|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 10, 2015 1:30 am
 |
|
|
 |
40+ Alleged Bible Contradictions
Quote: The law of contradiction means that two antithetical propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. X cannot be non-X. A thing cannot be and not be simultaneously. And nothing that is true can be self-contradictory or inconsistent with any other truth.
I will attempt to answer some alleged contradictions or find someones answers.
Quote: It is wrong to lend money with interest. Lev.25:36, 37; Ex.22:25; Deut.23:19, 20; Ezek.22:12; Neh.5:7,10 It is wrong to lend money without interest. Mt.25:27; Lk.19:23-27
Both Luke and Matthew are talking about the same thing - rewards to faithful servants when the King/Master Returns. The parable is not teaching us about money but has a deeper meaning.
Luke 19:11-27
The Parable of the Ten Minas
While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’
“But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’
“He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
“The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’
“‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’
“The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’
“His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’
“Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’
“His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’
“Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’
“‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’
“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”
In this parable, Jesus teaches several things about the Millennial Kingdom and the time leading up to it. As Luke 19:11 indicates, Jesus’ most basic point is that the kingdom was not going to appear immediately. There would be a period of time, during which the king would be absent, before the kingdom would be set up.
The nobleman in the parable is Jesus, who left this world but who will return as King some day. The servants the king charges with a task represent followers of Jesus. The Lord has given us a valuable commission, and we must be faithful to serve Him until He returns. Upon His return, Jesus will ascertain the faithfulness of His own people (see Romans 14:10–12). There is work to be done (John 9:4), and we must use what God has given us for His glory. There are promised rewards for those who are faithful in their charge.
Source |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2015 1:35 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2015 1:39 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2015 1:45 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2015 2:23 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: The circumcision covenant was forever. Gen.17:10-13 The circumcision covenant was of no importance. Gal.6:15
Galatians 6:11-18
Conclusion
Final Appeal. 11 See with what large letters I am writing to you in my own hand! 12 It is those who want to make a good appearance in the flesh who are trying to compel you to have yourselves circumcised, only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 Not even those having themselves circumcised observe the law themselves; they only want you to be circumcised so that they may boast of your flesh. 14 But may I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither does circumcision mean anything, nor does uncircumcision, but only a new creation. 16 Peace and mercy be to all who follow this rule and to the Israel of God.
17 From now on, let no one make troubles for me; for I bear the marks of Jesus on my body.
18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.
Note that Paul did not say that circumcision was of no importance before Jesus Christ.
If circumcision has the same value now in Christ, then some are more valued in Christ than others because of what they do to their body.
Galatians 5:1-12
The Importance of Faith. 1 For freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery.
2 It is I, Paul, who am telling you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 Once again I declare to every man who has himself circumcised that he is bound to observe the entire law. 4 You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we await the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
Be Not Misled. 7 You were running well; who hindered you from following [the] truth? 8 That enticement does not come from the one who called you. 9 A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough. 10 I am confident of you in the Lord that you will not take a different view, and that the one who is troubling you will bear the condemnation, whoever he may be. 11 As for me, brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case, the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished. 12 Would that those who are upsetting you might also castrate themselves!
What the text is not saying - is that circumcision never had a place, or never was of any lasting importance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2015 2:43 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2015 2:51 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: Lot committed incest with his two daughters. Gen.19:30-38 Incest is forbidden. Lev 18:8-18 Lot was a righteous man. 2 Pet.2:7,8
The objection is not telling the whole story. Lot was tricked by his daughters.
He was not aware of it.
Genesis 19:30-35
Since Lot was afraid to stay in Zoar, he and his two daughters went up from Zoar and settled in the hill country, where he lived with his two daughters in a cave. The firstborn said to the younger: “Our father is getting old, and there is not a man in the land to have intercourse with us as is the custom everywhere. Come, let us ply our father with wine and then lie with him, that we may ensure posterity by our father.” So that night they plied their father with wine, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; but he was not aware of her lying down or getting up. The next day the firstborn said to the younger: “Last night I lay with my father. Let us ply him with wine again tonight, and then you go in and lie with him, that we may ensure posterity by our father.” So that night, too, they plied their father with wine, and then the younger one went in and lay with him; but he was not aware of her lying down or getting up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2015 3:33 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: Noah was righteous. Gen.7:1 Job was righteous. Job 1:1,8; Job 2:3 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous. Lk.1:5,6 Some men are righteous. Jms.5:16; 1 Jn.3:7 Lot was righteous. 2 Pet.2:7,8 No one is righteous. Rom.3:10,23; 1 Jn.1:8-10
Romans 3:9-18
Universal Bondage to Sin. 9 Well, then, are we better off? Not entirely, for we have already brought the charge against Jews and Greeks alike that they are all under the domination of sin, 10 as it is written:
“There is no one just, not one,
11 there is no one who understands,
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have gone astray; all alike are worthless;
there is not one who does good,
[there is not] even one.
13 Their throats are open graves;
they deceive with their tongues;
the venom of asps is on their lips;
14 their mouths are full of bitter cursing.
15 Their feet are quick to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery are in their ways,
17 and the way of peace they know not.
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
There is no contradiction because all of these were righteous by faith.
Luke 1.5-6
The birth of John the Baptist foretold
5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.
Though we are told to be godly, godliness without faith is an abomination.
2 Timothy 3:5
having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
Doing what you are commanded without believing in God, and His promises is pointless and will not give you righteousness.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
A common trait of all of these people (I believe) is that they had faith. The same faith that saves you and me. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2015 5:11 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: Ahimalech was the high priest when David ate the shewbread. 1 Sam.21:1-6 Abiathar was the high priest when David ate the shewbread. Mk.2:26
First of all it is important to notice that Mark does not say that David went to Abiathar the high priest, it says he went to the house of God "in the days of Abiathar the high priest."
So, now the question becomes, why does it say "the days of Abiathar the high priest" when clearly Ahimelech was the priest at that time (1 Sam. 21:1)?
After a careful reading of the account of David and his men eating the shewbread in 1 Samuel 21 - 22, we simply find that there were multiple priests. In fact there were at least 86 priests in the days of "Abiathar the high priest" (1 Sam. 22:18.)! Once Saul learned that Ahimelech helped David, he commanded Doeg to kill Ahimelech and his entire family (1 Sam. 22:18-19), leaving alive only one of his sons, Abiathar the priest (1 Sam. 22:19, 23:9), who managed to escape.
So, now that we see there were multiple priests during that time, the question then becomes, "Why does Mark refer to Abiathar as the high priest? Wouldn't Ahimelech have been the high priest at that time?" Not necessarily. Notice in Leviticus 21:10 how the high priest is defined as the one who has the annointing oil poured on his head and "is consecrated to put on the garments." Now look carefully at the wording of 1 Sam 22:18:
"And the king said to Doeg, Turn thou, and fall upon the priests. And Doeg the Edomite turned, and he fell upon the priests, and slew on that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod."
If that isn't enough evidence, notice how there are multiple high priests even at the time of Jesus Christ in Luke 3:2:
"Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests..."
After carefully studying the account in 1 Samuel, we see that Mark is perfectly correct in saying that David went to the house of God "in the days of Abiathar the high priest." This is not a contradiction.
Source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2015 5:27 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: The law was given directly to Moses. Deut.10:1-5 The law was given through angels. Gal.3:19
Deuteronomy 10:1-5
Tablets like the first ones
10 At that time the Lord said to me, ‘Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones and come up to me on the mountain. Also make a wooden ark. 2 I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. Then you are to put them in the ark.’
3 So I made the ark out of acacia wood and chiselled out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I went up on the mountain with the two tablets in my hands. 4 The Lord wrote on these tablets what he had written before, the Ten Commandments he had proclaimed to you on the mountain, out of the fire, on the day of the assembly. And the Lord gave them to me. 5 Then I came back down the mountain and put the tablets in the ark I had made, as the Lord commanded me, and they are there now.
Galatians 3:19
Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator.
It does not say 'directly' in the text as the critique claims. If God speaks through someone, it is still God speaking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2015 5:38 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. Gen.16:15; Gen.21:1,3,9; Gal.4:22 Abraham had several other sons. Gen.25:1,2 Abraham had only one son. Heb.11:17
Genesis 22:2; Hebrews 11:17 and Galatians 4:22
One son
(Genesis 22:2)--"And He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."
(Hebrews 11:17)--"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son."
Two sons
(Galatians 4:22)--"For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman."
The answer to this apparent contradiction is found in understanding the typological representation of Isaac, Abraham's second born son, as a type of Christ. Abraham had Ishmael by the handmaiden Hagar. But Isaac was the child of promise, not Ishmael: "But God said to Abraham, "Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named,'" (Gen. 21:12).
If you look at the chart below, you will see the similarities between Isaac and Jesus. In other words, Isaac was a prophetic representation of Jesus. This is why Jesus said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad," (John 8:56). Abraham had, in a very real sense, seen the gospel presentation in the offering of his son, his "only begotten." So, we see here that the term "only begotten" is in reference to the unique son of God and Isaac was acting out the sacrifice of Christ, prophetically.
Also, Abraham had six other sons besides Ishmael and Isaac through his wife Keturah whom he married after Sarah died. "Now Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. 2And she bore to him Zimran and Jokshan and Medan and Midian and Ishbak and Shuah," (Gen. 25:1-2). Obviously, this was known by the writers of Genesis as well as Hebrews and Galatians.
Source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2015 5:45 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the Hittite. Gen.50:13 Jacob was buried in a sepulchre at Sychem bought from the sons of Hamor. Acts 7:15,16
Excerpt:
On occasion, when the English text seems unclear or appears to contradict itself, it often is beneficial to be able to examine the original language in which the passage was written. This is one such instance. One of the leading biblical scholars (some have suggested he was the leading biblical scholar) of his day was J.W. McGarvey, whose knowledge of both the languages and the customs of the biblical lands was without peer. His 1881 volume, Lands of the Bible, was considered a classic, even in its day, and remains so today. In his commentary on the New Testament book of Acts, McGarvey provided an excursion into the Greek text that helps immensely in explaining the “contradiction” posed by Stephen’s statement.
As the two clauses stand in our version, “he died, himself, and our fathers; and they were carried over into Shecham,” there can be no doubt that “himself ” and “fathers” are common subjects of one verb “died,” and that the pronoun “they” before “were carried” refers to both alike. But it is not so in the original. The construction is different. The verb rendered died is in the singular number, eteleutasen, and it agrees only with autos, himself. The plural substantive “fathers” is not the subject of that verb, but of the plural eteleutasan understood. The construction having been changed with the introduction of the plural subject, it follows that the plural verb metetéthasan, “were carried,” belongs to fathers, and not to Jacob. The two clauses, properly punctuated, and with the ellipsis supplied, read thus: “and he died; and our fathers died, and were carried over into Shechem.” With this rendering and punctuation, which are certainly admissible, the contradiction totally disappears; and if the passage had been thus rendered at first into English, a contradiction would not have been thought of (1892, p. 121, emp. added, italics in orig.).
McGarvey’s point was this. If Jacob was buried at Machpelah in Hebron (and of that there is no doubt, since Genesis 49:29-30 so states), then Stephen must have been saying that it was the fathers alone who were buried in Shechem, not Jacob. This is quite possible. We know that at least one of the fathers—Joseph—was buried in Shechem (Joshua 24:32). And while the Old Testament does not record the burial places for many of the other patriarchs, we can glean some information from secular history on the subject. In his discussion on Acts 7, the well-known commentator Albert Barnes mentioned that some Jewish historians (e.g., Kuinoel) held to the view that the fathers were buried at Shechem (1949, p. 124). In addition, Jerome, a fourth-century writer from Palestine, stated: “The twelve patriarchs were buried not in Arbes [Hebron—AB/KB], but in Shechem” (as quoted in Barnes, p. 124).
[The idea that the patriarchs were buried in Shechem, however, was neither popular nor representative of the common Jewish thought of the day. In fact, Josephus and other Jewish historians suggested that the fathers were buried at Hebron. And there is a very good reason why they would say such a thing. The Samaritans—the Jews’ bitterest rivals—had seized Shechem. The proud Jews, therefore, would have done anything—perhaps even going so far as to falsify history—to keep from having to admit that their ancestors were buried in their enemy’s land. This actually lends credibility to Stephen’s statement. Given the choice of two answers, one popular but untrue, the other true but unpopular, Stephen doubtlessly would have chosen the latter.]
But what may be said regarding the second mistake that Stephen is supposed to have made—that Abraham bought the tomb in Shechem, whereas the Old Testament states that it was Jacob who did the buying? The possibility exists that this is a case which falls into the second category mentioned above—i.e., that Stephen’s statements themselves were accurate, but subsequently were recorded or copied incorrectly. Various scholars (Adam Clarke, J.W. McGarvey, Albert Barnes, et al.) have presented a good case for the idea that the mistake should not be attributed to Stephen, but rather to a copyist’s error.
However, there are other possibilities that are equally plausible. McGarvey correctly observed: “Two statements are contradictory not when they differ, but when they cannot both be true” (1886, 2:31). Here we have just such an instance. These two accounts do not conflict; rather, they only differ. Consider all the facts as we know them: (1) Abraham bought a field and a cave in Hebron (Genesis 23:17); (2) Abraham bought a sepulcher in Shechem (Acts 7:16); (3) Later, Jacob bought a parcel of ground or a field (Joshua 24:32) also in Shechem (Genesis 33:19). It could be that Jacob merely bought the land whereupon the sepulcher of his grandfather stood. This explanation certainly is feasible.
Yet there is still another prospect. We know that Abraham lived for a time in the land of Shechem, even building an altar there (Genesis 12:5-6). We also know that Jacob went to Shechem and set up his tent there about 185 years later (Genesis 33:18.). Perhaps in the intervening time period, the native people had taken back the land, and, rather than fighting to reclaim what already was his, Jacob simply bought the land back peaceably. Thus, the land would have been purchased twice—first by Abraham, and then, almost two centuries later, by Jacob. This, too, appears to be a logical reconciliation of the facts.
More |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2015 6:08 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: God approves the making of vows. Num.30:1,2 Jesus forbids the making of vows. Mt.5:33-37 God and Jesus "are one". Jn.10:30
Numbers 30:1-2
30 Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: ‘This is what the Lord commands: 2 when a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.
God is saying that if you make a wow you can't break it, but must keep it. What He is not saying is that you should make wows.
Matthew 5:33-37
Oaths
33 ‘Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, “Do not break your oath, but fulfil to the Lord the oaths you have made.” 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply “Yes,” or “No”; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Jesus is saying you should say yes or no instead of making a wow. It is not a contradictory statement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2015 6:17 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 10, 2015 6:29 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: A man can divorce his wife for any reason and both can remarry. Deut.24:1,2 Divorce is wrong and remarriage is adultery. Mk.10:11,12
Excerpt:
...I don't believe that God would violate His word. I also don't believe that this is a contradiction. When faced with a difficult verse, the first thing to do is take those verses in context of the rest of the passage. In Deuteronomy 22, Moses instructs people not to divorce for false charges (vs. 19), and not to divorce her if he has taken her virginity (vs. 28.). So, then Moses says when divorce DOES happen("and it happens" vs. 1)... don't retake her for your wife again. You see, the emphasis is always on the negative. Just as God allowed polygamy or slavery, it did not mean He approved of it. Jesus states the same when He said "Because of the hardness of your heart Moses PERMITTED you to divorce your wives.." By the way, don't let that correction go unnoticed. The Pharisees claimed that Moses commanded them to divorce, but Jesus said he only permitted it. The Pharisees knew that, too, for in Malachi 2:14-16 God states "The Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously... 'For I hate divorce' says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'and him who covers his garment is wrong.' "
God knew Israel wasn't capable of rising above certain social ills of their day. Slavery was deeply entrenched in the economic system of the time, and to try and remove it would have caused more havoc and problems than would have been solved. There were no bankruptcy laws then. So God gave specific commandments to make sure that relationship wasn't permanent nor life threatening. God doesn't endorse the institution, but allowed it for a time, until a better way was found. I can also see where God doesn't endorse the idea of pure capitalism(1 Tim 6:5, Matt 19:23,etc), but He doesn't ask us to scrap that system for currently there exists none better.
So, you can see that the commandment didn't change, but rather was strengthened by Jesus' words. To be accurate, in Deuteronomy God said "don't divorce for these reasons, and if you do, and she marries another, don't make claim on her as you wife again." The certificate was a protection for the woman so that she couldn't be charged with adultery, which was a capital offense! What Jesus stated does not contradict any of the above, it just goes one step farther. It's much like the sermon on the Mount ("You've heard it has been said... but I say unto you" etc.)
Source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
