A simple look at a Bible contradiction

That is the advantage of hindsight and belief. Using both you can ignore just about any contradiction by chaining together one unsubstantiated premise after another until you've knitted yourself a veil of suppositions to cover the contradiction.

Havoc

Mat 8:28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,

Mar 5:3 Who had [his] dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains:

Mar 5:4 Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any [man] tame him.

Mar 5:5 And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.

Luk 8:27 And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in [any] house, but in the tombs.

Luk 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, [thou] Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.

Possibly two: One from the tombs (referred to by Mark), one from the city (referred to by Luke). It comes close enough to a resolution that I wouldn't be using it as a demonstration of contradictions in the Bible - there are enough that are irrefutable* without having to resort to these passages.

*(though not undeniable, seeing as there are some who DO, even today, deny that the Earth is more or less spherical).

The gospel writer Mathew mentions two men. (Matt 8:28.) But Mark and Luke refer to only one. (Mark 5: 2.  Luke 8: 27.)  Doubtless Mark and Luke centre attention only on one demonic possed man because his case was the more outstanding of the two.  Perhaps he was more violent and had suffered longer under demon control than had the other man.  Afterward possibly that one man alone wanted to accompany Jesus.  Rather than allowing this, Jesus directed him to make known what God had done in his behalf.  (Mark 5: 18-20)  In a somewhat parallel situation, Mathew spoke of two blind men healed by Jesus, whereas Mark and Luke mention only one.  (Math 20: 29-34;  Mark 10: 46;  Luke 18: 35)  Since Jesus' conversation evidently was directly toward one person in each instance, Mark and Luke did not mention the fact that another Demoniac and blind man where present.  Yet, Mathews gospel account is not incorrect because he gives these details.

On this particular issue, Smaller, I will not count it a contradiction.

As I said, there are enough definite contradictions ... using one that doesn't necessarily qualify only weakens the case.

You might want a look at http://pub43.ezboard.com/fwayrunnersfrm8

 

Here's one from the Hyperlink you put up Thunderchild.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And once again, any claim that this passage is inspired by God is refuted by the author himself. Indeed, Paul here goes so far as to declare that this is a personal opinion.

Of course, it could be that Paul is incorrect in saying that God has not inspired him to issue these instructions. But the Biblical record at this point would then be in error - for it records that these passages are NOT from God.

Edited by: Pastor Thunderchild at: 12/29/00 11:45:05 pm



Answer:


Paul stated that his advice regarding marriage was “according to [his] opinion,” though he added: “I certainly think I also have God’s spirit.” (1 Corinthians 7:25, 39, 40)

The apostle could not quote a direct teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ on the points under discussion and therefore expressed his “opinion.” However, he wrote under the direction of God’s spirit and so his opinion had divine guidance and expressed God’s own view.

Bible writers expressed such personal convictions, they did so against a background of study and application of the scriptures that were available to them. We can be sure that their writings harmonized with God’s thinking. What they recorded became part of God’s Word.

This is confirmed by the fact that the apostle Peter grouped Paul’s letters along with the rest of the Scriptures in saying: “Consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote you, speaking about these things as he does also in all his letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”—2 Pet. 3:15, 16.


This in no way Contradicts 2 Tim 3: 16, 17.  "All scripture is inspired of God and is beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for diciplining in rightousness.  That the man of God may be fully competent, completely equiped for every good work". 

Ah yes. That is the commonly raised objection. However, you will note that in another part of 1 Corinthians 7, Paul says - "To the rest I say, I Paul, not God..." I am saying this, God is not. Paul. Is any claim being made that this is scripture (by the author that is)? Not in the least. And the same principle applies - if the advice given is inspired by God, the statement that it isn't most certainly is not scripture, for all that it is included in the Bible.

The apostle could not quote a direct teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ on the points under discussion and therefore expressed his opinion

Click to expand...

You will note that Paul declares at yet another point in 1 Corinthians 7 - To the married I say, yet not I, but God Are Paul's instructions in this passage based on some prior teaching from the Christ? - no. the instruction that a wife is permitted to leave her spouse provided that she not re-marry is new.

Scripture is inspired by God. Not everything in the Bible is scripture. QED


Yes, Paul did point out that he had God's Spirit -

All point covered under the above.

Pauls opinions mentioned in Chap 7 were made, as he and peter confirmed, under "Divine Guidance"

Your explanation does not even begin to dent the fact that Paul said - I am saying this, God is not, at 1 Corinthians 7:12

To the rest I am speaking, not the Lord, ...

Click to expand...

Nor can it be claimed on the basis that Paul is declaring that the Corinthians already to know him as a faithful witness, and therefore worthy of having his opinions viewed with respect - that Paul is making ANY claim to writing under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

But - of course, everything in the Bible IS inspired by God - even the glaring errors which none can pretend don't exist. Taking just one -

2Sa 21:19

And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam.

Click to expand...

AS WRITTEN IN THE HEBREW.

The name of the man was not Goliath, but Lahmi, the brother of Goliath... The translators of the AKJV altered the passage to

2Sa 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam.

Click to expand...

Note the square brackets in the quote - they are the translator's acknowledgement that neither the words nor the concept between the brackets exist in the Hebrew manuscripts.

2 Samuel 21:19, where it is stated: “Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite got to strike down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like the beam of loom workers.” The parallel account at 1 Chronicles 20:5 reads: “Elhanan the son of Jair got to strike down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like the beam of loom workers.”

Several suggestions have been made for an explanation of the problem. The Targum preserves a tradition that Elhanan is to be identified with David. The Soncino Books of the Bible, edited by A. Cohen (London, 1951, 1952), make the comment that there is no difficulty in the assumption that there were two Goliaths, commenting also that Goliath may have been a descriptive title like “Pharaoh,” “Rabshakeh,” “Sultan.” The fact that one text refers to “Jaare-oregim,” whereas the other reads “Jair,” and also that only the account in Second Samuel contains the term “Bethlehemite [Heb., behth hal·lach·mi'],” while the Chronicles account alone contains the name “Lahmi [´eth-Lach·mi'],” has been suggested by the majority of commentators to be the result of a copyist’s error. They do happen you know.

What?

Not only the name, but the epithet is identical - that shows the Goliath referred to as being the same Goliath that was slain by David. Two different Goliath's is by no means a tenable explanation.

You are quite right - this may have been a copyists error. And the explanation doesn't achieve a whole lot of good for them as claim that the Bible contains no errors - there is no extant copy of this passage, in any language, that doesn't contain the error (except of course for the correction made within the AKJV by the translators - assuming they got it right, which I believe they did.)

But just how far back in history did this error arise? The Septuagint records that Goliath was slain, not his brother. As to the differences in name "Jaare-oregim" and "Jair": I will put that down to the first being the full name + epithet (sure name) of Jair, not another error.

So how does explaining the probable origins of the error that clearly exists prove that there are no errors in the Bible?

The claim is, there are "No Contradictions" in the Bible.

Despite the care exercised by copyists of Bible manuscripts, a number of small scribal errors and alterations crept into the text. On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by means of careful scholastic collation or critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts and ancient versions. The evidence consists of thousands of handwritten copies of Bible manuscripts—an estimated 6,000 of all or portions of the Hebrew Scriptures and some 5,000 of the Christian Scriptures in Greek—that have survived to our day. A careful, comparative analysis of the many existing manuscripts has enabled textual scholars to detect any copyists’ errors and determine the original reading.

Commenting on the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, scholar William H. Green could thus state: “It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.” Similar confidence can be placed in the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures. So there is, in fact, compelling evidence that the Hebrew and Greek texts on which modern translations are based represent with remarkable fidelity the words of the original writers.

The claim is, there are "No Contradictions" in the Bible.

Click to expand...

And the claim is self evidently false.

Scribal errors have NOT been corrected in all cases (IF that is what ALL the errors can be attributed to). AKJV missed the ones that give incorrect height for the pillars Jachin and Boaz. and the ones that give an incorrect height for the capitals (chapiters) of those pillars.

While the NIV acts to correct the error regarding pillar height (by stating that the height of the pillars is the combined length thereof ... and resulting in a 17.5 cubit pillar as opposed to 18 in the other 3 passages referring to them) neither it nor any other acts to correct the 3 cubits given in one passage to make it the 5 in the remaining three.
New English Bible changes the 35 cubits height for the pillars in that one passage to 18. Honest translations make no such changes - there is no manuscript evidence to support such changes.
Nor do mere scribal errors account for the discrepancies of the record regarding those who were crucified along with the Christ. With three gospel accounts all stating that both malefactors villified Jesus, only one (not stating that both had villified him) declaring that either had repented. While this can be reconciled, it can't be done solely on evidence from the Bible record. (the account of the demon posessed men in the garadenes can be reconciled using the Biblical record - though it IS drawing a long bow to do so.)

"There are no errors in the Bible because the errors in the Bible are not significant" is by no means an attempt to acknowledge the truth.

"AKJV missed the ones that give incorrect height for the pillars Jachin and Boaz. and the ones that give an incorrect height for the capitals (chapiters) of those pillars. "
If you do a search you will find that you have had that explained to you.

Thunderchild: With respect, you are not reading my posts correctley.

I never said ALL Minor errors have been corrected I said  "On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected".

"AKJV missed the ones that give incorrect height for the pillars Jachin and Boaz. and the ones that give an incorrect height for the capitals (chapiters) of those pillars. "
If you do a search you will find that you have had that explained to you.

Click to expand...

I have seen rationalisations posing as explanations, and those "explanations" declare the AKJV's record to be incorrect.


Lightbearer: The heights for the capitals have not been corrected in any Bible I have seen.

The corrections that have been made (such as the heights of the pillars) have been few, and in complete violation of the claim to be faithful to the original manuscripts - the origin of those errors.

Moreover, some errors defy entirely any attempt at correction. The text would have to be totally re-organised to do the job.

Which is the error when it comes to the gospel accounts of the events in Jerusalem during following palm Sunday? Did Jesus clear the temple on Palm Sunday, or was it the day after? (depends on which account you read) Did Jesus curse the fig tree before he cleared the temple or after? (depends on which account you read) Did the tree visibly wither immediately, or did the withering not get noticed until the evening? (depends on which account you read).

The Bible is said to have no errors. When the plain fact is demonstrated from a simple sentence that there is an error, the claim is altered to "there are no significant errors impacting on doctrine" - there is a world of difference between the two claims. And those who see that there are glaringly obvious simple errors invariably search the Bible to make sure of the facts before they alter their statements to the second claim. No, that is NOT done. It is simply a matter of defending as much of a discredited precept as possible, without bothering to check just how far errors might possibly extend.

In writing instructions to the churches, could Paul or any other apostle have made an error?

The only "error" in the Holy Bible Authorized Version has to do with YOUR faith.

Your origina statement Thunderchild.

On this particular issue, Smaller, I will not count it a contradiction.

As I said, there are enough definite contradictions ... using one that doesn't necessarily qualify only weakens the case.

Click to expand...

by Thunderchild.

The Bible is said to have no errors. When the plain fact is demonstrated from a simple sentence that there is an error, the claim is altered to "there are no significant errors impacting on doctrine" - there is a world of difference between the two claims. And those who see that there are glaringly obvious simple errors invariably search the Bible to make sure of the facts before they alter their statements to the second claim. No, that is NOT done. It is simply a matter of defending as much of a discredited precept as possible, without bothering to check just how far errors might possibly extend.

Click to expand...

Please notice your first quote were you say the Bible contradicts itself.

This is the claim I refuted, no one said that there were not a few minor scribal errors in the Bible.  The ones that exist are so few and irrelevant as to matter not.

Oh yes, though you have made assertions and statements, you still have'nt shown me a contradiction from scripture yet.