So called Bible 'contradictions'
From:  StevenJn316   6/27/2001 1:29 pm  
To:  ALL   (1 of 4)  
 
  90.1  
 
I feel it valuable to remind us the Bible is a book and thus communicates to us via language 'styles' and usages we are all used to seeing in the 'real world'. Yet, critics of the Bible see these as contradictions. The Bible does not contradict itself in any matter of historical fact or theological teaching. Considering the Bible is 66 books written by about 40 different men over 1000+ years, this is quite a claim. Let me give in the next few posts of this thread some examples of 'real world' communication and how this relates to the Bible's understanding. 
EXAMPLE 1: "After wrapping the present I realized I did not have one single bow in the house to place atop it. I then took my violin and bow and began my daily practice but was so pathetic I broke my bow in frustration. Finally I left the house for the archery range with my bow and arrows for a little relaxation." 

If this was a Bible passage, the critic could claim all sorts of problems. First I do not have a bow, then I have one but break it, then I take an unbroken one out of the house. 

SIMPLE EXPLANATION: The same word, bow, has different meanings depending on its usage and context, yet there is no confusion since these meanings are obvious from the context. 

BIBLE LESSON: Many words in the Bible are used in different ways. Words like 'confusion' 'repent' 'righteousness' and the like, even 'god' has different meanings based on context. Sometimes the original Greek or Hebrew will have different words which our English uses only one word. So a little Greek background can help. Some examples of this are our English words hell, sword and love. 

Some of the so-called contradictions are simply the same English word being used in different ways. 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   6/27/2001 1:47 pm  
To:  ALL   (2 of 4)  
 
  90.2 in reply to 90.1  
 
EXAMPLE TWO: I exclaim that I am out of coffee. Then a week later I am drinking coffee. 
Believe it or not the Bible critic points to this sort of thing as a contradiction. 

Obviously the answer is I bought more coffee, even though I never wrote that I did. There was a week of time in between the events, more than enough for me to go to the store. Pretty simple. 

EXAMPLE THREE: At dinner a family of four had hot dogs, chips, apples, cake, milk and ice tea. Then each member is asked the next day what they had for dinner. So the Mom lists everything above, the Dad leaves out the milk (since he had tea), and one kid skips the apples, while the other only mentions milk and cake!!! 

Now, in no way are these accounts (testimonies) either contradictory or false. Each person focuses on what interested them. Much like if we took a car ride together, seeing the same things, but in recording them we would list different items in some cases. 

Yet, this again is a classic Bible criticism, especially among the four gospels. So if one account says two men came to Jesus and the other says one man came to him, the simple answer is two were there, but in the latter case only the one was being dealt with by the author. Just like the one child not mentioning the apples, does not mean they were not served with the dinner as the Mom said. 

By the way, in police circles when interviewing two suspects they will often do so in different rooms. If their accounts are contradictory is one thing, but if they are IDENTICAL it also is suspicious since it seems they must have rehearsed their stories and they are not telling the natural truth. 

So I think the critics would have a lot more ammunition if the four gospels were identical in the details rather than containing such variety. The variety is argument FOR independence of the writers as firsthand eyewitnesses, while the material being easily reconciled is argument for God being the inspiration. 

Something like the resurrection accounts are easily reconcilable if one takes the time to think on the details.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   6/27/2001 1:57 pm  
To:  ALL   (3 of 4)  
 
  90.3 in reply to 90.1  
 
EXAMPLE FOUR: Imagine I proclaim my belief the Yankees will win the World Series. The next day I come home and tell my wife that a guy I was speaking with at work thinks the Red Sox will. 
Believe it or not some see this sort of thing as a contradiction in the Bible. 

In reality I am simply ACCURATELY stating the view or belief on another, though I do not share that view. 

So in the Bible when someone calls Jesus a blasphemer, that is an accurate account of that person's words against Jesus. It is not saying that the Bible teaches Jesus is a blasphemer. Likewise, the Bible accurately tells of David's adultery, Peter's denial of Christ, Abraham's lies, Noah's drunkenness - though all these acts are sin in the eyes of God. The recording of them does not imply God's approval of the act, and if one reads these accounts you will find they each suffered severe consequences because of their disobedience to God. 

Again, this is a powerful argument that God (and not some Jewish rabbis) inspired the text of Scripture - the fact that the heroes of the faith have their flaws recorded for us, without seeking to excuse them either. Put another way, if you ever read a book by a loyal supporter of a man like President Nixon or Clinton, tell me how hard they are on them. NO, they either ignore the flaws or seek to excuse them, minimize them, blame others and the like. THAT is human nature in writing, but it is not how God works. 

And it sure is not a contradiction.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  StevenJn316   6/27/2001 2:09 pm  
To:  ALL   (4 of 4)  
 
  90.4 in reply to 90.1  
 
Finally, let us look at the 'interpretation' argument. So often when seeking to explain a so-called contradiction, the comeback of the critic is that is only my interpretation. 
However, if an interpretation can be offered which is plausible and likely from the straightforward words of the text, then the critic has certainly not PROVED a contradiction. As the examples above show, these types of 'contradictions' are easily explained, and to then fall back on 'interpretation' in a desperate attempt to believe in the 'contradiction' is foolhardy. 

EXAMPLE: Imagine I read that Arafat says the violence will not stop until Jerusalem is the capital of a Palestinian state. Then Sharon says Jerusalem will never be turned over. I then conclude that there will not be peace for quite some time, at least until one of these men is no longer in charge or they drastically change their views. 

But someone thinks peace will arrive there by next Tuesday - their interpretation. So let us have a discussion on the subject. Now you can argue against my 'interpretation' but it is the most obvious one, especially assuming the words were truly spoken by these men. If you think they did not speak these words, then back it up as to why. If they did speak, then how can you interpret them differently?? Explain and lets discuss. 

The bottom line is God wrote (inspired) what He wanted to say - in very plain, straightforward language. As any work of literature, such literary devices as metaphors, similes etc. are sometimes employed. You will not however find a contradiction of fact or theology. The New Testament explains which parts of the Old are done away in Christ (why we do not offer animal sacrifices etc.) so those too are not contradictions. If one reads the Bible like any other book...you will be on the right track. 

If you then have a contradiction of fact or theology, I would love to discuss it with you.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
