Thanks. Although I have done that, and I;ve found most of the 'explanations" to be those mental gymnastics I spoke of.
Let me give you two examples from the
first site in those results...
101. David was tempted by the Lord to number Israel [2 Sam 24:1]
David was tempted by Satan to number the people [1 Chron 21:1]
There are three possible responses here:
(1) Biblical writers often dismissed secondary causes and attributed all things that happened to God, since He is over all things. Thus, God is did not tempt David, He allowed Satan to influence him.
(2) Arthur Hervey believes 2 Sam 24:1 is better translated as, "For one moved David against them." In this case, the numbering of the people was the cause of God's anger, not the result. After all, without this interpretation, it is not clear why God was angry with Israel.
(3) The verse in 1 Chron translated as "satan" could also be translated as "adversary." Strictly speaking, in this situation, God was Israel's adversary.
So we are given three possible explanations. Firstly, we can avoid the apparent contradiction by assuming that the Bibler was not written clearly - hardly something one would expect if it was written by/inspired by God.
Secondly, we have the opinion of one person. No indication who he is, mind you. A quick Google search reveals someone who plays music at a casino in Lake Tahoe, a composer who lived 1855-1922, and the most likely person, a bishop of Bath and Wells in England, living 1808-1894. Now, I'm not saying that he is wrong, but given that his opinions have obviously been around for a long time (he died more than a century ago) and his ideas obviously haven't been taken up, how can we be so sure that his opinion is correct? it isn't even widely accepted.
111. Christ's mission was peace [Luke 2:13,14]
Christ's mission was not peace [Matt 10:34]
Luke 2:14 says, "peace among men with whom he is pleased."
Mt. 10:34 says, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
The first verse could very well mean that peace exists among those with whom God is pleased, i.e., the fellowship of believers. Yet such believers are like a light among the darkness, and men prefer the darkness. Thus, the fellowship of believers, while full of peace, incurs the wrath of the nonbelievers.
One only need consider that in some nations Christians peacefully gather, yet are persecuted, to see how easy this "contradiction" is resolved.
If this is the correct interpretation, then Jesus came to bring a sword... To the enemies of his folowers! he's basically saying, "I came to make life hard for you."
So I gotta ask, "Why?" This explanation doesn't make sense to me.
Perhaps both are true. It has been said: cursed is the man who hangs from a tree. (Meaning no one would bury him.) so if He was left unburied then given enough time a decomposition, He would fall from his tree and burst open on the rocks of that potters field.
Acts says that Judas fell headfirst. A person who hanged and then fell from there would fall feetfirst.
their was a standing Law that for bids any member of the synagogue from except blood money (even though they found a loop hole and offered it.) So after Judas hanged himself the field was purchased in his name with his 30 pieces of silver.
Perhaps. But I can't find any Biblical support. I can't accept something as fact if the only way to avoid contradictions in it is to speculate.
there was no need for a deep or detailed description of this because for the people in whom that account was written, it was common knowledge.
Acts has Peter standing up to tell about 120 of jesus' followers this story, about Judas hanging. If it was common knowledge, wouldn't they already know?
And the fact it was common knowledge doesn't explain why there are two diferent versions.
In the account of gen 1 we are told that Man and animals were created on the same day.
That was not my point.
My point was that in gen 1, the order is this...
- Water creatures and flying things created on Day 5 (1:20-21).
- All the other animals created on Day 6 (1:24-25).
- Once all the animals were created, God makes man and woman at the same time (1:26-27).
...while in Gen 2, the order is this...
- God creates Man but not woman and places him in Eden (2:7-8, 15).
- God creates the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air (2:19).
- After Adam doesn't find a suitable companion (!?) amongst the animals, God decides to make a woman for Adam (2:21-23).
There are quite a few discrepancies in my opinion. Gen 2 has the creation of birds on the same day as beasts of the field, whereas Gen 1 has it on a separate day. In Gen 1, man and woman were created at the same time, whereas in Gen 2, the animals were made in between them.
Anyone meaning who?? People? angels? Jesus? the devil??
People. As in Humans. Have any humans ever seen God face-to-face?
If a postal worker(messenger) hands you a letter from the president/queen or whom ever informing you that your work is to be nationally recognized.. In Who's authority was that message delivered? Who's words were used? Who would you say commended your work, and will raise it up to a national level to be commended? was it The messenger? Do you think He has that power? or would true authority come from the author of those words?
If you told that story, would you say that a postman informed me that i was to be commended? or would you say that the president was nationally recognizing my work? which way would be the true/correct way to phrase your good news?
I don't think the letter analogy is quite suitable, because we are talking about an actual voice.
A better analogy would be a phone call.
Anyway, in Mark, Jesus himself states that the voice Moses heard in the bush identified itself as the voice of God. How then could it have been an angel instead?
No but i am assuming these are the best examples you have... Most of which can be explained if you care to remove yourself from a modern Anglo/English way of thinking. At 31 you should know that The bible wasn't written in the king James or what ever version you are trying to pin infallibility on. The words, phrases, culture, history, interpretations, number of viable manuscripts, all contribute to a particular translation.
So if you read scripture in any English version as you would a text book originally written in English you will find apparent flaws or holes. But again all one has to do is to consider the time period and the people in which these words were written, and understanding can be yours..
I don't think that one particular version is fallible, I think the overall story is unlikely to be true. The fact that there are many inconsistancies is one of the reasons I think that Bible is not true, but I'm not going to discuss the other reasons in this thread.
..if that is what you truly seek.
I seek the truth. And I dpon't think that truth can be found by using mental gymnastics to explain something that you have already decided is true.
The Bible in it's entirety is God's revelation of salvation for all men through Jesus Christ, there is no salvific value in the details of how Judas died.
Then why is it in there? If, as you say, the purpose of the Bible is to reveal how to get salvation through Jesus, and the bit about Judas contributes nothing to this purpose, why include it? And if there is some purpose after all, why did God reveal two different things?
I know exactly what you are saying, but once God moves on you those gymnastic will become effortless. He does reveal wisdom and knowledge to those who abide in Him.
I'm sorry, but I'm sure you can understand that to me, that is just saying, "Once you decide that the Bible is true, you'll accept the mental gymnastics because you'll want the Bible to make sense."
My explaination is my testimony. 40 years living life my way, today I live for Him. It is a fact I have been delivered from 40 years of bad habits. The saying "old habits die hard" did not apply for me, when God moved on me those habits were gone. Do not misunderstand I still make mistakes, but instead of living to please myself, I now live to please Him. BTW I have eyewitnesses.
I'll never say that you never had those bad habits, or that you didn't overcome them.
But I will say that the argument from revelation (God coming and acting in your life) isn't convincing to others. After all, if it carried any value, wouldn't that mean that anyone who had Allah act in their lives was a reason to become Muslim? And what about the Hindu gods?
How would that affect God's plan for salvation?
I never said it did. All I said was that it was in the Bible, and there were two different versions of it.
This does not answer my question.
I do not know if that is important, what was the purpose of the message?
An appearance by God (according to some of the claims) and you say unimportant?
In any case, the relative importance has no bearing on what I am discussing. The fact remains there are conflicting accounts of what happened.
I know this was not exactly what you were looking for, but it is truth and I believe Scripture backs it up.
You mean the bits when you dismissed the apparent contradictions by saying that they weren't important? I don't think scriupture backs it up, I'm sorry.
Biblical
contradictions are just Charlie Horses of the mind.
Many of these so-called contradictions have been discussed and explained. For example, see
BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered
Bible Contradictions, A Christian Response.
AMR
The first site you linked to is the one that 98cwitr linked to. I've mentioned two from there.
From the second site, the section about
Adam and Eve and when they were created says that "God created them both, and that He did it on the sixth day. It does not say that He created them at the exact same moment. He created Adam first, then created Eve from his rib later the same day. Not a contradiction."
However, it completely ignores the fact that Gen 2 mentions the animals created BETWEEN Adam and Eve, while Gen 1 states very clearly that all the animals were created BEFORE any humans at all were made.
The website does deal with this in
another section
, but the issue is not really settled to my satisfaction. They give two suggestions.
The first suggestion says that a different word is used. The implication is that God wasn't "creating" the animals, just "making" them. Of course, there's no support that original texts use the word for "create" when God is making them from nothing, and it's also assuming that the word for "make" couldn't also mean "create". After all, just about every language has instances where several words can mean the same thing.
The second suggestion relies on having a certain interpretation of the passages. To decide that a certain interpretation must be correct simply because it is the only one that avoids a contradiction is not the way to find the truth.