ARE THERE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joseph Gill on
-
So Brother Pastor when the Bible says that "the earth is suspended on pillars (Job 9:6, 26:11, Ps 75:3), is it really a misconception.
Not a misconception; merely a figure of speech.
"Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble." [Job 9:6]
"The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof." [Job 26:11]
"The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah." [Psalm 75:3]
In each case, "pillars" is a metaphor for "foundation." Metaphor is commonly found in the bible's books of poetry (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs).
To be a literate human being, you have to know how to recognize figures of speech. Otherwise, you can't read a poem by Maya Angelou, much less a passage from the Book of Job.
-
Permalink Reply by Jonathan Anthony on
-
So when David's army is numbered using one figure in Samuel, and the same story is told in Chronicles and the numbers vary by a couple thousand, that is not metaphor, nor is it another figure of speech, that is a contradiction...
-
-
And what about:
How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
Or perhaps:
Rabbits do not chew their cud
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
"Gerah," the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated "chew the cud" in the KJV is more exactly "bring up the cud." Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.
Once again I do not post this to shake anyone's faith on the contrary, I believe that when we push that there are no contradictions in the Bible as there clearly are, we force people to build their faith as a house of cards. Unless we teach the Saints that their faith should be built first and foremost on Jesus Christ, and trust in Him above all else, so that when faced with contradictions they rely not on what they think, but rather the person of whom the scripture is written, Jesus Christ.
-
-
How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
I think the different ages for Jehoiachin qualify as a genuine contradiction. From what I can ferret out, it probably stems from a mistake in the transcription of the Hebrew autographs. A popular commentary explains:
Like ancient Latin, the Hebrew language uses the letters of the alphabet for numbers. The difference between eight and eighteen is the presence of a "hook" symbol over the letters for eighteen, and if the person who copied the manuscript failed to add the "hook," the error would be recorded and repeated. These occasional scribal errors in no way affect the inspiration of Scripture and do not touch upon any major teaching in the Bible. (The Bible Exposition Commentary: Old Testament © 2001-2004 by Warren W. Wiersbe.)
Rabbits do not chew their cud
Hares are referenced in Leviticus and Deuteronomy as animals that, while not true ruminants according to modern classification, do rechew food previously digested. Of course, you're right that the Hebrew word that is commonly translated into English as "cud" is gerah. For the description that Moses gave to be biologically inaccurate, however, we have to believe the Ancient Jew understood gerah to mean "regurgitated food." Yet it is doubtful Moses expected his audience to know about the multi-chambered stomachs of some animals, or to care what the animals were actually chewing. Honestly, the exact meaning of gerah has been lost over time. I agree that it does not mean dung, but there is "a perfectly adequate Hebrew word" for vomit too, so why are we convinced it means "regurgitated food"? What we do know is that these passages of the law weren't intended as zoological primers... they were only identifying the chewing motions exhibited by ritually clean animals. Hares had the same chewing motions, but were denoted as unclean for other reasons.
-
-
If it were that simple Brother Pastor I would be willing to see arguments given as moot, However are you aware of the path it took to become a scribe? For one you could not set pen to paper until you were thirty, and even after that each word had to be copied exactly as the original, the use of a scarlet thread was used to measure even the spacing of the words, that is how exacting they were. If the text did not match exactly the copy was burned and the scribe had to start over. Knowing this and finding that the so called "hook" does not even appear in the earliest copies of the text show that the "hook" wa not in the original manuscript and unfortunately show the historical ignorance of Mr. Wiersbe regrdless of his well meaning, he gives weak argument for his position that is easily dispelled with a basic knowledge of history
-
-
You're quoting the Masorete tradition about their scribe's fidelity to the work of copying. I don't doubt this tradition, but of course it couldn't be a fail-safe against human error. Nonetheless, every extant copy of the Masoretic text now in human possession includes the numerical divergence in Jehoiachin's age. For Wiersbe's theory to be true only means the error would have been introduced before the Masorah scribal system was developed (i.e., before 500 A.D.).
One would have to assume this is an error introduced by the Sopherim, the class of scribes before the Masoretes (from 300 B.C. to 100 A.D.). So the question to ask is how fastidious were the Sopherim in the copying of the manuscript. I don't know that we have any anecdotal evidence about their techniques, but we do have the evidences of their 18 tiqqune sopherim ("corrections of the scribes"), which famously appear in the Masoretic text with attribution. Unlike the Masoretic tradition, the Sopherim apparently introduced amendments to the manuscripts they were transcribing... at least 18 well-known times. Did the Sopherim have the degree of precision to prevent an error like a disappearing "hook" over the ideogram for "eight"? Well, how can we be sure? But Pastor Wiersbe's theory is not injured by our knowing the Sopherim did not consider it as important to produce an exact duplication of the originals as did the Masoretes.
By the way, for a visual of this supposed error in the text,
שְׁמֹונֶ֤ה the number 8
שְׁמֹנֶ֨ה the number 18
Kind of subtle, wouldn't you say?
-
-
All things being equal I would tend to agree with Wiersbe supposition the premise however lacks one thing.... Namely a text or copy of the text of the same passage with the elusive hook...His theory either hangs or dies based on the locating of a copy of the text with the elusive hook in the same passage. He cannot realistically claim a theory, and it be accepted without proof of said theory. He either has to produce a copy of the text, if one exists then his theory is sound, if not then it falls on its face and the contradiction remains. Its like saying the Bible is true because its the Bible, thats called circular reasoning and that does not fly in anyone's logical thought. All that to say this, it is impossible to hold faith in a book, faith is a relational term, a covenantal term if you will. Its not psychological reasoning, or an attempt to convince ones self into believing something that they do not. (its not the cowardly lion saying "I do believe I do I do I do believe") Seeing as it is impossible to have a relationship with a book much less a doctrine or form of theological thought, to hold that the Bible does not have contradictions, errors in scientific thought or theory. One has to instead place faith in the person of Jesus Christ. In so doing does this negate the necessity of the Bible, of course not, how else would one learn the character of the person of whom the text is written. It is rather because of faith in Christ that one can look at the Bible with its flaws and not be moved because faith is place in the personage of Jesus Christ.
-
-
-
Ultimately, brother, a theory is only a theory if it is unproven. Until we find an ancient manuscript with no discrepancy between the passages... where both have the age 18 rendered... the matter is still debatable, I agree. But I suspect as time goes by, and you have more time to consider Wiersbe's explanation of the discrepancy, you may soften your earlier pronouncement that he's "ignorant" of Jewish history.
A few years back I had a long internet exchange with someone else who advanced the "you can't trust in the bible, only in your relationship to Jesus" argument that you seem to share. He was an advocate of the gay church (which I don't mention to disqualify his reasoning--he was intellectually honest enough to carefully examine arguments he disagreed with--but to say that he was emotionally vested in discrediting the authority of some parts of the bible); he found the "red-letter" portions of the bible much more affirming than the OT or the Pauline Epistles. He hated the way the scripture was wielded as a cudgel against folks who thought differently (he had a point there). He articulated a genuine warning about the cultic practice of "word-worship," when a Christian cannot see Jesus because he's too busy enshrining every comma and semi-colon of the King James Bible. He made some good arguments, but he could never explain to me how he could have no confidence in the bible, but all confidence in the Jesus he met there? How did he know anything of the nature of Jesus, except by the revelation of the Scriptures? And if the Scriptures were ultimately untrustworthy, so then was the Jesus they pointed toward.
This is really a broader question of bibliology. If I can find the time to post a thread on it, maybe you'd do the honor of contributing to it.
-
-
-
By definition, something that appears one way in one place but a different way in a second place is a contradiction.
"And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men." [2 Sam. 24:9]
"And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword. But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab." [1 Chron. 21:5,6]
The account in 1 Chronicles records the total of "all they of Israel" and then mentions how Joab held back the totals for the tribes of Levi and Benjamin. So, I suspect,
1,000,000 of Israel (1 Chron.) - number of Levites and Benjaminites = 800,000 of Israel (2 Sam.)
-
-
Once again my argument is not that the Bible is not authoritative, my argument is simply that we need to be intellectually honest enough to admit that there are discrepancies in the text. Does it take away from the personage of Jesus Christ of course not. Our faith and focus is to be on Christ alone.
I do not dispute the authority of the Bible because as I stated the text speaks of the person on whom my faith is based, that being the case it would be illogical to deny the authority of the text. It is however illogical to put more emphasis on the text and not the person of whom the text speaks. It is akin to attempting to breathe under water without the benefit of SCUBA gear.
A well known theologian Karl Barth once made a statement that is a deep as it is sobering: "The deepest crevasse of hell is reserved for theologians who love their theology more than they love Jesus" To focus our faith our love, our trust on anything or anyone else is idolatry simply put we should get our meaning, our purpose, our esteem from Him, to attempt to get it from anyone, or anything else is idolatry
-
Permalink Reply by Pastor Melvin King on
-
Pastor Anthony, you are a very clever man. I see what you say, and with much of it I can agree. The conceptions and or misconceptions that I spoke of are in regard to the translators, not the readers themselves. I am also clear on the account that Jacob called the man with whom He wrestled God. He assumed it was God because he thought it to be more than man, and because of his monotheistic belief, believing it was a god he called him God. But how could He really know?...that it was God? So what if God did not announce Himself every time, how can one of those times be counted to this occasion? Especially since he was asked his name. I am probably out of my league here as I am not as eloquent and learned as my fellows, but it seems to me, the (man) with whom Jacob wrestled, when asked what is your name was basically saying it's none of your business. True it is that he was there to bless Jacob, and true it is that he wrestled with him, but we could hardly compare this episode to you and your nephew's rough housing. I am quite aware that people wrestle with unbelief, and doubt questioning and even wrestle against God mentally, emotionally, psychologically, even spiritually, but to think that a man can wrestle physically with God and prevail against him is preposterous to say the least. Contrary to popular belief, it is not okay to wrestle against God, although we often do; but we do it because our jelly-back preachers tell us we can. God is a Spirit. Yes Jacob wrestled with someone alright, but it was never proven to be God. It is only implied. Jacob said he wrestled with God and prevailed, not God, nor did the narrator say it. We only say it because Jacob said so. Man if only I had a nickel for every time someone said they heard God, much less see Him. Don't get me wrong, I believe that some people do hear him, but not all. Jesus said, no man hath seen God at any time. Now if this is a contradiction, and it may very well be, this would mean either Jesus lied, or the interpreters erred. I would rather believe the latter. However I too agree with Karl Barth's statement. Truly we need a revelation in the knowledge of Him (Our Lord). Again, I have read many of your postings and most of what you say is very compelling and I deem it sound and good. Pray for my strength that I might be filled with the knowledge of Christ as I believe you are.
-
-
Brother Pastor, why is it that you cannot conceive God wrestling with a man? Are you saying that it is something that God cannot do. Keep in mind my illustration of myself and my nephew is apropos seeing as at 30 I was far more powerful and stronger than he. Just as God was stronger than Jacob. Also keep in mind that if God can take on the form of a man as he did with Jacob's grandfather Abraham, why is it difficult to imagine that He would do so in an effort to make a point with Jacob, after all it is after this that he is not just blessed, but gets a name change to Israel which means he that fights with God. That being the case also note that in the passage cited. Also keep in mind that most rabbis teach that Jacob wrestled with Elohim, that being the case, who is Elohim? the word translated angel is the word malak, which at its most simplistic means messenger. That is not the word used here, the word is iysh which means man but further reading into the text shows us that this man had the power to make a covenant between God and this man, who in scripture has the authority to do such a thing? Just a thought. And I am far from being clever, there are many who are more learned tan I.
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
