Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

replies now enabled.


andreas.

An interesting set, Andreas.

I've noticed that the Bible often speaks with more than a single voice, more
than a single perspective.

Sometimes I deliberately listen for that other voice.

Shalom,
Richard

1. 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. 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. 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 Exodus19:9.

4. 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 to preach. 

Now it's time to jump to John 12:37-41. 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. 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. 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
interpretation 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 turing 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
unrighteousness 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. 

Next set of contradictions.  Jump to an index of the contradictions. 


HTML adaptation by Andrew Tong ([email protected])

HTML Created: January 24, 1994 Last Updated: February 7, 1994

11. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 itself, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 

Next set of contradictions.  Jump to an index of the contradictions. 


HTML adaptation by Andrew Tong ([email protected])

HTML Created: January 24, 1994 Last Updated: February 7, 1994

21.. 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. 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. 

23.23. 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. 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. Lying approved and sanctioned

[Josh 2:4-6/ James 2:25/ 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. 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. Killing commanded

[Ex 32:27]

Killing forbidden

[Ex 20:13]

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

28. 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. 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. 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. 

Next set of contradictions.  Jump to an index of the contradictions. 


HTML adaptation by Andrew Tong ([email protected])

HTML Created: January 24, 1994 Last Updated: February 7, 1994

31. 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 inter- pretation 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 

Next set of contradictions.  Jump to an index of the contradictions. 


HTML adaptation by Andrew Tong ([email protected])

HTML Created: January 24, 1994 Last Updated: February 7, 1994

41. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 

Next set of contradictions.  Jump to an index of the contradictions. 


HTML adaptation by Andrew Tong ([email protected])

HTML Created: January 24, 1994 Last Updated: February 7, 1994

51. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 

Next set of contradictions.  Jump to an index of the contradictions. 


HTML adaptation by Andrew Tong ([email protected])

HTML Created: January 24, 1994 Last Updated: February 7, 1994

61. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 

Next set of contradictions.  Jump to an index of the contradictions. 


HTML adaptation by Andrew Tong ([email protected])

HTML Created: January 24, 1994 Last Updated: February 8, 1994

71. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 

Next set of contradictions.  jump to an index of the contradictions. 


HTML adaptation by Andrew Tong ([email protected])

HTML Created: January 24, 1994 Last Updated: February 22, 1994

81. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 

Next set of contradictions.  Jump to an index of the contradictions. 


HTML adaptation by Andrew Tong ([email protected])

HTML Created: January 24, 1994 Last Updated: February 14, 1994

91. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Goliath was slain by Elhanan

[2 Sam 21:19] *note, was changed in translation to be correct. Orignal
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. 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. 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." 

Next set of contradictions.  Jump to an index of the contradictions. 


HTML adaptation by Andrew Tong ([email protected])

HTML Created: January 24, 1994 Last Updated: February 14, 1994

101. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
essentially. 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. 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. 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. 

Next set of contradictions.  Jump to an index of the contradictions. 


HTML adaptation by Andrew Tong ([email protected])

HTML Created: January 24, 1994 Last Updated: February 15, 1994

111. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 

Next set of contradictions.  Jump to an index of the contradictions. 


HTML adaptation by Andrew Tong ([email protected])

HTML Created: January 24, 1994 Last Updated: February 16, 1994

121. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 

Next set of contradictions.  Jump to an index of the contradictions. 


HTML adaptation by Andrew Tong ([email protected])

HTML Created: January 24, 1994 Last Updated: February 19, 1994

131. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 usto resist
temptation. James says that once you know to let the Lordhelp 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 

Next set of contradictions.  Jump to an index of the contradictions. 


HTML adaptation by Andrew Tong ([email protected])

HTML Created: January 24, 1994 Last Updated: February 22, 1994

141. 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. 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 we, 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. 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. 

Index of the contradictions. 


HTML adaptation by Andrew Tong ([email protected])

HTML Created: January 24, 1994 Last Updated: February 22, 1994

the text (.1 to .15) is now reformatted for 80 cols, which should make finding
and reading text on a particular contradiction easier.



andreas.

    .18  Thank you!
    
    Richard
    

yes, richard. i find all the contradictions fascinating.

they provide a completely new approach to biblical text and to me,
also give the biblical text a very human and likeable touch.



andreas.

Countering Contradictions: Intro


Posted to soc.religion.christian January 21, 1994-February 22, 1994

Answers by:

Michael J. Bumbulis ([email protected])  
MaryAnna White ([email protected])  
Russ Smith ([email protected]) 

HTML adaptation by Andrew Tong 
Biblical references provided by: Nick Hengeveld's Bible Gateway

Last Updated: March 5, 1994

What follows is a reply to a list of 143 purported Bible contradictions.
First contradiction here. Available resources include an index of the
contradictions and some objections to how the contradictions are being
resolved. 

[HTMLizer's note: The replies in this document are not intended to be taken
as the "final word" on the matter. In fact, I'm working on making global
annotations possible. This should be a "living" document. 

I feel the considerations in this document are important not only because
they attempt to refute claims that the Bible is contradictory (a cause I
have not been convinced is of the upmost importance), but also because they
are intrinsically an interpretation of the teachings of the Bible. In fact,
many central components of Christianity are discussed with thought and
insight. Although there are trivial contradictions (68, for example) many
of the contradictions explore, say, Biblical teachings about the nature of
God, practical guidelines for Christian living, and the trinity, among
other things. 

In short, the attempts at resolutions of these contradictions cloak an
effort to "mine" truth from the Bible, an effort to interpret Biblical
verses correctly. My hope is that these pages will not only help you you
make conclusions about the Bible's inerrancy, but also encourage you to
discover what you consider to be valid and invalid Biblical
interpretations. (A.T.)] 

However, before we launch into the actual reply, there are several points
worth mentioning.

First, it would be prudent to speak of the burden of proof. It's a general
rule in philosophy that she who proposes must explain and defend. If
someone says that "X exists," the burden is on her to provide a case for
the existence of X. The burden is not on the one who denies that X exists.
For how can one prove a negative?

In this case, it is the critic who proposes. He claims that the Bible is
"full of contradictions," and often proposes a lengthy list such as the one
we are about to respond to. Now, as Christians, we cannot prove that
something is NOT a contradiction (i.e., one cannot prove that X
[contradictions] do not exist). Instead, all that is required of us is to
come up with plausible/reasonable, even possible explanations so that what
is purported to be a contradiction is not necessarily a contradiction.
Whether or not our explanation is the "true one" is not all that relevant
in such contexts. This is important. What is really relevant is whether our
explanations show that the point of contention is not necessarily a
contradiction. If we succeed, then the critic's assertion that "X and Y are
contradictory" is no longer an obvious truth, instead it becomes merely a
belief that someone else has.

At this point the critic might cry "foul" and note that it is the Christian
who proposes. She is the one who claims the Bible is inerrant, thus she
should demonstrate this. But how? How does one demonstrate a document is
without error? At this point, the Christian need only learn from the
methodology of modern atheism. Many atheists do not argue that God does not
exist, because they realize that one cannot demonstrate the nonexistence of
something. Instead, they take a more agnostic position, and argue there is
no proof for God's existence, thus they don't possess God-belief. In the
same way, the believer in inerrancy cannot demonstrate the nonexistence of
contradictions in the Bible. After all, the Bible contains 31,173 verses.
If we were to compare only couplets, where any one verse is juxtaposed
against any other, one could write 971,750,000 couplets. Thus, by
considering only couplets, there are almost one billion potential Bible
contradictions! Surely, it is not reasonable to demand that a believer in
inerrancy plod through one billion potential contradictions to prove
negatives in every case. Instead, the believer in inerrancy can argue there
is no proof for the existence of contradictions in the Bible, thus they
don't believe in Biblical errancy (thus they believe in inerrancy - being
without error).

At this point, the critic's list comes in. It proposes to demonstrate that
the Bible is full of contradictions, and the list of 143 purported
contradictions was one such demonstration. And at this point, our response
comes in.

I have noticed several things about the list we are about to respond to and
the nature of the purported contradictions. 


								(contd.)

The List

1. Such lists are quite common and have been around for decades. I have
also encountered them on various BBSs throughout the years. My first
impression is to scan such lists, noticing claims which are obviously
bogus, and others which are quite challenging. Because the lists are so
long I tend to rationalize that any list which would include obviously
bogus "contradictions" is suspect and that the more challenging ones could
probably be resolved with some effort. 

2. The list has a psychological power in that it intimidates simply because
of it's length and multitude of claims. Your average reader simply does not
have the time to respond to 143 claims of contradictions! Thus, such lists
often go largely unanswered, leaving the critic to believe that no one can
answer it. I think a critic would do better in making a much shorter list
(10 or 20) which contains what he considers to be the best examples of
Bible contradictions. 



The Contradictions

I have noticed that the supposed 143 contradictions can in essence be
classified according to the erroneous assumptions or methodologies that
they employ.

1. A popular mistake is to take things out of context. It is easy to make
contradictions when there are no contradictions by violating the context of
the passage(s) in question.

More significant, though less mentioned, is violating the context of
belief. Christian understanding is a synthesis of many beliefs, and
Biblical teachings are often interpreted through this background belief
which has been synthesized. Such a synthesis may include other facts, not
directly related to the contradiction in question, but nevertheless,
relevant. When the critic proposes a contradiction, he ought to do so from
within the context of this background belief. By failing to do this, he
merely imposes alien concepts as if they belong. This error is common when
the critic tries to cite contradictions related to doctrine or beliefs
about the nature of God. For example, most Christians believe in the
Trinity. One could argue about this concept elsewhere, but trying to impose
contradictions by ignoring Trinitarian belief violates the context provided
by the Christian's background belief. 

Or consider a mundane example. Say that Joe is recorded as saying that Sam
is not his son. But elsewhere, he is recorded as saying that Sam is his
son. An obvious contradiction, right? But what if one's background belief
about Joe and Sam includes the belief that Sam is Joe's adopted son? By
ignoring the context this belief provides, one perceives contradictions
where there are none. 

2. The critic assumes that the Biblical accounts are exhaustive in all
details and intended to be precise. This is rarely the case. As such, the
critic builds on a faulty assumption and perceives contradictions where
there are none. 

This is related to the context problem. Let's say that the only records of
Joe speaking about Sam are the two cases where he affirms and denies that
Sam is his son. Certainly Joe said many other things in his life, but they
were not recorded - including the fact that he adopted a boy and named him
Sam. 

Another real-life case concerns a newspaper report which lists the time of
birth of twin babies. The first was born at 1:40 AM, and second was born at
1:10 AM. If this account did not have the added detail that the birth
occurred the during the night in which Daylight Savings ended, it would
APPEAR to be a real contradiction/error. But it was not. You have to know
the whole story. 

Since the accounts in the Bible are rarely intended as exhaustive and
precise descriptions, it would seem prudent to see if differing accounts
complement, rather than contradict. 

3. The critic seems to assume that the Bible is written in one genre -> a
literal and descriptive account. While the Bible does indeed contain
literal and descriptive accounts (which, of course, are not exhaustive in
all detail), it also contains many other styles of composition: the
Proverbs list "rules of thumb," the Psalms communicate through poetry, many
teachings/prophecies are in the form of hyperbole and metaphor, parables
contain deeper messages, etc. Since they Bible is actually many books of
different genres, the critic's assumption leads her astray if it is used to
see contradictions. 

4. This point is related to the one above, namely, the contradictions are
often contradictions as a function of a particular interpretation. This is
clear when one reads how the author of the list presents the biblical
teachings in contrast to the actual verses he/she cites. Thus, the
contradiction would exist only if the correct interpretation is applied by
the author, and this is often not the case (or at least, it is often not
clear if this is the case). 

For example, in many situations, the critic uses particular incidents or
rules of thumb and interprets these as absolute principles. 



							(contd.)

5. Sometimes the critic equivocates. He/she uses the same sense of a word
in two sets of verses, when sometimes it is the case that the word has two
meanings. For example, peace could mean lack of war or it can mean an
internal sense of tranquility. 

6. The critic often reads contradictions into the accounts. This is often a
function of all of the points listed above, but sometimes it is due to
plain ignorance. In other cases, it is due to the fact that aspects of
Hebrews idiom are not always captured in English translations. 

7. The critic assumes that the believer in Biblical Inerrancy also believes
that copyists could make no mistake. I have found not many believers in
inerrancy to hold to this position. It is their belief that the original
documents were without error, and were copied as faithfully as humanly
possible. Thus, copyist errors are of little concern (and are unlikely to
result in significant changes). 

8. Finally, the critic engages in black and white either/or thinking when a
both/and approach seems to be called for. This can be tricky, so let me set
up my case by using one of the supposed contradictions cited: 

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him
yourself." [Pr 26:4]

"Answer of fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own
eyes." [Pr 26:5] 

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. 

I encourage the reader to keep these points in mind as we go through the
purported contradictions.

A word about the contributors. There were three of us:

Me - Michael J. Bumbulis ([email protected] )  
MaryAnna White ([email protected] )  
Russ Smith ([email protected]) 

I will list each claim of contradiction as found in the original list, and
then offer the reply. The replies are referenced to the contributor.
MaryAnna's replies are followed by "-- MAW", and Russ Smith's replies are
followed by "--RS". If no initials follow a reply, they are mine
(Michael's). I have also taken the luxury of periodically referring to and
drawing from the following book: 

Haley, John W., Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, Michigan. 

Keep in mind that we are not biblical scholars, and our replies are not
intended as the "final word" in these matters. Instead, they are offered as
possible, even plausible, ways to resolve the apparent contradictions. If
they succeed at doing merely this, the contradictions have not been
established and the critic has not adequately shouldered his/her burden.
Enjoy.


[end of document]

    I'm at a point where I actually enjoy coming across apparent
    contradictions.  It just means that God has a fantastic nugget of truth
    in store for the diligent researcher.
    
    Mike

      re: .24
    
      AMEN MIKE!!
    
      God veiled His word.  He wrote in enigmas, parables, riddles,
      mysteries, etc.  He even said so!  He even said that His word
      is like coming from stammering lips (confusing) unless one 
      does a line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there
      a little study of the scriptures.   (See Isaiah 28.)
    
      God _purposely_ veiled His word.  Why He did so could be cause for
      a separate topic, but the fact is that He most certainly did.
    
      So the superficial hearer tosses the word away and finds it to 
      be pretty worthless, but the person who DIGS as for the pearl of
      great price just gets blessing after blessing after blessing as he
      continually sees nuggets of light flashing before his heart.
    
      What a blessing when one comes upon a nugget of light after searching
      through the mine of God's word!!!  There's nothing quite like it!
    
    							Tony

	Whilst I admit that it is, in most cases an exercise in petty
	criticism to make exhaustive lists of biblical contradictions
	or, as I prefer to call them, "incompatile texts" I find the
	counter-claims by the apologetics (often) to be naive at best.

	Either

	- everything happened twice: The 'tables in the temple' event,
	  two floods (one where Noah closed the ark and one where God
	  did the honours); two sermons on the mount/plain; etc. 

	or

	- the critic has taken the text right out of context. This from
	  the same apologetic who maintains Is. 7.14 as being a prophesy
	  of the virgin birth.+

	or

	- if a contradiction cannot be refuted by the above, it is obvious
	  the it was the copyist and not the original author who made
	  the error.
    
    	or ... etc.

	The apologetic excludes/ignores the possibility that the various
	texts were authored by different people, at different times, from
	different cultures and with different agendas.

	To use the incompatibilites to prove/disprove biblical inerrency
	is an exercise in futility.

	To use them to explore history, culture and theological development
	is an exhiliarating exercise and, IMO, more in tune with --ignoring
	my big "IF", for the moment -- the will of God.

	Greetings, Derek.
                   

re Note 1082.26 by VNABRW::BUTTON:

> 	- if a contradiction cannot be refuted by the above, it is obvious
> 	  the it was the copyist and not the original author who made
> 	  the error.

        I have always felt that if it were essential to maintain
        literal correctness for every last "jot and tittle" of the
        original text, then it would be just as essential that it be
        possible to identify at least one extant copy as similarly
        correct to the last word.

        Bob

From the standpoint of a documentary historian the New Testament has vastly
superior evidence to that of any other book from the ancient world.  The
matrix below reveals the superior number, dating, and degree of accuracy
of the New Testament over other books.

                           COMPARISON OF ANCIENT TEXTS

AUTHOR	DATE WRITTEN	EARLIEST COPY	NO. OF COPIES	ACCURACY OF COPY

Ceasar	   1st Cent. B.C    900 A.D.	    10		_____________

Livy	   1st Cent. B.C      -----	    20		_____________

Tacitus	     c.100 A.D.	     1100 A.D.	    20		_____________

Thucydides  5th Cent. B.C.   900 A.D.	    8		-------------

Herodotus   5th Cent. B.C.   900 A.D.	    8		-------------

Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C.   1100 A.D.      200		-------------

Mahabharata     ------       ------        ----              90%

Homer	    9th Cent. B.C.   ------	    643		     95%

New Testament 1st Cent. A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.   5000           99+%
	      (50-100 A.D.)  (c. 130 A.D. f.)


Observations:

1. No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the *number*
or early dating of the copies.  The average secular work from antiquity
survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.

2. The average *gap* between the original composition and the earliest copy
is over 1000 years for other books.  The New Testament, however, has a fragment
within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about
100 years from the time of the autograph, most of the New Testament in less than
200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years form the date of its
completion.

3. The degree of *accuracy* of the copies is greater for the New Testament than
for other books that can be compared.  Most books do not survive with enough
manuscripts that make comparison possible.  A handful of copies that are 1000
years after the fact do not provide enough links in the missing chain nor
enough variant readings in the manuscript to enable textual scholars to 
reconstruct the original.

The textual scholar, Bruce Metzger, provides an interesting comparison of the
New Testament with the Indian Mahabharata and Homer's Illiad.  The New
Testament has about 20,000 lines.  Of these only 40 are in doubt (i.e. about
400 words).  The Illiad possesses about 15,600 lines with 764 of them in
question.  This would mean that Homer's text is only 95 percent pure or
accurate compared to over 99.5 percent accuracy for the New Testament
manuscript copies.  The national epic of India has suffered even more
textual corruption than the Illiad.  The Mahabharata is some eight times the
size of the Illiad, of which some 26,000 lines are in doubt.  This would be
roughly 10 percent textual corruption or a 90 percent accuracy copy of the
original. 

From this documentary standpoint the New Testament writings are superior to
comparable ancient writings.  The records for the New Testament are vastly
more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their
text.

jeff (with help from Bruce Metzger, F.W. Hall, and Norman Geisler)

	Re: .28,  jeff

	It would be folly, of course, to confuse copied fidelity with
	accuracy of content. (I do not think that you are doing this.)

	And, even when checking accuracy of copy, it must be remembered
	that only small fragments of earlier copies can be/are used as a
	baseline. This precludes any comparison of text which was added
	(or edited, if no relevant fragments survived) later than the
    	earlier fragments.

	If I wanted to "falsify" earlier documents, I would insure that I
	only doctored those parts for which no earlier fragments exist, as
	far as it is in my powers to check this.

	This is purely hypothetical, of course. But, by using the same
	argument as in 1082.21

		["...all that is required of us is to come up with
		plausible/reasonable, even possible explanations so that
		what is purported to be a contradiction is not necessarily a
		contradiction."]

				it can be seen that your numbers for NT
	accuracy are not necessarily a reflection of NT accuracy.

	In fact, there is solid evidence for some additions to original
	texts, which probably account for the 1% shortfall in your
	numbers.

	Greetings, Derek.

Re: .21 (intro)

>First, it would be prudent to speak of the burden of proof. It's a general
>rule in philosophy that she who proposes must explain and defend. If
>someone says that "X exists," the burden is on her to provide a case for
>the existence of X. The burden is not on the one who denies that X exists.
>For how can one prove a negative?
>
>In this case, it is the critic who proposes. He claims that the Bible is
>"full of contradictions," and often proposes a lengthy list such as the one
>we are about to respond to.
>
>At this point the critic might cry "foul" and note that it is the Christian
>who proposes. She is the one who claims the Bible is inerrant, thus she
>should demonstrate this. But how? How does one demonstrate a document is
>without error?

Not very easily.  That's the whole point.

Let's be clear on who is trying to prove what.  As an agnostic, I am not
convinced that God exists.  The burden of proof is on anyone who wants to
prove to me that God does exist.  There are some Christians who try to
prove the existence of God and the truth of their religion by saying that
the Bible is such a wonderful and perfect document that it could not have
been written by mere humans; that every word in the Bible was written by
God.

My answer to them is that if the Bible were written by God I don't believe
it would contain the large number of discrepencies and in some cases
outright contradictions that it does.  In some cases the discrepencies are
minor, but they are discrepencies nonetheless.  Since I don't think there
would be any discrepencies between two passages written by the same
omniscient God, I don't accept the Bible as a proof of the existence of God.

I agree that if I were an atheist trying to convince Christians that their
religion is false because the Bible contains contradictions, the burden of
proof would be on me to show that the apparent contradictions couldn't be
resolved by ingenious explanations.  As an agnostic I only need to be
convinced that the contradictions *probably* are geniune in order to
reject the Bible as a proof of the existence of God.

				-- Bob

Re: .1 contradictions 1 - 3

>1. 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.

I agree that this isn't really a contradiction.  It does raise the
question, though: if God was omniscient, he knew right from the start that
Man would rebel.  If God regretted creating Man, why did he create Man in
the first place?

Attributing human emotions like regret to God is typical of the J source
document, which includes Genesis 6:6.  As Richard Friedman says in "Who
Wrote the Bible?", page 59:

	Probably the most remarkable difference of all between the two
	[J and P] is their different ways of picturing God.  It is not
	just that they call the deity by different names.  J pictures a
	diety who can regret things that he has done (6:6-7), which raises
	interesting theological questions, such as whether an
	all-powerful, all-knowing being would ever regret past actions.
	It pictures a diety who can be "grieved to his heart" (6:6), who
	personally closes the ark (7:16) and smells Noah's sacrifice
	(8:21).  This anthropomorphic quality of J is virtually entirely
	lacking in P.  There God is regarded more as a transendent
	controller of the universe.

>2. 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.

I think there is a real difference in viewpoint here between the Hebrews
at the time of 2 Chronicles and the early Christians in Acts.  The
ancient Hebrews did place special emphasis on the temple as the dwelling
place of God.  Sacrifices could only be made at the temple.  For
Christians, though, "Whereever two or more are gathered together in my
name, there am I in the midst of them",

The point is that people's perceptions of God changed over time.  The
Bible reflects the views of people over a long period of history, not a
single unified vision.

>3. God dwells in light
>
>God dwells in darkness
>
>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.

Agreed.

				-- Bob

Re: .1 contradictions 4-8

>4. 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.

They can also be resolved if you assume that the verses that talk about
"seeing God" are really talking about seeing a messenger of God, or an
angel.  Literally speaking I think there is still a contradiction (either
you see God or you don't), but I won't quibble about this one.

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

Again, literally speaking there is a contradiction but I can accept that
God "resting" on the 7th day was just a figure of speech.

>6. 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, 11:5, 18:20-21]

Not really a contradiction but a difference in viewpoint, as the
apologist admits:

>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.

As one might expect, Gen 3:8 and 11:5 are listed as being in the J source
document in Richard Friedman's "Who Wrote The Bible?".  J is the source
document with the most personal view of God.  Gen 18:20-21 is from E,
which is similar to J.  These verses contrast with the priestly, more
abstract view of God in other parts of the Bible which were written by
different people.

>7. 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] 
(Also Deut 8:2, 13:3.)

>Could it be that these three instances simply serve to reveal and verify to man
>that which is already known by God?

Gen 22:12 says "*Now* I know that you fear God", implying that before the
test God did not know how Abaraham would react.  Another example of God
(or Satan) testing someone is the book of Job.

>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? 

I'm not saying, in this case, that God should dictate how men should
behave.  I'm just saying that the authors of these verses of the Bible
were writing as if they thought that God *didn't* know whether Abraham,
Job etc. would pass the test of faith.  It reflects a different viewpoint
of different authors of the Bible.

>8. 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 an egregiously bad misreading of the text. The "he" is Judah! not the
>LORD. That should be obvious to even the most obtuse objector." 

Even so, if the Lord were really with the men of Judah why weren't they
able to drive the people from the plains?  I guess the Lord was with the
men of Judah only when they were in the hills and after that they were on
their own.

				-- Bob

Re: .1 contradiction 9

>9. 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.

Didn't we cover Gen 6:6 earlier?  God regretted his earlier decision to
create Man.  In Jonah 3:10 "God repented of the evil which he had said he
would do to" the people of Ninevah.  In 2 Kings 20:1 Isaiah prophesies
that Hezekiah would not recover from his illness, and in 20:5 God changes
his mind and says he will heal Hezekiah and allow him to live for another
fifteen years.  (So in 20:1 God was bluffing?  Isn't that a lot like
lying?)  In Ex 33:3 God says he will not go with the Israelites into
Canaan "lest I consume you in the way, for you are a stiff-necked people",
while in 33:14 God changes his mind and says "My presence will go with
you, and I will give you rest".

What we have here is a picture of a God who changes his mind.  OK, what
about the verses that say that God doesn't change?

	Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming
	down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or
	shadow due to change.
					James 1:17

	"For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are
	not consumed."
					Malachi 3:6

	
	"I the LORD have spoken; it shall come to pass, I will do it; I
	will not go back, I will not spare, I will not repent; according
	to your ways and your doings I will judge you, says the Lord GOD."
					Ezekiel 24:14

	
	God is not man, that he should lie,
	  or a son of man, that he should repent.
	Has he said, and he will not do it?
	  Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?
					Numbers 23:19

The answer to the question in Numbers 23:19 is: Yes!

>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. 

The problem with this explanation is that the verse in Numbers specifically
says that God will do what he says he will do, while in Jonah 3:10,
2 Kings 20:5 and Exodus 33:14 God does *not* do what he said he would do.
God doesn't say "I will do this if you do that"; instead he says "I will
do this" and later he changes his mind and does "that".

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned this is a blatant contradiction.

				-- Bob

    The following quote has allowed me to welcome, almost relish apparent
    contradictions.  There's usually a great discover lurking behind it.
    
The most important discovery of my life was the insight that the Bible is a
highly *integrated message system.*  We possess 66 books, penned by 40 authors
over thousands of years, yet the more we investigate, the more we discover
that they are a unified whole.  Every word, every detail, every number, every
place and name, every subtlety of the text: the elemental structures within
the text itself, even the implied punctuation are clearly the result of
intricate and skillful supernatural 'engineering.'  The more we look, the more
we realize that there is still much more hidden and thus reserved for the
diligent inquirer.  *ALL* Scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, and correction.  We haven't begun to discover the
detail, the power, and the majesty of God's handiwork.  Would you expect
anything less in the Word of God Himself?

Re: .34 Mike

>The most important discovery of my life was the insight that the Bible is a
>highly *integrated message system.*  We possess 66 books, penned by 40 authors
>over thousands of years, yet the more we investigate, the more we discover
>that they are a unified whole.

That certainly hasn't been my experience.  Just the opposite - I started
out thinking that the Bible was a unified whole, and over the years I've
found more and more evidence that it was written by different people with
different points of view.

				-- Bob

    
    I'd like to add my voice to that of Bob's. My experience has been that
    the Bible has unfolded itself to be made up of discreet parts melded
    together into a single volume. I have found the "evidence" of unity 
    to be tenuous; interesting but not compelling and at times down right
    farcical.

    I guess I'd say that it's as much a unified whole are the people of the
    United States. Diverse, sometimes conflicting, sometimes harmonizing,
    but always trying to do what is right.
    
    	Eric

Hi Folks,

As promised, a response on the idea that the Bible is contradictory concerning
God's changelessness, particularly His changing His mind.

It must be emphatically maintained that God does not change:

Mal 3:6: "For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob
          are not consumed." 

James 1:17: "Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above,
	     coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no
             variation, or shifting shadow."

He neither changes His mind, His will, nor His nature.  There are several
arguments that demonstrate the immutability of God:

Anything that changes does so in some chronological order.  There must be
a point before the change and a point after the change.  Anything that
experiences a before and an after exists in time, because the essence of
time is seen in the chronological progress from before to after.  However,
God is eternal and outside time:

John 17:5: "And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the
            glory which I had with Thee before the world was."

II Timothy 1:9: "...who has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not
	        according to our works, but according to His own purpose and
	      grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity..."

Therefore, there cannot be in God a series of before's and after's.  But, if 
God cannot be in a series of before's and after's, then God cannot change, 
because change necessarily involves before and after.

Anything that changes must change for better or for worse, for a change
that makes no difference is not a change.  Either something that is needed
is gained that was previously absent, which is a change for the better, or
something that is needed is lost that was previously possessed, which is a
change for the worse.  But, if God is perfect He does not need anything,
therefore He cannot change for the better, and if God were to lose something
He would not be perfect, therefore He cannot change for the worse.
Therefore, God cannot change.

If anyone were to change his mind, it must be because new information has
come to light that was not previously known, or the circumstances have
changed that require a different kind of attitude or action.  Now, if God
changed His mind, it cannot be because He has learned some bit of
information that He did not previously know, for God is omniscient - He
knows all:

Psalms 147:5: "Great is our Lord, and abundant in strength; His understanding
               is infinite."

Therefore, it must be because the circumstances have changed that require a 
different attitude or action.  But, if the circumstances have changed, it is 
not necessarily the case that God has changed His mind.  It may simply be the 
case that, since the circumstances have changed, God's relationship to the new 
circumstances are different because they have changed, not God.

In Exodus 32 when Israel was at the foot of the mountain engaged in idol
worship, God told Moses that His anger was burning against them and He was
prepared to destroy them in judgement.  However, when Moses inteceded for them,
the circumstances were changed.  God's attitude toward sin is always anger,
and His attitude toward those who call to Him is always an attitude of mercy.
Before Moses prayed for Israel, they were under God's judgement.  By Moses'
intercession for the people of Israel, he brought them under God's mercy.
God did not change.  Rather, the circumstances changed.  The language used
in this passage is called anthropomorphic, or man-centered, language.  It is
similar to someone moving from one place to another and saying, "Now the
house is on my right," "Now the house is on my left."  Neither of these
statements is meant to imply that the house has moved.  Rather, it is language
from a human perspective to describe that I have changed my position in
relationship to the house.  When Moses said that God relented, it was a 
figurative way of describing that Moses' intercession successfully changed
the relationship of the people to God.  He brought the nation under the mercy
of God's grace, and out from under the judgement of God.  God does not change,
neither His mind, His will, nor His nature.

jeff

Re: .37 Jeff

> However, God is eternal and outside time:

>Therefore, there cannot be in God a series of before's and after's.  But, if 
>God cannot be in a series of before's and after's, then God cannot change, 
>because change necessarily involves before and after.

Even if God exists outside time it doesn't mean that God doesn't also
exist inside time.  There are numerous examples in the Bible of God
interacting with humans.  How could God do this if he existed *only*
outside of time?

>Anything that changes must change for better or for worse, for a change
>that makes no difference is not a change.  Either something that is needed
>is gained that was previously absent, which is a change for the better, or
>something that is needed is lost that was previously possessed, which is a
>change for the worse.  But, if God is perfect He does not need anything,
>therefore He cannot change for the better, and if God were to lose something
>He would not be perfect, therefore He cannot change for the worse.

Congratutions, Jeff, you have discovered another contradiction in the Bible!
Jonah 3:10 says that God repented of the evil that he was going to do to
the people of Ninevah.  This was a change for the better.  But how could God
change for the better if he was already perfect?

>If anyone were to change his mind, it must be because new information has
>come to light that was not previously known, or the circumstances have
>changed that require a different kind of attitude or action.  Now, if God
>changed His mind, it cannot be because He has learned some bit of
>information that He did not previously know, for God is omniscient - He
>knows all:

Another contradiction!  The Bible shows that God does change his mind.  As
I said in my previous note:

	...in Jonah 3:10, 2 Kings 20:5 and Exodus 33:14 God does *not* do
	what he said he would do.  God doesn't say "I will do this if you
	do that"; instead he says "I will do this" and later he changes
	his mind and does "that".

Why would God make unconditional statements - "I will do this" - or have
his prophets make such statements, if he already knew that he *wasn't*
going to do "this"?

				-- Bob

"...The language used in this passage is called anthropomorphic, or 
    man-centered, language.  It is
similar to someone moving from one place to another and saying, "Now the
house is on my right," "Now the house is on my left."  Neither of these
statements is meant to imply that the house has moved.  Rather, it is language
from a human perspective to describe that I have changed my position in
relationship to the house.  When Moses said that God relented, it was a 
figurative way of describing that Moses' intercession successfully changed
the relationship of the people to God.  He brought the nation under the mercy
of God's grace, and out from under the judgement of God.  God does not change,
neither His mind, His will, nor His nature.

jeff

Re: .39 Jeff

>"...The language used in this passage is called anthropomorphic, or 
>    man-centered, language.

If the language is anthropomorphic it's because the Bible was written by
men.

				-- Bob

>"...The language used in this passage is called anthropomorphic, or 
>    man-centered, language.

>If the language is anthropomorphic it's because the Bible was written by
>men.

>				-- Bob
    
    Of course it was written by men...for men and women. 
    
    jeff 

| <<< Note 1082.41 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>



| Of course it was written by men...for men and women.

	Then it can't be the word of God.

    Circular argument.  If it isn't the word of God Glen, then you have
    absolutely no basis for your faith...except your conscience.  Then
    Jesus would not be of necessity to you.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1082.43 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Circular argument.  If it isn't the word of God Glen, then you have
| absolutely no basis for your faith...except your conscience.  Then
| Jesus would not be of necessity to you.

	Oh, I suppose God Himself isn't good enough. I believe He is. 

    Oh...I believe he is good enough.  I'm focusing on your perception of
    God here.  
    
    The nation of India currently has 50 Million gods.  Not to mention the
    gods of other eastern countries.  I am asking you how you can possibly 
    know the nature of God if the Bible is only a book written by mere men
    and isn't inspired.  You would have had to summize who God is through
    your own conscience.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1082.45 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| The nation of India currently has 50 Million gods. Not to mention the gods of 
| other eastern countries. I am asking you how you can possibly know the nature 
| of God if the Bible is only a book written by mere men and isn't inspired. You
| would have had to summize who God is through your own conscience.

	No, by the things He has shown me. But of course, if you do believe the
above, then you can't really believe what you said earlier. You said before
that belief in Him is all that is needed. From what you wrote above it would
appear that one must also believe in the Bible as well. Which is it Jack? I
guess if the Bible is in the picture, it kind of kills off all those Christians
who have said people were saved on their deathbed, wouldn't it? I mean, they're
about to die, and they call out to Him. Is that person saved if in their hearts
they believe in Him or not? Remember, they are dieing, they may not have time
to think about the Bible.....


Glen

    
     > The nation of India currently has 50 Million gods.
    
    Oh, yeah... name 'em. :^)
    
    	Eric

  ZZ  appear that one must also believe in the Bible as well. Which is it
  ZZ  Jack?
    
    You are confusing two issues here Glen...or your just playing games.  
    What I had stated was that one doesn't necessarily have to believe for
    example, that Noah really built an ark, or that the earth and all its
    life was created in six literal days.  I do believe the Bible is the
    ONLY source your mind has to know about Jesus, the cross, redemption
    and atonement.  Anything you learned in Sunday School came from two
    sources...that being the Bible or from somebodys imagination.  My
    question to you was which one!
    
    -Jack

    >I do believe the Bible is the ONLY source your mind has to know about
    >Jesus, the cross, redemption and atonement.
    
    
    Do others believe this as well?

    Well if there is another way to know about Jesus other than the Bible,
    I would very much be interested in where!
    
    -Jack

    >    Do others believe this as well?
    
    only millions of evangelicals.  Historical records like Josephus and
    Philo can provide information on Christ as well, but nothing about
    redemption and atonement.

| <<< Note 1082.48 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| ZZ  appear that one must also believe in the Bible as well. Which is it
| ZZ  Jack?

| You are confusing two issues here Glen...or your just playing games. What I 
| had stated was that one doesn't necessarily have to believe for example, that 
| Noah really built an ark, or that the earth and all its life was created in 
| six literal days. I do believe the Bible is the ONLY source your mind has to 
| know about Jesus, the cross, redemption and atonement. Anything you learned in
| Sunday School came from two sources...that being the Bible or from somebodys 
| imagination. My question to you was which one!

	Wow...... talk about a 180.... you are saying here that you don't
believe that people have to believe the noah thing, etc ever happened. To me
that tells me that one does not have to believe in the Bible, period. Here is
the reason why. If your belief is the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then
it is perfect. If you believe that this book is perfect, then everything inside
has to be true. Yet, you are saying it's ok for others to not believe whatever
part of the Bible they choose. If you are allowing this, then you have allowed
people to believe that this is not a perfect book. That you don't have to
believe everything, just the following: <insert what you think is important>
Jack, you have just opened it all up for a pick and choose method of living. It
is either the Word of God, which would make it inerrant and perfect, or it is
not. Which is it Jack? If you choose inerrant, then can you really allow others
to believe some, but not all? 

	And Jack, the answer to your question is easy. Both, which just happen
to equal the same. In other words, the Bible is someones imagination to me, as
while I believe it was inspired by God, it's got human free will, which makes
it far from inerrant. A good guide though.


Glen

re Note 1082.52 by BIGQ::SILVA:

> If your belief is the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then
> it is perfect. If you believe that this book is perfect, then everything inside
> has to be true. 

        The second does not follow from the first.  Clearly, a
        perfect book authored by a good God could quote the untrue
        words of somebody else -- therefore not everything has to be
        true.

        More importantly, not everything need be literally,
        historically true.  "Perfect" merely (!) means that something
        matches God's desire for it completely.  If God wishes to
        teach supernatural truth (i.e., things that cannot be
        observed directly by humans) and that God wished to use story
        and metaphor, that would be "perfect".

        Bob

    Glen:
    
    Nevertheless you are evading the bottom line question.  By what
    authority do you understand the person of Jesus Christ and how can your
    faith be based on what you seem to believe a potentially faulty
    resource?  What distinguishes your god from the gods in India?  
    
    Eric, we'll refer to them as Al!
    
    -Jack

    	I don't know if it's worth it, Jack.  The question has been
    	asked far too many times for anyone to claim that he doesn't
    	understand.  In continuing to wallow in this same sty, we're
    	only getting ourselves dirty.

    Okay...then I'll assume Glen you learned it in your catechism class.
    Of course your teacher learned it from the Bible and you accepted it as
    truth...but other things don't count...whatever!
    
    -Jack

    Joe.
    
    I asked the question in .49 in a bit of astonishment.
    
    The Bible as the only source our mind has to know Jesus, would mean
    that Jesus cannot be directly known.
    
    My faith, and the faith I hear Glen discussing, and the faith I have
    heard Richard proclaim, affirms a direct knowing of God, the holy
    spirit, the living Christ.
    
    to say that the Bible is the Only source a mind has to know God, sounds
    like heresy to me.
    
    Not only that, to say that the Bible is our only way to know God, is
    not even biblical! 
    
    It sounds to me like a real crisis in faith.  It asks the question, how
    could I know what God wants from me, if I didn't read what God wants
    from the Bible.
    
    If God is love and Christ is the incarnation of Divine love, then it
    does not matter how we name God, it matters that we feel the impact of
    Divine love in our lives.
    
                           Patricia

    How do you know what is being revealed to you is of God or from God? 
    By what authority do you know this?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

ZZ    My faith, and the faith I hear Glen discussing, and the faith I
ZZ    have heard Richard proclaim, affirms a direct knowing of God, the holy
    
    Thought of something quite appropriate here.  In Acts chapter 8, there
    is one of the apostles...Phillip.  Phillip was instructed to ride along
    side a chariot.  Inside the chariot was an Ethiopian
    Eunich...apparently a man of great authority.
    
    ----------
    "..The Ethiopian was in his chariot reading Isaiah the prophet, then the
    Spirit said unto Phillip, Go near, and join thyself unto this chariot.
    Then Phillip ran to him and heard him read of the prophet Isaiah and
    asked him, Do you understand what you are reading?  And he said, HOW 
    CAN I EXCEPT SOME MAN SHOULD GUIDE ME?  And he asked Phillip to come up
    and sit with him.  And the place of the scripture he read was this, He 
    was lead as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his
    shearer, he did not open His mouth.  In his humility his judgement was
    taken away; and who shall declare his generation, for his life was
    taken from the earth.  
    
    And the eunich answered Phillip and asked, who does this prophet speak
    of, of himself or of some other man?  Then Phillip opened his mouth and
    began at the same scripture, and preached about Jesus."  
    ----------
    
    The Word of God is affirmed as speaking of the Christ...affirmed by one
    of the apostles who walked with Jesus three years.  Also, Philip
    recognized the need for the gentiles to understand the scripture so he
    certainly valued diversity here.  But the main point is this.  THE
    ETHIOPIAN HAD NO WAY of knowing who Jesus was.  He was searching...he
    was drawn to Isaiah 53 but he still needed it explained to him...which
    is understandable.  The PERSON of Jesus Christ and knowing Jesus is
    paramount to the Christian Faith and our revelation of the PERSON of
    Jesus Christ can only originate from the Bible.
    
    -Jack

    Incidently, I find it real interesting that an Apostle who was filled
    with the Holy Spirit acknowledged that Isaiah 53 was in fact referring
    to Jesus Christ.
    
    -Jack

Note 1082.49

>    >I do believe the Bible is the ONLY source your mind has to know about
>    >Jesus, the cross, redemption and atonement.
    
    
>    Do others believe this as well?

I don't.  Neither do I believe the Bible confines itself to these things.

Shalom,
Richard

| <<< Note 1082.54 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Nevertheless you are evading the bottom line question.  

	Wow.... talk about evading... Jack, considering we had been over this
time and time again, I didn't think you were serious to hear it yet again. If
you are serious, I'll gladly answer. If you are pulling strings, then I won't.




Glen

| <<< Note 1082.56 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Okay...then I'll assume Glen you learned it in your catechism class.
| Of course your teacher learned it from the Bible and you accepted it as
| truth...but other things don't count...whatever!

	I see you are pulling strings. Kids can learn to hate. It does not mean
what the teacher was saying is true. It could mean that the teacher does
believe what they are teaching is true.

	I believe in Him, by the the things He has done. I learned ABOUT Him by
many avenues. 


Glen

| <<< Note 1082.58 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

| How do you know what is being revealed to you is of God or from God?
| By what authority do you know this?

	By God Himself Mike. I do realize your authority includes God, but also
a book written by men.

re Note 1082.59 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     asked him, Do you understand what you are reading?  And he said, HOW 
>     CAN I EXCEPT SOME MAN SHOULD GUIDE ME?  And he asked Phillip to come up
>     and sit with him.  

        And of course, Jack, this *reinforces* the position you
        oppose:  the Bible is not the only guide to knowledge, it
        isn't even sufficient.

        Bob

ZZ    I believe in Him, by the the things He has done. I learned
ZZ    ABOUT Him by many avenues. 
    
    What avenues?  I mean, God is universal...everybody believes in a
    deity.  How did you learn about Jesus Christ and his history other than
    that book?  You aren't doing a very good job communicating this.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1082.57 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     to say that the Bible is the Only source a mind has to know God, sounds
>     like heresy to me.
  
        It's not even Biblical -- there is Biblical support for the
        position that God and God's will can be known to a
        considerable extent from nature and experience.

        Bob

    ZZ        It's not even Biblical -- there is Biblical support for the
    ZZ        position that God and God's will can be known to a
    ZZ        considerable extent from nature and experience.
    
    I agree with this and Paul confirms this in his epistle to the Romans.
    I am trying to keep this strictly focused on Jesus, the Son...not God
    the Father.
    
    The ministry and personal experiences of Jesus Christ are offered in
    Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  To my knowledge Philo and Joosephus,
    two very good commentaries in my opinion, were still written I believe
    some 200 years after Jesus death and resurrection.  It would be like
    you writing about George Washington.  The Gospels are the only
    recordings of quotes and teachings of Jesus...writers, teachers of our
    own past could only commentate on the gospels and epistles.  
    
    This is why I am trying to get a congruent answer from Glen on what he
    claims to be his authority of doctrine...which he has been the
    opposite.  I am genuinely interested in what his answer is.  So far he
    has said many sources...but it all boils down to Matt Mark Luke and
    John.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1082.66 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| ZZ    I believe in Him, by the the things He has done. I learned
| ZZ    ABOUT Him by many avenues.

| What avenues?  I mean, God is universal...

	Jack, you just answered your own question. 

| How did you learn about Jesus Christ and his history other than that book?  

	Jack, learning about the history of Christ, and getting to know Him,
are two different subjects. I have always said the Bible is a good guide, and
is more of a history book. That is how I can learn about the history of it all
in the best way man could do. I learn about Him from the things He shows me,
how He uses me, people He brings into my life, the journeys He takes me on, the
love He shows me through each of these avenues (including the difficult ones),
and how He shows me TO love. It's absolutely amazing!

| You aren't doing a very good job communicating this.

	I think it might have to do more with a confusion between knowing ABOUT
Him, and knowing Him, PERIOD.


Glen

| <<< Note 1082.68 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| This is why I am trying to get a congruent answer from Glen on what he claims 
| to be his authority of doctrine...

	In book style, the history book written by men called the Bible. In
human style, the people God puts in my life. In His style, what He reveales to
me.

| has said many sources...but it all boils down to Matt Mark Luke and John.

	No.... many

    Whatever.  Still can't figure you out!

| <<< Note 1082.71 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Whatever.  Still can't figure you out!

	Jack, reread .69 and tell me what you don't understand.

" I learn about Him from the things He shows me,
how He uses me, people He brings into my life, the journeys He takes me on, the
love He shows me through each of these avenues (including the difficult ones),
and how He shows me TO love. It's absolutely amazing!"
    
                                                  Glen
    
    
    Jack,
    
    Try reading Glen's words one more time.  They are pretty clear!
    
    He knows about Jesus through the direct relationship he has with Jesus!
    
    
                                       Patricia

    Oh, I understand Glens words and what he said was sound.  But his words
    can easily be uttered by a Buddhist, a moslem, or an idol worshipper. 
    
    Let's ask it this way.  Glen, what is it that gives Jesus your
    allegiance over another religion or god...seeing as how religions
    throughout the world can claim to give you peace and contentment.  Why
    would you pick one faith over another.  This is where I'm confused
    since your logic can apply to any religion...and even better in some
    cases since some religions the founder didn't say you would be
    persecuted for your faith.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Now your question to Glen seems to be a little clearer.
    
    
    Glen,
    
    Why do you call yourself a Christian?  Why do you choose Christianity
    over other religions?
    
                                 Patricia

| <<< Note 1082.74 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Oh, I understand Glens words and what he said was sound.  But his words
| can easily be uttered by a Buddhist, a moslem, or an idol worshipper.

	Errrr.... Jack, your own very words can be uttered by anyone who uses a
book to prove their faith. So your point is.....

| Glen, what is it that gives Jesus your allegiance over another religion or 
| god...

	Cuz He was the one that I learned about with the history book first,
but then He was the one who SHOWED me so many things. By His showing me so many
things, He is proven to be "the" one for *me*.

| Why would you pick one faith over another. This is where I'm confused since 
| your logic can apply to any religion...and even better in some cases since 
| some religions the founder didn't say you would be persecuted for your faith.

	Jack, what persecution has to do with any of this is beyond me. But
read what I wrote before, and this note. I don't know how else to explain it
Jack. I know Him by His interactions with me. I have called to Him, so why
would someone elses god come to me. Your belief is that anyone who calls to
Him, will be heard, isn't it. If I am calling to Him, why would you think a
different god appears? 


Glen

    Nawww...forget it.  You and I are on different planes...therefore we
    can't understand why the other isn't listening clearly (me), or isn't
    speaking clearly (you). 
    
    You can't know him unless you hear of him.  FWIW 

>	By God Himself Mike. I do realize your authority includes God, but also
>a book written by men.
    
    by what authority are you certain that it is God Himself?

    	If I chose to live in an environment that embraced prostitution,
    	robbery and murder, what do you think "Jesus-revealed" would most
    	likely say to me?
    
    	First and foremost it would use the prostitute-stoning incident to
    	tell me that prostitution was OK.  It would use Jesus' acceptance 
    	of the Good Thief to tell me that robbery was OK and would be 
    	forgiven.  It would probably twist Barabbas' release into an
    	acceptance of murder.
    
    	By what authority would I know that this "revelation" of Jesus
    	through the people around me would be (in)correct?

| <<< Note 1082.78 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

| >	By God Himself Mike. I do realize your authority includes God, but also
| >a book written by men.

| by what authority are you certain that it is God Himself?


	God. He IS the ultimate authority.

>| by what authority are you certain that it is God Himself?


>	God. He IS the ultimate authority.




    Why do carpenters carry measuring tapes on their belts?  Do they
    know, without a standard by which to measure it, if they have the
    measurements right?  Do they say "well, it looks and feels
    right to me" if someone questions their measurements?  Or, do
    they go to the standard to be sure?

    there are and have been over the years a number of people who 
    have claimed to be God Himself.  How would you know for certain
    if they were or were not.  What would you use to compare this "god"     
    against the true God? 


   Jim

| <<< Note 1082.81 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| Why do carpenters carry measuring tapes on their belts?  Do they know, without
| a standard by which to measure it, if they have the measurements right?  

	They are humans, like me, so they need a measurement guide. For the
carpenter, they use a tape measure. For me, I use God. For you, you use a book.

| Do they say "well, it looks and feels right to me" 

	Maybe they should do what I do Jim..... ask God to show them the way,
to guide them, to make sure that the way God wants it to work out, happens. 

| there are and have been over the years a number of people who have claimed to 
| be God Himself. How would you know for certain if they were or were not.  

	Prayer?

| What would you use to compare this "god" against the true God?

	Talking to God Himself?




Glen

 See .81

	see .82

>| Why do carpenters carry measuring tapes on their belts?  Do they know, without
>| a standard by which to measure it, if they have the measurements right?  

>	They are humans, like me, so they need a measurement guide. For the
>carpenter, they use a tape measure. For me, I use God. For you, you use a book.



So, humans have standards by which we measure..distances, temperature, all
sorts of things.  Are you saying that God, who created life itself, created
life and left us with no standards by which to know Him?  He just left us
here to grope about on our own, dangling the heaven carrot in our faces and
leaving us no clue how to get there?  Maybe we'll make it and maybe we
won't?  And if we don't get it right, even though He left us here on our own
with no clue how to get there, we go to eternity without Him?

    ZZZ      God. He IS the ultimate authority.
    
    ...and the Word was God.
    
    But you don't believe this so there can be no dialog on the subject.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1082.85 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>

| So, humans have standards by which we measure..distances, temperature, all
| sorts of things.  

	Yes, these are tools they developed. 

| Are you saying that God, who created life itself, created life and left us 
| with no standards by which to know Him?  

	His standard is Himself. He shows us day in and day out His standard.
If you let Him that is.

| Maybe we'll make it and maybe we won't?  

	Jim, the Bible is in existance. Has the Bible cured the above? Maybe
some will make it, maybe some will not. And that is WITH the Bible. Unless you
can tell me the Bible has cured the above completely, then I don't understand
your point. 

| And if we don't get it right, even though He left us here on our own with no 
| clue how to get there, we go to eternity without Him?

	Can't speak for Him, Jim. I believe He shows us each day we're alive
how He wants us to be, what He wants us to do, His love, everything. 



Glen

| <<< Note 1082.86 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| ZZZ      God. He IS the ultimate authority.

| ...and the Word was God.
| But you don't believe this so there can be no dialog on the subject.

	Jack, I think you're confused here. There can be dialogue, there just
can't be an agreement on both of our beliefs.

    	Glen, you say that we can't use the Bible to prove the authenticity
    	of the Bible, yet you are equally recursive in using your concept
    	of God to prove to yourself that it is the right concept of God.
    
    	See .79.

| <<< Note 1082.89 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| Glen, you say that we can't use the Bible to prove the authenticity of the 
| Bible, yet you are equally recursive in using your concept of God to prove to 
| yourself that it is the right concept of God.

	Joe, you can not use the Bible to prove itself because it is written by
humans. I use God to prove who He is. I can use that method because He is pure.
What you consistantly do is state my belief as you see it, which is fine, as
long as you state that it's your belief up front. (that it is your belief)

Glen

>	His standard is Himself. He shows us day in and day out His standard.
>If you let Him that is.


>| And if we don't get it right, even though He left us here on our own with no 
>| clue how to get there, we go to eternity without Him?

>	Can't speak for Him, Jim. I believe He shows us each day we're alive
>how He wants us to be, what He wants us to do, His love, everything. 



 Ok..he shows you day in and day out His standard (if you let Him), but you 
 can't speak for Him even though you have His standard?  Why's that?  His
 standard isn't reliable?  It changes?  



 Jim

| Maybe we'll make it and maybe we won't?  

>	Jim, the Bible is in existance. Has the Bible cured the above? Maybe
>some will make it, maybe some will not. And that is WITH the Bible. Unless you
>can tell me the Bible has cured the above completely, then I don't understand
>your point. 

	Jim, if you would address the above point, you will have your answer.



Glen

    It's pointless Glen.  The Bible IS the Word of God to me.  The Bible is
    simply a book to you.  
    
    -Jack

                  <<< Note 1082.92 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>



>	Jim, if you would address the above point, you will have your answer.



  I'd be glad to, if I could understand it.

| <<< Note 1082.93 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| The Bible IS the Word of God to me.  The Bible is simply a book to you.

	Agreed. And we can always discuss the differences, the simularities,
etc. We could just never talk about how one is wrong, and the other is not. 



Glen

	You made the statement that under my method of faith, that there is no
measurement by which to go by. You stated that under such a method, that it
would become a, "Maybe we'll make it and maybe we won't" way. I said the Bible
is in existance. Has it cured the, "Maybe we'll make it and maybe we won't"
way? In other words, will every person on this planet be saved by this absolute
method called the Bible? It's been around for centuries, yet it hasn't done
what you claim it will do. Maybe some people on this planet will make it Jim,
and others won't. Isn't that the same with my method? 

>is in existance. Has it cured the, "Maybe we'll make it and maybe we won't"
>way? In other words, will every person on this planet be saved by this absolute
>method called the Bible? It's been around for centuries, yet it hasn't done
>what you claim it will do. Maybe some people on this planet will make it Jim,
>and others won't. Isn't that the same with my method? 



 No one has been saved by the Bible, Glen.  God tells us in the Bible how we
 can be saved.  How are you saved, Glen?  Those who have been convicted of
 their sin through the workings of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit and
 have been saved following that "method".  What method did you follow, and
 what do you base any assurance of salvation on?

| <<< Note 1082.97 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| No one has been saved by the Bible, Glen.  

	EXACTLY! 

| God tells us in the Bible how we can be saved.  

	Provided you could get everyone to agree. But it isn't that way, and I
believe the reason behind it all is God shows different people, different
things. He saves different people, different ways. But unless you get universal
agreement, then you have many ways one can be saved. Which is no different than
my method.

| How are you saved, Glen?  

	By believing in Him. 

| Those who have been convicted of their sin through the workings of the Word of
| God and the Holy Spirit and have been saved following that "method". 

	And some other person was saved by some action, or some words, etc. 

| What method did you follow, 

	Belief in Him. 

| and what do you base any assurance of salvation on?

	God Himself.

ZZ    Provided you could get everyone to agree. But it isn't that way, and I
ZZ    believe the reason behind it all is God shows different people,
ZZ    different things. He saves different people, different ways.
    
    Church dogma and unbiblical extrapolation.  But then again what did you
    expect?
    
    Universal agreement is mutually exclusive to whether God's plan, i.e.
    believing in him, will save people from their sin.  God made a
    provision and it is by that way we can have eternal life.  There is no
    other name given to us whereby we must be saved.
    
    Incidently, what do you mean by, "Believing in him"?
    
    -Jack

.66 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

    What avenues?  I mean, God is universal...everybody believes in a
    deity.

Wrong.

Steve

    Steve:
    
    If we came from nature, then mother earth is our God.  If we just came
    by accident, we are our own god.  
    
    -Jack

                  <<< Note 1082.90 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>I use God to prove who He is. I can use that method because He is pure.
    
    	How do you know that God isn't being revealed to you as described
    	in .79?

| <<< Note 1082.103 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| >I use God to prove who He is. I can use that method because He is pure.

| How do you know that God isn't being revealed to you as described in .79?

	Reread the above.

    >	God. He IS the ultimate authority.
    
    Okay Glen.  God has given me a word of wisdom according to 1
    Corinthians 12:8 that you are to take the Bible (God's Word) literally
    from now on and to use as your standard and authority.
    
    Now tell me how do you test that God really spoke to me or not.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

| <<< Note 1082.105 by OUTSRC::HEISER "National Atheists Day - April 1" >>>

| Okay Glen. God has given me a word of wisdom according to 1 Corinthians 12:8 
| that you are to take the Bible (God's Word) literally from now on and to use 
| as your standard and authority.

	He said that to you? You mean He didn't tell you about some guy named
Paul who roughly said, "What I am about to say is not from God, but my own
opinion."? I mean, why would he tell you the book is His Word, when there is a
direct contradiction to that inside the very book? My belief tells me that God
can't be contradictory, only humans. So that makes the statement not from God, 
but from humans, or some other source.

	Also, why would God put a book as His Word before Himself? My belief
does not see this as possible. Oh, He may USE the book from time to time, as He
would anything else, but put it up along side Him? My belief says no.

| Now tell me how do you test that God really spoke to me or not.

	Reread my 1st paragraph.


Glen

                  <<< Note 1082.106 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	He said that to you? You mean He didn't tell you about some guy named
>Paul who roughly said, "What I am about to say is not from God, but my own
>opinion."? 
    
    	Are you suggesting that Paul's disclaimer applies to everything
    	he wrote, and not just the one idea that follows the disclaimer?

Glen's favorite verse:



1Corinthians 7:25  Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: 
yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be 
faithful. 



 Note that 1: Paul's "opinion" is not contradicted anywhere in scripture.
           2: Paul's apostleship (which he spends a great deal of time defining
              in this book) entitles him to stating his "opinion"
           3: The issues which he addresses in chapter 7 are in answer to 
              questions sent him by the Christians in Corinth, the answers to
              which are not addressed elsewhere in Scripture and are a result
              of "this present distress" mentioned later in the same chapter.




 Jim

| <<< Note 1082.107 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| >	He said that to you? You mean He didn't tell you about some guy named
| >Paul who roughly said, "What I am about to say is not from God, but my own
| >opinion."? 

| Are you suggesting that Paul's disclaimer applies to everything
| he wrote, and not just the one idea that follows the disclaimer?

	For the book to claim it is the Word of God, it has to come from Him.
If someone states that what they are about to say is NOT from God, it should
not be in the book. But seeing it is, there is a contradiction.


Glen

 He didn't say it was not from God.  He said he has no commandment.  God had
 been silent on this particular issue as it related to the Corinthian church.




 Jim

| <<< Note 1082.108 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>




| 1: Paul's "opinion" is not contradicted anywhere in scripture.

	Sure it is. When it says the book is the Word of God. To have Paul give
his opinion AND state that it did not come from God, shows that the book can
not make it's origonal claim of being the Word of God. Remember Jim, it didn't
say the Word of God & Paul.

| 2: Paul's apostleship (which he spends a great deal of time defining in this 
| book) entitles him to stating his "opinion"

	In life, yeah. Anyone can. In a book that is supposed to be God's Word,
no. To state it is not from Him in what is supposed to be a book of His Word,
contradicts the statement.

| 3: The issues which he addresses in chapter 7 are in answer to questions sent 
| him by the Christians in Corinth, the answers to which are not addressed 
| elsewhere in Scripture and are a result of "this present distress" mentioned 
| later in the same chapter.

	Jim, why Paul said what he did is really only known by God. But until
you can explain why a book that claims it is God's Word, has someone stating
something He says is not from Him, then you haven't addressed the issue. 

	Try this example:

		Jim Henderson believes the Bible to be the Word of God.
		Jim Henderson goes to listen to a speaker people have
		been talking about. Jim Henderson really liked what the
		speaker had to say. But then the speaker said something
		that goes against what the Bible states.

	Does Jim Henderson:

		1) Just let it go?

		2) Become a little leary of the guy?

		3) ?


Glen



| Jim

| <<< Note 1082.110 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| He didn't say it was not from God.  He said he has no commandment.  God had
| been silent on this particular issue as it related to the Corinthian church.

	Depends on which Bible one reads. Depends on what Paul meant when he
stated commandment. According to the Good News, it meant, "not from God".


Glen

>	Jim, why Paul said what he did is really only known by God. But until
>you can explain why a book that claims it is God's Word, has someone stating
>something He says is not from Him, then you haven't addressed the issue. 



 I've explained it.  You don't accept it.





>	Try this example:

>		Jim Henderson believes the Bible to be the Word of God.
		Jim Henderson goes to listen to a speaker people have
>         	been talking about. Jim Henderson really liked what the
		speaker had to say. But then the speaker said something
>		that goes against what the Bible states.

>	Does Jim Henderson:

>		1) Just let it go?

>		2) Become a little leary of the guy?

>		3) ?



     Well, lets see. Please demonstrate where the "opinion" that paul stated
    goes against anything else in scripture.  



   Jim

| <<< Note 1082.113 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>



| Well, lets see. Please demonstrate where the "opinion" that paul stated
| goes against anything else in scripture.

	How can a book be God's Word, if Paul's opinion is in it? It is not the
Word of God and Paul. Paul can match what the Bible says elsewhere, but it does
not change the fact that his human opinion is in the Bible. If the apostles
were guided by the Holy Spirit, why would Paul have been allowed to put some
human opinion, into a book that is supposed to be inerrant? Humans are not
perfect. Remember, one of them turned Jesus in. Yet now we are supposed to
accept this human opinion? 


Glen

                  <<< Note 1082.114 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	How can a book be God's Word, if Paul's opinion is in it? 
    
    	Because Paul's opinion turns out to be right.

 Peter didn't have a problem recognizing Paul's writings as Scripture.





 Jim

| <<< Note 1082.115 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| >	How can a book be God's Word, if Paul's opinion is in it?

| Because Paul's opinion turns out to be right.

	Joe, Paul's opinion is not an opinion that that came from God, or he
would have given Him credit for it, seeing Paul was supposed to have been
guided by the Holy Spirit. Whether or not anyones opinion is correct, does not
mean it belongs in a book that is supposed to be His Word. Human anything means
it is not inerrant. 

| <<< Note 1082.116 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>

| Peter didn't have a problem recognizing Paul's writings as Scripture.

	Peter was also a human. 

    Glen,
    
    I understand the point you are making and it is totally valid.
    
    It is the same as the Gospels being the "Gospel according to Mark"
    
    How could it be the Gospel according to God and the Gospel according to
    Mark at the same time.
    
    If Paul in his note distinquishes between when his words are the words
    of God and when his words are his own, he is affirming that the Bible
    contains statements that are the words of God and statements that are
    not.
    
    The Bible itself thus proves to be not totally the words of God.
    
    It all follows logically to me.
    
    I can see where it is annoying to those who don't like that piece of
    evidences.
    
                                    Patricia

                  <<< Note 1082.117 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Joe, Paul's opinion is not an opinion that that came from God, or he
>would have given Him credit for it, seeing Paul was supposed to have been
>guided by the Holy Spirit. 
    
    	Are you suggesting that the various authors KNEW at the time
    	of their writing that they were being inspired by the Holy
    	Spirit?  Far from it.  There were hundreds of first century
    	authors -- some writing letters, some gospel stories of Jesus'
    	life.  Only the handful that we have collected in the Bible
    	are believed to have been inspired.  I'd like to suggest that
    	those who thought they were being inspired by the Holy Spirit
    	to write something that would be considered sacred scripture
    	would have been too conceited in that belief to truly be so
    	inspired.  Paul was not writing for posterity.  He was writing
    	for local churches, and it is the inspiration of the Holy
    	Spirit that made some of them worthy of being Sacred Scripture.
    
    	In fact, it is rather naive to assume that Paul wrote only the
    	few letters that are attributed to him in the Bible.  Only
    	the few we have in the Bible today are considered to be Sacred.
    
> Whether or not anyones opinion is correct, does not
> mean it belongs in a book that is supposed to be His Word. Human anything means
> it is not inerrant. 
    
    	And yet you are willing to assume that your imagination of
    	"God revealed" *IS* God's "pure word"...
    
    	No, Glen, correct opinion -- Paul's humble opinion -- certainly 
    	CAN be God-inspired, and it will take more than your humble 
    	opinion to change that.

	I knew someone would understand.... :-)

| <<< Note 1082.120 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| Are you suggesting that the various authors KNEW at the time of their writing
| that they were being inspired by the Holy Spirit?  

	The Holy Spirit had to know, right? One would think that if the Holy 
Spirit were involved, He would not let someone claim something that is His, as
their own opinion.

| In fact, it is rather naive to assume that Paul wrote only the few letters 
| that are attributed to him in the Bible. Only the few we have in the Bible 
| today are considered to be Sacred.

	Ahhh.... did the others have a little too much humanism to them Joe?

| And yet you are willing to assume that your imagination of "God revealed" *IS*
| God's "pure word"...

	Errrr.... Joe, my belief has nothing to do with the opinion Paul used
in the Bible. 

| No, Glen, correct opinion -- Paul's humble opinion -- certainly CAN be 
| God-inspired, 

	I noticed how you did use the word, CAN. Joe, either it is or it isn't.
What is your belief? I would imagine yes, but then would you explain the word,
CAN?



Glen

  From some studying I did tonight, using Strong's concordance and Vine's
  expository Bible Dictionary, recognized by most scholars as authoritative,
  the word "judgement" as used in the KJV in verse 25, is more correctly
  translated as advice or counsel.  So Paul, in answer to the question posed
  to him by the Corinthian Chrisitans, is in essence saying "God hasn't given
  me any commandment on this issue, but let me give my advice or counsel",
  the readers being aware of Paul's knowledge of the Law and Grace (or it
  is doubtful they would have even posed the question to him.  




 Jim

    ZZ        The Holy Spirit had to know, right?
    
    Holy Spirit?  Who said there was a Holy Spirit?
    
    -Jack

	Jim, how did you go from the word opinion, to, "let me"? I'm curious.

 
  What???

| <<< Note 1082.123 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


	In any of the Bibles I looked at, the word opinion is used. Yet you
state below:

| "God hasn't given me any commandment on this issue, but let me give my 
| advice or counsel",                                 ^^^^^^^^^^

	How did that get substituted for opinion? Where does it say that God
let Him? 


Glen

                  <<< Note 1082.122 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	The Holy Spirit had to know, right? One would think that if the Holy 
>Spirit were involved, He would not let someone claim something that is His, as
>their own opinion.
    
    	Sure, "one" would think this.  And "one" (several "ones") has
    	already expressed that thought.  Why can't an individual's
    	opinion (I'll stick with your wording) agree with the word of
    	God?
    
    	I find it rather shaky to base one's thesis for Biblical errancy
    	on this one point.
    
>	Ahhh.... did the others have a little too much humanism to them Joe?
    
    	Which "the others" are you talking about?  I don't know about
    	other letters of Paul, but the other Gospel stories had all 
    	sorts of problems with them -- ranging from theological 
    	failings to obvious historical inaccuracies.  That they 
    	were rejected for Biblical inclusion does not mean that they 
    	are no longer available.  I'm not sure if they are readily
    	available in any library, but I know they were available in
    	my college's library (Holy Cross, Worcester MA) for I did a
    	paper on comparing some of them to the synoptic gospels.  Check
    	out the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas for some interesting reading.

>	Errrr.... Joe, my belief has nothing to do with the opinion Paul used
> in the Bible. 
    
    	What?  All along you have been expressing your belief about
    	the nature of the Bible specifically because of Paul's "opinion"!
    
>	I noticed how you did use the word, CAN. Joe, either it is or it isn't.
> What is your belief? I would imagine yes, but then would you explain the word,
> CAN?

	My belief is clear.  I used the word "can" specifically to
    	counter your contention of "cannot".

 Glen, I was paraphrasing what Paul is saying.  The "let me" statement is 
 simply my paraphrase of what Paul wrote in answer to the questions that
 the Corinthian Christians wrote.  He is telling them that he has no
 commandment from the Lord, but his advice is that a man or woman, if they
 are unmarried, should remain unmarried due to "this present distress" (perse-
 cution, etc).  If we read farther into the passage we see that he said
 if they are married, they shouldn't divorce (which is a command from God)
 but if they are not married, perhaps it would be best because of all that
 is going on that they remain unmarried.


 Note, and this is is significant as it directly goes back to Paul's advice,
 if they *do* marry, they have *not* sinned.  Whether they follow Paul's
 advice or not, there is no sin involved.



1Corinthians 7:25  Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: 
yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be 
faithful. 

 26  I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, 
that it is good for a man so to be. 

 27  Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from 
a wife? seek not a wife. 

 28  But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she 
hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I 
spare you. 

>                  <<< Note 1082.106 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
>
>	He said that to you? You mean He didn't tell you about some guy named
>Paul who roughly said, "What I am about to say is not from God, but my own
>opinion."? I mean, why would he tell you the book is His Word, when there is a
>direct contradiction to that inside the very book? My belief tells me that God
>can't be contradictory, only humans. So that makes the statement not from God, 
>but from humans, or some other source.
    
    Godly and righteous counsel from one of the most righteous men to ever
    walk the planet is not to be taken lightly.  Especially when it doesn't
    contradict God or His Word.
    
    By what authority are you able to claim that your God does not 
    contradict himself?

>	Also, why would God put a book as His Word before Himself? My belief
>does not see this as possible. Oh, He may USE the book from time to time, as He
>would anything else, but put it up along side Him? My belief says no.
    
    His Word is eternal, truth, and does not return void.  He is His Word. 
    By what authority are you able to reject God and His Word?

| Now tell me how do you test that God really spoke to me or not.
>
>	Reread my 1st paragraph.

Glen, you really haven't answered the question.  
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 1082.128 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| Sure, "one" would think this. And "one" (several "ones") has already expressed
| that thought. Why can't an individual's opinion (I'll stick with your wording)
| agree with the word of God?

	I never said it could not agree. I could state something that could
agree. But one's opinion could match what He would like to see, but one's
opinion is not His Word. 

	If one's opinion could over ride the Holy Spirit, then can it be from
Him? Say God was giving Paul the thought through the Holy Spirit about marriage,
but then Paul says it isn't from God. Did the Holy Spirit fail? No. The Holy
Spirit can not fail. If one claims credit from something that came from Him,
the Holy Spirit couldn't have been involved, could He?

| I find it rather shaky to base one's thesis for Biblical errancy on this one 
| point.

	Joe, if the Bible is inerrant, then no errors, no contradictions will
be found. If there is one, then it's claim is false. But rest assured that this
isn't the only thing. 

| >	Ahhh.... did the others have a little too much humanism to them Joe?

| Which "the others" are you talking about?  

	Any that didn't make it into the Bible.

| I don't know about other letters of Paul, but the other Gospel stories had all
| sorts of problems with them -- ranging from theological failings to obvious 
| historical inaccuracies.  

	Yet through them all, humans were able to decifer them and pick the
ones they wanted.

| >	Errrr.... Joe, my belief has nothing to do with the opinion Paul used
| > in the Bible.

| What?  All along you have been expressing your belief about the nature of the 
| Bible specifically because of Paul's "opinion"!

	Joe, my belief has nothing to do with the proof that the Bible is not
the Word of God. The book itself does that.

| >	I noticed how you did use the word, CAN. Joe, either it is or it isn't.
| > What is your belief? I would imagine yes, but then would you explain the word,
| > CAN?

| My belief is clear.  I used the word "can" specifically to
| counter your contention of "cannot".

	But in the context you used it in, took away any absolute that would be
needed to make your point correct.



Glen

| <<< Note 1082.129 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| Glen, I was paraphrasing what Paul is saying. The "let me" statement is simply
| my paraphrase of what Paul wrote in answer to the questions that the 
| Corinthian Christians wrote.  

	Thanks for clarifying that Jim. I appreciate it. You will admit that
the, "let me" statement gives it a whole new meaning...... 

	As to the rest of what you wrote, very interesting. That was the same
interpretation I had gotten from reading it.


Glen

| <<< Note 1082.130 by OUTSRC::HEISER "National Atheists Day - April 1" >>>


| Godly and righteous counsel from one of the most righteous men to ever walk 
| the planet is not to be taken lightly.  

	I couldn't agree with you more on this. But Paul's word is not equal to
God's Word. You see, Paul had many writings that did not make the Bible. Did
this mean that sometimes he was guided by the Holy Spirit, and sometimes he
wasn't? Having an opinion from a human in a book could help a lot of people.
That person could follow and be a lot like God with all they do. But they still
are not God. If the book is God's Word, it has to be His alone, and can't have
someone, however good, righteous they are, giving their opinion. Once they do,
you bring in a level of humanism, and it can't be the Word of God anymore.

| By what authority are you able to claim that your God does not contradict 
| himself?

	From the things God has done maybe?

| His Word is eternal, truth, and does not return void.  He is His Word.
| By what authority are you able to reject God and His Word?

	Reread my 1st paragraph.

| Glen, you really haven't answered the question.

	Yes I have. 


Glen

>	I couldn't agree with you more on this. But Paul's word is not equal to
>God's Word. 
    
    By what authority are you able to state that God was behind Paul's
    counsel according to 1 Corinthians 12:8?  You're making the dangerous
    assumption that the Holy Spirit wasn't involved.
    
    >You see, Paul had many writings that did not make the Bible. Did
    
    Name some.
    
>this mean that sometimes he was guided by the Holy Spirit, and sometimes he
>wasn't? Having an opinion from a human in a book could help a lot of people.
>That person could follow and be a lot like God with all they do. But they still
>are not God. If the book is God's Word, it has to be His alone, and can't have
>someone, however good, righteous they are, giving their opinion. Once they do,
>you bring in a level of humanism, and it can't be the Word of God anymore.
    
    The Holy Spirit was speaking through Paul even in counsel.  Paul had an
    extremely tight relationship with God - one in which I wish I also had. 
    You haven't proved that Godly counsel didn't come from Paul.  The fact
    that it doesn't contradict God's Word shows that the Holy Spirit was
    actually guiding Paul in this counsel.

>	From the things God has done maybe?
    
    doesn't sound very convincing on your behalf.  Jim Jones, David Koresh,
    Dali Lama, Sai Baba, Kenneth Hagin, Marian apparitions, Benny Hinn, and 
    Paul Crouch have all performed miracles while claiming they were either 
    from God or they are God Himself.  2 Corinthians 11:14 says that Satan 
    can appear as an angel of light.  2 Thessalonians 2:9 says that Satan can 
    perform signs, wonders, and miracles.  Do you serve the God of the
    Bible or some other god?

>| His Word is eternal, truth, and does not return void.  He is His Word.
>| By what authority are you able to reject God and His Word?
>
>	Reread my 1st paragraph.
    
    I did.  God's Word says He is His Word.  If you reject His Word, you
    reject God.  By what authority are you able to reject God and still
    stake a claim to Christianity?  By what authority are you able to state
    that the God you serve is the God of the Bible and not some other god?

>	Yes I have. 

Glen, you haven't even scratched the surface.  You're answering with
    questions because you apparently don't know the answer.
    
    Mike

    << By what authority....
    
    I believe the implication here is that one is in danger of serving two
    masters...and we know what scripture says about this.  Denying
    scripture as God's Word is in essence a denial of God. 
    Misunderstanding scripture is something entirely different.
    
    -Jack

.102 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

    If we came from nature, then mother earth is our God.  If we just came
    by accident, we are our own god.  

Jack,

This is a common assertion amoung Christians, i.e. that everyone has a god of
some sort. My guess is that because it is such an integral part of your life
that you simply can't conceive of a life without some sort of analogous 
presence. 

The other possibility is that we have radically different definitions of God. 
Mine comes from the dictionary and basically says a belief in a supernatural
all-powerful being that created the universe. By that definition I do not see
myself (obviously :^) or mother earth, whatever that might mean, as god. 

I would be interested in hearing your definition of God in this context,

Thanks, Steve

| <<< Note 1082.134 by OUTSRC::HEISER "National Atheists Day - April 1" >>>

| -< Who do you serve? >-

	God.

| >	I couldn't agree with you more on this. But Paul's word is not equal to
| >God's Word.

| By what authority are you able to state that God was behind Paul's counsel 
| according to 1 Corinthians 12:8? You're making the dangerous assumption that 
| the Holy Spirit wasn't involved.

	See note .131, my 2nd paragraph.

| The Holy Spirit was speaking through Paul even in counsel.  

	Then explain why the Holy Spirit would allow something from God be
called some humans opinion?

| You haven't proved that Godly counsel didn't come from Paul.  

	Errrr..... I think I have been saying it did come from Paul, not God.

| The fact that it doesn't contradict God's Word shows that the Holy Spirit was
| actually guiding Paul in this counsel.

	It does not make Paul's word God's Word. Paul took God right out of the
picture on this one. The Holy Spirit guided Paul to do that? Come on. If the
Holy Spirit is involved, it is from God. That is who gets the credit, not some
human being. If you come up with a wonderful idea, and everyone goes, "Mike,
what a wonderful idea!" Do you take claim for it or do you give the credit to
who really deserves it? My guess is the latter of the 2.

| >	From the things God has done maybe?

| doesn't sound very convincing on your behalf.  Jim Jones, David Koresh,
| Dali Lama, Sai Baba, Kenneth Hagin, Marian apparitions, Benny Hinn, and
| Paul Crouch have all performed miracles while claiming they were either
| from God or they are God Himself.  

	Yeah.... THEY performed miracles. I am stating that God, not me, has
been doing the work.

| >| His Word is eternal, truth, and does not return void.  He is His Word.
| >| By what authority are you able to reject God and His Word?
| >
| >	Reread my 1st paragraph.

| I did. God's Word says He is His Word. If you reject His Word, you reject God.

	Only if I believe as you do Mike. That is something you seriously need
to work on. It works for you. It's a book that is contradictory to me. I'll
keep Him up there, and you can keep your book.

| By what authority are you able to reject God and still stake a claim to 
| Christianity?  

	I am not the one who is rejecting God. You are telling me I am. There
is a big difference there. 

| By what authority are you able to state that the God you serve is the God of 
| the Bible and not some other god?

	I serve the God that is talked about in the Bible. My belief is that
God is not OF the Bible. 


Glen

| <<< Note 1082.135 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| I believe the implication here is that one is in danger of serving two
| masters...and we know what scripture says about this. Denying scripture as 
| God's Word is in essence a denial of God.

	Jack, you state this a lot of times. You also state that all one has to
do is believe in Him. Which is it?



Glen

                  <<< Note 1082.131 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	If one's opinion could over ride the Holy Spirit, 
    
    	But Paul's "opinion" (I'll continue to use your term) did *NOT*
    	override the Holy Spirit.  It is in full agreement with all the
    	rest of the Bible's teachings.
    
> Say God was giving Paul the thought through the Holy Spirit about marriage,
> but then Paul says it isn't from God. Did the Holy Spirit fail? No. The Holy
> Spirit can not fail. 
    
    	Uh, this looks like you are trying to support my point.  What
    	are you trying to say?  
    
> If one claims credit from something that came from Him,
> the Holy Spirit couldn't have been involved, could He?
    
    	To be accurate, none of us can claim credit for anything
    	we do.  As for the semantics issues you seem to want to
    	weave, you'll have to take them up with St. Paul himself.
    	Why not try asking St. Paul to intercede for you asking
    	for discernment...

>	Yet through them all, humans were able to decifer them and pick the
> ones they wanted.
    	
    	Do you think some humans simply picked writings out of a hat?
    
    	It was a long process of spiritual and faith-filled discernment 
    	by a whole council of Church leaders guided by the Holy Spirit.
    	Do you claim that the power of the Holy Spirit could not work
    	in this way?  

> | My belief is clear.  I used the word "can" specifically to
> | counter your contention of "cannot".
>
>	But in the context you used it in, took away any absolute that would be
> needed to make your point correct.
    
    	Let's be honest here, Glen.  No matter how I word it, you will
    	say that my point is not correct.

                  <<< Note 1082.133 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

> God's Word. You see, Paul had many writings that did not make the Bible. Did
> this mean that sometimes he was guided by the Holy Spirit, and sometimes he
> wasn't? 
    
    	How do you know that Paul had many such writings?  (Be careful
    	how you answer this.)
    
    	And yes, in terms of which writings were destined to be Sacred 
    	Scripture, some were of special inspiration.

    
    > Denying scripture as God's Word is in essence a denial of God.

    I do not believe this. For those who are interested, take a look at
    note 18, specifically .406, for my thoughts on the nature of the bible. 

    	Eric

                  <<< Note 1082.132 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>


>	Thanks for clarifying that Jim. I appreciate it. You will admit that
>the, "let me" statement gives it a whole new meaning...... 


  Why are you so hung up on "let me"???  



>	As to the rest of what you wrote, very interesting. That was the same
>interpretation I had gotten from reading it.


 Great! So you're dropping this "paul's opinion" nonsense? Wonderful!




 Jim

          <<< Note 1082.142 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>

>  Why are you so hung up on "let me"???  

	Without fuzziness and confusion, this line of reasoning has
    	no merit.  But when we get down to quibbling over "let me" it
    	seems that desperation is setting in.

| <<< Note 1082.139 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| But Paul's "opinion" (I'll continue to use your term) did *NOT* override the 
| Holy Spirit. It is in full agreement with all the rest of the Bible's 
| teachings.

	If Paul say something to another, and it is in line with the Bible,
then Paul did not contradict the Bible's message on marriage. But the words
were spoken by Paul, who said this was his own opinion. You have said that
because he did not go against the rest of scripture, it would be ok for him to
state his opinion, and that the Holy Spirit guided him to do this.

	If I come up with a great idea, and take credit for it, who is guiding
me? The Holy Spirit? If the Holy Spirit were guiding me, would I be taking
credit for something He actually did? Wouldn't it mean that I was not listening
to the Holy Spirit if I took credit? 

	If you say the Holy Spirit was not guiding me, or that I was not
listening to the Holy Spirit, then why is it different for Paul? In both cases
the human part was overriding the Holy Spirit by saying something wasn't from
god, but something that belonged to us. 

| > Say God was giving Paul the thought through the Holy Spirit about marriage,
| > but then Paul says it isn't from God. Did the Holy Spirit fail? No. The Holy
| > Spirit can not fail.

| Uh, this looks like you are trying to support my point. What are you trying 
| to say?

	Paul was not listening to the Holy Spirit completely when he took credit
for something that came from Him. He stuck around long enough to get the idea,
but then made it his own. This is God's Word? 

| > If one claims credit from something that came from Him,
| > the Holy Spirit couldn't have been involved, could He?

| To be accurate, none of us can claim credit for anything we do.  

	We agree.

| As for the semantics issues you seem to want to weave, you'll have to take 
| them up with St. Paul himself.

	At least we're at the point that you aren't denying he took credit for
something that came from God. (as it would have to be from God to be in His
book) Now that you can see that, it should be much easier for you to see that a
human overrid the Holy Spirit by taking claim for something that was God. It
also illistrates that the Bible is not the Word of God, cuz it is humanized.

	But nice duck there. 

| >	Yet through them all, humans were able to decifer them and pick the
| > ones they wanted.

| Do you think some humans simply picked writings out of a hat?

	I wasn't present. But it seemed as though they took some, and not
others. Did this mean the Holy Spirit was only there some of the times? How can
you be sure which ones are good, which ones aren't?

| It was a long process of spiritual and faith-filled discernment by a whole 
| council of Church leaders guided by the Holy Spirit.

	Provided they listened, and didn't add in their own opinions into the
decision....

| Do you claim that the power of the Holy Spirit could not work in this way?

	I believe the Holy Spirit can do anything for us..... provided we let
Him. That's the key part.

| Let's be honest here, Glen. No matter how I word it, you will say that my 
| point is not correct.

	You forgot to add, according to my belief. I just never thought you
would leave it open for a non-absolute hole.


Glen

RE:                  <<< Note 1082.144 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>


>	If you say the Holy Spirit was not guiding me, or that I was not
>listening to the Holy Spirit, then why is it different for Paul? In both cases
>the human part was overriding the Holy Spirit by saying something wasn't from
>god, but something that belonged to us. 


 Are you an Apostle?  Are you recognized for your knowledge of the Law?  If
 they wanted just an "opinion" they could have asked anybody in Corinth and
 got an opinion.  They wanted advice from a Godly man, a man known for his
 knowledge of the Law and one *qualified* to speak on the issue and one who
 would answer their questions within scriptural guidelines.




Jim

 ZZ   Then explain why the Holy Spirit would allow something from God
 ZZ   be called some humans opinion?
    
    Glen, Paul was a prophet as well as an expert in the Mosaic law.  Being
    a prophet, he had the authority to speak on behalf of the nature of
    God.  Peter recognized this authority, being inspired by the Holy
    Spirit as well.  John the Baptist for example, was also a prophet.  The
    rebuke he gave Herod was also an opinion, yet it was the cause of his
    imprisonment and conformed to the Word of God, i.e. it is not lawful
    for you to sleep with your brothers wife.
    
    Re: The authority of scripture.  It goes something like this Glen.
    
    A. All Revelation of Christ as we know Him comes from the Word of God.
    B. All doctrine learned by our Sunday School Teacher came from the Word
       of God.
    C. Holy Spirit...Jesus...God the Father - All from the Word of God.
    
    I answered this for you the other day Glen.  Nevermind, I'll make it
    easier for you.  Your rejection of scripture is an act of libel in my
    opinion.  You are putting God in a comfortable little Glen box.  Your
    proclamation of Jesus and your rejection of divine inspiration are
    inconsistent to me Glen.  If you reject scripture, you reject divine
    communication.  Bible worship???  No.  Reverence for God's word,
    definitely...and there is a difference.  Recognizing it for what it is
    was a primary part of the Levitical protocol of the Old Testament.  I
    find your outlook on it minimizing at best...
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1082.145 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| Are you an Apostle?  Are you recognized for your knowledge of the Law?  

	Jim, this does not wash. Wasn't it Peter who denied knowing Jesus on 3
occasions? That alone shows they are human. Human, no matter how close they are
to God, doesn't even come close to equaling Him. Their opinions can not be in a
book that claims to be His Word.

| If they wanted just an "opinion" they could have asked anybody in Corinth and
| got an opinion. They wanted advice from a Godly man, a man known for his
| knowledge of the Law and one *qualified* to speak on the issue and one who
| would answer their questions within scriptural guidelines.

	But a man just the same. I can't believe you could put him anywhere
near the level of God. Especially in a book that is supposed to be HIS Word,
not the word of some human being. 

	I see a lot of people putting faith in many different people, all
because they are viewed as Holy, or as a Saint to them. I see the same thing
happening with the Bible. God is the One we should be putting all of our faith
in. You say that you believe God can do anything. Yet you have to run and check
in some book. Sorry, my belief is not equal to this way of life. I will
continue to let Him lead me.


Glen

| <<< Note 1082.146 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Glen, Paul was a prophet as well as an expert in the Mosaic law. Being a 
| prophet, he had the authority to speak on behalf of the nature of God.  

	He didn't speak on behalf of God, he took the credit himself. 

| Your rejection of scripture is an act of libel in my opinion. 

	Thank you for being honest. I guess that means those who call out to
Him on their deathbeds aren't saved then. 

| You are putting God in a comfortable little Glen box.  

	Hardly. He uses an infinite amount of things, people, etc. It isn't
tied to one item, a book. The book is keeping His limitless power in a box.




Glen

                  <<< Note 1082.147 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>


>| Are you an Apostle?  Are you recognized for your knowledge of the Law?  

>	Jim, this does not wash. Wasn't it Peter who denied knowing Jesus on 3
>occasions? That alone shows they are human. Human, no matter how close they are

 Ah, but the Holy Spirit had not appeared at that time.  Peter, and all the 
others (save Paul) were merely disciples (learners) at that time. 



>| If they wanted just an "opinion" they could have asked anybody in Corinth and
>| got an opinion. They wanted advice from a Godly man, a man known for his
>| knowledge of the Law and one *qualified* to speak on the issue and one who
>| would answer their questions within scriptural guidelines.

>	But a man just the same. I can't believe you could put him anywhere
>near the level of God. Especially in a book that is supposed to be HIS Word,
>not the word of some human being. 

 Please point out to me where I equated Paul (or anyone else) as being equal
 to God.


>in some book. Sorry, my belief is not equal to this way of life. I will
>continue to let Him lead me.


 You don't have to apologize to me..however, remember that Benny Hinn, Kenneth
 Hagin, David Koresh, et al have claimed to be "God".  Are/were they deceived?
 



 Jim

                  <<< Note 1082.144 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>But the words
>were spoken by Paul, who said this was his own opinion.
    
    	No, *YOU* have said that it is his own opinion, and I have simply
    	been humoring your use of the word (and clearly indicating that
    	I am doing so.)
    
>	If I come up with a great idea, and take credit for it, who is guiding
> me? The Holy Spirit? 
    
    	That very well may be the case.
    
>	Paul was not listening to the Holy Spirit completely when he took credit
> for something that came from Him. 
    
    	That's mighty pretentious of you to declare this.  What is your
    	authority to do so?

>	At least we're at the point that you aren't denying he took credit for
> something that came from God. 
    
    	This is not true at all, so the rest of your argument based on 
    	this statement is dismissed.
    
>| Do you think some humans simply picked writings out of a hat?
>
>	I wasn't present. But it seemed as though they took some, and not
> others. Did this mean the Holy Spirit was only there some of the times? 
    
    	In terms of inspiring some to be included as Sacred Scripture
    	and witholding such inspiration from others, you are exactly
    	correct.  
    
> How can you be sure which ones are good, which ones aren't?
    
    	I can be sure because the are included in the Bible.  That begs
    	the question, "How can the council that chose the books be sure?"
    	They could be sure because they entered into the council in full
    	faith that the Holy Spirit would guide them.  They prayed for
    	that guidance, and opened their hearts to the Holy Spirit.
    
    	And so, to further answer your previous question, we know that
    	the Holy Spirit was there sometimes and not there others because
    	we trust that He guided the council to select the proper works.

> | It was a long process of spiritual and faith-filled discernment by a whole 
> | council of Church leaders guided by the Holy Spirit.
>
>	Provided they listened, and didn't add in their own opinions into the
> decision....
    
    	Glen, this wasn't some 3-member club that met in a bar.  It was
    	a whole council.  "They" were too many in number that individual 
    	opinions could prevail.  And if there was a collective opinion,
    	it would surely have to be a fruit of the Holy Spirit's guidance.
    
    	It was not like our Congress where individuals could add riders
    	and amendments.  And it was all guided by the Holy Spirit.  You
    	mock the process and you mock the power of the Holy Spirit and
    	you mock God's guidance in the way you are trying to dismiss this.

>	I believe the Holy Spirit can do anything for us..... provided we let
> Him. That's the key part.
    
    	And what leads you to believe that they didn't let Him guide
    	their council?  For if you believe that the writings (and the
    	Biblical inclusion thereof) are NOT the work of the Holy Spirit
    	-- eventhough the council was convened in His name -- then by
    	the statement above you MUST believe that they somehow didn't 
    	let Him do His work.  What is your basis for such a belief?

RE:                  <<< Note 1082.148 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>



>| Glen, Paul was a prophet as well as an expert in the Mosaic law. Being a 
>| prophet, he had the authority to speak on behalf of the nature of God.  

>	He didn't speak on behalf of God, he took the credit himself. 


 He didn't take any credit and remember God had not spoken on the subject
 as it pertained to the situation in Corinth.  He was offering advice and
 he also indicated that if they did or did not follow his advice they would
 not be sinning.


Jim

>                  <<< Note 1082.137 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
>	God.
    
    Which god do you serve?

>	Then explain why the Holy Spirit would allow something from God be
>called some humans opinion?
    
    The Greek word you keep calling "opinion" is rendered judgment in the
    KJV.  The Greek word is "gnome" and can mean opinion, counsel, advice,
    and consent.  Paul's relationship with God was such that even when
    giving counsel, the Holy Spirit was speaking through him.  What other 
    kind of fruit would you expect from a Godly man?  If Paul was "fleshing
    out" and speaking out of order, it would clearly contradict God. 
    You've spent a lot of words in this topic while ignoring the
    supernatural interaction/relationship between a Godly man and God
    Himself.

>| You haven't proved that Godly counsel didn't come from Paul.  
>
>	Errrr..... I think I have been saying it did come from Paul, not God.
    
    My mistake.  You haven't proved that Godly counsel doesn't come from
    God.  God was using Paul even in this instance.

>	It does not make Paul's word God's Word. Paul took God right out of the
>picture on this one. The Holy Spirit guided Paul to do that? Come on. If the
    
    If Paul took God out of the picture, the verse would contradict God. 
    It doesn't so your claim is false.
    
>| doesn't sound very convincing on your behalf.  Jim Jones, David Koresh,
>| Dali Lama, Sai Baba, Kenneth Hagin, Marian apparitions, Benny Hinn, and
>| Paul Crouch have all performed miracles while claiming they were either
>| from God or they are God Himself.  
>
>	Yeah.... THEY performed miracles. I am stating that God, not me, has
>been doing the work.
    
    Not just miracles.  They have all claimed to be God.  How do you know
    they are wrong?

>| I did. God's Word says He is His Word. If you reject His Word, you reject God.
>
>	Only if I believe as you do Mike. That is something you seriously need
>to work on. It works for you. It's a book that is contradictory to me. I'll
>keep Him up there, and you can keep your book.
    
    Nope, the God of the Bible says He is the Word and He exalts His Word
    above His own name.  Obviously you have a different god.

>	I am not the one who is rejecting God. You are telling me I am. There
>is a big difference there. 
    
    You have rejected the God of the Bible.  Who is your god?

>	I serve the God that is talked about in the Bible. My belief is that
>God is not OF the Bible. 
    
    Nope, there is only one God.  He is the First and Last, Alpha and
    Omega, and there are no other gods before Him or after Him.  The god
    you serve has been given different characteristics and nature than the 
    God of the Bible.  Which god do you serve?

    When you are able to answer this, you will know by what authority you
    are able to reject the Bible and the God of the Bible.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

>    	we do.  As for the semantics issues you seem to want to
>    	weave, you'll have to take them up with St. Paul himself.
>    	Why not try asking St. Paul to intercede for you asking
>    	for discernment...
    
    Joe, a word of caution is in order here.  The Bible says that there is
    only one mediator between God and man: Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5).
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 1082.149 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>



| >	Jim, this does not wash. Wasn't it Peter who denied knowing Jesus on 3
| >occasions? That alone shows they are human. Human, no matter how close they are

| Ah, but the Holy Spirit had not appeared at that time.  Peter, and all the
| others (save Paul) were merely disciples (learners) at that time.

	I know the Holy Spirit wasn't there, but Jesus was. And it still
happened. Human thought overriding His Grace.

| >	But a man just the same. I can't believe you could put him anywhere
| >near the level of God. Especially in a book that is supposed to be HIS Word,
| >not the word of some human being.

| Please point out to me where I equated Paul (or anyone else) as being equal
| to God.

	Jim, I said, "anywhere near". But with what you said, if Paul is not 
equal to God, how can you allow his opinion to be in a book that is supposed to 
be His Word? You claimed he could say that because he was so righteous, etc.
But he still isn't God. And how can any words except the ones that came from
Him be in the book and still have it be His Word? 

| You don't have to apologize to me..however, remember that Benny Hinn, Kenneth
| Hagin, David Koresh, et al have claimed to be "God".  Are/were they deceived?

	They claimed to be God. I think that's where they were deceiving
themselves. In order for one to claim to be Him, I would think they would 
have to think quite well of themselves. Maybe at one time these people had
actually done some great things, but took the credit themselves. I don't know,
I haven't walked in their shoes. All I can do is speculate. 

	But what does the above have to do with me?



Glen

| <<< Note 1082.150 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| No, *YOU* have said that it is his own opinion, 

	Actually, the Bible stated that.

| >	If I come up with a great idea, and take credit for it, who is guiding
| > me? The Holy Spirit?

| That very well may be the case.

	Joe, could you give an example of how if someone came up with a good
idea, and took credit for it, that they are being guided by the Holy Spirit?

| >	Paul was not listening to the Holy Spirit completely when he took credit
| > for something that came from Him.

| That's mighty pretentious of you to declare this. What is your authority to 
| do so?

	Wow.... try reading the words in the Bible Joe. It spells it out right
there. You know, I kind of get a chuckle out of people when they sling the, "by
what authority" stuff. I mean, be real.

| >	I wasn't present. But it seemed as though they took some, and not
| > others. Did this mean the Holy Spirit was only there some of the times?

| In terms of inspiring some to be included as Sacred Scripture and witholding 
| such inspiration from others, you are exactly correct.

	Actually, I should have been more clearer. I was talking about the
authors. Were they only sometimes under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so
that only some of their writings made it into the Book?

| Glen, this wasn't some 3-member club that met in a bar. It was a whole 
| council. "They" were too many in number that individual opinions could 
| prevail. And if there was a collective opinion, it would surely have to 
| be a fruit of the Holy Spirit's guidance.

	Sure... like the collective opinion for the Inquisitions. Opinions does
not equate automatically what the Lord would want. A majority of opinions does
not equate automatically what the Lord would want.

| You mock the process and you mock the power of the Holy Spirit and you mock 
| God's guidance in the way you are trying to dismiss this.

	Not really. I mock human beings. We aren't perfect. Our own opinions
can cloud issues that He is trying to make clear. 

| And what leads you to believe that they didn't let Him guide their council?  

	The same thing, Paul. (insert reasons, etc)


Glen

| <<< Note 1082.151 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| He didn't take any credit and remember God had not spoken on the subject
| as it pertained to the situation in Corinth.  He was offering advice and
| he also indicated that if they did or did not follow his advice they would
| not be sinning.

	Offering free advice is fine Jim. But in a book that is supposed to be
GOD'S Word? Uh uh.... it changes it to God's & Paul's word. 


Glen

| <<< Note 1082.152 by OUTSRC::HEISER "National Atheists Day - April 1" >>>


| Paul's relationship with God was such that even when giving counsel, the Holy 
| Spirit was speaking through him. What other kind of fruit would you expect 
| from a Godly man?  

	Comeon Mike. Why would the Holy Spirit, if He was working through Paul,
allow Him to say that something wasn't from Him? 

| You haven't proved that Godly counsel doesn't come from God. God was using 
| Paul even in this instance.

	Then he should have given credit to the One who was using him, not
state that it is his own opinion. (which is where I get Paul took credit)

| If Paul took God out of the picture, the verse would contradict God.

	Let's see. Someone does not believe in God. That someone does not
believe killing someone is right. Does this contradict God? I think not. 
So your above analogy is not correct.

| Nope, the God of the Bible says He is the Word and He exalts His Word
| above His own name.  Obviously you have a different god.

	By your belief, yes. By His, no.



Glen

 I'm off the merry go round, Glen.  I pray one day you'll see how simple it
 really is.



 Jim

	It is pretty simple Jim. 

    Then how come we're all having a difficult time following your logic?
    
    -Jack

 Dad:  Now, Johnny, I'm going away for a few days, and I'd like you to
       watch your little brother, Billy while I'm gone, and make sure he
       eats, gets his homework done and goes to bed on time.  You know what
       I expect as far as behavior is concerned, so please make sure he 
       behaves properly.


Johnny:  OK Dad.



Billy.   Hey, Johnny, my homework's done, and there's a bunch of neat stuff
         going on at the beach today..can I go?


Johnny:  Well, Billy, Dad didn't say anything about going to the beach or not,
         so let me give you my advice.  It's kinda cool out and they're pre-
         dicting some rain later.  But, whether you go or not, Dad won't be 
         upset because you're following all the other rules.  I wouldn't go
         because of the weather though, but you can go if you want.




   Is Johnny violating Dad's rules?

================================================================================
Note 1082.162    Biblical Contradictions (see 1082.21 for intro)      162 of 162
POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am"             26 lines  29-JUN-1995 11:45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am equally baffled that our fundementalist friends cannot understand
    the point you are making Jim.
    
    They claim that the whole Bible is the innerrant word of God.  They
    claim that every word in the bible is the innerrant word of God.
    
    Now Paul in the Bible says, these are not God's words, these are my
    words.
    
    That unequivocally shows that every word in the bible is NOT the
    innerrant word of God and therefore the fundementalist claims about the
    bible are false.
    
    Glen is using the fundementalists own evidence to show that there basic
    underlying statement is false.
    
    Given that our friends here also have great difficulty comprehending how
    anyone can rely on revelation not mediated through the Bible, then if they
    accept your proof that their fundemental assumption is false, then they are
    on real shaky grounds.
    
    So while they continue to ignore your proof, they try to belittle you and
    make you look foolish for bringing up this embarrassing piece of
    evidence.
    
                                       Patricia

                  <<< Note 1082.155 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Wow.... try reading the words in the Bible Joe. It spells it out right
< there. You know, I kind of get a chuckle out of people when they sling the, "by
> what authority" stuff. I mean, be real.

	So you are now placing your authority in the Bible?  

>	Actually, I should have been more clearer. I was talking about the
> authors. Were they only sometimes under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so
> that only some of their writings made it into the Book?

	And again, I say that you are absolutely correct here.

>	Sure... like the collective opinion for the Inquisitions. Opinions does
> not equate automatically what the Lord would want. A majority of opinions does
> not equate automatically what the Lord would want.

	You are the one hung up on "opinion".  This is more than just 
	opinion.  It is careful and prayerful discernment by synods and
	councils.  You trivialize what went into this, and your posturing
	here gives the impression that you think you are a better judge
	than all of apostolic tradition.

>| You mock the process and you mock the power of the Holy Spirit and you mock 
>| God's guidance in the way you are trying to dismiss this.
>
>	Not really. I mock human beings. We aren't perfect. Our own opinions
> can cloud issues that He is trying to make clear. 

	Then mock yourself, for this is not just a random human decision
	we're talking about here...

>    I am equally baffled that our fundementalist friends cannot understand
>    the point you are making Jim.
 

     What gave you the impression that they can't?

        
   > Now Paul in the Bible says, these are not God's words, these are my
   > words.
    

    No, Paul said he had no commandment from God, but will give his advice,
    which he also stated, in essence, was not binding.




 Jim

| <<< Note 1082.160 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Then how come we're all having a difficult time following your logic?

	Not everyone is.

    Jim,
    
    same fact!  same conclusion!  same evidence!
    
    
    Not all the advice recorded in the Bible is binding!
    
    As per Jim Henderson's interpretation of Paul.

>                  <<< Note 1082.157 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
>	Comeon Mike. Why would the Holy Spirit, if He was working through Paul,
>allow Him to say that something wasn't from Him? 
    
    You haven't demonstrated that it wasn't from Him.  

>	Then he should have given credit to the One who was using him, not
>state that it is his own opinion. (which is where I get Paul took credit)
    
    You state this as if Paul were boasting.  He was merely offering
    Godly advice.

>	Let's see. Someone does not believe in God. That someone does not
>believe killing someone is right. Does this contradict God? I think not. 
>So your above analogy is not correct.
    
    You're being simplistic, you know what I meant.  The context of the
    passage is male and female relations in marriage.  Murder is irrelevant
    to the passage.  1 Corinthians 7 does not contradict God's Word
    anywhere.

>	By your belief, yes. By His, no.

    Who is "his," Glen?  Tell us about your god.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 1082.161 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>




| Is Johnny violating Dad's rules?


	Johnny is not violating any rules. But Johnny's dad didn't have a book
that was supposed to be about HIS Word either. Johnny's dad would probably
realize that if his kid put in his own opinion into a book about his own words,
that it would change the premise. 

	Jim, you can use all the analogies on how what Paul wrote did not go
against Scripture. But you aren't going to get anywhere, as I am not discussing
whether or not Paul's opinion matches the rest of the book. I AM discussing
that his opinion is IN the book. 

Glen: Why is a human opinion in the Bible

Jim:  It doesn't go against Scripture, so it can be there. 


	How does that answer the question?


Glen

| <<< Note 1082.162 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>



	Patricia, very nice note. Thanks for posting it.

    Where else in the Bible is Godly advice given by no commandment of God?
    
    It's Godly advice so you discredit the whole book.  Do you throw away
    your car when your stereo breaks too?  Talk about "poolside logic."
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 1082.163 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| >	Actually, I should have been more clearer. I was talking about the
| > authors. Were they only sometimes under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so
| > that only some of their writings made it into the Book?

| And again, I say that you are absolutely correct here.

	So.... sometimes the authors were under the direction of the Holy
Spirit, sometimes they were not. Sometimes the people who wanted to put the
stuff into the Bible were under the Holy Spirit, sometimes they may have not
been. All so many sometimes for something you claim to be absolute.

| >	Sure... like the collective opinion for the Inquisitions. Opinions does
| > not equate automatically what the Lord would want. A majority of opinions does
| > not equate automatically what the Lord would want.

| You are the one hung up on "opinion". This is more than just opinion.  

	Paul's words is his own human opinion. It's very plain to see.

| You trivialize what went into this, 

	Reread my 1st paragraph.

| and your posturing here gives the impression that you think you are a better 
| judge than all of apostolic tradition.

	That is not the impression I am trying to give though. You see, only
God Himself is the real judge. Only He can be accurate. He gave us free will,
which means that we may or may not always listen to what he is saying.

| >	Not really. I mock human beings. We aren't perfect. Our own opinions
| > can cloud issues that He is trying to make clear.

| Then mock yourself, for this is not just a random human decision we're talking
| about here...

	I think I was included in with that Joe. Just like you, everybody. 


Glen

| <<< Note 1082.164 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>



| No, Paul said he had no commandment from God, but will give his advice,
| which he also stated, in essence, was not binding.

	Jim, apparently many of us are not looking at the same version of the
Bible. Guess the Holy Spirit wasn't involved in that one either....

    >Glen: Why is a human opinion in the Bible
    
    Under the circumstances, it was appropriate for Paul to offer Godly
    advice on a matter on which there is no clear commandment from God. 
    Another matter is whether you tithe on your gross or net pay.  There is
    no clear commandment on this so you give as the Holy Spirit moves you.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 1082.167 by OUTSRC::HEISER "National Atheists Day - April 1" >>>

| >	Comeon Mike. Why would the Holy Spirit, if He was working through Paul,
| >allow Him to say that something wasn't from Him?

| You haven't demonstrated that it wasn't from Him.

	By Paul taking credit for something, that if he were really being
guided by the Holy Spirit, he would not say his opinion. His opinion is not
from God. If his opinion is, then why didn't he give Him credit for it? Cuz he
either wasn't fully in tune with the Holy Spirit, or he wasn't listening to Him
at all.

| >	Then he should have given credit to the One who was using him, not
| >state that it is his own opinion. (which is where I get Paul took credit)

| You state this as if Paul were boasting. He was merely offering Godly advice.

	I don't believe Paul was boasting. I believe he was giving advice. But
he still took credit for it by stating this was his opinion. Please tell me how
he can take credit for something you claim to be from the Holy Spirit, and
still be under His guidance?

| >	Let's see. Someone does not believe in God. That someone does not
| >believe killing someone is right. Does this contradict God? I think not.
| >So your above analogy is not correct.

| You're being simplistic, you know what I meant.  

	This can't be a pick and choose thing Mike. It has to apply for all
people. Sometimes it's the simplistic view that gives away the problem.



Glen

| <<< Note 1082.170 by OUTSRC::HEISER "National Atheists Day - April 1" >>>


| It's Godly advice so you discredit the whole book.  

	It is human opinion, which discredits the whole book on it's own. I am
merely pointing it out to you.

| Do you throw away your car when your stereo breaks too?  

	The stereo is not inerrant. It can break down. Now who ever said I
threw away the Bible? I believe it to be a history book worth reading.


Glen

>	So.... sometimes the authors were under the direction of the Holy
>Spirit, sometimes they were not. Sometimes the people who wanted to put the
>stuff into the Bible were under the Holy Spirit, sometimes they may have not
>been. All so many sometimes for something you claim to be absolute.
    
    Glen this happens to everyone.  However, when you have a standard to
    measure them against, they're easy to distinguish.  BTW - I'm still
    waiting for the names of all the Pauline epistles that you say were
    omitted from the canon of scripture.  

>	That is not the impression I am trying to give though. You see, only
>God Himself is the real judge. Only He can be accurate. He gave us free will,
>which means that we may or may not always listen to what he is saying.
    
    Obviously.  God told us in His Word how He feels about His Word, yet
    some still reject it and in essence reject Him.

    Mike

| <<< Note 1082.173 by OUTSRC::HEISER "National Atheists Day - April 1" >>>


| Under the circumstances, it was appropriate for Paul to offer Godly advice on 
| a matter on which there is no clear commandment from God.

	When Paul wrote the letter, I doubt he thought it would end up in the
Bible. So for the situation he was trying to resolve with his own opinion, he
was doing the best he could. 

	But it doesn't answer how his human opinion ended up in the Bible.



Glen

| <<< Note 1082.176 by OUTSRC::HEISER "National Atheists Day - April 1" >>>

| >	So.... sometimes the authors were under the direction of the Holy
| >Spirit, sometimes they were not. Sometimes the people who wanted to put the
| >stuff into the Bible were under the Holy Spirit, sometimes they may have not
| >been. All so many sometimes for something you claim to be absolute.

| Glen this happens to everyone. However, when you have a standard to measure 
| them against, they're easy to distinguish.  

	Mike, what standard did the authors use? What standard did those who
made the Bible use? The same standard that you keep referring to can't be the
same one for them, can it? 




Glen

>	By Paul taking credit for something, that if he were really being
>guided by the Holy Spirit, he would not say his opinion. His opinion is not
>from God. If his opinion is, then why didn't he give Him credit for it? Cuz he
>either wasn't fully in tune with the Holy Spirit, or he wasn't listening to Him
>at all.
    
    You're still ignoring the context of 1 Corinthians 12:8 (which is where
    I started this) in light of 1 Corinthians 7:25 to suit your personal
    theology.  I've experienced something similar to Paul several times. 
    You step out in faith to make a decision or offer advice, which you
    weren't sure was covered in scripture or not, and it turns out that God
    was leading you even at that moment.  Your decision or advice ended up
    being in direct support of scripture.  Sometimes you don't realize it
    until years later.  You are ignoring the Holy Spirit imparting
    supernatural wisdom on the believer as it suits His will.

>	I don't believe Paul was boasting. I believe he was giving advice. But
>he still took credit for it by stating this was his opinion. Please tell me how
>he can take credit for something you claim to be from the Holy Spirit, and
>still be under His guidance?
    
    I just told you, again.  1 Corinthians 12:8

>	This can't be a pick and choose thing Mike. It has to apply for all
>people. Sometimes it's the simplistic view that gives away the problem.
    
    No it can't be pick and choose, that's why we stick to the passage
    context: advice on marriage.
    
    Mike

>	It is human opinion, which discredits the whole book on it's own. I am
>merely pointing it out to you.
    
    Once again you are ignoring 1 Corinthians 12:8 - this is the 5th time
    I've mentioned it and it hasn't sunk in yet.
    
    I once struggled with some of these issues in inerrancy as well.  My
    "advice" (;-)) to you is what has cleared up these problems for me and
    several others.  Using the full Bible for context is critical.
    
"The most important discovery of my life was the insight that the Bible is a
highly *integrated message system.*  We possess 66 books, penned by 40 authors
over thousands of years, yet the more we investigate, the more we discover
that they are a unified whole.  Every word, every detail, every number, every
place and name, every subtlety of the text: the elemental structures within
the text itself, even the implied punctuation are clearly the result of
intricate and skillful supernatural 'engineering.'  The more we look, the more
we realize that there is still much more hidden and thus reserved for the
diligent inquirer.  *ALL* Scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, and correction.  We haven't begun to discover the
detail, the power, and the majesty of God's handiwork.  Would you expect
anything less in the Word of God Himself?"

    >	But it doesn't answer how his human opinion ended up in the Bible.
    
    I'm not too familiar with the canonization process, but obviously it
    passed all the tests for integrity and inspiration.  
    
    Also, I'm not sure if Paul was familiar with Malachi 2:14-16 and
    Matthew 5:31-32, but in light on those passages, it's obvious that Paul
    was inspired.
    
    Mike

>	Mike, what standard did the authors use? What standard did those who
>made the Bible use? The same standard that you keep referring to can't be the
>same one for them, can it? 
    
    I'll get back to you on the canonization process after I do some
    research.  It most definitely can be the same standard.  God and His
    Holy Spirit unites all His believers.
    
    Mike

 see .158

| <<< Note 1082.179 by OUTSRC::HEISER "National Atheists Day - April 1" >>>

| I've experienced something similar to Paul several times. You step out in 
| faith to make a decision or offer advice, which you weren't sure was covered 
| in scripture or not, and it turns out that God was leading you even at that 
| moment.  

	Ahhhh..... but did your opinion ever end up in a book that is about His
word? Nope. You may have had the jist of it right, but being human, ya can't be
sure that your opinion was totally from Him. Having it support Scripture does
not take away the fact that the Holy Spirit allowed him to give His own
opinion in a book about His Word.

| >	This can't be a pick and choose thing Mike. It has to apply for all
| >people. Sometimes it's the simplistic view that gives away the problem.

| No it can't be pick and choose, that's why we stick to the passage context: 
| advice on marriage.

	Thanks Mike. That pretty much sums it up then, doesn't it? Pick and
choose. 


Glen

| <<< Note 1082.180 by OUTSRC::HEISER "National Atheists Day - April 1" >>>

| I once struggled with some of these issues in inerrancy as well. My "advice" 
| to you is what has cleared up these problems for me and several others. Using 
| the full Bible for context is critical.

	Uh huh.... it is very critical if you want to overlook things. 

| <<< Note 1082.181 by OUTSRC::HEISER "National Atheists Day - April 1" >>>



| Also, I'm not sure if Paul was familiar with Malachi 2:14-16 and Matthew 
| 5:31-32, but in light on those passages, it's obvious that Paul was inspired.

	I believe all the authors were inspired. It doesn't mean that they
didn't add their own human free will into it all. Paul obviously did. 

	I can be inspired by God to do X, yet it does not mean that it will
turn out perfect. 


Glen

                  <<< Note 1082.171 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	So.... sometimes the authors were under the direction of the Holy
>Spirit, sometimes they were not. Sometimes the people who wanted to put the
>stuff into the Bible were under the Holy Spirit, sometimes they may have not
>been. All so many sometimes for something you claim to be absolute.
    
    	You are the one using all the "sometimes".  Your contention that
    	"Sometimes the people who wanted to put the stuff into the Bible 
    	were under the Holy Spirit" is of your own making.  Don't hold
    	your "sometimes" against me.

>	Paul's words is his own human opinion. It's very plain to see.
    
    	All of them?  Or just the handful that you keep misquoting...

>God Himself is the real judge. Only He can be accurate. He gave us free will,
>which means that we may or may not always listen to what he is saying.
    
    	And He gave us the Holy Spirit, through whom we are assured
    	biblical inerrancy.

>| Then mock yourself, for this is not just a random human decision we're talking
>| about here...
>
>	I think I was included in with that Joe. Just like you, everybody. 
    
    	**AND** you attempt to include the Holy Spirit in that too.

>	Ahhhh..... but did your opinion ever end up in a book that is about His
>word? Nope. You may have had the jist of it right, but being human, ya can't be
>sure that your opinion was totally from Him. Having it support Scripture does
>not take away the fact that the Holy Spirit allowed him to give His own
>opinion in a book about His Word.
    
    Again, you are ignoring the fact that the Holy Spirit allowed it
    because it supports God's Word.  If it didn't, the Holy Spirit would've
    let Paul know.

>| No it can't be pick and choose, that's why we stick to the passage context: 
>| advice on marriage.
>
>	Thanks Mike. That pretty much sums it up then, doesn't it? Pick and
>choose. 
    
    This is illogical.  I just said you can't do that.  You can't pick and
    choose with context, which is what you are attempting to do.

    Mike

    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
    Was God.  He was the same in the beginning with God."
    
    "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we begat His glory."
    
    John, the beloved of Jesus and Pastor of the Church of Ephesis would
    not libel God.  John recognized the reverence of God's Word.  The Old
    Testament was not worshiped but it was revered throughout Israel.  It
    wasn't just a book.
    
    -Jack

    Re: -1
    
    The Torah is *extremely* revered!

    The author of John's Gospel, whoever that really might have been, also
    had the audacity to rewrite Genesis 1:1!!
    
    Way to go, John!!
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

| <<< Note 1082.187 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| **AND** you attempt to include the Holy Spirit in that too.

	No, you are including it and saying I am.

| <<< Note 1082.188 by OUTSRC::HEISER "National Atheists Day - April 1" >>>


| Again, you are ignoring the fact that the Holy Spirit allowed it because it 
| supports God's Word. If it didn't, the Holy Spirit would've let Paul know.

	Supports, but it is not His Word, but that of a human being.

| >| No it can't be pick and choose, that's why we stick to the passage context:
| >| advice on marriage.
| >
| >	Thanks Mike. That pretty much sums it up then, doesn't it? Pick and
| >choose.

| This is illogical.  I just said you can't do that.  You can't pick and
| choose with context, which is what you are attempting to do.

	My mistake. Then why do you do it Mike?

>	Supports, but it is not His Word, but that of a human being.
    
    1 corinthians 12:8

>	My mistake. Then why do you do it Mike?
    
    where did I do this?  I don't think I do this.
    
    Mike

    	To those who believe, no explanation is necessary.  To those
    	who do not believe, no explanation is acceptable.

>      The Torah is *extremely* revered!
    
    And  of course the Torah is not the Old Testament.
    
    	Eric

    
    > To those who believe, no explanation is necessary.  To those who do not
    > believe, no explanation is acceptable.

    Isn't that nice. but it sounds an awful lot like:

         "Those who believe as I are blessed with faith.
         Those who do not believe as I are in consort with
         Satan in denying the Word of God."

    I swear sometimes that Christ himself could come down and say
    "look, you got this part wrong," and the fundamentalist would
    shout, "it's not in the book, it's not in the book." You who
    believe that every book, every verse, and every word in the
    Christian Bible is from the mouth of God, make this claim on what
    I consider the most odd contortions. You have determined that
    *your* decision that this is the case is infallible. You and I
    read the same book and come to different conclusions, yet on
    every occasion you assert your infallibility in interpretation.

    It's getting old. We know what each other believes about the
    nature of the Bible... let's stop the self assertions of knowing
    how to infallibly interpret every word and notion in the Bible
    and move on. Let's stop antagonizing those who hold that the Bible
    is the infallible, inerrant God breathed word of his will.

    	Eric

    And the more I read this string the more I understand that the need to
    believe in the Bible as a magical message system from God evidences a
    lack of Faith and not a true Faith.
    
    The Bible is tangible.  It can be touched, felt, listened to, read. 
    Faith requires a belief in that which cannot be seen, felt, touched. 
    It is much easier to believe in the Bible than to believe in a
    trancendent, wholly other God.
    
    It is very threatening for those who believe in the Bible to see others
    who don't need to believe in something fully constructed by humans.
    
    "The author wrote it"  "The Printer printed it"  "The artist illustrated
    it"    The bible is still a thing created by humans.

| <<< Note 1082.195 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| To those who believe, no explanation is necessary.  

	Exactly joe. That's why it is impossible for you to see the easy facts
of it all. 

| To those who do not believe, no explanation is acceptable.

	Well, when you live by the 1st one, you don't ever come up with an
explaination... :-)

	contradictory snarf

	Eric, Patricia, what great notes!


Glen

re Note 1082.198 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     And the more I read this string the more I understand that the need to
>     believe in the Bible as a magical message system from God evidences a
>     lack of Faith and not a true Faith.
  
        I don't think faith in the Bible is a problem, Patricia.  My
        only argument is with those who claim that having faith in an
        inerrant Bible stems from something different than the faith
        anyone else might have in any other method of divine
        revelation.  They are both the result of a human choice,
        based upon available evidence, including the presence of the
        spirit of God.  One (and in fact many) choose the Bible to be
        their sole guide from that point on.

        I do not want to belittle their choice any more than I would
        want them to belittle my choice, or yours.  One could just as
        easily belittle your choice as a "magical message system from
        God" -- but one shouldn't.

        I think that one of the greatest weaknesses of orthodox
        Christianity is that it lumps most of those who are aware of
        and follow the creator God with those who know and
        acknowledge no god or who seek to follow evil gods, simply
        because those rejected God-followers hold a different set of
        doctrine.  This weakness is always tragic, but that tragedy
        is most apparent when otherwise fellow orthodox Christians
        are rejected, and even slaughtered, over a hair's-breadth
        difference in doctrine.

        Bob

>    And the more I read this string the more I understand that the need to
>    believe in the Bible as a magical message system from God evidences a
>    lack of Faith and not a true Faith.
 

     "And so faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God".

   
>    It is much easier to believe in the Bible than to believe in a
>    trancendent, wholly other God.
 

      About whom we know nothing, about whom there are no writings, about whom
      we can just guess or conjure up what He/She/It must be like.  No, thanks,
      I'll place my faith and my eternity on the God as revealed in the Word 
      of God.
   
>    It is very threatening for those who believe in the Bible to see others
>    who don't need to believe in something fully constructed by humans.
 

     Yes.  We all belong in therapy or 12 step programs, right?

   

 Jim

    Jim,
    
    If you think you belong in a twelve step program,
    Then you probably do!
    
                                  Patricia

    
    Bob
    re .202
    
    I make a great distinction between Faith in God as revealed in the
    Bible, and faith in the Bible.
    
    I believe limiting God to what God can do, by what is revealed as
    already been done is idolatry. 
    
    It is not the belief system of those who hold the belief that I argue
    so against.  It is the practices, eoncouraged by that belief system that
    actively seeks out and wages battle against those who do not adhere to
    that belief system.
    
    The end result, is that Christianity is being defined by those who are
    rigid, doctrinaire, and exclusive.  It drove me away from Christianity
    for a number of years and it drives many away from Christianity.
    
    Unfortunately, those who have a more loving, more tolerant, more
    inclusive Christianity don't articulate their faith as strongly and as
    widely as others.  
    
    I'm trying to understand why.
    
    
    Patricia

    re Note 1082.202 by LGP30::FLEISCHER 

    Great note, Bob. You captured, in a much less reactionary way, what I
    was trying to address. 

    I am tired of being condemned for my beliefs in the nature of the Bible,
    and I am equally tired of the antagonistic notes by some that, quite
    frankly, harass those who hold an inerrancy point of view (Sorry
    Glen). I've held my tongue in the hopes that this noting mosh pit would
    subside, but it hasn't. 

    I accept with great humility the prayers of the fundamentalist that God
    may open my eyes and grace me with Wisdom, but I reject their
    condemnation and judgments on my ability to know Christ.
    
    	Eric

  <<< Note 1082.197 by HURON::MYERS "Which we all know means, ''to bluff''" >>>

>    Isn't that nice. but it sounds an awful lot like ...

	Depending on one's agenda or beliefs, it can sound a lot
	like almost anything.

>    Let's stop antagonizing those who hold that the Bible
>    is the infallible, inerrant God breathed word of his will.

    	I find this statement rather out of place when it concludes
    	a note that is quite uncomplimentary of these very same people.
    	But I do understand what you are trying to say here, and I
    	appreciate it.
    
    
 <<< Note 1082.206 by APACHE::MYERS "Which we all know means, ''to bluff''" >>>

>    I've held my tongue in the hopes that this noting mosh pit would
>    subside, but it hasn't. 

    	I think the problem is that (at least for me) I cannot idly
    	stand by and see "the other view" expressed without equal
    	balance from my point of view.  I have tried to ease my way
    	out with statements like, "we've already presented our points
    	of view completely to each other, so further debate on this
    	point is fruitless...", but I still allow myself to get dragged
    	in all the same.  You're right.  It has all been said already.
    	
    	I think that many of us here should draw counsel from your
    	statement.

>    I swear sometimes that Christ himself could come down and say
>    "look, you got this part wrong," and the fundamentalist would
>    shout, "it's not in the book, it's not in the book." You who
    
    God doesn't contradict Himself.  Even Glen stated this much.
    
    Mike

    >    And  of course the Torah is not the Old Testament.
    
    fine with me.  The Torah contains the Gospel as well.
    
    Mike

>    And the more I read this string the more I understand that the need to
>    believe in the Bible as a magical message system from God evidences a
>    lack of Faith and not a true Faith.
    
    Actually if you think about it, it takes more faith.  It takes a lack
    of faith to reject the Bible.
    
>    The Bible is tangible.  It can be touched, felt, listened to, read. 
>    Faith requires a belief in that which cannot be seen, felt, touched. 
>    It is much easier to believe in the Bible than to believe in a
>    trancendent, wholly other God.
    
    There are a couple mistaken assumptions here.  One is that fundies
    worship the Bible instead of God.  The other is that 1 Corinthians 12:9
    (imparting of supernatural faith) doesn't apply to the authorship,
    inspiration, and inerrancy of God's Word.  It takes faith to verify a
    lot of what we're discussing.
    
    Mike

>    If you think you belong in a twelve step program,
>    Then you probably do!
    
    Jesus Christ is my 12-step program.  No other compares.

    
    >>    And  of course the Torah is not the Old Testament.

    >    fine with me.  The Torah contains the Gospel as well.


    	My source defines the Torah as containing the first five books of
    the Bible. I don't know where you got your information regarding the
    Torah, but I would be interested in the source for the above statement.
    
    Eric

>    	My source defines the Torah as containing the first five books of
>    the Bible. I don't know where you got your information regarding the
>    Torah, but I would be interested in the source for the above statement.
    
    Eric, try a course in typology sometime.  There are reportedly 100
    types of the Messiah in the life of Joseph alone (though I've only
    found 64).  There are tons more in Melchizedek, Abraham, Issac,
    and Moses.  As I said before:
    
    "The New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.  The Old Testament is
    the New Testament concealed."  This applies to the Torah since it is in
    the OT.
    
Portraits of Christ in Genesis
==============================
Joseph: A Portrait of Messiah (Genesis 49:22-26)
------------------------------------------------

1. His birth was a miracle - Genesis 30:1-2,22-24, Luke 1:34-37.  Firstborn of
   Rachel from a barren womb - a miraculous conception.
2. His birth causes strife - Genesis 30:25, Matthew 3:3
3. His father was told by the Lord to secretly leave the land with his family -
   Genesis 31:2-3, Matthew 2:13-15.
4. Laban was enraged when Jacob fled with his family - Genesis 31:22-24, Matthew
   2:16.
5. His name means "Let him add" or "God will increase."
6. He is clothed in a special robe - Genesis 37:3, John 19:23.
7. He was the special object of his father's love - Genesis 37:4, Luke 3:22.
8. He lived in a position of honor with his father before being sent to his
   brethren - Genesis 37:2-4, John 3:16, John 1:18.
9. He is a shepherd - Genesis 37:2, John 10:14.
10. He was hated for speaking the truth - Genesis 37:2, John 7:7.
11. He had the knowledge that he would be worshiped and his brethren despised
    this - Genesis 37:5-11, II Kings 17:3, John 5:25-32, Romans 12:1,
    Philippians 2:10.
12. He was sent from his father's side to go find his brethren - Genesis
    37:12-16, John 3:16, John 1:11.
13. He found them camped at Dothan, which means "Law" or "Rule" - Genesis 37:17,
    John 1:14-17.
14. He was hated by his brethren (Jews) without a cause - Genesis 37:18-20, John
    15:18,24-25.
15. "He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him." -
    Genesis 37:18-28, John 1:11.
16. He was sold for the price of a slave - Genesis 37:28, Exodus 21:32,
    Zechariah 11:12-13, Matthew 26:15.
17. He was sold by Judah ("Judas" in Greek) - Genesis 37:26-27, Matthew
    26:14-16.
18. Judah felt great remorse - Genesis 44:16-34, Matthew 27:3.
19. His garments were taken away and stained with blood - Genesis 37:23,31,
    Matthew 27:28,31.
20. He was sent into Egypt (world) - Genesis 37:36, Matthew 2:13-15, John 1:14.
21. His father gives Him up - Genesis 37:33-35, Psalm 22:1, Matthew 27:46.
22. He is dead to his people for a long time - Genesis 44:20, Romans 11:25.
23. Meanwhile, he is made a Savior to the Gentiles - Genesis 41:38-49, Romans
    11:11,25.
24. He was tempted, but shown to be without sin - Genesis 39:7-13, Luke 4:1-13.
25. He was condemned by a false witness - Genesis 39:14-18, Matthew 26:60.
26. He suffered for the sins of others - Genesis 39:19-20, 40:15, Isaiah
    53:4-5,9, Romans 5:8.
27. Numbered with transgressors - Genesis 39:19-23, Mark 15:28.
28. He suffers with 2 criminals - Genesis 40:1-3, John 19:18.
29. One of the criminals is saved, the other is lost - Genesis 40:20-22, Luke
    23:39-43.
30. He is taken out of the dungeon (grave) - Genesis 41:14, Acts 2:32.
31. He is the interpreter of the future - Genesis 41:15-31, Matthew 24.  He had
    foreknowledge of 7 years of fear and famine, a picture of the Great
    Tribulation - Genesis 40:41, Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:4-35, Luke 21:22.
32. He plans with pharaoh how to save mankind - Genesis 41:32-37, II Corinthians
    5:19.
33. He was 30 years old when he began to serve - Genesis 41:46, Luke 3:23.
34. The famine affected the whole world - Genesis 41:57, Matthew 24:22,
    Revelation 6:15-17, Revelation 13:7-8.
35. He is seated beside the throne and given all authority and exalted -
    Genesis 41:38-44, Acts 5:31, Philippians 2:9, Matthew 28:18.
36. He was dressed in fine linen (a picture of righteousness) - Genesis 41:42,
    Matthew 17:2, Revelation 19:8,13.
37. He is given the title: "Sustainer of Life" - Genesis 41:45, Colossians 1:16,
    John 4:42.
38. He is made a prince and a savior - Genesis 41:40,45, Acts 5:31.
39. He is the source of the bread of life for the whole world - Genesis
    41:46-49, John 6:35,48.
40. Pharaoh commanded everyone to "go to Joseph" for salvation - Genesis
    41:55-57, Acts 4:12.
41. Everyone will "bow" to Joseph - Genesis 41:43, Philippians 2:10.
42. He was sent by God to save lives - Genesis 45:5,8, John 3:17.
43. He marries a Gentile bride - Genesis 41:45, Ephesians 5:23,31-32,
    II Corinthians 11:2.
44. His marriage (picture of Rapture) was consummated *before* the 7 years of
    famine began - Genesis 41:50 with Isaiah 26:20,21, 57:11, Daniel 12:1,
    II Thessalonians 2:1-12, Revelation 19:17.
45. His marriage produces 2 children - Manassah: "Forget the past" - Genesis
    41:51, Philippians 3:13.  Ephraim: "Fruitfulness" - Genesis 41:52,
    John 15:8.
46. Joseph's brethren were drawn to Him through their great time of trouble -
    Genesis 42:1-3, Daniel 11:35, Zechariah 13:8-9.
47. He shows them the meaning of SUBSTITUTION - Genesis 44:17,32-34,
    II Corinthians 5:21.
48. Their trouble brings them to Joseph's feet - Genesis 42:5-6,
    Zechariah 12:10.
49. His brethren do not immediately recognize Him - Genesis 42:7-8,
    II Corinthians 3:14, Romans 11:25.
50. He gives them all they need without charge - Genesis 42:25-28, Isaiah 55:1,
    Matthew 10:8, Revelation 21:6, 22:17.
51. He brings them to repentance - Genesis 42:18-24, Zechariah 12:10.
52. God saves a remnant of Jews - Genesis 45:7, Isaiah 10:22-23, Romans 9:27.
53. At the end of their time of testing while Judah is praying, Joseph chooses
    to reveal himself to his long separated brethren - Genesis 45:1-3,
    Zechariah 12:10.
54. They mourn for what they have done to him - Genesis 45:5, Zechariah 12:10.
55. He forgives them for everything they had done because it was all part of
    God's plan - Genesis 45:5-8, 50:20, Zechariah 13:1, Jeremiah 50:20.
56. He restores His brethren to fellowship with himself - Genesis 45:14-15,
    Zechariah 13:9, Ezekiel 39:25-29.
57. He gathers all Israel to himself, to his land where they are protected for
    the remaining 5 years of the famine - Genesis 45:10-11, Ezekiel 37:21,
    Zechariah 14:3.
58. He presents them to the King - Genesis 47:1-5, I Corinthians 15:24-27.
59. He places Israel as the best in his kingdom - Genesis 47:4-6, Isaiah
    66:10-24.
60. He buys all the land - Genesis 47:19,23, Revelation 5:1-8.
61. He buys all the people - Genesis 47:19,23, Revelation 5:9-10.
62. He delivers everything over to the King - Genesis 47:23-26, I Corinthians
    15:28.
63. He weeps when those he forgave doubt their standing with Him - Genesis
    50:15-21.
64. He was a suffering servant (Isaiah 53) as well as a Prince and a Savior
    (Acts 5:31).

I'm told there are a total of 100 pictures of Jesus Christ in Joseph's life.
I'll leave it as an exercise for you to find the rest.

    
    I'm afraid I don't follow. I said the Torah was the first five books
    of the Bible and I thought you were disputing that. I thought you even
    said the New Testament was part of the Torah. I don't see what your
    .213 has anything to do with which books comprise the Torah.

    	Eric

    PS  What is "typology?"

    
>    If you think you belong in a twelve step program,
>    Then you probably do!
    
 

  I took a 3 step program.

    1. Realize I'm a sinner

    2. believe that Christ died for my sins

    3. Ask God to forgive my sin and save my soul.



 Jim

>    I'm afraid I don't follow. I said the Torah was the first five books
>    of the Bible and I thought you were disputing that. I thought you even
>    said the New Testament was part of the Torah. I don't see what your
>    .213 has anything to do with which books comprise the Torah.
    
    I am not disputing that the Torah is the Penteteuch (first 5 books).  I
    don't believe I said the NT is part of the Torah.  I said the Gospel
    (i.e., it's message) is in the Torah.

>    PS  What is "typology?"

    I just posted a definition of it in the Suffering Servant topic last
    week.
    
    Mike

	Jim... good 3 step program!

    Ooot OOOOO....Glen is back!!!!!!!

    Steve,
    
    by the way, I wonder if Mike would think it equally cute
    if someone made banners proclaiming April 1 as National Fundementalists
    Day.  He and others would be proclaiming persecution!.
    
                                   Patricia

.219 POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine"

Patricia,

These sorts of things normally don't bother me, but for some
reason (bad mood?) this one got through. To my discredit, I 
did retaliate in my notes name before I mellowed out and 
removed it.

Steve

    Patricia, you missed the joke.  

.221 OUTSRC::HEISER "will pray for food"

I missed it to. Would you please explain it?

Thanks, Steve

    April Fool's - God really does exist!

    The Bible never really takes up the issue of God's existance.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Why should it?  He wrote it.

| <<< Note 1082.225 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Why should it?  He wrote it.

	A human opinion can not be in a book He wrote.

	A human can not say something isn't from God in a book He wrote.


Glen

 ARRRRRRGGGHHHH!

Note 1082.223

>    April Fool's - God really does exist!

"April Fools" is *not* Biblical.

    Glen, if you believe in the 10 commandments, then you believe God
    exists as he acknowledged his existence in the 1st commandment.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1082.230 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Glen, if you believe in the 10 commandments, then you believe God
| exists as he acknowledged his existence in the 1st commandment.

	Jack, what note is this referencing? Any? Thanks bud...

    Actually it's a mixture of notes between yours and Richards.  Richards
    because the 1st commandment acknowledges Gods existence and yours
    because you say it is just a book.  
    
    -Jack

    I hate to bring up this rathole again, but I ran across some
    interesting information in my studies the other night that shed some
    light on 1 Corinthians 7:25.
    
    First of all, Peter said in one of his epistles (can't remember BCV
    offhand) that all of Paul's writings are inspired Scripture.
    
    Secondly (and most provocatively), Halley's Bible Handbook points out 
    that it was *MANDATORY* for Sanhedrin officials to be *MARRIED* so that
    they could vote.  Paul voted as a Sanhedrin official!  Tradition seems 
    to indicate his wife died at an early age before his conversion.  However 
    you prefer to speculate this, it appears to be a fact that Paul was 
    married at one time.  Chapter 7 offers much more credibility knowing
    this.  It's not just inspired of God, but also a voice of experience
    contributing.
    
    Mike

    
>    First of all, Peter said in one of his epistles (can't remember BCV
>    offhand) that all of Paul's writings are inspired Scripture.
 

      2Peter 3:15-16





 Jim

 I've done a lot of research on it myself (1cor 7:25) which I may enter
 as I have time.




 Jim

Re: .1 contradiction 10

>10. 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] 

Opposed to these verses showing God as being just and impartial are several
verses that show God as being unjust and partial.

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

The response to this verse was:

>"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." 

God is unrighteous here, in my opinion, because he punishes the
descendants of Canaan for a crime which they did not commit.

IMO, the Israelites who wrote the Bible were looking for a justification
for their mistreatment of the Canaanites by writing a story in which God
cursed the descendants of Canaan.

>"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 example, is God _really_ unrighteous for
>bestowing blessings for a thousand generations, yet visting iniquity for ONLY
>three or four generations?

Yes!  Once again, God is shown as punishing people who committed no crime.

In the Revised Standard Version, Exodus 20:6 doesn't say that God will
bestow blessings for a thousand *generations* of those who keep his
commandments:

	[5] you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD
	your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
	upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those
	who hate me, [6] but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who
	love me	and keep my commandments.

How can God both bless to the thousanth generation and curse to the fourth
generation?  If my grandfather worships idols and my father keeps God's
commandments, am I blessed or cursed?  This whole concept of the sins of
the fathers being visited on the sons is alien to modern concepts of
morality, at least as practiced in the western democracies.

>Whether or not one views this as "unrighteous" is a function of their ethics,
>and thus the "contradiction" is read into the scripture.

I agree with this.  The morality shown in the Bible contradicts my own
sense of right and wrong, so I reject the Bible as a model for moral
behavior.  The Bible says that God is "righteous", but what I consider to
be righteous and what you consider to be righteous may be two different
things.

>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. 

Exodus 20:5 doesn't say that God "has the ability" to visit the sins of
the fathers on the children, it says that he *will* do this because he is
a "jealous God".  Ezekiel 18:20 presents a more reasonable picture of God,
contradicting Exodus 20:5:

	The soul that sins shall die.  The son shall not suffer for the
	iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of
	the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself,
	and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Of course, according to Christian belief *all* have sinned and fallen
short of the glory of God, so Ezekiel should have written:

	Every soul sins, and shall die, until the Messiah cometh.

I'll continue this in my next reply, to avoid going over the 100 line limit.

				-- Bob

Continuing my commentary on contradiction 10:

>"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. 

I think he/she meant to say "God simply favored Jacob".  Is it righteous
for God to arbitrarily favor one person over another?  Once again, it's
a matter of opinion.

God favoring Jacob over Esau could possibly contract this verse that was
cited as part of contradiction 10:

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

The response to this was:

>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-> 

Well in fact when Jacob was chosen over Esau it meant that the Israelites
were chosen over the Edomites, i.e. that the Israelites were God's chosen
people.  In other words, in the Old Testament God *did* favor the Jews
over the Gentiles.  It's only in the New Testament that God's blessing
extended to the Gentiles.  This represents a shift in religious belief
from seeing God as being the special God of the Israelites to seeing God
as being the universal God of all people.

>"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. 

Matthew 13:12 says nothing about improving upon the gifts that one receives,
but in the context of Jesus having just given the parable of the sower
(where some seed falling on the path and being eaten by birds while other
seed falling on good soil) I suppose it's a reasonable interpretation.

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

I disagree.  I believe that there is a contraction between Exodus 20:5 and
Ezekiel 18:20.

				-- Bob