanic Verses." One criticism was that they were "ineffective and grasping." This criticism was from someone who had not expected too much out of sacred books, having discovered that Mohammed's main "argument" for the truth of his beliefs, as stated in the Koran, was "Believe! ... Believe! ... Believe!" and that those who did not accept his beliefs were little different from farm animals. However, the indignant response that my Biblical Satanic Verses have provoked in certain circles indicates otherwise. I have been accused of being too literal-minded. But how does one tell what is literal and what is allegorical? Some things the Bible states are recognizably metaphorical, others are presented in a context where a literal meaning would usually appear, and till other things in it are more ambiguous. In practice, it always seems to turn out that something is "literal" if one likes it and "allegorical" if one does not. I have also been accused of quoting the Bible out of context. I agree that quoting out of context is a deplorable practice, and it is for that reason that I have been careful to notice context, and the results have not always been what those who make this complaint have wanted them to be. Exactly what these critics mean by the proper "context" is unclear; but I often get the impression of some sort of whitewash. This is a type of "context" that my work has been free from. As with literal vs. allegorical interpretation, the general rule seems to be that something one likes does not need a context (even it ends up being quoted out of context), while something that one does not like does need a context -- a whitewashing "context," of course. My criticisms have been labeled unoriginal. I do not see that as a fault of this work; I freely acknowledge having built on the work of others. I see myself as presenting this work in an accessible form, as well as adding criticism original with myself. However, it is a legitimate criticism of the Bible, since it is presented as an absolute truth that is not derived from any human source. I find it depressing that there are those who have been willing to defend the alleged genocide, the "Final Solution of the Canaanite Question", described in the early parts of the Bible, rather than to try to argue it away. The "justifications" given certainly do not justify killing the innocent people among the groups massacred. Consider that the Nazis had similar justifications for their genocidal activities -- that Jews were the enemies of civilization, that they were loan-sharking bankers, that lecherous Jewish boys liked to seduce virtuous Nordic girls, that they were responsible for the "stab in the back" that led to Germanys' defeat in the last big war, etc. etc. And the worst thing about this defense is that, while the Nazis tried to hide their genocidal activities and their apologists maintain that they never practiced genocide (seriously!), these people actually defend genocide. ********** Final Comments ********** And I'm sure that the Bible bangers would despise Jesus Christ if he appeared outside the Bible. For one thing, they would consider it self-evident truth that he was homosexual, meaning, of course, that he was not a "real man." [Sorry if I insult net.gay-people, but that is just a stereotype] And they would say that a lot of the Bible ought to be banned -- if they judged it by the same standards as they do everything else. Why would Jesus Christ not be a "real man"? He apparently never married, he did not seem too sexually interested in women, and he advocated turning the other cheek. And I think we are all familiar with the stereotype that if you are not a "real man", you are homosexual. I do not deny that it is possible to quarrel with many of these interpretations; and I would not wish to imply that much of what I point out is peculiar to the Bible. Sexism, slavery, rejection of democracy, etc. etc. etc. etc. are hardly confined to the Bible. And I would not want to suggest that this type of critique be confined to the Bible. Many other books viewed as sacred by various people can be analyzed in the same way; they too may well contain things that their worshippers would dislike. The Koran is one good example of such a book. Indeed, I think of myself as following in the tradition of two sacred-book critics from ancient Greece, Xenophanes and Plato. Here is what Xenophanes had had to say (I quote from Bertrand Russell's _A History of Western Philosophy_): Homer and Hesiod have ascribed to the gods all things that are a shame and disgrace among mortals, stealings and adulteries and deceivings of one another ... Mortals deem that gods are begotten as they are, and have clothes like theirs, and voice and form ... yes, and if oxen and horses and lions had hands, and could paint with their hands, and produce works of art as men do, horses would paint the forms of gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, and make their bodies in the image of their several kinds .,. The Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed; the Thracians say theirs have blue eyes and red hair. Note: Thrace is north-eastern Greece and in ancient times, "Ethiopia" meant sub-Saharan Africa. In his dialogue _The Republic_, Plato put forth his idea of the ideal society (actually, it is "Socrates" who does the talking, but I will not argue the question of how much of Plato's Socrates is really Socrates and how much is Plato putting words into Socrates's mouth). He went into detail about a number of social arrangements, many of which sound totalitarian, but the interesting feature here is his treatment of the works of Homer and Hesiod -- he advocated that they should be banned (something I don't agree with for "wicked" books). First off, these poets state that the gods can change shape, that they sometimes tell lies, that they sometimes hand out bad fates, and that they even fight each other; the people are to be taught that God is no such thing, that God is not the author of all things, but only of good things(!). Apparently, "God" is here all the gods collapsed into one. These poets describe rich feasts -- the people are not to hear of such things, because they are to avoid luxury. They mention the gods laughing -- everybody is supposed to be grave and serious. Ditto about the lusts of the gods -- the people should not be preoccupied with sex. They talk about heroes lamenting dead companions and about how the dead are miserable in Hades -- they are not to fear death and are not to think that they will be unhappy in the next world, so that they will be willing to fight bravely without fear of what might happen in the next world. Here are some good references on the history behind the Bible: Isaac Asimov: Asimov's Guide to the Bible Richard Elliott Friedman: Who Wrote the Bible? Randel Helms: Gospel Fictions Elaine Pagels: Adam, Eve, and the Serpent Much of this material is from the _The Born-Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible_, by Ruth Hurmence Green, which is available from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Write to this address: FFRF, Inc. PO Box 750 Madison, WI 53711 Although Ms. Green's book is a good source for some of the seamier contents of the Bible, she seemed to show a lack of awareness of much modern scholarship concerning its contents. She seemed unaware of the Documentary Hypothesis, which states that the first five books in the Bible were edited together from four separate sources; for example, she did not quite treat the two creation stories in Genesis as two separate entities, as they ought to be. But she was evidently aware of one previous collector of Biblical Satanic Verses -- that great revolutionary activist Thomas Paine. He had written a book, _The Age of Reason_, in which he expounded his views on the Bible, for example, that much of the first five books of it could not have been written by Moses, contrary to tradition. Not surprisingly, his critique of the Bible aroused the indignation of the clergy of his day. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ REFERENCES: Self-contradictions of the Bible. William Henry Burr ISBN 0-87975 416 -8 1. Burr, William Henry, 1819-1908. Self-contradictions of the Bible / William Henry Burr ; with an introduction by R. Joseph Hoffmann. [Buffalo, NY : Prometheus Books], c1987. Series title: Classics of Biblical criticism. UCB Moffitt BS533 .B798 1987 UCD Main Lib BS533 .B798 1987 3. Cooper, Robert, secularist. The "Holy Scriptures" analyzed, or, Extracts from the Bible : shewing its contradictions, absurdities and immoralities / by Robert Cooper. 2nd ed., to which is added, a vindication of the work. Manchester, [Greater Manchester] : J. Cooper, 1840. Series title: Goldsmiths'-Kress library of economic literature ; no. 31887. UCLA AGSMgmt H 31 G57 Microfilm 4. DeHaan, M. R. 508 answers to Bible questions : with answers to seeming Bible contradictions / M.R. DeHaan. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Zondervan, [1968?], c1952. UCSB Library BS538 .D43 1968 18. Thaddaeus, Joannes, fl. 1630. The reconciler of the Bible inlarged : wherein above three thousand seeming contradictions throughout the Old and New Testament are fully and plainly reconciled ... / by J.T. and T.M. .. London : Printed for Simon Miller ..., 1662. Series title: Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1052:9. UCSD Central MICRO F 524 Current Periodical Microform 19. Poole, Matthew, 1624-1679. Annotations upon the Holy Bible. Vol. II : wherein the sacred text is inserted, and various readings annex'd, together with the parallel scriptures : the more difficult terms in each verse are explained,... The third edition, with the addition of a new concordance and tables, by Mr. Sam. Clark; the whole corrected and amended by the said Mr. Sam. Clark and Mr. Edward Veale .. London : Printed for Thomas Parkhurst [and 6 others], MDCXCVI [1696]. Series title: Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1041:1. UCSD Central MICRO F 524 Current Periodical Microform "the x-rated bible" by ben edward akerley, published by american atheist press, austin texas, 1985. -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x Mark S. Nowak If my employer finds out what I'm x x Internet: markn@mot.com I'm doing, I'm a DEAD MAN!!! :-) x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: jwindley@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jay Windley) Subject: Biblical inerrancy re-examined Date: 17 Aug 91 20:47:48 GMT Organization: Kansas State University INTRODUCTION This is a response to James Meritt's lengthy posting in which he lists several dozen errors and/or contradictions in the Bible. Most of these examples are well thought out and offer a serious challenge to the idea of an inerrant Bible. However, a few demand closer scrutiny. It is these few that I wish to examine. Meritt ends the introduction to his posting by noting that such contradictions "are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise." Meritt intends to refute the position of biblical fundamentalists, but in doing so he supports the Bible as an authentic historical document. The Bible *is* a hodge-podge of documents. Given this, it has a remarkable degree of consistency. While Meritt successfully demonstrates that the Bible does not agree with itself perfectly, I hope to show that such inconsistency does not undermine its value to the extent that we should abandon it. Meritt also concludes that because the Bible has been "edited" over the centuries it should now be harmonious. This wrongly assumes that such "editing" was directed toward that end. Most editing was done to resolve differences *within* each book. Only comparatively recently have we made efforts to resolve differences *between* books. As stated above, these responses should not necessarily be read as refutations, but merely explanations of how these discrepancies may have arisen. I have grouped Meritt's points together by passage or subject to avoid redundancy in the responses. ONE WITH THE FATHER No biblical dilemma is a larger can of worms than this one. However, Meritt could have chosen better verses. The "one" in Jn. 10:30 appears in the Greek neuter, suggesting that the "one-ness" is not physical but figurative -- much the same way a driver becomes "one" with his car. The verse need not be interpreted to mean that Jesus and God are equal or identical, which would have required a masculine "one." IN THE BEGINNING... Meritt dwells at length on the conflict between the two accounts of the Creation presented in Genesis. Many of his "problems" simply evaporate when correctly rendered from the Hebrew. Hebrew is a minimal language, in which there can be much ambiguity. The Old Testament of the King James Version is not a good translation in many respects. For example: BEASTS OR MAN FIRST? Hebrew handles verb tenses much differently than English. Gen. 2:19 might just as easily be rendered: "And the God YHWH *had* formed out of the ground [all those animals] and He brought them to Adam..." Similarly, Meritt's ordering of the creationary tasks is based on KJV's simplistic verb tenses. The Hebrew phraseology of the Jahwist record is flexible enough to give equal validity to the NIV version, which renders both accounts in the same order. HAPPY GODS? Since the Jahwist Creation is not "out of order" in the Hebrew, Meritt's contention that a supposedly forgetful God has to "fix up" His creation is unfounded. Incidentally, the Hebrew 'elohim' is a majestic plural -- written as a plural, but functioning grammatically and semantically as a singular. WATER FOWL? The KJV Gen. 1:20-21 associates two clauses which should be separate. NIV renders it more accurately. CATTLE? Gen. 30:39 implies that goats gave birth to bovines. However, in the 17th century "cattle" referred to livestock of any species. The Hebrew is correct. The English is archaic, but also correct. NOAH'S MANIFEST The phrase "by sevens" in Gen. 7:2,3 can also be rendered "in seven pairs." What is important is that each pair consist of a male and female. v. 8 claims they entered the ark by pairs, but does not imply that only one pair of each animal boarded. SOLOMON'S GARAGE The KJV Old Testament derives from the Masoretic texts. Some LXX manuscripts of 1K 4:26 have "four" rather than "forty." New translations follow LXX. Whether this is a bona fide error depends on which English translation is to be considered "inerrant." The same is true of the years of famine given in 2Sam. 24:13, 1Chr. 21:11; and the age of Jehoiachin in 2K. 24:8, 2Chr. 36:9. We have a much greater understanding of Hebrew than the King James translators, and access to much more manuscripts than were available at that time. 'TIS FOLLY TO BE WISE? 'Chakamah,' the operative Hebrew word in Pr. 4:7 and Ecc. 1:18, has several connotations, among them "the ability to judge" and "shrewdness." Its meaning is sufficiently broad to cover both usages. 1Cor. 1:19 quotes Is. 29:14, which speaks of the corrupt leaders of Jerusalem. The connotation is "book learning," which can be both good and bad. GENEALOGY OF JESUS The Bible contains two apparently conflicting genealogies of Jesus showing that He descends from David. Royal families are more prone than usual to intermarriage, so it is not impossible for both records to be true, as Jewish genealogists have demonstrated. Matthew's record is the royal lineage -- the list of legal successors to the throne of David. Luke's account is Jesus' natural pedigree (cf. Lord A.C. Hervey, _On the Genealogies of Our Lord_, 1853). Some consider Luke's version to be Mary's lineage, which makes Jesus literally of the "fruit of [David's] loins" -- through His mother. BATS ARE NOT BIRDS This is true enough in our present zoological taxonomy. Yet the Law includes bats in the list of "birds" not to be eaten. Though our present system of classifying life is based on detailed scientific principles, it is rather arbitrary and often counterintuitive. We say bats are not birds simply because we have agreed upon a convention which makes this so. Early taxonomies were probably much less formal and based more on observation of behavior and appearance than on detailed anatomical paragons. A bat resembles a small bird, especially when flying, so the early Jews may have considered it as a bird for practical purposes. Now God didn't want Israel to eat these things, so rather than say "don't eat species of the order Chiroptera [modern taxonomy]," he said "eat birds, except for these things [which you consider "birds"]." MELTING SNAILS Meritt must not have spent much time around slugs as a child. They don't melt, but because they secrete a liquid to moisten their path they must not stray far from a water source lest they die of dehydration. The trail of drying slime behind a moving slug gives the appearance that it is melting. One would expect such poetic (if not strictly accurate) language in a book of poems. THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH There are two different problems here. The first is that Is. 40:22 describes God sitting on the "circle of the earth." The Hebrew word 'chug' also means "sphere" (cf. Job 22:14). The second problem is as easy to solve. Mt. 4:8 has Satan taking Jesus to a high mountain and showing him the world. Meritt complains that this is impossible, but I think he is making too literal an interpretation. Jesus most likely saw the kingdoms in a vision conjured up by Satan. So why the high mountain? Simply that most visions and visitations take place on high mountains. Satan took Jesus to the mountain not because it was high enough for him to see the whole world but because such was the customary location for visions. Indeed, one could argue that this is not an INconsistency, but a CONsistency! EAT MY DUST, SNAKE! God curses the serpent in Gen. 3:14. "Eating dust" sounds more like a symbol of degradation, not a prescription of diet. And it's a fair bet that snakes ingest more dust than, say, giraffes. HANG UP THE EARTH, PLEASE All the references come from Job, a work whose authenticity is questioned. We'll give the fundamentalists the benefit of the doubt and assume it's authentic. The Book of Job is poetic, and in the Hebrew tradition that means it relies heavily on imagery which shouldn't be taken literally. "Pillars of heaven" and "Laying the foundations of the earth" are typical Hebrew poeticisms. They don't imply that God poured concrete. Finally, if God "hung the earth on nothing" then it really isn't supported, is it? WHERE HAS ALL THE WATER GONE? Ecc. 1:7 is in harmony with my understanding of the hydrological cycle. The verse does not mention evaporation as the method by which water migrates from the sea to the headwaters, neither does it deny it. "Storehouses of rain" is strictly scientifically inaccurate and completely at home in the poetry of Job. MOSES Num. 12:3 describes Moses as humble. The phrase is parenthetical, implying that it was an observation of Moses overall disposition. Later we read that Moses was angry because his military leaders had disobeyed YHWH's instructions -- a singular incident. Since we are all multifaceted individuals with variations in our demeanor, it is a simplistic assertion to say that Moses was "out of character." Tradition holds that Moses authored the Pentateuch, which records his death in Deut. 34:5. Contrary to modern editorial practice, it was the duty of early Jewish scribes and copyists to add such events to the applicable record as they occurred, sometimes long after the record had been "completed." SERMON ON THE MOUNT OR ON THE PLAIN? Matthew records a sermon on a mountain given to "his disciples." Luke tells of a lecture given on a plain before a large crowd. Though the content of the two accounts is similar, there is no other reason to assume that the two refer to the same speech. Jesus could have merely delivered the same sermon to two different groups at two different places. He may have taught his disciples the lengthier version (Matthew) on the mountaintop and later given an abbreviated version (Luke) to the larger crowd on the plain below. SATAN OR THE LORD (2Sam. 24:1)? "In a parallel account, 1 Chr. 21:1 says that Satan incited David to take a census. Who was it -- Satan or the Lord? One explanation is that both are true. The Lord, as the ultimate power, allowed the census, and as is typical in the Old Testament, he gets full credit here. The Chronicles version is more concerned about being precise: since the census was clearly evil (David confessed it as a sin, verse 10), Satan was more directly responsible. As is so often true of evil, people (and Satan) meant it for evil, but God used it for his own purposes" (note by Philip Yancey and Tim Stafford, _The Student Bible_ [NIV], Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1986, p. 301). GOD TEMPT ABRAHAM? Ja. 1:13 affirms that God tempts no man to do evil. The KJV of Gen. 22:1 seems to contradict this, however the Hebrew word here translated as "tempted" ('nasah') does not mean to tempt toward evil, but merely "to put to the test." See Ex 16:4, Deu. 8:2, and Is. 7:12 for other occurrences of 'nasah.' HOW MANY TIMES DID THE ROOSTER CROW? All the Evangelists but Mark claim the rooster crowed once after Peter's denial. The earliest manuscripts of Mark (4th and 5th centuries) omit "the second time" and "twice" from this verse (14:72). (Aland, _Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine_, 26a ed., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984) JUDAS ISCARIOT How did he die, by hanging or disembowelment? Who bought and named the "field of blood?" The biblical record is a mess. Why? Who would have known what *really* happened? Judas probably did himself in privately, so the only witnesses would be whoever discovered the body, and they would have had to reconstruct the events from the physical evidence. Luke tells us that Judas "fell headlong [in the field] and burst asunder." There's something fishy here. People fall headlong in fields all the time without their bowels "gushing out." If he fell on something like a sword then we could believe it, but no weapon is mentioned. It would also be conceivable if Judas fell from some great height, but Aceldama is a field. There is more here than what Luke is telling us. Matthew informs us that Judas died by hanging. Such is probably the case. One interesting theory which has been proposed to reconcile these accounts takes advantage of the fact that Luke does not mention disembowelment as the specific cause of death. James Talmage suggests that after hanging himself Judas fell due to breakage of the tree branch or cord (_Jesus the Christ_, Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981, p. 650). Less easily reconciled is the issue of Aceldama's purchase. Either Judas purchased it, or the Sanhedrin did; both cannot be true. Here, too, the evangelists probably had no first-hand knowledge of the events and for obvious reasons were loath to clear it up with the Sanhedrin. WHO BEARS GUILT? This is a strange conclusion -- Meritt equates "burden" as used in Gal. 6:1-5 with guilt, presumably for sin. Although v. 1 counsels lenient behavior toward a sinner, the balance of this section appears to counsel the faithful to be good and kind to each other (even sinners) and help each other out. I see no reason to equate "burden" with the sinner's guilt. In v. 2 we are counseled to share each others' burdens. Here the Greek word connotes "something grievous to be borne." The appeal is to exercise Christian charity rather than Judaic harshness. V. 5 uses a different Greek word which connotes a charge or responsibility (it is used to describe the cargo of a ship, for example). Paul is reminding us that each several man is required to keep his own house in order. These are two separate admonitions using two separate forms of speech. They do not contradict, nor do they have much to do with what Meritt says they do. MARRIAGE At least two lines of reasoning apply to Paul's statements to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7). The most acceptable in light of the text is that Paul is expressing his own opinion, unsupported by revelation (cf. v. 25). While this does not resolve the problem, it shifts the responsibility for the error from God to Paul. Another idea involves the spirit with which all of Paul's letters must be read. The Pauline epistles were written to specific individuals or groups and usually addressed their specific questions or problems. Not every passage that Paul wrote can be unilaterally applied to every situation. It may be that Paul was addressing a problem particular to the Corinthians for which he gave special instructions that superseded the general law. ONE OF OUR APOSTLES IS MISSING Paul's usage in 1Cor. 15:5 suggests that "the Twelve" is a title for the group of Apostles, regardless of their number. This practice is consistent with modern usage in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints (Mormon) whose governing bodies are referred to as the Quorum of the Twelve and the Quorum of the Seventy, despite the fact that the Twelve occasionally has fewer members due to death and that the Seventy has never had seventy members. METHODS OF EXPLANATION Meritt identifies several rationales used by fundamentalists (and by more moderate Christians, I might add) to defend supposed conflicts in the Bible. METAPHOR. I agree that metaphor is too often given as an explanation for contradictory phrases or to extract some desired meaning from an otherwise innocent passage. However, the Hebrew literary tradition relies heavily upon symbolism and metaphor. The Bible reader should expect a large dose of this language. In addition, much of the Old Testament is poetry, which may intentionally play on words with the full knowledge and understanding of the contemporary reader. We today who are further removed from the poetic tradition may not understand the idiom and be tempted to take it all too literally. CONTEXT. Despite Meritt's argument, this is a common problem. For eighteen centuries we Christians have been ignoring the context of Is. 7:14. I've never heard John 3:16 used "out of context," but I've heard several versions of the "context" surrounding John 3:5. TYPOS. Meritt's point is extremely valid. We should learn to separate what happened from what is written, and realize that -- like it or not -- the Bible is both divinely inspiring and humanly flawed. CONCLUSION Logically, the Inerrantists will have a hard time. Just one inexplicable inconsistency is enough to disprove them, and Meritt has shown us several (i.e., those I have not addressed). It is sad that the prevailing notion seems to be that the Bible must be absolutely infallible or utterly worthless. Acknowledgement of the human factor in Bible history in no way eliminates the divine presence. We must learn to believe in the Bible because there is a God, not vice versa. -- Jay Windley, SpE NET: jay@phobos.cis.ksu.edu VOICE: (913) 539-1626 COMPLAINTS: /dev/null Hey, wanna buy an Equinox data switch real cheap? From news@ux3.cso.uiuc.edu Wed Apr 22 17:37:49 1992 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA17654; Wed, 22 Apr 92 17:37:49 EDT Received: from ux3.cso.uiuc.edu by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA01608 (5.65d/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 22 Apr 1992 16:37:32 -0500 Received: by ux3.cso.uiuc.edu id AA16773 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for soc-religion-christian@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu); Wed, 22 Apr 1992 21:38:04 GMT Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!tga20201 From: tga20201@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (The Traveller) Subject: Re: Does the Bible have any contradictions References: Message-Id: <1992Apr22.213759.16726@news.cso.uiuc.edu> Sender: usenet@ux3.cso.uiuc.edu (Net Noise owner) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 21:37:59 GMT Lines: 20 Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu richard@metz.une.oz.au (Richard Mackerras,Lamble 140,73-3464,71-1133) writes: >From article , by aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu: >> Someone asked me if there are any contradictions in the Bible, and I >> could not answer. Can anyone point out some to me (if, in fact, they >> do exist)? I'm looking for two different types of contradictions, the >> first being far more important: > >> 1. A self-contradiction: some fact described in one ... Look at Daniel 1:1. It says that Nebuchadnezzer was king of Babylon when Jerusalem was seiged. Now look at the end of the second book of Kings. Nebuchadnezzer was NOT king of Babylon when Jerusalem was laid seige. (Forgot who, and I don't have my Bible in front of me right now.) Its pretty trivial becuase Daniel was never intended to be a historical work, but an apopolyptic one. Now might be a good time to shed some light on the Daniel controversy brewing in some other articles, but I have to go eat. From nosun!hilbert!max@qiclab.scn.rain.com Thu Oct 1 08:28:17 1992 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA07194; Thu, 1 Oct 92 08:28:17 EDT Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA13590; Thu, 1 Oct 92 08:28:14 -0400 Received: from qiclab.scn.rain.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA06920; Thu, 1 Oct 92 08:28:08 -0400 Received: by qiclab.scn.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.24.1 #24.5) id ; Thu, 1 Oct 92 05:27 PDT Received: from hilbert.UUCP by nosun.West.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1-900117) id AA11479; Thu, 1 Oct 92 05:22:23 PDT Received: by hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.22.1 #22.5) id ; Wed, 30 Sep 92 14:36 PDT To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: max From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) Subject: Re: Question for fundamentalists Message-Id: <1992Sep30.213643.1273@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon References: Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:36:43 GMT In article rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes: >This is my submission that I mentioned would follow - it gives >a summary of three chapters of Dr. D. James Kennedy's book >_Why I Believe_. >... >Summary of Dr. D. James Kennedy's book "Why I Believe" > >[1]Why I Believe the Bible: >The Bible gives many predictive prophecies. It tells us of >a coming Prophet into whom's mouth God will put his words. >It tells not to fear anyone who gives a prophesy that is >false... Keep that in mind... >Examples: The cities of Tyre and Sidon, two great cities on >the Mediterranean Sea. Exekiel prophesied that Tyre would >be destroyed and never be rebuilt nor inhabited. Sidon was >to be brought down, but continue to be inhabited. Sidon was >attacked and many killed, but still exists to this day. > >Tyre on the other hand was at its height at the time of the >prophecy. It was to be destroyed, made like a rock, have >its building stones thrown into the sea, and be built no >more. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon fought against the city for >thirteen years and took it. Many former inhabitants fled >for an island and made a new city of Tyre. Two hundred and >fifty years later the city walls still stood, but Alexander >the Great came and took the old buildings and dumped them >into the sea to build a bridge to the new Tyre, in order to >take it. He did - the old city was stripped. Today the old >Tyre is like a rock and a place to spread fishing nets to >dry. >-- >rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu >Atlanta, GA *sigh*. D. Kennedy is the guy that denied ever having believed in the Paluxy man-tracks (that supposedly coexist with dinosaur tracks) until confronted with video tape. He is no more honest here; this claim was trashed when it was quoted from McDowell. Dave Butler writes: " Tyre is now Sur, a coastal Lebanese city of about 10,000 to 15,000 people. Comment: Josh is blatantly wrong, and it only took a couple minutes to verify. His scholarship is not merely shoddy, but non-existent." Robert Low writes: "On the fulfillment of OT prophecy, specifically the fall of Tyre: (Ezekiel 26ff) the description given of the fullfilment of this prophecy could only be held to by somebody who already was committed to believing that. The prophecy clearly implies that Tyre would fall to the forces of Nebuchadrezzar, and that Tyre would be completely destroyed, never again to be inhabited. Of course, Tyre survived the siege and was not taken until Alexander built a mole out to the island. It is hard to justify this as a fullfilment of the prophecy, since the King of Tyre is being told that he will die in the sacking of Tyre, and he didn't live that long. However, even granting this, Tyre is still inhabited to this day: McDowell attempts to extract himself from this by maintaining that what is "really meant" is that Tyre will never again be prosperous. Unfortunately for him, Tyre currently has a thriving tourist industry, and a fishing industry." James J. Lippard writes: "According to Ezekiel 26:3-14, 26:21, and 27:36, Nebuchadnezzar would capture Tyre and destroy it forever, never even to be found again. Ezekiel 26:12 predicted that he would seize its riches. In fact, Nebuchadnezzar's siege lasted 13 years, but he never captured the city, only its outworks on the mainland. Ezekiel 29:18 admits that he never captured its riches. Tyre was destroyed 240 years later by Alexander the Great, and it was subsequently rebuilt (and referenced in the New Testament in Matthew 11:21-22, Mark 3:8, Luke 10:13-14, Acts 12:20 and 21:3,7). It was destroyed again in 1291 C.E., again rebuilt, and continues to exist today. Josh McDowell, amazingly enough, cites this as a prime example of a prophecy that has been fulfilled [McDowell 72, pp. 285-291]. He rationalizes away the rebuilding of Tyre by making a distinction between "Old Tyre" and "Tyre", an arbitrary distinction made only by Christian apologists. He removes the problem of the prediction that Tyre would "never be found again" by claiming that Ezekiel 26:21 really means only that Tyre would never regain its former power." For lack of time, I will not address the other supposed prophecies. If you have a favorite, point it out, and I will address it. Regards, Max G. Webb Path: igor.rutgers.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!usc!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!shaman!pogo!daveb From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: Thebes (was: I'm God.) Message-ID: <13674@pogo.wv.tek.com> Date: 2 Oct 92 23:55:03 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR. Lines: 29 Jim Merritt quotes my response to a Josh Mcdowell claim, that Thebes was be destroyed and never again had native rulers: >> 7. Thebes-Memphis >> destroyed, no more native rulers > > Memphis is the old Egyptian capital city near Cairo. It is where the > pyramids and Sphinx are located. While I would not call it in any way > a thriving city, it is definitely ruled by Egyptians. > ... > Thebes is now a prosperous Greek city called Thivia, located northwest of > Athens. The greeks do now rule the city. For the sake of completeness on my part, I wish to point out that I now know that there were two Thebes; one in Greece, and one in Egypt. This though does not in any way help the Josh Mcdowell claim that Thebes would be destroyed and have no native rulers, as the ancient Egyptian city of Thebes is now the modern city of Luxor, and is ruled by the native Egyptians. I apologise for not being more complete last time. Later, Dave Butler Knowledge consists in understanding the evidence that establishes fact, not in the belief that it is a fact. Charles T. Sprading American Writer Path: igor.rutgers.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!mmm.serc.3m.com!pwcs!medtron!ds0007 From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Biblical Errors Message-ID: <1992Oct30.023200.23807@medtron.medtronic.com> Date: 30 Oct 92 02:32:00 GMT References: <29781@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> Sender: news@medtron.medtronic.com (USENET News Administration) Organization: Medtronic, Inc. Lines: 71 Nntp-Posting-Host: buhao.pace.medtronic.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6] Peter White (pwhite@ems.cdc.com) wrote: : In article <1992Oct22.210640.22295@brtph560.bnr.ca>, ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes: [ weak Biblical contradictions deleted ] : |> I've got a few hundred more if you're really interested : I'm interested, if you have something better than the above, but if : they were at the top of your list, I'd rather talk about something else. : : I am not meaning to flame you either. I would be very happy to go : through each of the few hundred, even if they are all of an equal : nature. There are probably hundreds of "Biblical contradictions" out there. Probaby 95 percent of them can be discounted fairly easily, much in the manner that you did above. However, the 5 percent that remain are not so easy. Below are a couple examples of the nasty ones. I don't think that you can resolve these nasty ones without acknowledging that there is some kind of mistake. Just one error shoots down the idea that the Bible contains total, complete, absolute, inerrant truth. ======================================================================= I Kings 16:6,8 Baasha, King of Israel. died in the 26th year of Asa's reign over Judah. II Chronicles 16:1 In the 36th year of Asa's reign, Baasha built a city. ======================================================================= And how does the Bible answer simple questions on the death of Judas? What did he do with the 30 silver pieces? Who bought the field? How did he die? Where did he die? Why is it named the field of blood? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Acts 1:18-19: With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open, and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew 27:3-8 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and elders. 'I have sinned,' he said, 'for I have betrayed innocent blood.' 'What's that to us?' they replied. 'That's your responsibility.' So Judas threw the money in the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, 'It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.' So they decided to use the money to buy a potter's field for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Dale Skiba Path: igor.rutgers.edu!rutgers!princeton!udel!bogus.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.tek.com!shaman!pogo!daveb From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: New Biblical Contradictions (The Death of Judas) Message-ID: <14430@pogo.wv.tek.com> Date: 19 Feb 93 00:31:29 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR. Lines: 79 Mr Rose attempts to reconcile the death of Judas by saying that Judas hung himself and then fell and broke on the ground: > A possible reconstruction would be this: Judas hanged himself > on a tree on the edge of a precipice that overlooked the > valley of Hinnom. After he hung there for some time, the limb > of the tree snapped or the rope gave way and Judas fell down > the ledge, mangling his body in the process. > ... > There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement > at the bottom. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Judas > struck one of the jagged rocks on this way down, tearing his > body open. It is important to remember that we are not told > how long Judas remained hanging from the tree or how advanced > was the decomposition of his body before his fall. The problem though is that the stories of Judas' death are much more out of sync than Mr Rose portrays them: [Matthew 27:3-8] When Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, he repented himself and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. Saying, "I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See thou to that." And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests, took the silver pieces, said, "It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood." And they took council, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore the field was called the field of blood, unto this day. [Acts 1:18-19] Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he was burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem, insomuch as the field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, "The Field of Blood." Four questions come immediately to mind: Question: What did Judas do with the money? Answer 1: Judas flung the money at the Priests. Answer 2: Judas bought a field with the money. Question: How did Judas die? Answer 1: Judas hanged himself. Answer 2: Judas fell and burst open. Question: Who bought the field? Answer 1: The Priests. Answer 2: Judas. Question: Why is it called Field of Blood? Answer 1: It was bought with blood money. Answer 2: Judas spilt his blood on it. It even gets a little more complicated than that in the chronology is way out of sync. In Matthew, Judas throws the silver in the face of the Sanhedrin the morning after the Last Supper, goes out and directly commits suicide (ie: he does not outlive Jesus). The Sanhedrin then goes out buys some land, but they cannot buy it the same day as it is a high holy day (remember that the last supper was a Passover feast). So the land is bought after the suicide. In Acts though, Judas himself buys the land after the ascension and before he himself dies. Thus the land is bought before his death, and he outlives Jesus. Actually in relooking at the situation, the stories look nothing at all alike, and in my opinion they are nothing at all alike. Further, all the rationale I've seen to reconcile the stories, seem extremely contrived and forced. Later, Dave Butler Nothing is so easy as to deceive one's self; for what we wish, that we readily believe. Demosthenes, Athenian Orator Third Olynthiac, 348 BC Path: igor.rutgers.edu!rutgers!princeton!udel!bogus.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.tek.com!shaman!pogo!daveb From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: New Biblical Contradictions (Inscriptions and last words) Message-ID: <14431@pogo.wv.tek.com> Date: 19 Feb 93 00:32:59 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR. Lines: 73 Another contradiction is the inscription on the cross: MATT 17:37 This is Jesus, the King of the Jews MARK 15:26 The King of the Jews LUKE 23:38 This is the King of the Jews JOHN 19:19 Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews Now this is not a problem, unless you believe that the Bible is divinely inerrant, and thus every word is true. And among others here, Mr Rose will have a hard time convincing me that there were 4 inscriptions on the cross. On the other hand, one would expect the last words of Jesus to to be better recorded, and yet, only two gospels agree as to his last words: MATT 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, Lama sabach-thani?" that is, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "This man is calling for Elijah." And one of them at once took a sponge filled with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink. But the others said "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him. And Jesus cried out in a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. MARK 15:34 And in the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice "Eloi, Eloi, lama Sabathani?" which means "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "Behold he is calling Elijah," And one of them ran and filling a sponge with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink saying, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down. And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. LUKE 23:46 Then Jesus crying with a loud voice, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit." And having said this he breathed his last. JOHN 19:28 After Jesus, knowing full well it was finished, said (to fulfilled scripture), said "I thirst." A bowl of vinegar stood there; so they put a sponge full of vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus received the vinegar, he said "It is finished"; and he bowed down his head and gave up his spirit. Now both Matthew and Mark recorded the same basic words, and then have Jesus simply shouting and dying, so I would not find it credible for someone to claim that those gospels just didn't record Jesus' very final words and in an attempt to, in some small way, reconcile those to gospels with the others. This is especially true, as there are so many other explicit contradictions. First, Luke explicitly contradicts John. Further, note what John claimed Jesus said just before getting the vinegar: "I thirst." And John claimed that this was necessary to fulfill scripture, but both Matthew and Mark claim that Jesus called "Eli, Eli, Lama sabach-thani?" just before receiving the vinegar. That doesn't jive. Nor does John record Jesus as shouting his last words, as do the others, but rather, simply has Jesus saying the words. And for that matter, Matthew and Mark can't even agree which bystander said "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him." Mark has to the man giving the vinegar to Jesus saying it, and Matthew has the other people telling that to the man giving the vinegar. Now those defending inerrancy might possibly convince me that this could be the situation as remembered by several normal men, but as there are explicit contradictions they will not be able to convince me that these is the inerrant and absolutely accurate recordings dictated by the Holy Spirit. Now I really don't expect this to have any affect though on those who claim inerrancy, except perhaps for them to realize why I do not take their claims seriously. Later, Dave Butler Men willingly believe what they wish. Julius Caesar De Bello Gallico Path: igor.rutgers.edu!rutgers!princeton!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!uunet!news.tek.com!shaman!pogo!daveb From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: New Biblical Contradictions (Three denials of Peter) Message-ID: <14432@pogo.wv.tek.com> Date: 19 Feb 93 00:35:42 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR. Lines: 105 Mr Rose made a brief attempt to reconcile the 3 denials of Peter. Unfortunately for his attempt, the contradictory narrations go well past the one instance he mentioned: MATT 26:69 Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard [ie: Jesus was inside the house away from Peter]. And a maid cam up to him and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean." But he denied it before them all saying, "I do not know what you mean." and when he went out to the porch, another maid saw him, and she said to the bystanders, "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth." And again he denied it with an oath, "I do not know the man." After a little while the bystander said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them, for your accent betrays you." Then he began to invoke a curse on himself, and to swear, "I do not know the man." And immediately the cock crowed. And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, "Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." And he went outside and wept. MARK 14:66 And as Peter was below in the courtyard [ie: Jesus was inside the house away from Peter], one of the maids of the high priest came; and seeing Peter warming himself she looked at him and said "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus." But he denied it, saying "I neither know or understand what you mean." And he went out into the gateway. And the maid saw him, and began again to say again to say to the bystanders, "This man is one of them." But again he denied it. And after a while one of the bystanders said to Peter, Certainly you are on of them for you are Galilean." But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, "I do not know this man of whom you speak." And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept. LUKE 22:54 Then they seized him [Jesus] bringing him into the high priest house. Peter followed at a distance and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them [ie: Peter sat with Jesus and the people who arrested him]. Then a maid seeing him as he sat in the light and gazing at him, said "This man was also with him." But he denied it saying, "I do not know him." And a little while latter some one else saw him and said, "You are also one of them." But Peter said "Man, I am not." And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, "Certainly this man was also with him; for he is Galilean." But Peter said, "Man, I do not know what your are saying." And immediately, while he was speaking, the cock crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, "Before the cock crows today, you will deny me thrice." And Peter went out and wept. And the men that held Jesus mocked him and smote him. JOHN 18:12 Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus, while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went outside and brought Peter in. The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this mans disciples?" He said "I am not." Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire because it was cold and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself. [18:19-24 relates how the high priest questions Jesus in Peters presence in the courtyard and is thus skipped] Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, "Are you not one of his disciples?" He denied it and said "I am not." One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" Peter again denied it, and at once the cock crowed. On observation one sees that these renditions are rife with contradictions. Both Mathew and Mark insist that Jesus was questioned away from the courtyard, while Peter was in the courtyard. Luke as Jesus questioned after Peter left. John has Jesus question while Peter watches in the courtyard. Jesus was present for the three denials in both Luke and John, but not in Matthew and Mark. Mark is the only gospel to mention anything about crowing twice; all others disagree. Further, no two explicitly recorded accusations or denials are the same. For example: First accusation: Matt: "You also were with Jesus the Galilean." Mark: "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus." Luke: "This man was also with him." [Not even directed at Peter] John: "Are not you also one of this mans disciples?" First denial: Matt: "I do not know what you mean." Mark: "I neither know or understand what you mean." Luke: "I do not know him." John: "I am not." Then there is the problem that the Gospels cannot even agree who asked the same question. In Matthew, a maid, different from the first, makes the second accusation. In Mark, the same maid who made the first accusation, also made the second accusation. In Luke, the second accusation was made by a man. John just doesn't specify. Now one might try to say that Peter made all these denials, but then we would have Peter making many more than 3 denials, and that would make no sense as he is recorded as leaving after 3 denials. All in all, I would have to say that I do not see that these 4 stories are in any detailed accord, and thus I see these passages as refuting inerrancy. Later, Dave Butler Nothing is so easy as to deceive one's self; for what we wish, that we readily believe. Demosthenes, Athenian Orator Third Olynthiac, 348 BC Path: igor.rutgers.edu!rutgers!princeton!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.tek.com!shaman!pogo!daveb From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: New Biblical Contradictions (Time of Crucifixion and Resurrection) Message-ID: <14433@pogo.wv.tek.com> Date: 19 Feb 93 00:39:02 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR. Lines: 54 Another problem I see with inerrancy is the disagreement as to when Jesus was crucified. Matthew and Mark says on the Sabbath, and John says just before. Remember that Matthew and Mark say that the Last Supper was a Passover seder, but John says that Jesus died just before the seder, at the exact time a Passover lamb is slaughtered. To further back up my point, I will quote from a Christian apologist (quoted from an article written a while ago by Michael Siemon). The quote is from Eduard Schweizer (New Testament Professor in the University of Zurich) and the book is _Jesus_, translated from the German _Jesus Christus_ [1968] by David E. Green and published by the John Knox Press [1976]. The following is from page 9 [... denotes minor deletion to keep this short]: According to Mark 15.25, 33-34, Jesus is crucified at the third hour, i.e., about nine o'clock. The darkness over the cross of Jesus begins at the sixth hour ... Jesus dies at the ninth hour ... According to John 19.14, however, Pilate does not condemn Jesus until the sixth hour ... Historically speaking, at least one of these chronologies must be incorrect. The question is whether both Mark and John are not trying to make the same true point, and whether this truth is not all that matters. What it boils down to is this: according to John, Jesus dies on the eve of Passover; according to the Synoptics, he dies on the day of Passover itself. ... According to John 19.14, Jesus dies late in the afternoon preceding the Passover meal, which took place after sundown; he dies, therefore, at the very hour when the Passover lamb is being slaughtered. John 1.29,30 and especially 19.36 make it quite clear that this association is intentional* [* Psalm 34.21 may be the original source of this view ... John himself, however, surely is thinking of the instructions for preparing the Passover lamb found in Exodus 12.10 (LXX), 46 and Numbers 9.12. According to Mark, however, Jesus' last supper with his disciples was the Passover meal. Mark is thinking of another Old Testament passage, Amos 8.9, according to which the sun will set at noon and darkness will cover the earth at midday on the Day of Judgment. According to Mark's chronology, the sun sets precisely at noon on the day of Jesus' crucifixion, and darkness lasts from noon until three p.m. This precise hourly chronology of events, elsewhere unparalleled in Mark, also emphasizes the fact that on this day everything takes place, hour by hour, according to God's will. ... John and Mark are therefore using two different modes of presentation, which cannot be reconciled historically, to say the same thing: in the death of Jesus the expectations of the Old Testament finally reached their goal. So the question arises as to when Jesus was crucified. Also remember that Matthew has the resurrection happening on Sunday [Matt 28:1], and thus Jesus was only in the crypt for two days. Later, Dave Butler Nothing is so easy as to deceive one's self; for what we wish, that we readily believe. Demosthenes, Athenian Orator Third Olynthiac, 348 BC From clyons@hibbs.vcu.edu Wed Dec 15 14:33:57 1993 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA03143; Wed, 15 Dec 93 14:33:57 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA11754; Wed, 15 Dec 93 14:33:39 -0500 Received: from hibbs.vcu.edu by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA14252; Wed, 15 Dec 93 14:33:31 -0500 Received: by hibbs.vcu.edu (5.57/OSx-4.1-hm) id AA07845; Wed, 15 Dec 93 13:51:04 -0500 Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: clyons From: clyons@hibbs.vcu.edu (Christopher D. Lyons) Subject: Condradictions in Bible (?) Message-Id: <1993Dec15.185059.7781@hibbs.vcu.edu> Organization: Virginia Commonwealth University Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 18:50:59 GMT Lines: 635 Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net I am beginning my own research on the following, I thought that others might find this list a good crib sheet with which to prepare for arguments: `Oh yeah... xxx3:2 says "Z" and yyy2:3 says "anti-Z", how do you explain that?' I have a feeling its all involved with context, and will let you know what I find out. Without further adieu: (BTW: I got this list from an atheist) ============================================================================== Biblical Contaradictions Theological doctrines 1. God is satisfied with his works God is dissatisfied with his works. 2. God dwells in chosen temples <2 Chron 7:12,16> God dwells not in temples 3. God dwells in light God dwells in darkness <1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2> 4. God is seen and heard God is invisible and cannot be heard 5. God is tired and rests God is never tired and never rests 6. God is everywhere presesnt, sees and knows all things God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all things 7. God knows the hearts of men God tries men to find out what is in their heart 8. God is all powerful God is not all powerful 9. God is unchangable God is changable 10. God is just and impartial God is unjust and partial 11. God is the author of evil God is not the author of evil <1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13> 12. God gives freely to those who ask God witholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving them 13. God is to be found by those who seek him God is not to be found by those who seek him 14. God is warlike God is peaceful 15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocius God is kind, merciful, and good 16. God's anger is fierce and endures long God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute 17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings, sacrifices ,and holy days God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days. 18. God accepts human sacrifices <2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39> God fobids human sacrifice 19. God temps men God temps no man 20. God cannot lie God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits t decieve <2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9> 21. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him 22. God's attributes are revealed in his works. God's attributes cannot be discovered 23. There is but one God There is a plurality of gods Moral Precepts 24. Robery commanded Robbery fobidden 25. Lying approved and sanctioned Lying forbidden 26. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned <2 Kings 14:7,3> Hatred to the Edomite forbidden 27. Killing commanded Killing forbidden 28. The blood-shedder must die The blood-shedder must not die 29. The making of images forbidden The making of images commanded 30. Slavery and opression ordained Slavery and opression forbidden 31. Improvidence enjoyed Improvidence condemned <1 Tim 5:8/ Prov 13:22> 32. Anger approved Anger disapproved 33. Good works to be seen of men Good works not to be seen of men 34. Judging of others forbidden Judging of others approved <1 Cor 6:2-4/ 1 Cor 5:12> 35. Christ taught nonresistance Christ taught and practiced physical resistance 36. Christ warned his followers not to fear being killed Christ himself avioded the Jews for fear of being killed 37. Public prayer sanctioned <1 Kings 8:22,54, 9:3> Public prayer disapproved 38. Importunity in prayer commended Importunity in prayer condemned 39. The wearing of long hair by men sanctioned The wearing of long hair by men condemmed <1 Cor 11:14> 40. Circumcision instituted Circumcision condemned 41. The Sabbath instituted The Sabbath repudiated 42. The Sabbath instituted because God rested on the seventh day The Sabbath instituted because God brought the Israelites out of Egypt 43. No work to be done on the Sabbath under penalty of death Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath and justified his deciples in the same 44. Baptism commanded Baptism not commanded <1 Cor 1:17,14> 45. Every kind of animal allowed for food. Certain kinds of animals prohibited for food. 46. Taking of oaths sanctioned Taking of oaths forbidden 47. Marriage approved Marriage disapproved <1 Cor 7:1/ 1 Cor 7:7,8> 48. Freedom of divorce permitted Divorce restricted 49. Adultery forbidden Adultery allowed 50. Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union 51. A man may marry his brother's widow A man may not marry his brother's widow 52. Hatred to kindred enjoined Hatred to kindred condemned 53. Intoxicating beverages recommended Intoxicating beverages discountenanced 54. It is our duty to obey our rulers, who are God's ministers and punish evil doers only It is not our duty to obey rulers, who sometimes punish the good and recieve unto themselves damnation therefor 55. Women's rights denied Women's rights affirmed 56. Obedience to masters enjoined Obedience due to God only 57. There is an unpardonable sin There is not unpardonable sin Historical Facts 58. Man was created after the other animals Man was created before the other animals 59. Seed time and harvest were never to cease Seed time and harvest did cease for seven years 60. God hardened Pharaoh's heart Pharaoh hardened his own heart 61. All the cattle and horses in Egypt died All the horses of Egypt did not die 62. Moses feared Pharaoh Moses did not fear Pharaoh 63. There died of the plague twenty-four thousand There died of the plague but twenty-three thousand <1 Cor 10:8> 64. John the Baptist was Elias John the Baptist was not Elias 65. The father of Joseph, Mary's husband was Jacob The father of Mary's husband was Heli 66. The father of Salah was Arphaxad The father of Salah was Cainan 67. There were fourteen generations from Abraham to David There were but thirteen generations from Abraham to David 68. There were fourteen generations from the Babalonish captivity to Christ. There were but thirteen generations from the Babalonish captivity to Christ 69. The infant Christ was taken into Egypt The infant Christ was not taken into Egypt 70. Christ was tempted in the wilderness Christ was not tempted in the wilderness 71. Christ preached his first sermon on the mount Christ preached his first sermon on the plain 72. John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee 73. Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with a staff and sandals Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with neither staves not sandals 74. A woman of Canaan besought Jesus It was a Greek woman who besought Him 75. Two blind men besought Jesus Only one blind man besought Him 76. Christ was crucified at the third hour Christ was not crucified until the sixth hour 77. The two thieves reviled Christ. Only one of the thieves reviled Christ 78. Satan entered into Judas while at supper Satan entered into him before the supper 79. Judas committed suicide by hanging Judas did not hang himself, but died another way 80. The potter's field was purchased by Judas The potter's field was purchased by the Chief Priests 81. There was but one woman who came to the sepulchre There were two women who came to the sepulchre 82. There were three women who came to the sepulchre There were more than three women who came to the sepulchre 83. It was at sunrise when they came to the sepulchre It was some time before sunrise when they came. 84. There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulchre, and they were standing up. There was but one angel seen, and he was sitting down. 85. There were two angels seen within the sepulchre. There was but one angel seen within the sepulchre 86. Christ was to be three days and three nights in the grave Christ was but two days and two nights in the grave 87. Holy ghost bestowed at pentecost Holy ghost bestowed before pentecost 88. The disciples were commanded immediately after the resurrection to go into Galilee The disciples were commanded immediately after the resurrection to go tarry at Jerusalem 89. Jesus first appeared to the eleven disciples in a room at Jerusalem Jesus first appeared to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee 90. Christ ascended from Mount Olivet Christ ascended from Bethany 91. Paul's attendants heard the miraculous voice, and stood speechless Paul's attendants heard not the voice and were prostrate 92. Abraham departed to go into Canaan Abraham went not knowing where 93. Abraham had two sons Abraham had but one son 94. Keturah was Abraham's wife Keturah was Abraham's concubine <1 Chron 1:32> 95. Abraham begat a son when he was a hundred years old, by the interposition of Providence Abraham begat six children more after he was a hundred years old without any interposition of providence 96. Jacob bought a sepulchre from Hamor Abraham bought it of Hamor 97. God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed forever Abraham and his seed never recieved the promised land 98. Goliath was slain by Elhanan <2 Sam 21:19 *note, was changed in translation to be correct. Orignal manuscript was incorrect> The brother of Goliath was slain by Elhanan <1 Chron 20:5> 99. Ahaziah began to reign in the twelfth year of Joram <2 Kings 8:25> Ahaziah began to reign in the eleventh year of Joram <2 Kings 9:29> 100. Michal had no child <2 Sam 6:23> Michal had five children <2 Sam 21:8> 101. David was tempted by the Lord to number Isreal <2 Sam 24:1> David was tempted by Satan to number the people <1 Chron 21:1> 102. The number of fighting men of Isreal was 800,000; and of Judah 500,000 <2 Sam 24:9> The number of fighting men of Isreal was 1,100,000; and of Judah 470,000 <1 Chron 21:5> 103. David sinned in numbering the people <2 Sam 24:10> David never sinned, except in the matter of Uriah 1 Kings 15:5> 104. One of the penalties of David's sin was seven years of famine. <2 Sam 24:13> It was not seven years, but three years of famine <1 Chron 21:11,12> 105. David took seven hundred horsemen <2 Sam 8:4> David took seven thousand horsemen <1 Chron 18:4> 106. David bought a threshing floor for fifty sheckels of silver <2 Sam 24:24> David bought the threshing floor for six hundred shekels of gold <1 Chron 21:25> 107. David's throne was to endure forever. David's throne was cast down Speculative Doctrines 108. Christ is equal with God Christ is not equal with God 109. Jesus was all-powerful Jesus was not all-powerful 110. The law was superseded by the Christian dispensation The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation 111. Christ's mission was peace Christ's mission was not peace 112. Christ received not testimony from man Christ did recieve testimony from man 113. Christ's witness of himself is true. Christ's winess of himself is not true. 114. Christ laid down his life for his friends Christ laid down his life for his enemies 115. It was lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death It was not lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death 116. Children are punished for the sins of the parents Children are not punished for the sins of the parents 117. Man is justified by faith alone Man is not justified by faith alone 118. It is impossible to fall from grace It is possible to fall from grace 119. No man is without sin <1 Kings 8:46/ Prov 20:9/ Eccl 7:20/ Rom 3:10> Christians are sinless <1 John 3: 9,6,8> 120. There is to be a resurrection of the dead <1 Cor 15:52/ Rev 20:12,13/ Luke 20:37/ 1 Cor 15:16> There is to be no resurrection of the dead 121. Reward and punishment to be bestowed in this world Reward and punishment to be bestowed in the next world 122. Annihilation the portion of all mankind Endless misery the portion of all mankind 123. The Earth is to be destroyed <2 Pet 3:10/ Heb 1:11/ Rev 20:11> The Earth is never to be destroyed 124. No evil shall happen to the godly Evil does happen to the godly 125. Worldly good and prosperity are the lot of the godly Worldly misery and destitution the lot of the godly 126. Worldly prosperity a reward of righteousness and a blessing Worldly prosperity a curse and a bar to future reward 127. The Christian yoke is easy The Christian yoke is not easy 128. The fruit of God's spirit is love and gentleness The fruit of God's spirit is vengance and fury 129. Longevity enjoyed by the wicked Longevity denied to the wicked 130. Poverty a blessing Riches a blessing Neither poverty nor riches a blessing 131. Wisdom a source of enjoyment Wisdom a source of vexation, grief and sorrow 132. A good name is a blessing A good name is a curse 133. Laughter commended Laughter condemned 134. The rod of correction a remedy for foolishness There is no remedy for foolishness 135. A fool should be answered according to his folly A fool should not be answered according to his folly 136. Temptation to be desired Temptation not to be desired 137. Prophecy is sure <2 Pet 1:19> Prophecy is not sure 138. Man's life was to be one hundred and twenty years Man's life is but seventy years 139. The fear of man was to be upon every beast The fear of man is not upon the lion 140. Miracles a proof of divine mission Miracles not a proof of divine mission 141. Moses was a very meek man Moses was a very cruel man 142. Elijah went up to heaven <2 Kings 2:11> None but Christ ever ascended into heaven 143. All scripture is inspired <2 Tim 3:16> Some scripture is not inspired <1 Cor 7:6/ 1 Cor 7:12/ 2 Cor 11:17> From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Sat Dec 18 03:22:43 1993 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA02558; Sat, 18 Dec 93 03:22:43 EST Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA19336; Sat, 18 Dec 93 03:22:36 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA02029; Sat, 18 Dec 93 02:58:43 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA08032; Sat, 18 Dec 93 02:58:41 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Condradictions in Bible (?) Date: 18 Dec 1993 07:58:40 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 216 Message-Id: <2eud7g$7qu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> References: Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu Whew! Over 100 purported Bible contradictions. I have seen lists such as this posted on various BBSs over the years, which leads me to tentatively make a proposal. I was wondering if you, and other Christians out there, would like like to work on a response through e-mail contacts? Once we finish (and it may take months) we could post it. I'm not that proficient with computers, and I really don't have the time to organize such a thing, but I'd be willing to try. Of course, is someone else would like to coordinate/organize this effort, I would gladly defer. :) It might be a good idea to get a group together (through an e-mail group) so that we can pool our resources and talents and come up with some form of response for each purported contradiction. Keep in mind that there is no rush. We could take as long as needed. If anyone is interested, contact me via e-mail. However, for now, let me try to "go it alone" and offer the following brief reponse. The first thing to consider is the burden of proof. It's a general rule in philosophy that she who proposes must explain and defend. If someone says that "X exists," the burden is on her to provide a case for the existence of X. The burden is not on the one who denies that X exists. For how can one prove a negative? In this case, it is the critic who proposes. He claims that the Bible is "full of contradictions," and often proposes a lengthy list such as the one provided to you. Now, as Christians, we cannot prove that something is NOT a contradiction (ie, one cannot prove that X [contradictions] do not exist). Instead, all that is required of us is to come up with plausible/reasonable explanations so that what is purported to be a contradiction is not NECESSARILY a contradiction. Whether or not our explanation is the "true one" is not all that relevant in such contexts. What is really relevant is whether our explanations show that the point of contention is not necessarily a contradiction. If we succeed, then the critic's assertion that "X and Y are contradictory" is no longer an obvious truth, instead it becomes merely a belief that someone else has. Let's consider these long lists of contradictions. I perceive them as the "kitchen sink" approach, which is to say that the critic throws everything at the Christian, including the kitchen sink. The list has a certain psychological power - it's long and intimidating. Who really has the time to go throw each contradiction point by point? In fact, if I had the time, I could probably write a response to each one so that each response would average 1 page of text. Thus, if I were to expend the energy and time, I would have to write a response which was about 143 pages long! And that's the power of such lists. When such lists of purported contradictions are scanned, I immediately perceive three types of errors (and there may be more). 1. They engage in black and white either/or thinking when a both/and approach seems to be called for. 2. They ignore context and/or equivocate on terms/ideas. 3. They read contradiction INTO the account, instead of reading from the account. Let me offer some examples of each one. I don't suggest such types as ways to categorize the supposed contradictions. For if you were to try, you would find too much overlap. I simply mention the three types more as a guide to approaching the supposed contradictions. BOTH/AND; NOT EITHER/OR ------------------------ I think before anyone begins to investigate all the contradictions, they ought to consider one more "contradiction:" "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself." [Pr 26:4] "Answer of fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." [Pr 26:5] The first thing to note is that these seemingly contradictory teachings are right next to each other. Could the writer of Proverbs be so stupid as to not notice this?! I hardly think so. In fact, I think it is very illuminating that these teachings are closely tied. They highlight the fact that Biblical admonitions need not fall under the "either/or" criteria, but can be more properly understood in term of "both/and." In fact, I have often found these two teachings from Proverbs quite useful. In debating various nonchristians, I often encounter foolish responses and name-calling. I can either choose not to respond or ignore the foolishness and get to the point of contention. At such times, I follow Proverbs 26:4. In other instances, I mirror the foolishness of my antagonist in the hopes that he/she can perceive the folly of their approach when I employ it. At such times, I follow Proverbs 26:5. The key is knowing when to use which approach, and in such instances, I try to allow the Spirit to guide me. Let me pick a couple examples from the list you posted to demonstrate how the both/and approach works. 1. God is satisfied with his works God is dissatisfied with his works. Let's cite the actual teachings. "God saw all that he made, and it was very good." [Gen 1:31] "The Lord was grieved that he had made man on earth, and his heart was filled with pain." [Gen 6:6] This is an obvious case of both/and, for something occurred after Gen 1:31 and before Gen 6:6, namely, the Fall. Evil entered creation as a result of man's volition. One can argue the theological implications elsewhere, as the only relevant point is that this is not an obvious contradiction. When God created, all was good. After man rebelled, God grieved. Let's try another: 2. God dwells in chosen temples <2 Chron 7:12,16> God dwells not in temples Again, let's also cite the actual teachings: "the LORD appeared to him at night and said: "I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple of sacrifices.....I have chosen and consecrated this temple so that my Name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there." [2 Chr 7:12,16] "However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men." [Acts 7:48] I fail to see the contradiction here. The claim that "my eyes and heart will always be there" appears to mean nothing more to me than the fact that the LORD would pay special attention to the temple and have a special affinity for it; the LORD would reveal Himself to His people through the temple. Stephen's speech in Acts merely highlights the transcendence of God. Put simply, if you put these together you arrive at the following truth - God is transcendent, yet He reveals Himself where He will. THEY IGNORE CONTEXT AND/OR EQUIVOCATE ON TERMS/IDEAS. This is a very common fallacy. Let's consider an example: 14. God is warlike God is peaceful "The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name." [Ex 15:3] (Is 51:15 has nothing to do with war) "The God of peace be with you all. Amen" [Rom 15:33] "For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace." [1 Cor 14:33] It seems clear that God reveals Himself as a God of Battles in much of the OT. So what of these NT teachings? This "contradiction" is premised on equivocation, where the NT references to peace are interpreted to be the antomym of 'war', when this is obviously not the case. In Romans, Paul seems to be speaking of peace in a subjective, existential sense - a relationship with God brings a sense of peace. In Corinithians, Paul is speaking about the activity of Church congregations - they should be orderly and peaceful, not full of confusion and contention. No obvious contradiction here. READING CONTRADICTION INTO AN ACCOUNT -------------------------------------- This too is common. Let's consider one example. 81. There was but one woman who came to the sepulchre There were two women who came to the sepulchre "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance." [Jn 20:1] "After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the other tomb." [Mt 28:1] This is a case where a contradiction is read into the account. John does not report that ONLY Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. Failing to mention someone does not necessarily mean that no one else was present. In fact, had the critics read further, they would have seen that Mary was not alone: "So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they put him!" [Jn 20:2] If Mary was alone, then who is WE? Clearly more than one person went with Mary. John just doesn't mention them. Anyway, I'm willing to analyze these contradictions over the next several weeks (months?). We wouldn't have to agree on the correct explanation. In fact, we could list several possible explanations where we disagree. The thing that matters is that we come up with plausible explanations which work to show that the critic has not established contradictions. And in none of the cases cited above does one find an unequivocal contradiction. -- Michael From jfb@macsch.com Mon Dec 20 21:44:56 1993 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA27686; Mon, 20 Dec 93 21:44:56 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA07540; Mon, 20 Dec 93 21:44:55 -0500 Received: from macsch.com (via DRACO.MACSCH.COM) by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA12411; Mon, 20 Dec 93 21:44:52 -0500 Received: by macsch.com (5.61/SMI-4.1-07) id AA00916; Mon, 20 Dec 93 18:44:47 -0800 Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: jfb From: jfb@macsch.com (John Baskette) Subject: Re: Condradictions in Bible (?) Message-Id: Organization: The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 02:44:42 GMT Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net In article clyons@hibbs.vcu.edu (Christopher D. Lyons) writes: >I am beginning my own research on the following, I thought that others might >find this list a good crib sheet with which to prepare for arguments: > > `Oh yeah... xxx3:2 says "Z" and yyy2:3 says "anti-Z", how do > you explain that?' > >I have a feeling its all involved with context, and will let you know >what I find out. You are correct. The great majority of these are lame excuses for contradictions. A few of them are of interest. I'll take a stab at them. In this post I'll do the "Theological doctrines". If I do the others - maybe I won't have time - I'll do them in installments. I'll give some kind of answer to each one, even the few that pose genuine qeustions. Most of these, however, are silly and anyone with any common sense at all can see through them. #8 in particular is a real groaner. BTW, I do not view "inerrancy" as an important doctrine to defend. I have spoken or corresponded with many reasonable and intelligent atheists and agnostics. There are many points to attack Christianity on where hard to answer arguments may be made. I do not understand then why atheists bother with lists like the one posted which is basically 90% stupid and obviously so. I suspect that an "ARGUMENTUM AD NASEUM" is being used. I've heard the term somewhere, it's not original, but it is not listed as a logical fallacy in any logic books that I know of. It ought to be. It's a case where you overwhelm your opposition with countless numbers of arguments and objections - most or even all of them weak or bad arguments, but because your oppostiion has not answered each and everyone - your declare yourself triumphant because your opposition has not been able to answer you! The master of this method is Sedar Argic - for those of you who know who I am talking about. >Without further adieu: > >(BTW: I got this list from an atheist) >============================================================================== >Biblical Contaradictions > >Theological doctrines > >1. God is satisfied with his works What's the problem? He's happy at > time A and gets unhappy later. You > God is dissatisfied with his works. have never done this? > >2. God dwells in chosen temples Misrepresents text. God says He'll > <2 Chron 7:12,16> be present - not dwell completely. (and not at all in pagan temples) > God dwells not in temples Read 2 Chron 6:18 - You think the > writer is completely stupid? >3. God dwells in light > In Heaven > God dwells in darkness Clouds and darkness in temple. You say God can't have two dwellings? > <1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2> >4. God is seen and heard Look, Are Ex 33:20 and Ex 33:23 part > Ex 24:9-11> Do you suppose that maybe - just > God is invisible and cannot be heard mayber words like heard and seen are > >5. God is tired and rests Misrepresents text Is doesn't say > he never rests. Ex doesn't > God is never tired and never rests say he gets tired. Weary in Jer > doesn't mean physically tired, it is used to indicate God being out of patience with Judah's sin. >6. God is everywhere presesnt, sees and knows all things > > God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all > things > The Genesis passages do not say anything of the kind. They describe what God will do - as a manifestation as the angel of the Lord - but not any of the negatives attributed here. >7. God knows the hearts of men Different use of the word know. > Know means understand > God tries men to find out what is in their heart Hear it means confirm, prove or > experience. >8. God is all powerful This proves you can't read. Do > suppose just maybe that the > God is not all powerful antecedent of he in Judg 1:19 might > Judah? >9. God is unchangable Begging the question! > God's actions? - They change > God is changable God's moral principles? - They do > Ex 33:1,3,17,14> people involved change. >10. God is just and impartial > > God is unjust and partial These passages say no such thing. > of God. You may not like God, but that proves nothing in regard to whether or not these passages are contradictions. >11. God is the author of evil Did you notice > <== all O.T. > God is not the author of evil > <1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13> <== all N.T. Do you suppose that just maybe there might be a difference in the use of Or with the KJV translation? From the context it is simple to see that the O.T. word is used to mean calamity while the N.T. word is used to refer to sin. >12. God gives freely to those who ask > > God witholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving them I.e. those who don't ask and are > and make themselve enemies of God. >13. God is to be found by those who seek him those who fear and love God > > God is not to be found by those who seek him those who do not fear God and > delight in evil but who try to seek Him after God has sent judgment on them. >14. God is warlike > These passages do not say God is > God is peaceful warlike. Only that He is powerful > in war, but He is peaceful too, so What's the problem? >15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocius To some. > > God is kind, merciful, and good To others. > 1 Tim 2:4/ 1 John 4:16/ Ps 25:8> >16. God's anger is fierce and endures long To the evil and unrepentant > > God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute To those who have sinned but repent. > >17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings, > sacrifices ,and holy days by those who love trust and obey > > God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings, > sacrifices, and holy days. by those who do not love trust or > sacrifices and ritual. >18. God accepts human sacrifices Misreading of text. The Sam > <2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ passage is not human sacrifice, It's Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39> David's vengence. The Judg passage > God fobids human sacrifice is likely not talking about human > sacrifice at all, but if it is, it does not say that God approves or accepts. Gen 22:2, God stops a human sacrifice because He does not approve. >19. God temps men > tempt means test one's faith with > God temps no man difficult circumstances. In James > the use is as in "entice to sin". Again, an old translation does a disservice >20. God cannot lie > > God lies by proxy; he sends forth But ... God himself does not lie. lying spirits t decieve The spirits lie. > <2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9> >21. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him And He did - him and the land in > the flood. > Because of man's wickedness God Misreading of text - it says He will not destroy him will not destroy the ground again > on account of men's wickdedness like He did in the flood. >22. God's attributes are revealed in his works. > > God's attributes cannot be Misreading of the text. These do discovered not say that his attributes cannot > be discovered - only that they cannot be completely searched out and understood. >23. There is but one God > > There is a plurality of god Gen asserts no such thing. Elohim > It's a plural of majesty. I John 5:7 is not scripture. More tommorrow - maybe. John Baskette jfb@macsch.com From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Tue Dec 21 02:13:44 1993 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA21707; Tue, 21 Dec 93 02:13:44 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA20166; Tue, 21 Dec 93 02:13:42 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA06581; Tue, 21 Dec 93 02:13:40 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA05273; Tue, 21 Dec 93 02:13:34 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Condradictions in Bible (?) Date: 21 Dec 1993 07:13:30 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 116 Message-Id: <2f67mq$54n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> References: Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu 52. Hatred to kindred enjoined Hatred to kindred condemned "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters- yes, even his own life- he cannot be my disciple" I have seen this verse used numerous times from atheists in an attempt to show that Jesus was not a nice guy. But let's see if this verse really supports that position. Many atheists interpret this verse literally. To them, it is clear that Jesus was instructing us to hate our families. But is it? It is fairly basic rule in hermenuetics that a particular teaching should be interpreted in the light of general teaching, that is, in light of its context. So, does this hate-message fit into the overall context of Jesus' teaching? Not really. Elsewhere, Jesus responds to an inquiry about attaining eternal life. He replied, " honor your mother and father". . In fact, on another occasion Jesus censured those theologians who argued that people who had vowed to give God a sum of money which they later discovered could have been used to help thier parents in need were not free to divert the money from religious purposes to which it had been vowed. In His characteristic condemnation of human traditions, Jesus observed: "Thus you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites!" Now, how can you hate your parents, yet also honor them? These seem to be exclusive sentiments. On the cross, Jesus tells John to take His mother as his own. Was he telling John to hate her? Then why did John take Mary into his home? An interesting thing happens if you put together some of these teachings. If we are to hate our family, why must we love our enemies? And by hating our families, they become our enemies, but then we are supposed to love them! No, I find this literalistic interpretation of Luke 14:26 to be plagued with problems and taken out of context. So what sense are we to make of this teaching? Perhaps Jesus is simply employing hyperbole to emphasize an important point. Let's return to the immediate context of this verse. In Luke 14:27, He notes that a disciple must be willing to carry his cross. In verses 28-29, he teaches from the example of building a tower and that one should count the costs before beginning. In verses 31-32, he uses an example of a king going to war to illustrate the same point. Then in verse 33, he explains that we must be willing to give up everything to be His disciple. In verses he alludes to salt that loses its saltiness, which is thrown out. And finally, he sums it all up by saying "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" . Now throughout this whole preaching, Jesus uses symbolic parables and hyperbole to drive His points home. And what is the point? I think it is rather clear, that commitment to Jesus is primary and always comes first. Thus, if you are willing to put others before Christ and unwilling to follow through with your commitment, you may as well never commit in the first place. It is well known that in Jewish idiom, hate could also mean 'love less'. In fact, I think the same message taught in Luke 14:26 is taught in Matthew 10:37. "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me". In this case Jesus is speaking to his disciples, while in Luke He was addressing the crowds. But the same theme is present in both and His teaching to the disciples clearly explains the hyperbole in Luke. I should also go back to that idiom. In the OT, the love-hate antithesis was used to distinguish between the intensity of one's love, and not meant as a polarization of concepts. Perhaps the clearest example is in Gen. 29:30-31: "So Jacob went to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban another seven years. When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb". Thus, Leah's being hated or not loved really meant that she was loved less. In fact, in the poetry of the ancient Near East numerous terms were paired together. In such instances the meaning of these terms is far more dependent upon their idiomatic usage rather than their literal meaning in isolation. Given that Jesus often teaches using symbolic parables and hyperbole, given the context of Luke's passage, along with the context of other teachings of Jesus which certainly contradict a literal reading of Luke's verse, and the use of the love-hate comparison in Hebrew idiom, all added to Matthews account of the same theme, a consistent picture comes out that Jesus was teaching that we should love our families less than He. His use of hyperbole is an effective way of getting attention and emphasizing his point at the same time. Commitment to Jesus comes first. By the way, this is another subtle implicit expression of Jesus as God, as elsewhere, he reminds us that we are to love "the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" . For example, if Bob was to tell Sue that he loved her so much that "he'd walk a thousand miles without food and water just to be with her", must Bob fulfill the literal sense of his statement for Sue to understand the depth of his love? If we insisted that hyperbole be taken literally, a very effective and deep method of communicating would be lost! -- Michael From jfb@macsch.com Wed Dec 22 21:41:29 1993 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA08709; Wed, 22 Dec 93 21:41:29 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA28443; Wed, 22 Dec 93 21:41:28 -0500 Received: from macsch.com (via DRACO.MACSCH.COM) by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA14743; Wed, 22 Dec 93 21:41:24 -0500 Received: by macsch.com (5.61/SMI-4.1-07) id AA08764; Wed, 22 Dec 93 18:41:18 -0800 Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: jfb From: jfb@macsch.com (John Baskette) Subject: Re: Condradictions in Bible (?) Message-Id: Organization: The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 02:41:11 GMT Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Christopher D. Lyons sent in a list of contradictions that he got from an atheist. Some of the contradictions are of interest but most are trivial misreadings of the text. The misreadings are so obvious in many cases that one suspects that the "atheist" in this case is being deliberately intellectually dishonest. To be sure, some of the contradictions raise real problems or questions, many which have been discussed at length in this forum. Many of the "problems" are not actual contradictions as such but a few of them are. Let's suppose that the Bible contains many real contradictions. What would that prove? Would it prove that the Bible is unreliable in matters of historical fact? Perhaps to a degree, but it is entirely conceivable that the Bible can contain contradictions and yet be substantially accurate in it's history. It can contain contradictions and yet still also contain real communication from the real God. Last time I took a stab at answereing the first set of "contradictions", the "Theological contradictions" (1-23). Now I will continue: (I am running down the list quickly. I noticed that a couple of my answers were missing a few words here and there, but I think those who read them could figure out what I meant. Of course I am putting into my answers all the care and depth that the original list displays.) > > Moral Precepts > >24. Robery commanded Sorry, but sometimes the spoils of > war are righteous indemnification > Robbery fobidden not robbery. > >25. Lying approved and sanctioned Oversimplification. Lying in the > not what the midwives and Rahab did. > Lying forbidden They were saving lives. Deceptions > are not always forbidden in all circumstances. In Kings, God sends a lying spirit to a false prophet, but this does not mean that God approves or sanctions either. >26. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned Sorry, but 2 Kings says absolutely > <2 Kings 14:7,3> nothing about hating the Edomite. > Hatred to the Edomite forbidden You may kill another nationality in > war, but that does not mean you hate them. >27. Killing commanded Killing is not always forbidden. > Murder is forbidden, but not all > Killing forbidden killing is murder > >28. The blood-shedder must die You are saying that because God > gives amnesty to one man that > The blood-shedder must not die the capital punishment law of Gen 9 > is abrogated. Sorry, this makes no sense at all. >29. The making of images forbidden Make that a Graven image - an idol - > an object of worship. The cherubims > The making of images commanded of the mercy seat are not these. > >30. Slavery and opression ordained That God would send some into > contradict the idea that God > Slavery and opression forbidden forbids men from doing so. Also > of slavery. >31. Improvidence enjoyed None of these passages say that you > <== that should be Luke 12:33. > Improvidence condemned Sorry, but there just isn't any > <1 Tim 5:8/ Prov 13:22> contradiction here. >32. Anger approved <== This is not a blanket approval of > all anger and > Anger disapproved <== These are not blanket disapprovals of > >33. Good works to be seen of men Is the author completely stupid? > You are not to do your works in order > Good works not to be seen of men to be seen, but when you do your > works you let your light shine. >34. Judging of others forbidden One judgment is to stand in moral > condemnation. The other is to > Judging of others approved exercise discernment in order to > <1 Cor 6:2-4/ 1 Cor 5:12> act wisely. Not the same thing. > 35. Christ taught nonresistance in some circumstances > > Christ taught and practiced physical resistance in other circumstances. > >36. Christ warned his followers not To avoid being killed is not the to fear being killed same as being afraid of being > killed. Jesus avoided being killed > Christ himself avioded the Jews but John 7:1 says nothing about him for fear of being killed being afraid. > >37. Public prayer sanctioned Matt. disapproves public prayer done > <1 Kings 8:22,54, 9:3> to be seen and approved of men and > Public prayer disapproved directs that personal devotions > should be private. All public prayer is not disapproved. >38. Importunity in prayer commended I don't get this one at all. One > says to ask and you shall receive, it > Importunity in prayer condemned does not condemn "importunity" at all. > >39. The wearing of long hair by men sanctioned under special circumstances. > > The wearing of long hair by men condemmed as a general rule. > <1 Cor 11:14> >40. Circumcision instituted Is it not possible that some act in > one set of circumstances (pun int,) > Circumcision condemned could be right, and in another > wrong? >41. The Sabbath instituted > > The Sabbath repudiated These do no such thing. Observance > for the wrong reasons is condemned but sabbath keeping is not repudiated even for New Testament believers - though requiring everyone to keep it is. >42. The Sabbath instituted because God rested on the seventh day Can't God have more than one reason > for commanding a particular act? > The Sabbath instituted because God brought the Israelites > out of Egypt > >43. No work to be done on the Sabbath Jesus did not break any Old Testament under penalty of death Sabbath laws. He did violate the > traditions, but these are not the > Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath Old Testament law. and justified his deciples in > the same > >44. Baptism commanded I Cor does not say at all that > Christians are not supposed to be > Baptism not commanded Baptized. 1:14 says that Paul did > <1 Cor 1:17,14> baptize some. >45. Every kind of animal allowed Is it not possible for God (or any for food. law giver) to institute and repeal > ordinances? What's the problem? > Certain kinds of animals prohibited for food. > Well, I'm out of time. Perhaps I'll continue, but probably not till next year. John Baskette jfb@macsch.com From jfb@macsch.com Fri Jan 7 17:01:56 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA23467; Fri, 7 Jan 94 17:01:56 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA06373; Fri, 7 Jan 94 17:01:55 -0500 Received: from macsch.com (via DRACO.MACSCH.COM) by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA00818; Fri, 7 Jan 94 17:01:52 -0500 Received: by macsch.com (5.61/SMI-4.1-07) id AA15935; Fri, 7 Jan 94 14:01:49 -0800 Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: jfb From: jfb@macsch.com (John Baskette) Subject: Re: Condradictions in Bible (?) Message-Id: Organization: The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 22:01:44 GMT Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net In article A.J.Brush@newcastle.ac.uk (A.J. Brush) writes: > >It's quite simple. There was a list of _over_a_hundred_ contradictions >posted to this group. I didn't post it, but I watched this group for a >while to see what reaction it would get. My posting referred to the >list, and I expressed my amazement that there was not a single reply. > >My posting was quite clear. Hello Tony, The original list of contradictions is so disingenuous that it does not warrant any response or recognition. Here's an example of how "bad" some of these "contradictions" actually are" >8. God is all powerful > > God is not all powerful > What does Judges 1:19 say? "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out [the inhabitants of] the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." The person who is reading the verse as saying that the LORD ... he ... could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley. This is an egregiously bad misreading of the text. The "he" is Judah! not the LORD. That should be obvious to even the most obtuse objector. That may be the worst in the list, but most of the contradictions are of this nature. for example: >78. Satan entered into Judas while at supper > > Satan entered into him before the supper > This particular "contradiction" seems to assume that Satan cannot enter into a person twice. A rather dubious assumption at best. There is in fact nothing contradictory about these verses at all. Most of the "contradictions" in this list are of this nature. Some of the "contradictions" have obvious explanations that one can see in any decent reading of the text. For example: >100. Michal had no child > <2 Sam 6:23> > Michal had five children > <2 Sam 21:8> What does 2 Sam. 21:8-9 say? "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell [all] seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first [days], in the beginning of barley harvest." This would appear to be a real contradiction except for the phrase "whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai." The phrasing tells you that these sons are not Michal's in the normal sense of the term because she did not "bear" these children. I.e. these sons are adopted children. (question for you hebrew scholars, is this verse translated correctly?) Finally, in many cases the "contradictory" texts do not suggest by their phrasing an explanation, but a simple, reasonable, even obvious explanation can be thought up trivially. For example: >61. All the cattle and horses in Egypt died > > All the horses of Egypt did not die > A reading of Ex 9:3 catagorizes horses as a form of cattle which all perished in the fifth plague. By the time Pharoah chases Israel through the Red Sea the Egyptians have horses and cattle again! Is this really a contradiction? Or is it possible that the plagues took a certain amount of time to be executed in which time the Egyptian's were able to obtain new horses and cattle either from the Israelites or from foreign sources? It does not take a great scholar to recognize or think of such obvious possible explanations. There are a good number of "contradictions" on the list that are much more interesting. The compiler of this list, however, is not showing any kind of discrimination or common sense in the selection of "contradictions". The purpose does not appear to be to ask real questions, only to throw out a bunch of attacks on the Bible without regard to the merit of the individual attacks. In spite of this, as the moderator pointed out, there were a number of responses to the post. I made two posts which had very brief responses to the first 45 objections. If anyone responds positively, I will post some kind of answer to all the remaining objections. (note: I did not see any posts made between Xmas and New Years.) I will do this in spite of the fact that I am not personally firmly committed to the doctrine of inerrancy. Some of the contradictions in fact may be -- contradictions! What I find objectionable about this particular list is that the compiler through the examples selected displays the same kind of obtuseness and invincible ignorance that would do the most flaming fundamentalists I know proud. I did not respond within your "for a while" period, because I received and read both the original post and your post on the same day! The newsfeed at my site is slow. My situation is probably common at many sites. Note also that a response takes time to think about and compose. It gets sent to our moderator who reviews the posts. That process will take a couple days in most cases. Just how long was "for a while" anyway? If your "for a while" was a day or less then I do not think that you were being particularly fair in your assessment of the situation. My two responses were done in the same style as the original list - just a list with an extremely brief comment. I would be surprised if anyone bothered to think or read about any of my responses. My point, however, was that just as my long list of brief responses were nearly pointless rhetorical exercises so too was the original list a nearly pointless rhetorical exercise. This is not the case with most posts that speak of contradictions. Greg Erwin's contradictions in the "Easter Challenge, the crucifiction, suite" thread are legitimate problems presented clearly and deal with a range of subject that can be treated reasonably in a forum like this. John Baskette jfb@macsch.com From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Thu Jan 20 23:51:31 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA29057; Thu, 20 Jan 94 23:51:31 EST Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAvztj23845; Thu, 20 Jan 94 23:51:25 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAvztj24950; Thu, 20 Jan 94 23:50:38 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA24029; Thu, 20 Jan 94 22:37:33 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions: Intro Date: 21 Jan 1994 03:37:31 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 236 Message-Id: <2hnilr$nep@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: piglet.ins.cwru.edu What follows is a reply to a list of 143 purported Bible contradictions. However, before we launch into the actual reply, there are several points worth mentioning. First, it would be prudent to speak of the burden of proof. It's a general rule in philosophy that she who proposes must explain and defend. If someone says that "X exists," the burden is on her to provide a case for the existence of X. The burden is not on the one who denies that X exists. For how can one prove a negative? In this case, it is the critic who proposes. He claims that the Bible is "full of contradictions," and often proposes a lengthy list such as the one we are about to respond to. Now, as Christians, we cannot prove that something is NOT a contradiction (i.e., one cannot prove that X [contradictions] do not exist). Instead, all that is required of us is to come up with plausible/reasonable, even possible explanations so that what is purported to be a contradiction is not NECESSARILY a contradiction. Whether or not our explanation is the "true one" is not all that relevant in such contexts. This is important. What is really relevant is whether our explanations show that the point of contention is not necessarily a contradiction. If we succeed, then the critic's assertion that "X and Y are contradictory" is no longer an obvious truth, instead it becomes merely a belief that someone else has. At this point the critic might cry "foul" and note that it is the Christian who proposes. She is the one who claims the Bible is inerrant, thus she should demonstrate this. But how? How does one demonstrate a document is without error? At this point, the Christian need only learn from the methodology of modern atheism. Many atheists do not argue that God does not exist, because they realize that one cannot demonstrate the nonexistence of something. Instead, they take a more agnostic position, and argue there is no proof for God's existence, thus they don't possess God-belief. In the same way, the believer in inerrancy cannot demonstrate the nonexistence of contradictions in the Bible. After all, the Bible contains 31,173 verses. If we were to compare only couplets, where any one verse is juxtaposed against any other, one could write 971,750,000 couplets. Thus, by considering only couplets, there are almost one billion potential Bible contradictions! Surely, it is not reasonable to demand that a believer in inerrancy plod through one billion potential contradictions to prove negatives in every case. Instead, the believer in inerrancy can argue there is no proof for the existence of contradictions in the Bible, thus they don't believe in Biblical errancy (thus they believe in inerrancy - being without error). At this point, the critic's list comes in. It proposes to demonstrate that the Bible is full of contradictions, and the list of 143 purported contradictions was one such demonstration. And at this point, our response comes in. I have noticed several things about the list we are about to respond to and the nature of the purported contradictions. The List ------- 1. Such lists are quite common and have been around for decades. I have also encountered them on various BBSs throughout the years. My first impression is to scan such lists, noticing claims which are obviously bogus, and others which are quite challenging. Because the lists are so long I tend to rationalize that any list which would include obviously bogus "contradictions" is suspect and that the more challenging ones could probably be resolved with some effort. 2. The list has a psychological power in that it intimidates simply because of it's length and multitude of claims. Your average reader simply does not have the time to respond to 143 claims of contradictions! Thus, such lists often go largely unanswered, leaving the critic to believe that no one can answer it. I think a critic would do better in making a much shorter list (10 or 20) which contains what he considers to be the best examples of Bible contradictions. The Contradictions ----------------- I have noticed that the supposed 143 contradictions can in essence be classified according to the erroneous assumptions or methodologies that they employ. 1. A popular mistake is to take things out of context. It is easy to make contradictions when there are no contradictions by violating the context of the passage(s) in question. More significant, though less mentioned, is violating the context of belief. Christian understanding is a synthesis of many beliefs, and Biblical teachings are often interpreted through this background belief which has been synthesized. Such a synthesis may include other facts, not directly related to the contradiction in question, but nevertheless, relevant. When the critic proposes a contradiction, he ought to do so from within the context of this background belief. By failing to do this, he merely imposes alien concepts as if they belong. This error is common when the critic tries to cite contradictions related to doctrine or beliefs about the nature of God. For example, most Christians believe in the Trinity. One could argue about this concept elsewhere, but trying to impose contradictions by ignoring Trinitarian belief violates the context provided by the Christian's background belief. Or consider a mundane example. Say that Joe is recorded as saying that Sam is not his son. But elsewhere, he is recorded as saying that Sam is his son. An obvious contradiction, right? But what if one's background belief about Joe and Sam includes the belief that Sam is Joe's adopted son? By ignoring the context this belief provides, one perceives contradictions where there are none. 2. The critic assumes that the Biblical accounts are exhaustive in all details and intended to be precise. This is rarely the case. As such, the critic builds on a faulty assumption and perceives contradictions where there are none. This is related to the context problem. Let's say that the only records of Joe speaking about Sam are the two cases where he affirms and denies that Sam is his son. Certainly Joe said many other things in his life, but they were not recorded - including the fact that he adopted a boy and named him Sam. Another real-life case concerns a newspaper report which lists the time of birth of twin babies. The first was born at 1:40 AM, and second was born at 1:10 AM. If this account did not have the added detail that the birth occurred the during the night in which Daylight Savings ended, it would APPEAR to be a real contradiction/error. But it was not. You have to know the whole story. Since the accounts in the Bible are rarely intended as exhaustive and precise descriptions, it would seem prudent to see if differing accounts complement, rather than contradict. 3. The critic seems to assume that the Bible is written in one genre -> a literal and descriptive account. While the Bible does indeed contain literal and descriptive accounts (which, of course, are not exhaustive in all detail), it also contains many other styles of composition: the Proverbs list "rules of thumb," the Psalms communicate through poetry, many teachings/prophecies are in the form of hyperbole and metaphor, parables contain deeper messages, etc. Since they Bible is actually many books of different genres, the critic's assumption leads her astray if it is used to see contradictions. 4. This point is related to the one above, namely, the contradictions are often contradictions as a function of a particular interpretation. This is clear when one reads how the author of the list presents the biblical teachings in contrast to the actual verses he/she cites. Thus, the contradiction would exist only if the correct interpretation is applied by the author, and this is often not the case (or at least, it is often not clear if this is the case). For example, in many situations, the critic uses particular incidents or rules of thumb and interprets these as absolute principles. 5. Sometimes the critic equivocates. He/she uses the same sense of a word in two sets of verses, when sometimes it is the case that the word has two meanings. For example, peace could mean lack of war or it can mean an internal sense of tranquility. 6. The critic often reads contradictions into the accounts. This is often a function of all of the points listed above, but sometimes it is due to plain ignorance. In other cases, it is due to the fact that aspects of Hebrews idiom are not always captured in English translations. 7. The critic assumes that the believer in Biblical Inerrancy also believes that copyists could make no mistake. I have found not many believers in inerrancy to hold to this position. It is their belief that the original documents were without error, and were copied as faithfully as humanly possible. Thus, copyist errors are of little concern (and are unlikely to result in significant changes). 8. Finally, the critic engages in black and white either/or thinking when a both/and approach seems to be called for. This can be tricky, so let me set up my case by using one of the supposed contradictions cited: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself." [Pr 26:4] "Answer of fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." [Pr 26:5] The first thing to note is that these seemingly contradictory teachings are right next to each other. Could the writer of Proverbs be so stupid as to not notice this?! I hardly think so. In fact, I think it is very illuminating that these teachings are closely tied. They highlight the fact that Biblical admonitions need not fall under the "either/or" criteria, but can be more properly understood in term of "both/and." In fact, I have often found these two teachings from Proverbs quite useful. In debating various nonchristians, I often encounter foolish responses and name-calling. I can either choose not to respond or ignore the foolishness and get to the point of contention. At such times, I follow Proverbs 26:4. In other instances, I mirror the foolishness of my antagonist in the hopes that he/she can perceive the folly of their approach when I employ it. At such times, I follow Proverbs 26:5. The key is knowing when to use which approach, and in such instances, I try to allow the Spirit to guide me. ____________________________________________________________________ I encourage the reader to keep these points in mind as we go through the purported contradictions. A word about the contributors. There were three of us: Me - Michael J. Bumbulis (mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu ) MaryAnna White (maryanna@netcom.com ) Russ Smith (russ@math.okstate.edu) I will list each claim of contradiction as found in the original list, and then offer the reply. The replies are referenced to the contributor. MaryAnna's replies are followed by "-- MAW", and Russ Smith's replies are followed by "--RS". If no initials follow a reply, they are mine (Michael's). I have also taken the luxury of periodically referring to and drawing from the following book: Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, by John W. Haley. It is published by Baker Book House in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Keep in mind that we are not biblical scholars, and our replies are not intended as the "final word" in these matters. Instead, they are offered as possible, even plausible, ways to resolve the apparent contradictions. If they succeed at doing merely this, the contradictions have not been established and the critic has not adequately shouldered his/her burden. Enjoy. -- Michael "What we do to our children, they will do to society" - Pliny the Elder From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Sun Jan 23 20:24:41 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA27465; Sun, 23 Jan 94 20:24:41 EST Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwadx20014; Sun, 23 Jan 94 20:24:40 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwadx12551; Sun, 23 Jan 94 20:24:38 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA02543; Sun, 23 Jan 94 20:24:35 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions: Part I Date: 24 Jan 1994 01:24:33 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 215 Message-Id: <2hv80h$2f5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu What follows is a reply to a list of contradictions which was posted on this board a few months back. Keep in mind that the purpose of the reply is not to demonstrate THE correct/true resolution of each purported contradiction. The purpose to to merely show that each set of verese purported to be contradictory need not be true contradictions, as there are possible/plausable/probable resolutions. 1. God is satisfied with his works God is dissatisfied with his works. Let's cite the actual teachings. "God saw all that he made, and it was very good." [Gen 1:31] "The Lord was grieved that he had made man on earth, and his heart was filled with pain." [Gen 6:6] This is an obvious case of both/and, for something occurred after Gen 1:31 and before Gen 6:6, namely, the Fall. Evil entered creation as a result of man's volition. One can argue the theological implications elsewhere, as the only relevant point is that this is not an obvious contradiction. When God created, all was good. After man rebelled, God grieved. 2. God dwells in chosen temples <2 Chron 7:12,16> God dwells not in temples Again, let's also cite the actual teachings: "the LORD appeared to him at night and said: "I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple of sacrifices.....I have chosen and consecrated this temple so that my Name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there." [2 Chr 7:12,16] "However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men." [Acts 7:48] I fail to see the contradiction here. The claim that "my eyes and heart will always be there" appears to mean nothing more to me than the fact that the LORD would pay special attention to the temple and have a special affinity for it; the LORD would reveal Himself to His people through the temple. Stephen's speech in Acts merely highlights the transcendence of God. Put simply, if you put these together you arrive at the following truth - God is transcendent, yet He reveals Himself where He will. 3. God dwells in light God dwells in darkness <1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2> "who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light whom no one has seen or can see." [Tim 6:16] "Then spake Solomon. The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness" [1 Kings 8:12] "He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies." [Ps 18:11] "Clouds and darkness are round about him." [Ps 97:2] The first thing I would point out is these are likely to be metaphors and it would seem unwise to take such language too literally when describing God. But what could such seemingly contradictory metaphors convey? Note that in both cases there is the theme of the unsearchableness of God. That is, the light is unapproachable and the darkness is thick and covers a secret place. Thus, these verses could actually be teaching the _same_ thing - simply that God is unapproachable. One could also note that Paul's account is quite optimistic following from a consideration of Christ. Prior to the Incarnation, there was indeed a certain darkness associated with the hidden God. But the eyes of the blind have been opened! Or it could be said that the verses in 1 Kings and Psalms need be nothing more than a description of God perceived through the memory of His interation with His people described in Exodus19:9. 4. God is seen and heard God is invisible and cannot be heard These "contradictions" are easily resolved if one accepts the Trinitarian view of God. Allow me to repost a reply which addressed a similar point, and in doing so, resolves this contradiction.... In a previous post, someone attempts to discredit the deity of Christ by appealing to John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV) He notes: "If no man has seen God, then logically Jesus was not God, since there is no secular record of an outbreak of sightlessness in Judea in Jesus' time". How shall the Christian respond? Well, let's consider the statement that "No man hath seen God". Consider the following verses from the Old Testament (OT): Sarai says "You are the God who sees me", for she said, "I have now seen the One who sees me" (Gen 16:13) "So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared". (Gen 32:30) "Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel" (Ex 24: 9-10). ""they saw God" (Ex 24:11) "We have seen God!" (Judges 13:22) Now while this person's logic seems to rule out that Jesus was God, it also means that the Bible contains a very significant contradiction. If no one has seen God, how is it that Sarai, Jacob, Moses et al, and Monoah and his wife are said to have seen God? Actually, this is a problem only for those who deny the deity of Christ while claiming to follow the teachings of the Bible. Let's look again at John 1:18: "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only (or Only Begotten), who is at the Father's side, has made him known". I think it is clear that John is speaking of the Father as the one who has not been seen. To paraphrase it, "No one has ever seen God, but the Son, who is at His side, has made Him known". This interpretation not only seems to follow naturally from this verse, but is also quite consistent with the Logos doctrine taught in John 1. Recall, it is the Logos who mediates between God and man, and who reveals God to man. Jesus would later say, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." Prior to the Incarnation of the Son, no one had seen the Father, for it is through the Son that the Father is revealed. So for the Trinitarian, there is no Bible contradiction. No one ever saw God the Father, and what Sarai, Jacob, Moses, etc saw was God the Son. This can be seen from many perspectives, but let's simply consider one from Isaiah 6. Isaiah "saw the Lord" (vs 1). Seraphs were praising the "Lord Almighty" ( vs 3). Isaiah is overwhelmed and responds, "Woe to me, I am ruined. For I am a man of unclean lips [this rules him out as the servant in Isaiah 53], and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty" (vs 5). Later, we read: "Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" (vs. 8). Again, the plurality of God is implied. Isaiah asks God to send him, and then God gave him a message to preach. Now it's time to jump to John 12:37-41. John claims that the peoples failure to believe in Jesus was a fulfillment of these teachings Isaiah received from the Lord in Isaiah 6. Then note vs. 41. "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him". Here is a clear example where John equates Jesus with the Lord Almighty seen by Isaiah! This all fits together beautifully. Isaiah sees the Lord Almighty, yet he sees Jesus' glory. Jesus speaks as a plural being (who will go for US). It is the Son who is seen, not the Father. Thus, John 1:18 does not mean that Jesus was not God, it only means He is not the Father. This verse presents no problems for the Trinitarian, and in fact, when studied, serves as a great launching point for finding Christ in the OT. Prior to the Logos dwelling amongst us and revealing the Father to us, no one had seen the Father. But because of the Incarnation, we can now cry, "Abba, Father" (Roman 8:15) and "Our Father who art in heaven"! Those who see the Son can see the Father. 5. God is tired and rests God is never tired and never rests The verse in Jeremiah has nothing to do with resting. "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." [Ex 31:17] "The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary." [Is 40:28] According to Haley, and many others, the term "rested and was refreshed' is simply a vivid Oriental way of saying that God ceased from the work of creation and took delight in surveying the work. -- Michael "What we do to our children, they will do to society" - Pliny the Elder From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Mon Jan 24 20:35:50 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA09895; Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:35:50 EST Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwahq26662; Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:35:45 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwahq08834; Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:35:42 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA08594; Mon, 24 Jan 94 20:35:38 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions; Part II Date: 25 Jan 1994 01:35:35 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 262 Message-Id: <2i1t17$8af@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu 6 God is everywhere presesnt, sees and knows all things God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all things I accept the teaching that God is everywhere present and sees and knows all things. So let's consider the instances in Genesis that are cited: Gen 3:8 - "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden." Let's also add the next verse to stregthen the critics case: "But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?" How could one hide from God? Why does God need to ask this question? First, what Adam and Eve could have hid from is merely the visible and special manifestation of the Lord. As for God's seeming ignorance, anyone with children can recognize the utility of such questions. If a child is known to have broken a lamp, it is better to question the child than to simply accuse her. The former approach enables the child to take an active role in her wrong-doing, and allows for her to apologize. Note that God asked several questions: "Where are you?....Who told you that you were naked?....Have you eaten of the fruit of the tree?" Note the response. Instead of begging for mercy and confessing their sins, both the man and woman justified themselves and sought to put the blame on another. So typically human! By asking these questions, God enabled the man and woman to either freely repent or to firmly establish their sinfulness. Thus, while the critic thinks these are questions demonstrating ignorance, such an interpretation can be easily dismissed in light of the above considerations. What of the others? "But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that men were building." [Gen 11:5] "The the LORD said, 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sins so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." [Gen 18:20-21] These look like common human notions of someone coming down to check out what is going on. And perhaps, that's how the writer of these accounts understood God. But perhaps there is also another layer to the account. Obviously, it teaches God's transcendence. But it also demonstrates God's interest. He is not an aloof sky-god. And he doesn't watch from afar. He gets right down into human history. But there is more. Maimonides once noted that just as the word 'ascend', when applied to the mind, implies noble and elevated objects, the word 'descend' implies turing one's mind to things of lowly and unworthy character. Thus, God is not "coming down" in a physical sense, but in a "mental" sense, where he turns his attention to the sinful activity of men and invokes judgment. Of course, it is hard to describe God in human language, but I think the above account is not unreasonable. Since these supposed contradictions depend on a particular interpretation which is (or at the very least may be) in error, no contradiction has been established. 7. God knows the hearts of men God tries men to find out what is in their heart "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God." [Gen 22:12] "Remember how the LORD your God lead you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and test you in order to know what was in your hearts." [Deut 8:2] "The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul." [Deut 13:3] We'll assume that God knows the hearts of men, so let us determine if the above three verses are necessarily contradictions. Could it be that these three instances simply serve to reveal and verify to man that which is already known by God? Anyone who has ever had a college chemistry course can probably relate to the following. A chemistry professor comes into class, and says, "I will now add acetic acid to this compound to see what happens." The professor already knows what will happen! After the experiment, he might even add, "I now know that such and such results will occur after adding the acid." Here he is simply putting himself in the place of the class, and speaking for them. What the three verses could be showing is that once again, God is not some aloof sky-god who merely dictates. Instead, he _relates_. By asking questions, by claiming to have found something, he relates and allows man to play an active, not passive, role in the relationship. For example, Abraham now knew that God knew his heart. And he also knew God's knowledge was true in light of the 'test' that he just went through. In this supposed contradiction, along with the one immediately prior, the critic perceives ignorance on the part of God because of a belief that an omniscient God ought to dictate. Why can't an omniscient God refrain from dictating, and simply relate in a way which intimately involves humanity? 8. God is all powerful God is not all powerful "The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots." [Judg 1:19] This is obviously not a contradiction. John Baskette notes that the critic is "reading the verse as saying that the LORD ... he ... could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley." He adds: "This is an egregiously bad misreading of the text. The "he" is Judah! not the LORD. That should be obvious to even the most obtuse objector." 9. God is unchangable God is changable Once again, these purported contradictions all presuppose some platonic-type sky god. Christianity has always believed that God is a God who _relates_ and who is _personal_. And whenever there is a personal relationship, there is a dynamic. And dynamics can involve both immutability and change. Whenever you have a personal dynamic, when one person changes, the other reponds in a way which reflects this change. But all is not relative. If God's essence is immutable, then He is the standard by which such change is understood. For example, imagine you are in a field standing next to a tree. As you walk around the tree, you may end up north of the tree (and the tree is south of you). If you continue walking, such a relative relationship changes, so that you might find yourself south of the tree (and the tree is north of you). In the same way, our behavior towards God is like walking around the tree. Depending upon what we do, God is in a different relationship with us. Let's consider a better analogy. A man and a wife are in a happy marriage. The man commits adultery, and the wife becomes unhappy. Has the wife changed in a significant manner? Not really. Her change is a function of what her husband did, and reflects the immutablity of her belief that infidelity is wrong. In the purported contradictions, we have a set of Scriptures which speak of God's essence - it is unchangeable. The other set deal with God's relationships with men (they _don't_ abstractly speak of God's essence). Thus, as the above analogies show, there need be no contradiction. 10. God is just and impartial God is unjust and partial The first set is as follows: "To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock and there is no unrighteousness in him." [Ps 92:15] -- Basic Teaching(BT)= God is righteous "Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" [Gen 18:25]-- BT= God does not condemn the righteous with the wicked. "The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He." [Deut 32:4]-- BT= God is righteous "Yet you say, "The way of the LORD is not right." Here now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?" [Ezek 18:25] -- BT= God's ways are right, the ways of Israel, when the prophet spoke, were not. "For there is no partiality with God." [Rom 2:11]--BT = God is impartial. However, it seems clear from the context that we are talking about God being impartial when it comes salvation being offered to both Jew and Gentile. Thus, the verses cited below could only be contradictory if they teach that Christ's atonement was only for the Jews or Gentiles. Since they don't, we need only consider if God is unrighteous in any of them-> The second set is as follows: "So he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." [Gen 9:25] Here, one must read a contradiction into the teachings as it is unclear whether Noah's curse would make God "unrighteous." "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers in the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." [Ex 20:5] The following verse notes that lovingkindness extends to thousands of generations of those who love God. This leads me to believe this verse is hyperbolic and thus difficult to make into a contradiction. For example, is God _really_ unrighteous for bestowing blessings for a thousand generations, yet visting iniquity for ONLY three or four generations? The thrust seems to run in the other direction. Whether or not one views this as "unrighteous" is a function of their ethics, and thus the "contradiction" is read into the scripture. (BTW, I would note, however, that sinful behavior is often transmitted in families. For example, the son of an alcoholic is often an alcoholic himself.) MaryAnna responds to another related "contradiction" which is also relevant here: __________________________________________ Are children punished for the sins of the parents? Exo. 20:5 tells us that God is to be feared, as He has the ability to visit the sins of the fathers on the children. Ezek. 18:20 tells us this will not happen if the children repent and turn away from the ways of their fathers. Not a contradiction. ____________________________________________ "for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." [Rom 9:11-13] Again, I view that "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" as a hyperbole which indicates that God simply favored Esau. This is not a clear case of unrighteousness. "For whoever has, to him shall more be given, and he shall have in abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken from him." [Mt13:12] I view this as a proverbial way of saying that he who improves upon the gifts that he receives will receive more, but he who does not improve upon them (ie, neglects or takes them for granted) shall have them removed. I find this the very opposite of unrighteousness. Thus, in not one case is there a unequivocal contradiction in this set. -- Michael "What we do to our children, they will do to society" - Pliny the Elder From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Wed Jan 26 21:49:29 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA26766; Wed, 26 Jan 94 21:49:29 EST Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwapf21919; Wed, 26 Jan 94 21:49:27 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwapf04572; Wed, 26 Jan 94 21:48:50 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA01095; Wed, 26 Jan 94 21:48:21 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions: Part III Date: 27 Jan 1994 02:48:19 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 236 Message-Id: <2i7a1j$vp@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu What follows is a reply to a list of contradictions which was posted on this board a few months back. Keep in mind that the purpose of the reply is not to demonstrate THE correct/true resolution of each purported contradiction. The purpose is to merely show that each set of verses purported to be contradictory need not be truly contradictory, as there are possible/plausible/probable resolutions. 11. God is the author of evil God is not the author of evil <1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13> "Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?" [Lam 3:38] "Now therefore say to the people of Judah that those living in Jerusalem, 'This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan for against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and actions." [Jer 18:11] "I form light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the LORD, do all these things." [Is 45:7] "I also gave them over to statues that were not good and laws they could not live by." [Ez 20:25] "When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? [Amos 3:6] Now, in Deut 32:4, we read that God is just. None of the above verses teach that God is unjust. Paul is speaking about God in the context of Church gatherings - that in such gatherings, God is a God of peace, not confusion. None of the above verses speak of such Church gatherings. James teaches that God does not tempt anyone with evil. None of the above verses teach that God tempts with evil. (I think Ez 20:25 is best understood in light of Romans 1). Thus, no obvious contradictions in this set. 12. God gives freely to those who ask God witholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving them Joshua 11:20 says nothing about some asking, and God refusing to give. Is 63:17 says nothing about someone asking, and God refusing to give. John 12:40 says nothing about someone asking, and God refusing to give. In these three verses, it is mentioned that God "hardened the hearts" of someone. If someone never asked, and will never truly ask, it is not a contradiction to harden one's heart, yet give to those who DO ask. 13. God is to be found by those who seek him God is not to be found by those who seek him "Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but they shall not find me." [Pr 1:28] Here, the context has been ignored. First of all, it is wisdom which is speaking. Those who laugh, scoff, and refuse wisdom are not going to magically find it when calamity strikes. If one wishes to identify wisdom with God, the same principle holds - those who scoff, reject, and laugh at God are not going to find God when calamity strikes. After all, if they look, they look through the filters of selfishness (ie, "save my butt"). Instead of calling on God or looking for God, they should be repenting. But those who live a life of scorning God are not those who repent when disaster strikes. Thus, no contradiction. 14. God is warlike God is peaceful "The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name." [Ex 15:3] (Is 51:15 has nothing to do with war) "The God of peace be with you all. Amen" [Rom 15:33] "For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace." [1 Cor 14:33] It seems clear that God reveals Himself as a God of Battles in much of the OT. So what of these NT teachings? This "contradiction" is premised on equivocation, where the NT references to peace are interpreted to be the antomym of 'war', when this is obviously not the case. In Romans, Paul seems to be speaking of peace in a subjective, existential sense - a relationship with God brings a sense of peace. In Corinithians, Paul is speaking about the activity of Church congregations - they should be orderly and peaceful, not full of confusion and contention. No obvious contradiction here. 15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocius God is kind, merciful, and good The first set of scriptures say nothing about God being cruel (this is a subjective call). They deal simply and bluntly with God's judgment. Thus, we have a both/and situation here. Yes, God is merciful and full of compassion. Yet, those who reject his mercy and compassion will find that His judgment in unrelenting and ferocious - that is His nature. 16. God's anger is fierce and endures long God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute The verse in Numbers and Jeremiah do not teach some general truth that 'God's anger is fierce and endures long." This is the critic's personal interpretation. In Jeremiah, in RESPONSE to Judah's great sin, God's anger is kindled (which itself, implies that it is slow to occur) and will "burn forever." I view this as a hyperbole (like "walking a thousand miles"). Put simply, God's anger against Judah would endure long. In Num 32, God's anger burned against Israel because of their sin and he made them wander in the desert 40 years. In Num 25, we read that God had Moses slay those who sought to contaminate the Jews with pagan ideals in order that his fierce anger may turn away from Israel. Since there is no contradiction between a fierce anger, and an anger slow to rise, this is an irrelevant verse. So let's focus on duration. Above, we saw that God's anger lasted long (in human terms) in SPECIFIC cases as the RESULT of sinful behavior. What of the Psalms? First, let's keep in mind that we have now entered the territory of another genre - poetry. As such, it's going to be hard to make an unequivocal contradiction. Anyway, in Ps 103, we simply note that God is slow to anger. Nothing in Jer or Num contradicts this. In Ps 30:5, it appears as if David is speaking from his personal experience with God in saying that God's anger lasts only a moment. And what is a 'moment' in poetical terms anyway? And could this teaching be yet one more proverbial way of saying that God is far more gracious than angry? That is, when all is said and done, what is revealed is a God who is slow to anger, quick to forgive, yet who can indeed demonstrate a fierce anger when provoked by great or ubiquitous sin. I see no obvious contradiction here. 17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings, sacrifices ,and holy days God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days. The first set of Scriptures explains where God institutes sacrifices, etc., among Israel. Nothing in the second set contradicts this. In Jer 7:22, we read, "I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices," The author of this supposed contradiction conveniently left out the next verse: " but I gave them this command: "Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people." This is obviously not a disapproval of burnt offerings, but a disapproval on emphasizing such offerings to the exclusion of obedience in all areas. Jer 6:20 speaks of the incense in Sheba, hardly contradicting the first set. The verse in Psalms is lifted out of context, as the LORD clearly says, "I do not rebuke you for your sacrifices." (Ps 50:8). The verses in Isaiah are also lifted out of context. God rebukes the people for the sacrifices because they represent religious hypocrisy. Is 1:15-17 clearly demonstrate this. 18. God accepts human sacrifices <2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39> God fobids human sacrifice The account in Gen 22:2 has been the subject of a great wealth of religious speculation, but the fact remains that Isaac was not sacrificed. The account in 2 Sam is misnamed as a "human sacrifice." It looks far more like an execution carried out by the Gibeonites because Saul had previously persecuted them. The verses in Judges do not obviously indicate that Jephthah offered his daughter as a "human sacrifice" and if He did, there is no indication that God "accepted it." No contradictions here. 19. God temps men God temps no man Gen 22 refers to testing; 2 Sam says nothing about God tempting; In Jer 20, the prophet Jeremiah is simply complaining. Just because in a moment of desparation, he accuses God of deceiving him, does not mean that God DID deceive him. Mt 6:13 is part of the Lord's prayer, "lead us not into temptation." The prayer simply inquires of God that helps us keep our distance from temptation (hardly an example of God tempting men!!). The only possible hope of a contradction in this set is to equate testing with temptation. But is testing identical to tempting? For example, let's say God wants to test someone's honesty and puts them in a room with a lost wallet. Is this tempting? I think not. To truly tempt, God would have to whispher, "Pick it up, keep it, no one will know, etc." No clear contradictions here. 20. God cannot lie God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits to decieve <2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9> In this case, we need not even consider the scriptures. As "sending forth lying spirits" is not the same as actually lying yourself. But, MaryAnna White notes: 1 Kings 22:21-22 Lying spirit - Here, of course, God does not lie directly nor approve of nor sanction man's lying. One could argue that all that happens on earth is permitted by God - He could stop it if He saw fit. He even permitted Satan to cause Job to suffer - a much more interesting case. But that does not mean that He is the source of all such things. They just afford Him opportunities, as here, to accomplish what He is after. As they are useful to Him, He permits them to continue for a season. Like Judas. Eventually, those instruments no longer useful, all such spirits and men will be judged by being cast into the eternal lake of fire. That is neither approval nor sanction, but merely proof of God's sovereignty. -- MAW ________________________________________________ The basic point is that by allowing the spirit to lie, God is not Himself lying. After all, God allows us all to lie, but He is not a liar for allowing us to lie. -- Michael "What we do to our children, they will do to society" - Pliny the Elder From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Thu Jan 27 20:31:20 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA29297; Thu, 27 Jan 94 20:31:20 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwass18976; Thu, 27 Jan 94 20:31:18 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwasr07333; Thu, 27 Jan 94 20:29:57 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA26923; Thu, 27 Jan 94 19:35:15 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions: Part IV Date: 28 Jan 1994 00:35:13 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 225 Message-Id: <2i9mk1$q98@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu What follows is a reply to a list of contradictions which was posted on this board a few months back. Keep in mind that the purpose of the reply is not to demonstrate THE correct/true resolution of each purported contradiction. The purpose is to merely show that each set of verese purported to be contradictory need not be truly contradictory, as there are possible/plausible/probable resolutions. 21. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him This is only a contradiction because the critic interprets it as so. Does Genesis 8:21 say that God will not destroy man because he is wicked? Not really. For God says that he will never again curse the ground, even though man's heart is evil (NIV). Furthermore, cursing the ground does not necessarily mean the same thing as destroying man, now does it? 22. God's attributes are revealed in his works. God's attributes cannot be discovered Romans 1:20 simply notes that Creation points to the Creator - a divine being of great power. Job 11:7 points out that we can never fully grasp the divine, it does NOT say that God cannot be inferred from nature. Is 40:28 notes that we can never hope to fully scrutinize the understanding of God. None of this is contradictory. 23. There is but one God There is a plurality of gods This, of course, would lead us to a discussion of the Trinity, something that is beyond the scope of this article. Trinitarian theology is a classic example of "both/and" thinking. Besides, what of Deut 6:4? Deut. 6:4 reads, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." Now it is important to note that the Hebrew word used for 'one' is NOT yahid, which denotes absolute singularity elsewhere in the OT. Instead, Moses chose the Hebrew word ehad, which signifies unity and oneness in plurality. This word is used in Gen 2:24 where Adam and Eve are instructed to become "one flesh". It's also found in Numbers 13:23 where the Hebrew spies returned with a "single cluster" of grapes. So Deut 6:4 actually supports the concept of the Trinity, by noting that God is "oneness in plurality". The same word which describes the oneness of a marriage relationship is also used to describe God's essence! 24. Robery commanded Robbery fobidden It's not at all obvious that you can refer to the instances in Ex 3, 12 as "robbery." When African-Americans demand recompensation for their history of slavery, are they demanding to rob white people? Thus, these are not obvious examples of God commanding robery. Besides, in Ex. 3 and 12, the Israelites asked the Egyptians for goods. 25. Lying approved and sanctioned Lying forbidden Rev speaks all of liars be cast into the lake of fire. Since the first set of scriptures do not say otherwise, we can dismiss this one. Proverbs speaks of lying as an abomination. Since the first set of scriptures do not say lying is not an abomination, we can dismiss this one. The verse in Ex is one of the Ten Commandments. It's not obvious to me that lying is approved of in the above situations. Concerning Rahab (Josh 2:4-6), James says, "the harlot was justified by works, when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way" (James 2:25). Her act of saving the lives of these men is what is approved of. The same goes for Ex 1, where the midwives refuse to kill the male infants which were birthed. As for 1 King 22:21-22, once again it is unclear if lying is truly approved of. According to one Bible scholar: "The whole declaration of Micaiah...is a figurative and poetical description of a vision that he had seen. Putting aside its rhetorical drapery, the gist of the whole passage is that God for judicial purposes suffered Ahab to be fatally deceived." Another scholar says: "Because Ahab had abandoned the Lord his God and hardened his own heart, God allowed his ruin by the very instrument Ahab had sought to prostitute for his own purposes, namely, prophecy. God used the false declarations of the false prophets that Ahab was so enamored with as his instruments of judgment." Since it is unclear that God truly approves of lying in this case, the contradiction is not established. 26. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned <2 Kings 14:7,3> Hatred to the Edomite forbidden The account in Deut indeed forbids hatred against the Edomite. Does the account in 2 Kings sanction it? Not at all. It merely mentions that Amaziah slew many Edomites. And while hatred can be part of warfare, it need not be. And since the account in 2 Kings doesn't even mention hatred of the Edomites, this is obviously a concocted contradiction. 27. Killing commanded Killing forbidden Ex 20:13 reads, "You shall not murder." Not all killing is murder. 28. The blood-shedder must die The blood-shedder must not die Gen 4:15 makes no such generalization. It is specific to Cain. This is an example where the critic takes an incident and transforms it into an absolute principle. Besides, the covenant in Gen 9 are made with Noah, who existed much later than did Cain. 29. The making of images forbidden The making of images commanded Ex 20:4 states than one should not make idols and bow down and worship them. The cherubims in Ex 25 are not idols, nor were they worhipped. 30. Slavery and opression ordained Slavery and opression forbidden #30 Slavery and oppression (two different things in the Bible) Gen. 9:25 Canaan is punished, sentenced to be a bondsman. (slave) This is a punishment by God upon Ham through the mouth of his father Noah for his rebellious insubordination and disregard for God's authority on earth at that time - his father. He could have been killed for this, but instead he was merely told that some of his descendents would be slaves. This is not a condoning of oppression, but a prophecy that such a judgment would indeed be carried out. (Ones who died for rebellion include Korah and Absalom; Miriam was judged with a case of leprosy for a few days.) This verse says nothing to those who would be the slave owners as to whether their action is condoned or not. Lev. 25:45 It's ok to buy a stranger for a bondsman/woman if someone sells him/her to you, as long as it's not a fellow Israelite. Joel 3:8 God punishes Tyre (?) by selling the people to the Israelites as slaves and then selling them to the Sabeans. Still no mention of condoning oppression. Isa. 58:6 mentions a particular fast to Jehovah as a breaking of every yoke. Surely that cannot refer to (include) the yoke on the oxen, so there is some limitation to which yokes are broken. Some yokes are forbidden - i.e. yoking a fellow Israelite- and are undoubtedly included. The case of a foreign slave could be argued either way and hence this verse is not a clear contradiction of any of the above. Exo. 22:21 Not permitted to vex or oppress strangers. Does not say, not permitted to buy them. Exo. 21:16 Not permitted to steal and sell people. Does not say, not permitted to buy and sell them. Matt. 23:10 is irrelevant. It says, "Neither be called instructors, because One is your Instructor, the Christ." (RV). Footnote: "Or, guides, teachers, directors." This section is talking about how we address fellow believers. It earlier says to call no one "father." Obviously it is talking here about differentiating among believers by bestowing titles of honor. These titles should be reserved for God alone, not bestowed on men. But our physical father is still our father, our school teachers are still our teachers, and our masters, if we are slaves, are still our masters and are to be called such if they so demand. The President is still the President, etc. We are admonished in the Bible to show honor to those in authority over us in our families, in the government, etc. -- MAW _____________________________________________________ Gen 9:25 has Noah stating that Canaan will be the servant of Japheth. This does not necessarily read as the ordination of "slavery and oppression" by God. The verses in Lev refer to a mild form of servitude. Joel simply threatens captivity as a punishment for sin. None of these verses unequivocally ordain "slavery and oppression." On the other hand, the verses on Is and Exodus do forbid truly oppressive behavior. The verse in Mt. is irrelevant to this subject. -- Michael "What we do to our children, they will do to society" - Pliny the Elder From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Mon Jan 31 00:24:23 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA00487; Mon, 31 Jan 94 00:24:23 EST Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwbej25755; Mon, 31 Jan 94 00:24:22 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwbej07520; Mon, 31 Jan 94 00:24:21 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA05078; Mon, 31 Jan 94 00:24:12 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions; Part V Date: 31 Jan 1994 05:24:09 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 214 Message-Id: <2ii4lp$4uj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu What follows is a reply to a list of contradictions which was posted on this board a few months back. Keep in mind that the purpose of the reply is not to demonstrate THE correct/true resolution of each purported contradiction. The purpose is to merely show that each set of verese purported to be contradictory need not be truly contradictory, as there are possible/plausible/probable resolutions. 31. Improvidence enjoyed Improvidence condemned <1 Tim 5:8/ Prov 13:22> I believe that this is a case of both/and, as neither extreme is good. These teachings serve to balance each other. MaryAnna observes: #31 Regarding improvidence "Improvidence enjoyed" Matt. 6:28, 31, 34 - these verses tell us not to be anxious. They don't tell us not to work for our living. Luke 6:31-35 tell us to give to those that ask, and to lend without expecting any return. This again is not telling us not to provide for our own needs. If we didn't have it in the first place we wouldn't be able to give or lend it. And it doesn't say that the borrowers or askers are approved by God. The reward mentioned here goes to the givers, not to the takers. This is made obvious by verse 29, which says to turn the cheek to those who smite it. Clearly the Bible is not meaning that we are supposed to go around slapping people in the face. Luke 12:3 says "Therefore what you have said in the darkness will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in the private rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops." What this has to do with improvidence, I have no idea, unless it is meant as an example of condoning of eavesdropping and gossip. That would be a really strange inter- pretation of this verse, looking at the context. "Improvidence condemned" 1 Tim. 5:8 says we must provide for our own. (Doesn't say we need to be full of anxiety, just do it.) Proverbs 13:22 - a good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children... Yup. --MAW 32. Anger approved Anger disapproved "In your anger do not sin: do not let the sun go down while your are still angry." [Eph 4:26] I do not view Paul's admonitions as being approving of anger. In fact, the advice about not allowing the day to end while you are angry is anything but an approval of anger. 33. Good works to be seen of men Good works not to be seen of men Here is a case where context matters. In Mt 5, Jesus is speaking in the context of being the salt of the earth. It is by allowing Christ to work through us that people will be drawn to Him. That is, one does good works to glorify God. In Mt 6, Jesus is talking about doing good works in a self-righteous sense, where one draws attention to self. Consider a very practical example - a Christian who serves by feeding the poor ought to do so humbly and quietly. They will eventually be noticed, if only by those they serve. The same Christian shouldn't be bragging about his work among acquaintences, where a "holier-than-thou" sense is evident. The former approach draws people to God, the latter repels them. 34. Judging of others forbidden Judging of others approved <1 Cor 6:2-4/ 1 Cor 5:12> This is a commonly employed 'contradiction' which also ignores context. Mt 7 is not dealing with judging in of itself, rather, it speaks of hypocrisy - judging others by standards that one does not live by. 35. Christ taught nonresistance Christ taught and practiced physical resistance Since using a scourge to drive out the animals and overturn the tables is not as case of "physical resistance," the verse in John is irrelevant. In Luke, it appears as if Jesus is teaching the disciples that in their changed circumstances, self-defense and self-provision might be necessary. The very fact that two swords was "enough" indicates a restrained theme to this teaching. Mt 5 is where Jesus teaches that one ought to "turn the other cheek." This is a hyperbole used to teach a moral lesson - do not set yourself against those who have injured you (does anyone really think that Jesus would have us expose our chests and invite the mugger the shoot us?). In Mt 26, someone with Jesus struck out at the legal authorities. Here the context is different from that of Lk 22. I read this as saying that those who raise the sword against the legal authorities can expect to die by the sword (and of course, this in of itself is not necessarily a moral principle). Then again, in light of vss. 53,54, one cannot establish that this teaching goes beyond the immediate circumstances. That is, if the disciples had fought, they would have been killed, and Jesus had better things in mind. That's why he told them He could summon supernatural aid if need be. 36. Christ warned his followers not to fear being killed Christ himself avioded the Jews for fear of being killed Luke 12 is a generalized teaching which states that one ought to fear God more so than men (read vs. 5). John 7:1 says nothing about Jesus being afraid that the Jews would kill him. It simply mentions that He avoided them since they wanted to kill Him. It wasn't His time to die yet. 37. Public prayer sanctioned <1 Kings 8:22,54, 9:3> Public prayer disapproved Mt 6 (not 5) does not as much focus on public prayer as it does on hyocritical prayer - "And when you pray, you are not to pray as hypocrites." Jesus condemns the prayers designed to gather favor in the eyes of men. Nothing contradictory here. 38. Importunity in prayer commended Importunity in prayer condemned The vain repetitions ("as the heathen do") Jesus speaks of in Mt hardly seem to me to be the fervant supplications that Luke relays. Put simply, there's a difference between fervant, real prayer and repetitive chanting or mouthing some memorized prayer. 39. The wearing of long hair by men sanctioned The wearing of long hair by men condemmed <1 Cor 11:14> #39 Men's long hair :-) Judg. 13:5 the Nazarite is not permitted to cut his hair. Num. 6:5 teaches the same thing. 1 Cor. 11:14 teaches that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him. Yes, true. The Nazarites kept long hair even though it was a dishonor to them. 1 Cor. 11:10 tells us that long hair is a sign of submission. So the Nazarites submitted to God even though it meant suffering some shame, for the duration of their vow. They also stayed away from dead things and any product of the grape, I think. --MAW ____________________________________________________ One could also note that national customs furnish an explanation here. 1 Cor was addressed to a Greek audience, where long hair on men often indicated effeminacy and indulgences in unnatural vices. 40. Circumcision instituted Circumcision condemned #40 Circumcision Gen. 17:10 God institutes circumcision to set His people apart. This is in the Old Testament where God would use a special people through which His Messiah could be brought forth. Gal. 5:2 Spoken to ones who already believe in Christ but were not circumcised - if they go to be circumcised, they are going back to the law. This means they are denying the effectiveness of Christ's death... so they lose out on the benefits of being a believer. This is not the only such verse. Paul says elsewhere that we should beware those of the circumcision, also calling them the concision and even dogs. This is referring to the Judaizers who were trying to get the believers to be circumcised as a condition of their salvation.. among other things. They were trying to bring the believers under the law, even though these believers had been previously Gentiles and not Jews. Paul tells us - it is not that all who have been circumcised are condemned, but rather that circumcision is no longer necessary in the New Testament because it has been replaced by the cross of Christ. -- MAW ____________________________________________________ Indeed, here is another case (like #1) where the critic ignores the intervening events between the Scriptures cited. He/she may as well argue that the existence of a OLD and NEW covenant is a contradiction. And that exercise would be futile. -- Michael From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Mon Jan 31 22:01:34 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA26831; Mon, 31 Jan 94 22:01:34 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwbhs28441; Mon, 31 Jan 94 22:01:23 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwbhs26422; Mon, 31 Jan 94 22:01:22 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA11300; Mon, 31 Jan 94 22:01:16 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions; Part VI Date: 1 Feb 1994 03:01:12 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 243 Message-Id: <2ikglo$b0a@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu What follows is a reply to a list of contradictions which was posted on this board a few months back. Keep in mind that the purpose of the reply is not to demonstrate THE correct/true resolution of each purported contradiction. The purpose is to merely show that each set of verese purported to be contradictory need not be truly contradictory, as there are possible/plausible/probable resolutions. 41. The Sabbath instituted The Sabbath repudiated #41 The Sabbath is a topic a lot of Christians disagree on. Exo. 20:8 teaches that the Sabbath was instituted. But it was also practiced by God Himself even as early as day seven. Isaiah 1:13 God says the wicked people are displeasing to God, and He no longer delights in anything they do, including keeping the Sabbath and making offerings to Him. No surprise there. Romans 14:5 and Col. 2:16 are *New* Testament verses. Romans 14:5 neither supports the Sabbath nor repudiates it, though. It just says some keep and some don't and both are to be accepted as genuine believers. No problem there. (See verse 10). Colossians 2:16 is the same story. "Let no one judge you with regards to the Sabbath" sounds like a far cry from "You are forbidden to keep the Sabbath" or "The Sabbath is bunk." This matter would really do better dealt with on the larger scale of "Should New Testament believers be required to keep the entire Old Testament law?" Then one could bring in Eph. 2:15 and so on to show that on the one hand the moral aspects of the law are uplifted in the New Testament (Matt. 5-7), yet on the other hand the rituals are abolished (Sabbath, circumcision, feasts) and the offerings are replaced by Christ as the one unique Sacrifice. The middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles has been torn down by Christ on the cross and there is no longer any difference (among Christians). See discussion with James in Acts regarding this matter. -- MAW _____________________________________________________ The teaching in Isaiah does not repudiate the Sabbath. If we read further, the LORD says: "Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!" [Is 1:15-17] Obviously, God is condemning the religious hypocrisy in this instance. Nevertheless, even if we take the above claims as truth, namely, that God instituted the Sabbath in Exodus, and repealed it through Paul (and we need not debate if this is the true interpretation), as it stands, this is not contradictory. It is not contradictory to institute X and then repeal it much later. 42. The Sabbath instituted because God rested on the seventh day The Sabbath instituted because God brought the Israelites out of Egypt In this case, I see no reason why both explanations cannot be true. As such, the Sabbath could have been rooted in the order of things _and_ in the historical intervention of the Creator. ____________________________________________________ #42 Why was the Sabbath instituted? Exo. 22:11 tells us the Israelites should rest because God rested on the seventh day. Deut. 5:15 tells the Israelites that God commanded them to keep the Sabbath because of their deliverance from Egypt. The wording is different between the two statements. Deut. tells us the reason for the commandment to keep the Sabbath. Exo does not, but merely tells us a good reason why they should keep it. Anyway, it is not uncommon to do something for more than one reason. Especially good reasons.-- MAW 43. No work to be done on the Sabbath under penalty of death Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath and justified his deciples in the same First of all, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, not subject of the Sabbath. As for his disciples, they were charged with breaking the Sabbath because they picked some heads of grain and ate them. Jesus corrected the Jewish leaders on their legalism (read the entire discussion in Mt 12). Jesus did not condone working on the Sabbath, he just pointed out the folly of taking this law to the extreme were people could not eat or help others on the Sabbath. _____________________________________________________ #43 No work could be done on Sabbath but Jesus worked on Sabbath and justified His disciples in doing the same. Yup. In the Old Testament no work could be done on the Sabbath, although it was ok to pull an ox out of the ditch. The Lord Jesus in the New Testament is the Lord of the Sabbath and perfectly free to break it and even abolish it, since He is the one who set it up in the first place. Also, He is the reality of the shadows. The Old Testament Sabbath was a rest for God's people, but in the New Testament our real Sabbath is the One who said, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-ladened, and I will give you rest." Also, Hebrews tells us that there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. This is not talking about an outward ritual of sitting around all day once a week reading the Torah, but about resting in Christ as our real inward peace and rest and sanctuary in this age and in full in the age to come. Like I said earlier, this can be a pretty controversial issue, but at least grant me that it's a possible explanation which removes the validity of #43 as a contradiction in the Bible. Others may explain it differently. --MAW 44. Baptism commanded Baptism not commanded <1 Cor 1:17,14> This is not a contradiction. Paul simply responded to the favoritism which sprang up along the lines of who baptised whom. Furthermore, Paul notes that his particular calling was not as a baptist, but as a preacher. 45. Every kind of animal allowed for food. Certain kinds of animals prohibited for food. The NT references stem from the New Covenant. The Genesis reference indicates that God sanctioned non-vegetarian diets. The Deut references are particular to the Jews and the Old Covenant that was made with them. 46. Taking of oaths sanctioned Taking of oaths forbidden Jesus is trying to get beyond human conventions and the frivolous oaths which were common and was calling for simple and pure honesty. Hebrews refers specifically to God and indicates His commitment/covenant. ____________________________________________________ Does the Bible sanction or forbid oaths? In the Old Testament they are not commanded, but permitted. Num. 30 explains when they can be annulled. God Himself made an oath as recorded in Heb. 13:4. In Matt. 5:34 we New Testament believers are told not to swear by anything but to just say yes and no. The explanation given is that we are powerless to change our hair color. (Natural color.) But surely God is not similarly powerless, so if He wants to swear something, He is perfectly able to carry it out and nothing can come up to stop Him. No contradiction there. So OT permits swearing (doesn't command it) and sets limits on it. The uplifted NT law abolishes it altogether on the grounds that we are powerless to guarantee the outcome. But God is not powerless, so He can swear as He likes. -- MAW 47. Marriage approved Marriage disapproved <1 Cor 7:1/ 1 Cor 7:7,8> Paul is not dissaproving marriage! He is simply saying that it is good to be unmarried. Saying it is good to not marry is not saying it is bad to marry. Being unmarried is good in the sense that particular blessings can stem from it (in fact, Paul even describes celibacy as a "gift"). However, another set of blessings can stem from being married. _____________________________________________________ #47 Does God approve of marriage Let's just look at the verses cited as saying that God *dis*approves of marriage, since obviously He approves. 1 Cor. 7:1, 8, 26 Verse 26 tells us why Paul says this. It is because of the present necessity. Well, these three verses do not tell us that God disapproves of marriage, but only that there is nothing wrong with staying single. "Good for them." A man who is content to refrain from touching any woman must really be full of the enjoyment of God, as Paul was. This is surely a good thing, although most people are not like that. As verse 7 says, each has his own gift from God, and for most people it is not the gift of staying single forever, although Matt. 19:10-12 tells us (not cited) that there is a blessing for those that are able to keep it. Other verses not quoted tell us that the married person cares for how to please his/her mate, whereas the single one is free to concentrate on pleasing the Lord. Anyway, none of these verses say that God disapproves of marriage. To teach others not to marry is to spread the doctrines of demons. (1 Tim. 4:1-5). "What God has joined together." If God disapproved of marriage, He would disapprove of almost all humans that ever were. He Himself intends to be married. In 1 Tim. 5:14 Paul speaks of this matter again and makes it clear that his position is neither disapproval nor forbidding of marriage. Genesis 2:18 It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a help suitable for him. -- MAW 48. Freedom of divorce permitted Divorce restricted Yes, Jesus issues a new commandment and even explains the permission 1500 years earlier. He now issues a higher calling. -- Michael From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Wed Feb 2 19:58:55 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA19691; Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:58:55 EST Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwbot11024; Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:58:54 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwbot13903; Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:58:40 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA10242; Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:58:34 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions: Part VII Date: 3 Feb 1994 00:58:31 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 220 Message-Id: <2ipi7n$9vk@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu 49. Adultery forbidden Adultery allowed One has to read adultery INTO Num 31:18 - it is not obvious that this verse is talking about adultery. As for Hosea, OT scholar Walter Kaiser believes that when God told Hosea to marry Gomer, she was not yet a harlot. (Besides, the exception doesn't prove the rule). ______________________________________________________ #49 Does the Bible permit adultery? No. Numbers 31:18 doesn't say that the "yourselves" were already married. Obviously it doesn't refer to the females among the Israelites, and so it can just as easily also exclude all the married and under-age males. Hosea 1:2 God commands Hosea to marry a prostitute. The very idea of using this as a justification of adultery is absurd. The point here is to expose the nation of Israel at that time for her unfaithful and treacherous treatment of her Husband, God. Israel was a prostitute in the eyes of God, because she was going after idols, yet He still would marry her and even take her back after she ran after idols again. This is an example of an incredible level of forgiveness, not of a condoning of the evil that she had done. Hosea 2:1-3 God commands Hosea to go back and reclaim his unfaithful wife back from the man she was messing around with. (See above.) The point is that this is an extremely difficult thing for a man to do, to take back his wife even from the house of her lover and to have to pay a price to get her back. Yet this is what God did for the children of Israel and also did for us. What an incredible heart He has for us, even though we were spiritually harlots in His eyes; He still loved us enough to pay the price to redeem us. --MAW 50. Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union Gen 17:16 says nothing about Sarah being Abrams sister. Gen 20:11 ignores Gen 12:11-13. Abraham had people believing that Sarah was his sister out of fear - it was a lie. Or ______________________________________________________ #50 Is it ok to marry or cohabit with one's sister? Well, in the early generations man didn't have a choice. Cain for example married someone, and the only gals around were his siblings. Abraham also lived long before Moses, who wrote Deuteronomy and Leviticus. After Moses, nope, not a good idea to marry your sister. -- MAW 51. A man may marry his brother's widow A man may not marry his brother's widow This is a clear case of reading a contradiction INTO the Bible - Lev 20:21 says nothing obvious about widows. 52. Hatred to kindred enjoined Hatred to kindred condemned "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters- yes, even his own life- he cannot be my disciple" I have seen this verse used numerous times from atheists in an attempt to show that Jesus was not a nice guy. But let's see if this verse really supports that position. Many atheists interpret this verse literally. To them, it is clear that Jesus was instructing us to hate our families. But is it? It is fairly basic rule in hermenuetics that a particular teaching should be interpreted in the light of general teaching, that is, in light of its context. So, does this hate-message fit into the overall context of Jesus' teaching? Not really. Elsewhere, Jesus responds to an inquiry about attaining eternal life. He replied, " honor your mother and father". . In fact, on another occasion Jesus censured those theologians who argued that people who had vowed to give God a sum of money which they later discovered could have been used to help thier parents in need were not free to divert the money from religious purposes to which it had been vowed. In His characteristic condemnation of human traditions, Jesus observed: "Thus you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites!" Now, how can you hate your parents, yet also honor them? These seem to be exclusive sentiments. On the cross, Jesus tells John to take His mother as his own. Was he telling John to hate her? Then why did John take Mary into his home? An interesting thing happens if you put together some of these teachings. If we are to hate our family, why must we love our enemies? And by hating our families, they become our enemies, but then we are supposed to love them! No, I find this literalistic interpretation of Luke 14:26 to be plagued with problems and taken out of context. So what sense are we to make of this teaching? Perhaps Jesus is simply employing hyperbole to emphasize an important point. Let's return to the immediate context of this verse. In Luke 14:27, He notes that a disciple must be willing to carry his cross. In verses 28-29, he teaches from the example of building a tower and that one should count the costs before beginning. In verses 31-32, he uses an example of a king going to war to illustrate the same point. Then in verse 33, he explains that we must be willing to give up everything to be His disciple. In verses he alludes to salt that loses its saltiness, which is thrown out. And finally, he sums it all up by saying "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" . Now throughout this whole preaching, Jesus uses symbolic parables and hyperbole to drive His points home. And what is the point? I think it is rather clear, that commitment to Jesus is primary and always comes first. Thus, if you are willing to put others before Christ and unwilling to follow through with your commitment, you may as well never commit in the first place. It is well known that in Jewish idiom, hate could also mean 'love less'. In fact, I think the same message taught in Luke 14:26 is taught in Matthew 10:37. "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me". In this case Jesus is speaking to his disciples, while in Luke He was addressing the crowds. But the same theme is present in both and His teaching to the disciples clearly explains the hyperbole in Luke. I should also go back to that idiom. In the OT, the love-hate antithesis was used to distinguish between the intensity of one's love, and not meant as a polarization of concepts. Perhaps the clearest example is in Gen. 29:30-31: "So Jacob went to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban another seven years. When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb". Thus, Leah's being hated or not loved really meant that she was loved less. In fact, in the poetry of the ancient Near East numerous terms were paired together. In such instances the meaning of these terms is far more dependent upon their idiomatic usage rather than their literal meaning in isolation. Given that Jesus often teaches using symbolic parables and hyperbole, given the context of Luke's passage, along with the context of other teachings of Jesus which certainly contradict a literal reading of Luke's verse, and the use of the love-hate comparison in Hebrew idiom, all added to Matthews account of the same theme, a consistent picture comes out that Jesus was teaching that we should love our families less than He. His use of hyperbole is an effective way of getting attention and emphasizing his point at the same time. Commitment to Jesus comes first. By the way, this is another subtle implicit expression of Jesus as God, as elsewhere, he reminds us that we are to love "the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" . Anyway, if Bob was to tell Sue that he loved her so much that "he'd walk a thousand miles without food and water just to be with her", must Bob fulfill the literal sense of his statement for Sue to understand the depth of his love? If we insisted that hyperbole be taken literally, a very effective and deep method of communicating would be lost! 53. Intoxicating beverages recommended Intoxicating beverages discountenanced #53 Is it ok to drink alcoholic beverages? Yup, but not in excess. And it's not required. (All things are lawful for me but I will not be brought under the power of any. All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things build up. 1 Cor. 6:12 and 10:23). Prov. 20:1 says abusers of wine are not wise. Prov. 23:30 tells us that verses 31-32 are in the context of excessive drinking. The Lord was accused of being a drinker; it can be inferred that He did not entirely abstain from wine - just from drunkenness. However, anyone who is weak in this matter would do well not to touch the stuff. (IMHO) A great verse not quoted is Eph. 4:18 (Compare with Acts 2:13-18). The point of wine in the Bible is a picture of our enjoyment of the Spirit. Well, atheists can't be expected to understand that. Anyway, we should be crazy before God and sober before man. -- MAW -- Michael From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Thu Feb 3 20:26:18 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA03335; Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:26:18 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwbsn12067; Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:26:16 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwbsn05555; Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:26:00 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA07616; Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:25:57 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions: Part VIII Date: 4 Feb 1994 01:25:55 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 235 Message-Id: <2is873$7dp@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu 54. It is our duty to obey our rulers, who are God's ministers and punish evil doers only It is not our duty to obey rulers, who sometimes punish the good and receive unto themselves damnation therefor #54 Should we obey our rulers? Are they God's ministers? Do they punish only evildoers? Do they sometimes punish the good as well? Will they receive damnation for their injustices? This question has to be answered in parts.. 1) Should we obey our rulers? Romans 13:1-3, 6 says we should be subject to, and not resist, the authorities over us. Note: it doesn't say obey. We should obey if at all possible, unless such obedience is contrary to God, as in the extreme cases below. Exo. 1:17, 20 tells us that the midwives did not follow the pharoah's command to kill the male babies of the Israelites and that God approved. Dan. 3:16 & 18 tell us that Daniel's three friends disobeyed the king's command to bow to the image. It also tells us that they were willing to submit to the consequences and that their attitude was not one of defiance but of respectful disobedience. Same as the midwives. Daniel 6:7, 9, 10 tells us Daniel was the same. He was submissive to the king and honored him, but was unable to obey this one particular command because it conflicted with His faithful worship of God. He also submitted to the penalty. All three are special cases where the authorities require something contrary to God. All three are not obedient but are still subject and do not resist. Acts 4:26-27 does not deal with this question. Mark 12:38-40 "Beware the scribes" is not a command not to respect them or do as they say. In another verse the Lord makes this more clear, telling us to do as they say but not as they do. The Lord had good reason to warn His disciples to beware the scribes, as they were part of the group that was plotting to kill Him. Anyway, that is not the point here. Luke 23:11, 24, 33, 35 Here the Lord submitted to the cruel treatment of the earthly government. He was a good example for us all. 2) Are they God's ministers? Romans tells us that they are. No verse tells us that they are not, although they do sometimes abuse their office after they have received it from God. That makes them not much different from King Saul or the sons of Eli. David and Samuel (respectively) were still subject to them and respected them as established by God. 3) Do they punish only evildoers? Romans 13:3 "For the rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you want to have no fear of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from him." This is a general principle, explaining that if we rob a bank or kill someone or dodge our taxes (the example in the context), we *will* have something to fear from the authorities, whereas if we don't we won't. If they oppress us unjustly, that is a matter not being dealt with in this verse. 4) Do they get punished by God for their injustices? Yes. God is not a regarder of persons. Every individual, regardless of status, will eventually face the judgment seat. -- MAW 55. Women's rights denied Women's rights affirmed #55 Does the Bible affirm or deny women's rights? (Hot topic.) Gen. 3:16 the curse on the woman (man got one too). The husband rules over the wife. 1 Tim. 2:12 Woman not permitted to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. 1 Cor. 14:34 Silent. Not permitted to speak in the assemblies but to be subject. Next verse explains: it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. 1 Pet. 3:6 As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, so women should be subject to their own husbands. Judg. 4:4, 14-15 Deborah, a female, judged Israel. But note: The Bible purposely mentions her husband's name. She does not choose to lead the people of Israel to battle but is told to do so. She goes obediently when told, but tells Barak that he will be shamed in that a woman will kill his enemy Sisera. (It is a shame for a woman to defeat the enemy.) It is also a shame to Barak that he cannot go to battle without a woman. As a prophetess, she speaks, but she purposely keeps herself in her proper position as a female by maintaining the safeguards of her husband's headship and obedience to the authority of Barak. It is also a shame to Israel that there were no men who could judge them and so God was forced to use a female. (This does happen sometimes.) Judg. 5:7 Confirms the fact that there was no male to rule Israel properly and so God was forced to raise up Deborah. Acts 2:18 Both men and women prophesy. Females prophesying is different from females teaching and exerting authority over men. Females can of course prophesy with their heads covered, signifying submission and acceptance of God's ordination. Just as Deborah did. Acts 21:9 A man had four virgin daughters who prophesied. Same as above. See also 1 Cor. 14:24, 26, 31; 11:5. 1 Cor. 11:3 shows us that the point here is to keep the proper order (v. 40) in the churches: God is the Head of Christ. He, Christ, was fully in submission to the Father in all things, even unto death. Likewise, men should be headed up by Christ and women by men, especially their own husbands. While on that topic: Eph. 5:25-31 "Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her that He might sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of the water in the word, that He might present the church to Himself glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or any such things, but that she should be holy and without blemish. In the same way the husbands also ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his own wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ also the church, because we are members of His Body. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh." 1 Peter 3:7 says that the wives are weaker and are to be treasured as vessels unto honor by their husbands. 1 Cor. 12:22-24 But much rather the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. And those members of the body which we consider to be less honorable, these we clothe with more abundant honor; and our uncomely members come to have more abundant comeliness, but our comely members have no need. But God has blended the body together, giving more abundant honor to the member that lacked. 2 Cor. 12:9-10 And He has said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness. Most gladly therefore I will rather boast in my weaknesses that the power of Christ might tabernacle over me. Therefore I am well pleased in weaknesses, in insults, in necessities, in persecutions and distresses, on behalf of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am powerful. The brothers saw the vision on the mount of transfiguration, were appointed as disciples and later as apostles, and in the churches took on the responsibilities of being elders, deacons, teachers, and so on. But it was a group of sisters who supplied the funds for Jesus and His disciples to live for those three and a half years. It was a sister who willingly and without a second thought offered herself to be used by God to bring forth the Messiah, it was a sister who anointed the Lord Jesus with the costly nard which may have been her entire life savings and wiped His feet with her tears, sisters who first learned of His resurrection, and a sister who lingered at the tomb and was first to see Him in resurrection. The Lord does not discriminate against us sisters; rather, He is full of compassion for us in our weakness. Let us love and seek Him with our whole heart. -- MAW 56. Obedience to masters enjoined Obedience due to God only #56 Should masters be obeyed? Matthew 4:10 is referring to the service of worship, as the context makes clear. We are to worship only God. It is quoted from Deut. 6:13-14 which is also in the context of being forbidden to worship idols. 1 Cor. 7:20-24 tells slaves to remain as slaves even if the opportunity arises to be liberated. Then verse 22 says that a slave is the Lord's freedman and a freeman is the Lord's slave. This is telling us that outwardly we may be a slave or free but in the Lord we are His slave and we are also free in Him. So although we are slaves to men outwardly, the one we hold in our heart as our true Master is the Lord. This is not a sanction of being rebellious to our masters but a reference to our heart. The context makes it clear that it is not saying that slaves should seek to be free or to rebel against their masters. Matt. 23:10. This verse was previously dealt with in question #30. It is not referring to whether or not we have earthly masters, but whether or not we address some believers as if they were superior with titles of honor like Father and Teacher (Uh, and Reverend and Pastor and Deacon). All believers are brothers. Context: verses 6-11. Yes, there are apostles, prophets, evangelists, etc. But we just don't need to address them honorifically. And mustn't. -- MAW -- Michael From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Sun Feb 6 16:15:46 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA27912; Sun, 6 Feb 94 16:15:46 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwccz11127; Sun, 6 Feb 94 16:15:45 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwccz28492; Sun, 6 Feb 94 16:15:43 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA08793; Sun, 6 Feb 94 16:15:40 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions: Part IX Date: 6 Feb 1994 21:15:38 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 265 Message-Id: <2j3mlq$8in@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu ~ 57. There is an unpardonable sin There is not unpardonable sin Mark 3:29 "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness forever, but is guilty of an everlasting sin." Acts 13:39 "And from all the things from which you were not able to be justified by the law of Moses, in this One everyone who believes is justified." Note that the critic is relying on a particular interpretation of Acts 13, as it doesn't clearly say there is no unpardonable sin. It merely says that those who believe are justified. Now, Jesus' teaching may be descriptive in essense - those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit are those who never believe. That is, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit may be a symptom of a heart which is in such rebellion that it never yeilds to the call of the Holy Spirit. It is also possible that blaspheming the Spirit may simply be rejecting His call. Or at the very least, those who blaspheme the Spirit are ones who rebel against Him. Recall that the Spirit is sent to bring us into the Truth and convict us of sin. Those who would blaspheme the Spirit obviously rebel against Him, thus reject salvation. Thus, how _could_ they be saved? 58. Man was created after the other animals Man was created before the other animals The first chapter of Genesis is a synopsis of creation. The second is more detailed and focuses on the creation of man (and was unlikely intended to be a separate creation account). The NIV translates Gen 2:19 as follows: "Now that LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man..." Simply put, the Garden could have initially been without animal life, and God simply brought the animals he had already created to Adam. 59. Seed time and harvest were never to cease Seed time and harvest did cease for seven years #59 Did seed time and harvest ever cease? Gen. 8:22 "shall never cease." Gen. 41:54-56, 45:6 There was a famine over the whole earth for seven years. The seasons didn't cease, just the fruitful yield thereof. Seed time and harvest are another way of saying Spring and Fall, especially in the context of Genesis 8 which is speaking of the seasons. They were forced to cease during the flood, which was marked by heavy rainfall and not much variety. This was not what happpened in Egypt and the other countries during the famine in Genesis 41-45. -- MAW 60. God hardened Pharaoh's heart Pharaoh hardened his own heart #60 Who hardened Pharoah's heart? Exo. 4:21 and 9:12 God did. Exo. 8:15 Pharoah did. MaryAnna notes that they both did. I agree, as much has been written on this topic. But I would note that people often react very differently to God's actions. For example, let's imagine that God invoked some calimity on people as a judgment for their sin. Some people would respond and repent. Many would simply harden their heart and blame God. Thus, by bringing about this calamity, some might be saved, but God could be said that have indirectly hardened the hearts of others. Of course, sometimes you don't need calamity. I'm sure many Christian's can testify of varying evangelistic experiences. After months of witnessing, some become saved. But sometimes, those who come awful close to being saved back away and become more rebellious than ever, their hearts being more hardened that ever after being touched by the convicting hand of the Holy Spirit. 61. All the cattle and horses in Egypt died All the horses of Egypt did not die The account in Ex 9:3 refers to the livestock _in_the_field_. If not all the Egyptian horses were in the fields, they wouldn't all die, now would they? 62. Moses feared Pharaoh Moses did not fear Pharaoh Hebrews says "By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger." The accounts in Ex 2 and 4 describe events long before Moses led his people out of Egypt (besides, Ex 4 says nothing about Moses fearing Pharoah). This is obviously another contradiction which is read INTO the Bible. 63. There died of the plague twenty-four thousand There died of the plague but twenty-three thousand <1 Cor 10:8> According to Paul, 23,000 fell "in one day." The account in Numbers simply states that 24,000 died of the plague. It is not contradictory that 23,000 should die in a day, and another 1000 die before or after. 64. John the Baptist was Elias John the Baptist was not Elias #64 John the Baptist was or wasn't Elias. Matt. 11:14 "And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah, who is to come." Note, not "He is" but "If you are willing to receive it, he is." Indicating not a literal identity but a fulfillment of prophecy. This is referring to the prophecy in Mal. 4:5 "Behold, I will send unto you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of Jehovah. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." This prophecy has two fulfillments. First, before the Lord's first coming, John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah to prepare the way of the Lord and make straight His paths. Luke 1:17. "And it is he who will go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the prudence of the righteous, to prepare for the Lord a people made ready." The second fulfillment of this prophecy is before the second coming of the Lord. This has yet to happen, and at that time it will be Elijah, not one in the spirit and power of Elijah, who will actually come. This is confirmed by the Lord's word in: Matt. 17:10-13 "And the disciples asked Him, saying, Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first? And He answered and said, Elijah indeed is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah has already come; and they did not recognize him, but did with him the things they wished. So also the Son of Man is about to suffer by them. Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them concerning John the Baptist." Again the Lord is careful to point out that the literal Elijah has yet to come, but then to say "but I say to you." This indicates that although Elijah is coming, it can also be said that he has come - referring to John the Baptist. Elijah's coming is also mentioned in Rev. 11:3-4. He will be one of the two witnesses. John 1:21 John B. said that he was not Elijah. That's right. He wasn't the actual person of Elijah. That would happen much much later .... So in a sense he was Elijah, and yet he wasn't. Not a contradiction. --MAW 65. The father of Joseph, Mary's husband was Jacob The father of Mary's husband was Heli It is distinctly possible that Luke's account traces Jesus' lineage through Mary, and no Joseph. Some of the circumstantial evidence in to support this is as follows: 1. Luke's birth narrative is through the eyes of Mary, while Matthew's is through the eyes of Joseph. Thus, Luke could have received his material through Mary (or somone close), thus it is quite possible that he received her genealogy. 2. Luke 3:23 reads, "Jesus...being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, etc." Luke certainly draws attention to the fact that Jesus was not truly Joseph's son, so why would he then go to all the trouble in listing Joseph's genealogy? 3. After considering the Greek of Luke 3:23, Robert Gromacki believes it should be translated as follows: "being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli, of Matthat, etc." Gromaki states: "Since women did not appear in direct genealogical listings, Joseph stood in Mary's place, but Luke was careful to note that there was no physical connection between Joseph and either Jesus or Heli." 4. Luke's genealogy also lists Adam as "the son of God." This would indicate that one would have no grounds for insisting that the term "son" meant only the direct, biological offspring. Thus, one could think of Jesus as the "son of Heli." 5. The writings of Ignatitius (ca. 100 AD) indicate that the early church thought that Mary was a Davidic descent. For example, he writes: ""Under the Divine dispensation, Jesus Christ our God was conceived by Mary of the seed of David and of the spirit of God; He was born, and He submitted to baptism, so that by His Passion He might sanctify water." -- Ignatius to the Ephesians "Christ was of David's line. He was the son of Mary; He was verily and indeed born.." -- Ignatius to the Trallians Since Ignatius believed in the virgin birth, it clearly follows that he would believe that she was "of the seed of David." Other apocryphal gospels and Justin Martyr also believed Mary to have been a descendent of David. Objections to these claims are basically of two types: A. The Jews did not typically trace genealogies through women. Reply: This is true, but a virgin birth is not a typical birth. Thus standard practices would not be expected to hold. B. There is no explicit mention that the genealogy is Mary's. Reply: This is true again, but the reason for this is probably due to point A. The genealogy would lose all appeal if it was explicitly cited as Mary's. However, it does seem to be implied. Thus, one could discern this truth after they had converted and studied the text. This would account for the early church's belief about Mary's Davidic descent. Whatever one makes of such reasoning, it is certainly possible that the above explanation might be true, thus a contradiction has not been proved. -- Michael From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Mon Feb 7 21:30:06 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA24216; Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:30:06 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwchl17787; Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:29:59 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwchl01889; Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:28:28 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA23335; Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:27:59 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions: Part X Date: 8 Feb 1994 02:27:56 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 210 Message-Id: <2j6tbc$mp0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu We're half-way done! ;) 66. The father of Salah was Arphaxad The father of Salah was Cainan To me, this _looks_ like a legitimate contradiction, although I suppose it is _possible_ that this is the same person known by different names. After all, it is not uncommon for Biblical personages to have more than one name. 67. There were fourteen generations from Abraham to David There were but thirteen generations from Abraham to David 68. There were fourteen generations from the Babalonish captivity to Christ. There were but thirteen generations from the Babalonish captivity to Christ I list these together and allow MaryAnna to reply...... I looked this up in my study Bible (Recovery Version) and found the following explanation: (Matt. 1:17) "This genealogy is divided into three ages: (1) from Abraham until David, fourteen generations, the age before the establishing of the kingdom; (2) from David until the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations, the age of the kingdom; (3) from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, again fourteen generations, the age after the fall of the kingdom. According to history, there were actually forty-five generations. By deducting from these generations the three cursed generations [Matt. 1:8; 1 Chron. 3:11-12; 2 Kings 15:1, 13; 2 Chron. 21:5-6; 22:1-4; Exo. 20:5] and the one improper generation [Matt. 1:11; 1 Chron. 3:15-16; 2 Kings 23:34-35], and then adding one by making David two generations (one, the age before the establishing of the kingdom, and the other, the age of the kingdom), the generations total forty-two, being divided into three ages of fourteen generations each." --MAW ______________________________________________________ It's simply a matter of how you count. In other words, you can count it as fourteen generations first by extending from Abraham to David; secondly, by extending from David to the deportation; and thirdly, by extending from Jechonias to Christ, inclusive in each case. 69. The infant Christ was taken into Egypt The infant Christ was not taken into Egypt Luke does not say that the infant was not taken into Egypt as neither account is exhaustive (those who look for contradictions often overlook the fact that Biblical accounts are rarely exhaustive in their scope). We can easily harmonize the accounts as follows: Journey of Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem; birth of the child; presentation in the Temple; return to Bethlehem; visit of the Magi; flight into Egypt; return to settle in Nazareth. 70. Christ was tempted in the wilderness Christ was not tempted in the wilderness #70 Mark 1:12, 13 Jesus was tempted in the wilderness immediately after His baptism. John 2:1, 2 The third day after John testifies for Jesus for the first time in the book of John, (not the first ever) Jesus is in Cana of Galilee turning water into wine. There is no mention of how much earlier Jesus was baptized. He was tempted in the wilderness before 1:29. Then He went back to see John, at which time John proclaims that Jesus is the Lamb of God, based on previously having seen the Spirit descend on Him in the form of a dove. (verses 32 to 34). -- MAW 71. Christ preached his first sermon on the mount Christ preached his first sermon on the plain Neither account says anything about this being his "first sermon." As MaryAnna notes: #71 Probably two different sermons with similar content. Matt. doesn't say the sermon on the mount was His first sermon. Matt. doesn't seem too concerned about the sequence of events. Matt. 4:23 seems to indicate that before this the Lord already had done a lot of speaking. The one in Luke 6:17 was to the crowds, whereas the one in Matt. 5 was addressed to the disciples privately. -- MAW Indeed. It is not at all uncommon for a preacher to preach similarsermons at different times and with different audiences, now is it? 72. John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee The account in Mark does not indicate that this was the first time Jesus went into Galilee. It is quite possible that Jesus did earlier visit Galilee to baptize and mingle, and Mark alludes to a subsequent visit (after John's imprisonment) when He began to preach the nearness of the kingdom. 73. Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with a staff and sandals Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with neither staves not sandals I view these as complementary accounts which get us closer to the full instructions of Jesus. In Mark, He tells his disciples to take nothing for their journey except a staff and sandals to wear. In Matthew, He instructs them not to acquire many things (including more sandals and staffs). In short, he is instructing them to take little, and not to accept the gifts of men in return for the healing and message that they bring with them. 74. A woman of Canaan besought Jesus It was a Greek woman who besought Him #74 The nationality of the woman who besought Jesus. Matt. 15:22 She was a Canaanite woman. Mark 7:26 She was a Greek, Syrophoenician by race. The Phoenicians were descendants of the Canaanites. So she was Greek in some way other than race. It could have been by religion, marriage, or something else. Anyway, these verses don't contradict each other. The point is she was not an Israelite. -- MAW Also, "Greek" may have simply meant "Gentile". According to Haley, she lived in a part of Canaan called "Syro-Phoenicia." 75. Two blind men besought Jesus Only one blind man besought Him #75 How many blind men were there? Matt. 20:30 mentions two. Luke 18:35, 38 only mentions one. A certain one. Luke probably was acquainted with him and so mentions him specifically. He may have continued to follow the Lord and even been among the 120 later, whereas the other may not have. At any rate Luke doesn't say that the blind man was alone, just that he was there and received his sight. -- MAW __________________________________________________ I should point out that critic's don't like the type of replies that MaryAnna suggests, although I think her explanation is quite plausivle. So allow to me reply to their complaints at this point. In another context, one critic decried a similar type of approach as desribed it as follows -> Critic: "2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b", so they decide there was "a" AND "b" -which is said nowhere." My reply: Simply because it is "said nowhere" doesn't mean it is not the case. That follows only if you assume exhaustively detailed and verbatim reports. In fact, we can induce that it was probably the case by putting the pieces together. This is a perfectly valid approach. Anyone who lives in this world ought to know that. If I go for a ride with my buddies Bob and Steve, and come home to tell my wife I was out with Bob (perhaps because I talked to him more, ie, he was on my mind) and later mention that Steve said something about getting a new job, have I contradicted myself? The contradiction exists ONLY if I said that ONLY Bob and I went for a drive. And it would certainly be reasonable for my wife to conclude that I must have went for a ride with both Bob and Steve. In attempting to pooh-pooh this type of explanation which is commonly experienced, the critic is fallaciously engaged in black and white thinking. It's like saying, "Hey, either you went for a ride with Bob or Steve, which is it?". But why in the world can't it be both? Critic: "This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b"." My reply: I don't know about happy, but this sounds like the crying of a spoiled child. If you are out to demonstrate a CONTRADICTION, this is exactly the type of thing you have to uncover. Just because the critic fails to shoulder HIS/HER burden is no reason for me to take their point seriously. -- Michael From news@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu Wed Feb 9 21:29:20 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA04124; Wed, 9 Feb 94 21:29:20 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwcov10561; Wed, 9 Feb 94 21:26:05 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (via [129.22.8.64]) by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwcov20605; Wed, 9 Feb 94 21:25:52 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA16317; Wed, 9 Feb 94 21:25:20 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions; Part XI Date: 10 Feb 1994 02:25:18 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 263 Message-Id: <2jc5ue$ft7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu Status: RO 76. Christ was crucified at the third hour Christ was not crucified until the sixth hour #76 At what hour was Jesus crucified? Mark 15:25 says it was in the third hour, 9:00 a.m. John 19:14-15 says that in the sixth hour (different clock). He was still not crucified yet but was being judged before Pilate. This was at about 6 a.m. So three hours later He had carried the cross up to Golgotha (with some help) and was crucified. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts use Hebrew time for their reckoning. John uses Roman time. Another example of this is in John 18:28 - early morning refers to the fourth Roman watch, which was 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. -- MAW 77. The two thieves reviled Christ. Only one of the thieves reviled Christ #77 Did both or only one of the thieves revile Jesus? Matt. 27:44 and Mark 15:32 say they both did. Luke 23:39-40 says that the one rebuked the other for his blasphemy. Probably at first they both did and then one of them repented, and, while the other was still reviling, rebuked him and asked the Lord to remember him. So he was saved. Luke doesn't say that the rebuking one had not at first been also reviling. It merely records a segment of the conversation. -- MAW (Once again, we see another "contradiction" which presumes exhaustive accounts -MB) 78. Satan entered into Judas while at supper Satan entered into him before the supper #78 When did Satan enter Judas? John 13:27 Right after eating the morsel offered to him by Jesus. Luke 22:3,4,7 Satan also entered Judas before that. It could be he kept entering Judas. Just like the evil spirit that kept coming upon King Saul. -- MAW (Indeed, are we to believe that once Satan enters someone, he remains there for the rest of the natural life of a person?? -- MB) 79. Judas committed suicide by hanging Judas did not hang himself, but died another way Matt 27:5 states that Judas "threw the pieces of silver....and he went away and hanged himself." Acts 1:18 states, "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out." It's rather easy to reconcile these: 1. First, Judas tried to kill himself by hanging himself. And this is not always a successful way. Maybe he tried, and failed (as have many others who have tried to commit suicide by hanging). Then after some time, he threw himself off a cliff and fell upon some jagged rocks. Keep in mind that it is not uncommon for people who commit sucide to have tried it before. 2. Judas could have tied a rope to a tree branch that extended over a cliff (after all, you have to get some space between your feet and the ground to hang yourself). In this situation, the rope/branch could have broke before or after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on some jagged rocks. Certainly, these explanations are plausible, thus a contradiction has not been established. 80. The potter's field was purchased by Judas The potter's field was purchased by the Chief Priests Perhaps here, the following maxim holds - "He who does a thing by another, does it himself." That is, yes it was the chief priests who actually bought the field, but Judas had furnished the occasion for its purchase. Thus, the verse in Acts could be employing a figure of speech where we attribute to the man himself any act which he has directly or indirectly procured to be done. After all, we attribute the "Clinton health care plan" to Bill Clinton, when in reality, it is a plan devised by others associated with Bill Clinton. 81. There was but one woman who came to the sepulchre There were two women who came to the sepulchre "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance." [Jn 20:1] "After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the other tomb." [Mt 28:1] This is a case where a contradiction is read into the account. John does not report that ONLY Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. Failing to mention someone does not necessarily mean that no one else was present. In fact, had the critics read further, they would have seen that Mary was not alone: "So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they put him!" [Jn 20:2] If Mary was alone, then who is WE? Clearly more than one person went with Mary. John just doesn't mention them. 82. There were three women who came to the sepulchre There were more than three women who came to the sepulchre Again, the same reasoning applies. See my previous story about going for a ride in the car. :) 83. It was at sunrise when they came to the sepulchre It was some time before sunrise when they came. Mark 16:2 reads, "Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb." John 20:1 reads, "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb." I see no contradiction. Mary could have left a little earlier than the others. Or they could have left while it was still dark and the sun began to rise while they were on their way. I've worked my share of nightshifts to know that one can leave the job while it is still dark,and get home after the sun has risen! 84. There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulchre, and they were standing up. There was but one angel seen, and he was sitting down. It is quite possible that much of the confusion about these trivial facts stems from the fact that many women went to the tomb that morning (Luke 24:10). It's possible, at the very least, that a group of women came to the tomb, and saw that the stone had been rolled away. Some women went inside, but the more timid remained outside. Those inside saw the vision of the two angels, while those outside saw the angel on the stone. Also, in response to the manner in which this supposed contradiction is presented, I would point out that a.) Matthew does not say there was "but one angel," he simply focuses on the angel who moved the stone; b.) the Greek word in Luke rendered "stood near" also means, "to come near, to appear to." In Luke 2:9 and Acts 12:7 it is translated as "came upon." Thus, Luke may simply have said that angels suddenly appeared to them without reference to posture. Strictly speaking, one would be hard pressed to establish a contradiction in terms of numbers or posture even without my possible explanation. 85. There were two angels seen within the sepulchre. There was but one angel seen within the sepulchre These are not the same incidents. John's account is particular to Mary after she followed Peter and John back to the tomb, which was later than the account cited in Mark. Now, I myself once stumbled upon a "better" contradiction. When Mary runs back, she is scared and thinks that the body has been stolen. Then she returns to the tomb and weeps. Now isn't this odd given that she supposedly heard the angels say that "He is risen"? Why so much despair after that miraculous experience? It doesn't seem to add up. Of course it is possible that she had not fully comprehended what occurred, as one has to be careful in expecting people to respond coherently. But I think the answer is more clear if we consider John's account. John notes that she went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. "So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they put him". (John 20:1-2). Then Peter and John ran to the tomb only to find the empty burial wrappings. Mary must then have followed them, but when she got there, they had gone, so she stood there crying, worried that the body of Jesus had been stolen. Then two angels appeared to her, and then the risen Jesus did. In short, the reason she was in despair is probably because she didn't go into the tomb with the other women. As they approached the tomb, they saw it open, and probably began to worry amongst themselves that grave robbers came and stole the body before they could anoint it. At this realization, Mary probably left the group and bolted back to tell the others. 86. Christ was to be three days and three nights in the grave Christ was but two days and two nights in the grave According to Haley, Orientals reckon any part of a day as a whole day. Thus, one whole and two parts of a day, along with two nights, would be popularly styled as "three days and three nights." Such usuage is seen elsewhere in Scripture. 87. Holy ghost bestowed at pentecost Holy ghost bestowed before pentecost #87 Two aspects of the Spirit. In John 20:22 He was breathed *into* the disciples. In Acts 1:5,8 He was poured out *upon* them. That's like in 1 Cor. 12:13, which says that we were baptized in one Spirit and also given to drink one Spirit. One is inward and the other is upon us outwardly. -- MAW I agree. It's certainly possible that in John, the disciples became indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and in Acts they became empowered by the Holy Spirit. 88. The disciples were commanded immediately after the resurrection to go into Galilee The disciples were commanded immediately after the resurrection to go tarry at Jerusalem According to Haley: "The command tarry ye in Jerusalem," etc., means simply, "Make Jerusalem your head-quarters. Do not leave it to begin your work, until ye be endued," etc. This injunction would not preclude a brief excursion to Galilee. Besides, the command may not have been given until after the visit to Galilee." Indeed, keep in mind that Jesus appeared to the disciples several times over a period of many days. The Gospel's simple give us "snapshots" of some of these events and certainly Matthew's account is a brief synopsis. -- Michael From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Thu Feb 10 20:22:52 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA12171; Thu, 10 Feb 94 20:22:52 EST Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwcsj02596; Thu, 10 Feb 94 20:22:51 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwcsj00249; Thu, 10 Feb 94 20:22:35 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA09090; Thu, 10 Feb 94 20:22:31 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions ; Part XII Date: 11 Feb 1994 01:22:27 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 253 Message-Id: <2jemkj$8ru@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu 89. Jesus first appeared to the eleven disciples in a room at Jerusalem Jesus first appeared to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee Matthew's account does not say that this was Jesus' first appearance. It is certainly possible that Matthew simply passes over the earlier appearences and focuses on the call to go into Galilee. In fact, notice how Matthew's account is not exhaustive. In 28:16, he mentions that Jesus had indicated what mountain in Galilee the disciples were to go to, yet he does not mention this when he quotes Jesus in verse 10. 90. Christ ascended from Mount Olivet Christ ascended from Bethany You know one is grasping when they cite the same author writing about the same thing as a contradiction. :) Bethany is on the eastern slope of Mount Olivet. Anyone coming back from there and returning to Jerusalem would have to pass over the moutain, and thus return from Mount Olivet. You would think that someone who proposes a geographical contradiction would look at a map. 91. Paul's attendants heard the miraculous voice, and stood speechless Paul's attendants heard not the voice and were prostrate ACTS 26:14 And when they had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me... Acts 9:7- The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. While we are at it, let's add the other account... Acts 22:9- My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. Obviously, according to the NIV translation, there is no contradiction, as you can hear a sound, but not the recognize it as the voice of one speaking. So is this translation justified? Sure. The original Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message. Haley notes "The Greek "akouo", like our word "hear", has two distinct meanings, to perceive sound, and to understand". This distinction makes sense also in light of the context. Recall the differing levels of perception. While the men heard an unintelligible sound and saw a light, Paul heard the voice and saw the person speaking. In fact, this type of distinction occurs in another place: "Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again". The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him" (John 12:28-29). Here is a clear-cut example where a voice speaks, but is heard by some as an unintelligible sound. As for the stance of Paul's companions, Haley notes "the word rendered 'stood' also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. Hense, the sense may be, not that they stood erect, but that they were rendered motionless, or fixed to the spot, by overpowering fear". It is also entirely plausible that when they first saw the great light, they "hit the dirt", then they could have got up off the ground and stood there motionless. The problem with the skeptic's approach is that it assumes these accounts are exhaustive, step by step, accounts where each detail is conveyed. They are not. It's not as if the author of Acts is saying "this is how it happened" three separate times. The author does this once, and the other two times he relays Paul speaking about it in two different contexts. Now given that the author wasn't on the road to Damascus, and given that Paul was speaking from memory, and given that none of these are meant to be some exhaustive, detailed, point by point description, it is indeed wise to fit them all together. Furthermore, the account in Acts 26 relays a speech that Paul gave to King Agrippa which was only a synopsis. Acts 26 simply relays the manner in which Paul chose to convey his points. 92. Abraham departed to go into Canaan Abraham went not knowing where In Gen 12:1 God simply says to leave "your country...to the land I will show you." The teaching in Hebrews could simply mean that Abraham did not know where he was going in the sense of not knowing where this promised land was. Thus, he set out for Canaan. And it was once he was in Canaan that God showed him that this was the promised land (Gen 12:7). Look at it this way. God appears to Bob and tells him to leave his home because He has a mission for Bob. So Bob packs up, and not knowing where/what the mission is, and stops at an old friends house for a few days. Then God appears to Bob and instructs him of a mission which involves his friend. Thus, in one sense Bob sets out to partake of a mission with his friend, but in another sense, he sets out to his friends house not knowing what/where the mission is. 93. Abraham had two sons Abraham had but one son #93 Abram had one genuine son of his wife Sarah who could be the fulfillment of God's promise regarding his seed. He had another son by the maidservant Hagar and several others later by a second wife, but in his heart Isaac was his only son. This is also why he cut off all the others from inheritance. Notice the wording of Heb. 11:17 indicates that even though he had other sons, yet to him it was as if he were offering up his only begotten to whom the promise was made. --MAW ____________________________________________________ Besides, does anyone really believe that the writer of Hebrews was unaware of some well-known teachings about Abraham or had not read Genesis? Also, the writer of Hebrews is obviously screening out stuff to focus on topics related to faith. Hagar's son was not the product of faith, and thus not worthy of mention in this context. 94. Keturah was Abraham's wife Keturah was Abraham's concubine <1 Chron 1:32> MaryAnna suggests that Keturah could have been Abraham's concubine who at some point became his wife. The point behind both verses is not about Keturah, but about her children. The author of Genesis may have been less exact and referred to these children as those of Abraham's wife (if Bob had a child with Jill before being married, then got married to Jill, we would refer to the child as being of Bob's wife), while the author of 1 Chron (who is busy being exact in documenting genealogies) may have been more exact and noted that such children were born while Keturah was still the concubine of Abraham. 95. Abraham begat a son when he was a hundred years old, by the interposition of Providence Abraham begat six children more after he was a hundred years old without any interposition of providence #95 The problem was not with Abraham's infertility but with Sarah's inability to conceive. This was remedied only once by divine intervention. Abraham had one son before and several after, not with Sarah, all without divine intervention.-- MAW I'd also add that there is no certain reason for believing the births described in Gen 25: 1,2 came after the birth of Isaac. Abraham could have had these children with Keturah much earlier. Verses 1,2 could simply be saying that Keturah has reunited with Abraham after Sarah's death, and they became married. Then it lists the children that they had had earlier on (perhaps while living in Ur). 96. Jacob bought a sepulchre from Hamor Abraham bought it of Hamor One possible explanation is that Abraham bought the *field* whereas Jacob went back and specifically bought the *tomb.* Compare with Gen. 33:19 and Gen. 23:10-20. Josh. 24:32 and Acts 7:16 were based on those verses. -- MAW 97. God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed forever Abraham and his seed never recieved the promised land #97 Here is a partial answer. God *gave* the land to Abraham and his seed. We do see that the land was eventually possessed by the children of Israel (Abraham's grandson). Yet, in Acts, God did not give Abraham (personally) an inheritance on the land. True. But Abraham died in faith, even though he had not obtained the title deed to the property to pass on to his children. But eventually his descendents *did* get the land. To answer this even further (not for the benefit of any skeptics but just because I can't resist pointing out that this point is much deeper than just who occupies the land) - we have to look at Galatians 3:14 which tells us what the real blessing of Abraham is. Then the seed of Abraham is identified in verse 16. Then compare with Hebrews 11:39-40 and 12:1-2. This is what Hebrews means when it says they did not receive the promises, according to the context. Yes, of course the land was the literal land and the seed was the literal descendents of Abraham and yes they did get their inheritance and now they are also on it again (part of it). At the same time, Galatians and Hebrews are also true. -- MAW 98. Goliath was slain by Elhanan <2 Sam 21:19 *note, was changed in translation to be correct. Orignal manuscript was incorrect> The brother of Goliath was slain by Elhanan <1 Chron 20:5> As conceded, the verse in 2 Sam was probably due to a copyist's mistake. 99. Ahaziah began to reign in the twelfth year of Joram <2 Kings 8:25> Ahaziah began to reign in the eleventh year of Joram <2 Kings 9:29> Note that Ahaziah is the sone of Joram. It's possible that on account of Joram's sickness (2 Chron 21: 18,19) that Ahaziah became associated with him in the eleventh year of Joram's rule, but then began to rule alone by the twelth year. 100. Michal had no child <2 Sam 6:23> Michal had five children <2 Sam 21:8> In this case, I'll quote John Baskette's reply previously posted. "What does 2 Sam. 21:8-9 say? "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell [all] seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first [days], in the beginning of barley harvest." This would appear to be a real contradiction except for the phrase "whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai." The phrasing tells you that these sons are not Michal's in the normal sense of the term because she did not "bear" these children. I.e. these sons are adopted children." -- Michael From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Mon Feb 14 22:19:58 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA21814; Mon, 14 Feb 94 22:19:58 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwdhl24680; Mon, 14 Feb 94 22:19:57 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwdhl11146; Mon, 14 Feb 94 22:19:56 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA16763; Mon, 14 Feb 94 22:18:32 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contraditions; Part XIII Date: 15 Feb 1994 03:18:30 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 241 Message-Id: <2jpeu6$gbo@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu 101. David was tempted by the Lord to number Isreal <2 Sam 24:1> David was tempted by Satan to number the people <1 Chron 21:1> There are three possible responses here: 1. Biblical writers often dismissed secondary causes and attributed all things that happened to God, since He is over all things. Thus, God is did not tempt David, He allowed Satan to influence him. 2. Arthur Hervey believes 2 Sam 24:1 is better translated as, "For one moved David against them." In this case, the numbering of the people was the cause of God's anger, not the result. After all, without this interpretation, it is not clear why God was angry with Israel. 3. The verse in 1 Chron translated as "satan" could also be translated as "adversary." Strictly speaking, in this situation, God was Israel's adversary. 102. The number of fighting men of Isreal was 800,000; and of Judah 500,000 <2 Sam 24:9> The number of fighting men of Isreal was 1,100,000; and of Judah 470,000 <1 Chron 21:5> The account in 1 Chron twice speaks of "all the people" and "all Israel." The account in 2 Sam does not. Thus, it is possible that the account in 1 Chron is more inclusive, while 2 Sam only deals with the standing army. 103. David sinned in numbering the people <2 Sam 24:10> David never sinned, except in the matter of Uriah 1 Kings 15:5> In 1 Kings, it is important to note that David is being compared to Abijah. Thus, comparatively speaking, David did not fail to keep God's commands (yet, a comparative approach could not hide the sins associated with Uriah). Also note, that 1 Kings did not say that David "never sinned." It said that he did what was right in the eyes of God and had not failed to keep any of God's commands. If God commanded David to number the people, there is no contradiction, now is there? Or, one could say that given David's repentent heart, from God's perspective, he did not sin (see Psalm 51:2). 104. One of the penalties of David's sin was seven years of famine. <2 Sam 24:13> It was not seven years, but three years of famine <1 Chron 21:11,12> This could definitely by a copyist's error. 105. David took seven hundred horsemen <2 Sam 8:4> David took seven thousand horsemen <1 Chron 18:4> This could be another copyist's error. 106. David bought a threshing floor for fifty sheckels of silver <2 Sam 24:24> David bought the threshing floor for six hundred shekels of gold <1 Chron 21:25> "So David paid Araunah six hundred shekels for the site." - 1 Chron "So David bought the threshing floor and oxen for 50 shekels." - 2 Sam It could be that David paid 50 shekels for the oxen, and the amount paid for the threshing floor is not indicated in 2 Sam. This is not implausible given that the account in 1 Chron speaks of the oxen, wood, and wheat, yet only mentions David paying for "the site." 107. David's throne was to endure forever. David's throne was cast down The throne of the seed of David (referring to Christ) will indeed endure forever. Psalms 89:44 is poetry saying that David's throne was cast down.. indeed it never was, although it was threatened for a time by David's son Absalom. Poetry cannot always be taken literally; also, the promise in 2 Sam. 7 regarding the eternal throne is not referring to David. -- MAW ___________________________________________________ This is a poem, and as such, it is dangerous to take it too literally. The writer of the psalm is lamenting what he perceives as a time when God has abandoned His people (after spending most of the psalm recounting all of God's promises and great works). Did God truly abandon His people? No. But from this writer's perspective, he appeared to. Thus, this psalm captures and communicates the angst that is humanity's lot. I think it silly to use a poem to establish a contradiction. For example, in Ps 139:13, David says he is knit in his mother's womb. Two verses later, he says he's woven together in the depths of the earth. Is David so stupid that he contradicts himself in a span of two sentences? Or is the critic so "stupid" that he/she insists on precise and very literal meanings of words used in poetry? 108. Christ is equal with God Christ is not equal with God #108 A few of the "contradictions" are based on a lack of understanding of the Trinity. This is one of them. In His person, Christ is equal with God essentially. Economically, for the accomplishment of His plan, Christ took on humanity, forsaking His equality with God temporarily in order to set a good pattern of submission and to pass through death for the redemption of man and the destruction of the devil and to bring His life to all men. Now He has been seated at the right hand of the majesty on high, with all things subjected under His feet.-- MAW ______________________________ I agree. These teachings involve a discussion of both the Trinity and the Incarnation (which is beyond the scope of this reply). Suffice it to say that it is quite possible that such doctrines could be true, thus these verses would be a case of both/and, rather than a contradiction. 109. Jesus was all-powerful Jesus was not all-powerful #109 Matt. 28:18 is after the resurrection, after all power was given to Him by the Father. John 3:35 says that the Father has given all into His hand.. could be referring to all the believers, as in other verses in John... Mark 6:5 shows us that Jesus was limited by man's unbelief. This is a recurring theme in the Bible, that although God is all-powerful, He chooses to limit Himself to man; that is, He chooses to wait for man's co-operation. This explains why the Bible calls His believers His fellow workers. God doesn't *need* man to work together with Him, yet this is His chosen means of operation. If this is how He chooses to work, this explains how He is all- powerful and yet "could not do many works of power there because of their unbelief." --MAW 110. The law was superseded by the Christian dispensation The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation #110 Luke 16:16 tells us that the law and the prophets were until John. This is referring to the Old Testament, which indeed lasted until John. Ephesians 2:15 tells us that Christ in His flesh on the cross abolished the law of the commandments in ordinances. This is not referring to the moral law, but the dietary regulations, the Sabbath, the feast days, and other practices which set the Jews apart from the Gentiles. Rom. 7:6 says we have been delivered from the law. This is talking about the slavery to the law, i.e. trying to keep the law in our flesh rather than allowing the inner divine life to spontaneously be expressed in a daily walk that is much higher than that mandated by the law. Matt. 5:17-19 shows us that Christ did not destroy the moral law, but rather fulfilled it. He fulfilled it three ways: (1) He kept the law Himself. (2) He fulfilled the requirement of the death penalty for us. (3) He uplifted the law by instituting the higher law (meant to be kept not by human effort but by His life in the believers.) --MAW __________________ To this I would also add Paul's teaching in Galatians. That is, the law is a tutor which brings us to Christ. When a person comes to Christ, the purpose of the law has been fulfilled. 111. Christ's mission was peace Christ's mission was not peace Luke 2:14 says, "peace among men with whom he is pleased." Mt. 10:34 says, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." The first verse could very well mean that peace exists among those with whom God is pleased, i.e., the fellowship of believers. Yet such believers are like a light among the darkness, and men prefer the darkness. Thus, the fellowship of believers, while full of peace, incurs the wrath of the nonbelievers. One only need consider that in some nations Christians peacefully gather, yet are persecuted, to see how easy this "contradiction" is resolved. 112. Christ received not testimony from man Christ did recieve testimony from man I see it as follows: In John 5:34, Jesus claims that the witness he receives comes not from men. If we read Luke 1:76, we see that John is to be a prophet, one who speaks for God. Thus, John's witness, as a prophet, is really God's witness. In other words, Jesus is not rejecting John's witness; he is clarifying it. (Also, this verse is particular to the witness for Jesus early in his ministry.) These verse do not necessarily teach that Jesus does not recieve witness from men. The verse in John 15 speaks of a different situation. This is after Jesus' crucifixion and the indwelling of the Spirit. -- Michael From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Tue Feb 15 19:44:13 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA17329; Tue, 15 Feb 94 19:44:13 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwdks23534; Tue, 15 Feb 94 19:44:11 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwdks02660; Tue, 15 Feb 94 19:44:10 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA03069; Tue, 15 Feb 94 19:44:07 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions; Part XIV Date: 16 Feb 1994 00:44:04 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 215 Message-Id: <2jrq8k$2u6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu 113. Christ's witness of himself is true. Christ's winess of himself is not true. This is a bogus "contradiction." Jesus is not saying His witness of Himself is untrue. He is pointing out that if He ALONE bore witness of Himself, it would be untrue. Since Jesus did not bear witness of Himself alone, His witness of Himself is not untrue. MaryAnna adds: #113 Was Christ's witness of Himself true? John 8:18 and 14 is talking about the legal stipulation in the Old Testament that a person giving testimony for himself was not to believe unless he had at least one other witness. John 5:31 is talking about the verity of Christ as a witness. Of course, in the sense of verity, Christ's witness is indeed true. --MAW 114. Christ laid down his life for his friends Christ laid down his life for his enemies #114 Did Christ lay down His life for His friends or His enemies? Both. The friends mentioned in John 15:13 and John 10:11 are His disciples. The enemies mentioned in Rom. 5:10 were all of us. He could easily die for both His enemies and His friends. This could be answered more completely, but even this simple answer shows that these two verses are not contradictory. --MAW 115. It was lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death It was not lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death #115 Was it lawful for the Jews to put Jesus to death? By Jewish law, as stated in the Old Testament, yes. (John 19:7). But by the law of the occupying Romans at the time of Jesus' walk on earth, it was expressly forbidden for the Jews to put anyone to death on their own without going through the proper Roman legal channels and using the Roman means of execution (John 18:31). --MAW 116. Children are punished for the sins of the parents Children are not punished for the sins of the parents #116 Are children punished for the sins of the parents? Exo. 20:5 tells us that God is to be feared, as He has the ability to visit the sins of the fathers on the children. Ezek. 18:20 tells us this will not happen if the children repent and turn away from the ways of their fathers. Not a contradiction. --MAW 117. Man is justified by faith alone Man is not justified by faith alone #117 Is man justified by faith or by works? Romans 3:20 man is justified by faith, and not works of law. Gal. 2:16 same. Gal. 3:11, 12 Rom. 4:2 If we want to be justified, we have to receive the divine life. Otherwise, no matter how many good works we do, we can never be justified in the sight of God. However, after we receive the divine life of God, this will issue in a kind of living which will manifest our justification. James 2:21, 24; Rom. 2:13. James is making the point that faith without works is dead. Certainly it is a dead faith if it has no effect on our living. The living is the evidence that our faith is effective and that we have indeed been justified. Romans is talking about the law and says that the doers of the law shall be justified.. in the context he is making the point that no one can be justified by works without faith because it is impossible to keep the law. -- MAW ________________________________________ I agree. It's not that works are necessary additions to faith. Instead, it's that a living faith gives rise to good works. Thus, we have another both/and situation. It's interesting that the Bible protrays our relationship to God as a marriage. A loving marriage is one in which both faith and acts converge toward the same end. 118. It is impossible to fall from grace It is possible to fall from grace #118 Is it possible to fall from grace? John 10:28 says the believers shall by no means perish forever. Romans 8:38, 39 say nothing can separate us from the love of God. So these two verses tell us we don't have to worry about our eternal destiny. Ezek. 18:24 is an Old Testament verse. Hebrews 6:4-6 tells us salvation is once for all and cannot be renewed. If we fall away, we have only to repent and turn back to the Lord; it is not necessary to be saved all over again. Also, the sacrifices of the Old Testament time are no longer valid and are actually an insult to the Lord who died for us. (Some Christians mistakenly use these verses to say that if you are saved you can lose your salvation and never get it back.) 2 Pet. 2:20-21- The last state is worse than the first.. Some believers "fall away from grace" in this age and suffer for it. This doesn't mean that their eternal destiny changes. They will still be with the Lord for eternity, but they will suffer first and be more miserable than before they believed in the Lord. This suffering is only temporary. -- MAw _____________________________________ MaryAnna's explanations might provoke disagreement amongst some Christians (not me though), but recall that in the context of this reply, it only need be possible that she is correct. If she is, the contradictions are easily resolved. 119. No man is without sin <1 Kings 8:46/ Prov 20:9/ Eccl 7:20/ Rom 3:10> Christians are sinless <1 John 3: 9,6,8> #119 Is no man without sin, or only unbelievers? Of course no man is without sin, in himself. 1 John 3:6-9 does not say that Christians are without sin. It says that everything that has been begotten of God does not practice sin. The word "practice sin" refers to a habitual life of sin. It does not mean that Christians never do anything sinful. A believer who truly has an inner knowing of the Lord will not have the practice of habitual sin in his living. -- MAW 120. There is to be a resurrection of the dead <1 Cor 15:52/ Rev 20:12,13/ Luke 20:37/ 1 Cor 15:16> There is to be no resurrection of the dead #120 Will the dead rise? Job 7:9-10; Eccl. 9:5; Is. 26:14 In this life we have nothing to fear from the dead; they will not come back to resume their former lives as if they had not died. They will stay resting in their graves, silent and unable to do anything further to affect their eternal destiny. They have no power to rise again. 1 Cor. 15:52; Rev. 20:12-13; Luke 20:37; 1 Cor. 15:16 Of course, at the Lord's return there will be a resurrection of all the dead to judgment. Then some of them will pass on to eternal fire and others will receive a reward. This is not to resume their former lives. Hence this is not a contradiction. -- MAW __________________________________________ Another way of saying it is as follows: The verses in Isaiah may be teaching that the dead do not normally rise. That is, they don't rise in of themselves, but they will be raised at a later date. Also, there is a definite comparative theme - where the dead are forgotten, God is never forgotten. The verses in Eccl and Job also have a temporal/worldly perspective. That is, while the living experience rewards, know things about each other, and are remembered by each other, this is not the case with the dead. One could also resolve these by claiming as a possibility that the dead "sleep" until they are raised. 121. Reward and punishment to be bestowed in this world Reward and punishment to be bestowed in the next world There's a simple explantion here. Rewards and punishments are bestowed both here and in the hereafter. -- Michael From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Thu Feb 17 23:47:31 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA23670; Thu, 17 Feb 94 23:47:31 EST Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwdst24720; Thu, 17 Feb 94 23:47:29 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwdst02497; Thu, 17 Feb 94 23:47:22 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA18244; Thu, 17 Feb 94 23:47:19 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions; Part XV Date: 18 Feb 1994 04:47:16 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 227 Message-Id: <2k1h8k$hpv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu Almost done.... :) 122. Annihilation the portion of all mankind Endless misery the portion of all mankind #122 Is mankind annihilated or eternally miserable? Job 3:11-22, Eccl. 9:5,10; 3:19-20 These verses refer to the rest before judgment. Ecclesiastes 3 tells us all is vanity because just as animals die men die too. Job 3 tells us he wishes he were dead so he wouldn't feel pain. Ecclesiastes 9 says do what you can in this life because you won't be able to do much when you are in the grave. None of this is talking about annihilation. Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:10,15; 14:11; all these verses tell us that of course after a period of waiting in the grave there will be a judgment and some will go to the lake of fire for eternity. Daniel 12:2 ties the whole thing together. --MAW __________________________________________ 123. The Earth is to be destroyed <2 Pet 3:10/ Heb 1:11/ Rev 20:11> The Earth is never to be destroyed #123 Will the earth be destroyed? In a sense, yes. Everything on the earth will be destroyed. 2 Pet. 3:10; Heb. 1:11; Rev. 20:11 all confirm this. On the other hand, the earth with its foundations will remain to the age. Keep in mind also that Psa. 104:5 and Eccl. 1:4 are both poetry. Ecclesiastes in context is telling us of the temporal life of man more than making a statement about the permanence of the earth. Not contradictory, since one is talking about the surface of the earth and the other is talking about its foundations. -- MAW ________________________________________ 124. No evil shall happen to the godly Evil does happen to the godly The teachings in Prov and 1 Pet could very well mean that no permanent or ultimate evil will befall the godly. Jesus' teaching about fearing those who can harm the soul rather than the body come to mind. Also, one could view these teachings as general rules. Prov 26:4,5 taught us that a particular proverb might not always apply in every situation. As such, it is indeed true that the righteous are generally more immune to harm than the unrighteous. They are less likely to die while driving drunk, less likely to die of a fatal disease which is sexually transmitted, less likely to die of drug overdoses, less likely to be murdered in a crack house or beaten by a pimp, etc. And Peter points out that it's unlikely your will be harmed by being good to someone (verse 14 clearly implies verse 13 is a general rule). 125. Worldly good and prosperity are the lot of the godly Worldly misery and destitution the lot of the godly Here the critic is concocting contradictions. None of the latter four verses teach that "worldly misery and destitution is the lot of the godly." Let's look at them: Heb 11 - these verses speak only of the experiences of Israel's prophets, not of all the godly. They are not intended as a general principle. Rev 7 - this verse is specific to the events surrounding the great tribulation. 2 Tim - here Paul teaches that those in Christ Jesus can expect persecution. Obviously, this cannot be compared to OT teachings since Jesus did not yet come. Luke 21 - Jesus uses hyperbole to make the same point that Paul does. Strictly speaking, these verses do no say what the critic purports, thus no contradiction. Personally, however, I think the principle of Prov 26:4,5 applies. That is, worldly prosperity and good are the lot of some of the godly, while persecuction is the lot of others. The former Christians are the "silent witness," as they enable the Church to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, etc. The latter Christians are more like the prophets in that they serve as a social conscience, and thus get persecuted. 126. Worldly prosperity a reward of righteousness and a blessing Worldly prosperity a curse and a bar to future reward Job 22 does not teach that riches are a blessing! It is Eliphaz's teaching that Job ought to cast away his desire for riches to find God. Eliphaz was under the impression that Job wanted to reacquire prosperity, but this was probably not true Psalm 37:5 could be a poetical expression praising God for feeding and caring for His people. It has nothing to do with properity (unless one thinks that one is prosperous if they don't have to beg for food). Psalm 112 is a poetical expression and Prov 15 is a rule of thumb which do indeed seem to teach that wealth is a blessing bestowed upon the righteous. Mark 10 says nothing about worldly prosperity. It is a hyperbole in line with the teaching that one must lose their life to gain it. That is, whatever you give up, you will regain more of , once in the fellowship of the Lord. The verses in Luke 6 are hyperbolic teachings which convey a sense of righting wrongs and comforting. It would be irrational to take them too literally, as it would mean that all Americans (including Christians) would hunger in the age to come and that anyone of good humor would be crying in the age to come. Instead, it is quite possible (in light of all of Jesus' teachings) that Jesus is not condemning riches, full bellies, and laughter per se. He is instead providing balance. He offers comfort to those who are lacking, and warns those who are not (so that they don't trust in what they have rather than trusting in the Lord). Whenever one cites a teaching of Jesus, they are obligated to consider it's meaning in the context of ALL of Jesus' teaching. And Jesus is not interested in outward expressions (eating, riches, an environment where good humor is possible) as much as he cares about the person's perceptions and reactions to there state of being. Mat 6 seems to help us here. Jesus does not condemn riches, He condemns riches which are perceived as "treasures." There is a difference between one who is rich, yet willingly uses those riches to help others and serve the Kingdom, and one who is rich yet who hoards his money. Matthew 19 further supports this distinction as the rich man was unwilling to part with his money. For him, his riches were his treasure. This verse is simply a hyperbole pointing out that it is more difficult for one who is rich to become a Christian (this is probably a function of the fact that riches enable one to be more autonomous). The teachings in Luke 16 are a parable conveying the same teaching as in Luke 6. Here is a rich man who did not place his riches under the Lordship of Christ. There are no true contradictions here. Put simply, one's riches must be under the Lordship of Christ. If they are, they are indeed a blessing. Not only to the person in question, but to the community she belongs to. If the riches are not under the Lordship of Christ, they are a curse, in that they tend to keep one from crying out to God. Or one could cite Paul to clear up all these teachings, and note that it is not money which is the problem, it is the love of money which is the problem. 127. The Christian yoke is easy The Christian yoke is not easy It is not the Lord who causes difficulties for his children! The Lord does not make difficult serving him, but certainly (as stated later) the unbelieving world often causes us physical hardship. The last verse refers to chastening of God, which the Christian does not consider the uneasy yoke; God is the loving chastener, not the hating master. -- RS 128. The fruit of God's spirit is love and gentleness The fruit of God's spirit is vengance and fury These are different situations and times. God made great warriors do great deeds for Israel's sake in days of hardness; the coming of Jesus heralded a time where God's new chosen would be called towards a temperance that still came from God. --RS ________________________________________________ I'd also note that while Gal does teach that the fruit of the Spirit includes love and gentleness in men, the OT teachings says nothing about the FRUIT of the Spirit. In Judges, the Spirit empowered Samson to carry out judgment. In 1 Sam, we are not even dealing with God's spirit. Instead, it's an evil spirit which God allowed to come upon Saul. (Don't these critics read the verses they use to purport contradictions?) 129. Longevity enjoyed by the wicked Longevity denied to the wicked In Job 21, Job is replying to the generalizations brought up by Zophar. However, he considers these as exceptions, as is evident from Job 21:17-18. Thus, Job 21 teaches there are exceptions to the general observation. Ps 17:14 says nothing about longevity. Eccl 8 is a hypothetical situation used to assert that things go better for God fearing men. Is 65 speaks of a future age and is not applicable in this setting of verses. None of these verses teach, as a general rule, that the wicked enjoy longevity. For that matter, the latter set really don't teach that longevity is "denied" to the wicked. They simply note that the wicked often die young. No contradictions here. -- Michael From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Mon Feb 21 21:16:14 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA13530; Mon, 21 Feb 94 21:16:14 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwehd21287; Mon, 21 Feb 94 21:16:13 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwehd17454; Mon, 21 Feb 94 21:16:10 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA29113; Mon, 21 Feb 94 21:16:01 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions; Part XVI Date: 22 Feb 1994 02:15:59 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 219 Message-Id: <2kbpsv$sdn@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu At last...... 130. Poverty a blessing Riches a blessing Neither poverty nor riches a blessing Most of these are answered in reply to #125. In fact, Proverbs 30:8,9 nicely sums up my reply to #125, in that it shows both the blessings and curses associated with riches. 131. Wisdom a source of enjoyment Wisdom a source of vexation, grief and sorrow My understanding of these apparent opposites is that both are true, and indeed, they can be. Wisdom brings the benefits of deeper understanding, but the burden of such an understanding can be terrible at times, too. --RS _________________________________________________ Indeed, this could easily be a both/and situation. For example, wisdom causes me to rejoice in the plan of God. But it also causes me sorrow in knowing that not all will partake of that plan. 132. A good name is a blessing A good name is a curse Naturally, it's obvious that Luke 6:26 says no such thing. It does, however, warn against the complacency of popularity and vanity. Wise words. -- RS ___________________________________________________ When the world speaks well of Christians, it is probably because those Christians do not disturb the world, and in fact, may be because they have worldly values. In this case, such Christians would do well to heed Jesus' warning. Luke 6 says nothing about a "good name." Furthermore, since the OT verses do not deal with the added dimension of the Church being in the world, they simply cannot be compared. 133. Laughter commended Laughter condemned Luke 6 is answered in #126. As for the rest, Eccl 3:4 resolves the whole thing - "ther is....a time to weep and a time to laugh." Laughing at one's suffering is not a time to laugh, thus would be condemned. Laughing during a time of celebration would obviously not be condemned. 134. The rod of correction a remedy for foolishness There is no remedy for foolishness The former regards children who don't know better by their nature until instructed and diverted from foolishness. The latter refers to someone who has grown up into the permanent foolishness. Context is all. --RS 135. A fool should be answered according to his folly A fool should not be answered according to his folly The first thing to note is that these seemingly contradictory teachings are right next to each other. Could the writer of Proverbs be so stupid as to not notice this?! I hardly think so. In fact, I think it is very illuminating that these teachings are closely tied. They highlight the fact that Biblical admonitions need not fall under the "either/or" criteria, but can be more properly understood in term of "both/and." In fact, I have often found these two teachings from Proverbs quite useful. In debating various nonchristians, I often encounter foolish responses and name-calling. I can either choose not to respond or ignore the foolishness and get to the point of contention. At such times, I follow Proverbs 26:4. In other instances, I mirror the foolishness of my antagonist in the hopes that he/she can perceive the folly of their approach when I employ it. At such times, I follow Proverbs 26:5. The key is knowing when to use which approach, and in such instances, I try to allow the Spirit to guide me. 136. Temptation to be desired Temptation not to be desired Twisted wording, mostly. Jesus tells us to pray that the Lord move usto resist temptation. James says that once you know to let the Lordhelp you resist temptation, rejoice that your faith is honed by the experiences of his divine aid. -- RS ___________________________________________________ I'd also add that James 1:2 does not say that temptations are to be desired. It says that we should rejoice that in our trials because they help to mature our faith. Consider this strained analogy. Anyone who works out at the gym knows that a good workout results in pain. But one does not seek out the pain. One does not ask for it. In fact, one could ask to be led away from pain, in general. Yet, when one works out physically or spiritually, pain/trials follow. Yet the pain/trials shoud not discourage you. In fact, they are a sign that you are growing. 137. Prophecy is sure <2 Pet 1:19> Prophecy is not sure Apples and oranges. Peter wrote about prophecy that had _already been fulfilled_. Jeremiah's verse is about prophecy of things yet to be done. That is, it is a conditional prophecy designed to induce repentance. -- RS 138. Man's life was to be one hundred and twenty years Man's life is but seventy years In Gen 6:3, God prescribes a 120 year lifespan just prior to the Flood. Psalm 90:10 does not say the lifespan is 120. It's a poetical reference to us living 70 years, 80 if we are strong. (According to the NIV notes, Hebrew poetic convention called for 80 to follow 70 in parallel construction). Genesis 6 could be setting an upper limit, or given the context, it could be just one way of saying that man is mortal. Psalm 90 is an observation fitted into a poetical account of our fleeting existence. 139. The fear of man was to be upon every beast The fear of man is not upon the lion Prov 30:30 - "The lion which is mighty among beasts and does not retreat before any" could mean "any other beast." 140. Miracles a proof of divine mission Miracles not a proof of divine mission This is a very confusing claim of contradictions. Taking the latter set of verses one by one: The first involves the Pharoah's magicians doing a trick which Aaron, acting for the Lord, totally defeated. These verses say nothing about miracles not being a proof of divine mission, instead, the true miracle (from God) swallowed up the tricks of the magicians. The second is a commandment against abandoning God for other gods because of such tricks - something Jesus and Moses certainly never called for. The third verse is apparently taken out of context; in it, Jesus says that it makes no sense to claim he casts out demons in the devil's name. None of this can be construed as contradictory to the purpose of God's miracles. -- RS 141. Moses was a very meek man Moses was a very cruel man The latter of these is a judgment call, but at any rate, taking the point, it obviously involves assuming that to be noncontradictory, Moses, and everyone else, would have to be exactly the same from early to late in their lives and experiences. Such assumptions are unreasonable. 142. Elijah went up to heaven <2 Kings 2:11> None but Christ ever ascended into heaven Here one has to read John 3:13 in context. "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things? And no one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man." Haley notes: ""Jesus, [in] setting forth his own superior authority, says, substantially, "No human being can speak from personal knowledge, as I do, who came from heaven." " No man hath ascended up to heaven to bring back tidings." So we, speaking of the secrets of the future world, should very naturally say: "No man has been there to tell us about them." In saying this, we do not deny that any one has actually entered the eternal world, but merely that any one has gone thither, and returned to unfold its mystery." Haley's interpretation of the whole point is entirely possible. 143. All scripture is inspired <2 Tim 3:16> Some scripture is not inspired <1 Cor 7:6/ 1 Cor 7:12/ 2 Cor 11:17> This is a case of overinterpretation. Paul does not say that what he writes is not inspired by God; merely that the Lord has not commanded what Paul says. Paul was almost certainly inspired by God in each word he spoke following his conversion-- RS _________________________________________________ I'd also note that in 1 Cor 7:10, Paul could be citing an actual tradition from Jesus' earthly ministry, while in verse 12 he is not. Thus, he is not saying the teaching is not inspired from God, only that it didn't stem from the teachings of Jesus when He was on earth. 2 Cor could merely mean that Paul was not speaking as Jesus would when He was on earth. But this doesn't mean that the Spirit is not speaking through him. -- Michael From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Tue Feb 22 21:46:11 1994 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA05530; Tue, 22 Feb 94 21:46:11 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AAwekx16869; Tue, 22 Feb 94 21:46:07 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AAwekx29189; Tue, 22 Feb 94 21:46:02 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA01194; Tue, 22 Feb 94 21:45:58 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Countering Contradictions: Conclusion Date: 23 Feb 1994 02:45:55 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 31 Message-Id: <2keg13$155@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu To conclude this analysis of the 143 purported contradictions, allow me to cite the observations of R. Nomad: From the perspective of one of the folks who worked on the large refutations of supposed contradictions now being posted, I can say with fair certainty that none of us have any thought that we're proving inerrancy, if for no other reason than it really can't be done until after the end of the world, inasmuch as the Bible contains prophecy about that time. Until it's happened, it can't be proven to someone who chooses to not believe it. That out of the way, we're left with 'so what?' Well, I believe the serve came from the court of those wanting to prove that the Bible is errant by showing how it is contradictory. We believed, and do believe, that this argument will be mooted by a reasonable explanation of why each item on the list could be construed as non-contradictory -- we don't, technically speaking, have to prove that our suppositions are what's meant by the verses, although we did try and be thoughtful and true to God's intents while we worked on it; we merely have to give samples of why they aren't necessarily contradictions and then nothing has been proven on any side, which suits me, for one, fine. The short form of the above is that it's not a matter of proving the Bible inerrant, which I think isn't possible in the sense you mean. It's a matter of poking holes in a supposed proof of its errancy. -- Michael Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: alahelma@cc.helsinki.fi (Antti A Lahelma) Subject: Re: Bible Error Organization: University of Helsinki Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Since we're talking about Bible errors, here's an interesting one for you to chew. It's pretty trivial, of course -- unless you hold the opinion that there are absolutely no errors in the Bible. It says in Apt. 7:4 that Terah, the father of Abraham, was dead when he (Abraham) left from Harran. Gen. 11:26, on the other hand, says that Terah was 70 when Abraham was born. Also, Gen. 12:4 says that Abraham was 75 years old when he left from Harran. Therefore, Terah lived (at most) 70 + 75 = 145 years. However, Gen. 11:32 says that Terah lived _205_ years. Does the contradictions-FAQ say anything about *this*? :) LVX, -- Antti Lahelma GNOTHI SEAUTON "Tragedy is the farce that involves our alahelma@cc.helsinki.fi TUNNE ITSESI sympathies: farce is the tragedy that University of Helsinki KNOW THYSELF happens to outsiders." --Aldous Huxley