Bible Contradiction?

[SDAinFLA]

Hi all. I don't get a chance to post here often but I do read posts from time to time. There was one I read that I thought deserved a second look from us all.

First off, I just want to say that this post is not for debative purposes (as I usually will never post for the sake of debate) so if this turns out to be just that...then I offer my apologies in advance.

In reading a previous post entitled - Bible Contradiction (Began by The Process) he asked an honest question and I'm not sure that his question was fully answered. I don't know "The Process" so I am not sure what his intentions were in posting the question, however I believe that he at least deserves a direct answer to a direct question. So here we go:

The Process,

You ask an honest question regardless of what your intentions were. I would like to preference the answer by quoting a Bible scripture for you - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2Timothy 3:16

So everything we read in God's Word is inspired by Him. So the Bible cannot contain errors because God doesn't make mistakes....BUT even though the Bible is INERRANT there are some inconsistcies in God's Word.

How can this be? How can God's word be INERRANT yet contain some INCONSISTENCIES?

For instance...

How many Demoniacs met Jesus...one or two?

Matthew says - "And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way." Matt 8:28

However Mark says "And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit." Mark 5:1-2

Or this....What was the color of Jesus' Robe?

Mathew says - "And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe." Matt 27:28

However John says - "And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe." John 19:2

Ever thought about this one?

"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value." Matt 27:9-10

Matthew said Jeremiah said this, however if you take a close look at God's Word...Jeremiah did not make the prophecy...Zechariah made this prophecy - "And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD." Zech 11:13

"Process", these inconsistencies are clear to most people, however what is not clear to most people is HOW the Bible was inspired by God.

Alot of us Christians believe in the Verbal theory of Inspiration - This is basically God talking every word and the prophet would write word for word what God said.

However, this view cannot be true or the previous scriptures that I just supplied would make God appear confused.

However, we must understand that God inspired His Word in Plenary form. This means that God inspired the THOUGHT, however man was given the freedom to convey it in his own words.

SO....when you have a perfect God trying to convey a perfect messag to sinful erring human beings, it's very possible that we might forget the exact color of Jesus' Robe...however as long as the thought had not been altered then God did not concern himself with the inconsistencies of the Bible writers.

So to God, it doesn't matter whether there were 1 or 2 demoniacs....What God wants you to know is that whether there was 1 or 2 or a million demonics, Jesus has the power to heal.

So regardless if Jesus' robe was scarlet or purple, the thought that God wants us to know is that a robe was put on Christ.

And regardless of Jeremiah or Zechariah making the prophecy that Matthew referred to, it doesn't matter which prophet made the statement, the thought that God wanted conveyed was that the prophecy of Jesus was prophecied about in days of old.

"The Process", I hope this clears up any questions that you might have regarding this issue. If you would like to talk with me personally you can PM me anytime.

May God bless you and keep you.

Love SDA!

[kat8585]

There are two accounts of the death of Judas, too. I don't remember where they are, but I have wondered about them.

[SDAinFLA]

Butero, Thanks for your response.

The questions that I asked were actually rhetorical. I asked these questions not because I wanted to know the answer, but rather I felt that we didn't answer the questions asked by "The Processes".

I believe that root of his question wasn't simply did the girl die...or was she dying...etc.

I believe what he was getting at was why sometimes the gospel writers might appear to contradict themselves and this was my basis for the whole post.

You are welcome to respond with more research as needed, but there's no need to. And even though we disagree with the method of inspiration...the most important thing we agree on is that the Bible is inspired by God.

God Bless!

[billie]

I kept up with that thread, and I believe the answers to the question posed would've cleared up any reasonable confusion on the questioner's part.

[SDAinFLA]

Kat8585,

You are most likely thinking about Matthew 27:5 - "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." and Acts 1:18 says "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

These 2 accounts are most likely a succession of events.

In other words it is believed that Judas hanged himself and later on the rope or branch broke in which his body fell headlong.

[TheProcess]

First off, I just want to say that this post is not for debative purposes (as I usually will never post for the sake of debate) so if this turns out to be just that...then I offer my apologies in advance.

OK, I don't expect any debating from you. I will ask certain questions, but I am not expecting a response. The issue is certainly significant. What exactly is intended when Christians claim that the Bible is the "word of God"?

The Process,

You ask an honest question regardless of what your intentions were. I would like to preference the answer by quoting a Bible scripture for you - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2Timothy 3:16

How do we know whether 2 Timothy is itself scripture? It is a suspected forgery I believe. Also, when it mentions "all scripture", which books exactly are being referred to? If you think this means precisely those books included in the Protestant Bible, well how do we know this?

I understand that 2 Peter (another suspected forgery) considers Paul's writing to be scripture. How do we know whether 2 Peter is scripture? Lets imagine that -- as claimed in 2 Peter -- Paul's writings are scripture. How do we know which of the letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament were actually written by him? How can we be certain about which letters are genuine?

BUT even though the Bible is INERRANT there are some inconsistcies in God's Word.

How can this be? How can God's word be INERRANT yet contain some INCONSISTENCIES?

"Process", these inconsistencies are clear to most people, however what is not clear to most people is HOW the Bible was inspired by God.

Alot of us Christians believe in the Verbal theory of Inspiration - This is basically God talking every word and the prophet would write word for word what God said.

However, this view cannot be true or the previous scriptures that I just supplied would make God appear confused.

However, we must understand that God inspired His Word in Plenary form. This means that God inspired the THOUGHT, however man was given the freedom to convey it in his own words.

SO....when you have a perfect God trying to convey a perfect messag to sinful erring human beings, it's very possible that we might forget the exact color of Jesus' Robe...however as long as the thought had not been altered then God did not concern himself with the inconsistencies of the Bible writers.

So to God, it doesn't matter whether there were 1 or 2 demoniacs....What God wants you to know is that whether there was 1 or 2 or a million demonics, Jesus has the power to heal.

So regardless if Jesus' robe was scarlet or purple, the thought that God wants us to know is that a robe was put on Christ.

And regardless of Jeremiah or Zechariah making the prophecy that Matthew referred to, it doesn't matter which prophet made the statement, the thought that God wanted conveyed was that the prophecy of Jesus was prophecied about in days of old.

So the Bible isn't necessarily true as strict history. Is it necessarily true when it comes to doctrine? If you want to say that we can trust the Bible on the subject of doctrine, but not history, what justification do you have for this? I certainly see this as suspicious, and I imagine that Christians could well agree with me.

You seem to suggest that God would have a problem communicating his message through "sinful human beings". And God wouldn't worry too much about historical inconsistencies. God wouldn't be bothered to make sure that it came out correct. Is this really plausible? Why wouldn't God be careful to make the Bible accurate as strict history? God couldn't do so? I don't think you can say that. God didn't want to? Why?

"The Process", I hope this clears up any questions that you might have regarding this issue. If you would like to talk with me personally you can PM me anytime.

The unbelievers aren't allowed to use PM.

[Akabu]

Actually, most of the percieved contridictions comes from translations. It is near impossible to translate 1 language into another, especially when the languages are seperated by centuries of use. As in ancient Hebrew, or Greek, or Aramiac into English, or contemporary English. Which is why many people try to learn the ancient languages that the scriptures were written in.

[Observer of dreams]

Geeze. Just believe what you want. believe God is purple and wears a clown outfit. Why does tany of this matter. Follow your heart and make i pure through christ that's all one needs really.

[Leonard]

Actually the questions of Process were answered fully, and very clearly, and REPEATEDLY. He simply pretended not to understand. His purpose was to try to harm the faith, and he failed miserably, and proceeded to pout like a petulant infant. It was a thoroughly disgusting spectacle from an 'adult'. It was NOT however, an uncommon one!!! I see it often in those who hate God and His Word.

We have also answered each of the questions you brought up, SDA. A little research here, will turn up the threads, I'm sure.

[TheProcess]

Actually the questions of Process were answered fully, and very clearly, and REPEATEDLY.

Certainly not the case in my opinion. I'm not really interested in going back over it, but I will summarize the discussion to defend myself against your accusations: There was one attempt to try and resolve the contradiction -- "now dead" should be read as meaning something like "She's as good as dead". A counter-argument was given to this. And indeed, your own Christian sources conceded the likelihood of contradiction when read as literal history -- "Most commentators seem to regard this as one of those "freedom of composition" issues where Matthew, knowing that the girl would be dead by the time Jesus showed up, just telescoped the account". But it was claimed that we shouldn't expect the Bible to be precise about history, so a contradiction isn't really a contradiction, so to speak. And if you are going to make that kind of argument, I would say that you need to show that you have a coherent account of what "divinely inspired" scripture is about. The argument was something like: "They weren't that precise back then, we shouldn't impose modern standards on an ancient text". Well OK, but would we expect such ancient texts to be necessarily historical at all? I can see Christians perhaps getting themselves into trouble if they want to make this kind of argument.

He simply pretended not to understand.

Not true.

His purpose was to try to harm the faith, and he failed miserably, and proceeded to pout like a petulant infant. It was a thoroughly disgusting spectacle from an 'adult'. It was NOT however, an uncommon one!!! I see it often in those who hate God and His Word.

I am skeptical of the Christian religion, and I suggested a possible error in the Bible. What you are saying here, is way off into the realm of ranting and personal attack against me. I often see this kind of behaviour from Christians.