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

[Eternally Grateful]

Let's return to your question which I found to be unanswerable due to the assumption that Paul was referring to the TCs in Romans 7:14.


I don't understand why you would limit it to the TCs.
I suppose you will say that he named two or three of the Ten in the preceding verses.
But that is not conclusive to me.

To me, "the law" is the law.

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

[

The law (torah)

is it the 613 commands

Is it the 1st five books of the Bible?

is it the “law of christ”

or is it 2 of these or all three..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Actually it is important to me. And so are navy beans. - LOL

The unbiblical term "the spirit of the law" is used to defend the law we are not under.
Saying, we are not under the letter of the law, but we are under the spirit of the law.
What's the difference?

[

We are nit under law but under grace.

I agree, we are not under the spirit of the law.

The letter of the law kills.. the spirit gives life.

we know what the letter is (I hope. I asked earlier but got no answer) I think what we need to find out is, what is the spirit that saves

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The problem with Paul's explanation is then you have to ask: Okay, if Torah is only a shadow of what was to come, were the sins of God's people REALLY washed away? Or were they deceived and thus still in their sins? And did God lie when He said the covenant was eternal?

Jesus washed their sins away the moment he died

The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin.

 

[Lambano]

is it the 613 commands

Is it the 1st five books of the Bible?

The literature I've read says while technically Torah is just the Pentateuch, the Jewish people often use the word as a shorthand to refer to the entire OT: The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

 

[Lambano]

Jesus washed their sins away the moment he died

Oh, good. So, the effects of Jesus's atonement can be applied to those who do not have faith in him?

@St. SteVen, you've got some more ammunition for UR. Maybe the Calvinists do too.

 

[RedFan]

Can you show me where plucking grain on the sabbath is forbidden?

Jesus made it a habit of breaking mans laws, to piss of the pharisees. Which were not Gods laws.

I asked, because I looked in the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, and the ESV and I could not find any command that forbid plucking of grain on the sabbath

I can't show you a specific OT prohibition against plucking grain, but it falls within the NO WORK command. Plucking grain violated the law against work (non-emergency work, anyway) on the Sabbath. Numbers 15:32-36 describes a man put to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath! Plucking grain is of that ilk. Hence the Pharisees' objection.

 

[amigo de christo]

Does the bible contradict itself . NOPE .
do the many erroneous teachings of men make it seem like it do , YES .
they often contradict it and by their own learning make it appear to contradict itself . But , and this is key , IT DONT .
rather its time to learn FROM HE WHO INSPIRED the truth IN that bible and do so for ourselves being in prayer to GOD .

 

[Wrangler]

Came across a great apparent contradiction in today's devotional reading.

In Deuteronomy 4 it states in v26 that you will soon "utterly perish." In the very next verse it states, "only a few of you will be left among the nations." So, which is it?

1. Utterly perish (not a few left)
2. A few left (not utterly perish)

 

[St. SteVen]

The law (torah)

is it the 613 commands

Is it the 1st five books of the Bible?

is it the “law of christ”

or is it 2 of these or all three..

The NIV does us a HUGE favor by capitalizing Law when it refers to Torah.
Here's a great example. Both "the law" and the books of "the Law" are referred to in one verse.

Romans 3:21 NIV
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known,
to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

--- COMPARE ---

• Matthew 5:17
  “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.
  
  
• Matthew 7:12
  So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you,
  for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
  
  
• Matthew 11:13
  For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.
  
  
• Matthew 22:40
  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
  
  
• Luke 16:16
  “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John.
  Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached,
  and everyone is forcing their way into it.
  
  
• Luke 24:44
  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.”

[

 

[St. SteVen]

I can't show you a specific OT prohibition against plucking grain, but it falls within the NO WORK command. Plucking grain violated the law against work (non-emergency work, anyway) on the Sabbath. Numbers 15:32-36 describes a man put to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath! Plucking grain is of that ilk. Hence the Pharisees' objection.

As I understand it, Sabbath was established in Exodus chapter sixteen with the manna gathering.
This meant that food for the day of Sabbath rest was collected the day before. The Preparation day.
Therefore collecting food on the Sabbath was a basic violation of the earliest practice.
The Pharisees were right to criticize Jesus for this. (according to the law)
Jesus response is mind-blowing. IMHO

[

 

[St. SteVen]

Oh, good. So, the effects of Jesus's atonement can be applied to those who do not have faith in him?

@St. SteVen, you've got some more ammunition for UR. Maybe the Calvinists do too.

Yes. Salvation came to all humankind as a result of the atonement.

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

[

 

[Lambano]

The NIV does us a HUGE favor by capitalizing Law when it refers to Torah.
Here's a great example. Both "the law" and the books of "the Law" are referred to in one verse.

Romans 3:21 NIV
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known,
to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

Except I think the nice translators of the NIV made a mistake in not capitalizing the first use of "the law". The context of chapters 2 and 3 indicates that Paul has in mind the expanded sense of Torah (i.e. the whole Jewish Bible, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings), where in the second part, he differentiates between the Pentateuch and the Prophets. Both are consistent with the Jewish usage of the word Torah.

 

[St. SteVen]

Came across a great apparent contradiction in today's devotional reading.

In Deuteronomy 4 it states in v26 that you will soon "utterly perish." In the very next verse it states, "only a few of you will be left among the nations." So, which is it?

1. Utterly perish (not a few left)
2. A few left (not utterly perish)

That's interesting.
When you are looking for contradictions, they show up.
The healthy approach is to accept them for what they are,
rather than rationalize them away in order to protect the
false claims of inerrancy, infallibility, and no contradictions.

[

 

[Lambano]

Yes. Salvation came to all humankind as a result of the atonement.

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

[

The Calvinists would say that Eternally Grateful is applying the effects of the Atonement to the Elect, as heretofore the "Elect" in the Bible referred to the Jewish people. (Or at least the faithful among them.)

 

[St. SteVen]

Except I think the nice translators of the NIV made a mistake in not capitalizing the first use of "the law". The context of chapters 2 and 3 indicates that Paul has Torah in mind here.

That begs the question: What is the righteousness that is apart from the law,
to which the Law and the Prophets testify? What righteousness is that? Verse 22 tells us,
"This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

Romans 3:21-22 NIV
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known,
to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe.

[

 

[Lambano]

That begs the question: What is the righteousness that is apart from the law,
to which the Law and the Prophets testify? What righteousness is that? Verse 22 tells us,
"This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

Romans 3:21-22 NIV
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known,
to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe.

[

There's a couple of gotchas there that keep the theologians busy, and both are tied to ambiguities in Greek grammar and how to translate the Greek genitive case.

1. Does "The righteousness of God" refer to God's own righteousness (subjective genitive) in providing a means of salvation for all, or does it refer to the status of "righteous" reckoned to believers (genitive of origin), or to an actual "righteousness" (through regeneration, also a genitive of origin) given to believers (if "righteousness" is indeed a commodity that can be given and received)? Is the use different in verses 21 and 22?

2. Take a good look at footnote [h] in verse 22. Should "pistis Christou" be translated as an objective genitive (faith IN Jesus Christ as in this translation) or as a subjective genitive (the faith OF Jesus Christ per the KJV or Jesus Christ's faithfulness in obediently going to the cross per footnote [h])? The NIV translator's choice determines and is determined by their theology.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The literature I've read says while technically Torah is just the Pentateuch, the Jewish people often use the word as a shorthand to refer to the entire OT: The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

Well they called the law the law. And referred to the prophets as the prophets from what I see. But you may be right here, I have never really studied what jews consider the law today

 

[Wrangler]

When you are looking for contradictions, they show up.
The healthy approach is to accept them for what they are

They need to be reconciled. V26 is hyperbole. There is a lot of hyperbole in Scrioture. V27 is literal.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Oh, good. So, the effects of Jesus's atonement can be applied to those who do not have faith in him?

Well yeah, He paid for their sins.

But they are not condemned for their sins, they are condemned because they do not believe

John made it clear. He who believes is not condemned, he who does not believe is condemned already. Why is the one who believes not condemned? Because they looked to the cross in faith. And were given eternal life.

@St. SteVen, you've got some more ammunition for UR. Maybe the Calvinists do too.

lol. He does not have any more ammunition.

Are you going to answer my question about law?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I can't show you a specific OT prohibition against plucking grain, but it falls within the NO WORK command. Plucking grain violated the law against work (non-emergency work, anyway) on the Sabbath. Numbers 15:32-36 describes a man put to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath! Plucking grain is of that ilk. Hence the Pharisees' objection.

Ahh, so me going and plucking a few grains of wheat is work.

You fallen into the same trap the jews did when they made this external book and tried to make other things a sin. It is these things which Jesus continually on purpose broke so they could accuse him. You know. Like moving a chair in your house and causing grooves in the dirt..

They were not Gods law. They were laws of men.