Error and Contradictions in the Bible

[ron]

Most of the disciples were working men - they were illiterate. Most of the people Jesus preached to were illiterate. The letters and gospels that make up the NT were not even written until between 65 AD and 90 AD - they were canonized until centuries later. Yet, people seemed to be able to function as Christians without the NT......hmmm

 

[Duckybill]

Most of the disciples were working men - they were illiterate. Most of the people Jesus preached to were illiterate.

Even if true, they were taught directly by Jesus. They gave us the NT.

The letters and gospels that make up the NT were not even written until between 65 AD and 90 AD - they were canonized until centuries later. Yet, people seemed to be able to function as Christians without the NT......hmmm

We have the NT. We will be held accountable for obeying it or not.

Luke 12:47-48 (NKJV)
47 And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

We will be held accountable for even having the NT.

 

[Rach1370]

Most of the disciples were working men - they were illiterate. Most of the people Jesus preached to were illiterate. The letters and gospels that make up the NT were not even written until between 65 AD and 90 AD - they were canonized until centuries later. Yet, people seemed to be able to function as Christians without the NT......hmmm

Hey! I would agree that most likely the disciples were illiterate...but consider this: through the Holy Spirit these men were able to amazing things! Remember at Pentecost they spoke many different languages? So, while they may not have 'had' the NT in book form, they most certainly 'had' it through the Spirit working within them! They are the ones who wrote it down (or had it written down) for us! Man, can you even imagine learning directly from the apostle Paul, or from Peter? In a sense, we are!
Just a thought!

 

[Prentis]

You want to betaught of the spirit! Paul and Peter both worked in the Spirit, and the Spirit taught THROUGH them. That is the purpose.

That's why it says we have ONE teacher. And yet there are teachers! Christ teaches and only him, but he also does it through others. (Paul says 'It is no longer I who lives, but Christ lives in me')

 

[Robbie]

I believe it can only be the Teacher in us...

You take four different people... two who have the Spirit and two who don't... even if all hear the same message outwardly... only those with the Spirit in them will actually be taught by Him... to the others the message will sound foolish or be watered down and canalized... because it's only by the Spirit in us that we can truly be taught by Him... and see and hear what He's saying.

It's like the bible... you take one person who doesn't receive the Spirit and have them read the bible and they'll take out of it a carnal understanding and a veiled revelation of God...

on the other hand you take someone who has the Spirit and have them read it and Christ in them will actually teach them and open the scriptures up to them and they will clearly see God without a veil...

Only through Christ can we clearly see the Father and only Christ can truly open the scriptures to us... whether it's by walking with Him down a road... or walking with Him in our hearts...

So the only way anyone can truly understand the things of the Christ... is if Christ is in them teaching them... whether it be through scriptures... or through every day life... as He always has...

 

[FHII]

Most of the disciples were working men - they were illiterate. Most of the people Jesus preached to were illiterate. The letters and gospels that make up the NT were not even written until between 65 AD and 90 AD - they were canonized until centuries later. Yet, people seemed to be able to function as Christians without the NT.....hymmm

How did you come to the conclusion that most of the disciples were illierate? Matthew, mark, John, and Peter. Weren't. I doubt Andrew was if his brother could read and write. Judas was an accountant so he had some education. Paul certainly wasn't illiterate ... Simon the zealot may have been, but he was afanactical Jew so I think he had read the law. James the brother of john I doubt also because it's pretty likely that if john was literate he was too.

In any sense, I see no proof and plenty of contradictory proof to that notion.

As for theq masses, you may be right but do you have proof?

Even so... they did fine without the Bible? They didn't need it only because they were the ones being written about and the guys that wrote it were teaching them.

 

[jiggyfly]

Error and Contradictions in the Bible


Let's clear up some things.
Which bible(s)?

 

[aspen]

How did you come to the conclusion that most of the disciples were illierate? Matthew, mark, John, and Peter. Weren't. I doubt Andrew was if his brother could read and write. Judas was an accountant so he had some education. Paul certainly wasn't illiterate ... Simon the zealot may have been, but he was afanactical Jew so I think he had read the law. James the brother of john I doubt also because it's pretty likely that if john was literate he was too.

In any sense, I see no proof and plenty of contradictory proof to that notion.

As for theq masses, you may be right but do you have proof?

Even so... they did fine without the Bible? They didn't need it only because they were the ones being written about and the guys that wrote it were teaching them.

Despite this schooling system, it would seem that many children did not learn to read and write, because it has been estimated that at least 90 percent of the Jewish population of Roman Palestine in the first centuries AD could merely write their own name or not write and read at all,[sup][24][/sup] or that the literacy rate was about 3 percent.[sup][25][/sup]

^ Bar-Ilan, M. "Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the First Centuries C.E." in S. Fishbane, S. Schoenfeld and A. Goldschlaeger (eds.), "Essays in the Social Scientific Study of Judaism and Jewish Society", II, New York: Ktav, 1992, pp. 46-61.

Many of the disciples dictated their writings to scribes. Or the books were written later by their disciples. I agree that Paul was literate and so was Luke. As far as Mark, Mathew, James, etc - I am skeptical

Peter was most certainly illiterate.

 

[Duckybill]

Many of the disciples dictated their writings to scribes. Or the books were written later by their disciples. I agree that Paul was literate and so was Luke. As far as Mark, Mathew, James, etc - I am skeptical

Peter was most certainly illiterate.

Even if all that is true, God is the Author of the Bible.

 

[aspen]

Even if all that is true, God is the Author of the Bible.

Completely off topic.

 

[Duckybill]

Completely off topic.

In other words, you have no answer.

 

[aspen]

In other words, you have no answer.

Nope. I have no answer to your statement. I only answer questions.

Even if all that is true, God is the Author of the Bible.

 

[Duckybill]

Nope. I have no answer to your statement. I only answer questions.

God is the Author of the Bible. He didn't give us 'myths' to follow.

 

[aspen]

The dwarfs are for the dwarfs!!

 

[Duckybill]

The dwarfs are for the dwarfs!!

And the Bible is for God's people.

 

[Groundzero]

ok . . . . .

 

[Selene]

That's interesting, Duckybill :)

The Bible does teach us much, but it also says my sheep know my voice. The Lord is recognized by the fruit of the Spirit that we bear when he comes to us.

Does the Bible tell us that? Yes. But we cannot know what the fruit of the Spirit is if we haven't experienced it.

The Bible is a great tool, and the Lord teaches us through it... But the focus is his life in us, his word's being alive, and dividing between soul and spirit. The focus is on Christ. He is the Teacher and the Master!

That is simply my point. I agree, the Bible is full of wonders... And how great it is when the Spirit opens them to us :)

I understand what you mean. The Holy Bible is the inspired word of God, but there is another "Word" of God. And this "Word" has a name. His name is Jesus Christ. He was the "Word" that came down in the flesh. Christ is not a book. He is a person. He is God, and that is who we worship. We do not worship the Bible. We worship God and God alone.

Hi FHII,

I really don't have a "contradiction" question, but in today's radio broadcast Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel offered that the 153 fish represented the old "fisherman" nature of the disciples. (Ref. John 21:11)

I would intuitively disagree, being that anyone's old nature is generic in whatever failings we may have had. Thus the Ten Commandments cover those broad categories. As such, could you offer any insight as to the True significance of that number in this verse, -- which I believe to be prophetic?


Thanks,
BibleScribe


PS You lost me in your sentence structure which references "Duckybill", me, and "others". Was this an attempt for the eye to say to the hand, we have no need of thee? (Ref. 1 Cor. 12:21) :wacko:

The 153 fish that the Apostles laid at Jesus feet represent the nations of the world. Jesus told His Apostles that He will make them "fishers of men" and instructed them to go out into the world to preach the Gospel.

 

[Foreigner]

Aspen stated in another thread that the Bible is God's word through man's perspective.
Since man is imperfect that mean he feels that the Bible itself cannot be seen as accurate.

It is convenient to feel that way because when the Bible supports your idea you can see, "See, it says so in God's word."
And when the Bible doesn't agree with you then you can blame it on man.

If you feel you can somehow tell which is God inspired and correctly interpreted and which isn't....

 

[aspen]

Aspen stated in another thread that the Bible is God's word through man's perspective.
Since man is imperfect that mean he feels that the Bible itself cannot be seen as accurate.

It is convenient to feel that way because when the Bible supports your idea you can see, "See, it says so in God's word."
And when the Bible doesn't agree with you then you can blame it on man.

If you feel you can somehow tell which is God inspired and correctly interpreted and which isn't....

All of the Bible is inspired,

 

[Foreigner]

All of the Bible is inspired,

-- I know.
But you yourself stated it is 'mans interpretation' of God's word.
That is the problem.