Conference yukon::christian_v7

Index to Biblical Contradictions

1. God is satisfied/unsatisfied with his works

2. God dwells/dwells not in chosen temples

3. God dwells in light/darkness

4. God is seen/unseen and heard/unheard

5. God is tired/never tired and rests/never rests

6. God is/is not omnipresent and omniscent

7. God does/does not know the hearts of men

8. God is/is not all powerful

9. God is changeable/unchangeable

10. God is just/unjust or partial/impartial

11. God is/is not the author of evil

12. God gives freely/witholds his blessings

13. God can/cannot be found by those who seek Him

14. God is warlike/peaceful

15. God is cruel/kind

16. God's anger endures for a long/short time

17. God approves/disapproves of burnt offerings

18. God accepts/forbids human sacrifices

19. God tempts man/doesn't temp man

20. God send lying spirits/doesn't lie

21. God will/will not destroy man.

22. God's attributes are revealed/cannot be discovered

23. God is one/many

24. Robbery commanded/prohibited

25. Lying approved/forbidden

26. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned/forbidden

27. Killing commanded/forbidden

28. Blood-shedder must/must not die

29. Making of images forbidden/commanded

30. Slavery and oppression forbidden/sanctioned

31. Improvidence enjoyed/condemned

32. Anger approved/disapproved

33. Good works to be seen/not to be seen by men

34. Judging of others forbidden/approved

35. Christ taught nonresistence/taught and practiced physical resistance

36. Christ warned his followers not to fear being killed/Christ avoided Jews 
    for fear of being killed himself

37. Public prayer sanctioned/disapproved

38. Importunity in prayer commended/condemned

39. Wearing of long hair by men sanctioned/condemned

40. Circumcision instituted/condemed

41. Sabbath instituted/repudiated

42. Sabbath instituted because God rested/because God brought Israelites out 
    of Egypt 

43. No work to be done on Sabbath/Christ broke this rule

44. Baptism Commanded/not commanded

45. Every animal allowed for food/certain animals prohibited for food

46. Taking of oaths sanctioned/forbidden

47. Marriage approved/disapproved

48. Feedom of divorce permitted/restricted

49. Adultery forbidden/allowed

50. Marriage/cohabitation with sister denounced, but Abraham married his 
    sister and God blessed the marriage 

51. A man man/may not marry his brother's widow

52. Hatred to kindred enjoined/condemned

53. Intoxicating beverages recommended/discountenanced

54. Our rulers are God's ministers and should be obeyed/are evil and should be 
    disobeyed

55. Women's rights affirmed/denied

56. Obedience to masters/obedience only to God

57. There is/is not an unpardonable sin

58. Man was created before/after other animals

59. Seed time and harvest never ceased/ceased for seven years

60. God/Pharoah hardened Pharoah's heart

61. All Cattle and horses died/all cattle and horses did not die. 

62. Moses feared/did not fear Pharoah

63. Plague killed 23000/24000

64. John the Baptist was/was not Elias

65. Father of Mary's husband was Jacob/Heli

66. Father of Salah was Arphaxad/Cainan

67. Thirteen/Fourteen generations from Abraham to David

68. Thirteen/Fourteen generations from Babilonish captivity to Christ

69. Infant Christ was/was not takent o Egypt

70. Christ was/was not tempted in the wilderness

71. Christ preached his first sermon on the mount/on the plain

72. John was/was not in prison when Jesus went to Galilee
    
    Continued next note...

Index to Biblical Contradictions (continued from -1)


73. Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with a staff and 
    sandles/neither staves nor sandles

74. A woman of Caanan/Greek woman sought Jesus

75. Two/one blind men/man besought Jesus

76. Christ was crucified on the third/sixth hour

77. Two theives/only one thief railed at Christ

78. Satan entered Judas at the supper/after the supper

79. Judas committed suicide by hanging/died another way

80. Potter's field purchased by Judas/by the Chief Priest

81. Only one woman/two women went to the sepulchre

82. Three women/more than three women went to the sepulchre

83. It was early sunrise/sometime after sunrise when they went to the sepulchre.

84. Two angels standing/only one angel sitting seen by women

85. Two angels/one angel seen at the sepulchre

86. Christ was to be three days and three nights in the tomb/only two days 
    and two nights

87. Holy ghost bestowed at/before pentecost

88. Disciples commanded immediately after resurrection to go into 
    Galilee/tarry at Jerusalem

89. Jesus first appeared to disciples in a room in Jerusalem/on a mountain in 
    Galilee.

90. Christ ascended from Mount Olive/Bethany

91. Paul's attendants heard/did not hear the miraculous voice.

92. Abraham departed to go to Canaan/did not know where he was going.

93. Abraham had one/two sons.

94. Keturah was Abraham's wife/concubine.

95. Abraham begat a son at the age of 100 years by God's providence/he then 
    had six more sons without God's help.

96. Jacob/Abraham brought the sepulchre from Hamor.

97. God gave Abraham and his sons the promised land/they never received it.

98. Goliath/his brother was slain by Elhanan.

99. Ahaziah began his reign in the eleventh/twelfth year of Joram.

100. Michal had five children/one child

101. David was tempted by the LORD/by satan to number Israel

102. Number of fighting men in Israel was 800,000/1,100,000, number of 
    fighting men in Judah was 500,000/470,000.

103. David sinned in numbering Israel/David never sinned except in the matter 
    of Uriah

104. One of David's penalties for sinning was seven years of famine/there 
     were only three years of famine.

105. David took 700/7000 horsemen.

106. David bought a threshing floor for 50 sheckles of silver/600 shekles 
     of gold.

107. David's throne was to endure forever/David's throne was cast down.

108. Christ is equal/is not equal with God

109. Jesus was/was not all-powerful

110. The law was/was not superceded by Christian dispensation.

111. Christ's mission was/was not peace.

112. Christ did not/did receive testimony from men.

113. Christ's witness of himself is true/untrue

114. Christ laid down his life for his friends/enemies

115. It was/was not lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death.

116. Children are/are not punished for the sins of their parents.

117. Man is/is not justified by faith alone.

118. It is impossible/possible to fall from grace.

119. No man is without sin/Christians are sinless.

120. There will/will not be a resurrection of the dead.

121. Reward/punishment bestowed in this/next world.

122. Annihilation/endless misery the portion of all mankind.

123. Earth is/is never to be destroyed

124. No evil shall/Evil will happen to the Godly

125. Worldly good and prosperity/worldly misery and destitution to be the 
     lot of the godly

126. Worldly prosperity a reward/a curse

127. Christian Yoke is/is not easy/

128. Fruit of God's spirit is love and gentleness/vengence and fury

129. Longevity enjoyed by/denied to wicked

130. Poverty/Riches/Neither a blessing

131. Wisdom a source of enjoyment/vexation, grief, sorrow.

132. Good name is a blessing/curse

133. Laughter commended/condemned

134. Rod of correction is cure for foolishness/there is no cure for foolishness.

135. Fool should/should not be answered according to his folly.

136. Temptation desired/undesired

137. Prophecy is sure/unsure

138. Man's life 120/70 years

139. Fear of man on every beast/fear of man not on the lion.

140. Miracles are/are not proof of divine inspiration.

141. Moses meek/cruel

142. Elijah ascended to heaven/none but Christ ascended to Heaven

143. All scripture is inspired/Some scripture is not inspired

     

1 [C/2]. God is satisfied with his works

 "God saw all that he made, and it was very good."[Gen 1:31.

God is dissatisfied with his works. 

 "The Lord was grieved that he had made man on earth, and his heart was filled 
  with pain." [Gen 6:6]

This is an obvious case of both/and, for something occurred after Gen 1:31 and 
before Gen 6:6, namely, the Fall. Evil entered creation as a result of man's 
volition. One can argue the theological implications elsewhere, as the only 
relevant point is that this is not an obvious contradiction. When God created, 
all was good. After man rebelled, God grieved.

2 [C/1]. God dwells in chosen temples

 "the LORD appeared to him at night and said: "I have heard your prayer and
  have chosen this place for myself as a temple of sacrifices.....I have 
  chosen and consecrated this temple so that my Name may be there forever. 
  My eyes and my heart will always be there." [2 Chr 7:12,16]

God dwells not in temples

 "However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men." [Acts 7:48] 

I fail to see the contradiction here. The claim that "my eyes and heart will 
always be there" appears to mean nothing more to me than the fact that the 
LORD would pay special attention to the temple and have a special affinity for 
it; the LORD would reveal Himself to His people through the temple. Stephen's 
speech in Acts merely highlights the transcendence of God. Put simply, if you 
put these together you arrive at the following truth - God is transcendent, 
yet He reveals Himself where He will.

3 [C/0]. God dwells in light

 "who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light whom no one has 
  seen or can see." [Tim 6:16] 

God dwells in darkness

 "Then spake Solomon. The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness" 
  [1 Kings 8:12] 

 "He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark 
  waters and thick clouds of the skies." [Ps 18:11] 

 "Clouds and darkness are round about him." [Ps 97:2] 

The first thing I would point out is these are likely to be metaphors and it 
would seem unwise to take such language too literally when describing God. 
But what could such seemingly contradictory metaphors convey? Note that in 
both cases there is the theme of the unsearchableness of God. That is, the 
light is unapproachable and the darkness is thick and covers a secret place. 
Thus, these verses could actually be teaching the same thing - simply that God 
is unapproachable.

One could also note that Paul's account is quite optimistic following from a 
consideration of Christ. Prior to the Incarnation, there was indeed a certain 
darkness associated with the hidden God. But the eyes of the blind have
been opened!

Or it could be said that the verses in 1 Kings and Psalms need be nothing more 
than a description of God perceived through the memory of His interation with 
His people described in Exodus 19:9.

4 [C/1]. God is seen and heard

 [Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/ Ex 24:9-11] 

God is invisible and cannot be heard

 [John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16] 

These "contradictions" are easily resolved if one accepts the Trinitarian 
view of God. Allow me to repost a reply which addressed a similar point, and 
in doing so, resolves this contradiction.... 

In a previous post, someone attempts to discredit the deity of Christ by 
appealing to John 1:18: 

 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the 
  bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV) 

He notes: 

 "If no man has seen God, then logically Jesus was not God, since there is no 
  secular record of an outbreak of sightlessness in Judea in Jesus' time". 

How shall the Christian respond? Well, let's consider the statement that "No 
man hath seen God". Consider the following verses from the Old Testament (OT): 

 Sarai says
 "You are the God who sees me",
 for she said,
 "I have now seen the One who sees me" (Gen 16:13) 

 "So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to 
  face, and yet my life was spared". (Gen 32:30) 

 "Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 
  and saw the God of Israel" (Ex 24: 9-10). 

 "they saw God" (Ex 24:11) 

 "We have seen God!" (Judges 13:22) 

Now while this person's logic seems to rule out that Jesus was God, it also 
means that the Bible contains a very significant contradiction. If no one has 
seen God, how is it that Sarai, Jacob, Moses et al, and Monoah and his wife 
are said to have seen God? 

Actually, this is a problem only for those who deny the deity of Christ while 
claiming to follow the teachings of the Bible. Let's look again at John 1:18: 

 "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only (or Only Begotten), who 
  is at the Father's side, has made him known". 

I think it is clear that John is speaking of the Father as the one who has not 
been seen. To paraphrase it, "No one has ever seen God, but the Son, who is at 
His side, has made Him known". This interpretation not only seems to follow 
naturally from this verse, but is also quite consistent with the Logos doctrine
taught in John 1. Recall, it is the Logos who mediates between God and man, and
who reveals God to man. Jesus would later say, "Anyone who has seen me has seen
the Father." Prior to the Incarnation of the Son, no one had seen the Father, 
for it is through the Son that the Father is revealed. So for the Trinitarian, 
there is no Bible contradiction. No one ever saw God the Father, and what Sarai,
Jacob, Moses, etc saw was God the Son. This can be seen from many perspectives,
but let's simply consider one from Isaiah 6. Isaiah "saw the Lord" (vs 1).
Seraphs were praising the "Lord Almighty" ( vs 3). Isaiah is overwhelmed and 
responds, "Woe to me, I am ruined. For I am a man of unclean lips [this rules 
him out as the servant in Isaiah 53], and I live among a people of unclean lips,
and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty" (vs 5). Later, we read: 

 "Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will 
  go for us?" (vs. 8). 

Again, the plurality of God is implied. Isaiah asks God to send him, and then 
God gave him a message topreach. 

Now it's time to jump to John 12:37-4. John claims that the peoples failure to 
believe in Jesus was a fulfillment of these teachings Isaiah received from the 
Lord in Isaiah 6. Then note vs. 41. 

 "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him". 

Here is a clear example where John equates Jesus with the Lord Almighty seen by
Isaiah! This all fits together beautifully. Isaiah sees the Lord Almighty, yet 
he sees Jesus' glory. Jesus speaks as a plural being (who will go for US). It 
is the Son who is seen, not the Father. 

Thus, John 1:18 does not mean that Jesus was not God, it only means He is not 
the Father. This verse presents no problems for the Trinitarian, and in fact, 
when studied, serves as a great launching point for finding Christ in the OT. 
Prior to the Logos dwelling amongst us and revealing the Father to us, no one 
had seen the Father. But because of the Incarnation, we can now cry, "Abba, 
Father" (Romans 8:15) and "Our Father who art in heaven"! Those who see the 
Son can see the Father. 

5 [C/0]. God is tired and rests

 In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, 
 and was refreshed. [Ex 31:17] 

God is never tired and never rests

 The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth 
 not, neither is weary. [Is 40:28] 

According to Haley, and many others, the term "rested and was refreshed' is 
simply a vivid Oriental way of saying that God ceased from the work of creation
and took delight in surveying the work. 

6 [C/0]. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things

 [Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21] 

God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all things

 Gen 3:8 - "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he 
 was walking in the garden in the cool of day, and they hid from the LORD God 
 among the trees of the garden." [Gen 3:8]

 "But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that men were building."
 [Gen 11:5]

 "The the LORD said, 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and 
  their sins so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done 
  is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." 
  [Gen 18:20-21]

I accept the teaching that God is everywhere present and sees and knows all 
things. So let's consider the instances in Genesis that are cited: 

 Gen 3:8 - "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he 
 was walking in the garden in the cool of day, and they hid from the LORD God 
 among the trees of the garden." 

Let's also add the next verse to stregthen the critics case: 

 "But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?" 

How could one hide from God? Why does God need to ask this question? 

First, what Adam and Eve could have hid from is merely the visible and special 
manifestation of the Lord. As for God's seeming ignorance, anyone with children
can recognize the utility of such questions. If a child is known to have broken
a lamp, it is better to question the child than to simply accuse her. The former
approach enables the child to take an active role in her wrong-doing, and allows
for her to apologize. Note that God asked several questions: 

 "Where are you?....Who told you that you were naked?....Have you eaten of the 
  fruit of the tree?" 

Note the response. Instead of begging for mercy and confessing their sins, both
the man and woman justified themselves and sought to put the blame on another. 
So typically human! By asking these questions, God enabled the man and woman to
either freely repent or to firmly establish their sinfulness. Thus, while the 
critic thinks these are questions demonstrating ignorance, such an interpret-
ation can be easily dismissed in light of the above considerations. 

What of the others? 

 "But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that men were building."
 [Gen 11:5] 

 "The the LORD said, 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and 
  their sins so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done 
  is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." 
  [Gen 18:20-21] 

These look like common human notions of someone coming down to check out what 
is going on. And perhaps, that's how the writer of these accounts understood 
God. But perhaps there is also another layer to the account. Obviously, it 
teaches God's transcendence. But it also demonstrates God's interest. He is 
not an aloof sky-god. And he doesn't watch from afar. He gets right down into 
human history. But there is more. Maimonides once noted that just as the word 
'ascend', when applied to the mind, implies noble and elevated objects, the 
word 'descend' implies turning one's mind to things of lowly and unworthy 
character. Thus, God is not "coming down" in a physical sense, but in a 
"mental" sense, where he turns his attention to the sinful activity of men and 
invokes judgment. Of course, it is hard to describe God in human language, but 
I think the above account is not unreasonable. 

Since these supposed contradictions depend on a particular interpretation 
which is (or at the very least may be) in error, no contradiction has been 
established. 

7 [C/0]. God knows the hearts of men

[Acts 1:24; Ps 139:2,3]

God tries men to find out what is in their heart

 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I 
  know that you fear God." [Gen 22:12] 

 "Remember how the LORD your God lead you all the way in the desert these 
  forty years, to humble you and test you in order to know what was in your 
  hearts." [Deut 8:2] 

 "The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all 
  your heart and with all your soul." [Deut 13:3] 

We'll assume that God knows the hearts of men, so let us determine if the 
above three verses are necessarily contradictions. 

Could it be that these three instances simply serve to reveal and verify to 
man that which is already known by God? Anyone who has ever had a college 
chemistry course can probably relate to the following. A chemistry professor 
comes into class, and says, "I will now add acetic acid to this compound to 
see what happens." The professor already knows what will happen! After the 
experiment, he might even add, "I now know that such and such results will 
occur after adding the acid." Here he is simply putting himself in the place 
of the class, and speaking for them. 

What the three verses could be showing is that once again, God is not some 
aloof sky-god who merely dictates. Instead, he _relates_. By asking questions, 
by claiming to have found something, he relates and allows man to play an 
active, not passive, role in the relationship. For example, Abraham now knew 
that God knew his heart. And he also knew God's knowledge was true in light of 
the 'test' that he just went through. 

In this supposed contradiction, along with the one immediately prior, the 
critic perceives ignorance on the part of God because of a belief that an 
omniscient God ought to dictate. Why can't an omniscient God refrain from 
dictating, and simply relate in a way which intimately involves humanity? 

8 [C/0]. God is all powerful

 [Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26]

God is not all powerful

 The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, 
 but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had 
 iron chariots." [Judg 1:19] 

This is obviously not a contradiction. John Baskette notes that the critic is 
"reading the verse as saying that the LORD ... he ... could not drive out the 
inhabitants of the valley." 

He adds: 

"This is an egregiously bad misreading of the text. The "he" is Judah! not the 
LORD. That should be obvious to even the most obtuse objector." 

9 [C/0]. God is unchangable

[James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19. 

God is changable

[Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/ Ex 33:1,3,17,14]

Once again, these purported contradictions all presuppose some platonic-type 
sky god. Christianity has always believed that God is a God who _relates_ and 
who is _personal_. And whenever there is a personal relationship, there is a 
dynamic. And dynamics can involve both immutability and change. Whenever you 
have a personal dynamic, when one person changes, the other reponds in a way 
which reflects this change. But all is not relative. If God's essence is 
immutable, then He is the standard by which such change is understood. 

For example, imagine you are in a field standing next to a tree. As you walk 
around the tree, you may end up north of the tree (and the tree is south of 
you). If you continue walking, such a relative relationship changes, so that 
you might find yourself south of the tree (and the tree is north of you). In 
the same way, our behavior towards God is like walking around the tree. 
Depending upon what we do, God is in a different relationship with us. 

Let's consider a better analogy. A man and a wife are in a happy marriage. 
The man commits adultery, and the wife becomes unhappy. Has the wife changed 
in a significant manner? Not really. Her change is a function of what her 
husband did, and reflects the immutablity of her belief that infidelity is 
wrong. 

In the purported contradictions, we have a set of Scriptures which speak of 
God's essence - it is unchangeable. The other set deal with God's relationships
with men (they _don't_ abstractly speak of God's essence). Thus, as the above 
analogies show, there need be no contradiction. 

10 [C/0]. God is just and impartial

 "To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock and there is no 
  unrighteousness in him." [Ps 92:15] 

 "Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the 
  wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be 
  it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" [Gen 18:25] 

 "The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of 
  faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He." [Deut 32:4] 

 "Yet you say, "The way of the LORD is not right." Here now, O house of Israel!
  Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?" [Ezek 18:25] 

 "For there is no partiality with God." [Rom 2:11] 

God is unjust and partial

 "So he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his 
  brothers." [Gen 9:25] 

 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a 
  jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers in the children, on the 
  third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." [Ex 20:5] 

 "for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or 
  bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not 
  because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The 
  older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but 
  Esau I hated." [Rom 9:11-13] 

 "For whoever has, to him shall more be given, and he shall have in abundance; 
  but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken from him." 
  [Mt13:12] 

The first set is as follows: 

"To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock and there is no unrighteous-
ness in him." [Ps 92:15] -- Basic Teaching(BT)= God is righteous 

"Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked,
so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! 
Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" [Gen 18:25]-- BT= God does 
not condemn the righteous with the wicked. 

"The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness
and without injustice, righteous and upright is He." [Deut 32:4]-- BT= God is 
righteous 

"Yet you say, "The way of the LORD is not right." Here now, O house of Israel! 
Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?" [Ezek 18:25] --
BT= God's ways are right, the ways of Israel, when the prophet spoke, were not.
 
"For there is no partiality with God." [Rom 2:11]--BT = God is impartial. 
However, it seems clear from the context that we are talking about God being 
impartial when it comes salvation being offered to both Jew and Gentile. Thus, 
the verses cited below could only be contradictory if they teach that Christ's 
atonement was only for the Jews or Gentiles. Since they don't, we need only 
consider if God is unrighteous in any of them-> 

The second set is as follows: 

"So he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his 
brothers." [Gen 9:25] Here, one must read a contradiction into the teachings 
as it is unclear whether Noah's curse would make God "unrighteous." 

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a 
jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers in the children, on the 
third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." [Ex 20:5] The following
verse notes that lovingkindness extends to thousands of generations of those 
who love God. This leads me to believe this verse is hyperbolic and thus 
difficult to make into a contradiction. For example, is God _really_ 
unrighteous for bestowing blessings for a thousand generations, yet visting 
iniquity for ONLY three or four generations? The thrust seems to run in the 
other direction. Whether or not one views this as "unrighteous" is a function 
of their ethics, and thus the "contradiction" is read into the scripture. 
(BTW, I would note, however, that sinful behavior is often transmitted in 
families. For example, the son of an alcoholic is often an alcoholic himself.) 

MaryAnna responds to another related "contradiction" which is also relevant 
here: 

Are children punished for the sins of the parents?
Exo. 20:5 tells us that God is to be feared, as He has the ability to visit 
the sins of the fathers on the children. Ezek. 18:20 tells us this will not 
happen if the children repent and turn away from the ways of their fathers. Not
a contradiction. 

"for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad,
in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because 
of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The older will 
serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 
[Rom 9:11-13] Again, I view that "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" as a 
hyperbole which indicates that God simply favored Esau. This is not a clear 
case of unrighteousness. 

"For whoever has, to him shall more be given, and he shall have in abundance; 
but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken from him." [Mt13:12]
I view this as a proverbial way of saying that he who improves upon the gifts 
that he receives will receive more, but he who does not improve upon them (ie, 
neglects or takes them for granted) shall have them removed. I find this the 
very opposite of unrighteousness. 

Thus, in not one case is there a unequivocal contradiction in this set. 

11 [C/0]. God is the author of evil

 "Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good 
  things come?" [Lam 3:38]

 "Now therefore say to the people of Judah that those living in Jerusalem, 
 'This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and 
  devising a plan for against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of 
  you, and reform your ways and actions." [Jer 18:11. 

 "I form light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; 
  I the LORD, do all these things." [Is 45:7] 

 "I also gave them over to statues that were not good and laws they could not 
  live by." [Ez 20:25] 

 "When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not people tremble? When disaster comes 
  to a city, has not the LORD caused it? [Amos 3:6] 

God is not the author of evil

 [1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13]

Now, in Deut 32:4, we read that God is just. None of the above verses teach 
that God is unjust. Paul is speaking about God in the context of Church 
gatherings - that in such gatherings, God is a God of peace, not confusion. 
None of the above verses speak of such Church gatherings. James teaches that 
God does not tempt anyone with evil. None of the above verses teach that God 
tempts with evil. (I think Ez 20:25 is best understood in light of Romans 1). 
Thus, no obvious contradictions in this set. 

12 [C/0]. God gives freely to those who ask

 [James 1:5/ Luke 11:10]

God witholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving them

 [John 12:40/ Josh 11:20/ Is 63:17]

Joshua 11:20 says nothing about some asking, and God refusing to give. Is 63:17
says nothing about someone asking, and God refusing to give. John 12:40 says 
nothing about someone asking, and God refusing to give. In these three verses, 
it is mentioned that God "hardened the hearts" of someone. If someone never 
asked, and will never truly ask, it is not a contradiction to harden one's 
heart, yet give to those who DO ask. 

13 [C/0]. God is to be found by those who seek him

 [Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17]

God is not to be found by those who seek him

 [Prov 1:28]

"Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently,
  but they shall not find me." [Pr 1:28] 

Here, the context has been ignored. First of all, it is wisdom which is 
speaking. Those who laugh, scoff, and refuse wisdom are not going to magically 
find it when calamity strikes. If one wishes to identify wisdom with God, the 
same principle holds - those who scoff, reject, and laugh at God are not going 
to find God when calamity strikes. After all, if they look, they look through 
the filters of selfishness (ie, "save my butt"). Instead of calling on God or 
looking for God, they should be repenting. But those who live a life of 
scorning God are not those who repent when disaster strikes. Thus, no 
contradiction. 

14 [C/0]. God is warlike

 [Ex 15:3/ Is 51:15]

God is peaceful

 [Rom 15:33/ 1 Cor 14:33]

"The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name." [Ex 15:3] 

(Is 51:15 has nothing to do with war) 

"The God of peace be with you all. Amen" [Rom 15:33] 

"For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace." [1 Cor 14:33] 

It seems clear that God reveals Himself as a God of Battles in much of the OT. 
So what of these NT teachings? This "contradiction" is premised on equivocation,
where the NT references to peace are interpreted to be the antomym of 'war', 
when this is obviously not the case. In Romans, Paul seems to be speaking of 
peace in a subjective, existential sense - a relationship with God brings a 
sense of peace. In Corinithians, Paul is speaking about the activity of Church 
congregations - they should be orderly and peaceful, not full of confusion and 
contention. No obvious contradiction here. 

15 [C/0]. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocius

 [Jer 13:14/ Deut 7:16/ 1 Sam 15:2,3/ 1 Sam 6:19]

God is kind, merciful, and good

 [James 5:11/ Lam 3:33/ 1 Chron 16:34/ Ezek 18:32/ Ps 145:9/ 1 Tim 2:4/ 1 John 
 4:16/ Ps 25:8]

The first set of scriptures say nothing about God being cruel (this is a 
subjective call). They deal simply and bluntly with God's judgment. Thus, we 
have a both/and situation here. Yes, God is merciful and full of compassion. 
Yet, those who reject his mercy and compassion will find that His judgment in 
unrelenting and ferocious - that is His nature. 

16 [C/0]. God's anger is fierce and endures long

 [Num 32:13/ Num 25:4/ Jer 17:4]

God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute

 [Ps 103:8/ Ps 30:5]

The verse in Numbers and Jeremiah do not teach some general truth that 'God's 
anger is fierce and endures long." This is the critic's personal interpretation.
In Jeremiah, in RESPONSE to Judah's great sin, God's anger is kindled (which it
self, implies that it is slow to occur) and will "burn forever." I view this 
as a hyperbole (like "walking a thousand miles"). Put simply, God's anger 
against Judah would endure long. In Num 32, God's anger burned against Israel 
because of their sin and he made them wander in the desert 40 years. In Num 25,
we read that God had Moses slay those who sought to contaminate the Jews with 
pagan ideals in order that his fierce anger may turn away from Israel. Since 
there is no contradiction between a fierce anger, and an anger slow to rise, 
this is an irrelevant verse. 

So let's focus on duration. Above, we saw that God's anger lasted long (in 
human terms) in SPECIFIC cases as the RESULT of sinful behavior. What of the 
Psalms? First, let's keep in mind that we have now entered the territory of 
another genre - poetry. As such, it's going to be hard to make an unequivocal 
contradiction. Anyway, in Ps 103, we simply note that God is slow to anger. 
Nothing in Jer or Num contradicts this. In Ps 30:5, it appears as if David is 
speaking from his personal experience with God in saying that God's anger lasts
only a moment. And what is a 'moment' in poetical terms anyway? And could this 
teaching be yet one more proverbial way of saying that God is far more gracious
than angry? That is, when all is said and done, what is revealed is a God who 
is slow to anger, quick to forgive, yet who can indeed demonstrate a fierce 
anger when provoked by great or ubiquitous sin. I see no obvious contradiction 
here. 

17 [C/1]. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings, 
   sacrifices, and holy days

 [Ex 29:36/ Lev 23:27/ Ex 29:18/ Lev 1:9]

God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and 
holy days.

 [Jer 7:22/ Jer 6:20/ Ps 50:13,4/ Is 1:13,11,12]

The first set of Scriptures explains where God institutes sacrifices, etc., 
among Israel. Nothing in the second set contradicts this. In Jer 7:22, we read,
"I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices," The 
author of this supposed contradiction conveniently left out the next verse:  
"but I gave them this command: "Obey me, and I will be your God and you will 
be my people." This is obviously not a disapproval of burnt offerings, but a 
disapproval on emphasizing such offerings to the exclusion of obedience in all 
areas. Jer 6:20 speaks of the incense in Sheba, hardly contradicting the first 
set. The verse in Psalms is lifted out of context, as the LORD clearly says, 
"I do not rebuke you for your sacrifices." (Ps 50:8). The verses in Isaiah are 
also lifted out of context. God rebukes the people for the sacrifices because 
they represent religious hypocrisy. Is 1:15-17 clearly demonstrate this. 

18 [C/0]. God accepts human sacrifices

 [2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39]

God fobids human sacrifice

 [Deut 12:30,31]

The account in Gen 22:2 has been the subject of a great wealth of religious 
speculation, but the fact remains that Isaac was not sacrificed. The account 
in 2 Sam is misnamed as a "human sacrifice." It looks far more like an 
execution carried out by the Gibeonites because Saul had previously persecuted 
them. The verses in Judges do not obviously indicate that Jephthah offered his 
daughter as a "human sacrifice" and if He did, there is no indication that God 
"accepted it." No contradictions here. 

19 [C/0]. God temps men

 [Gen 22:1/ 2 Sam 24:1/ Jer 20:7/ Matt 6:13]

God temps no man

 [James 1:13]

Gen 22 refers to testing; 2 Sam says nothing about God tempting; In Jer 20, 
the prophet Jeremiah is simply complaining. Just because in a moment of 
desparation, he accuses God of deceiving him, does not mean that God DID 
deceive him. Mt 6:13 is part of the Lord's prayer, "lead us not into temptation
." The prayer simply inquires of God that helps us keep our distance from 
temptation (hardly an example of God tempting men!!). The only possible hope 
of a contradction in this set is to equate testing with temptation. But is 
testing identical to tempting? For example, let's say God wants to test 
someone's honesty and puts them in a room with a lost wallet. Is this tempting?
I think not. To truly tempt, God would have to whispher, "Pick it up, keep it, 
no one will know, etc." No clear contradictions here. 

20 [C/0]. God cannot lie

 [Heb 6:18]

God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits to decieve

 [2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9]

In this case, we need not even consider the scriptures. As "sending forth 
lying spirits" is not the same as actually lying yourself. 

But, MaryAnna White notes: 

1 Kings 22:21-22 Lying spirit - Here, of course, God does not lie directly 
nor approve of nor sanction man's lying. One could argue that all that happens 
on earth is permitted by God - He could stop it if He saw fit. He even permitted
Satan to cause Job to suffer - a much more interesting case. But that does not 
mean that He is the source of all such things. They just afford Him 
opportunities, as here, to accomplish what He is after. As they are useful to 
Him, He permits them to continue for a season. Like Judas. Eventually, those 
instruments no longer useful, all such spirits and men will be judged by being 
cast into the eternal lake of fire. That is neither approval nor sanction, but 
merely proof of God's sovereignty. -- MAW 

The basic point is that by allowing the spirit to lie, God is not Himself 
lying. After all, God allows us all to lie, but He is not a liar for allowing 
us to lie. 

21 [C/0]. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him

 [Gen 6:5,7]

Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him

 [Gen 8:21. 

This is only a contradiction because the critic interprets it as so. Does 
Genesis 8:21 say that God will not destroy man because he is wicked? Not really
. For God says that he will never again curse the ground, even though man's 
heart is evil (NIV). Furthermore, cursing the ground does not necessarily mean 
the same thing as destroying man, now does it? 

22 [C/0]. God's attributes are revealed in his works.

 [Rom 1:20]

God's attributes cannot be discovered

 [Job 11:7/ Is 40:28]

Romans 1:20 simply notes that Creation points to the Creator - a divine being 
of great power. Job 11:7 points out that we can never fully grasp the divine, 
it does NOT say that God cannot be inferred from nature. Is 40:28 notes that 
we can never hope to fully scrutinize the understanding of God. None of this 
is contradictory. 

23 [C/0].23. There is but one God

 [Deut 6:4]

There is a plurality of gods

 [Gen 1:26/ Gen 3:22/ Gen 18:1-3/ 1 John 5:7]

This, of course, would lead us to a discussion of the Trinity, something that 
is beyond the scope of this article. Trinitarian theology is a classic example 
of "both/and" thinking. Besides, what of Deut 6:4? 

Deut. 6:4 reads, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." 

Now it is important to note that the Hebrew word used for 'one' is NOT yahid, 
which denotes absolute singularity elsewhere in the OT. Instead, Moses chose 
the Hebrew word ehad, which signifies unity and oneness in plurality. This 
word is used in Gen 2:24 where Adam and Eve are instructed to become "one 
flesh". It's also found in Numbers 13:23, where the Hebrew spies returned 
with a "single cluster" of grapes. So Deut 6:4 actually supports the concept 
of the Trinity, by noting that God is "oneness in plurality". The same word
which describes the oneness of a marriage relationship is also used to 
describe God's essence! 

24 [C/0]. Robbery commanded

 [Ex 3:21,22/ Ex 12:35,36]

Robbery fobidden

 [Lev 19:13/ Ex 20:15]

It's not at all obvious that you can refer to the instances in Ex 3, 12 as 
"robbery." When African-Americans demand recompensation for their history of 
slavery, are they demanding to rob white people? Thus, these are not obvious 
examples of God commanding robery. Besides, in Ex. 3 and 12, the Israelites 
asked the Egyptians for goods. 

25 [C/1]. Lying approved and sanctioned

 [Josh 2:4-6/ James 2:25 [C/1]. Ex 1:18-20/ 1 Kings 22:21,22] 

Lying forbidden

 [Ex 20:16/ Prov 12:22/ Rev 21:8]

Rev speaks all of liars be cast into the lake of fire. Since the first set of 
scriptures do not say otherwise, we can dismiss this one. Proverbs speaks of 
lying as an abomination. Since the first set of scriptures do not say lying is
not an abomination, we can dismiss this one. The verse in Ex is one of the Ten 
Commandments. 

It's not obvious to me that lying is approved of in the above situations. 
Concerning Rahab (Josh 2:4-6), James says, "the harlot was justified by works, 
when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way" (James 2:25)
. Her act of saving the lives of these men is what is approved of. The same 
goes for Ex 1, where the midwives refuse to kill the male infants which were 
birthed. As for 1 King 22:21-22, once again it is unclear if lying is truly 
approved of. According to one Bible scholar: 

"The whole declaration of Micaiah...is a figurative and poetical description 
of a vision that he had seen. Putting aside its rhetorical drapery, the gist 
of the whole passage is that God for judicial purposes suffered Ahab to be
fatally deceived." 

Another scholar says: 

"Because Ahab had abandoned the Lord his God and hardened his own heart, God 
allowed his ruin by the very instrument Ahab had sought to prostitute for his 
own purposes, namely, prophecy. God used the false declarations of the false 
prophets that Ahab was so enamored with as his instruments of judgment." 

Since it is unclear that God truly approves of lying in this case, the 
contradiction is not established. 

26 [C/0]. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned

 [2 Kings 14:7,3]

Hatred to the Edomite forbidden

 [Deut 23:7]

The account in Deut indeed forbids hatred against the Edomite. Does the 
account in 2 Kings sanction it? Not at all. It merely mentions that Amaziah 
slew many Edomites. And while hatred can be part of warfare, it need not be. 
And since the account in 2 Kings doesn't even mention hatred of the Edomites, 
this is obviously a concocted contradiction. 

27 [C/0]. Killing commanded

 [Ex 32:27] 

Killing forbidden

 [Ex 20:13]

Ex 20:13 reads, "You shall not murder." Not all killing is murder. 

28 [C/0]. The blood-shedder must die

 [Gen 9:5,6]

The blood-shedder must not die

 [Gen 4:15]

Gen 4:15 makes no such generalization. It is specific to Cain. This is an 
example where the critic takes an incident and transforms it into an absolute 
principle. Besides, the covenant in Gen 9 are made with Noah, who existed much 
later than did Cain. 

29 [C/0]. The making of images forbidden

 [Ex 20:4]

The making of images commanded

 [Ex 25:18,20]

Ex 20:4 states than one should not make idols and bow down and worship them. 
The cherubims in Ex 25 are not idols, nor were they worhipped. 

30 [C/0]. Slavery and opression ordained

 [Gen 9:25/ Lev 25:45,46/ Joel 3:8]

Slavery and opression forbidden

 [Is 58:6/ Ex 22:21/ Ex 21:16/ Matt 23:10]

Slavery and oppression (two different things in the Bible) 

Gen. 9:25 Canaan is punished, sentenced to be a bondsman. (slave) This is a 
punishment by God upon Ham through the mouth of his father Noah for his 
rebellious insubordination and disregard for God's authority on earth at that 
time - his father. He could have been killed for this, but instead he was 
merely told that some of his descendents would be slaves. This is not a 
condoning of oppression, but a prophecy that such a judgment would indeed be 
carried out. (Ones who died for rebellion include Korah and Absalom; Miriam 
was judged with a case of leprosy for a few days.) This verse says nothing to 
those who would be the slave owners as to whether their action is condoned or 
not. 

Lev. 25:45 It's ok to buy a stranger for a bondsman/woman if someone sells 
him/her to you, as long as it's not a fellow Israelite. 

Joel 3:8 God punishes Tyre (?) by selling the people to the Israelites as 
slaves and then selling them to the Sabeans. 

Still no mention of condoning oppression. 

Isa. 58:6 mentions a particular fast to Jehovah as a breaking of every yoke. 
Surely that cannot refer to (include) the yoke on the oxen, so there is some 
limitation to which yokes are broken. Some yokes are forbidden - i.e. yoking a 
fellow Israelite- and are undoubtedly included. The case of a foreign slave 
could be argued either way and hence this verse is not a clear contradiction 
of any of the above. 

Exo. 22:21 Not permitted to vex or oppress strangers. Does not say, not 
permitted to buy them. 

Exo. 21:16 Not permitted to steal and sell people. Does not say, not permitted 
to buy and sell them. 

Matt. 23:10 is irrelevant. It says, "Neither be called instructors, because 
One is your Instructor, the Christ." (RV). Footnote: "Or, guides, teachers, 
directors." This section is talking about how we address fellow believers. 
It earlier says to call no one "father." Obviously it is talking here about 
differentiating among believers by bestowing titles of honor. These titles 
should be reserved for God alone, not bestowed on men. But our physical father 
is still our father, our school teachers are still our teachers, and our 
masters, if we are slaves, are still our masters and are to be called such if 
they so demand. The President is still the President, etc. We are admonished 
in the Bible to show honor to those in authority over us in our families, in 
the government, etc. -- MAW 

Gen 9:25 has Noah stating that Canaan will be the servant of Japheth. This 
does not necessarily read as the ordination of "slavery and oppression" by God.
The verses in Lev refer to a mild form of servitude. Joel simply threatens 
captivity as a punishment for sin. None of these verses unequivocally ordain 
"slavery and oppression." 

On the other hand, the verses on Is and Exodus do forbid truly oppressive 
behavior. The verse in Mt. is irrelevant to this subject. 

31 [C/0]. Improvidence enjoyed

 [Matt 6:28,31,34/ Luke 6:30,35/ Luke 12:3]

Improvidence condemned

 [1 Tim 5:8/ Prov 13:22]

I believe that this is a case of both/and, as neither extreme is good. These 
teachings serve to balance each other. 

MaryAnna observes: 

"Improvidence enjoyed" Matt. 6:28, 31, 34 - these verses tell us not to be 
anxious. They don't tell us not to work for our living. 

Luke 6:31-35 tell us to give to those that ask, and to lend without expecting 
any return. This again is not telling us not to provide for our own needs. If 
we didn't have it in the first place we wouldn't be able to give or lend it.
And it doesn't say that the borrowers or askers are approved by God. The reward
mentioned here goes to the givers, not to the takers. This is made obvious by 
verse 29, which says to turn the cheek to those who smite it. Clearly the Bible
is not meaning that we are supposed to go around slapping people in the face. 

Luke 12:3 says "Therefore what you have said in the darkness will be heard in 
the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in the private rooms will be 
proclaimed on the housetops." What this has to do with improvidence, I have no 
idea, unless it is meant as an example of condoning of eavesdropping and gossip
. That would be a really strange interpretation of this verse, looking at the 
context. 

"Improvidence condemned" 

1 Tim. 5:8 says we must provide for our own. (Doesn't say we need to be full 
of anxiety, just do it.) 

Proverbs 13:22 - a good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children...
 Yup. --MAW 

32 [C/0]. Anger approved

 "In your anger do not sin: do not let the sun go down while your are still 
  angry." [Eph 4:26]

Anger disapproved

 [Eccl 7:9/ Prov 22:24/ James 1:20] 

I do not view Paul's admonitions as being approving of anger. In fact, the 
advice about not allowing the day to end while you are angry is anything but 
an approval of anger. 

33 [C/0]. Good works to be seen of men

 [Matt 5:16]

Good works not to be seen of men

 [Matt 6:1]

Here is a case where context matters. In Mt 5, Jesus is speaking in the context
of being the salt of the earth. It is by allowing Christ to work through us 
that people will be drawn to Him. That is, one does good works to glorify God. 
In Mt 6, Jesus is talking about doing good works in a self-righteous sense, 
where one draws attention to self. Consider a very practical example - a 
Christian who serves by feeding the poor ought to do so humbly and quietly. 
They will eventually be noticed, if only by those they serve. The same 
Christian shouldn't be bragging about his work among acquaintences, where a 
"holier-than-thou" sense is evident. The former approach draws people to God, 
the latter repels them. 

34 [C/0]. Judging of others forbidden

 [Matt 7:1,2]

Judging of others approved

 [1 Cor 6:2-4 / 1 Cor 5:12]

This is a commonly employed 'contradiction' which also ignores context. Mt 7 
is not dealing with judging in of itself, rather, it speaks of hypocrisy - 
judging others by standards that one does not live by. 

35 [C/0]. Christ taught nonresistance

 [Matt 5:39/ Matt 26:52]

Christ taught and practiced physical resistance

 [Luke 22:36/ John 2:15]

Since using a scourge to drive out the animals and overturn the tables is not 
as case of "physical resistance," the verse in John is irrelevant. In Luke, it 
appears as if Jesus is teaching the disciples that in their changed 
circumstances, self-defense and self-provision might be necessary. The very 
fact that two swords was "enough" indicates a restrained theme to this teaching
. Mt 5 is where Jesus teaches that one ought to "turn the other cheek." This 
is a hyperbole used to teach a moral lesson - do not set yourself against 
those who have injured you (does anyone really think that Jesus would have us 
expose our chests and invite the mugger the shoot us?). In Mt 26, someone with 
Jesus struck out at the legal authorities. Here the context is different from
that of Lk 22. I read this as saying that those who raise the sword against 
the legal authorities can expect to die by the sword (and of course, this in 
of itself is not necessarily a moral principle). Then again, in light of vss.
53,54, one cannot establish that this teaching goes beyond the immediate 
circumstances. That is, if the disciples had fought, they would have been 
killed, and Jesus had better things in mind. That's why he told them He could
summon supernatural aid if need be. 

36 [C/0]. Christ warned his followers not to fear being killed

 [Luke 12:4]

Christ himself avioded the Jews for fear of being killed

 [John 7:1]

Luke 12 is a generalized teaching which states that one ought to fear God more 
so than men (read vs. 5). John 7:1 says nothing about Jesus being afraid that 
the Jews would kill him. It simply mentions that He avoided them since they 
wanted to kill Him. It wasn't His time to die yet. 

37 [C/0]. Public prayer sanctioned

 [1 Kings 8:22,54/ 9:3] 

Public prayer disapproved

 [Matt 5:5,6]

Mt 6 (not 5) does not as much focus on public prayer as it does on hyocritical 
prayer - "And when you pray, you are not to pray as hypocrites." Jesus 
condemns the prayers designed to gather favor in the eyes of men. Nothing
contradictory here. 

38 [C/0]. Importunity in prayer commended

 [Luke 18:5,7]

Importunity in prayer condemned

 [Matt 6:7,8]

The vain repetitions ("as the heathen do") Jesus speaks of in Mt hardly seem 
to me to be the fervant supplications that Luke relays. Put simply, there's a 
difference between fervant, real prayer and repetitive chanting or mouthing 
some memorized prayer. 

39 [C/0]. The wearing of long hair by men sanctioned

 [Judg 13:5/ Num 6:5]

The wearing of long hair by men condemmed

 [1 Cor 11:14]

Judg. 13:5 the Nazarite is not permitted to cut his hair. Num. 6:5 teaches the 
same thing. 1 Cor. 11:14 teaches that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor 
to him. 

Yes, true. The Nazarites kept long hair even though it was a dishonor to them. 
1 Cor. 11:10 tells us that long hair is a sign of submission. So the Nazarites 
submitted to God even though it meant suffering some shame, for the duration 
of their vow. They also stayed away from dead things and any product of the 
grape, I think.
--MAW 

One could also note that national customs furnish an explanation here. 1 Cor 
was addressed to a Greek audience, where long hair on men often indicated 
effeminacy and indulgences in unnatural vices. 

40 [C/0]. Circumcision instituted

 [Gen 17:10]

Circumcision condemned

 [Gal 5:2]

Gen. 17:10 God institutes circumcision to set His people apart. This is in the 
Old Testament where God would use a special people through which His Messiah 
could be brought forth. 

Gal. 5:2 Spoken to ones who already believe in Christ but were not circumcised 
- if they go to be circumcised, they are going back to the law. This means they
are denying the effectiveness of Christ's death... so they lose out on the 
benefits of being a believer. 

This is not the only such verse. Paul says elsewhere that we should beware 
those of the circumcision, also calling them the concision and even dogs. 
This is referring to the Judaizers who were trying to get the believers to be 
circumcised as a condition of their salvation.. among other things. They were 
trying to bring the believers under the law, even though these believers had 
been previously Gentiles and not Jews. 

Paul tells us - it is not that all who have been circumcised are condemned, 
but rather that circumcision is no longer necessary in the New Testament 
because it has been replaced by the cross of Christ. -- MAW 

Indeed, here is another case (like #1) where the critic ignores the intervening
events between the Scriptures cited. He/she may as well argue that the existence
of a OLD and NEW covenant is a contradiction. And that exercise would be 
futile. 

41 [C/0]. The Sabbath instituted

 [Ex 20:8]

The Sabbath repudiated

 [Is 1:13/ Rom 14:5/ Col 2:16]

The Sabbath is a topic a lot of Christians disagree on. 

Exo. 20:8 teaches that the Sabbath was instituted. But it was also practiced 
by God Himself even as early as day seven. 

Isaiah 1:13 God says the wicked people are displeasing to God, and He no 
longer delights in anything they do, including keeping the Sabbath and making 
offerings to Him. 

No surprise there. 

Romans 14:5 and Col. 2:16 are *New* Testament verses. 

Romans 14:5 neither supports the Sabbath nor repudiates it, though. It just 
says some keep and some don't and both are to be accepted as genuine believers.
No problem there. (See verse 10). 

Colossians 2:16 is the same story. "Let no one judge you with regards to the 
Sabbath" sounds like a far cry from "You are forbidden to keep the Sabbath" 
or "The Sabbath is bunk." 

This matter would really do better dealt with on the larger scale of "Should 
New Testament believers be required to keep the entire Old Testament law?" 
Then one could bring in Eph. 2:15 and so on to show that on the one hand the 
moral aspects of the law are uplifted in the New Testament (Matt. 5-7), yet on 
the other hand the rituals are abolished (Sabbath, circumcision, feasts) and 
the offerings are replaced by Christ as the one unique Sacrifice. The middle 
wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles has been torn down by Christ on 
the cross and there is no longer any difference (among Christians). See 
discussion with James in Acts regarding this matter. -- MAW 

The teaching in Isaiah does not repudiate the Sabbath. If we read further, the 
LORD says: 

"Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil 
deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!" [Is 1:15-17] 
Obviously, God is condemning the religious hypocrisy in this instance. 

Nevertheless, even if we take the above claims as truth, namely, that God 
instituted the Sabbath in Exodus, and repealed it through Paul (and we need 
not debate if this is the true interpretation), as it stands, this is not
contradictory. It is not contradictory to institute X and then repeal it much 
later. 

42 [C/0]. The Sabbath instituted because God rested on the seventh day

 [Ex 20:11]

The Sabbath instituted because God brought the Israelites out of Egypt

 [Deut 5:15]

In this case, I see no reason why both explanations cannot be true. As such, 
the Sabbath could have been rooted in the order of things _and_ in the 
historical intervention of the Creator. 

Why was the Sabbath instituted? 

Exo. 22:11 tells us the Israelites should rest because God rested on the 
seventh day. 

Deut. 5:15 tells the Israelites that God commanded them to keep the Sabbath 
because of their deliverance from Egypt. 

The wording is different between the two statements. Deut. tells us the reason 
for the commandment to keep the Sabbath. Exo does not, but merely tells us a 
good reason why they should keep it. Anyway, it is not uncommon to do something
for more than one reason. Especially good reasons.-- MAW 

43 [C/0]. No work to be done on the Sabbath under penalty of death

 [Ex 31:15/ Num 15:32,36]

Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath and justified his deciples in the same

 [John 5:16/ Matt 12:1-3,5]

First of all, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, not subject of the Sabbath. As for 
his disciples, they were charged with breaking the Sabbath because they picked 
some heads of grain and ate them. Jesus corrected the Jewish leaders on their 
legalism (read the entire discussion in Mt 12). Jesus did not condone working 
on the Sabbath, he just pointed out the folly of taking this law to the 
extreme were people could not eat or help others on the Sabbath. 

43 No work could be done on Sabbath but Jesus worked on Sabbath and justified 
His disciples in doing the same. 

Yup. In the Old Testament no work could be done on the Sabbath, although it 
was ok to pull an ox out of the ditch. 

The Lord Jesus in the New Testament is the Lord of the Sabbath and perfectly 
free to break it and even abolish it, since He is the one who set it up in the 
first place. Also, He is the reality of the shadows. The Old Testament Sabbath 
was a rest for God's people, but in the New Testament our real Sabbath is the 
One who said, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-ladened, and I will give
you rest." Also, Hebrews tells us that there remains a Sabbath rest for the 
people of God. This is not talking about an outward ritual of sitting around 
all day once a week reading the Torah, but about resting in Christ as our real 
inward peace and rest and sanctuary in this age and in full in the age to come. 

Like I said earlier, this can be a pretty controversial issue, but at least 
grant me that it's a possible explanation which removes the validity of 43 
as a contradiction in the Bible. Others may explain it differently. --MAW 

44. Baptism commanded

 [Matt 28:19]

Baptism not commanded

 [1 Cor 1:17,14]

This is not a contradiction. Paul simply responded to the favoritism which 
sprang up along the lines of who baptised whom. Furthermore, Paul notes that 
his particular calling was not as a baptist, but as a preacher. 

45. Every kind of animal allowed for food.

 [Gen 9:3/ 1 Cor 10:25/ Rom 14:14]

Certain kinds of animals prohibited for food.

 [Deut 14:7,8]

The NT references stem from the New Covenant. The Genesis reference indicates 
that God sanctioned non-vegetarian diets. The Deut references are particular 
to the Jews and the Old Covenant that was made with them. 

46 [C/0]. Taking of oaths sanctioned

 [Num 30:2/ Gen 21:23-24,31/ Gen 31:53/ Heb 6:13]

Taking of oaths forbidden

 [Matt 5:34]

Jesus is trying to get beyond human conventions and the frivolous oaths which 
were common and was calling for simple and pure honesty. Hebrews refers 
specifically to God and indicates His commitment/covenant. 

Does the Bible sanction or forbid oaths? 

In the Old Testament they are not commanded, but permitted. Num. 30 explains 
when they can be annulled. 

God Himself made an oath as recorded in Heb. 13:4. In Matt. 5:34 we New 
Testament believers are told not to swear by anything but to just say yes and 
no. The explanation given is that we are powerless to change our hair color. 
(Natural color.) But surely God is not similarly powerless, so if He wants to 
swear something, He is perfectly able to carry it out and nothing can come up 
to stop Him. No contradiction there. 

So OT permits swearing (doesn't command it) and sets limits on it. The uplifted
NT law abolishes it altogether on the grounds that we are powerless to 
guarantee the outcome. But God is not powerless, so He can swear as He likes. 
-- MAW 

47. Marriage approved

 [Gen 2:18/ Gen 1:28/ Matt 19:5/ Heb 13:4]

Marriage disapproved

 [1 Cor 7:1/ 1 Cor 7:7,8]

Paul is not dissaproving marriage! He is simply saying that it is good to be 
unmarried. Saying it is good to not marry is not saying it is bad to marry. 
Being unmarried is good in the sense that particular blessings can stem from 
it (in fact, Paul even describes celibacy as a "gift"). However, another set 
of blessings can stem from being married. 

Does God approve of marriage 

Let's just look at the verses cited as saying that God *dis*approves of 
marriage, since obviously He approves. 

1 Cor. 7:1, 8, 26
Verse 26 tells us why Paul says this. It is because of the present necessity. 
Well, these three verses do not tell us that God disapproves of marriage, but 
only that there is nothing wrong with staying single. "Good for them." A man 
who is content to refrain from touching any woman must really be full of the 
enjoyment of God, as Paul was. This is surely a good thing, although most 
people are not like that. As verse 7 says, each has his own gift from God, 
and for most people it is not the gift of staying single forever, although 
Matt. 19:10-12 tells us (not cited) that there is a blessing for those that 
are able to keep it. Other verses not quoted tell us that the married person 
cares for how to please his/her mate, whereas the single one is free to 
concentrate on pleasing the Lord. 

Anyway, none of these verses say that God disapproves of marriage. To teach 
others not to marry is to spread the doctrines of demons. (1 Tim. 4:1-5). 

"What God has joined together." 

If God disapproved of marriage, He would disapprove of almost all humans that 
ever were. He Himself intends to be married. 

In 1 Tim. 5:14 Paul speaks of this matter again and makes it clear that his 
position is neither disapproval nor forbidding of marriage. 

Genesis 2:18 It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a help 
suitable for him. -- MAW 

48 [C/0]. Freedom of divorce permitted

 [Deut 24:1/ Deut 21:10,11,14]

Divorce restricted

 [Matt 5:32]

Yes, Jesus issues a new commandment and even explains the permission 1500 
years earlier. He now issues a higher calling. 

49 [C/0]. Adultery forbidden

 [Ex 20:14/ Heb 13:4]

Adultery allowed

 [Num 31:18/ Hos 1:2; 2:1-3]

One has to read adultery INTO Num 31:18 - it is not obvious that this verse 
is talking about adultery. As for Hosea, OT scholar Walter Kaiser believes 
that when God told Hosea to marry Gomer, she was not yet a harlot.
(Besides, the exception doesn't prove the rule). 

Does the Bible permit adultery? 

No. 

Numbers 31:18 doesn't say that the "yourselves" were already married. Obviously
it doesn't refer to the females among the Israelites, and so it can just as 
easily also exclude all the married and under-age males. 

Hosea 1:2 God commands Hosea to marry a prostitute. The very idea of using 
this as a justification of adultery is absurd. The point here is to expose the 
nation of Israel at that time for her unfaithful and treacherous treatment of 
her Husband, God. Israel was a prostitute in the eyes of God, because she was 
going after idols, yet He still would marry her and even take her back after 
she ran after idols again. This is an example of an incredible level of 
forgiveness, not of a condoning of the evil that she had done. 

Hosea 2:1-3 God commands Hosea to go back and reclaim his unfaithful wife back 
from the man she was messing around with. (See above.) The point is that this 
is an extremely difficult thing for a man to do, to take back his wife even 
from the house of her lover and to have to pay a price to get her back. Yet 
this is what God did for the children of Israel and also did for us. What an 
incredible heart He has for us, even though we were spiritually harlots in His 
eyes; He still loved us enough to pay the price to redeem us. --MAW 

50 [C/0]. Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced

 [Deut 27:22/ Lev 20:17]

Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union

 [Gen 20:11,12/ Gen 17:16]

Gen 17:16 says nothing about Sarah being Abrams sister. Gen 20:11 ignores Gen 
12:11-13. Abraham had people believing that Sarah was his sister out of fear 
- it was a lie. 

Is it ok to marry or cohabit with one's sister? 

Well, in the early generations man didn't have a choice. Cain for example 
married someone, and the only gals around were his siblings. Abraham also 
lived long before Moses, who wrote Deuteronomy and Leviticus. After Moses, 
nope, not a good idea to marry your sister. -- MAW 

51 [C/0]. A man may marry his brother's widow 

 [Deut 25:5]

A man may not marry his brother's widow

 [Lev 20:21]

This is a clear case of reading a contradiction INTO the Bible - Lev 20:21 
says nothing obvious about marrying widows. 

52 [C/0]. Hatred to kindred enjoined

 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and 
children, his  brothers and sisters- yes, even his own life- he cannot be my 
disciple" [Luke 14:26] 

Hatred to kindred condemned

 [Eph 6:2/ Eph 5:25,29]

I have seen this verse used numerous times from atheists in an attempt to 
show that Jesus was not a nice guy. But let's see if this verse really 
supports that position. 

Many atheists interpret this verse literally. To them, it is clear that Jesus 
was instructing us to hate our families. But is it? 

It is fairly basic rule in hermenuetics that a particular teaching should be 
interpreted in the light of general teaching, that is, in light of its context.
So, does this hate-message fit into the overall context of Jesus' teaching? 
Not really. 

Elsewhere, Jesus responds to an inquiry about attaining eternal life. He 
replied, " honor your mother and father". [Matt. 19:19]. In fact, on another 
occasion Jesus censured those theologians who argued that people who had
vowed to give God a sum of money which they later discovered could have been 
used to help thier parents in need were not free to divert the money from 
religious purposes to which it had been vowed. In His characteristic 
condemnation of human traditions, Jesus observed: "Thus you nullify the Word 
of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites!" [Matt. 15:6-7] 

Now, how can you hate your parents, yet also honor them? These seem to be 
exclusive sentiments. 

On the cross, Jesus tells John to take His mother as his own. Was he telling 
John to hate her? Then why did John take Mary into his home? 

An interesting thing happens if you put together some of these teachings. 
If we are to hate our family, why must we love our enemies? And by hating 
our families, they become our enemies, but then we are supposed to love them! 

No, I find this literalistic interpretation of Luke 14:26 to be plagued with 
problems and taken out of context. 

So what sense are we to make of this teaching? Perhaps Jesus is simply 
employing hyperbole to emphasize an important point. Let's return to the 
immediate context of this verse. In Luke 14:27, He notes that a disciple must 
be willing to carry his cross. In verses 28-29, he teaches from the example 
of building a tower and that one should count the costs before beginning. 
In verses 31-32, he uses an example of a king going to war to illustrate 
the same point. Then in verse 33, he explains that we must be willing to 
give up everything to be His disciple. In verses he alludes to salt that 
loses its saltiness, which is thrown out. And finally, he sums it all up
by saying "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" [vs. 35]. 

Now throughout this whole preaching, Jesus uses symbolic parables and 
hyperbole to drive His points home. And what is the point? I think it is 
rather clear, that commitment to Jesus is primary and always comes first.
Thus, if you are willing to put others before Christ and unwilling to follow 
through with your commitment, you may as well never commit in the first place. 

It is well known that in Jewish idiom, hate could also mean 'love less'. 
In fact, I think the same message taught in Luke 14:26 is taught in 
Matthew 10:37. 

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; 
anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 
and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me". 

In this case Jesus is speaking to his disciples, while in Luke He was 
addressing the crowds. But the same theme is present in both and His teaching 
to the disciples clearly explains the hyperbole in Luke. 

I should also go back to that idiom. In the OT, the love-hate antithesis was 
used to distinguish between the intensity of one's love, and not meant as a 
polarization of concepts. Perhaps the clearest example is in Gen.29:30-31: 

"So Jacob went to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and 
served Laban another seven years. When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, 
he opened her womb". 

Thus, Leah's being hated or not loved really meant that she was loved less. 
In fact, in the poetry of the ancient Near East numerous terms were paired 
together. In such instances the meaning of these terms is far more dependent 
upon their idiomatic usage rather than their literal meaning in isolation. 

Given that Jesus often teaches using symbolic parables and hyperbole, given 
the context of Luke's passage, along with the context of other teachings of 
Jesus which certainly contradict a literal reading of Luke's verse, and the 
use of the love-hate comparison in Hebrew idiom, all added to Matthews account 
of the same theme, a consistent picture comes out that Jesus was teaching that 
we should love our families less than He. His use of hyperbole is an effective 
way of getting attention and emphasizing his point at the same time. Commitment
to Jesus comes first. By the way, this is another subtle implicit expression 
of Jesus as God, as elsewhere, he reminds us that we are to love "the Lord 
your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" 
[Matt. 22:37]. 

Anyway, if Bob was to tell Sue that he loved her so much that "he'd walk a 
thousand miles without food and water just to be with her", must Bob fulfill 
the literal sense of his statement for Sue to understand the depth of his love?
If we insisted that hyperbole be taken literally, a very effective and deep 
method of communicating would be lost! 

53 [C/0]. Intoxicating beverages recommended

 [Prov 31:6,7/ 1 Tim 5:23/ Ps 104:15]

Intoxicating beverages discountenanced

 [Prov 20:1/ Prov 23:31,32]

Is it ok to drink alcoholic beverages? 

Yup, but not in excess. And it's not required. 

(All things are lawful for me but I will not be brought under the power of 
any. All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All 
things are lawful, but not all things build up. 1 Cor. 6:12 and 10:23). 

Prov. 20:1 says abusers of wine are not wise. 

Prov. 23:30 tells us that verses 31-32 are in the context of excessive 
drinking. 

The Lord was accused of being a drinker; it can be inferred that He did not 
entirely abstain from wine - just from drunkenness. However, anyone who is 
weak in this matter would do well not to touch the stuff. (IMHO) 

A great verse not quoted is Eph. 4:18 (Compare with Acts 2:13-18). The point 
of wine in the Bible is a picture of our enjoyment of the Spirit. Well, 
atheists can't be expected to understand that. Anyway, we should be crazy
before God and sober before man. -- MAW 

54 [C/0]. It is our duty to obey our rulers, who are God's ministers and 
punish evil doers only

 [Rom 13:1-3,6]

It is not our duty to obey rulers, who sometimes punish the good and receive 
unto themselves damnation therefor

 [Ex 1:17,20/ Dan 3:16,18/ Dan 6:9,7,10/ Acts 4:26,27/ Mark 12:38,39,40/ 
 Luke 23:11,24,33,35]

54 Should we obey our rulers? Are they God's ministers? Do they punish only 
evildoers? Do they sometimes punish the good as well? Will they receive 
damnation for their injustices? 

This question has to be answered in parts.. 

1) Should we obey our rulers? 

Romans 13:1-3, 6 says we should be subject to, and not resist, the authorities 
over us. Note: it doesn't say obey. We should obey if at all possible, unless 
such obedience is contrary to God, as in the extreme cases below. 

Exo. 1:17, 20 tells us that the midwives did not follow the pharoah's command 
to kill the male babies of the Israelites and that God approved. 

Dan. 3:16 18 tell us that Daniel's three friends disobeyed the king's command 
to bow to the image. It also tells us that they were willing to submit to the 
consequences and that their attitude was not one of defiance but of respectful 
disobedience. Same as the midwives. 

Daniel 6:7, 9, 10 tells us Daniel was the same. He was submissive to the king 
and honored him, but was unable to obey this one particular command because it 
conflicted with His faithful worship of God. He also submitted to the penalty. 
All three are special cases where the authorities require something contrary 
to God. All three are not obedient but are still subject and do not resist. 

Acts 4:26-27 does not deal with this question. 

Mark 12:38-40 "Beware the scribes" is not a command not to respect them or do 
as they say. In another verse the Lord makes this more clear, telling us to do 
as they say but not as they do. The Lord had good reason to warn His disciples 
to beware the scribes, as they were part of the group that was plotting to 
kill Him. Anyway, that is not the point here. 

Luke 23:11, 24, 33, 35 Here the Lord submitted to the cruel treatment of the 
earthly government. He was a good example for us all. 

2) Are they God's ministers? 

Romans tells us that they are. No verse tells us that they are not, although 
they do sometimes abuse their office after they have received it from God. 
That makes them not much different from King Saul or the sons of Eli. David 
and Samuel (respectively) were still subject to them and respected them as 
established by God. 

3) Do they punish only evildoers? 

Romans 13:3 "For the rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil.
Do you want to have no fear of the authority? Do what is good, and you will 
have praise from him." 

This is a general principle, explaining that if we rob a bank or kill someone 
or dodge our taxes (the example in the context), we *will* have something to 
fear from the authorities, whereas if we don't we won't. If they oppress us 
unjustly, that is a matter not being dealt with in this verse. 

4) Do they get punished by God for their injustices? 

Yes. God is not a regarder of persons. Every individual, regardless of status, 
will eventually face the judgment seat. -- MAW 

55 [C/1]. Women's rights denied

 [Gen 3:16/ 1 Tim 2:12/ 1 Cor 14:34/ 1 Pet 3:6]

Women's rights affirmed

 [Judg 4:4,14,15/ Judg 5:7/ Acts 2:18/ Acts 21:9]

#55 Does the Bible affirm or deny women's rights? 

(Hot topic.) 

Gen. 3:16 the curse on the woman (man got one too). The husband rules over 
the wife. 

1 Tim. 2:12 Woman not permitted to teach or exercise authority over a man, 
but to be in quietness. 

1 Cor. 14:34 Silent. Not permitted to speak in the assemblies but to be 
subject. Next verse explains: it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. 

1 Pet. 3:6 As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, so women should be 
subject to their own husbands. 

Judg. 4:4, 14-15 Deborah, a female, judged Israel. But note: The Bible 
purposely mentions her husband's name. She does not choose to lead the people 
of Israel to battle but is told to do so. She goes obediently when told, but 
tells Barak that he will be shamed in that a woman will kill his enemy Sisera. 
(It is a shame for a woman to defeat the enemy.) It is also a shame to Barak 
that he cannot go to battle without a woman. As a prophetess, she speaks, but 
she purposely keeps herself in her proper position as a female by maintaining 
the safeguards of her husband's headship and obedience to the authority of 
Barak. It is also a shame to Israel that there were no men who could judge 
them and so God was forced to use a female. (This does happen sometimes.) 

Judg. 5:7 Confirms the fact that there was no male to rule Israel properly 
and so God was forced to raise up Deborah. 

Acts 2:18 Both men and women prophesy. Females prophesying is different from 
females teaching and exerting authority over men. Females can of course 
prophesy with their heads covered, signifying submission and acceptance of 
God's ordination. Just as Deborah did. 

Acts 21:9 A man had four virgin daughters who prophesied. Same as above. 

See also 1 Cor. 14:24, 26, 31; 11:5. 

1 Cor. 11:3 shows us that the point here is to keep the proper order (v. 40) 
in the churches: God is the Head of Christ. He, Christ, was fully in 
submission to the Father in all things, even unto death. Likewise, men 
should be headed up by Christ and women by men, especially their own husbands. 

While on that topic: 

Eph. 5:25-31 "Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church 
and gave Himself up for her that He might sanctify her, cleansing her by the 
washing of the water in the word, that He might present the church to Himself 
glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or any such things, but that she should 
be holy and without blemish. In the same way the husbands also ought to love 
their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his own wife loves himself. 
For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as 
Christ also the church, because we are members of His Body. For this cause a 
man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the 
two shall be one flesh." 

1 Peter 3:7 says that the wives are weaker and are to be treasured as vessels 
unto honor by their husbands. 

1 Cor. 12:22-24 But much rather the members of the body which seem to be 
weaker are necessary. And those members of the body which we consider to be 
less honorable, these we clothe with more abundant honor; and our uncomely 
members come to have more abundant comeliness, but our comely members have no 
need. But God has blended the body together, giving more abundant honor to the 
member that lacked. 

2 Cor. 12:9-10 And He has said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for My 
power is perfected in weakness. Most gladly therefore I will rather boast in 
my weaknesses that the power of Christ might tabernacle over me. Therefore I 
am well pleased in weaknesses, in insults, in necessities, in persecutions 
and distresses, on behalf of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am powerful. 

The brothers saw the vision on the mount of transfiguration, were appointed 
as disciples and later as apostles, and in the churches took on the 
responsibilities of being elders, deacons, teachers, and so on. But it was a 
group of sisters who supplied the funds for Jesus and His disciples to live 
for those three and a half years. It was a sister who willingly and without 
a second thought offered herself to be used by God to bring forth the Messiah,
it was a sister who anointed the Lord Jesus with the costly nard which may 
have been her entire life savings and wiped His feet with her tears, sisters 
who first learned of His resurrection, and a sister who lingered at the
tomb and was first to see Him in resurrection. The Lord does not discriminate 
against us sisters; rather, He is full of compassion for us in our weakness. 
Let us love and seek Him with our whole heart. -- MAW 

56 [C/0]. Obedience to masters enjoined

 [Col 3:22,23/ 1 Pet 2:18]

Obedience due to God only

 [Matt 4:10/ 1 Cor 7:23/ Matt 23:10]

#56 Should masters be obeyed? 

Matthew 4:10 is referring to the service of worship, as the context makes 
clear. We are to worship only God. It is quoted from Deut. 6:13-14 which is 
also in the context of being forbidden to worship idols. 

1 Cor. 7:20-24 tells slaves to remain as slaves even if the opportunity arises 
to be liberated. Then verse 22 says that a slave is the Lord's freedman and a 
freeman is the Lord's slave. This is telling us that outwardly we may be a 
slave or free but in the Lord we are His slave and we are also free in Him. 
So although we are slaves to men outwardly, the one we hold in our heart as 
our true Master is the Lord. This is not a sanction of being rebellious to 
our masters but a reference to our heart. The context makes it clear that it 
is not saying that slaves should seek to be free or to rebel against their 
masters. 

Matt. 23:10. This verse was previously dealt with in question #30. It is not 
referring to whether or not we have earthly masters, but whether or not we 
address some believers as if they were superior with titles of honor like
Father and Teacher (Uh, and Reverend and Pastor and Deacon). All believers 
are brothers. Context: verses 6-11. Yes, there are apostles, prophets, 
evangelists, etc. But we just don't need to address them honorifically.
And mustn't. -- MAW 

57 [C/0]. There is an unpardonable sin

 "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness forever, 
  but is guilty of an everlasting sin." [Mark 3:29]

There is not unpardonable sin

 "And from all the things from which you were not able to be justified by the 
  law of Moses, in this One everyone who believes is justified." [Acts 13:39]

Note that the critic is relying on a particular interpretation of Acts 13, as 
it doesn't clearly say there is no unpardonable sin. It merely says that those 
who believe are justified. Now, Jesus' teaching may be descriptive in essense 
- those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit are those who never believe. That is, 
blasphemy of the Holy Spirit may be a symptom of a heart which is in such 
rebellion that it never yeilds to the call of the Holy Spirit. 

It is also possible that blaspheming the Spirit may simply be rejecting His 
call. Or at the very least, those who blaspheme the Spirit are ones who rebel 
against Him. Recall that the Spirit is sent to bring us into the Truth and
convict us of sin. Those who would blaspheme the Spirit obviously rebel 
against Him, thus reject salvation. Thus, how _could_ they be saved? 

58 [C/0]. Man was created after the other animals

 [Gen 1:25,26,27]

Man was created before the other animals

 [Gen 2:18,19]

The first chapter of Genesis is a synopsis of creation. The second is more 
detailed and focuses on the creation of man (and was unlikely intended to be 
a separate creation account). 

The NIV translates Gen 2:19 as follows: 

"Now that LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the 
field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man..." 

Simply put, the Garden could have initially been without animal life, and 
God simply brought the animals he had already created to Adam. 

59 [C/0]. Seed time and harvest were never to cease

 [Gen 8:22]

Seed time and harvest did cease for seven years

 [Gen 41:54,56/ Gen 45:6]

59 Did seed time and harvest ever cease? 

Gen. 8:22 "shall never cease." 

Gen. 41:54-56, 45:6 There was a famine over the whole earth for seven years. 
The seasons didn't cease, just the fruitful yield thereof. 

Seed time and harvest are another way of saying Spring and Fall, especially 
in the context of Genesis 8 which is speaking of the seasons. They were forced 
to cease during the flood, which was marked by heavy rainfall and not much 
variety. This was not what happpened in Egypt and the other countries during 
the famine in Genesis 41-45. -- MAW 

60 [C/0]. God hardened Pharaoh's heart

 [Ex 4:21/ Ex 9:12]

Pharaoh hardened his own heart

 [Ex 8:15]

#60 Who hardened Pharoah's heart? 

Exo. 4:21 and 9:12 God did. 

Exo. 8:15 Pharoah did. 

MaryAnna notes that they both did. I agree, as much has been written on this 
topic. But I would note that people often react very differently to God's 
actions. For example, let's imagine that God invoked some calimity on people 
as a judgment for their sin. Some people would respond and repent. Many would 
simply harden their heart and blame God. Thus, by bringing about this calamity, 
some might be saved, but God could be said that have indirectly hardened the 
hearts of others. Of course, sometimes you don't need calamity. I'm sure many
Christian's can testify of varying evangelistic experiences. After months of 
witnessing, some become saved. But sometimes, those who come awful close to 
being saved back away and become more rebellious than ever, their hearts being 
more hardened that ever after being touched by the convicting hand of the Holy 
Spirit. 

61 [C/0]. All the cattle and horses in Egypt died

 [Ex 9:3,6]

All the horses of Egypt did not die

 [Ex 14:9]

The account in Ex 9:3 refers to the livestock _in_the_field_. If not all the 
Egyptian horses were in the fields, they wouldn't all die, now would they? 

62 [C/0]. Moses feared Pharaoh

 [Ex 2:14,15, 23; 4:19]

Moses did not fear Pharaoh

 [Heb 11:27]

Hebrews says "By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger." 

The accounts in Ex 2 and 4 describe events long before Moses led his people 
out of Egypt (besides, Ex 4 says nothing about Moses fearing Pharoah). This 
is obviously another contradiction which is read INTO the Bible. 

63 [C/0]. There died of the plague twenty-four thousand

 [Num 25:9]

There died of the plague but twenty-three thousand

 [1 Cor 10:8]

According to Paul, 23,000 fell "in one day." The account in Numbers simply 
states that 24,000 died of the plague. It is not contradictory that 23,000 
should die in a day, and another 1000 die before or after. 

64 [C/0]. John the Baptist was Elias

 "And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah, who is to come." [Matt 11:14]

John the Baptist was not Elias

 [John 1:21]

Note, in Matt. 11:14, not "He is" but "If you are willing to receive it, he 
is." Indicating not a literal identity but a fulfillment of prophecy. 

This is referring to the prophecy in Mal. 4:5-6 "Behold, I will send unto you 
Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of Jehovah. 
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of
the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." 

This prophecy has two fulfillments. First, before the Lord's first coming, 
John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah to prepare the way 
of the Lord and make straight His paths. Luke 1:17. "And it is he who will go
before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of the fathers 
to the children, and the disobedient to the prudence of the righteous, to 
prepare for the Lord a people made ready." 

The second fulfillment of this prophecy is before the second coming of the 
Lord. This has yet to happen, and at that time it will be Elijah, not one in 
the spirit and power of Elijah, who will actually come. This is confirmed by
the Lord's word in: 

Matt. 17:10-13 "And the disciples asked Him, saying, Why then do the scribes 
say that Elijah must come first? And He answered and said, Elijah indeed is 
coming and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah has already 
come; and they did not recognize him, but did with him the things they wished. 
So also the Son of Man is about to suffer by them. Then the disciples 
understood that He spoke to them concerning John the Baptist." 

Again the Lord is careful to point out that the literal Elijah has yet to come,
but  then to say "but I say to you." This indicates that although Elijah is 
coming, it can also be said that he has come - referring to John the Baptist. 

Elijah's coming is also mentioned in Rev. 11:3-4. He will be one of the two 
witnesses. 

John 1:21 John B. said that he was not Elijah. That's right. He wasn't the 
actual person of Elijah. That would happen much much later .... 

So in a sense he was Elijah, and yet he wasn't. Not a contradiction. --MAW 

65 [C/0]. The father of Joseph, Mary's husband was Jacob

 [Matt 1:16]

The father of Mary's husband was Heli

 [Luke 3:23]

It is distinctly possible that Luke's account traces Jesus' lineage through 
Mary, and no Joseph. Some of the circumstantial evidence in to support this 
is as follows: 

1. Luke's birth narrative is through the eyes of Mary, while Matthew's is 
through the eyes of Joseph. Thus, Luke could have received his material 
through Mary (or somone close), thus it is quite possible that he received
her genealogy. 

2. Luke 3:23 reads, "Jesus...being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of 
Heli, etc." Luke certainly draws attention to the fact that Jesus was not 
truly Joseph's son, so why would he then go to all the trouble in listing
Joseph's genealogy? 

3. After considering the Greek of Luke 3:23, Robert Gromacki believes it 
should be translated as follows: 

"being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli, of Matthat, etc." 

Gromaki states: 

"Since women did not appear in direct genealogical listings, Joseph stood in 
Mary's place, but Luke was careful to note that there was no physical 
connection between Joseph and either Jesus or Heli." 

4. Luke's genealogy also lists Adam as "the son of God." This would indicate 
that one would have no grounds for insisting that the term "son" meant only 
the direct, biological offspring. Thus, one could think of Jesus as the
"son of Heli." 

5. The writings of Ignatitius (ca. 100 AD) indicate that the early church 
thought that Mary was a Davidic descent. For example, he writes: 

""Under the Divine dispensation, Jesus Christ our God was conceived by Mary 
of the seed of David and of the spirit of God; He was born, and He submitted 
to baptism, so that by His Passion He might sanctify water." -- Ignatius to 
the Ephesians 

"Christ was of David's line. He was the son of Mary; He was verily and 
indeed born.." -- Ignatius to the Trallians 

Since Ignatius believed in the virgin birth, it clearly follows that he 
would believe that she was "of the seed of David." Other apocryphal gospels 
and Justin Martyr also believed Mary to have been a descendent of David. 

Objections to these claims are basically of two types: 

A. The Jews did not typically trace genealogies through women. 

Reply: This is true, but a virgin birth is not a typical birth. Thus 
standard practices would not be expected to hold. 

B. There is no explicit mention that the genealogy is Mary's. 

Reply: This is true again, but the reason for this is probably due to point A. 
The genealogy would lose all appeal if it was explicitly cited as Mary's. 
However, it does seem to be implied. Thus, one could discern this truth after
they had converted and studied the text. This would account for the early 
church's belief about Mary's Davidic descent. 

Whatever one makes of such reasoning, it is certainly possible that the 
above explanation might be true, thus a contradiction has not been proved. 

66 [C/0]. The father of Salah was Arphaxad

 [Gen 11:12]

The father of Salah was Cainan

 [Luke 3:35,36]

To me, this looks like a legitimate contradiction, although I suppose it is
possible that this is the same person known by different names. After all, 
it is not uncommon for Biblical personages to have more than one name. 

67 [C/0]. There were fourteen generations from Abraham to David

 [Matt 1:17]

There were but thirteen generations from Abraham to David

 [Matt 1:2-6]

68 [C/0]. There were fourteen generations from the Babalonish captivity to 
 Christ.

 [Matt 1:17]

There were but thirteen generations from the Babalonish captivity to Christ

 [Matt 1:12-16]

I list these together and allow MaryAnna to reply...... 

I looked this up in my study Bible (Recovery Version) and found the following 
explanation: 

(Matt. 1:17) "This genealogy is divided into three ages: (1) from Abraham 
until David, fourteen generations, the age before the establishing of the 
kingdom; (2) from David until the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations,
the age of the kingdom; (3) from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, 
again fourteen generations, the age after the fall of the kingdom. According 
to history, there were actually forty-five generations. By deducting from these 
generations the three cursed generations [Matt. 1:8; 1 Chron. 3:11-12; 2 Kings 
15:1, 13; 2 Chron. 21:5-6; 22:1-4; Exo. 20:5] and the one improper generation 
[Matt. 1:11; 1 Chron. 3:15-16; 2 Kings 23:34-35], and then adding one by 
making David two generations (one, the age before the establishing of the 
kingdom, and the other, the age of the kingdom), the generations total 
forty-two, being divided into three ages of fourteen generations each." --MAW 

It's simply a matter of how you count. In other words, you can count it as 
fourteen generations first by extending from Abraham to David; secondly, 
by extending from David to the deportation; and thirdly, by extending from
Jechonias to Christ, inclusive in each case. 

69 [C/1]. The infant Christ was taken into Egypt

 [Matt 2:14,15,19,21,23]

The infant Christ was not taken into Egypt

 [Luke 2:22, 39]

Luke does not say that the infant was not taken into Egypt as neither account 
is exhaustive (those who look for contradictions often overlook the fact that 
Biblical accounts are rarely exhaustive in their scope). We can easily
harmonize the accounts as follows: 

Journey of Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem; birth of the child; 
presentation in the Temple; return to Bethlehem; visit of the Magi; flight 
into Egypt; return to settle in Nazareth. 

70 [C/0]. Christ was tempted in the wilderness

 [Mark 1:12,13]

Christ was not tempted in the wilderness

 [John 2:1,2]

Mark 1:12, 13 Jesus was tempted in the wilderness immediately after His 
baptism. 

John 2:1, 2 The third day after John testifies for Jesus for the first time 
in the book of John, (not the first ever) Jesus is in Cana of Galilee turning 
water into wine. There is no mention of how much earlier Jesus was baptized.
He was tempted in the wilderness before 1:29. Then He went back to see John, 
at which time John proclaims that Jesus is the Lamb of God, based on 
previously having seen the Spirit descend on Him in the form of a dove.
(verses 32 to 34). -- MAW 

71 [C/0]. Christ preached his first sermon on the mount

 [Matt 5:1,2]

Christ preached his first sermon on the plain

 [Luke 6:17,20]

Neither account says anything about this being his "first sermon." As MaryAnna 
notes: 71 Probably two different sermons with similar content. Matt. doesn't 
say the sermon on the mount was His first sermon. Matt. doesn't seem too 
concerned about the sequence of events. Matt. 4:23 seems to indicate that 
before this the Lord already had done a lot of speaking. The one in Luke 6:17 
was to the crowds, whereas the one in Matt. 5 was addressed to the disciples 
privately. -- MAW 

Indeed. It is not at all uncommon for a preacher to preach similarsermons at 
different times and with different audiences, now is it? 

72 [C/0]. John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee

 [Mark 1:14]

John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee

 [John 1:43/ John 3:22-24]

The account in Mark does not indicate that this was the first time Jesus went 
into Galilee. It is quite possible that Jesus did earlier visit Galilee to 
baptize and mingle, and Mark alludes to a subsequent visit (after John's 
imprisonment) when He began to preach the nearness of the kingdom. 

73 [C/0]. Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with a staff and sandals

 [Mark 6:8,9]

Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with neither staves not sandals

 [Matt 10:9,10]

I view these as complementary accounts which get us closer to the full 
instructions of Jesus. In Mark, He tells his disciples to take nothing for 
their journey except a staff and sandals to wear. In Matthew, He instructs them
not to acquire many things (including more sandals and staffs). In short, he 
is instructing them to take little, and not to accept the gifts of men in 
return for the healing and message that they bring with them. 

74 [C/0]. A woman of Canaan besought Jesus

 [Matt 15:22]

It was a Greek woman who besought Him

 [Mark 7:26]

74 The nationality of the woman who besought Jesus. 

Matt. 15:22 She was a Canaanite woman. 

Mark 7:26 She was a Greek, Syrophoenician by race. The Phoenicians were 
descendants of the Canaanites. So she was Greek in some way other than race. 
It could have been by religion, marriage, or something else. Anyway, these 
verses don't contradict each other. The point is she was not an Israelite. -- 
MAW 

Also, "Greek" may have simply meant "Gentile". According to Haley, she lived 
in a part of Canaan called "Syro-Phoenicia." 

75 [C/0]. Two blind men besought Jesus

 [Matt 20:30]

Only one blind man besought Him

 [Luke 18:35,38]

75 How many blind men were there? 

Matt. 20:30 mentions two. Luke 18:35, 38 only mentions one. A certain one. 
Luke probably was acquainted with him and so mentions him specifically. He 
may have continued to follow the Lord and even been among the 120 later, 
whereas the other may not have. At any rate Luke doesn't say that the blind 
man was alone, just that he was there and received his sight. -- MAW 

I should point out that critic's don't like the type of replies that MaryAnna 
suggests, although I think her explanation is quite plausivle. So allow to me 
reply to their complaints at this point. In another context, one critic decried 
a similar type of approach as desribed it as follows 

Critic: "2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says 
"there was a" and another says "there was b", so they decide there was "a" 
AND "b" -which is said nowhere." 

My reply: Simply because it is "said nowhere" doesn't mean it is not the case. 
That follows only if you assume exhaustively detailed and verbatim reports. 
In fact, we can induce that it was probably the case by putting the pieces 
together. This is a perfectly valid approach. Anyone who lives in this world 
ought to know that. If I go for a ride with my buddies Bob and Steve, and come 
home to tell my wife I was out with Bob (perhaps because I talked to him more, 
ie, he was on my mind) and later mention that Steve said something about getting
a new job, have I contradicted myself? The contradiction exists ONLY if I said 
that ONLY Bob and I went for a drive. And it would certainly be reasonable for 
my wife to conclude that I must have went for a ride with both Bob and Steve. 

In attempting to pooh-pooh this type of explanation which is commonly 
experienced, the critic is fallaciously engaged in black and white thinking. 
It's like saying, "Hey, either you went for a ride with Bob or Steve, which
is it?". But why in the world can't it be both? 

Critic: "This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b"." 

My reply: I don't know about happy, but this sounds like the crying of a 
spoiled child. If you are out to demonstrate a CONTRADICTION, this is exactly 
the type of thing you have to uncover. Just because the critic fails to 
shoulder HIS/HER burden is no reason for me to take their point seriously. 

76 [C/0]. Christ was crucified at the third hour

 [Mark 15:25]

Christ was not crucified until the sixth hour

 [John 19:14,15]

76 At what hour was Jesus crucified? 

Mark 15:25 says it was in the third hour, 9:00 a.m. John 19:14-15 says that in 
the sixth hour (different clock). He was still not crucified yet but was being 
judged before Pilate. This was at about 6 a.m. 

So three hours later He had carried the cross up to Golgotha (with some help) 
and was crucified. 

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts use Hebrew time for their reckoning. John uses 
Roman time. Another example of this is in John 18:28 - early morning refers 
to the fourth Roman watch, which was 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. -- MAW 

77 [C/0]. The two thieves reviled Christ.

 [Matt 27:44/ Mark 15:32]

Only one of the thieves reviled Christ

 [Luke 23:39,40]

77 Did both or only one of the thieves revile Jesus? 

Matt. 27:44 and Mark 15:32 say they both did. 

Luke 23:39-40 says that the one rebuked the other for his blasphemy. 

Probably at first they both did and then one of them repented, and, while the 
other was still reviling, rebuked him and asked the Lord to remember him. So 
he was saved. Luke doesn't say that the rebuking one had not at first been 
also reviling. It merely records a segment of the conversation. -- MAW 

(Once again, we see another "contradiction" which presumes exhaustive 
accounts -MB) 

78 [C/0]. Satan entered into Judas while at supper

 [John 13:27]

Satan entered into him before the supper

 [Luke 22:3,4,7]

78 When did Satan enter Judas? 

John 13:27 Right after eating the morsel offered to him by Jesus. 

Luke 22:3,4,7 Satan also entered Judas before that. 

It could be he kept entering Judas. Just like the evil spirit that kept coming 
upon King Saul. -- MAW 

(Indeed, are we to believe that once Satan enters someone, he remains there 
for the rest of the natural life of a person?? -- MB) 

79 [C/0]. Judas committed suicide by hanging

 [Matt 27:5]

Judas did not hang himself, but died another way

 [Acts 1:18]

Matt 27:5 states that Judas "threw the pieces of silver....and he went away 
and hanged himself." 

Acts 1:18 states, "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all 
his bowels gushed out." 

It's rather easy to reconcile these: 

1. First, Judas tried to kill himself by hanging himself. And this is not 
always a successful way. Maybe he tried, and failed (as have many others who 
have tried to commit suicide by hanging). Then after some time, he threw
himself off a cliff and fell upon some jagged rocks. Keep in mind that it is 
not uncommon for people who commit sucide to have tried it before. 

2. Judas could have tied a rope to a tree branch that extended over a cliff 
(after all, you have to get some space between your feet and the ground to 
hang yourself). In this situation, the rope/branch could have broke before or
after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on some jagged rocks. 

Certainly, these explanations are plausible, thus a contradiction has not been 
established. 

For a more thorough treatment of this contradiction, see this.

80 [C/0]. The potter's field was purchased by Judas

 [Acts 1:18]

The potter's field was purchased by the Chief Priests

 [Matt 27:6,7]

Perhaps here, the following maxim holds - "He who does a thing by another, 
does it himself." That is, yes it was the chief priests who actually bought 
the field, but Judas had furnished the occasion for its purchase. Thus,
the verse in Acts could be employing a figure of speech where we attribute to 
the man himself any act which he has directly or indirectly procured to be 
done. After all, we attribute the "Clinton health care plan" to Bill Clinton,
when in reality, it is a plan devised by others associated with Bill Clinton. 

81 [C/0]. There was but one woman who came to the sepulchre

 "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene 
  went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance." 
  [John 20:1]

There were two women who came to the sepulchre

 "After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and 
  the other Mary went to the other tomb." [Matt 28:1]

This is a case where a contradiction is read into the account. John does not 
report that ONLY Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. Failing to mention someone 
does not necessarily mean that no one else was present. In fact, had the 
critics read further, they would have seen that Mary was not alone: 

"So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus 
loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't 
know where they put him!" [Jn 20:2] 

If Mary was alone, then who is WE? Clearly more than one person went with 
Mary. John just doesn't mention them. 

82 [C/0]. There were three women who came to the sepulchre

 [Mark 16:1]

There were more than three women who came to the sepulchre

 [Luke 24:10]

Again, the same reasoning applies. See my previous story about going for a 
ride in the car. :) 

83 [C/0]. It was at sunrise when they came to the sepulchre

 "Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on 
  their way to the tomb."
  [Mark 16:2]

It was some time before sunrise when they came.

 "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene 
  went to the tomb." 
  [John 20:1]

I see no contradiction. Mary could have left a little earlier than the others. 
Or they could have left while it was still dark and the sun began to rise 
while they were on their way. I've worked my share of nightshifts to know
that one can leave the job while it is still dark,and get home after the sun 
has risen! 

84 [C/0]. There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulchre, and they 
were standing up.

 [Luke 24:4]

There was but one angel seen, and he was sitting down.

 [Matt 28:2,5]

It is quite possible that much of the confusion about these trivial facts 
stems from the fact that many women went to the tomb that morning (Luke 24:10).
It's possible, at the very least, that a group of women came to the tomb, and 
saw that the stone had been rolled away. Some women went inside, but the more 
timid remained outside. Those inside saw the vision of the two angels, while 
those outside saw the angel on the stone. 

Also, in response to the manner in which this supposed contradiction is 
presented, I would point out that a.) Matthew does not say there was "but one 
angel," he simply focuses on the angel who moved the stone; b.) the Greek 
word in Luke rendered "stood near" also means, "to come near, to appear to."
In Luke 2:9 and Acts 12:7 it is translated as "came upon." Thus, Luke may 
simply have said that angels suddenly appeared to them without reference to 
posture. Strictly speaking, one would be hard pressed to establish a 
contradiction in terms of numbers or posture even without my possible 
explanation. 

85 [C/0]. There were two angels seen within the sepulchre.

 [John 20:11,12]

There was but one angel seen within the sepulchre

 [Mark 16:5]

These are not the same incidents. John's account is particular to Mary after 
she followed Peter and John back to the tomb, which was later than the account 
cited in Mark. 

Now, I myself once stumbled upon a "better" contradiction. When Mary runs back, 
she is scared and thinks that the body has been stolen. Then she returns to 
the tomb and weeps. Now isn't this odd given that she supposedly heard the 
angels say that "He is risen"? Why so much despair after that miraculous 
experience? It doesn't seem to add up. Of course it is possible that she had 
not fully comprehended what occurred, as one has to be careful in expecting 
people to respond coherently. But I think the answer is more clear if we 
consider John's account. John notes that she went to the tomb and saw that 
the stone had been removed from the entrance. "So she came running to Simon 
Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved and said, "They have
taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they put him". 
(John 20:1-2). Then Peter and John ran to the tomb only to find the empty 
burial wrappings. Mary must then have followed them, but when she got there, 
they had gone, so she stood there crying, worried that the body of Jesus had 
been stolen. Then two angels appeared to her, and then the risen Jesus did. 
In short, the reason she was in despair is probably because she didn't go 
into the tomb with the other women. As they approached the tomb, they saw it 
open, and probably began to worry amongst themselves that grave robbers came 
and stole the body before they could anoint it. At this realization, Mary 
probably left the group and bolted back to tell the others. 

86 [C/0]. Christ was to be three days and three nights in the grave

 [Matt 12:40]

Christ was but two days and two nights in the grave

 [Mark 15:25,42,44,45,46; 16:9]

According to Haley, Orientals reckon any part of a day as a whole day. Thus, 
one whole and two parts of a day, along with two nights, would be popularly 
styled as "three days and three nights." Such usuage is seen elsewhere in 
Scripture. 

87 [C/0]. Holy ghost bestowed at pentecost

 [Acts 1:8,5]

Holy ghost bestowed before pentecost

 [John 20:22]

87 Two aspects of the Spirit. In John 20:22 He was breathed *into* the 
disciples. In Acts 1:5,8 He was poured out *upon* them. 

That's like in 1 Cor. 12:13, which says that we were baptized in one Spirit 
and also given to drink one Spirit. One is inward and the other is upon us 
outwardly. -- MAW 

I agree. It's certainly possible that in John, the disciples became indwelt 
with the Holy Spirit, and in Acts they became empowered by the Holy Spirit. 

88 [C/0]. The disciples were commanded immediately after the resurrection 
to go into Galilee

 [Matt 28:10]

The disciples were commanded immediately after the resurrection to go tarry at
Jerusalem

 [Luke 24:49]

According to Haley: 

"The command tarry ye in Jerusalem," etc., means simply, "Make Jerusalem your 
head-quarters. Do not leave it to begin your work, until ye be endued," etc. 
This injunction would not preclude a brief excursion to Galilee. Besides, the 
command may not have been given until after the visit to Galilee." 

Indeed, keep in mind that Jesus appeared to the disciples several times over 
a period of many days. The Gospel's simple give us "snapshots" of some of 
these events and certainly Matthew's account is a brief synopsis. 

89 [C/0]. Jesus first appeared to the eleven disciples in a room at Jerusalem

 [Luke 24:33,36,37/ John 20:19]

Jesus first appeared to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee

 [Matt 28:16,17]

Matthew's account does not say that this was Jesus' first appearance. It is 
certainly possible that Matthew simply passes over the earlier appearences 
and focuses on the call to go into Galilee. In fact, notice how Matthew's 
account is not exhaustive. In 28:16, he mentions that Jesus had indicated what 
mountain in Galilee the disciples were to go to, yet he does not mention this 
when he quotes Jesus in verse 10. 

90 [C/0]. Christ ascended from Mount Olive

 [Acts 1:9,12]

Christ ascended from Bethany

 [Luke 24:50,51]

You know one is grasping when they cite the same author writing about the same 
thing as a contradiction. :) Bethany is on the eastern slope of Mount Olivet. 
Anyone coming back from there and returning to Jerusalem would have to pass 
over the moutain, and thus return from Mount Olivet. You would think that 
someone who proposes a geographical contradiction would look at a map. 

91 [C/0]. Paul's attendants heard the miraculous voice, and stood speechless

 [Acts 9:7]

Paul's attendants heard not the voice and were prostrate

 [Acts 26:14]

ACTS 26:14 And when they had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying 
to me... 

Acts 9:7- The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the 
sound but did not see anyone. 

While we are at it, let's add the other account... 

Acts 22:9- My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice
of him who was speaking to me.

Obviously, according to the NIV translation, there is no contradiction, as you 
can hear a sound, but not the recognize it as the voice of one speaking. So is 
this translation justified? Sure. The original Greek makes a distinction 
between hearing a sound as a noise and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying 
message. Haley notes "The Greek "akouo", like our word "hear", has two 
distinct meanings, to perceive sound, and to understand". This distinction 
makes sense also in light of the context. Recall the differing levels of 
perception. While the men heard an unintelligible sound and saw a light, Paul 
heard the voice and saw the person speaking. In fact, this type of distinction 
occurs in another place: 

"Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it 
again". The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others 
said an angel had spoken to him" [John 12:28-29]. Here is a clear-cut
example where a voice speaks, but is heard by some as an unintelligible sound. 

As for the stance of Paul's companions, Haley notes "the word rendered 'stood' 
also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. Hense, the sense may be, not 
that they stood erect, but that they were rendered motionless, or fixed to the 
spot, by overpowering fear". It is also entirely plausible that when they 
first saw the great light, they "hit the dirt", then they could have got up 
off the ground and stood there motionless. 

The problem with the skeptic's approach is that it assumes these accounts are 
exhaustive, step by step, accounts where each detail is conveyed. They are not.
It's not as if the author of Acts is saying "this is how it happened" three 
separate times. The author does this once, and the other two times he relays 
Paul speaking about it in two different contexts. Now given that the author 
wasn't on the road to Damascus, and given that Paul was speaking from memory, 
and given that none of these are meant to be some exhaustive, detailed, point 
by point description, it is indeed wise to fit them all together. Furthermore, 
the account in Acts 26 relays a speech that Paul gave to King Agrippa which 
was only a synopsis. Acts 26 simply relays the manner in which Paul chose to 
convey his points. 

92 [C/1]. Abraham departed to go into Canaan

 [Gen 12:5]

Abraham went not knowing where

 [Heb 11:8]

In Gen 12:1 God simply says to leave "your country...to the land I will show 
you." The teaching in Hebrews could simply mean that Abraham did not know 
where he was going in the sense of not knowing where this promised land was. 
Thus, he set out for Canaan. And it was once he was in Canaan that God showed 
him that this was the promised land (Gen 12:7). 

Look at it this way. God appears to Bob and tells him to leave his home because
He has a mission for Bob. So Bob packs up, and not knowing where/what the 
mission is, and stops at an old friends house for a few days. Then God appears 
to Bob and instructs him of a mission which involves his friend. Thus, in one 
sense Bob sets out to partake of a mission with his friend, but in another 
sense, he sets out to his friends house not knowing what/where the mission is. 

93 [C/0]. Abraham had two sons

 [Gal 4:22]

Abraham had but one son

 [Heb 11:17]

93 Abram had one genuine son of his wife Sarah who could be the fulfillment of 
God's promise regarding his seed. He had another son by the maidservant Hagar 
and several others later by a second wife, but in his heart Isaac was his only 
son. This is also why he cut off all the others from inheritance. Notice the 
wording of Heb. 11:17 indicates that even though he had other sons, yet to him 
it was as if he were offering up his only begotten to whom the promise was 
made. --MAW 

Besides, does anyone really believe that the writer of Hebrews was unaware of 
some well-known teachings about Abraham or had not read Genesis? Also, the 
writer of Hebrews is obviously screening out stuff to focus on topics related 
to faith. Hagar's son was not the product of faith, and thus not worthy of 
mention in this context. 

94 [C/0]. Keturah was Abraham's wife

 [Gen 25:1]

Keturah was Abraham's concubine

 [1 Chron 1:32]

MaryAnna suggests that Keturah could have been Abraham's concubine who at some 
point became his wife. The point behind both verses is not about Keturah, but 
about her children. The author of Genesis may have been less exact and 
referred to these children as those of Abraham's wife (if Bob had a child with 
Jill before being married, then got married to Jill, we would refer to the 
child as being of Bob's wife), while the author of 1 Chron (who is busy being 
exact in documenting genealogies) may have been more exact and noted that such 
children were born while Keturah was still the concubine of Abraham. 

95 [C/0]. Abraham begat a son when he was a hundred years old, by the 
interposition of Providence

 [Gen 21:2/ Rom 4:19/ Heb 11:12]

Abraham begat six children more after he was a hundred years old without any
interposition of providence

 [Gen 25:1,2]

#95 The problem was not with Abraham's infertility but with Sarah's inability 
to conceive. This was remedied only once by divine intervention. Abraham had 
one son before and several after, not with Sarah, all without divine 
intervention.-- MAW 

I'd also add that there is no certain reason for believing the births described
in Gen 25:1,2 came after the birth of Isaac. Abraham could have had these 
children with Keturah much earlier. Verses 1,2 could simply be saying that 
Keturah has reunited with Abraham after Sarah's death, and they became married. 
Then it lists the children that they had had earlier on (perhaps while living 
in Ur). 

96 [C/0]. Jacob bought a sepulchre from Hamor

 [Josh 24:32]

Abraham bought it of Hamor

 [Acts 7:16]

One possible explanation is that Abraham bought the *field* whereas Jacob 
went back and specifically bought the *tomb.* Compare with Gen. 33:19 and Gen. 
23:10-20. Josh. 24:32 and Acts 7:16 were based on those
verses. -- MAW 

97 [C/0]. God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed forever

 [Gen 13:14,15,17; 17:8]

Abraham and his seed never received the promised land

 [Acts 7:5/ Heb 11:9,13]

97 Here is a partial answer. God *gave* the land to Abraham and his seed. We 
do see that the land was eventually possessed by the children of Israel 
(Abraham's grandson). Yet, in Acts, God did not give Abraham (personally) an 
inheritance on the land. True. But Abraham died in faith, even though he had 
not obtained the title deed to the property to pass on to his children. But 
eventually his descendents *did* get the land. 

To answer this even further (not for the benefit of any skeptics but just 
because I can't resist pointing out that this point is much deeper than just 
who occupies the land) - we have to look at Galatians 3:14 which tells us what 
the real blessing of Abraham is. Then the seed of Abraham is identified in 
verse 16. Then compare with  Hebrews 11:39-40 and 12:1-2. This is what Hebrews 
means when it says they did not receive the promises, according to the context. 

Yes, of course the land was the literal land and the seed was the literal 
descendents of Abraham and yes they did get their inheritance and now they are 
also on it again (part of it). At the same time, Galatians and Hebrews are 
also true. -- MAW 

98 [C/0]. Goliath was slain by Elhanan

 [2 Sam 21:19] *note, was changed in translation to be correct. Original 
 manuscript was incorrect. 

The brother of Goliath was slain by Elhanan

 [1 Chron 20:5]

As conceded, the verse in 2 Sam was probably due to a copyist's mistake. 

99 [C/0]. Ahaziah began to reign in the twelfth year of Joram

 [2 Kings 8:25]

Ahaziah began to reign in the eleventh year of Joram

 [2 Kings 9:29]

Note that Ahaziah is the son of Joram. It's possible that on account of Joram's
sickness [2 Chron 21:18,19] that Ahaziah became associated with him in the 
eleventh year of Joram's rule, but then began to rule alone by the twelth year. 

100 [C/0]. Michal had no child

 [2 Sam 6:23]

Michal had five children

 [2 Sam 21:8]

In this case, I'll quote John Baskette's reply previously posted. 

"What does 2 Sam. 21:8-9 say? 

"But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare 
unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter 
of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: 
And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them 
in the hill before the LORD: and they fell [all] seven together, and were put 
to death in the days of harvest, in the first [days], in the beginning of 
barley harvest." 

This would appear to be a real contradiction except for the phrase "whom she 
brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai." 

The phrasing tells you that these sons are not Michal's in the normal sense of 
the term because she did not "bear" these children. I.e. these sons are 
adopted children." 

101 [C/0]. David was tempted by the Lord to number Isreal

 [2 Sam 24:1]

David was tempted by Satan to number the people

 [1 Chron 21:1]

There are three possible responses here: 

1. Biblical writers often dismissed secondary causes and attributed all things 
that happened to God, since He is over all things. Thus, God is did not tempt 
David, He allowed Satan to influence him. 

2. Arthur Hervey believes 2 Sam 24:1 is better translated as, "For one moved 
David against them." In this case, the numbering of the people was the cause 
of God's anger, not the result. After all, without this interpretation, it is 
not clear why God was angry with Israel. 

3. The verse in 1 Chron translated as "satan" could also be translated as 
"adversary." Strictly speaking, in this situation, God was Israel's adversary. 

102 [C/0]. The number of fighting men of Isreal was 800,000; and of Judah 
500,000

 [2 Sam 24:9]

The number of fighting men of Isreal was 1,100,000; and of Judah 470,000

 [1 Chron 21:5]

The account in 1 Chron twice speaks of "all the people" and "all Israel." The 
account in 2 Sam does not. Thus, it is possible that the account in 1 Chron is 
more inclusive, while 2 Sam only deals with the standing army. 

103 [C/0]. David sinned in numbering the people

 [2 Sam 24:10]

David never sinned, except in the matter of Uriah

 [1 Kings 15:5]

In 1 Kings, it is important to note that David is being compared to Abijah. 
Thus, comparatively speaking, David did not fail to keep God's commands (yet, 
a comparative approach could not hide the sins associated with Uriah). Also 
note, that 1 Kings did not say that David "never sinned." It said that he did 
what was right in the eyes of God and had not failed to keep any of God's 
commands. If God commanded David to number the people, there is no 
contradiction,  now is there? Or, one could say that given David's repentent 
heart, from God's perspective, he did not sin (see Psalm 51:2). 

104 [C/0]. One of the penalties of David's sin was seven years of famine.

 [2 Sam 24:13]

It was not seven years, but three years of famine

 [1 Chron 21:11,12]

This could definitely by a copyist's error. 

105 [C/0]. David took seven hundred horsemen

 [2 Sam 8:4]

David took seven thousand horsemen

 [1 Chron 18:4]

This could be another copyist's error. 

106 [C/0]. David bought a threshing floor for fifty sheckels of silver

 [2 Sam 24:24]

David bought the threshing floor for six hundred shekels of gold

 [1 Chron 21:25]

"So David paid Araunah six hundred shekels for the site." - 1 Chron 

"So David bought the threshing floor and oxen for 50 shekels." - 2 Sam 

It could be that David paid 50 shekels for the oxen, and the amount paid for 
the threshing floor is not indicated in 2 Sam. This is not implausible given 
that the account in 1 Chron speaks of the oxen, wood, and wheat, yet only
mentions David paying for "the site." 

107 [C/0]. David's throne was to endure forever.

 [Ps 89:35-37]

David's throne was cast down

 [Ps 89:44]

The throne of the seed of David (referring to Christ) will indeed endure 
forever. Psalms 89:44 is poetry saying that David's throne was cast down.. 
indeed it never was, although it was threatened for a time by David's son
Absalom. Poetry cannot always be taken literally; also, the promise in 2 Sam. 
7 regarding the eternal throne is not referring to David. -- MAW 

This is a poem, and as such, it is dangerous to take it too literally. The 
writer of the psalm is lamenting what he perceives as a time when God has 
abandoned His people (after spending most of the psalm recounting all of
God's promises and great works). Did God truly abandon His people? No. But 
from this writer's perspective, he appeared to. Thus, this psalm captures and 
communicates the angst that is humanity's lot. 

I think it silly to use a poem to establish a contradiction. For example, in 
Ps 139:13, David says he is knit in his mother's womb. Two verses later, he 
says he's woven together in the depths of the earth. Is David so stupid
that he contradicts himself in a span of two sentences? Or is the critic so 
"stupid" that he/she insists on precise and very literal meanings of words 
used in poetry? 

108 [C/0]. Christ is equal with God

 [John 10:30/ Phil 2:5]

Christ is not equal with God

 [John 14:28/ Matt 24:36]

A few of the "contradictions" are based on a lack of understanding of the 
Trinity. This is one of them. In His person, Christ is equal with God essential-
ly. Economically, for the accomplishment of His plan, Christ took on humanity, 
forsaking His equality with God temporarily in order to set a good pattern of 
submission and to pass through death for the redemption of man and the 
destruction of the devil and to bring His life to all men. Now He has been 
seated at the right hand of the majesty on high, with all things subjected 
under His feet.-- MAW 

I agree. These teachings involve a discussion of both the Trinity and the 
Incarnation (which is beyond the scope of this reply). Suffice it to say that 
it is quite possible that such doctrines could be true, thus these verses would
be a case of both/and, rather than a contradiction. 

109 [C/0]. Jesus was all-powerful

 [Matt 28:18/John 3:35]

Jesus was not all-powerful

 [Mark 6:5]

Matt. 28:18 is after the resurrection, after all power was given to Him by the 
Father. John 3:35 says that the Father has given all into His hand.. could be 
referring to all the believers, as in other verses in John... 

Mark 6:5 shows us that Jesus was limited by man's unbelief. 

This is a recurring theme in the Bible, that although God is all-powerful, He 
chooses to limit Himself to man; that is, He chooses to wait for man's co-
operation. This explains why the Bible calls His believers His fellow workers. 
God doesn't *need* man to work together with Him, yet this is His chosen means 
of operation. If this is how He chooses to work, this explains how He is all- 
powerful and yet "could not do many works of power there because of their 
unbelief." --MAW 

110 [C/0]. The law was superseded by the Christian dispensation

 [Luke 16:16/ Eph 2:15/ Rom 7:6]

The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation

 [Matt 5:17-19]

Luke 16:16 tells us that the law and the prophets were until John. This is 
referring to the Old Testament, which indeed lasted until John. 

Ephesians 2:15 tells us that Christ in His flesh on the cross abolished the 
law of the commandments in ordinances. This is not referring to the moral law, 
but the dietary regulations, the Sabbath, the feast days, and other practices 
which set the Jews apart from the Gentiles. 

Rom. 7:6 says we have been delivered from the law. This is talking about the 
slavery to the law, i.e. trying to keep the law in our flesh rather than 
allowing the inner divine life to spontaneously be expressed in a daily walk
that is much higher than that mandated by the law. 

Matt. 5:17-19 shows us that Christ did not destroy the moral law, but rather 
fulfilled it. He fulfilled it three ways: 

(1) He kept the law Himself.
(2) He fulfilled the requirement of the death penalty for us.
(3) He uplifted the law by instituting the higher law
(meant to be kept not by human effort but by His life in the believers.) --MAW 

To this I would also add Paul's teaching in Galatians. That is, the law is a 
tutor which brings us to Christ. When a person comes to Christ, the purpose 
of the law has been fulfilled. 

111 [C/0]. Christ's mission was peace

 [Luke 2:13,14]

Christ's mission was not peace

 [Matt 10:34]

Luke 2:14 says, "peace among men with whom he is pleased." 

Mt. 10:34 says, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." 

The first verse could very well mean that peace exists among those with whom 
God is pleased, i.e., the fellowship of believers. Yet such believers are like 
a light among the darkness, and men prefer the darkness. Thus, the fellowship 
of believers, while full of peace, incurs the wrath of the nonbelievers. 

One only need consider that in some nations Christians peacefully gather, yet 
are persecuted, to see how easy this "contradiction" is resolved. 

112 [C/0]. Christ received not testimony from man

 [John 5:33,34]

Christ did recieve testimony from man

 [John 15:27]

I see it as follows: In John 5:34, Jesus claims that the witness he receives 
comes not from men. If we read Luke 1:76, we see that John is to be a prophet, 
one who speaks for God. Thus, John's witness, as a prophet, is really God's 
witness. In other words, Jesus is not rejecting John's witness; he is clarifying
it. (Also, this verse is particular to the witness for Jesus early in his 
ministry.) These verse do not necessarily teach that Jesus does not recieve 
witness from men. 

The verse in John 15 speaks of a different situation. This is after Jesus' 
crucifixion and the indwelling of the Spirit. 

113 [C/0]. Christ's witness of himself is true.

 [John 8:18,14]

Christ's witness of himself is not true.

 [John 5:31]

This is a bogus "contradiction." Jesus is not saying His witness of Himself is 
untrue. He is pointing out that if He alone bore witness of Himself, it would 
be untrue. Since Jesus did not bear witness of Himself alone, His witness of 
Himself is not untrue. 

MaryAnna adds: 

113 Was Christ's witness of Himself true? John 8:18 and 14 is talking about the
legal stipulation in the Old Testament that a person giving testimony for 
himself was not to believe unless he had at least one other witness. John 5:31 
is talking about the verity of Christ as a witness. Of course, in the sense of 
verity, Christ's witness is indeed true. --MAW 

114 [C/0]. Christ laid down his life for his friends

 [John 15:13/ John 10:11]

Christ laid down his life for his enemies

 [Rom 5:10]

Did Christ lay down His life for His friends or His enemies? 

Both. The friends mentioned in John 15:13 and John 10:11 are His disciples. 
The enemies mentioned in Rom. 5:10 were all of us. He could easily die for 
both His enemies and His friends. This could be answered more completely, but 
even this simple answer shows that these two verses are not contradictory. 
--MAW 

115 [C/0]. It was lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death

 [John 19:7]

It was not lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death

 [John 18:31]

Was it lawful for the Jews to put Jesus to death? 

By Jewish law, as stated in the Old Testament, yes. (John 19:7). But by the 
law of the occupying Romans at the time of Jesus' walk on earth, it was 
expressly forbidden for the Jews to put anyone to death on their own without 
going through the proper Roman legal channels and using the Roman means of 
execution (John 18:31).
--MAW 

116 [C/0]. Children are punished for the sins of the parents

 [Ex 20:5]

Children are not punished for the sins of the parents

 [Ezek 18:20]

Are children punished for the sins of the parents? 

Exo. 20:5 tells us that God is to be feared, as He has the ability to visit 
the sins of the fathers on the children. 

Ezek. 18:20 tells us this will not happen if the children repent and turn 
away from the ways of their fathers. Not a contradiction. --MAW 

117 [C/1]. Man is justified by faith alone

 [Rom 3:20/ Gal 2:16/ Gal 3:11,12/ Rom 4:2]

Man is not justified by faith alone

 [James 2:21,24/ Rom 2:13]

Romans 3:20 man is justified by faith, and not works of law.
Gal. 2:16 same.
Gal. 3:11, 12
Rom. 4:2 

If we want to be justified, we have to receive the divine life. Otherwise, no 
matter how many good works we do, we can never be justified in the sight of 
God. 

However, after we receive the divine life of God, this will issue in a kind of 
living which will manifest our justification. 

James 2:21, 24; Rom. 2:13. 

James is making the point that faith without works is dead. Certainly it is a 
dead faith if it has no effect on our living. The living is the evidence that 
our faith is effective and that we have indeed been justified. 

Romans is talking about the law and says that the doers of the law shall be 
justified.. in the context he is making the point that no one can be justified 
by works without faith because it is impossible to keep the law. --MAW 

I agree. It's not that works are necessary additions to faith. Instead, it's 
that a living faith gives rise to good works. Thus, we have another both/and 
situation. 

It's interesting that the Bible protrays our relationship to God as a marriage. 
A loving marriage is one in which both faith and acts converge toward the same 
end. 

118 [C/1]. It is impossible to fall from grace

 [John 10:28/ Rom 8:38,39]

It is possible to fall from grace

 [Ezek 18:24/ Heb 6:4-6/ 2 Pet 2:20,21]

John 10:28 says the believers shall by no means perish forever. 

Romans 8:38, 39 say nothing can separate us from the love of God. 

So these two verses tell us we don't have to worry about our eternal destiny. 

Ezek. 18:24 is an Old Testament verse. 

Hebrews 6:4-6 tells us salvation is once for all and cannot be renewed. If we 
fall away, we have only to repent and turn back to the Lord; it is not necessary
to be saved all over again. Also, the sacrifices of the Old Testament time are 
no longer valid and are actually an insult to the Lord who died for us. (Some 
Christians mistakenly use these verses to say that if you are saved you can 
lose your salvation and never get it back.) 

2 Pet. 2:20-21- The last state is worse than the first.. Some believers "fall 
away from grace" in this age and suffer for it. This doesn't mean that their 
eternal destiny changes. They will still be with the Lord for eternity, but 
they will suffer first and be more miserable than before they believed in the 
Lord. This suffering is only temporary. -- MAw 

MaryAnna's explanations might provoke disagreement amongst some Christians 
(not me though), but recall that in the context of this reply, it only need be 
possible that she is correct. If she is, the contradictions are easily resolved.
 

119 [C/0]. No man is without sin

 [1 Kings 8:46/ Prov 20:9/ Eccl 7:20/ Rom 3:10]

Christians are sinless

 [1 John 3: 9,6,8]

Of course no man is without sin, in himself. 1 John 3:6-9 does not say that 
Christians are without sin. It says that everything that has been begotten of 
God does not practice sin. The word "practice sin" refers to a habitual life 
of sin. It does not mean that Christians never do anything sinful. A believer 
who truly has an inner knowing of the Lord will not have the practice of 
habitual sin in his living. -- MAW 

120 [C/0]. There is to be a resurrection of the dead

 [1 Cor 15:52/ Rev 20:12,13/ Luke 20:37/ 1 Cor 15:16]

There is to be no resurrection of the dead

 [Job 7:9/ Eccl 9:5/ Is 26:14]

Job 7:9-10; Eccl. 9:5; Is. 26:14
In this life we have nothing to fear from the dead; they will not come back to 
resume their former lives as if they had not died. They will stay resting in 
their graves, silent and unable to do anything further to affect their eternal
destiny. They have no power to rise again. 

1 Cor. 15:52; Rev. 20:12-13; Luke 20:37; 1 Cor. 15:16
Of course, at the Lord's return there will be a resurrection of all the dead 
to judgment. Then some of them will pass on to eternal fire and others will 
receive a reward. This is not to resume their former lives. Hence this is
not a contradiction. -- MAW 

Another way of saying it is as follows: 

The verses in Isaiah may be teaching that the dead do not normally rise. That 
is, they don't rise in of themselves, but they will be raised at a later date. 
Also, there is a definite comparative theme - where the dead are forgotten, 
God is never forgotten. The verses in Eccl and Job also have a temporal/worldly 
perspective. That is, while the living experience rewards, know things about 
each other, and are remembered by each other, this is not the case with the 
dead.

One could also resolve these by claiming as a possibility that the dead "sleep" 
until they are raised. 

121 [C/0]. Reward and punishment to be bestowed in this world

 [Prov 11:31]

Reward and punishment to be bestowed in the next world

 [Rev 20:12/ Matt 16:27/ 2 Cor 5:10]

There's a simple explantion here. Rewards and punishments are bestowed both 
here and in the hereafter. 


122 [C/0]. Annihilation the portion of all mankind 

 [Job 3: 11,13-17,19-22/ Eccl 9:5,10/ Eccl 3:19,20]

Endless misery the portion of all mankind 

 [Matt 25:46/ Rev 20:10,15/ Rev 14:11/ Dan 12:2]

Is mankind annihilated or eternally miserable? Job 3:11-22, Eccl. 9:5,10; 
3:19-20 These verses refer to the rest before judgment. Ecclesiastes 3 tells 
us all is vanity because just as animals die men die too. Job 3 tells us he
wishes he were dead so he wouldn't feel pain. Ecclesiastes 9 says do what you 
can in this life because you won't be able to do much when you are in the 
grave. None of this is talking about annihilation. 

Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:10,15; 14:11; all these verses tell us that of course 
after a period of waiting in the grave there will be a judgment and some will 
go to the lake of fire for eternity. 

Daniel 12:2 ties the whole thing together. --MAW 


123 [C/0]. The Earth is to be destroyed 

 [2 Pet 3:10/ Heb 1:11/ Rev 20:11]

The Earth is never to be destroyed 

 [Ps 104:5/ Eccl 1:4]

Will the earth be destroyed? In a sense, yes. Everything on the earth will be 
destroyed. 2 Pet. 3:10; Heb. 1:11; Rev. 20:11 all confirm this. 

On the other hand, the earth with its foundations will remain to the age. 
Keep in mind also that Psa. 104:5 and Eccl. 1:4 are both poetry. Ecclesiastes 
in context is telling us of the temporal life of man more than making a 
statement about the permanence of the earth. 

Not contradictory, since one is talking about the surface of the earth and the 
other is talking about its foundations. -- MAW 


124 [C/0]. No evil shall happen to the godly 

 [Prov 12:21/ 1 Pet 3:13]

Evil does happen to the godly 

 [Heb 12:6/ Job 2:3,7]

The teachings in Prov and 1 Pet could very well mean that no permanent or 
ultimate evil will befall the godly. Jesus' teaching about fearing those who 
can harm the soul rather than the body come to mind. 

Also, one could view these teachings as general rules. Prov 26:4,5 taught us 
that a particular proverb might not always apply in every situation. As such, 
it is indeed true that the righteous are generally more immune to harm than the 
unrighteous. They are less likely to die while driving drunk, less likely to 
die of a fatal disease which is sexually transmitted, less likely to die of 
drug overdoses, less likely to be murdered in a crack house or beaten
by a pimp, etc. And Peter points out that it's unlikely your will be harmed by 
being good to someone (verse 14 clearly implies verse 13 is a general rule). 


125 [C/0]. Worldly good and prosperity are the lot of the godly 

 [Prov 12:21/ Ps 37:28,32,33,37/ Ps 1:1,3/ Gen 39:2/ Job 42:12]

Worldly misery and destitution the lot of the godly 

 [Heb 11:37,38/ Rev 7:14/ 2 Tim 3:12/ Luke 21:17]

Here the critic is concocting contradictions. None of the latter four verses 
teach that "worldly misery and destitution is the lot of the godly." Let's 
look at them: 

Heb 11 - these verses speak only of the experiences of Israel's prophets, not 
of all the godly. They are not intended as a general principle. 

Rev 7 - this verse is specific to the events surrounding the great tribulation. 

2 Tim - here Paul teaches that those in Christ Jesus can expect persecution. 
Obviously, this cannot be compared to OT teachings since Jesus did not yet 
come. 

Luke 21 - Jesus uses hyperbole to make the same point that Paul does. 

Strictly speaking, these verses do no say what the critic purports, thus no 
contradiction. 

Personally, however, I think the principle of Prov 26:4,5 applies. That is, 
worldly prosperity and good are the lot of some of the godly, while persecuction
is the lot of others. The former Christians are the "silent witness," as they 
enable the Church to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the 
homeless, etc. The latter Christians are more like the prophets in that they 
serve as a social conscience, and thus get persecuted. 


126 [C/0]. Worldly prosperity a reward of righteousness and a blessing 

 [Mark 10:29,30/ Ps 37:25/ Ps 112:1,3/ Job 22:23,24/ Prov 15:6]

Worldly prosperity a curse and a bar to future reward 

 [Luke 6:20,24/ Matt 6:19,21/ Luke 16:22/ Matt 19:24/ Luke 6:24]

Job 22 does not teach that riches are a blessing! It is Eliphaz's teaching that 
Job ought to cast away his desire for riches to find God. Eliphaz was under 
the impression that Job wanted to reacquire prosperity, but this was probably 
not true 

Psalm 37:5 could be a poetical expression praising God for feeding and caring 
for His people. It has nothing to do with properity (unless one thinks that 
one is prosperous if they don't have to beg for food). 

Psalm 112 is a poetical expression and Prov 15 is a rule of thumb which do 
indeed seem to teach that wealth is a blessing bestowed upon the righteous. 

Mark 10 says nothing about worldly prosperity. It is a hyperbole in line with 
the teaching that one must lose their life to gain it. That is, whatever you 
give up, you will regain more of, once in the fellowship of the Lord. 

The verses in Luke 6 are hyperbolic teachings which convey a sense of righting 
wrongs and comforting. It would be irrational to take them too literally, as 
it would mean that all Americans (including Christians) would hunger in the 
age to come and that anyone of good humor would be crying in the age to come. 
Instead, it is quite possible (in light of all of Jesus' teachings) that Jesus 
is  not condemning riches, full bellies, and laughter per se. He is instead 
providing balance. He offers comfort to those who are lacking, and warns those 
who are not (so that they don't trust in what they have rather than trusting 
in the Lord). 

Whenever one cites a teaching of Jesus, they are obligated to consider it's 
meaning in the context of ALL of Jesus' teaching. And Jesus is not interested 
in outward expressions (eating, riches, an environment where good humor is 
possible) as much as he cares about the person's perceptions and reactions to 
there state of being. 

Mat 6 seems to help us here. Jesus does not condemn riches, He condemns riches 
which are perceived as "treasures." There is a difference between one who is 
rich, yet willingly uses those riches to help others and serve the Kingdom, 
and one who is rich yet who hoards his money. 

Matthew 19 further supports this distinction as the rich man was unwilling to 
part with his money. For him, his riches were his treasure. This verse is 
simply a hyperbole pointing out that it is more difficult for one who is rich
to become a Christian (this is probably a function of the fact that riches 
enable one to be more autonomous). 

The teachings in Luke 16 are a parable conveying the same teaching as in Luke 
6. Here is a rich man who did not place his riches under the Lordship of Christ.
 
There are no true contradictions here. Put simply, one's riches must be under 
the Lordship of Christ. If they are, they are indeed a blessing. Not only to 
the person in question, but to the community she belongs to. If the riches are 
not under the Lordship of Christ, they are a curse, in that they tend to keep 
one from crying out to God. 

Or one could cite Paul to clear up all these teachings, and note that it is not 
money which is the problem, it is the love of money which is the problem. 


127 [C/0]. The Christian yoke is easy 

 [Matt 11:28,29,30]

The Christian yoke is not easy 

 [John 16:33/ 2 Tim 3:12/ Heb 12:6,8]

It is not the Lord who causes difficulties for his children! The Lord does not 
make difficult serving him, but certainly (as stated later) the unbelieving 
world often causes us physical hardship. The last verse refers to chastening 
of God, which the Christian does not consider the uneasy yoke; God is the loving
chastener, not the hating master. -- RS 

128 [C/0]. The fruit of God's spirit is love and gentleness 

 [Gal 5:22]

The fruit of God's spirit is vengance and fury 

 [Judg 15:14/ 1 Sam 18:10,11]

These are different situations and times. God made great warriors do great 
deeds for Israel's sake in days of hardness; the coming of Jesus heralded a 
time where God's new chosen would be called towards a temperance that still 
came from God. --RS 

I'd also note that while Gal does teach that the fruit of the Spirit includes 
love and gentleness in men, the OT teachings says nothing about the FRUIT of 
the Spirit. In Judges, the Spirit empowered Samson to carry out judgment. In 1 
Sam, we are not even dealing with God's spirit. Instead, it's an evil spirit 
which God allowed to come upon Saul. (Don't these critics read the verses they 
use to purport contradictions?) 


129 [C/0]. Longevity enjoyed by the wicked 

 [Job 21:7,8/ Ps 17:14/ Eccl 8:12/ Is 65:20]

Longevity denied to the wicked 

 [Eccl 8:13/ Ps 55:23/ Prov 10:27/ Job 36:14/ Eccl 7:17]

In Job 21, Job is replying to the generalizations brought up by Zophar. However
, he considers these as exceptions, as is evident from Job 21:17-18. Thus, Job 
21 teaches there are exceptions to the general observation. Ps 17:14 says 
nothing about longevity. Eccl 8 is a hypothetical situation used to assert 
that things go better for God fearing men. Is 65 speaks of a future age and is 
not applicable in this setting of verses. 

None of these verses teach, as a general rule, that the wicked enjoy longevity. 
For that matter, the latter set really don't teach that longevity is "denied" 
to the wicked. They simply note that the wicked often die young. No 
contradictions here. 

130 [C/0]. Poverty a blessing 

 [Luke 6:20,24/ Jams 2:5]

Riches a blessing 

 [Prov 10:15/ Job 22:23,24/ Job 42:12]

Neither poverty nor riches a blessing 

 [Prov 30:8,9]

Most of these are answered in reply to #125. In fact, Proverbs 30:8,9 nicely 
sums up my reply to #125, in that it shows both the blessings and curses 
associated with riches. 

131 [C/0]. Wisdom a source of enjoyment 

 [Prov 3:13,17]

Wisdom a source of vexation, grief and sorrow 

 [Eccl 1:17,18]

My understanding of these apparent opposites is that both are true, and indeed, 
they can be. Wisdom brings the benefits of deeper understanding, but the burden
of such an understanding can be terrible at times, too. --RS 

Indeed, this could easily be a both/and situation. For example, wisdom causes 
me to rejoice in the plan of God. But it also causes me sorrow in knowing that 
not all will partake of that plan. 

132 [C/0]. A good name is a blessing 

 [Eccl 7:1/ Prov 22:1]

A good name is a curse 

 [Luke 6:26]

Naturally, it's obvious that Luke 6:26 says no such thing. It does, however, 
warn against the complacency of popularity and vanity. Wise words. -- RS 


When the world speaks well of Christians, it is probably because those 
Christians do not disturb the world, and in fact, may be because they have 
worldly values. In this case, such Christians would do well to heed Jesus' 
warning. Luke 6 says nothing about a "good name." Furthermore, since the OT 
verses do not deal with the added dimension of the Church being in the world, 
they simply cannot be compared. 

133 [C/0]. Laughter commended 

 [Eccl 3:1,4/ Eccl 8:15]

Laughter condemned 

 [Luke 6:25/ Eccl 7:3,4]

Luke 6 is answered in #126. As for the rest, Eccl 3:4 resolves the whole thing 
- "ther is....a time to weep and a time to laugh." Laughing at one's suffering 
is  not a time to laugh, thus would be condemned. Laughing during a time of 
celebration would obviously not be condemned. 

134 [C/0]. The rod of correction a remedy for foolishness 

 [Prov 22:15]

There is no remedy for foolishness 

 [Prov 27:22]

The former regards children who don't know better by their nature until 
instructed and diverted from foolishness. The latter refers to someone who 
has grown up into the permanent foolishness. Context is all. --RS 

135 [C/0]. A fool should be answered according to his folly 

 [Prov 26:5]

A fool should not be answered according to his folly 

 [Prov 26:4]

The first thing to note is that these seemingly contradictory teachings are 
right next to each other. Could the writer of Proverbs be so stupid as to not 
notice this?! I hardly think so. In fact, I think it is very illuminating that
these teachings are closely tied. They highlight the fact that Biblical 
admonitions need not fall under the "either/or" criteria, but can be more 
properly understood in term of "both/and." In fact, I have often found these
two teachings from Proverbs quite useful. In debating various nonchristians, 
I often encounter foolish responses and name-calling. I can either choose not 
to respond or ignore the foolishness and get to the point of contention. At 
such times, I follow Proverbs 26:4. In other instances, I mirror the foolishness
of my antagonist in the hopes that he/she can perceive the folly of their 
approach when I employ it. At such times, I follow Proverbs 26:5. The key is 
knowing when to use which approach, and in such instances, I try to allow the 
Spirit to guide me. 

136 [C/0]. Temptation to be desired 

 [James 1:2]

Temptation not to be desired 

 [Matt 6:13]

Twisted wording, mostly. Jesus tells us to pray that the Lord move us to resist 
temptation. James says that once you know to let the Lord help you resist 
temptation, rejoice that your faith is honed by the experiences of his divine 
aid. -- RS 


I'd also add that James 1:2 does not say that temptations are to be desired. 
It says that we should rejoice that in our trials because they help to mature 
our faith. 

Consider this strained analogy. Anyone who works out at the gym knows that a 
good workout results in pain. But one does not seek out the pain. One does not 
ask for it. In fact, one could ask to be led away from pain, in general. Yet, 
when one works out physically or spiritually, pain/trials follow. Yet the pain
/trials shoud not discourage you. In fact, they are a sign that you are growing.
 

137 [C/0]. Prophecy is sure 

 [2 Pet 1:19]

Prophecy is not sure 

 [Jer 18:7-10]

Apples and oranges. Peter wrote about prophecy that had _already been fulfilled
_. Jeremiah's verse is about prophecy of things yet to be done. That is, it is 
a conditional prophecy designed to induce repentance. -- RS 

138 [C/0]. Man's life was to be one hundred and twenty years 

 [Gen 6:3/ Ps 90:10]

Man's life is but seventy years 

 [Ps 90:10]

In Gen 6:3, God prescribes a 120 year lifespan just prior to the Flood. Psalm 
90:10 does not say the lifespan is 120. It's a poetical reference to us living 
70 years, 80 if we are strong. (According to the NIV notes, Hebrew poetic 
convention called for 80 to follow 70 in parallel construction). Genesis 6 
could be setting an upper limit, or given the context, it could be just one 
way of saying that man is mortal. Psalm 90 is an observation fitted into a
poetical account of our fleeting existence. 

139 [C/0]. The fear of man was to be upon every beast 

 [Gen 9:2]

The fear of man is not upon the lion 

 [Prov 30:30]

Prov 30:30 - "The lion which is mighty among beasts and does not retreat 
before any" could mean "any other beast." 

140 [C/1]. Miracles a proof of divine mission 

 [Matt 11:2-5/ John 3:2/ Ex 14:31]

Miracles not a proof of divine mission 

 [Ex 7:10-12/ Deut 13:1-3/ Luke 11:19]

This is a very confusing claim of contradictions. Taking the latter set of 
verses one by one: The first involves the Pharoah's magicians doing a trick 
which Aaron, acting for the Lord, totally defeated. These verses say nothing
about miracles not being a proof of divine mission, instead, the true miracle 
(from God) swallowed up the tricks of the magicians. The second is a commandment
against abandoning God for other gods because of such tricks - something Jesus 
and Moses certainly never called for. The third verse is apparently taken out 
of context; in it,Jesus says that it makes no sense to claim he casts out 
demons in the devil's name. None of this can be construed as contradictory to 
the purpose of God's miracles. -- RS 

141 [C/0]. Moses was a very meek man 

 [Num 12:3]

Moses was a very cruel man 

 [Num 31:15,17]

The latter of these is a judgment call, but at any rate, taking the point, it 
obviously involves assuming that to be noncontradictory, Moses, and everyone 
else, would have to be exactly the same from early to late in their lives
and experiences. Such assumptions are unreasonable. 

142 [C/0]. Elijah went up to heaven 

 [2 Kings 2:11]

None but Christ ever ascended into heaven 

 [John 3:13]

Here one has to read John 3:13 in context. 

"If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if 
I tell you heavenly things? And no one has ascended into heaven, but he who 
descended from heaven, even the Son of Man." 

Haley notes: 

"Jesus, setting forth his own superior authority, says, substantially, "No 
human being can speak from personal knowledge, as I do, who came from heaven." 
"No man hath ascended up to heaven to bring back tidings." So, speaking of the 
secrets of the future world, should very naturally say: "No man has been there 
to tell us about them." In saying this, we do not deny that any one has 
actually entered the eternal world, but merely that any one has gone thither, 
and returned to unfold its mystery." 

Haley's interpretation of the whole point is entirely possible. 

143 [C/0]. All scripture is inspired 

 [2 Tim 3:16]

Some scripture is not inspired 

 [1 Cor 7:6/ 1 Cor 7:12/ 2 Cor 11:17]

This is a case of overinterpretation. Paul does not say that what he writes is 
not inspired by God; merely that the Lord has not commanded what Paul says. 
Paul was almost certainly inspired by God in each word he spoke following his 
conversion-- RS 

I'd also note that in 1 Cor 7:10, Paul could be citing an actual tradition 
from Jesus' earthly ministry, while in verse 12 he is not. Thus, he is not 
saying the teaching is not inspired from God, only that it didn't stem from the
teachings of Jesus when He was on earth. 2 Cor could merely mean that Paul was 
not speaking as Jesus would when He was on earth. But this doesn't mean that 
the Spirit is not speaking through him. 

  Here is my reaction to all of these "Biblical Contradictions" :
 
  Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z

    Actually I've read through about 1/3 of it and find it very edifying,
    there are some deep things in its content if you take the time to read
    them.

    Bob,
    
    Neat stuff (Hank's snoring notwithstanding ;-).
    
    Thanks for posting.  I think Barry did something similar to this once
    (didn't you, Baer?).
    
    Always fun (for me anyway) to see how people look at the apparent
    conflicts.
    
    Be well,
    
    Steve

  My apologies to any brethren (especially to Bob) if I offended them by 
  falling asleep while reading these "contradictions".

  Nancy is right, some of them are thought provoking.

  Even if we answered them all, it wouldnt help...  would it?
  I mean, most of those who are always pointing out "contradictions" already 
  seem to have made their minds up already. No?

  I guess I'm "shell shock"

  Hank (me sorry) D

    Not shell-shocked, just napping, right? ;-)
    
    You've got a good point, Hank.  There are those who find contradictions
    simply because they want to find them.  But I suppose there is a need
    for most ministries - apologetics being one of them (though this isn't
    really a tight fit with apologetics....).  Any work that's really of
    Him is profitable, even if it's meant for a more narrow audience,
    right?
    
    For some - contemplating this list could well be an open door to enter
    faith!  Others won't be convinced no matter how much data they're
    provided, still others will nap right through it ;-).
    
    Steve

  Re .22  Steve 

  It's been my experience that those who are being drawn to Christ by the
  Father have a pre-dispositioned heart tilted toward belief. When I hear
  talk about "contradictions" in the Bible by "seekers" my heart sinks
  because I know where its going (in all probablility). When my kids ask
  me innocently about these contradictions (they go to public school) then
  I like to use the word Bible "difficulties" not contradictions, difficulty
  with our understanding of the Word, not the Word itself.

  The value of this kind of exercise is to have a ready answer for the "honest
  seekers" whom the enemy is trying to derail.

  Now lets see, how was that for admitting I was wrong without admitting it?

  Hank

    not bad, Hank :-)

      I think the observations of 'seeming' contradictions validates 
      the complete necessity of a line upon line, here a little, there
      a little manner of interpreting the scriptures.
    
                                                 Tony

    Well, glad some of you like it. The intent of entering the information
    was for the edification of the readers. Hopefully, if someone you meet
    has a question, or brings up a contradiction, (or difficulty) you might 
    remember the answer, or at least know where to get it. 
    
    At the least, it has helped me in a couple of areas I had a 'lack of
    understanding' on.
    
    Bob

    Bob: I for one find it to be very useful. I have encountered many
    people who have asked similar questions concerning contradictions. 
    There isnt one person here who would have an answer to every question
    asked concerning contradictions.  At least now when someone brings up a 
    contradiction Ill be able to get the answer for them.  Thanks, your
    time was not wasted.
    
    Sylvain

         Bob,
         
         Just out of curiosity, I realise that you have transferred these 
         from a posting on the Internet, but do you know who the author/s 
         might be?
         
         Paul

  Re 559.29 Patricia

  Well, hello Patricia! Good to see you here.

  Hank    

         Patricia,
         
         How about putting an entry in the introductions note (4) so that 
         we can get to know you a little more (or have you already done so, 
         and I've simply not noticed?!)
         
         Good to have you with us, especially as you may have noticed that 
         for a little while we were truly worldwide, with simultaneous 
         participation from America, UK and Australia!
         
         Paul (DECpark, Reading, UK)

    	Isn't it funny how immediately prejuducual we can be!
    
    	When this was posted I assumed that it was intended to create
    	controversy, not clear it up.  I simply blew it off and didn't
    	bother to read it.
    
    	How fortunate, then, that I should start off my day by seeing
    	reply .27 which opened my eyes to the fact that the postings
    	have ANSWERS and not just confusion.
    
    	Now I'll have to go back and become familiar with them -- with
    	a different heart, that's for sure!

�    	Isn't it funny how immediately prejuducual we can be! 

Welllll - in all fairness, I thought it looked like that too, both from the
title, and reading the list in .1-.2.  At that stage, I wanted the
references because they seemed too superficial.  Then I got a bit
further...  When seen as an index, .1-.2 are of much more use!

I would say this is a helper to people with sincere questions, rather than
to doubters.  The former are those who are trying to understand, in whom
the Holy Spirit of God is working to reveal Himself, in accordance with 1
Corinthians 2:12-13.  The latter are those who are - often subconciously -
hiding from the truth, and grasping at any excuse to reject God's Word.
They are blinded to the truth, in accordance with 1 Corinthians 2:14.
However, the Holy Spirit sometimes uses such gleams from His word to
convict even these, and turn them from doubters to seekers...  Helpful to 
build up faith in the saints...

					God bless
							Andrew 

    Yes, Steve, I did develop a class where we studied scores of "Bible
    Difficulties". I took all of the difficulties that had been posted in
    this conference over the years, those that had troubled *me* over the
    years, and the "toughest" ones that I came across during my preparation
    for the class. I think it was one of the best classes I've ever done.
    If I had hopes of finding a willing publisher I'd even work on
    collecting all of my (handwritten) notes into a book.
    
    One of the books that I looked at during my preparation was published
    by American Atheist Press. The early notes in this string reminded me
    of that book (except the AAP book took a totally different approach to
    the difficulties ;-), i.e. page after page of verse quotations that
    (when taken out of context or otherwise abused) showed hundreds of
    "contradictions". So sad to see trees wasted on that piece of trash.
    
    As for having a "catechism" that would teach believers how to respond
    to such difficulties... While I believe there is value in folks
    learning how to respond (obviously, or I wouldn't have spent the time
    doing my class), it's really just a "simple" matter of rightly dividing
    the Word. When a *believer* studies the Word using sound hermeneutics
    almost all of the difficulties disappear. Besides, if someone has
    animosity toward the Bible, no amount of training or eloquent debate
    will open that person's eyes. (This conference alone contains plenty of
    examples of this phenomenom.) Only the Holy Spirit is powerful enough
    to remove the scales from the eyes of someone who is blind by choice.
    
    	BD�

>    If I had hopes of finding a willing publisher I'd even work on
>    collecting all of my (handwritten) notes into a book.

Persistence, my friend.

Have you tried the Nazarene Publishing House in Kansas City, Mo.?
If your stuff is well written, I know a published author who might
put a plug in for you if it is good (my dad).  You never know until you
try.

Irena prodded me to publish some material.  I finally sent something off
(opportunity knocked) to a Nazarene periodical (The Herald of Holiness)
and it was accepted for publishing (in one of the next several issues).
The HH is not the people who publish the books, though - but I do have 
their address.  ;-)  When I finally get the copy, *then* I'll be a
published author.  Right now, I'm only a *paid* author.  :-)

Mark

re .28

Hi Paul,

The information was compiled by various people over time. The answers were
provided by Michael J. Bumbulis, MaryAnna White, and Russ Smith.

For those with I-Net access, 
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/homes/mcbryan/public_html/bb/27/summary.html

will get you to the "Christianity" home page. 
For direct access to the page of 143 contradictions, 
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/contradictions/contradictions.html 

will get you there. Also available is The University Of Notre Dame server, at:
http://www.nd.edu/NDHomePage/NDHomePage.html

and Christian Political Resources at: 
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/homes/mcbryan/public_html/bb/27/4/summary.html

Contemporary Christian Music at:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/homes/mcbryan/public_html/bb/27/3/summary.html

and Domain Directory of Christian Organizations at:
file://iclnet93.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-directory.txt

and Guide to Christian Resources on the Internet at:
file://iclnet93.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-resources.html

and lastly (for now) Guide to Early Church Documents on the Internet at:
file://iclnet93.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-history.html

If you don't have WWW (World Wide Web) access, try LYNX. Some systems
have LYNX installed, and although does not provide a graphical environment,
you can still access files on the Internet.

Bob

    Re: Note 559.37 by N2DEEP::SHALLOW
    
    > http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/contradictions/contradictions.html 
    
    For our Australian noters, this has now been shadowed on
    
    http://www.sna.dec.com/~cameron/christian/contradictions/contradictions.html
    
    James

| <<< Note 559.8 by N2DEEP::SHALLOW "Ephesians 1:6" >>>

| 58 [C/0]. Man was created after the other animals

| [Gen 1:25,26,27]

| Man was created before the other animals

| [Gen 2:18,19]

| The first chapter of Genesis is a synopsis of creation. The second is more
| detailed and focuses on the creation of man (and was unlikely intended to be
| a separate creation account).

| The NIV translates Gen 2:19 as follows:

| "Now that LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the 
| field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man..." 

| Simply put, the Garden could have initially been without animal life, and
| God simply brought the animals he had already created to Adam.


	One small flaw with that thinking. In Genesis 1 it states what day each
thing happened. Man cam AFTER the birds, animals, NOT before.




Glen

>| Man was created before the other animals
>
>| [Gen 2:18,19]
    
Genesis 2:18  And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be 
    alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Genesis 2:19  And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the 
    field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what 
    he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that 
    was the name thereof.
    
    

| <<< Note 559.17 by N2DEEP::SHALLOW "Ephesians 1:6" >>>

| 143 [C/0]. All scripture is inspired

| [2 Tim 3:16]

| Some scripture is not inspired

| [1 Cor 7:6/ 1 Cor 7:12/ 2 Cor 11:17]

| This is a case of overinterpretation. Paul does not say that what he writes is
| not inspired by God; merely that the Lord has not commanded what Paul says.
| Paul was almost certainly inspired by God in each word he spoke following his
| conversion-- RS

	Then why no credit to who was supposed to have inspired him to say the
words about marriage? Why say upfront that it did not come from Him? 

	Maybe it comes down to this. Inspired does not mean God breathed?

| I'd also note that in 1 Cor 7:10, Paul could be citing an actual tradition
| from Jesus' earthly ministry, while in verse 12 he is not. Thus, he is not
| saying the teaching is not inspired from God, only that it didn't stem from the
| teachings of Jesus when He was on earth. 2 Cor could merely mean that Paul was
| not speaking as Jesus would when He was on earth. But this doesn't mean that
| the Spirit is not speaking through him.

	There are a lot of coulds in the above. How does could discount the
other? We really don't know, do we? And I don't remember Paul ever stating that
his opinions didn't stem from the teachings of Jesus, just that it was not from
God, but his own opinion.


Glen

| <<< Note 559.40 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

| >| Man was created before the other animals
| >
| >| [Gen 2:18,19]

| Genesis 2:18  And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be
| alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

| Genesis 2:19  And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
| field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what
| he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that
| was the name thereof.


	Now go read Genesis 1....

    Glen, you're misinterpreting the passage.  It's telling you that God
    brought the animals to Adam after He made them so that Adam can name
    them.  It isn't saying Adam was made before the animals.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 559.43 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

| Glen, you're misinterpreting the passage.  It's telling you that God brought 
| the animals to Adam after He made them so that Adam can name them. It isn't 
| saying Adam was made before the animals.


	Mike, I've looked this morning to see where I had the passage. I have
not found it, so when I get home I will write down the passages. Gen 1 states
when each thing happened, Gen 2 has things done in a different order. 


Glen

Glen,
  In the next note, I'll reprint Genesis 1 and 2 for you.  But you know
you've covered this ground before and you will cover this ground again
and you only show how much you have to stretch to invalidate the Bible
to validate yourself.  Be honest with yourself, as you have admitted once,
that according to the literal Bible you're an outsider with a stake at
discrediting the Bible to justify yourself.  Unless you allow the Bible
to filter your life, instead of allowing your life to filter the Bible,
you will only and always fool yourself into thinking that God has 
adopted you as one of His children. 
  Note 152.107.

Mark

Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
  2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face
of the deep. and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
  3  And God said Let there be light: and there was light.
  4  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from
the darkness.
  5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the
evening and the morning were the first day.
  6  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and
let it divide the waters from the waters.
  7  And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the
firmament from the waters which were above the the firmament: and it was so.
  8  And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning
were the second day.
  9  And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto
one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
 10  And God called the dry land earth; and the gathering together of the
waters called he seas: and God saw that it was good.
 11  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
upon the earth: and it was so.
 12  And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his
kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was it itself, after his kind:
and God saw that it was good.
 13  And the evening and morning were the third day
 14  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and
for days, and years:
 15  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light
upon the earth: and it was so.
 16  And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and
the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
 17  And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth
 18  And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light
from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
 19  And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
 20  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature
that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of
heaven.
 21  And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged
fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
 22  And God blessed them, saying, be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the
waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
 23  And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
 24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
kind, cattle, and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind: and it
was so.
 25  And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after
their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and
God saw that it was good.
 25  And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after
their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and
God saw that it was good.
 26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let
them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and
over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that
creepeth upon the earth.
 27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them.
 28  And God blessed them, and said onto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth
upon the earth.
 29  And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is
upon the face of the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a
tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
 30  And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to
every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given
every green herb for meet: and it was so.
 31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good.
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1  Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host
of them.
  2  And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
  3  And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it
he had rested from all his work which he had made.
  4  These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
  5  And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb
of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon
the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
  6  But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of
the ground.
  7  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
  8  And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the
man whom he had formed.
  9  And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is
pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst
of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
 10  And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was
parted and became into four heads.
 11  The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole
land of Havilah, where there is gold:
 12  And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
 13  And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that
compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
  .
  .
  .

| <<< Note 559.45 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| Be honest with yourself, as you have admitted once, that according to the 
| literal Bible you're an outsider with a stake at discrediting the Bible to 
| justify yourself.  

	WHOOOOOAAA MARK! Please show me where I have EVER said I am out to
discredit the Bible to justify myself. You KNOW this isn't true. I could add
more, but it would only get set hidden. But if you are going to make this
claim, back it.

| Unless you allow the Bible to filter your life, instead of allowing your life 
| to filter the Bible, you will only and always fool yourself into thinking that
| God has adopted you as one of His children.

	Mark, like I have said, you can believe as you want. Your belief does
not matter to me. God is the only thing that matters. 


Glen

	Mark, tell me, how come your version of Gen 2 says nothing about the
animals? I know my book does. I'll look it up tonight and get back to ya. Maybe
that's what the:


.
.
.
.
.
.
 	meant?

    >Mark, tell me, how come your version of Gen 2 says nothing about the
    >animals? I know my book does. I'll look it up tonight and get back to
    >ya.
    
    see 559.42

    re: .47
    
|| Be honest with yourself, as you have admitted once, that according to the 
|| literal Bible you're an outsider with a stake at discrediting the Bible to 
|| justify yourself.  


|	WHOOOOOAAA MARK! Please show me where I have EVER said I am out to
|discredit the Bible to justify myself. You KNOW this isn't true. I could add
|more, but it would only get set hidden. But if you are going to make this
|claim, back it.


Perhaps I'm speaking out of turn here, but...


      From the American Heritage Dictionary:

      discredit v  1. To disgrace; dishonor.  2. To cast doubt on.
      		3. To disbelieve
      		-n  1. Damage to one's reputation.  2. Lack or loss 
      		of trust or belief.


      justify v  1. To demonstrate to be just, right, or valid.  
      		2. To provide sound reasons for; warrant.  3. To 
      		declare free of blame; absolve.  

Isn't claiming the Bible to be flawed the same as discrediting it?

Isn't adopting faith contrary to the Bible through claims of Biblical 
flaws an attempt to justify yourself?  

To what, then, are you objecting?

The only way that Mark Metcalfe's statement is incorrect is if 
Glenn Silva does indeed believe the Bible to be inerrant.  I do not 
recall seeing Glenn Silva making this statement within this conference...

Otto

The whole of Genesis 2.  I thought I covered the verse where you objected
in verses 7 and 9.  There is another in 18 and 19, which is probably the
part you contend.  My omission of these verses was not intentional.
My apologies.

Genesis 2:1  Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host
of them.
  2  And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
  3  And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it
he had rested from all his work which he had made.
  4  These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
  5  And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb
of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon
the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
  6  But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of
the ground.
  7  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
  8  And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the
man whom he had formed.
  9  And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is
pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst
of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
 10  And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was
parted and became into four heads.
 11  The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole
land of Havilah, where there is gold:
 12  And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
 13  And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that
compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
 14  And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth
toward the east of Assyria. and the fourth river is Euphrates.
 15  And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to
dress it and to keep it.
 16  And the lord god commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden
thou mayest freely eat:
 17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of
it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
 18  And the lord god said, it is not good that the man should be alone; I
will make him an help meet for him.
 19  And out of the ground the lord god formed every beast of the field, and
every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call
them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name
thereof.
 20  And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to
every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for
him.
 21  And the lord god caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept:
and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
 22  And the rib, which the lord god had taken from man, made he a woman, and
brought her unto the man.
 23  And Adam said, this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she
shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.
 24  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave
unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
 25  And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

    I had entered these for edification & discussion. Do I sense an arguement? 
    I really don't want to see any heated moments here. Please?
    
    Bob

Bob, it isn't your fault.  There is another note that deals with Bible 
contradictions, and is a better suited place for the arguments.  I humbly
suggest that the moderators consider moving the arguments to the
Bible difficulties note or the Bible inerrancy(? I forget the exact title) 
note.  You WILL generate discussion and disagreement from those who do
not hold to the context by which most of us are gathered here, even though
it has been discussed before by the same protagonists and antagonist time
and time again.  The context of this conference is often ignored;
no, that's not right because ignorance is not a factor; it is often 
violated by those who don't think we should have a conference that 
is based on an inerrant Bible.  Another conference of the other premise
(a shifting Bible) is already available but it isn't enough.  This conference
has put up with a lot of antagonism over the years, (and it will even if
a certain antagonist ever moves on).

MM

    that's because Cult Awareness Network deemed us the new cult. ;-)

    Re: Note 559.53 by TOKNOW::METCALFE

�Bob, it isn't your fault.  There is another note that deals with Bible 
�contradictions, and is a better suited place for the arguments.  I humbly
�suggest that the moderators consider moving the arguments to the
�Bible difficulties note or the Bible inerrancy(? I forget the exact title) 
�note.
    
    The Bible Difficulties note is 71. There's no point in moving these
    notes there, though, because this very topic has already been covered.
    
    As for arguments, I suggest that it takes two people for an argument to
    proceed. Both positions have been stated. No agreement will be reached.
    No point in arguing about it.
    
    	BD�

    Hi again guys,
    
    What about the first contradiction in scripture ( to my mind as an
    apprentice scholar ) ? I've read quite a bit of the list so far but did
    not see this one.Forgive me if I've missed it.On the very first day
    we had light,darkness,evening & morning which were called a day.The sun
    & moon were not created until the 4th day.
    Is this a contradiction ? Any opinions.
    
    I enjoy reading this conference and would like to state this as I gain
    a lot from reading.( I also get disturbed by some of the communications
    but thats life).
    
    Owen  

>    we had light,darkness,evening & morning which were called a day.The sun
>    & moon were not created until the 4th day.
>    Is this a contradiction ? Any opinions.

This has been covered.  See note 71, as Barry suggests.

Breifly, Light does not have to come from the sun or the moon.  Does it?
Creating the Sun and the Moon is a separate event.  From what did the
first light come?  I don't know.  Was it the sun and the moon?.  Nope.

| <<< Note 559.50 by ASDG::RANDOLPH >>>


| || Be honest with yourself, as you have admitted once, that according to the
| || literal Bible you're an outsider with a stake at discrediting the Bible to
| || justify yourself.

| Isn't claiming the Bible to be flawed the same as discrediting it?

	To discredit the Bible to justify myself is what was said. I in turn
refuted this. As far as me discrediting the Bible goes, send me mail and I will
give you a 2 line response. I can't put it in here as it would get deleted.

| Isn't adopting faith contrary to the Bible through claims of Biblical flaws 
| an attempt to justify yourself?

	My beliefs are based on believing in Him. If you want to know more
about the flaws, send mail. If I say it in here, it will be deleted. Suffice to
say that I do not use the Bible in any way to justify myself, and any claims
that I make about the Bible do not change my belief in Him. My faith is based
in Him.

| To what, then, are you objecting?

	I wish I could make it clearer, but I know what would happen if I did. 

| The only way that Mark Metcalfe's statement is incorrect is if Glen Silva does
| indeed believe the Bible to be inerrant.  

	That is an incorrect statement. The Bible being inerrant and my faith
in Him are two seperate issues. 

| I do not recall seeing Glen Silva making this statement within this conference

	Nor will you.... again, if you look at my situation, you can't look at
it through your belief colored glasses. If you do, then you do not see the
reality of my situation.



Glen

| <<< Note 559.53 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



	You say this....

| Bob, it isn't your fault.  There is another note that deals with Bible
| contradictions, and is a better suited place for the arguments.  

	And come back with this....

| You WILL generate discussion and disagreement from those who do not hold to 
| the context by which most of us are gathered here, even though it has been 
| discussed before by the same protagonists and antagonist time and time again. 
| The context of this conference is often ignored; no, that's not right because 
| ignorance is not a factor; it is often violated by those who don't think we 
| should have a conference that is based on an inerrant Bible.  

	I wonder who is the antagonist Mark. You seem to say a lot of things
that you know will tick a lot of people off. I guess if you really didn't do
this so often that people would take you seriously when you say arguing should
not happen.

| Another conference of the other premise (a shifting Bible) is already 
| available but it isn't enough.  

	Thanks for proving my point.

| This conference has put up with a lot of antagonism over the years, (and it 
| will even if a certain antagonist ever moves on).

	Oh.... are you leaving Digital?


Glen

    Re: light on day one...
    
    Great point!
    
    Clearly, this is not sunlight or moonlight.  But it *was* light!  So -
    what kind of light was it?  Physical?  If so - from what source (or
    Source)?  Spiritual?
    
    Great food for thought!
    
    Steve

    Please take your personal insults offline.  The participants in this
    file do not wish to participate in your verbal brawls.
    
    Thank you,
    Nancy
    co-moderator CHRISTIAN

�    Re: light on day one...

There surely had to be the Shekinah glory around, where God was working....
And it becomes clear that the sun and moon were only to mark off the days, 
not to define them...  

It underlines that God chose to take  6 days over creation.

								Andrew

    I was gonna add that too - God is light.  An excellent analysis is in
    "Genesis & The Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder.  He quotes the
    ancient Hebrew sage, Nahmanides, and his "Commentary on the Torah"
    (written 1200 AD).  It contains some great stuff on the physical and
    spiritual ramifications of the first 6 days.
    
    Mike

    I'd have trouble with the "light" being God. After all, God wasn't
    created, so the light that was created on Day 1 couldn't have been Him
    (He?).
    
    The way I addressed this difficulty was to push back on the definition
    of "light". Physicists today still can't define it. It may be a bundle
    of photons, or it may be a wave form of some energy. Whatever it is, it
    was created on Day 1. Then on Day 4 this light was formed into lightS
    (note the shift from singular to plural). No problem at all. In fact,
    it would have been a problem if it had gone the other way, viz. if the
    sun had been created first, and "light" wasn't created until after.
    
    	BD�

Excellent, Barry.

Yes, "God said, "Let there be light."  So the light was not God bur
created by God.

And what existed before creation?  That's easy:  God.

    But wasn't the contradiction that light existed prior to the creation
    of it???
    
    

>    But wasn't the contradiction that light existed prior to the creation
>    of it???

Nancy, does the light have to come from the sun?

Did light exist prior to its creation?

    Yes, it did.. in the sense of Christ.  
    
    

    Are the sun and moon light itself or simply vehicles - like the lamp on
    your table or the fire in your fireplace?
    
    Rebecca

    To clarify...
    
    I didn't say that the light was G-d; I asked what the light could be
    and what it's source (or Source) was.
    
    If the light of day one could be symbolic of the light of the truth,
    then its Source is the L-rd - though it - the light - as the rest of
    creation, is distinct from the Creator.
    
    Sorry if my note read as though G-d created G-d  :-)
    
    Steve

    I'm going to be going to class on creation versus evolution (from
    a Biblical standpoint) starting the week after next.  Maybe I'll
    have to revisit this discussion after that.  

    Mike, (RE. 559.63) I'll have to look up  Schroeder's book.  It sounds 
    interesting, but I think your reference to: 

                  "the ancient Hebrew sage, Nahmanides" 
                          probably should be 
                  "the ancient Jewish sage, Maimonides".  

    Maimonides was a very influential Spanish-born Jewish 'philosopher' who 
    lived from 1135 to 1204.  And as the rabbi pointed out in class this 
    week, Hebrew is a language, not a person or a people.  I'll probably 
    do a little research to see if that distinction holds true throughout
    history, but I thought it was worth noting, and making others aware of 
    it as well.

    Leslie

>    And as the rabbi pointed out in class this 
>    week, Hebrew is a language, not a person or a people.

Leslie, please reconcile this with your rabbi and let us know what he
has to say about it.  Thanks.

MM

Genesis 14:13  And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew;
for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother
of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.

Genesis 39:17  And she spake unto him according to these words, saying, the
Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me:

Genesis 40:15  For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews:
and here also have I done nothing that they should put me into the dungeon.

Genesis 43:32  And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves,
and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the
Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination
unto the Egyptians.
Exodus 1:15  And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the
name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
 16  And he said, when ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and
see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be
a daughter, then she shall live.

Exodus 1:19  And the midwives said unto pharaoh, because the Hebrew women are
not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the
midwives come in unto them.

Exodus 2:6  And when she had opened it, she saw the child: and, behold, the
babe wept. And she had compassion on him, and said, this is one of the
Hebrew's children.
  7  Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter, shall I go and call to thee
a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee?

Exodus 2:13  And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the
Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Wherefore
smitest thou thy fellow?

Exodus 3:18  And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou
and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him,
the LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech
thee, three days journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the
LORD our God.

Exodus 5:3  And they said, the God of the Hebrews hath met with us: let us
go, we pray thee, three days journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the
LORD our God; lest he fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword.

Exodus 7:16  And thou shalt say unto him, the LORD God of the Hebrews hath
sent me unto thee, saying, let my people go, that they may serve me in the
wilderness: and, behold, hitherto thou wouldest not hear.

Exodus 9:1  Then the Lord said unto Moses, go in unto pharaoh, and tell him,
thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews, let my people go, that they may serve
me.

Exodus 9:13  And the Lord said unto Moses, rise up early in the morning, and
stand before pharaoh, and say unto him, thus saith the Lord God of the
Hebrews, let my people go, that they may serve me.


Exodus 10:3  And Moses and Aaron came in unto pharaoh, and said unto him,
thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews, how long wilt thou refuse to humble
thyself before me? Let my people go, that they may serve me.

1Samuel 4:6  And when the Philistines heard the noise of the shout, they
said, What meaneth the noise of this great shout in the camp of the Hebrews?
And they understood that the ark of the LORD was come into the camp.

1Samuel 4:9  Be strong and quit yourselves like men, O ye Philistines, that
ye be not servants unto the Hebrews, as they have been to you: quit yourselves
like men, and fight.

1Samuel 13:3  And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in
Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. And Saul blew the trumpet throughout
all the land, saying, Let the Hebrews hear.

1Samuel 13:7  And some of the Hebrews went over Jordan to the land of Gad and
Gilead. As for Saul, he was yet in Gilgal, and all the people followed him
trembling.

1Samuel 13:19  Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel:
for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears:

1Samuel 14:11  And both of them discovered themselves unto the garrison of the
Philistines: and the Philistines said, Behold, the Hebrews come forth out of
the holes where they had hid themselves.

1Samuel 14:21  Moreover the Hebrews that were with the Philistines before that
time, which went up with them into the camp from the country round about, even
they also turned to be with the Israelites that were with Saul and Jonathan.
John 5:2  Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is
called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

John 19:13  When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth,
and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but
in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

John 19:17  And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place
of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

Acts 6:1  And in those days, when the number of the disciples was
multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews,
because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

Acts 21:40  And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and
beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great
silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Acts 22:2  (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them,
they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Acts 26:14  And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking
unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Revelation 9:11  And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the
bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek
tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Revelation 16:16  And he gathered them together into a place called in the
Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

    
    I believe that light is a foundational principle/mechanic
    of the unseen universe and carries through to the manifest
    universe.  Light is the footbed of the foundation of the
    universe.
    
    It is that which everything is created from, the building
    block for everything.  Before God created what we can see
    He first created that which cannot be seen, Light.  From 
    Light He proceeded to form that which can be seen.
    
    Light is beyond the principle of a waveform or a proton
    packet, even these are simple manifestations of the true
    mechanics of Light.
    
    This light, the luminerous, encompasses the properties of
    time, electromagnetic radiation, gravity, space, dimension.
    
    It is the central key to understanding the entire universe.
    
    Bob

re: 559.58 (I think) -

My point for bringing this up, including a list of definitions, is 
to ground the argument, not talk around in circles.  We can save 
that for the politicians.  ;-)

Arguing that the Bible is inherently flawed *does* equate to discrediting 
the Bible (cast doubt upon, disbelieve, etc., see Websters or equiv.).  

O|| Isn't claiming the Bible to be flawed the same as discrediting it?
|
G|	To discredit the Bible to justify myself is what was said. I in turn
G|refuted this. As far as me discrediting the Bible goes, send me mail and I 
G|will
G|give you a 2 line response. I can't put it in here as it would get deleted.
|
|
O|| Isn't adopting faith contrary to the Bible through claims of Biblical flaws 
O|| an attempt to justify yourself?
|
G|	My beliefs are based on believing in Him. If you want to know more
G|about the flaws, send mail. If I say it in here, it will be deleted. Suffice 
G|to
G|say that I do not use the Bible in any way to justify myself, and any claims
G|that I make about the Bible do not change my belief in Him. My faith is based
G|in Him.

If the Bible is discredited, then of course one would not use the 
Bible for justification.  You can't.  Justification would have to 
come from another source (society, self, another religion, etc.).

Of course this argument runs both ways.  If one believes in something, 
or wants to accept something, or wants to do something contrary to 
God's Word in the Bible, one has great interest in discrediting the 
Bible.  If the Bible is discredited, then wanting (believing, doing, 
etc.) something contrary Biblical instruction is no longer wrong.
This is perhaps the more common cause/effect scenario - "I believe 
this thing contrary to the Bible therefore the Bible must be wrong."

Which brings us back to the original statement:  it is through a 
belief in a flawed Bible that justification contrary to Scripture 
can occur.  Or, for a direct quote:

M|| Be honest with yourself, as you have admitted once, that according to the 
M|| literal Bible you're an outsider with a stake at discrediting the Bible to 
M|| justify yourself.  


While perhaps not in the most flattering of language, it states simply 
what I've (long-windedly) elaborated upon.  The Bible is either inerrant 
or it isn't.  Put your stake in the ground.  The rest works out from there.

Otto

P.S.  I liked your statement  'belief colored glasses'.  Think my  
      best days are when I'm wearing them!  ;-)
                     

    re: Hebrew
    
    I have to agree with Mark, Leslie - I don't know what point the rabbi
    was trying to address, but Hebrew (from "ivrit") means to "cross over"
    and is applied to Abraham and his descendents.
    
    Did the rabbi think that using Hebrew to describe people was incorrect
    for some reason?  If so, do you know why?
    
    Steve

    I've seen both spelling for those names (even in the same book).  Maybe 
    they're 2 different people.
    
John 8:12
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that
followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

    (go figure, the NBA_SERVER worked that time!) ;-)
    
    Mike

Nope, I don't know & will put the question to him when next I can & 
report back to y'all.  

Leslie

 Someone mentioned photons, Ive read a scientific book Re: creation 
 (Believing Scientific Creation Theories - or something like that) and
 one theory is that when Elohim said "let there be light" then this 
 brought into being pools of energy-matter stuff which were the basic 
 sub-atomic constituents of matter. These "pools" were compressed to the
 max and radiated pure light. I liked this one because the author (dont
 remember who) said that as the pools were decompressed and God formed 
 the "stuff"  into matter, time (as a function of matter-formation) slowed 
 down until the end of the 6th day and God "rested".

 This means that God could have compressed millions of years into 6 solar
 days (He Himself marking the post-creation time continuum flow rate).

 Clear as mud right?
 
 Hank

.73  Bob Poland

Very interesting, Bob!  

    Re my original question on light on the 1st day.How about...
    
    Light exists in the universe in general.
    
    If the Sun & Moon ceased to exist then Earth would be in permanent
    darkness and there would be no distinguishable difference between
    "day" & "night",in fact the terms would be redundant.(I know the stars
    would still shine but that would be permanently so )
    
    However the "light" that our creator made on day 1 would STILL exist
    elsewhere ... in other solar systems etc.;
    
    The fact that this seems plausible to me only serves to re-enforce my
    belief that,just like all the other "contradictions",when I am standing
    next to the "river..proceeding out..." and HE is explaining them,I'll
    be gobsmacked that it was all really so simple...I was just even more
    simple !
    
    
    Owen 
                         

 1st day light...

 There is no problem, never has been.

 The word for create means create out of nothing.
 God said "let there be light" and suddenly pure light appeared out of nowhere
 needing nothing to exist and nowhere to be in order to exist.

 

    Just to keep context, the following text used to be notes 660.1 and
    660.2 before the topic disappeared.  Sunil found a list of
    contradictions on the Internet and posted it for comment.  The list
    appears to have been referenced at least by the Athiesm frequently
    asked questions document posted to the newsgroup alt.athiesm.
    
    James
    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Sunil,
    
    What you posted was the document to which topic 559 is the reply.  Could
    you please, if anything, move it to 559?
    
    Otherwise, it appears to be sufficiently duplicate of existing material
    that you might want to delete it and post a pointer to it in topic 559.
    
    James
    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Oh, and you didn't keep any Internet headers.  Nor have you directly
    attributed the source, beyond the 1992 mailing address of the author. 
    Did you FTP it?  Web it?
    
    Is it http://bigdipper.umd.edu/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html ?
    
    The reply as found in topic 559 is to be found at URL
    
    http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/contradictions/contradictions.html
    
    James

    Hi James,
    
    >Oh, and you didn't keep any Internet headers.  Nor have you directly
    >attributed the source, beyond the 1992 mailing address of the author. 
    >Did you FTP it?  Web it?
    
    Webbed it.
    
    >Is it http://bigdipper.umd.edu/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html ?
    
    Yes.
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil