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

[RedFan]

So a flawed message ok I got it

It is hugely problematic

1 it taints the message and puts it in doubt
2 it leaves is unable to know the truth we have to listen to men and try to chose the right interpretation

The message is not flawed at all! NOT A BIT!!! I am going to try to get my point across one more time, and then I will stop:

Consider Mark 2:26, which quotes Jesus as saying that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest.” 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time. Contradiction on a detail? Sure. Does it taint the message? No!!! It doesn’t matter whether Jesus got this detail wrong or Mark got it wrong, simply because it doesn’t matter at all―to the message of the gospel story. The point being made by Jesus (or Mark) is theologically sound even if not historically accurate, originally or in the retelling.

Why you cannot see this is beyond me. So be it. I'll stop.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Does the Bible contradict itself?​

If God's Word contradicts itself anywhere... that would make God a liar

satan loves to cast doubt by inspiring his followers (some claiming to be Christians) to go around saying God's Word is not accurate and is full of contradictions.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

The NIV stinks on this...

No serious student of God's Word uses the NIV....

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
There's a COMMON misquote. "... Jesus... did not come to abolish the law."

Matthew 5:17 NIV
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

COMPARE

Luke 24:44 NIV
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled
that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

The NIV stinks on this...

"Don't think that I've come to release [you] from the Law or the Prophets. I haven't come to unbind, but to ADD to them."

LOL
Yours is SO much worse. Add to the laws?

[

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Jesus took away the Law of Moses.... and established the Law of Christ.

Hebrews 3:5,6
And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; But Christ as a Son over His own house; whose house are we, IF we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Now, there is a new house, the Body of Jesus Christ! Under the New Covenant that the Lord said would come forth, we see Jesus Christ as the High Priest. The old covenant with it’s laws and regulations have been taken away because thru Jesus Christ a new and better covenant has come in to place.

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
(God said He would make a New Covenant - see Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Hebrews 8:6
But now hath Jesus obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

And with the changing of the priesthood, God’s Word tells us there is also a change of the law.

Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Now... study what the New Testament says about the Law of Christ which is what we are living under now.

 

[Wick Stick]

LOL
Yours is SO much worse. Add to the laws?

Yeah, add. The Greek word there is pleroo - to add a missing part, or to fill up. The etymological root of our word plural. :)

And contextually, that's what He does in the chapter... 'you've heard it said, but I say to you...' and then he adds something to the law that makes it stricter.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

then he adds something to the law that makes it stricter.

Jesus taught the Gospel of the Kingdom... not the Law of Moses.

Luke 16:16
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Some elements of the Law of Moses are parts of God's moral law so they stand forever... but that does NOT mean we are still under the Law of Moses which you are apparently confused over.

These scriptures definitely lets us know... the Law of Moses is no more!

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
(God said He would make a New Covenant - see Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Hebrews 8:6
But now hath Jesus obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

 

[Wick Stick]

Some elements of the Law of Moses are parts of God's moral law so they stand forever... but that does NOT mean we are still under the Law of Moses which you are apparently confused over.

I'm not confused at all. The Law remains for those who swear to Moses' covenant of the Law. Those grafted in do no such thing... being adopted under Abraham, who is before the Law.

Jesus did not disannul Moses' covenant for those who are part of it. But he did change the priesthood thereof.

These scriptures definitely lets us know... the Law of Moses is no more!

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
(God said He would make a New Covenant - see Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Hebrews 8:6
But now hath Jesus obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

The priesthood is changed. The Law remains for Jews who sware to it.

 

[St. SteVen]

Yeah, add. The Greek word there is pleroo - to add a missing part, or to fill up. The etymological root of our word plural. :)

And contextually, that's what He does in the chapter... 'you've heard it said, but I say to you...' and then he adds something to the law that makes it stricter.

My view is that Jesus treats the law as hearsay in Matthew five.
There were five "You have heard that it was said... but I tell you..." statements.

The word "but" indicates a contrast. A replacement, not an addition. IMHO

[

 

[Wrangler]

Do you believe you are saved by a book, knowledge of the book or by God?

lol.. It may not make it true. but it does not mean it is not.

It's revealing when one chooses not to answer questions.

 

[St. SteVen]

And contextually, that's what He does in the chapter... 'you've heard it said, but I say to you...' and then he adds something to the law that makes it stricter.

My understanding is that he was nullifying and replacing the law.
Which became more obvious in the writing of the Apostle Paul.

John 1:17 NIV
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Galatians 3:23-25 NIV
Before the coming of this faith,[a] we were held in custody under the law,
locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.
24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

[

 

[Deborah_]

No serious student of God's Word uses the NIV....

Oh yes we do

 

[Lambano]

You want to trust an untrustworthy bible feel free

If you accepted that Matthew and Acts really do contradict each other regarding the demise of the late, unlamented Judas Iscariot, or any of the other biblical contradictions listed earlier, would you really stop following Jesus?

Ask yourself. Would you? The question scares some people.

I don't think you would.

 

[St. SteVen]

If you accepted that Matthew and Acts really do contradict each other regarding the demise of the late, unlamented Judas Iscariot, or any of the other biblical contradictions listed earlier, would you really stop following Jesus?

Ask yourself. Would you? The question scares some people.

I don't think you would.

Exactly.
This doesn't HAVE to be a crisis of faith.

Sometimes I ask, "How many of those in the Hebrews chapter eleven faith chapter had Bibles?"

Having a Bible is icing on the cake, but it's not the cake.

[

 

[Wick Stick]

My understanding is that he was nullifying and replacing the law.
Which became more obvious in the writing of the Apostle Paul.

John 1:17 NIV
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Galatians 3:23-25 NIV
Before the coming of this faith,[a] we were held in custody under the law,
locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.
24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

[

Question - do you think Jesus (in this sermon) and Paul had the same audience?

 

[St. SteVen]

Question - do you think Jesus (in this sermon) and Paul had the same audience?

That's a good question.
Certainly not the same audience.

Should I tear Matthew chapter 5 out of my Bible? - LOL

Nothing for me to learn concerning:
- Murder
- Adultery
- Oaths
- Turning the other cheek
- Love for enemies

[

 

[Wick Stick]

The word "but" indicates a contrast. A replacement, not an addition. IMHO

The word "but" is a translator's choice. The Greek word δέ is also translated: and, moreover, yet, now, even, so, and then... and sometimes isn't translated at all. The best English equivalent IMO is actually... a period. As far as I can tell, this word is mostly used to indicate the beginning of a new sentence... they didn't have punctuation.

 

[Wick Stick]

That's a good question.
Certainly not the same audience.

Should I tear Matthew chapter 5 out of my Bible? - LOL

Nothing for me to learn concerning:
- Murder
- Adultery
- Oaths
- Turning the other cheek
- Love for enemies

[

It can stay, I think.

One dirty-little-secret of the Bible is that the Old and New Testaments aren't very different. God... doesn't change. Most of the differences can be put down to people misunderstanding or mis-using it. Hence the changing of the priesthood. Those guys sucked.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
The word "but" indicates a contrast. A replacement, not an addition. IMHO

The word "but" is a translator's choice. The Greek word δέ is also translated: and, moreover, yet, now, even, so, and then... and sometimes isn't translated at all. The best English equivalent IMO is actually... a period. As far as I can tell, this word is mostly used to indicate the beginning of a new sentence... they didn't have punctuation.

No matter the word used, or none at all. Seems hard to get around the contrast being stated.

"You have heard... I tell you..."

[

 

[St. SteVen]

... the Old and New Testaments aren't very different. God... doesn't change.

Certainly a unifying continuum of the redemption narrative.

By Genesis chapter three, there is already mention of the redeemer and the victory to come.

[