Does the Bible contradict itself? - Reader Poll (and discussion)

[Eternally Grateful]

Amos is talking about the Israelites during the Exodus under Moses. Not the people of his current day.

Amos 1: 1 The words of Amos, who was among the sheepbreeders of Tekoa, which he saw concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel, two years before the earthquake.

Amos 5:
Hear this word which I take up against you, a lamentation, O house of Israel:

2 The virgin of Israel has fallen;
She will rise no more.
She lies forsaken on her land;
There is no one to raise her up.
3 For thus says the Lord God:

“The city that goes out by a thousand
Shall have a hundred left,
And that which goes out by a hundred
Shall have ten left to the house of Israel.”

A Call to Repentance​

4 For thus says the Lord to the house of Israel:

“Seek Me and live;


Try again

 

[Wick Stick]

That's a very significant contradiction. What do conclude about that?

I side with the prophets.

At a high level, this is actually reconcilable. Both groups agree that Israel sinned by building an idol at the base of Mt Sinai and that as a result God instituted the Levitical priesthood.

But WHY was the priesthood instituted? The priests tell us that they are there to be intercessors - so that the people would have a buffer between them and God... essentially 'for your safety.' The prophets, though, tell us that the priesthood and kings that God gave the Israelites WERE the punishment for their idolatry... they were there to be a burden on the people, to tax them into poverty until they regretted that they wanted to have priests and kings like their neighboring countries.

That being the case, I agree with Amos... God didn't ask for animal sacrifices... the Israelites WANTED to offer animal sacrifices... because animal sacrifices are basically a group BBQ... and who doesn't want to be part of big BBQ? Likewise, the Tabernacle was given/required in acquiescence to the Israelites desire to 'be like the nations' and worship in the same way they did. But God turned their request into their punishment.

It turns out that a big BBQ isn't so fun when you're the one PAYING for it, and NOT the one eating it.

 

[Wick Stick]

Try again

Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.

Tell me, who wandered 40 years in the wilderness and carried a tabernacle?

 

[talons]

Amos is talking about the Israelites during the Exodus under Moses. Not the people of his current day.

Current day Israelites , because God has a destination for them in the last verse of Amos Chapter 5 .


27Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the LORD, whose name is The God of hosts.

 

[Wick Stick]

See what I mean

what is the context of Amos. Why did God reject their sacrifices. Was it not because of their sin.

once again, No contradiction at all

only a perceived contradiction which can be immediately responded just by looking at the context.

Your logic is good here. God rejected their sacrifices because of their sin.

It should be extended - the Israelites didn't just sin in Amos' day. They were in a state of perpetual sin from... before Mt Sinai, and it persists to this day. This has been the rule; not the exception.

Doesn't it follow that God rejected ALL those sacrifices for the same reason?

 

[Wick Stick]

Current day Israelites , because God has a destination for them in the last verse of Amos Chapter 5 .


27Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the LORD, whose name is The God of hosts.

It's a fair point, but I think if you read the whole chapter, you'll find that Amos includes ALL the Israelites starting from the Exodus up to the current day.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.

Tell me, who wandered 40 years in the wilderness and carried a tabernacle?

We are not arguing who. We are discussing when

I gave you the context and time period of when Amos wrote and what he was writting about.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Your logic is good here. God rejected their sacrifices because of their sin.

It should be extended - the Israelites didn't just sin in Amos' day. They were in a state of perpetual sin from... before Mt Sinai, and it persists to this day. This has been the rule; not the exception.

Doesn't it follow that God rejected ALL those sacrifices for the same reason?

Did he reject the sacrifices during their period of blessing under King David?

They were not always in sin.. But yes, they did rebel.

 

[Wick Stick]

Did he reject the sacrifices during their period of blessing under King David?

They were not always in sin.. But yes, they did rebel.

David is fascinating. He's reckoned among the prophets, despite being a king.

God did NOT reject the sacrifices David offered. But that needs an asterisk, because David, being a prophet, knew the score... and told us truthfully... God neither wanted nor asked for sacrifices:

Psalm 40:6
Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast Thou not required.

Psalm 50:7-15
Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God. I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have been continually before me. I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats out of thy folds. For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High: And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

David is fascinating. He's reckoned among the prophets, despite being a king.

God did NOT reject the sacrifices David offered. But that needs an asterisk, because David, being a prophet, knew the score... and told us truthfully... God neither wanted nor asked for sacrifices:

Psalm 40:6
Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Psalm 50:7-15
Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God. I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have been continually before me. I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats out of thy folds. For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High: And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.

Yes,

But God still demanded sacrifice according to the law

so later when he said he hated them

did he contradict himself. Like you seem to me insinuating,

or was their a reason he hated them (because of their sin Of rejecting him and following false gods)

 

[Wick Stick]

Yes,

But God still demanded sacrifice according to the law

so later when he said he hated them

did he contradict himself. Like you seem to me insinuating,

or was their a reason he hated them (because of their sin Of rejecting him and following false gods)

I explained in post #23 somewhat... the Israelites wanted to sacrifice and God allowed it... but did not demand it, and certainly didn't need them for Himself. Moreover, God used the granting of their bad asks to punish them... the sacrifices became a huge financial burden to them, and the kings they asked for oppressed and taxed them into poverty to such an extent that they had a civil war after Solomon's death.

At a high level, these are compatible views. When you get into the details of Leviticus... not so much.

 

[Behold]

The Bible is not destroyed by its contradictions. As you say, "the message is still delivered ."

Contradictions are based on interpretation, and that is not proof, that is something different.

So, the bible is not destroyed by discussion , but a believer's faith can be lost in the Bible, because some members have that as their Forum Ministry.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I explained in post #23 somewhat... the Israelites wanted to sacrifice and God allowed it... but did not demand it, and certainly didn't need them for Himself.

Actually in the book of the law. god did require it. If they were to recieve blessings as his children.

You’re right, he did not require it for salvation. But your in error saying he did not require it from them as a people. It was part of his covenant with them

Moreover, God used the granting of their bad asks to punish them... the sacrifices became a huge financial burden to them, and the kings they asked for oppressed and taxed them into poverty to such an extent that they had a civil war after Solomon's death.

At a high level, these are compatible views. When you get into the details of Leviticus... not so much.

And?

Your tryign to insert uncertainty saying the Bible contradicts. When it does not

If you do not trust the Bible. Then feel free.

don;t spread your fear and mistrust of the word to other people.

 

[Rockerduck]

When did the fig tree wither?
Immediately when Jesus cursed it, or over night?

• Matthew 21:19
  Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.
  
  
• Matthew 21:20
  When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked.
  
  
• Mark 11:20
  In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots.
  
  
• Mark 11:21
  Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”

[

Matthew 21:19 and Mark 11:14 - In response Jesus said to it, “Let no one eat fruit from you ever again." Both of these scriptures say the same thing; Jesus cursed Israel and ended Mosaic law, by saying "May you never bear or eat this fruit (teaching) from you ever again.

 

[Wick Stick]

Actually in the book of the law. god did require it. If they were to recieve blessings as his children.

You’re right, he did not require it for salvation. But your in error saying he did not require it from them as a people. It was part of his covenant with them

Yes, that's the contradiction we're talking about. Leviticus certainly requires sacrifices, while the prophets specifically say otherwise:

Psalm 40:6
Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast Thou not required.

Your tryign to insert uncertainty saying the Bible contradicts. When it does not

If you do not trust the Bible. Then feel free. don;t spread your fear and mistrust of the word to other people.

I'm sensitive to causing doubt. I frequently do not share everything I know so as to avoid doing so. But here, buried at the bottom of a forum specifically labeled as Unorthodox, I think it'll be ok.

 

[St. SteVen]

Matthew 21:19 and Mark 11:14 - In response Jesus said to it, “Let no one eat fruit from you ever again." Both of these scriptures say the same thing; Jesus cursed Israel and ended Mosaic law, by saying "May you never bear or eat this fruit (teaching) from you ever again.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

[

 

[Rockerduck]

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

[

Jesus died on the Cross and the veil was torn from top to bottom. No more animal sacrifices, because Jesus is the sacrificial lamb that ended the Law. The fig tree is a symbol of Isreal and the cursing of it withered it. Jesus even told everyone the Temple would be destroyed and not one stone would be left on top of another. Ad 70 happened and all is gone. Besides all this the Holy Spirit told me the same thing and that all Christians are the same in Heaven. Neither Jew, nor Greek, nor male or female, all are one in Christ.

 

[St. SteVen]

38 posts, but no votes.
Must be a hot potato topic. - LOL

Discussion questions:
- Is it even possible that the Bible could contradict itself?
- Why would that be impossible?
- If it did contradict itself, would that be bad for the Bible?
- Does the Bible promise not to contradict itself?
- Would it be harmful to your faith if the Bible was found to be contradictory?
- Have you found some contradictions to discuss?

[

 

[St. SteVen]

παραχρῆμα as used in the verse in Matthew can mean anything from "immediately" to "soon."

The scripture tells us HOW soon. (in the next verse)

• Matthew 21:19
  Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.
  
  
• Matthew 21:20
  When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked.

I know that the reason given by most Christians who do so is that too much harm is done by uncharitable, ultra-literal interpretation.

But I sincerely believe the proposal of this particular solution to the problem of unregenerate folks weaponizing Scripture is a classic case of the remedy being more harmful than the malady.

My aim is not to criticize the Bible as much as it is to hold those accountable that make unfounded claims about it.

When their feet are put to the fire they justify their position by saying, "It's not a salvation issue."
And that's fine, but don't claim the book is without contradiction. Be honest.

Somehow I end up being the bad guy here. By upsetting the status quo.

[

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes, that's the contradiction we're talking about. Leviticus certainly requires sacrifices, while the prophets specifically say otherwise:

Psalm 40:6
Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast Thou not required.

You want to put doubt in the word of God for yourself feel free.

There is no contradiction

God told Israel to do it. As a nation. As part of the mosaic covenant.

David wrote the truth, concerning his sin, Sacrifice and burnt offering you did not desire. God wanted david to repent. God knew what would realy take his sin away, Through his son who would be born much later.

again, Context is your enemy, because context removes the contradiction

I'm sensitive to causing doubt. I frequently do not share everything I know so as to avoid doing so. But here, buried at the bottom of a forum specifically labeled as Unorthodox, I think it'll be ok.

Causing doubt is not ok no matter where you are.

I do not appreciate people causing doubt in the word of God because they do not understand it.