Contradictions In The Bible???

James Elphick said:
Exactly, generally we start to think the Bible has conflicting information when we don't take things in context or misunderstand parts of it. I've been questioned by quite a few atheists who believe that God's laws contradict parts of the Bible that are simply records of history, and they say the Bible promotes inbreeding, adultery, murder, and that God is evil for killing people....the list goes on. Usually though it's just coming from unbelievers wanting to argue.
Click to expand...

James........the athesist always has to come up with misunderstood passages or perceived contradictions so as to validate their opinion. You see, they know that there is no heaven and they "hope" there is no hell.

But when those matters are looked into, they are always able to be explained or understood.
 
James Elphick said:
Just thought I'd mention that sometimes people trying to get good advice through to you might look like they want to be superior, but it's often not like that at all. God often uses His people to encourage and advise one another. If we ignore God and His advice, how can He work in our lives and give us the opportunity to grow? It's impossible.
At times people with even the best advice seem like idiots, but it's always worth just stepping back and having a rethink before dismissing ideas like in this thread. Sometimes it's God trying to tell you something, that's how He works.
No Christians are superior to any other, after all we're fighting the same battle and more often than not have the same problems.
Click to expand...

Amen brother!

I do not know of one single person who does not have some kind of personal problem that he is dealing with.

Me included!!!
 
As with all things, the Bible contains exactly what the reader is looking for. If you wish to find error and contradiction, it is there. If you wish to find guidance and enlightenment, it is there. If you wish to find a murderous, hateful, destructive god, you need not look too hard, or if you're looking for a loving, tolerant one, he's there.

I am not Bible literalist, nor do I give two bits whether the book is supposedly infallible, god-breathed, or any other of the hundreds of catch-phrases folks use to cover their insecurities about the text.
The Bible is a light to those who wish to find God, and a stumbling block for those who don't. It is that simple.

The fact of the matter is that those who obey the teachings of the Bible become changed people.
They do things that normal mortals cannot do, they see and understand immortal things,
unlike those whose minds are trapped in the world.
 
Stan said:
Thanks, but I did say the MODERN English translations I use, as indicated in my signature.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but you must realize that these modern scholars stand on the shoulders of men that were infidels such as Griesbach, Gesenius, and Thayer. Most of modern biblical scholarship stands on the shoulders of scholars who were infidels at worst (Griesbach, German rationalist who denied divine preservation) or Neo-Platonists at best (B.F. Westcott, an early advocate of communism). All contemporary Biblical scholarship traces it's roots back to the 19th Century and to some of these men, and (almost) all modern scholars will repeat these men's theories nearly verbatim.

I do want to mention that I was not singling you out, but I had been seeking an opportunity to bring these thoughts into the discussion before Rev appeared, and that was a prime opportunity to naturally introduce these thoughts.
 
Again I'm not talking about those who comment of the Bible, I'm talking about translators like The Mounces and Moo. It's isn't a matter of WHAT you believe when you translate, it is a matter of what the Greek actually says. There is a reason I DON'T use the KJV, Darby or any other translation over 30 years old.
I didn't feel singled out at all. For instance I know that Jean Cauvin was a humanist lawyer, but that is NOT why I don't agree with him and his flower.
 
Stan said:
Again I'm not talking about those who comment of the Bible, I'm talking about translators like The Mounces and Moo. It's isn't a matter of WHAT you believe when you translate, it is a matter of what the Greek actually says. There is a reason I DON'T use the KJV, Darby or any other translation over 30 years old.
I didn't feel singled out at all. For instance I know that Jean Cauvin was a humanist lawyer, but that is NOT why I don't agree with him and his flower.
Click to expand...

Most of these men were not commentators, they were linguists and textual scholars. The problem is that many of these Greek words are defined in accordance with biases that the Greek scholars had. Study of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers indicates that the early generation of Christians (who lived closer to the time when Koine was a living language, and in some cases spoke it) did not always understand some of these words to mean the same thing that the modern scholars define them as. It has been my experience that if you search through enough Greek "experts", you can make a word mean almost anything you want it to.

That being said, I would recommend few translations made after Webster's. Honestly, I wouldn't even recommend Darby's very much. (Unfortunately, Darby accepted most of the prevailing theories being circulated in his day concerning the Biblical text, though I think he was marvelous preacher and theologian.) I would suggest that those who are interested in textual issues/Greek should read some of Dean John W. Burgon's work. Causes of Corruption of the New Testament by Burgon is a great short book to see where much of Greek scholarship has gone wrong. Though it is a little dated, it is still relevant, since Greek Scholarship hasn't really changed much in the intervening years. Anyone who reads it will start to see my point very clearly. The 'experts' (even the "conservative" ones), in many cases, are leading the modern church astray.
 
What men? I know Mounce Sr and Jr and Moo are translators, i.e.; Greek Scholars.
Where exactly do you get your info? I don't much care what the ECF's or ANCF's spoke and I'm sure these modern scholars take ALL these issues into account, and must given their credentials. The fact is many people who actually ONLY have a BDiv of MDiv try to pass themselves off as EXPERTS. I want to see the actual credential behind a persons name before I'll accept what they translate, and so do the translating committees. The Greek means what it means, and properly credentialed scholars will agree on that. In my experience those that DON'T have the proper credentials, are the ones that always want to dispute the status quo. I trust God to maintain the inerrancy of His Word, as He promised.

I was not aware that Noah Webster did a new paraphrase of the KJV after he did the dictionary that bears his name. As far as I'm concerned, updating the KJV to eliminate archaic Elizabethan English is NOT a translation, and It's hard to find what his credentials were other than a lexicographer, even though he apparently attended Yale for 4 years. That in and of itself does NOT mean he was qualified to even update the English of the KJV. The people that have translated the versions I read are much more qualified than Webster ever was. I beg to differ about Greek scholarship. Since 1800 it has changed significantly, as have the manuscripts available for them to use. It appears that ALL your favorites are from the 19 century Darby and I'm much more confident in these of the 21st century, in addition to all the new resources they now have.
 
Stan said:
What men? I know Mounce Sr and Jr and Moo are translators, i.e.; Greek Scholars.
Where exactly do you get your info? I don't much care what the ECF's or ANCF's spoke and I'm sure these modern scholars take ALL these issues into account, and must given their credentials. The fact is many people who actually ONLY have a BDiv of MDiv try to pass themselves off as EXPERTS. I want to see the actual credential behind a persons name before I'll accept what they translate, and so do the translating committees. The Greek means what it means, and properly credentialed scholars will agree on that. In my experience those that DON'T have the proper credentials, are the ones that always want to dispute the status quo. I trust God to maintain the inerrancy of His Word, as He promised.

I was not aware that Noah Webster did a new paraphrase of the KJV after he did the dictionary that bears his name. As far as I'm concerned, updating the KJV to eliminate archaic Elizabethan English is NOT a translation, and It's hard to find what his credentials were other than a lexicographer, even though he apparently attended Yale for 4 years. That in and of itself does NOT mean he was qualified to even update the English of the KJV. The people that have translated the versions I read are much more qualified than Webster ever was. I beg to differ about Greek scholarship. Since 1800 it has changed significantly, as have the manuscripts available for them to use. It appears that ALL your favorites are from the 19 century Darby and I'm much more confident in these of the 21st century, in addition to all the new resources they now have.
Click to expand...

Webster knew many languages, including Hebrew and Greek. He was one of the foremost language experts of any era. Though, still, I would prefer the KJV to Webster. Burgon also was a scholar of immense ability. The advocates of newer views never refuted his books in his life, nor have any scholars disproven him today, but his influence was killed in Academia the same way Creationism was killed; ignoring it without disproving it.​
​
I once read in one of CS Lewis's books a comment in which he referred to our ability to be 'chronological snobs'. We always think we know more than past generations because we live at a later date in history. Sometimes that may be true, but always it is not. These men certainly lived in a time when the church had more power and was much less worldly. I don't think that too many people could argue that today the church is at it's peak. Let's face it, it is apostate and worldly. I do admit that I think many of the good fundamental men of the 19th Century are better guides than some of the stuff published by 'Christian' publishers now. And remember, the scripture tells us that the tendency in the church will be false doctrine and apostasy as the end of the age nears. If we are at the end of the age, then maybe previous generations of Christians not affected by the spirit of the age may offer us better understanding.​
​
At any rate, if one knows his views are right, can it hurt to read an alternative opinion?​
 
I think everyone has their dirty laundry, including myself. We are all sinners. I don't know what 'dirty laundry' you are talking about in regard to Darby, I think he was a fine man. I assume you mean Margaret McDonald, but there is much info out there refuting that, including McDonald's own testimony. I have researched that matter, and find it not convincing. (The Irvingites were historicist fanatics that identified Napolean III as Anti Christ in their own time. They certainly were not Pre-Trib. Check out Kelly's book on the Irvingites.) I believe Darby got his views of the Rapture from studying II Thessalonians 2 just as he wrote that he did. Anyway, I don't wish to debate Darby's character or sources. I believe him to be a godly man, honest and a good Bible scholar. I agree with his theology in the main because that is what I have arrived at in my own study of the scripture.

I don't use Darby's Bible very much, and I would agree that it is not the best of translations. I disagree with it in many places. I think it was probably the least important part of his legacy.

At any rate, I am not interested in discussion concerning Darby. I have heard much of the slander against him, and I guess one either believes it or he doesn't. We won't settle the controversy here. I just wanted to give a bit of testimony as to where I am coming from.
 
Rusty said:
Mr. Darby: I'm stunned at your idea here:



Compared to what? They themselves decried the sinfulness, cold formality and fake Christianity of their day...a day of church promoted imperialism, racism, hatred between churches and much more....
Click to expand...

Yes, they did. (However, in his lectures on the letters to the 7 churches, Darby identified his time as still being the Philadelphia church period and lamented the difficult plight of those who would live in the future Laodicean age.) There has certainly never been a 'golden age' in human history. But I do think the church is comparatively more worldly today. Sexual immorality is rampant. I will not attend many churches in my area because of the open immorality that is knowingly allowed. Sodomites pastor churches. People are not influenced by attending church as they once were. Doctrine is more sloppy, the blood less emphasized. Yeah, I guess that century saw many bad things, but I think this century is even worse, IMO.
 
Mr. Darby said:
Webster knew many languages, including Hebrew and Greek. He was one of the foremost language experts of any era. Though, still, I would prefer the KJV to Webster. Burgon also was a scholar of immense ability. The advocates of newer views never refuted his books in his life, nor have any scholars disproven him today, but his influence was killed in Academia the same way Creationism was killed; ignoring it without disproving it.​
​
I once read in one of CS Lewis's books a comment in which he referred to our ability to be 'chronological snobs'. We always think we know more than past generations because we live at a later date in history. Sometimes that may be true, but always it is not. These men certainly lived in a time when the church had more power and was much less worldly. I don't think that too many people could argue that today the church is at it's peak. Let's face it, it is apostate and worldly. I do admit that I think many of the good fundamental men of the 19th Century are better guides than some of the stuff published by 'Christian' publishers now. And remember, the scripture tells us that the tendency in the church will be false doctrine and apostasy as the end of the age nears. If we are at the end of the age, then maybe previous generations of Christians not affected by the spirit of the age may offer us better understanding.​
​
At any rate, if one knows his views are right, can it hurt to read an alternative opinion?​
Click to expand...

We must be smarter than Gill and Darby and Schofield and McHeny, because we have computers and cars and airplanes don't we!!!!
 
Rusty said:
Hold on hold on! You don't want to "slander" Darby? Who was even implying that? Not I! I was going to show you what other's thought of his theology, in his own day...Like the arch-Baptist Spurgeon, not any hanky panky you may have dug up about McDonald....

A wee bit over protective..especially when you "diss" or slander these guys...?



I can show you equally "shocking" things about Darby's theology....but, what's the point?

I'm sad you can slam some Christian scholars but shield your own gurus.

That also is "simply human".
Click to expand...

Many of the Anti-Darby writers out there slander Darby. Yes, I know how Spurgeon felt about Darby and the brethren. I think we have about exhausted the topic of Darby. We don't agree and we'll have to leave it at that.
 
Major said:
We must be smarter than Gill and Darby and Schofield and McHeny, because we have computers and cars and airplanes don't we!!!!
Click to expand...

Smarter in science and technology, but declining in spirituality. I think these tendencies will increase as the end of the age draws nearer.
 
Mr. Darby said:
Many of the Anti-Darby writers out there slander Darby. Yes, I know how Spurgeon felt about Darby and the brethren. I think we have about exhausted the topic of Darby. We don't agree and we'll have to leave it at that.
Click to expand...

I hear you but I am pretty sure that it aint' gona happen.
 
I'm not afraid of anything. Feel free to say whatever you feel you need to say. But, I think I would be most interested in how you first began to question Dispensationalism, and what steps led to your abandoning it, if you are willing to do that.
 
I am fine with anything you want to post. You are not going to convert me away from Dispensationalism, however. After 25 years of study, Dispensational truth is beyond question as far as I am concerned.
 
You have as much freedom to open a thread on any topic that you like, but don't expect me to sit at my computer all day and argue with you. I guess you can think what you want as regards to my 'fear', but God alone knows my heart.
 
Mr. Darby said:
Webster knew many languages, including Hebrew and Greek. He was one of the foremost language experts of any era. Though, still, I would prefer the KJV to Webster. Burgon also was a scholar of immense ability. The advocates of newer views never refuted his books in his life, nor have any scholars disproven him today, but his influence was killed in Academia the same way Creationism was killed; ignoring it without disproving it.

I once read in one of CS Lewis's books a comment in which he referred to our ability to be 'chronological snobs'. We always think we know more than past generations because we live at a later date in history. Sometimes that may be true, but always it is not. These men certainly lived in a time when the church had more power and was much less worldly. I don't think that too many people could argue that today the church is at it's peak. Let's face it, it is apostate and worldly. I do admit that I think many of the good fundamental men of the 19th Century are better guides than some of the stuff published by 'Christian' publishers now. And remember, the scripture tells us that the tendency in the church will be false doctrine and apostasy as the end of the age nears. If we are at the end of the age, then maybe previous generations of Christians not affected by the spirit of the age may offer us better understanding.

At any rate, if one knows his views are right, can it hurt to read an alternative opinion?
Click to expand...



Where exactly do you get this assertion from? I couldn't find ANYTHING that confirmed he had credentials OTHER than as a lexicographer. Suitable for doing a dictionary and adding so-called modern vernacular to the KJV, but NOT much else.
Burgon is no clearer other than he got a degree at Worcester College. What degree did he get? His claim to fame seems to be that he instigated the KJVO society, which does NOT sit well with me AT ALL. Right away his Anglican nature comes out in spite of evidence even in his time, that the KJV was NOT the best. I have nothing against Anglicans, but the Word is the Word and it's best we get the most exact and unbiased English translation we can. That CANNOT be said for the KJV.

The FACT is we DO know more. That is NOT to disparage the earlier Saints. It's just that we can't really expect to KNOW God if we come at Him from a doctrinal position rather than an exegetical one. God's WORD is our guide and it is really not hard to know or ascertain what it says now-a-days.

The scriptures WARN us about false doctrine Mr D, it does NOT tell us it is a tendency of the BOC. We are NOT at the end of the age, and trust me apostasy will be far greater than we can imagine at that time.

As far as I am concerned, my mother's advice about NOT playing with fire is sound and I see no reason to ignore it, in the same fashion I see no reason to expose myself to alternative opinions I KNOW are wrong. I was born and raised as a RC,
....that's enough doctrinal trash to last anyone a lifetime. I thank God that in 1971 He drew me to Him and I was born again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top