Contradictions In The Bible???
- Thread starter JustPassingThru
- Start date
Major that is true up to a point.
Care to defend the NIV's rendering of Deut 22:28,29, ?
To my mind, the Bible, (as we have it today) is a collection of commentaries on the best, most authentic source texts we have available.
That said, (and accepted) whose commentary do you want to say is the inerrant word of God?
rev3lations
Inactive
I don't want to start a agument here but the bibles inerrancy is not important to all of us, many people don't take such a literal view of scripture and some see the bible as myths or stories to inspire them. Are these people wrong? I don't know and I don't believe you know either unless you posses some kind of mental powers these people don't have.
rev3lations
Inactive
Ill answer here ok since your talking about my comment and I want to clear up any misconceptions anyone might have.
The reason I said myth is because some people are fine with the bible not being literally true in some places, I also said stories because thats also how some understand the bible, as a narrative. I wanted to describe some of the least popular ways believers can believe in the bible but still be believers.
I am very aware that an argument can be made that unless the believer believes in a predetermined way they can not be right or they are not a true believer. But the same thing can be said for the believer who determines the biblical beliefs they have to be predetermined.
Ok so lets look at the facts, there are 33 thousand diffrent sects all teaching diffrent beliefs, some only minor and some major. So why is this, it is because there is not one literal or non literal interpretation any of us can make thats going to end up the same.
So the simple conclusion would be that none of us are 100% right and no believer posseses anything any other believer can't posses as well.
i think there is an error in the statement : )
The premise uses "many people", then conclusion is "all of us.".
Inerrancy is important.
Non-inerrancy is important.
It is one body of diferent parts : each part serves its purpose.
The outside as well as the inside elements needs appropriate response.
Romans 14:6
One gives thanks to God for the inerrancy.
One gives thanks to God for non-inerrancy.
Hmmm,, it was supposed to be days or meat?
Am not a literalist, the idea/ rationale is there : )
Romans 14 (KJV)
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
(Our differing opinions do not make us any different in the Lord's eyes; we are all sinners needing Salvation in His Grace.)
8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
(No matter what we do we belong to the Lord in the end.)
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
(We will be held accountable for our actions, not the actions-or thoughts- of fellow believers)
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
(Live by your consciousness of your personal faith-don't be hindered by another's faith: seek the things above.)
19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
(The things of this earth are are temporary and minor/ trivial compared to the things of God.)
Our human thinking is inconsequential; it is relying on God's Word in our decision making that makes all the difference. Should the interpretation or hearing of it cause people to do different things? Perhaps sometimes the answer is yes, or no, or both. Some need milk, some meat, some need no food at all, while others cannot digest anything and vomit it back up.
We are not all on the same block, but as Brothers and Sisters-we should be on the same highway headed towards God-just at different mile markers.
rev3lations
Inactive
I am not here to argue the case that the bible is a myth. I am saying that there are people who follow jesus who believe that the bible has myth. I was just defending all our rights to make our own observation about the bible and what it means to us.
rev3lations
Inactive
I am only pointing out what some people believe, I am not saying I believe it or that I think its right. I am not telling you that you have to believe that way of belief too.
But what I am saying is believe what you believe because you really made that choice yourself to believe it, but don't lose your ability to critically think about what you believe and what your told because if you do you will never be able to correct yourself.
Rusty;
Well, being new, and having just received words of considerable encouragement yesterday from this forum, I'll just wade right in to this explosive topic. Maybe when I'm done I will receive something less than encouragement...
Rusty, I tried to find "myth" as you apparently defined it somewhere in the thread, but I did not succeed. However, 25 years ago or more I was scandalized to run across a book in a rather liberal (much more liberal than me) person's home entitled something like, "The Great Myth of Job". I was sure she was a heretic, elevating the constantly changing world of Historical Biblical Criticism over the Word itself. However, as I understand things now, Jewish scholars have never understood the book of Job to be a literal story, but rather an enormous, very powerful parable about the sovereignty of God (among other things). Consider that it starts out with the classic parabolic opening sentence, almost exactly like the parables of Jesus: "There was a man from the land of Uz, whose name was Job" Compare this to the opening sentence of many of Jesus' parables, and immediately you see the writer/speaker is setting the listener/reader up for a story told in metaphor (or that oft-times disdained word, fiction) to illustrate a greater truth. Granted, unlike the parables of Jesus, we have a name of a geographical place (a place no one has ever heard of, the last I read any material on the matter) and the name of a man. So off we go: we could immediately begin arguing about the literal truth of the story vs. the parabolic truth of the story. But what difference does it make? The point, and sub-points, of the story speak a very powerful truth regardless of whether the story is literally true or not.
We could also have a big argument about whether a huge long parable is similar, or very much like, a myth, but that begins to depart from the original question, "Is the Bible literally true?"
I know a woman whose wisdom in spiritual matters I respect very much say to me recently, "Oh, I don't ever read fiction. I wouldn't waste my time with it. And I discourage my children from it, too."
It took great self control on my part to respond, "Oh. Well, you mustn't waste time on the parables of Jesus, then."
But as I am so wont to do, I am digressing. My point is, much of what is most revealing in the Bible about God and his kingdom is not "literally" true.
Finally, not to stir up trouble with Major, but I attend a church that not only practices infant baptism, but administers real wine during communion to infants. In spite of it, I consider myself and our church to be quite orthodox. A little weird, maybe, but quite orthodox. 20 years ago I would have been appalled by such things, but God has worked on my heart in such matters. Again, I think "exactly" how we do things is difficult to nail down, because the New Testament is remarkably loose and non-restrictive on such matters as how we practice baptism or communion.
Oh well. I'm not sure I ended up making a coherent point, here.
Theo von H
First, I do believe that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God. Anything less than that and it is just a history book that does not hold nearly enough weight. However, if it is to be taken as completely inerrant and literal in the sense that we believe that it is word for word, letter for letter God's literal Word, then there are some potential difficulties. The main one being what happens if that assumption is ever proven to be false. If your faith is tied up in the Bible being word for word God's literal language, then if a single word is ever definitively proven false, it would imply that God failed. Of course this is impossible. And of course, those that believe this make it impossible. Unfortunately, they often do so artificially. Rather than relying on the text to mean what it means, when there are contradictions, they resolve them through the only means possible, often adding Scriptural weight to one potential explanation for an inconsistencies.
That doesn't mean that anything in the Bible is false, and that is the problem we are having. The "literalist" view is that if the Bible isn't to be read as God's literal Word, then any inconsistency implies it is a faulty and erroneous book. In fact, after reading how the "literalist" read and interpret the Bible, I think I actually read it much more literally than they do. I take the words written there using the most basic and simplest explanation first, look at how the individual section contributes and is affected by the big picture, and search for possible reasons for contradictions. Is it because I misunderstood what was being said? Did I fail to see the context? Do I have a problem with my big picture view of Scripture and need to adjust that? Was it a translational error? Is it a cultural anomaly? Was it a copyist error in the oldest transcripts that we have available? Was it simply a matter of one writer seeing the events in a more limited way than another writer? Did one writer perhaps think one part of the event was less important than another writer believed so that both versions are actually completely true as written? Did both actually happen, but God chose to veil a portion of what happened in the text for a deeper purpose?
Second, we can't take the Bible as a mythology of any sort. Yes, some people do read it that way, those people are not believers. Sure, there is some mythology in there. For the most part, we are actually told what we are reading is a story or parable. Could there be more stories as well? Perhaps, but if we don't know for a fact a story is just a story, it must be read as a literal truth. Literal is fine, it is the assumption that the Bible was Word for Word God penned that I question.
That doesn't mean that anything in the Bible is false, and that is the problem we are having. The "literalist" view is that if the Bible isn't to be read as God's literal Word, then any inconsistency implies it is a faulty and erroneous book. In fact, after reading how the "literalist" read and interpret the Bible, I think I actually read it much more literally than they do. I take the words written there using the most basic and simplest explanation first, look at how the individual section contributes and is affected by the big picture, and search for possible reasons for contradictions. Is it because I misunderstood what was being said? Did I fail to see the context? Do I have a problem with my big picture view of Scripture and need to adjust that? Was it a translational error? Is it a cultural anomaly? Was it a copyist error in the oldest transcripts that we have available? Was it simply a matter of one writer seeing the events in a more limited way than another writer? Did one writer perhaps think one part of the event was less important than another writer believed so that both versions are actually completely true as written? Did both actually happen, but God chose to veil a portion of what happened in the text for a deeper purpose?
Second, we can't take the Bible as a mythology of any sort. Yes, some people do read it that way, those people are not believers. Sure, there is some mythology in there. For the most part, we are actually told what we are reading is a story or parable. Could there be more stories as well? Perhaps, but if we don't know for a fact a story is just a story, it must be read as a literal truth. Literal is fine, it is the assumption that the Bible was Word for Word God penned that I question.
Then all I can do is ask you to read the verses posted again which say the opposite of God's Word. Your "argument" is not with me my friend but with God who made such statements.
If you do not choose to agree with what the Lord said.....that is not my concern. I do not argue it I just believe what God said.
MY dear brother...........your last thought in this world is that you would stir me up.
If anyone chooses to disagree with my opinion on the Word of God, you are a free moral agent and I encourage you as such. The opposite is of just as valid.
How I believe should not influence anyone one way or the other. That is the job of the Holy Spirit not me. Personally I do not believe the parabels are made up stories or myths. Jesus told the facts and what He said was truth as far as I am concerned.
If you do not believe that, may the Lord bless you and I can assure you we are still friends.
If you have no problem with infants being baptized, far be it from to critize you for your belief. Now, you will not find infant Baptism in the Scriptures but again, if you choose to accept that, that's you not me.
The Mormons, today......have people stand in for dead loved ones who are baptized after their death. I do not find that in the Scriptures but millions of Mormons believe it. Again, that is not Biblical in any way, so it comes back to what you choose to believe.
I am not real sure what you want calvin when you ask if I want to defend Deut. 22:28-29.
Moses is told to honor the laws of chastity in marriage as the basis of faithfulness and purity. That was the law of the land and maybe if we had something like that today we would not have 50% divorace rates.
Personally I have been reading the ESV more than others.
If you are speaking the ole Major..........he has no problem with what you are saying. You have the right to defend your thoughts and beliefs just as do I and I for one spent many years defending your right to do so.
In comment #65, Theo von H stated this............
"My point is, much of what is most revealing in the Bible about God and his kingdom is not "literally" true."
OK, which part my friend is NOT LITERALLY TRUE about God.
Then please tell me which part about His Kingdom is NOT LITERALLY true.
Please post the verses you are referring to and why you say they are not true.
"My point is, much of what is most revealing in the Bible about God and his kingdom is not "literally" true."
OK, which part my friend is NOT LITERALLY TRUE about God.
Then please tell me which part about His Kingdom is NOT LITERALLY true.
Please post the verses you are referring to and why you say they are not true.
Got to do some grocery shopping soon, so haven't much time, but here are two: You and I would agree that it is correct to call God "Father", yet in what real sense is he actually a father? If one believes in a god like the Greeks and Romans, then one has a crazy pantheon of gods who scramble around having sex with humans, as well as attractive goddesses like Aphrodite and even Athena: they literally are fathers in the real earthly sense. But God/Elohim/Yahweh is not that kind of God. C.S. Lewis expounds clearly and eloquently on this in one of his books, and points out that the family-like relationship between the persons of the godhead is as close to human understanding as we can get, but that, like the Apostle Paul said after seeing something of what heaven itself was like, there simply are no words to describe it. In the end, when it comes to describing God, words simply fail.
Here's another: Jesus is seated at the right hand of God. Is that all there is to it? There are two big divine armchairs sitting somewhere in the heavens, and God is sitting in one, and Jesus is sitting in the other? To insist that that is actually the case, you would be in disagreement with every interpreter, commentator and scholar of scripture, whether Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox or any other stripe for the past 2,000 years. The meaning, like so many of the profound teachings of scripture, has more than one thrust. First, remember that there were no chairs either in the tabernacle or the Holy of Holies. That's important: it's because the work of the priests was never done. Day after day, year after year, the priests offered up sacrifices to cover the sins of the people. But when Christ came, and completed the dreadful, redeeming work of the New Covenant, which according to Paul is a better covenant than the old one, there was finally no more work to be done. Thus, we are reminded in a number of places that Christ is now "seated in that heavenlies". He is seated, because the work of redemption is complete. No one needs to stand and slit the throat of another sheep and put the blood on the ark of the covenant. Not ever again. It doesn't mean that he has been literally seated for the last 2,000 years, developing phlebitis and other problems, until he finally groans and gets up to come to earth in his final, triumphant ushering in of the kingdom.
Second, being seated at the right hand of God is the greatest honor; it tells us something of what God himself says about the place of his Son in the kingdom.
Finally, are you completely adamant about the parables of Jesus all being literally true stories? Because that is likely a totally new interpretation not ever offered by any theologian. I am very wary of totally novel interpretations that no one has ever thought of before. Much trouble has come to the church when we ignore the collective wisdom of thousands of Christian teachers, particularly when all those teachers are in agreement across all the lines of various Faiths for two millenia. Although I haven't read every theologian who ever commented on the parables, I think it's safe to say that none of them believe that those stories are literally true.
Got to go for now.
Theo
Thanks: I'll look at it soon.
Theo
Hey Major, you seem to have missed my point. When discussing inerrancy of Scripture, we need to take into consideration the fact that since not one of the original 'autographs' are available to us, we are left with just several commentaries to guide us. By my use of the word 'commentaries', I am merely recognizing that many people have undertaken to translate what they believe to be the most reliable source texts for us to study. The proof that these many versions of the 'inerrant' word of God are more commentary than they are original is found in the variety of and diversity of the original inerrancy. My point was I thought, fairly illustrated by the commentary supplied by the NIV an example of which is to be found by reading Deut 22:28,29. Now the context of that passage is consensual sexual relations between two (presumably) adult persons.
The NIV however injects a totally different meaning into that passage by the use of the word 'rape'.
Try explaining to an eight year old rape victim that Jesus expects her to marry her assailant, cook his meals, mend and launder his cloths, clean house, have his children and any other wifely duties that might be considered appropriate.
So allow me please to ask the question again: Is the rendering of Deut 22:28,29 by the Niv, the inerrant word of God?
That is why I asked you how you would defend the Niv as being the inerrant word of God.
That is why I refer to the Bible versions today as commentary.
I too (obviously) do not use the Niv, and like you, I mostly read the ESV.
Unlike some, I rely heavily on the Holy Spirit to teach me what the Lord wants me to understand as truth just as I'm sure you do also.
Major, I am not being critical of you, I'm just being critical of the elevation of various versions to the status of inerrancy.
What might be better stated, and prone to generate less misunderstanding would be if the various versions were considered commentary on the inerrant word of God.
Again, look at the Niv and the inexcusable rendering of that passage from Deuteronomy to be found within.
Sorry if you didn't understand my point earlier.