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

[Deborah_]

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

[

The "You have heard that it was said..." format refers not to the actual written Law but to the scribal interpretations of what was written. Jesus wasn't changing the Law but going back to basics - cutting through the oral tradition and the legalistic twisting that had taken place over the centuries.
For example - the scribes and Pharisees interpreted "You shall not murder" and "You shall not commit adultery" as licences to do anything short of actual murder and adultery. So hatred and lust were OK, they said. And "love your neighbour" meant that it was OK to hate your enemy.

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

'De' has a wide range of meaning when you translate it into English, but there is most certainly a contrast implied here - which is why translators use the word 'but'.

 

[Wick Stick]

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

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

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

[

That's fair... a contrast is definitely intended. But I don't read most of them as replacements there in Matthew 5.

Verse 21 deals with murder. I don't think Jesus is abolishing the commandment against murder... that's still a good rule. In verse 22-26, He's adding something different that deals with hatred, making it equivalent to murder.

Verse 27 deals with adultery. Again, i don't think Jesus is abolishing the commandment against adultery... that remains a good rule. The verses that follow are about lust, again making it tantamount to adultery (and throwing in a dirty joke for good measure lol).

Verse 31 deals with divorce. This time, it does appear He's replacing the rule for divorce. But I think if we look further into it, it's just a more stringent enforcement of the older rule. The original rule says, here's how to divorce your wife. Jesus adds, "apparently I need to spell it out for you that this is only for the case of marital unfaithfulness."

Verse 33 deals with keeping oaths. Jesus tells them not to swear oaths in the first place, which doesn't negate the former rule so much as it just avoids it in practice.

Verse 38 deals with revenge. Jesus definitely does contradict the law in Leviticus, telling them not to take revenge. I'll call that Exhibit A on why Leviticus is redoubtable. I might want to tear that book out after all.

Verse 43 deals with treating one's neighbors with love. At first blush, it appears Jesus contradicts the older command to 'hate your enemies.' But looking about... there isn't actually a verse anywhere that says to hate your enemies. It seems that might have been (incorrectly) implied as a corollary from the actual commandment, which just says to love one's neighbors.

I say all that to say the same thing Paul said - the Law is fine when you use it right. The correct use is as a guidebook... for yourself. The problem of the Law is when we use it against each other, attempting to judge each other.

Finally, Leviticus. Here's what's in Leviticus: the requirement for animal sacrifices, the ordination of Levitical priests, dietary restrictions, rules for ritual uncleanness, regulations on clothing, hair, and tattoos, rules against incest and homosexuality, the keeping of feasts, rights of vengeance, the keeping of Jubilees, and the keeping of vows.

I think... if I were to make a list of things that the New Testament changes or removes from Judaism... it might be the same list. Getting my scissors now...

 

[St. SteVen]

The "You have heard that it was said..." format refers not to the actual written Law but to the scribal interpretations of what was written. Jesus wasn't changing the Law but going back to basics - cutting through the oral tradition and the legalistic twisting that had taken place over the centuries.

Wasn't interpretation the responsibility of the teachers of the law? Scribes are not allowed interpretation, as I understand it.

Further, it appears that the "You have heard that it was said..." statements were mostly direct quotes from the law.


Matthew 5:21 NIV
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago,
‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’

Footnotes​

1. Matthew 5:21 Exodus 20:13

Matthew 5:27 NIV
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a]

Footnotes​

1. Matthew 5:27 Exodus 20:14

Matthew 5:33 NET
“Again, you have heard that it was said to an older generation,[a]
‘Do not break an oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’[b]

Footnotes​

1. Matthew 5:33 tn Grk “the ancient ones.”
2. Matthew 5:33 sn A quotation from Lev 19:12.

Matthew 5:38 NIV
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a]

Footnotes​

1. Matthew 5:38 Exodus 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21

Matthew 5:43 NIV
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’

Footnotes​

1. Matthew 5:43 Lev. 19:18

[

 

[St. SteVen]

New topic:

Will you go to heaven when you die? - (or the other place)

[

 

[TigersPaw]

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?

Atheists are not shy about discussing this subject. We could react to their claims.

contradictions in the bible list

[

Sigh....... I always feel alone in these topic as people seldom get it.
THE BIBLE CAN NOT CONTRDICT ITS SELF 100% FACT
Why Can It Not?
5 Mistakes many make.. in these topics.

1. Well first stop reading the Bible as if its a Book. Its not.
2. Stop reading the Bible as if its scriptures, its not.
3. Stop reading the Bible and picking out pieces that could contradict. As they do not.
4. Stop reading the Bible to prove a point. You can't if you ignore 1-3 above.
5. Stop reading the Bible to see its flaws or lack there of.

FACT:
The Bible is not a Book. Stop saying that.
Its a collection of Books, and each book is a lesson. The Bible is not a Book.
That is like reading a collection of Encyclopedia Britannica's, then saying they contradict each other.
And lastly, the Bible is not a Book of scriptures and quotes. You take anything out of context, its easy to find flaws.
For now 40+ years I see this over and over, debates and nonsense over what the Bible says.

The Bible as its used by most is wrong. Yet its is a flawless collection of masterpieces if we would stop trying to make
it something it is not. Well then we might actually understand the base behind the front and back covers of the Bible.
Many people go to Seminary schooling, I did. And yet everyone forgets the first things they are taught about the Bible and God.
They memorize the Bible front to back, yet forget its simplicity is needed for battle. You complicate its contents you will be sucked into
defending something that needs no defending. As each book in the Bible is flawless from contradiction.

 

[St. SteVen]

Sigh....... I always feel alone in these topic as people seldom get it.
THE BIBLE CAN NOT CONTRDICT ITS SELF 100% FACT

Welcome to the forum.
Thanks for joining this discussion.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

Sigh....... I always feel alone in these topic as people seldom get it.
THE BIBLE CAN NOT CONTRDICT ITS SELF 100% FACT
Why Can It Not?
5 Mistakes many make.. in these topics.

1. Well first stop reading the Bible as if its a Book. Its not.
2. Stop reading the Bible as if its scriptures, its not.
3. Stop reading the Bible and picking out pieces that could contradict. As they do not.
4. Stop reading the Bible to prove a point. You can't if you ignore 1-3 above.
5. Stop reading the Bible to see its flaws or lack there of.

None of that proves that there are no contradictions in the Bible.

FACT:
The Bible is not a Book. Stop saying that.
Its a collection of Books, and each book is a lesson. The Bible is not a Book.
That is like reading a collection of Encyclopedia Britannica's, then saying they contradict each other.
And lastly, the Bible is not a Book of scriptures and quotes. You take anything out of context, its easy to find flaws.
For now 40+ years I see this over and over, debates and nonsense over what the Bible says.

None of that proves that the Bible isn't a book.

The Bible as its used by most is wrong. Yet its is a flawless collection of masterpieces if we would stop trying to make
it something it is not. Well then we might actually understand the base behind the front and back covers of the Bible.
Many people go to Seminary schooling, I did. And yet everyone forgets the first things they are taught about the Bible and God.
They memorize the Bible front to back, yet forget its simplicity is needed for battle. You complicate its contents you will be sucked into
defending something that needs no defending. As each book in the Bible is flawless from contradiction.

You say the Bible has a front and back cover.
Yet you claim it is not a book.

No wonder you feel alone. You are alone.

QUESTION:

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!”

[

 

[Lambano]

As far as I can tell, this word is mostly used to indicate the beginning of a new sentence... they didn't have punctuation.

One of my "Learn Greek in 21 days" books says they use "kai" ("and") the same way. That's why Paul has so many run-on sentences.

I still say we'd be better off if the Greeks had invented punctuation instead of prancing around naked in the gymnasium.

 

[St. SteVen]

I still say we'd be better off if the Greeks had invented punctuation instead of prancing around naked in the gymnasium.

Possibly a precursor.
If you are on time to your gymnasium event, that is considered being punctual. (groan)

[

 

[St. SteVen]

That's fair... a contrast is definitely intended. But I don't read most of them as replacements there in Matthew 5.

Thanks. Good post. Points taken.
Here's what I have failed to inject into this good discussion.

My views on "the law" differentiate between God's law, the law, the Law, and Christ's law.
Four different things. IMHO
You may recall the topic I launched on the subject. (link below)

So, in reference to your post, I see murder, adultery, et al, being part of God's law that preceded "the law".
Which I define as the law God gave to the Israelites alone through Moses. (the law)

For example: it was God's law that made it a sin for Cain to murder his brother Abel.
Murder did not suddenly become a sin when God gave Moses the TCs.

So, I suppose my point is that Jesus was replacing "the law" with God's law. (which preceded "the law")
The faith of Abraham replaces the law God gave to the Israelites through Moses.
The new covenant precedes the old covenant.

Observations about the law, the Law, God's law, Christ's law - four different things

- What's the difference between the law and the Law? (capital L) - What's the difference between the law and God's law? - What's the difference between the law, God's law, and Christ's law? The law, the Law, God's law, Christ's law; four different things. Agree, or disagree? Points...

www.christianityboard.com

[

 

[Deborah_]

Wasn't interpretation the responsibility of the teachers of the law? Scribes are not allowed interpretation, as I understand it.

Further, it appears that the "You have heard that it was said..." statements were mostly direct quotes from the law.

Scribes/teachers of the law were by and large the same group of people. If you want to make a distinction, then replace "scribal" with "teachers of the law-al".

"Hate your enemy" is not in Leviticus 19.

 

[St. SteVen]

New topic:

Should a Christian have non-Christian friends? - In the world, but not of the world?

[

 

[BarneyFife]

Should the Spirit of prophesy be limited to a single individual in a denomination, or is it for everyone?

My mistake.

I thought textual criticism was the topic of this thread—not the Spirit of prophecy nor the privilege of direct revelation.

And I feel that the urging from the outset of those who find comfort and security in the belief of the immutability of the written word of God to simply "be honest" implies a lack of good faith in openly discussing a matter of such importance to so many.

:)

 

[St. SteVen]

And I feel that the urging from the outset of those who find comfort and security in the belief of the immutability of the written word of God to simply "be honest" implies a lack of good faith in openly discussing a matter of such importance to so many.

Yes.
A consideration of the truth of the matter is terrifying to those who have put their hope in a leather-bound book of paper and ink.

The questions I ask and the conclusions I make are deeply offensive. The truth hurts sometimes. And I pay for my irreverent insolence.

I'm a whistle-blower.

[

 

[Eternally Grateful]

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.

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

So you’re saying no jew could be saved?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

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.

The law could never save

He did not change the priesthood. He became himself the high priest. Which Under the order of melchisidech. Because the Arron is high priest could not save anyone. The law was a tutor. A guid. Not a means to salvation.

 

[RedFan]

The law was a tutor. A guid. Not a means to salvation.

Is that because of the Law’s innate inability to save, or because of mankind’s innate inability to keep the Law sufficiently well to be saved?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Is that because of the Law’s innate inability to save, or because of mankind’s innate inability to keep the Law sufficiently well to be saved?

Main can not keep the law. Why?

This is the requirment of the law

Cursed is the one who does not confirm and obey every word. (Moses)

Paul in galations three said we could never be justified by the law. Because of the same reason.

the fact is, when they were given the law. They had already failed to keep it. As james said. If we keep the whole law yet stumble in one point, we are guilty of all.

The law then showed the way to be forgiven or redeemed, by animal sacrifice. Which Jesus fulfilled when as the lamb of God who came to take away the sin of the world. fulfilled himself when he was bing on a cross.

so yes. We can not keep the law. And it was never given to save us, Because God knew we could not keep the law. it was given to point to christ. Sadly the jews in jesus day and even many jews today do not understand that, and they still think they are right with God because they keep the law.

 

[RedFan]

Main can not keep the law. Why?

This is the requirment of the law

Cursed is the one who does not confirm and obey every word. (Moses)

Paul in galations three said we could never be justified by the law. Because of the same reason.

the fact is, when they were given the law. They had already failed to keep it. As james said. If we keep the whole law yet stumble in one point, we are guilty of all.

The law then showed the way to be forgiven or redeemed, by animal sacrifice. Which Jesus fulfilled when as the lamb of God who came to take away the sin of the world. fulfilled himself when he was bing on a cross.

so yes. We can not keep the law. And it was never given to save us, Because God knew we could not keep the law. it was given to point to christ. Sadly the jews in jesus day and even many jews today do not understand that, and they still think they are right with God because they keep the law.

I agree that the OT says a perfect score under the law is required in order to be saved by following it, but I disagree that Galatians says a perfect score is unachievable.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I agree that the OT says a perfect score under the law is required in order to be saved by following it, but I disagree that Galatians says a perfect score is unachievable.

Gal 3
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed iseveryone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is [d]justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.”

I mean, I do not see how anyone can not read and see that No one means anyone. And how we could turn this around and say its not impossible.. I mean again, I just do not see it..

I also take us to John..

if we claim we have no sin we decieve ourselves. This is prety apposed to anyone who thinks they are sinless right now. Even John denied this and said if he claimed it he is decieved.

But it does not stop there.

if we say we have never sinned, we make God a liar.

so if we can not be sinless (perfect) how can we even think we could keep the law.

to me, a person who thinks this has not yet repented. He still thinks he has good in himself. Has this person become bankrupt in spirit yet?

Jesus said blessed are those who are poor in spirit (literally bancrupt) for theirs is the kingdom.

The tax collector was poor in spirit. The pharisee was not. the pharisee thought he kept the law. The tax collector truly understood the law.

God gave us a new law. The law of love. Seek after the things of the spirit. Everything hangs on the two great commands..

lets not put people back under law.. It was given to lead us to christ. Not make us better people..

It says do not do this. It does not tell us how to not do it. Nor does it give every possible way of breaking that law. Thats why Jesus had to see it is written,,do not commit adultry,, but I say.

Also remember, he sad at the end of just proving to everyone they could not keep the law. hey you want to keep doing it? be perfect As your father in heaven is perfect.

Thats what the law should do. Take us to our knees..