Contradictions In The Bible???

Rusty,

God is sovereign, He does what he knows to be best for everyone, He is also love so He is longsuffering with His mercy and grace, ...He waited 400 years for the Canaanites to repent, but they didn't so we have the book of Joshua that re cords their extermination, this might sound harsh or cruel to some, but think of it like this, a rabid dog enters your back yard where your kids are playing, are you going to try a catch it to take it to a vet, no it's a danger to your children, so you will eliminate it because you know it's going to die anyway, ...God was being merciful to the Canaanites in not allowing them to continue on in their sin, misery and debauchery. Isa 45:7

I have Bullinger's book, didn't know about the others, you know how this works, after the Lord told me to come here He started telling me what to bring and that book was something I saw in a bookstore and He told me to buy it, fantastic book, I suggest you buy it. I believe it's available from Amazon, ...here's a present for you that I know you can appreciate living in the Tropics and all of the flowers, 5 is the # of grace, 6 is the # of man, 7 is the # of perfection, and 8 is the # of resurrection, now go check out how Father created the flowers and their beauty with the arrangement of the pedals, ...oh yeah, 3 is the # of trinity, check out an orchid!

major, okay, it's good to make that point and thanks for adding more facets to the gem, also the gematria of the name of Jesus is 888, numbers are a fascinating study in the Bible, ...now, should we start emphasizing the importance of the usage of names in the Word, that's a whole 'nother gold mine to look at in the Jehoiachin story.

Blessings,

Gene
 
A couple of points I would like to make.

You asked for contradictions, and I provided a few. I never said they were unresolvable, but they are contradictions that require some level of interpretation to solve. The question to me is, what difference does the method of resolution make? No such conflicts arise in any area necessary for Salvation.

To take a strictly literal reading of the Bible requires adding a great deal of conjecture to resolve any apparently conflicts, but only because the assumption is that God penned it word for word using human puppets of sorts. That isn't a good scientific approach, so in my mind, it isn't very literal anymore. The words themselves might be literal, but suddenly we begin looking for more and more complicated resolutions to contradictions and conflicts. I tend to search for the simplest resolution, and then view the more complex interpretations as potential truths. The simplest explanations are usually more accurate and unbiased. Which is better? Well, for me, I can't accept that the only explanation is the most complicated one. I simply can't read the Bible like that. Nothing in my experience or life functions like that. At the same time, I recognize that some NEED to read the Bible like that.

For the same reasons that it makes less sense to me, it makes more sense to others. Fortunately, these same issues were recognized centuries ago. Yes, they caused division in the body, but they also gave us multiple ways to reach people. There shouldn't be any danger in readings the Bible from different perspectives and experiences. So long as we live in the Spirit, there is no reason for angst or judgement. Sadly, what I too often see is not an attempt to reach the lost through the multiple perspectives that we have within the body, but an attack on one part of the body from another. When the body ceases to work together because it is attacking itself, we know that something has failed. Has the foot failed to walk, or has it simply focused so much on attacking the hand for NOT being a foot that it no longer functions as a foot? At the same time, we need to recognize when there is a genuine cancer in the body. Just because we often disagree on some basic interpretations, doesn't mean that genuinely false and dangerous doctrines do not exist. The early church adopted a creed to determine the difference. The idea is that despite our differences, so long as we agree on those basic tenets, then we do not need to argue. To quote Wesley, who borrowed the motto from the Moravians "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, freedom. In all things, Love". Disagreements only strengthen when tempered with love and respect. Iron sharpens iron, but iron also blunts and destroys iron. The question is always, which are we doing? Just as heat and pressure turns coal into diamonds, it also crushes both to dust.
 
JustPassingThru said:
Calvin,



The problem with that is we are judging the Word, what part is of God, which isn't, making us God's judge, the LIE of the serpent in the Garden, "You will become like God," ...rather than letting the Word judge us.

Blessings,

Gene
Click to expand...
G'day there young Gene, I find this passage highly correctional.
2 Cor 11:17. What I am saying with this boastful confidence, I say not with the Lord's authority, but as a fool.
So, is that the word of God, or is that which is referred to the word of Paul?
 
Rusty,

Maybe that didn't come across as I intended, I wasn't saying God caused Saul to commit suicide, my intention was God orchestrated the events that led to Saul committing suicide, the author listed the events of Saul's demise and then a summation, just like we heard a couple years ago, "We have killed Bin Laded," but he didn't take part in the actual killing. What the author was relating was the principle of "the wages of sin is death," so we have to ask who made the principle and put it in motion, if we believe God is the Creator of everything then we can see how God was responsible for Saul's death, which is how the word muth is used in the verse, at the same time, if Saul would of repented then he would of trusted in God in that circumstance and the outcome would of been different.

Jesus stated the devil is behind suicide John 10:10, I know a little about suicide because back in the states I taught suicide prevention, and 95% of all intentional suicides are pride related, ..."I'm going to make them pay for how they have treated me," or "They are really going to miss me when I'm gone," or "I'll show him/her what she/he is missing out on," or "Don't they know I'm the reason for their lives, let's see how they will survive after I'm gone," these are just a few of the excuses I've heard and as you can see they are all pride related, Scripture states pride started in the heart of satan, it was transferred over to Adam when he rebelled and so all of his descendants have a sin nature that manifests itself in pride.

Saul started out a humble man, but then pride took over and that pride was manifested up to and in the last moments of his life in committing suicide so as to not fall into the hands of the enemy, ...the wages of sin is death, God brought the army against Saul, but Saul chose to end his own life rather than ask God to save him.

Blessings,

Gene
 
Calvin,

I say this in humility, but what you have said is an example of the danger of picking and choosing what is from God and what isn't, ...what then do you do with these verses, and I'm not arguing or debating with you, I just don't see how your thinking coincides with the construction and teaching of the Bible.

1) At the time Paul penned that He was refuting false apostles and was resorting to having to explain his own sufferings to validate his apostleship, hence he was not relating a revelation from the Lord, but it is included in Holy Canon and the Holy Spirit teaches from these verses.
2) 1 Cor 7:6, but yet it is taught as of the Lord.
3) 2 Pet 3:15,16 Peter at the end of his life, speaking by the authority of the Holy Spirit validates ALL of Paul's writings as wisdom from God.

I still don't understand what benefit it is to say this verse is of God and that verse isn't from God, how does me deciding what is of Divine origin and what isn't glorify God in my life? I have to ask the question, "Why would a child of God even be looking for discrepancy or mistakes in the first place? I mean, if we/I love Him because He first loved us/me, ...if I truly love my wife I certainly don't go around pointing out her faults, even more so, how could I do that to the Lord who so loved me He died in my place? ...I read He doesn't even remember my faults, let alone continually throw them in my face, ...I don't understand...

Like I stated at first, when we registered for this site we agreed to the inerrency of the Bible, now that we are in we are saying that isn't true, ...I don't understand....

Blessings,

God
 
Rusty,

By orchestrated I'm saying God was controlling the events that caused his demise, bringing the armies against Saul, James 1:13 states that God doesn't tempt any man, so if God wasn't the tempter why then should He take the blame?

Of course Saul had the opportunity to repent, look at the thief on the cross with Jesus, ...God isn't willing that any should perish.

Blessings,

Gene
 
JustPassingThru said:
Calvin,

I say this in humility, but what you have said is an example of the danger of picking and choosing what is from God and what isn't, ...what then do you do with these verses, and I'm not arguing or debating with you, I just don't see how your thinking coincides with the construction and teaching of the Bible.

1) At the time Paul penned that He was refuting false apostles and was resorting to having to explain his own sufferings to validate his apostleship, hence he was not relating a revelation from the Lord, but it is included in Holy Canon and the Holy Spirit teaches from these verses.
2) 1 Cor 7:6, but yet it is taught as of the Lord.
3) 2 Pet 3:15,16 Peter at the end of his life, speaking by the authority of the Holy Spirit validates ALL of Paul's writings as wisdom from God.

I still don't understand what benefit it is to say this verse is of God and that verse isn't from God, how does me deciding what is of Divine origin and what isn't glorify God in my life? I have to ask the question, "Why would a child of God even be looking for discrepancy or mistakes in the first place? I mean, if we/I love Him because He first loved us/me, ...if I truly love my wife I certainly don't go around pointing out her faults, even more so, how could I do that to the Lord who so loved me He died in my place? ...I read He doesn't even remember my faults, let alone continually throw them in my face, ...I don't understand...

Like I stated at first, when we registered for this site we agreed to the inerrency of the Bible, now that we are in we are saying that isn't true, ...I don't understand....

Blessings,

God
Click to expand...
Gene,
I agree with you....actually and on every point unless I missed something:)
There is a difference between what the Lord has spoken or inspired others to write and other things that He has wanted included in the Bible. Why else do we have the canon of Scripture? As I said in post #2, "I'd say that if a person starts out with the commitment that the Bible originally was the word of God inspired, then any and all difficulty can be viewed as a human failing, not contradiction of the Bible." The only thing being as I later stated that my 1st post was a bit loose. Be that as it may, I do recognize the Lord's oversight in the compilation of the canon of scripture.
 
calvin said:
@major, as a forum community member you are most welcome to reply/add your thoughts to my post #29
Click to expand...

That's right calvin......give me all the hard ones will ya.

I do not think that Paul is disclaiming inspiration here, but what he is about to do is out of character with his mission from the Lord.

After looking it up, it appears to me that "Not after the Lord" may mean........."Not inspired of the Lord" (1 Corth. 7:12). OR it may mean "Not as an EXAMPLE of the Lord" (1 Corth. 15:32 & 2 Corth. 1:17.

Our brother Dr. John Gill states:
"or "Christ", as some copies read; or "our Lord", as the Syriac version; his sense is, that he did not then speak as an apostle, or one sent by Christ; he put off this character for the present, and took that of a fool upon him, that he might speak the more freely to the Corinthians, and the more severely against the false apostles; he did not pretend to any express command from Christ for so doing, or that he acted in imitation of him, who was meek and lowly".
 
This might sound arrogant, but I don't think it matters if the bible is inerrant or not, what matters is that the bible teaches us how important it is to have a relationship with god.
 
rev3lations said:
This might sound arrogant, but I don't think it matters if the bible is inerrant or not, what matters is that the bible teaches us how important it is to have a relationship with god.
Click to expand...

Actually it means everything rev3.

You see, if we allow the idea that this is inerrant and this is not, WHO decides that?

And then what is the criteria for that decision?

If we as humans decide what is God breathed and what isn't, what level are we placing ourselves on?
 
Major said:
Actually it means everything rev3.

You see, if we allow the idea that this is inerrant and this is not, WHO decides that?

And then what is the criteria for that decision?

If we as humans decide what is God breathed and what isn't, what level are we placing ourselves on?
Click to expand...
Can't inspired scripture and bible inerrancy be two diffrent matters. Or does the bible have to be perfect in order to be god breathed.
 
If you start with the assumption that God penned the Bible to be written word for word according to his Divine plan, then when you find apparent contradictions, the only way to resolve them is by adding a layer of interpretation. In some cases, that means to assume that both things are true, in others it means that God hide some extra meaning into the words. This isn't an invalid way of reading Scripture. The interpretation is happening at the upper levels of theology.

If you start with the assumption that God inspired the Scripture, but men wrote it in their own style and from their own perspectives with the exception of areas that we recognize as directly revealed by God (prophecies and vision come to mind immediately). When you read the Bible this way, the interpretation is happening more on the individual level. In other words, the "literal" interpretation is true, but when contradictions arise, we have freedom to read those contradictions in a number of different ways and relies on context. Context becomes very important. I prefer this method because it allows me to look at individual verses and see how they contribute to the whole picture. In addition, while the literal Greek stated "God breathed", with the exception of the ESV and YLT (which are both much more literal translations) and the Message (perhaps the most inaccurate translation of all time), Timothy reads as "Inspired" and not "God-Breathed". Even Holman's, which is the most "Baptist" translation out there, uses "inspired". That doesn't mean that one side or another is correct, only that translaters viewed the words and decided that them meant "inspired".

Case in point is actually the oft-mentioned "God-Breathed" term. What does that apply to? According to those that consider the Bible fully penned by God, it means that the Bible is entirely "God-Breathed" regardless of what Timothy might have been thinking at the time. According to the inspired view, then the only "Scripture" that would have existed at the time would have been something similar to the Old Testament. Timothy wouldn't have viewed Paul's letters as Scripture, so it wouldn't be assumed that he would be referring to the modern canon that we have today.

Again, We do a better job of attacking the other position than we do of understanding it. That's just part of the nature of how we understand our own beliefs. The literalist is always going to view the interpretive as chaotic and wrong, but I look at their view and can only think they are adding so much weight to what isn't even in the text for the sake of making the text work that they have made their interpretation far too corporate and broad.

In the end, it can probably be summed up with the argument 1+1 = 2 or 1+1 = 10 (or even 1 depending on how you define +). Depending on whether you are talking about base 2 or base 10, both are correct, but in the wrong base, neither will ever be correct no matter what. In base 10, 1+1 = 10 is completely irrational, but in base 2 1+1 = 2 is impossible since 2 doesn't even exist.
 
rev3lations said:
Can't inspired scripture and bible inerrancy be two diffrent matters. Or does the bible have to be perfect in order to be god breathed.
Click to expand...

Because it is God breathed it is perfect.

Psalm 12:6 (ESV)
6 The words of the Lord are pure words,
like silver refined in a furnace on the ground,
purified seven times.


Psalm 19:7 (ESV)
7 The law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple


Proverbs 30:5 (KJV 1900)
5 Every word of God is pure:
He is a shield unto them that put

Because truth matters to all of us, the doctrine of the Bible being inerrant is important to all of us. The fact is that it reflects on the character of God and is foundational to our understanding of everything the Bible teaches about what is right and what is wrong.
 
Banarenth said:
<<Snip>>

In the end, it can probably be summed up with the argument 1+1 = 2 or 1+1 = 10 (or even 1 depending on how you define +). Depending on whether you are talking about base 2 or base 10, both are correct, but in the wrong base, neither will ever be correct no matter what. In base 10, 1+1 = 10 is completely irrational, but in base 2 1+1 = 2 is impossible since 2 doesn't even exist.
Click to expand...
I thought this was a very good illustration and still do, but I hope everyone reading it understands what Base 10 is and what binary or Base 2 is. I know my wife for example would look at it and just shrug her shoulders at it.

For a 'red herring' input, 1+1=2 would also work in Octal:)
 
calvin said:
I thought this was a very good illustration and still do, but I hope everyone reading it understands what Base 10 is and what binary or Base 2 is. I know my wife for example would look at it and just shrug her shoulders at it.

For a 'red herring' input, 1+1=2 would also work in Octal:)
Click to expand...


1+1 = 2 works for every case where the base > 3, so base 3, 4, 5. Octal is base 8, so it most definitely works.
 
Errr ahhh you might want to 1. edit your post above and then 2 delete this one. Octal is base 8....just a typo.
 
Rusty said:
So true...Can you elaborate on the underlined above?
Click to expand...


The interpretations and explanations are not personal. There isn't any room for personal revelation because it is God's literal word. All the interpretation comes from outside the text. If one writer says one thing and another writer says another, then the only explanation is that BOTH happened exactly as said because there are not actual writers. That is very much a top down theology, thus corporate.

By broad, it means that there is a lot being added. I"m not trying to attack the "literal" view, only that I think it is odd that a literal reading seems to require more extra-Scriptural explanation than one that is less "literal". That really doesn't make much sense to me on a large scale, but it does seem to explain why I see so many verses being thrown away outside of context.
 
calvin said:
Errr ahhh you might want to 1. edit your post above and then 2 delete this one. Octal is base 8....just a typo.
Click to expand...


Ah, sure, thanks. I was thinking octadecimal. I've never officially worked with octal since I tend to do more upper level program and less 1970 OS programming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top