Seeming contradictions in Scripture

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"One conradiction means that you can't trust any portions of the bible."

I believe this is the most dangerous statement to the Christian message that any Christian can make. I have shown that numerous contradictions can seem to exist in Scripture, and that some are, indeed, textual contradictions.

Better to say that the Bible is the true and holy Word of God and that every message contained therein (regardless of the method of presentation of that message) is true and inerrant and for us to this day.
 
Upvote 0

Apologist

2 Tim. 2:24-26
Jan 9, 2002
1,294
11
62
Northern California
Visit site
✟1,980.00
Faith
Christian
Vance said:
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee?

AND

I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;
Although this is not a plain reading of the text answer, I will give you this to consider:

There are two thoughts by commentators on this apparent contradiction:

1) Some commentators propose that Gad approached David on two different occasions because of the language used to present the alternatives to David. In the 2 Samuel passage Gad presents the alternatives as a question, "Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land?" In the 1 Chronicles passage the alternatives are presented more along the lines of a command, "Choose for yourself, either three years of famine, or three months to be defeated." Those who offer this solution assume that perhaps the 2 Samuel passage records the first encounter of Gad and David in which the alternatives are presented for David's consideration, and that after some fasting and prayers, Gad returned for David's decision by which time God had reduced the duration of the famine from seven years to three years in response to David's supplication.

2) Another group of commentators suggests that the record in 2 Samuel is a copyist error. They point out that there are more reliable manuscripts which preserve the number "three" for the duration of the famine and that the NIV has employed this manuscript reading in it's translation.
 
Upvote 0

Apologist

2 Tim. 2:24-26
Jan 9, 2002
1,294
11
62
Northern California
Visit site
✟1,980.00
Faith
Christian
Another puzzling question to me is why is there bickering here in this thread when this forum is supposed to be for Christians only?
Can we not discuss the things of the Spirit without needless arguing?

As believers we need to heed to what Paul told the church at Colosse in Colossians 6:4:

"Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one."

And also in 2 Tim 2:24-25a:

"And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition,"


Soli Deo Gloria
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Agreed, regarding the proper tone of the argument. I have always strived, in the face of rudeness and personal attacks on my faith, to stay above the childishness exhibited by some of the YEC's.

As for your points on Samuel, yes, they are what I have read as well. For the purposes of this thread, however, the fact that there are two schools of thought about the proper reading of this seeming conflict proves my point beyond doubt: the interpretation of the text can not always be based on a plain, simple reading.
 
Upvote 0

Buck72

The Watchman
Oct 14, 2003
387
18
51
Charleston, SC
Visit site
✟8,117.00
Faith
Protestant
troodon said:
In Revelation, death is thrown into a lake of fire (Revelation 20:14), destroyed, prior to the founding of the new Jerusalem. But in Isaiah, people are still dying in the new Jerusalem (Isaiah 65:20).

Am I missing something? :confused:
Here's a pretty big piece of theology, but I'll do my best to answer:

Prior to the New Jerusalem (Rev 22), after the Second Coming, there is a 1000 Millenial Reign of Christ, after which there is a final judgement. Many variations in Christianity hold to three opinions as to how this Millenial Reign will occur, but the most literal (here I go again) is right off the text in Rev 20...

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

Rev 20:3 and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.

Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Rev 20:7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison,

Rev 20:8 and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore.

Rev 20:9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

Rev 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

There are still mortals living during this time, as evidenced by the fact that they can be decieved at the end of the 1000 years (hard to imagine, but sin is still possible until the final judgement).
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, you are missing my point.

My point is that, as Christians, we should not teach a particular belief about origins as dogmatic Christian theology. We should not teach that if one particular interpretation is not correct, the Bible is not correct.

This is dogmatism and it is dangerous regarding non-salvation issues.

As to your point, though, evolution is not taught dogmatically, it is taught as an accepted theory. Nothing in science is, or can be, treated with dogmatism. An accepted theory can always be replaced, by definition, when the theory has been falsified. Many theories are falsified every day in science, and they are discarded. Those which are not falsified are investigated further, and if they hold up for long enough, in the face of sharp enough challenges, it is considered an accepted theory to be going on with.

Evolution is taught with the same level of confidence, it is true, as gravity, or germ theory, or relativity, etc, etc. And this is because it is as well supported by the evidence (actually more supported) as these other theories.

No one claims that the theory of gravity is taught "dogmatically", so why apply the term to evolution? Science views them both the same: accepted theories.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Many variations in Christianity hold to three opinions as to how this Millenial Reign will occur, but the most literal (here I go again)"

This statement simply underscores my entire point about the proper interpretation of Scripture not always being obvious from the plain text, causing believers to accept different concepts on a given set of verses.
 
Upvote 0

Buck72

The Watchman
Oct 14, 2003
387
18
51
Charleston, SC
Visit site
✟8,117.00
Faith
Protestant
Vance said:
No one claims that the theory of gravity is taught "dogmatically", so why apply the term to evolution? Science views them both the same: accepted theories.
Gravity can be demonstrated, quantified, and proven with reliable, God-given science. Evolution cannot be proven by any empiraical data, save that of speculative theory.
 
Upvote 0

Buck72

The Watchman
Oct 14, 2003
387
18
51
Charleston, SC
Visit site
✟8,117.00
Faith
Protestant
Vance said:
"Many variations in Christianity hold to three opinions as to how this Millenial Reign will occur, but the most literal (here I go again)"

This statement simply underscores my entire point about the proper interpretation of Scripture not always being obvious from the plain text, causing believers to accept different concepts on a given set of verses.
Same thing happens here too:

Gen 1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Whose fault is that? Does the literalist bear the burden of misinterpretation, or the non-literalist?

What about here:

Exo 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

I have lots more...but I have to go to work. Have a good night. ;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, there are EFFECTS which can be seen, tested, etc. The theory of WHY this happens is still just that, a theory. It can not be proven. But, because the theory explains the data (effects, observations, etc), then it is accepted.

Evolution is the same. We can see the effects, the data, the evidence. The theory of evolution explains the WHY and HOW these effects take place. We can observe the data, test it, etc, and then see whether anything in the data falsifies the theory. If the theory provides a cogent explanation, and fits the evidence we do have, and has not been falsified, then it remains an accepted theory.

Just as they use the theory of gravity to plan space excursions, etc, and it WORKS, scientists in a variety of fields use the theory of evolution as the basis for their experiments in medicine, genetics, biology, etc, and they also all WORK exactly as they should.

In science today, the theory of gravity is actually in greater doubt that the theory of evolution.

Even Creationists have been forced to accept all the mechanics of evolutionary processes, agreeing that this does, indeed, work and explains changes in living things. The ONLY thing they object to is that it can bring about large changes on the "kind" level (but have not provided a sound scientific explanation why not).
 
Upvote 0

Josh1

Active Member
Sep 24, 2003
266
1
Visit site
✟411.00
Faith
Christian
vance:The ONLY thing they object to is that it can bring about large changes on the "kind" level (but have not provided a sound scientific explanation why not).


It never has happened. There is no proof. The burden of proof is not on us, it is on yall to prove that it can happen. Nobody has even come close to that yet. God Bless.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, this is not exactly true. We have seen speciation. We have seen major size and morphological changes among species. Of course, we would not expect to see both together within our lifetime, such a change would take thousands and thousands of years. But even given the types of changes that even the most ardent YEC "scientists" agree are the result of evolutionary processes, added to the observed rise of new species and the fossil record, the ball is clearly in the court of the creationists to come up with some scientific explanation as to WHY evolution could not continue on to "macro" levels and all the evidence is just misleading.

YOu say "it has never happened." as a statement of fact. Yet, what is your evidence that it has never happened? All you can say is that you have never seen it happen. And, of course, we would not expect to "see" a transition happen before our eyes. A macro change would require macro time, such as hundreds of thousands of years (or at least tens of thousands). What we have seen is the mechanics taking place, we have seen new species arise, and that USED to be what Creationists called "macro" until the speciations were observed.

BTW, theories are not proven. I hope we don't have to go down that well worn path again.

As for "not even close", I am not sure what exactly you would expect to see in the way of evidence. We would not expect to see it happen in a give lifetime, so what would we expect to see? The process at work, evidence of large changes and a fossil record. That is what we would expect and that is what we have. In fact, NOTHING that has been found has been CONTRARY to evolutionary theory. This is incredibly convincing in itself.
 
Upvote 0

Josh1

Active Member
Sep 24, 2003
266
1
Visit site
✟411.00
Faith
Christian
YOu say "it has never happened." as a statement of fact. Yet, what is your evidence that it has never happened?

You see, you have got to prove that it has happened before I would even want to take the time to prove that it hasn't. Like I said before the burden of proof is not on us. Yeah of course I haven't seen them changes, but nobody else has either.


BTW, theories are not proven. I hope we don't have to go down that well worn path again.



I know, the evolutionary THEORY is just a theory. I say the biblical acount should be taught right beside it and let children choose for themselves. Evolution by no means is close to being proven. Why don't the text books include the creation theory? Everything coincides with it perfectly. I will not go down the path of micro vs macro. You already know what I believe about it and I know what you believe.


As for "not even close", I am not sure what exactly you would expect to see in the way of evidence.


Evidence. That is all I ask. I want to know how a monkey turns into a man. Are we all going to turn into monkeys again someday? Are there monkeys turning into men today? We have walked this way before, but just out of curiosity. Do you take all the accounts of the old testament to be myths? God Bless.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
OK, I made the mistake of thinking you knew something about how evolution works. It is useless to discuss scientific matters with someone who does not have the first notion of the concepts involved. The questions you ask prove beyond doubt that you don't know what evolutionary development is all about. You seem to have gotten your information about evolution from Creationist sources, which is like basing your belief about true Christian teaching from a militant Islamic or athiestic source. We should not have to provide primers on the theory and no one should come here and attack a theory they know nothing about.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Buck72

The Watchman
Oct 14, 2003
387
18
51
Charleston, SC
Visit site
✟8,117.00
Faith
Protestant
Vance said:
No, there are EFFECTS which can be seen, tested, etc. The theory of WHY this happens is still just that, a theory. It can not be proven. But, because the theory explains the data (effects, observations, etc), then it is accepted.
Gravity is demonstrative. Sir Newton worked that out very well for us (a creationist BTW). Theory is accepted in order to fill the "why gap". Check it out:

Experiement #1 -- You walk into an empty room and see a candle burning. When was it lit?

Empirical Science:

1. Measure the candle.
2. Measure its rate of burn

Assumptions:

1. Its original height
2. It's burn rate has always been constant

__________________________________________________________________

Experiement #2 -- Find a fossil in the gound, how old is it?

Empirical Science:

1. Carbon date it
2. Carbon date the soil samples
(non-objective scientists will auto date the fossil according to its geologic strata, based on Lyell's curious assumptions about the non-existant "geologic column"...more on that later).

Assumptions:

1. The C14 found within the fossil is relavant to today's C14 measurements
2. The rate of C14 decay is constant with today's rates of decay

** Note on Carbon Dating: It is a bent process, massively inconclusive and holds to a uniformitarianism that does not exist, nor has it existed. It is like looking for mathmatical predictibility in the Lotto.

Evolution is the same. We can see the effects, the data, the evidence. The theory of evolution explains the WHY and HOW these effects take place. We can observe the data, test it, etc, and then see whether anything in the data falsifies the theory. If the theory provides a cogent explanation, and fits the evidence we do have, and has not been falsified, then it remains an accepted theory.
Falsifies the theory? The theory was never proven, so now it has to be falsified to be disproven? :help:


Just as they use the theory of gravity to plan space excursions, etc, and it WORKS, scientists in a variety of fields use the theory of evolution as the basis for their experiments in medicine, genetics, biology, etc, and they also all WORK exactly as they should.
Vance, I hope that you know I have total respect for you...I really do, despite our differences. So, please indulge me in an answer to this question:

What benefit to medicine, genetics, biology, or any field of science has evolution brought forth?


In science today, the theory of gravity is actually in greater doubt that the theory of evolution.
Gravity is demonstrative, evolution is an assumption, a conclusion of non-empirical data...gravity in greater doubt than evoltution!? :confused:



Even Creationists have been forced to accept all the mechanics of evolutionary processes, agreeing that this does, indeed, work and explains changes in living things. The ONLY thing they object to is that it can bring about large changes on the "kind" level (but have not provided a sound scientific explanation why not).
Time out.

If the evolutionary process here means: adaptations WITHIN the kinds, okay, agreed. A Great Dane and a Chihuahua are two completely different dogs, but they are still dogs, not monkeys, ferns, starfish, or parameciums. Dogs only produce dogs. Hang on a sec...after re-reading your post, I may have lost you (sorry Vance)...what was the scientific evidence you were looking for?
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, evolution is no more "assumptive" than gravity. We have multiple lines of evidence for evolution, including the fossil record, genetics, morphological observations, embryology, biogeography, vestigial structures, molecular evidence, and observed speciation. All of these just happen to agree in every respect with the theory of evolution and provide more than sufficient evidence. Covering all these areas would take a treatise, and that is not the purpose of this forum.

If you are interested, here is a link to an article called "29+ evidences for macroevolution" which covers these to some extent. But a book like What Evolution Is, by Ernst Mayr is better.

And, yes, evolution would have to be falsified, to be abandoned, for all the reasons stated in other threads.

And, of course, only dogs produce dogs . . . in the immediate litter. Evolution never says that a dog would give birth to some other species. Instead it says that some earlier species eventually evolved into all the various canine species (which are NOT all dogs), and on up the taxonomy. Opponents of evolution somehow got the idea that evolution teaches that one type of species we have now can change into another type of species we have now. That is, of course, not what evolution says. It is what people like Hovind SAY evolution says.

In answer to your last question, the scientific evidence (or even cogent theory) would be one which shows exactly WHY the accepted "microevolution" would not, given enough time and selection pressures, produce macro changes, even changes large enough that we would call it a change in "kind".
 
Upvote 0

Josh1

Active Member
Sep 24, 2003
266
1
Visit site
✟411.00
Faith
Christian
vance:

OK, I made the mistake of thinking you knew something about how evolution works. It is useless to discuss scientific matters with someone who does not have the first notion of the concepts involved. The questions you ask prove beyond doubt that you don't know what evolutionary development is all about. You seem to have gotten your information about evolution from Creationist sources, which is like basing your belief about true Christian teaching from a militant Islamic or athiestic source. We should not have to provide primers on the theory and no one should come here and attack a theory they know nothing about.



So you admit that it is a theory. It is in no way proven. You missed my entire point, not to mention dodged a bunch of questions. Answer my questions before you strike judgment. Maybe they have nothing to do with the theory and maybe they do. Maybe you are in denial, but anyways, answer the questions. God Bless.

 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Josh, read the quote in my new thread.

Then learn about evolution from a source other than Creationist sources.

Then we can talk. It is a complete waste of my time talking about evolution to someone who knows so little about science as to state "Evolution is a theory, it has never been proven!"

OF COURSE it is just a theory. OF COURSE theories are not proven.

You know nothing about evolution, so why should I discuss it with you?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Josh1

Active Member
Sep 24, 2003
266
1
Visit site
✟411.00
Faith
Christian
Exactly, that was my whole point!!! Why do they teach that and only that when there are other plausible theories. If you would read my post, then you would understand. If I wanted to know more about evolution, I would go to the non-christian forum. There are many more in there that are more qualified to answer the questions. I was trying to get to a biblical side of this thing. Yet, you have had nothing to offer from the Bible. I could come to the exact conlusion there that you have (ignorantly) came to me about science. I want to know how you say that evolution has anything to with the Bible. Through study, you see that the creation story is consistent with the Bible,yet, the evolution hasn't anything to do with the Bible. If it does,then show me, that is what i'm asking. God Bless.


P.S. Don't twist this and say i called you heretics or say that you disreguard the Bible. I'm trying to get some facts from the Bible. You say that you trust the Bible, now show me evolution.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.