Seeming contradictions in Scripture

[Ark Guy]

If just one verse was present you might have a point, but the bible explains itself in this instance.

So back to the contradiction to Adam being formed from the dust then Eve from his side????Did you find it yet???

 

[Vance]

How does it explain itself?

And don't attempt to change the subject here. We are talking about whether or not there are any seeming contradictions in the "plain reading" of Scripture. You said none of these instances show a contradiction in the "plain reading".

So, how does the Bible "explain itself in this instance" without a resort to anything beyond the plain text?

 

[Ark Guy]

The 8 and 18 explains itself. It's rather obvious or a textual typo.

Now, where is the contradictions to the formation of Adam and Eve?

Why is it that you have moved the goal post and are now using different methods of so-called contradictiuon to disprove the simple reading of Genesis in favor of your religion of evolutionISM?

 

[Vance]

Please explain the "rather obvious". This statement is contradicted, of course, by your immediate follow-up: "or it is a textual typo". If the plain reading is "obviously" not a contradiction then why would you call this non-contradiction a "typo"?

Are you saying, then, that there can be translational and/or transcription errors in the Scripture?

Would you like to move on to the second option I gave you?

 

[Josh1]

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

AND

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.



One is Joseph genealogy and one is Mary's. In Hebrew tradition, they named the males only. Luke is following this tradition and in this case, Mary is designated by her husbands name. God Bless.

 

[Josh1]

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

AND

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.



There is no problem here. They took 7 pairs of the clean animals and they took 2 pairs of the unclean. They would have to sacrifice the clean when they got off the ark so they took more. No extinction was to happen. LOL God Bless.

 

[Josh1]

Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."

AND
Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."



Again, pretty simple. Luke just tells more detail. In Luke it tells us that he was in the mountain praying then called for his disciples. He probally told them then and Matthew records that event. But Luke records when he came down from the mountain. Notice there are many differences in the way each lesson was taught. Jesus was making a point to the disciples. God Bless.

 

[Josh1]

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

AND

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."



Very easy, the verses explains it all. Notice the first verse, it says he cried with a loud voice. That was when he said "it is finished". then he bows his head and Luke recorded this statement. It don't say nothing about "it is finished" being the last thing he said. In fact it don't even say it right after, therefore, scripture interprets scripture.

 

[Josh1]

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;


This is a little harder, but still the Bible is true.
I have always looked at this two ways. The first is to assume that the author of 1 Chronicles emphasized the three-year period in which the famine was to be most intense, whereas the author of 2 Samuel includes the two years prior to and after this period, during which the famine worsened and lessened respectively.

Another solution can be noticed by observing the usage of words in each passage. When you compare the two passages you will note that the wording is significantly different in 1 Chronicles 21 from that found in a 2 Samuel 24. In 2 Samuel 24:13 the question is "shell seven years of famine come to you?" In 1 Chronicles 21:12 we find an alternative imperative, "take for yourself either three years of famine..." From this we may reasonably conclude that 2 Samuel records the first approach of the prophet Gad to David, in which the alternative prospect was seven years; whereas the Chronicles account gives us the second and final approach of Nathan to the King, in which the Lord (doubtless in response to David's earnest entreaty in private prayer) reduced the severity of that grim alternative to three years rather than an entire span of seven. As it turned out, however, David opted for God's third preference, and thereby received three days of severe pestilence, resulting in the deaths of 70,000 men in Israel. God Bless.

 

[Josh1]

Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)


Most are talking about visions, when they are speaking of God. Jacob saw an angel of God, I believe. It says that Moses didn't see him, it was just using a figure of speach when it said "Face to face". They can't see God as I timothy says, many times its talking about angels, it mentions the Lord. Scripture again interprets scripture. God Bless.

 

[Josh1]

I will deal with the rest later. I have to go to church right now. Maybe tonight or it might be a week from now. I will get to them and after I finish them, maybe you can find another load. If anybody wants to tackle them while im gone feel free. I did a quick read over and rest should be a piece of cake. LOL. God Bless.

 

[thekawasakikid]

The 8 and 18 explains itself. It's rather obvious or a textual typo.

Textual typo? Nice!! I nearly swallowed my tongue - aren't you supposed to be arguing for a lack of contradictions in a literal reading?

I've got to agree with Vance on your eloquent rebuttal of his points when you refer to 'balls'... I've been skirting around here for a while and I posted something on the creation/evolution argument a while back and I'll tell you this for nothing, Ark Guy - such responses as some of yours on this thread do nothing for your position and I wouldn't have thought many curious or uncertain people like myself would at all warm to your 'side' of the debate. Very well done

 

[TheBear]

I agree with most of the analogies that reconcile these seeming contradictions in scripture. I don't want to speak for Vance, but I think he is in agreement also. And I don't think he sees the Bible as untrue. But, the point of this thread is to demonstrate that the reconcilliation of these seeming contradictions in scripture must involve more than just a plain reading of the text.

Once more, we are all Christians participating here. We all believe the Bible is true. It is in the interpretation of what we all consider holy and true, where there are differences of opinion.

We can go about these discussions one or two ways.

Option 1: We can puff ourselves up and go into "battle" against those who do not agree with us.

Option 2: We can enter these discussions with an attitude of humility, a sincere desire to be helpful to others, a willingness to learn from others, dignity, and a respect for our brothers and sisters in Christ, even if we don't see eye-to-eye on everything.

Option 1 will cause much stress, anger, frustration, hurt feelings, and misunderstandings.... guaranteed...100% of the time. These emotional battles of the wills always escalate to members hurling insults at each other, belittling each other, and so forth. We are not coming from a place of love for each other when we act this way. We are an embarrasement to Christ and to Christianity when we behave this way. Further, this behavior breaches our forum rules.

I like option 2. It shows spiritual maturity. When we treat each other with dignity and respect, even if we are not in agreement with each other, the points of the message will be more readily recieved, and honest and constructive dialog will prevail. When we approach these discussions with the right attitudes, the discussions themselves are much more enjoyable and constructive for all.





Read my signature below.

 

[Ark Guy]

Textual typo? Nice!! I nearly swallowed my tongue - aren't you supposed to be arguing for a lack of contradictions in a literal reading?

:

Absolutely..we can't expect all translation to be 100%

I would still suggest that YOU get a clue and read a little more prior to doing anymore posting.

I still argue a lack of contradiction inthe bible....literal or not.

One conradiction means that you can't trust any portions of the bible.

 

[Josh1]

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

AND

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)



This alleged contradiction is related to the fact that Matthew in his Gospel speaks of Judas hanging himself but in Acts 1:18 Luke speaks about Judas falling headlong and his innards gushing out. However both of these statements are true. I believe that these are compatible with each other.

Matthew 27:1-10 mentioned the fact that Judas died by hanging himself in order to be strictly factual. Luke, however in his report in Acts1:18-19 wants to cause the feeling of revulsion among his readers, for the field spoken about and for Judas, and nowhere denies that Judas died by hanging. According to tradition, it would seem that Judas hanged himself on the edge of a cliff, above the Valley of Hinnom. Eventually the rope snapped, was cut or untied and Judas fell upon the field below as described by Luke. There is no contradiction for it does not mention that he died by bowels gushed out. God Bless.

 

[Reillz]

Josh1 you are entirely missing the point of the OP. The OP stated that he doesn't believe these are contradictions, but at FACE VALUE (like YEC's take genesis) contradictions arise. However with further examination and careful explaining, such contradictions can be explained away, such as the way OEC's interpret genesis.

 

[Josh1]

reillz:

Josh1 you are entirely missing the point of the OP. The OP stated that he doesn't believe these are contradictions, but at FACE VALUE (like YEC's take genesis) contradictions arise. However with further examination and careful explaining, such contradictions can be explained away, such as the way OEC's interpret genesis.

I understand the point that they are trying to make. But I have to disagree. I don't believe it is in anyways the same. We are taking it and interpreting it with other scripture. I don't find and nobody has mentioned other scripture to back up their theory. All I'm asking is other scripture be put forth to consolidate their claims. I'm not calling any names, I am just discussing this matter. I was having fun taking on these seeming contradictions. I'm glad you posted them, that way I could refresh my memory on them. Again, I see no similarities. God Bless.

 

[Vance]

Josh, as the Bear pointed out, I do agree with most of your analyses as I pointed out from the beginning. These are nothing new to me. Many, many years of Bible study and special classes in school have brought up these points (and others). But really, the point is that the simple, plain reading of the text creates the conflict which must be explained, and it can NOT always be explained by a simple reference to other Scripture. Sometimes, you have to do some deeper analysis and this very point belies the idea that "a simple, plain reading of Scripture makes it clear to all."

This point really need not even be made in this way though. The fact that we have thousands of different interpretations leading to different denominations alone is sufficient proof that the true interpretation of Scripture is not crystal clear on the face of the document for all to see, even those who are honestly seeking and Spirit-led.

Proper interpretation, like life, is not as simple as we would like to make it.

 

[thekawasakikid]

Absolutely..we can't expect all translation to be 100%

I would still suggest that YOU get a clue and read a little more prior to doing anymore posting.

I still argue a lack of contradiction inthe bible....literal or not.

One conradiction means that you can't trust any portions of the bible.

Correct: one contradiction would render the integrity of the Bible flawed - which is why I was amazed that you would suggest it was a typo... unless you were using sarcasm, in which case I apologise for misinterpreting your point. An awareness of it is pretty rare in Americans, hence the reason I wasn't expecting it

Your encourage me to 'get a clue' and further enforce the major point of my post... which I did notice you have blatantly ignored. I have furthermore noticed that you tend to ignore a lot of points or questions in favour of taking cheap shots at others.

Seems to me this is detrimental to your cause as all you achieve is a perception that you stick your head in the sand and ignore others' opinions and ideas

 

[Ark Guy]

Nice rant thekawasakikid, meaningless, but a try.