 | Blogs > Noah235 > PLOUGHMAN'S LUNCH > DOES THE BIBLE CONTRADICT ITSELF? |
|
||||
|
No, of course not! It's the inspired Word of God from cover to cover; how can it contradict itself? If anybody thinks they know about a contradiction in the Bible, please post it here. I will attempt to explain why your contradiction is only APPARENT. I'm quite happy to accept questions from believers who are genuinely puzzled by something, and also sceptics who are trying to trip me up! The only "rules" of this post are: 1. Only ONE example per blogger please. {If you post more than one I will only answer your first}. 2. Make sure you quote the Bible references that you think constitute a contradiction - and if the text doesn't make it crystal clear then please explain why you think there is a contradiction. PLEASE DON'T QUOTE LONG LISTS OF SCRIPTURES - 2 OR 3 AT MOST TO MAKE YOUR POINT PLEASE. 3. If any blogger knows the answer to any question before I have answered it, please feel free to answer it yourself. {You might just preserve my sanity by doing that!} 4. Please don't ask me about predestination and free will - I will be doing a specific post about this topic shortly. OK - let me have it!  Peter  "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth" 2 Timothy 2 v 15 |
|||
8/24/2008 1:04 pm |
Peter... your intentions are exemplary... but don't you think you are sounding a little dictatorial lately with all those restrictions you're putting up lately... mmmmm! I mean, com'on... don't scare people that would like to post in your blog... and after all you can still keep away the "irritating bugs" ... Just a thought... In His Holy name! BB _____________ 
| |||
 8/24/2008 2:31 pm |
I believe there are no contradictions - scripture weighed against scripture, and a careful review from Genesis to Revelation shows us the answers and patterns to anything that may seem at odds. And those things that are 'fuzzy' in terms of nailing them down doctrinally are part of the great mystery that is our Faith. God is allowed paradox and to keep some things 'hidden' from our earthly minds. I love it that there will be things we'll never fully know and understand until we are with Him in our renewed state. Keeps me humble. Susan aka Red God gives the very best to those who leave the choices to Him. Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine...to Him be the glory. Eph 3:20 Find me at my screen name, blogspot and the usual ending. See ya there! Where I For Everything There is a Season Halloween Pics from Work
| |||
8/24/2008 4:00 pm |
Good job my man. I have full confidence in your knowledge of The Word to handle this any question and/or allegation that may come your way. All the more reason to read and STUDY the Bible! I think a similar thread about having any general issues with the Bible would be good too. Maybe next week! lol. God bless you abundantly.
| |||
8/24/2008 6:59 pm |
There are no contradictions in the Bible, the contradictions only exist in the minds of men. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 1 Cor. 2: 7
| |||
8/24/2008 7:17 pm |
ACTS 9 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.ACTS 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
| |||
8/25/2008 6:13 am |
Hi Peter, I`m interested in ya post on predestination and freewill coz that`s the only one i know of that really does confuse me.I`ll keep comin back here though to see what comes up coz it`ll help with my thirst for knowledge. Peace be with you, Wendy   Show me the way Sweet JESUS.Lead and i Will follow. 
| |||
8/25/2008 10:09 am |
I have copied by hand the entire text in Greek word by word, and I will check later on if any of the words might have some extra meaning... Though at first it doesn't seem so! Moreover the verb HEAR is the same. But the verb SEE is different. In short though, it's just the original phrase construction itself that gives different translations. In 22: 9 Paul says that those that were with him saw the light, but didn't hear the voice of who was speaking. Therefore in ch. 9 the meaning seems to be "they didn't understand" because they JUST HEARD the voice (9: 7), but NOT WHAT the voice said - i.e. the words. 9: 7 actually reads that they didn't see ANYONE/hearing but seeing none. In 22: 9 at least they saw SOMETHING, the light. They saw the light, but they didn't see whom/the figure that spoke.
| |||
8/25/2008 11:24 am |
I have copied by hand the entire text in Greek word by word, and I will check later on if any of the words might have some extra meaning... Though at first it doesn't seem so! Moreover the verb HEAR is the same. But the verb SEE is different. In short though, it's just the original phrase construction itself that gives different translations. In 22: 9 Paul says that those that were with him saw the light, but didn't hear the voice of who was speaking. Therefore in ch. 9 the meaning seems to be "they didn't understand" because they JUST HEARD the voice (9: 7), but NOT WHAT the voice said - i.e. the words. 9: 7 actually reads that they didn't see ANYONE/hearing but seeing none. In 22: 9 at least they saw SOMETHING, the light. They saw the light, but they didn't see whom/the figure that spoke. Blessings. Peter "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth" 2 Timothy 2 v 15
| |||
8/25/2008 4:09 pm |
Peter, possibly it's the inflection and the mood of the verb that makes it look as a different word. They also add and change letters in the beginning too. But for "hear" the root is the same "AKOÚEIN" (listen/hear), from which we get the word "acoustic" . We could go through the entire verse. But right now it's late though and I don't feel to strain my eyes. I'll give you though the transliteration of both words: "A" in 9v7 is AKOÚONTES, and "B" in 22v9 is ÉKOUSAN. Can you check your Greek words? Are they the same? I don't know what box you mean... a program? I have a Mac so I don't have problems with any language's character and I can switch the keyboard. (I don't know in Windows, but in case you would have to search in your "character palette"; or, you could even find a 3-4 digit number to obtain certain letters too. Wait.. I'll try to paste them here: "A" άκούοντες and "B" ήκουσαν Could copy & paste work for you? However, "A" is a plural participle, functioning as a name/adjective as the gerund "hearing", while "B" is a 3rd person plural aorist (unqualified past tense without reference to duration or completion of the action), "they heard". Let me know... Peace, BB
| |||
 8/26/2008 6:21 pm |
Hi Peter, I am not saying this is a contradiction, as I believe in the canon of sacred scripture, but this is something that could be doing with an explanation: Lot was a righteous man yet got his daughters pregnant. Being drunk would not be an excuse these days. 2 Peter 2:8 JUST Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that RIGHTEOUS mna dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds  Genesis 19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child BY THEIR FATHER'. So it seems that God in the New Testament is citing Lot as an example of a righteous man, yet Lot not only impregnated his daughters (by them getting him drunk and initiating it) was going to allow the Sodomites to use his young, virgin daughters, as he offered them, 'Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof (Genesis 19:  .In our culture, this is very hard to understand but perhaps in a male-dominated culture, it's more understandable that the girls had not a lot of worth to Lot. Also they instigated the incest. Perhaps it was not taboo then either in the early bible days when people were less genetically flawed, which is the biological reason incest is wrong, as it reproduces a double amount of flaws. Interesting stuff! June
| |||
8/26/2008 6:29 pm |
Sorry about those smilies, it looks like I am laughing about the Sodomites unlawful deeds, I don't know how to counteract that.
| |||
8/27/2008 4:24 am |
Hi Peter, I am not saying this is a contradiction, as I believe in the canon of sacred scripture, but this is something that could be doing with an explanation: Lot was a righteous man yet got his daughters pregnant. Being drunk would not be an excuse these days. 2 Peter 2:8 JUST Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that RIGHTEOUS mna dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds Genesis 19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child BY THEIR FATHER'. So it seems that God in the New Testament is citing Lot as an example of a righteous man, yet Lot not only impregnated his daughters (by them getting him drunk and initiating it) was going to allow the Sodomites to use his young, virgin daughters, as he offered them, 'Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof (Genesis 19: .In our culture, this is very hard to understand but perhaps in a male-dominated culture, it's more understandable that the girls had not a lot of worth to Lot. Also they instigated the incest. Perhaps it was not taboo then either in the early bible days when people were less genetically flawed, which is the biological reason incest is wrong, as it reproduces a double amount of flaws. Interesting stuff! June I must confess that the thing that has always puzzled me about this story is that, given that Lot was so drunk he did not even realise what was happening, how exactly did he manage to do what was expected of him?   {like the smilies?}But leaving that aside, it is an interesting question. First of all I endorse your point about the taboo - incest was not outlawed until Moses' time and the biological angle on that is exactly as you say. Lot certainly behaves in an inexcusable way here. He is undoubtedly to blame for the offering of his daughters and the getting drunk, and you also could say that he failed to bring up his daughters properly in view of the fact that they instigated this incestuous plan. But I think the real problem was that he 'pitched his tents near Sodom' {Gen 13v12} in the first place. By chapter 19 we find him living in a house presumably inside Sodom itself. So maybe there is a lesson there for all of us - if you live near to sin you will likely end up in it. But as Abraham's nephew Lot would have the same morals as Abraham, so it is understandable that he was 'tormented in his righteous soul' by what he saw. Maybe the reason he stayed was economic, and there is another lesson - we cannot serve God AND money and to attempt to compromise between the two will be disastrous. Presumably his daughters would also have been affected by the atmosphere of immorality they were living in, and that could be another reason why they had no qualms about doing what they did with their father later. I don't think I want to use 'male dominated culture' as an excuse for Lot's offering of his daughters. The thought did occur to me that maybe he realised that, as homosexuals, they would not be interested in his daughters, and the offer was made as a stalling device. But there again that doesn't sound too likely. Well I don't know that I have fully answered your question, June, but I hope I have given you some ideas which may make it a bit clearer. A final thought - I often wonder what the Moabites and Ammonites thought about their origins being described as they are here! That may explain why they were often hostile to Israel! Thanks for asking the question. It certainly had me thinking. Blessings Peter "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth" 2 Timothy 2 v 15
| |||
8/27/2008 10:59 am |
Sorry about those smilies, it looks like I am laughing about the Sodomites unlawful deeds, I don't know how to counteract that. Did you forget all about how to avoid the smilies ?? LOL! I have something to add shortly on the subject. It's obvious that homosexuality on the spiritual plan is a severe sin. Since God created man and woman, and also according to the Jewish thinking, the union between male & female provided a completeness and fullness of God's image. You can find some more about this on this old blog: Is 1/3 of the Trinity Feminine..? say it ain't so!!! Connecting this to the offering of the daughters, could then be understood as "a milder sin" than the other abomination. (As If it was said "if you really must please do this but not the other!) I haven't looked at the verses now, it's just something I got of it long ago. Btw, talking of "sin", it had of course an evil root in Israel's history through the entire OT. Lots of sins that the Lord didn't and couldn't like - bad in His eyes. The "sin background" makes also Jesus figure more significant, since he came to settle with it once and for all. Since at the moment I'm into a new subject, I was refreshing Jesus' ancestry in Matthew 1. Rather interestingly, in his book of generation, one can find sinful OT's women purposely mentioned. Moreover two of them were heathen. Ruth was of Moabite descent, a folk forbidden after the law to even enter the House of the Lord up to ten generations. The genealogy back to David was in reality nothing to be proud of as Israel actually did. This gives a "better picture" of why Israel need a savior, and in addition emphasizes indirectly how the sin-free Son of God had to be born "in the likeness of sinful flesh", humiliate himself and make himself of no reputation... And hence the Jew's history had to be broken up somehow, and the Messiah create something new. Jesus first message to the people was that The Kingdom of God had come near. Though, it's clear, on a higher plan than an earthly Kingdom: His Kingdom is not of this world. 
| |||
8/27/2008 11:08 am |
Peter... I'm still going through some of the other words... little slowly though because as I said I'm involved in another subject) Therefore I'll conclude as soon as I can... (and then we have done the whole homework of sensory...) 
| |||
8/29/2008 4:38 am |
Peter that was a wonderful explanation of something that has bothered me for a long time...I see your point clearly, that if Lot was only partially drunk and therefore aware of what was happening, then he was actively partaking of sin; on the other hand, if he was totally drunk it would have rendered him impotent so how could this have been achieved? were his daughters so devious and so invovled in the morality of the sodomites that they'd learned special skills about the level of inebrity that is just right for seduction to take place? Also, they obviously had no skewers in those days or could have achieved what they wanted without the actual immoral acts taking place...(my litte joke on a serious matter!). I see what you mean about the influence of living so near sinful places, yet we are in the world and not of the world...the genealogy of Lot was also a good point that his training would have been in righteousness thus he could have been grieved at homosexuality but as the moral laws of Israel hadn't been established and the biological laws not studied, incest was not so taboo as now...I guess Lot was only a few generations away from Adam whose children must have produced children, though I am not too sure of that. Thank you for all the good points...I can see what you mean about Lot feeling the homosexuals may have spared his daughters rather than have the angels...he was treating the heavenly beings as more sacred than his daughters; I wonder did his daughters then feel so undervalued that they no longer cared what he did to them? I guess he was not incestuous as he did not plan it nor willingly partake of it, though as you say, his level of being, 'blotto' would have made things difficult. Bless you June
| |||
8/29/2008 4:53 am |
Hi BB, sorry I did forget, had a senior moment, lol, I'll try to remember in future, been so busy lately that I can't settle to write as much. I like your points too that Jesus genealogy is full of sinful people. He Himself was uniquely without sin and immaculately conceived; God is so merciful and understanding, when David committed adultery and also contract killing of Bathsheba's wife, Uriah, the first baby died, but God wiped out the past and allowed David who seemed to have about seven wives already (so not so understandable he needed someone else's one as well), to marry Bathsheba and to go on to produce Solomon...the wonderful thing that shows God's infinite mercy and compassion is that after the loss of their first baby, 'David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him. 25 And he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah, because of the LORD'. I just looked this up: 'The name Jedidiah means Beloved Of Yah', so God condescends to us and uses us in spite of our forsaken and confessed sins. ...and Solomon is directly in the line of Christ...{2 Samuel 12:24} I will go and look at that reference you made to the Trinity, sounds fascinating...thanks BB
| |||
9/4/2008 10:52 am |
Peter... I'm still going through some of the other words... little slowly though because as I said I'm involved in another subject) Therefore I'll conclude as soon as I can... (and then we have done the whole homework of sensory...) The words/verbs and their possible translation: Phoné: sound, tune/tone, voice/ voiced sounds Phos: light, glare Medena: no body, none, no one Akuein: hear, listen Lalèo: speak, talk, say (this one used mostly for sounds and pronunciation / speech To see: almost the same, but with few extra nuances than other words used for "seeing" with the eyes: Ch. 9: Theoréo: not only with the eyes, also with the mind - also like a spectator, onlooker - having sight, insight, also spiritually. Looking well at (gives our THEORY). Ch. 22: Theaomai: Look at, gaze at, view, contemplate - not like a curious spectator, but observing, scrutinizing (gives our THEATRE). Therefore out of the Greek text sequence I get the following: (I use the slash "/" to separate variations) Ch. 9: But the men (with-)traveling with him, had stood astonished/speechless/dumbfounded of (out of) the "phonés"/sound indeed hearing, but / (however/though) having the insight/experiencing/(envisioning) of no one. Ch. 22: But those being with me - quite certainly/certainly undoubtably/ well indeed - had to see/ had to notice/ did observe/had a view of/ gazed at/ contemplated - the light (1. since they were with him), (2. or since they got scared) [and got scared], but the "phoné" they didn't get to hear talking to me/ they didn't hear its saying/its speaking/ to me. (Therefore: what speech/what words were specifically said/told to Paul! That's why they couldn't understand.) Indeed quite difficult to translate, because of both the cases and the verbs' inflections (and some of their reciprocal actions) pointing back to other words. Well Peter, I did my best. The meaning is CLEAR now, no? You may try mixing both versions, and/or looking at others than just KJV/NIV. BB
| |||
9/4/2008 2:09 pm |
Thanks for your efforts on that BB. I don't know if sensory is satisfied with your comprehensive analysis of those two verses, but I'm impressed and I've also learned a lot! I'll leave this post open so sensory, who asked the original question, can come back with another comment if he wants. Cheers  Peter "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth" 2 Timothy 2 v 15
| |||
 |
 |
 |
| Become a member to comment on this blog | ||
 |
