Contridictions in the Bible

Discussion in 'Biblical Advices' started by Beloved, Oct 8, 2009.

  1. There are no contradictions in the Bible. Zero, zilch, nada. There are misinterpretations and faulty applications done by those of us who read the Bible. That is obvious in these forums. One cannot take these three instances and cite them as THE final authority on salvation by grace through faith. Each of us, unless excluded as not having reached the age of accountability before death, must accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior. I cannot go into anyone's home, lead someone there, including the "head of the household," to saving faith, and then announce that everyone in the home is saved. A personal confession of faith is required, except for those under the age of accountability.

    Acts 16:31, when Spiritually interpreted and applied, does not contradict any other verse, passage, scripture, or book of the Bible. No other book, scripture, passage, or verse contradicts Acts 16:31.

    (y);)
     
  2. I am glad we see that, any contradiction that looks like a contradiction just means we don't have the light on it and may not get the light until other foundation is build upon. Natural thinking can't understand the Word and makes no sense to natural man.

    Acts 16:31 Explained:
    Acts 16:31............. Paul and Silas had just been given a Jail break supernaturally. The guard who was the Jail keeping and in charge saw the doors busted wide open and was going to take his life because of it. The thing on His mind was his family whom would be taken and sold and himself.

    Failing at the Job back in them days meant more than just a pay cut.

    Paul cried out with a loud voice knowing the guard was going to take his life, and told him to stop, we are all here.

    What is on this guards mind right now?
    His family, and himself.

    The Guard fell down before Paul and Silas (Trembling) seeing the supernatural event, and knowing these two men of God were special and asked...

    What Must I do to be delivered, protected and preserved. (Sozo) Saved................................ The guard did not know anything about Eternal life but just knew these men were kept on the account of this man named Jesus.

    Paul said..................... You believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be protected and delivered but also My Lord will see to it that your family will also be protected.

    So, Paul was not saying his family would just get eternal life, that term was not used, but that the man believe on Jesus to have (Eternal life) but also the Lord would see to it that nothing happened to his family.

    Saved is not always used and in Saved that we know it, but it means both physical and covers spiritual.

    2Th 3:2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.


    So, If I know the Lord, that makes my family clean and safe because of the covenant I have with God. It does not mean that my kids will believe on the Lord Jesus Christ later or even my wife will have eternal life, but as Long As I as the head of the house know the Lord, my family is under that covenant protection and safe that Satan not get a place as the Lord will honor His covenant.

    When My son contracted Terminal Cancer at age 8, I stood and believed with no doubt at all. I know my God, and He fails not.
    Now that my son is 23, I told him that I can't do his believing for him, but that he have to have his own relationship with the Lord.
    So if anything serious comes up in his life, then He has to believe the Lord. I can agree with him, but He is no longer under the covenant I have with God.

    As it's written that a man shall leave his Mother and Father.

    So the scripture is correct in the setting it was used.

    Blessings.
     
  3. I totally disagree...the command to faithe is given to him who asked and then extends to each member of his household (that is, as they likewise faithe)
     
  4. You cannot pick one verse out of context. Here is all of it.
    Acts 16:
    31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.

    Clearly each person in the household had the word of the Lord spoken to them and they each accepted Jesus.

    The only scripture I am aware of to the contrary is 1 Corinthians 7: 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

    Paul does say that he says this, not the Lord. Now there is the question of being sanctified versus saved.
     
  5. 1 Corinthians 7:14 says - "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." But if they leave...They are only sanctified so long as they remain...if they leave they are not covered. John 1:12 makes this clear enough...each must receive Him to become a child of God and ONLY the children of God are saved.

    Sanctified means to be set apart or at that time under God's hand of protection but salvation (from the bondage of Satan and the wrath of God...being gifted eternal life) IMO is different.
     
  6. According to first century Pharisaic Judaism, the city was defiled if a person committed suicide. Judas did that and the Jews took down judas' body from the tree and cast it over the wall in order to purify the city before the Passover.

    Answer: judas hung himself to death.
    Then his corpse was tossed over the wall and his guts blew out.
     
  7. Okay here is one for you...

    Comparing Matt and Luke's genealogies, how could Joseph (Mary's husband), have two different fathers? There are two solutions...have fun...
     
  8. b. The Line of Mary in Luke's Genealogy Luke's genealogy traces the line of Mary and portrays how Jesus could claim the Throne of David. Luke begins his genealogy in the reverse order of Matthew's, going from the present back into the past. The line is traced until it returns to the family of David (vv. 31-32). However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. The important point here is that Mary was a member of the House of David totally apart from Jechoniah. Since Jesus was Mary's son He, too, was a member of the House of David, totally apart from the curse of Jechoniah.

    One Old Testament requirement for kingship was that of being a member of the House of David. In the days of Jeremiah, there was the added requirement that one had to be a member of the House of David apart from Jechoniah. Zedekiah, who reigned after Jechoniah, was not the son of Jechoniah. In the case of Yeshua, through Mary, He was a member of the House of David, totally apart from Jechoniah. In this manner, He fulfilled the first Old Testament requirement for kingship.

    2. Divine Appointment However, Yeshua was not the only member of the House of David apart from Jechoniah. There were a number of other descendants who could claim equality with Yeshua to the Throne of David, for they, too, did not have Jechoniah's blood in their veins. At this point, it is important to note the second Old Testament requirement for kingship: divine appointment. Of all the members of the House of David apart from Jechoniah, only One received divine appointment.

    We read in Luke 1:30-33: And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for you have found favor with God. And behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. On what grounds, then, could Jesus claim the Throne of David? First, He was a member of the House of David apart from Jechoniah; and secondly, He alone received divine appointment to that throne.

    So while Matthew's genealogy showed why Yeshua could not be king if He really were Joseph's son, Luke's genealogy shows why Yeshua could be king. Luke, in contrast to Matthew, does not begin with the account of the Virgin Birth. Only later does he record the genealogy, for he does not need, like Matthew, to get around the Jechoniah problem. The final question is: “On what grounds can it be said that Luke's account is actually Mary's genealogy?” While there is much evidence to support this, it will be necessary to limit it to only three lines of argument.

    First, the Talmud itself refers to Mary as the daughter of Heli. It is obvious, then, that in longstanding Jewish tradition, Mary was recognized to be the daughter of Heli as mentioned in Luke 3:23.

    Secondly, although most versions translate Luke 3:23 as follows: being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli. That same Greek phrase could easily be translated in a different way. While all of the names in Luke's genealogy are preceded with the Greek definite article, the name of Joseph is not. Because of this grammatical point, that same verse could be translated: “being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) the son of Heli.” In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Jesus was supposed or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, He was really the descendant of Heli. The absence of Mary's name is quite in keeping with Jewish practices on genealogies, and it was not unusual for a son-in-law to be listed in his wife's genealogy.

    The third argument is the obvious viewpoint of the two genealogies. Matthew is clearly writing from the viewpoint of Joseph. Mary plays a very passive role in Matthew's account. Matthew records only the angelic annunciation to Joseph concerning the coming birth, and only Matthew records the warning of the angel to Joseph to flee from Bethlehem before Herod's soldiers arrived for the slaughter. In the context of Matthew's Gospel, it is Joseph who is emphasized, and the genealogy gives Joseph's line.

    Luke, however, is obviously writing from the viewpoint of Mary. In Luke, Joseph is the one who plays the passive role. Luke alone records the annunciation of the birth of John the Baptist, whose parents were related to Mary. Luke alone records the angelic annunciation to Mary and ignores the one to Joseph. Luke also is the one who records the innermost thoughts of Mary as she ponders things that are said to her by shepherds and prophets. Even when Yeshua is twelve years old, only Luke records the words of Mary to Yeshua and not those of Joseph. Mary is the active player, while Joseph is the passive player. So from the context alone, it would appear that Luke is giving Mary's lineage, because his whole perspective is focused on Mary.

    In conclusion, then, both from the Talmudic reckoning and from the reckoning of biblical theology, Jesus indeed has the right to sit on David's throne.

    In these genealogies, we are given four specific titles of Yeshua. In Matthew 1:1, He is called the son of David, and the son of Abraham. In Luke 3:38, He is called the son of Adam, and the son of God. These four titles give us the fourfold portrait of the Messianic Person.

    First, by saying Yeshua is the son of David, this means He is a king through Mary.

    Secondly, by calling Jesus the son of Abraham, this means He is a Jew.

    Thirdly, by giving Yeshua the title, the son of Adam, this means that He is a man.

    And fourthly , by giving Him the title, the son of God, this means Jesus is God.

    These genealogies give us the fourfold portrait of the Messianic King; Yeshua is the Jewish God-Man King.

    http://www.ariel.org/mbstoc/mbs025t.pdf
     
  9. Well done bro...I also believe it is Mary's lineage...but have you ever heard the other explanation? That both are Joseph's? Here is how that one works

    In Eusibius, Ecclesiastical History, there is an account of the story as told to Julius Africanus (around 180 - 190 A.D.), allegedly from the relatives of Jesus (through Joseph and Mary), who told him that Joseph’s mother’s first husband was unable to impregnate his wife with a son, and then died, and so his brother (who had a different father), under lawful obligation according to the Torah, took her (Joseph’s mother) as his wife and gave her a son in his deceased brother’s name. Thus both men would be Joseph’s father, one being his biological father (Jacob), and the other his legal father (Heli). This would have been appropriate both for religious and for economic purposes (such as for inheritance). In ancient Judaism, an adopted son was considered fully a son and a legitimate heir. If being the first of sons, the adopted now full son still received the double portion blessing that a biological first son would have normally received.

    Interesting huh?

    Can you give the Talmudic reference (if not its okay) all I could find says (Sanhedrin 106a) "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also Shabbath 104b "Miriam the hairdresser" had sex with many men. They allege Jesus was the biological son of a Roman guard and is presently boiling in hot excrement.

    brother Paul
     
  10. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't inerrancy only mean that the only the original autographs were without error? I'm not one of the people that say the Bible is riddled with errors or anything, but there are inconsistencies in our current Bible. The reason I say inconsistencies instead of contradictions is that anything I've found tends to be small things that really make no difference.

    The biggest example to me is the complete removal of verses from some of the newer translations because they were added in by a scribe. Surely a scribe could have messed up somewhere along the way. For instance, screwing up Ehud's name in every mention of him before his appearing in Judges. Is that a scribe error? Did he go by different names? Or maybe he isn't mentioned at all in any of the genealogies and it's his other brothers or something.

    This is taken from Nave's Topical Bible and it's where I found the thing about Ehud's name.

    Ehud
    1. A descendant of Benjamin
    General references
    1Ch_8:6
    Called Ehi
    Gen_46:21
    Probably identical with:
    ahiram
    Num_26:38
    aharah
    1Ch_8:1
    ahoah
    1Ch_8:4
    ahiah
    1Ch_8:7
    aher
    1Ch_7:12
    2. Son of Bilhan
    1Ch_7:10
    3. A Benjamite, the assassin of Eglon
    Jdg_3:16
     
  11. First of all who told you some passages were added by scribes? You believe them? Why? 1 Chronicles 8:6 says Ehud not Eli (???), also where the same name exists does not mean it is the same person. I'm going to look up each one...I'll get back to you
     
  12. Hmmm? Interesting...have you read these in the LXX and the Masoretic comparatively? I am looking into this...
     

  13. I am terrible at memorization, but all the manuscripts before a certain year didn't contain a few verses. I would assume that was because they we're added at some point. I can't remember if that was actually said.

    Those verses were taken out of their new revision of the NIV bible.
     
  14. Ehud is called Ehi in Genesis.

    Genesis 46:21 NASB
    The sons of Benjamin: Bela and Becher and Ashbel, Gera and Naaman, Ehi and Rosh, Muppim and Huppim and Ard.


    Sorry about that. On E Sword it has words in bold so it's easier to read. I didn't realize that didn't transfer.
     
  15. Yes but because they are removed in the NIV does not mean they were not originally there...and as for Genesis 46 it does not give Gera's sons (of which Ehud was one)

    1 Chron 8

    LXX

    8:1 Now Benjamin bore Bale his first-born, and Asbel his second [son], Aara the third, Noa the fourth,

    8:2 and Rapha the fifth.

    8:3 And the sons of Bale were, Adir, and Gera, and Abiud,

    8:4 and Abessue, and Noama, and Achia,

    8:5 and Gera, and Sephupham, and Uram.

    8:6 These [were] the sons of Aod: these are the heads of families to them that dwell in Gabee, and they removed them to Machanathi:

    8:7 and Nooma, and Achia and Gera, he removed them, and he bore Aza, and Jachicho.


    Pre-JPS Masoretic

    8:1 Now Benjamin begat Bela his firstborn, Ashbel the second, and Aharah the third,

    8:2 Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth.

    8:3 And the sons of Bela were, Addar, and Gera, and Abihud,

    8:4 And Abishua, and Naaman, and Ahoah,

    8:5 And Gera, and Shephuphan, and Huram.

    8:6 And these are the sons of Ehud: these are the heads of the fathers of the inhabitants of Geba, and they removed them to Manahath:

    8:7 And Naaman, and Ahiah, and Gera, he removed them, and begat Uzza, and Ahihud.


    Judges 3:16

    LXX

    3:15 And the children of Israel cried to the Lord; and he raised up to them a savior, Aod the son of Gera a son of Jemeni, a man who used both hands alike: and the children of Israel sent gifts by his hand to Eglom king of Moab.

    3:16 And Aod made himself a dagger of two edges, of a span long, and he girded it under his cloak upon his right thigh.

    Masoretic

    3:15 But when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised them up a deliverer, Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamite, a man left handed: and by him the children of Israel sent a present unto Eglon the king of Moab.

    3:16 But Ehud made him a dagger which had two edges, of a cubit length; and he did gird it under his raiment upon his right thigh.

    The LXX version was based on Hebrew Scrolls 1000 years earlier than the Masoretic...Hmmm?
     
  16. The NIV removes the verse and I've seen notes in all my other bibles that those verses aren't in any text prior to certain dates. I don't read the NIV but I've heard those verses are removed completely.

    I did see in at least one of the references to the Nave's quote that something didn't make sense. Like I said, I'm not well read in anything. I just started actual study this month. Before this month my only goal was to read the bible as many times as possible.
     
  17. The NIV is a paraphrase not a translation
     
  18. The NIV is a translation. Not as literal as some others, but it's a translation.
     
  19. Nope
     

Share This Page