Kontradikcije u Bibliji

<< < (5/14) > >>

Lindemann:
Answers to Biblical Contradictions, 71-80

71. Christ preached his first sermon on the mount [Matt 5:1,2]

Christ preached his first sermon on the plain [Luke 6:17,20]

Neither account says anything about this being his "first sermon." As
MaryAnna notes: Probably two different sermons with similar content.
Matt. doesn't say the sermon on the mount was His first sermon. Matt.
doesn't seem too concerned about the sequence of events. Matt 4:23
seems to indicate that before this the Lord already had done a lot of
speaking. The one in Luke 6:17 was to the crowds, whereas the one in
Matt 5 was addressed to the disciples privately. --MAW

Indeed. It is not at all uncommon for a preacher to preach similar

sermons at different times and with different audiences, now is it?

72. John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee [Mark 1:14]

John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee [John 1:43 / John
3:22-24]

The account in Mark does not indicate that this was the first time Jesus
went into Galilee. It is quite possible that Jesus did earlier visit Galilee to
baptize and mingle, and Mark alludes to a subsequent visit (after John's
imprisonment) when He began to preach the nearness of the kingdom.

73. Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with a staff and

sandals [Mark 6:8,9]

Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with neither staves not

sandals [Matt 10:9,10]

I view these as complementary accounts which get us closer to the full

instructions of Jesus. In Mark, He tells his disciples to take nothing for
their journey except a staff and sandals to wear. In Matthew, He instructs
them not to acquire many things (including more sandals and staffs). In
short, he is instructing them to take little, and not to accept the gifts of
men in return for the healing and message that they bring with them.
74. A woman of Canaan besought Jesus [Matt 15:22]

It was a Greek woman who besought Him [Mark 7:26]

The nationality of the woman who besought Jesus.

Matt. 15:22 She was a Canaanite woman.

Mark 7:26 She was a Greek, Syro-phoenician by race. The Phoenicians

were descendants of the Canaanites. So she was Greek in some way
other than race. It could have been by religion, marriage, or something
else. Anyway, these verses don't contradict each other. The point is she
was not an Israelite. --MAW

Also, "Greek" may have simply meant "Gentile". According to Haley, she
lived in a part of Canaan called "Syro-Phoenicia."

75. Two blind men besought Jesus [Matt 20:30]

Only one blind man besought Him [Luke 18:35,38]

How many blind men were there?

Matt. 20:30 mentions two. Luke 18:35, 38 only mentions one. A certain
one. Luke probably was acquainted with him and so mentions him
specifically. He may have continued to follow the Lord and even been
among the 120 later, whereas the other may not have. At any rate Luke
doesn't say that the blind man was alone, just that he was there and
received his sight. -- MAW I should point out that critic's don't like the
type of replies that MaryAnna suggests, although I think her explanation
is quite plausible. So allow to me reply to their complaints at this point.
In another context, one critic decried a similar type of approach as
described it as follows

Critic: "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says
"there was a" and another says "there was b", so they decide there was
"a" AND "b" -- which is said nowhere.

My reply: Simply because it is "said nowhere" doesn't mean it is not the

case. That follows only if you assume exhaustively detailed and verbatim
reports. In fact, we can induce that it was probably the case by putting
the pieces together. This is a perfectly valid approach. Anyone who lives
in this world ought to know that. If I go for a ride with my buddies Bob
and Steve, and come home to tell my wife I was out with Bob (perhaps
because I talked to him more, ie, he was on my mind) and later mention
that Steve said something about getting a new job, have I contradicted
myself? The contradiction exists ONLY if I said that ONLY Bob and I went
for a drive. And it would certainly be reasonable for my wife to conclude
that I must have went for a ride with both Bob and Steve.

In attempting to pooh-pooh this type of explanation which is commonly

experienced, the critic is fallaciously engaged in black and white
thinking. It's like saying, "Hey, either you went for a ride with Bob or
Steve, which is it?". But why in the world can't it be both?

Critic: This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a + b".

My reply: I don't know about happy, but this sounds like the crying of a
spoiled child. If you are out to demonstrate a CONTRADICTION, this is
exactly the type of thing you have to uncover. Just because the critic fails
to shoulder HIS/HER burden is no reason for me to take their point
seriously.

76. Christ was crucified at the third hour [Mark 15:25]

Christ was not crucified until the sixth hour [John 19:14,15]

At what hour was Jesus crucified?

Mark 15:25 says it was in the third hour, 9:00 a.m. John 19:14-15 says
that in the sixth hour (different clock). He was still not crucified yet but
was being judged before Pilate. This was at about 6 a.m.

So three hours later He had carried the cross up to Golgotha (with some
help) and was crucified.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts use Hebrew time for their reckoning. John
uses Roman time. Another example of this is in John 18:28 -- early
morning refers to the fourth Roman watch, which was 3 a.m. to 6 a.m.
--MAW

77. The two thieves reviled Christ [Matt 27:44 / Mark 15:32]
Only one of the thieves reviled Christ [Luke 23:39,40]

Did both or only one of the thieves revile Jesus?

Matt. 27:44 and Mark 15:32 say they both did.

Luke 23:39-40 says that the one rebuked the other for his blasphemy.

Probably at first they both did and then one of them repented, and, while
the other was still reviling, rebuked him and asked the Lord to remember
him. So he was saved. Luke doesn't say that the rebuking one had not at
first been also reviling. It merely records a segment of the conversation.
--MAW

(Once again, we see another "contradiction" which presumes exhaustive

accounts --MB)

78. Satan entered into Judas while at supper [John 13:27]

Satan entered into him before the supper [Luke 22:3,4,7]

When did Satan enter Judas? John 13:27 Right after eating the morsel
offered to him by Jesus. Luke 22:3,4,7 Satan also entered Judas before
that. It could be he kept entering Judas. Just like the evil spirit that kept
coming upon King Saul. --MAW

(Indeed, are we to believe that once Satan enters someone, he remains

there for the rest of the natural life of a person??? --MB)

79. Judas committed suicide by hanging [Matt 27:5]

Judas did not hang himself, but died another way [Acts 1:18]

Matt 27:5 states that Judas "threw the pieces of silver....and he went
away and hanged himself."

Acts 1:18 states, "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and
all his bowels gushed out."

It's rather easy to reconcile these:

1. First, Judas tried to kill himself by hanging himself. And this is not
always a successful way. Maybe he tried, and failed (as have many others
who have tried to commit suicide by hanging). Then after some time, he
threw himself off a cliff and fell upon some jagged rocks. Keep in mind
that it is not uncommon for people who commit suicide to have tried it
before.

2. Judas could have tied a rope to a tree branch that extended over a cliff
(after all, you have to get some space between your feet and the ground
to hang yourself). In this situation, the rope/branch could have broke
before or after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on
some jagged rocks.

Certainly, these explanations are plausible, thus a contradiction has not

been established. More from Frank Decenso below.

One of my favorites. My explanation for atheists and critics...

MAT 27:5-8 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and
departed, and went and hanged himself. But the chief priests took the
silver pieces and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury,
because they are the price of blood." And they consulted together and
bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that
field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

First of all, notice that the text does not say that Judas died as a result of
hanging. All it says is that he "went and hanged himself." Luke however,
in Acts, tells us that "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle
and all his entrails gushed out." This is a pretty clear indication (along
with the other details given in Acts - Peter's speech, the need to pick a
new apostle, etc.) that at least after Judas' fall, he was dead. So the
whole concept that Matthew and Luke both recount Judas' death is highly
probable, but not clear cut. Therefore, if I were to take a radical
exegetical approach here, I could invalidate your alleged contradiction
that there are two different accounts of how Judas died.

Notice verse 5."Then he...went and hanged himself." Matthew does not
say Judas died, does it? Should we assume he died as a result of the
hanging?

What does Acts say? ACT 1:18 (Now this man purchased a field with the
wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and
all his entrails gushed out.
ACT 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place
be desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.'

Here we may have a graphic explanation of Judas' death. Of course,

maybe someone can find some medical source somewhere that discusses
the possibility of one having their entrails gush out after being burst
open in the middle, and still survive. :)

So, my line of reasoning to dispel the contradiction myth re: the "two"
accounts of Judas' death is this. Matthew doesn't necessarily explain
how Judas died; he does say Judas "hanged himself", but he didn't
specifically say Judas died in the hanging incident. However, Acts seems
to show us his graphic demise. Therefore, there is no contradiction
between Matthew and Acts re: Judas' death.

We do know from Matthew that he did hang himself and Acts probably
records his death. It is possible and plausible that he fell from the
hanging and hit some rocks, thereby bursting open. However, Matthew
did not say Judas died as a result of the hanging, did he? Most scholars
believe he probably did, but....

One atheist I debated along these lines said... the Greek word "apagchw"
(ie: hang oneself) is translated as a successful hanging. I replied, No you
can't only conclude this, although...this was a highly probable outcome.
But Matthew does not state death as being a result. The Greek word is
APAGCHO. Matthew 27:5 is it's only occurrence in the New Testament. In
the LXX (the Greek translation of the OT used at the time of Jesus), it's
only used in 2 Samuel 17:23 : "Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice
was not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his
house, to his city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged
himself, and died; and he was buried in his father's tomb." Notice that
not only is it stated that Ahithophel "hanged himself" [Gr. LXX,
APAGCHO], but it explicitly adds, "and died". Here we have no doubt of
the result. In Matthew, we are not explicitly told Judas died. Also, there is
nothing in the Greek to suggest success or failure. It simply means "hang
oneself". --Frank

80. The potter's field was purchased by Judas [Acts 1:18]

The potter's field was purchased by the Chief Priests [Matt 27:6,7]
Perhaps here, the following maxim holds -- "He who does a thing by
another, does it himself." That is, yes it was the chief priests who actually
bought the field, but Judas had furnished the occasion for its purchase.
Thus, the verse in Acts could be employing a figure of speech where we
attribute to the man himself any act which he has directly or indirectly
procured to be done. After all, we attribute the "Clinton health care plan"
to Bill Clinton, when in reality, it is a plan devised by others associated
with Bill Clinton.

Lindemann:
Answers to Biblical Contradictions, 81-90

81. There was but one woman who came to the sepulchre

"Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary
Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed
from the entrance." [John 20:1]
There were two women who came to the sepulchre

"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene
and the other Mary went to the other tomb." [Matt 28:1]

This is a case where a contradiction is read into the account. John does
not report that ONLY Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. Failing to
mention someone does not necessarily mean that no one else was
present. In fact, had the critics read further, they would have seen that
Mary was not alone:
"So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one
Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we
don't know where they put him!" [Jn 20:2]

If Mary was alone, then who is WE? Clearly more than one person went
with Mary. John just doesn't mention them.

82. There were three women who came to the sepulchre [Mark 16:1]

There were more than three women who came to the sepulchre [Luke
24:10]

Again, the same reasoning applies. See my previous story about going
for a ride in the car. :)

83. It was at sunrise when they came to the sepulchre

"Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on
their way to the tomb." [Mark 16:2]

It was some time before sunrise when they came

"Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary
Magdalene went to the tomb." [John 20:1]

I see no contradiction. Mary could have left a little earlier than the
others. Or they could have left while it was still dark and the sun began to
rise while they were on their way. I've worked my share of nightshifts to
know that one can leave the job while it is still dark, and get home after
the sun has risen!

84. There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulchre, and they
were standing up [Luke 24:4]

There was but one angel seen, and he was sitting down [Matt 28:2,5]

It is quite possible that much of the confusion about these trivial facts
stems from the fact that many women went to the tomb that morning
(Luke 24:10). It's possible, at the very least, that a group of women came
to the tomb, and saw that the stone had been rolled away. Some women
went inside, but the more timid remained outside. Those inside saw the
vision of the two angels, while those outside saw the angel on the stone.

Also, in response to the manner in which this supposed contradiction is

presented, I would point out that a.) Matthew does not say there was
"but one angel," he simply focuses on the angel who moved the stone;
b.) the Greek word in Luke rendered "stood near" also means, "to come
near, to appear to." In Luke 2:9 and Acts 12:7 it is translated as "came
upon." Thus, Luke may simply have said that angels suddenly appeared
to them without reference to posture. Strictly speaking, one would be
hard pressed to establish a contradiction in terms of numbers or posture
even without my possible explanation.

85. There were two angels seen within the sepulchre [John 20:11,12]

There was but one angel seen within the sepulchre [Mark 16:5]

These are not the same incidents. John's account is particular to Mary
after she followed Peter and John back to the tomb, which was later than
the account cited in Mark.

Now, I myself once stumbled upon a "better" contradiction. When Mary

runs back, she is scared and thinks that the body has been stolen. Then
she returns to the tomb and weeps. Now isn't this odd given that she
supposedly heard the angels say that "He is risen"? Why so much
despair after that miraculous experience? It doesn't seem to add up. Of
course it is possible that she had not fully comprehended what occurred,
as one has to be careful in expecting people to respond coherently. But I
think the answer is more clear if we consider John's account.

John notes that she went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been
removed from the entrance. "So she came running to Simon Peter and
the other disciple, the one Jesus loved and said, "They have taken the
Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they put him". (John
20:1-2). Then Peter and John ran to the tomb only to find the empty
burial wrappings. Mary must then have followed them, but when she got
there, they had gone, so she stood there crying, worried that the body of
Jesus had been stolen. Then two angels appeared to her, and then the
risen Jesus did. In short, the reason she was in despair is probably
because she didn't go into the tomb with the other women. As they
approached the tomb, they saw it open, and probably began to worry
amongst themselves that grave robbers came and stole the body before
they could anoint it. At this realization, Mary probably left the group and
bolted back to tell the others.

86. Christ was to be three days and three nights in the grave [Matt
12:40]

Christ was but two days and two nights in the grave [Mark
15:25,42,44,45,46; 16:9]

According to Haley, Orientals reckon any part of a day as a whole day.

Thus, one whole and two parts of a day, along with two nights, would be
popularly styled as "three days and three nights." Such usage is seen
elsewhere in Scripture.

For more detail see Day of Crucifixion and Resurrection of our Lord

87. Holy Spirit bestowed at Pentecost [Acts 1:8,5]

Holy Spirit bestowed before Pentecost [John 20:22]

Two aspects of the Spirit. In John 20:22 He was breathed into the
disciples. In Acts 1:5,8 He was poured out upon them.

That's like in 1 Cor 12:13, which says that we were baptized in one Spirit
and also given to drink one Spirit. One is inward and the other is upon us
outwardly. --MAW

I agree. It's certainly possible that in John, the disciples became indwelt
with the Holy Spirit, and in Acts they became empowered by the Holy
Spirit.

88. The disciples were commanded immediately after the resurrection to

go into Galilee [Matt 28:10]

The disciples were commanded immediately after the resurrection to go

tarry at Jerusalem [Luke 24:49]

According to Haley: "The command tarry ye in Jerusalem," etc., means

simply, "Make Jerusalem your head-quarters. Do not leave it to begin
your work, until ye be endued," etc. This injunction would not preclude a
brief excursion to Galilee. Besides, the command may not have been
given until after the visit to Galilee."

Indeed, keep in mind that Jesus appeared to the disciples several times
over a period of many days. The Gospel's simple give us "snapshots" of
some of these events and certainly Matthew's account is a brief synopsis.

89. Jesus first appeared to the eleven disciples in a room at Jerusalem

[Luke 24:33,36,37 / John 20:19]

Jesus first appeared to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee [Matt

28:16,17]

Matthew's account does not say that this was Jesus' first appearance. It
is certainly possible that Matthew simply passes over the earlier
appearances and focuses on the call to go into Galilee. In fact, notice
how Matthew's account is not exhaustive. In 28:16, he mentions that
Jesus had indicated what mountain in Galilee the disciples were to go to,
yet he does not mention this when he quotes Jesus in verse 10.

90. Christ ascended from Mount Olive [Acts 1:9,12]

Christ ascended from Bethany [Luke 24:50,51]

You know one is grasping when they cite the same author writing about
the same thing as a contradiction. :) Bethany is on the eastern slope of
Mount Olivet. Anyone coming back from there and returning to Jerusalem
would have to pass over the mountain, and thus return from Mount
Olivet. You would think that someone who proposes a geographical
contradiction would look at a map.

Lindemann:
Answers to Biblical Contradictions, 91-100

91. Paul's attendants heard the miraculous voice, and stood speechless
[Acts 9:7]

Paul's attendants heard not the voice and were prostrate [Acts 26:14]

Acts 26:14 And when they had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice
saying to me...

Acts 9:7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard
the sound but did not see anyone.

While we are at it, let's add the other account...

Acts 22:9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the
voice of him who was speaking to me.

Obviously, according to the NIV translation, there is no contradiction, as

you can hear a sound, but not the recognize it as the voice of one
speaking. So is this translation justified? Sure. The original Greek makes
a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise and hearing a voice as
a thought-conveying message. Haley notes "The Greek "akouo", like our
word "hear", has two distinct meanings, to perceive sound, and to
understand". This distinction makes sense also in light of the context.
Recall the differing levels of perception. While the men heard an
unintelligible sound and saw a light, Paul heard the voice and saw the
person speaking. In fact, this type of distinction occurs in another place:

"Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it
again". The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered;
others said an angel had spoken to him" [John 12:28-29]. Here is a
clear-cut example where a voice speaks, but is heard by some as an
unintelligible sound.

As for the stance of Paul's companions, Haley notes "the word rendered
'stood' also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. Hence, the sense
may be, not that they stood erect, but that they were rendered
motionless, or fixed to the spot, by overpowering fear". It is also entirely
plausible that when they first saw the great light, they "hit the dirt", then
they could have got up off the ground and stood there motionless.

The problem with the skeptic's approach is that it assumes these

accounts are exhaustive, step by step, accounts where each detail is
conveyed. They are not. It's not as if the author of Acts is saying "this is
how it happened" three separate times. The author does this once, and
the other two times he relays Paul speaking about it in two different
contexts. Now given that the author wasn't on the road to Damascus, and
given that Paul was speaking from memory, and given that none of these
are meant to be some exhaustive, detailed, point by point description, it
is indeed wise to fit them all together. Furthermore, the account in Acts
26 relays a speech that Paul gave to King Agrippa which was only a
synopsis. Acts 26 simply relays the manner in which Paul chose to
convey his points.

92. Abraham departed to go into Canaan [Gen 12:5]

Abraham went not knowing where [Heb 11:8]

In Gen 12:1 God simply says to leave "your country...to the land I will
show you." The teaching in Hebrews could simply mean that Abraham did
not know where he was going in the sense of not knowing where this
promised land was. Thus, he set out for Canaan. And it was once he was
in Canaan that God showed him that this was the promised land (Gen
12:7).

Look at it this way. God appears to Bob and tells him to leave his home
because He has a mission for Bob. So Bob packs up, and not knowing
where/what the mission is, and stops at an old friends house for a few
days. Then God appears to Bob and instructs him of a mission which
involves his friend. Thus, in one sense Bob sets out to partake of a
mission with his friend, but in another sense, he sets out to his friends
house not knowing what/where the mission is.
93. Abraham had two sons [Gal 4:22]

Abraham had but one son [Heb 11:17]

Abram had one genuine son of his wife Sarah who could be the fulfillment
of God's promise regarding his seed. He had another son by the
maidservant Hagar and several others later by a second wife, but in his
heart Isaac was his only son. This is also why he cut off all the others
from inheritance. Notice the wording of Heb. 11:17 indicates that even
though he had other sons, yet to him it was as if he were offering up his
only begotten to whom the promise was made. --MAW

Besides, does anyone really believe that the writer of Hebrews was
unaware of some well-known teachings about Abraham or had not read
Genesis? Also, the writer of Hebrews is obviously screening out stuff to
focus on topics related to faith. Hagar's son was not the product of faith,
and thus not worthy of mention in this context.

94. Keturah was Abraham's wife [Gen 25:1]

Keturah was Abraham's concubine [1 Chron 1:32]

MaryAnna suggests that Keturah could have been Abraham's concubine

who at some point became his wife. The point behind both verses is not
about Keturah, but about her children. The author of Genesis may have
been less exact and referred to these children as those of Abraham's wife
(if Bob had a child with Jill before being married, then got married to Jill,
we would refer to the child as being of Bob's wife), while the author of 1
Chron (who is busy being exact in documenting genealogies) may have
been more exact and noted that such children were born while Keturah
was still the concubine of Abraham.

95. Abraham begat a son when he was a hundred years old, by the
interposition of Providence [Gen 21:2 / Rom 4:19 / Heb 11:12]

Abraham begat six children more after he was a hundred years old
without any interposition of providence [Gen 25:1,2]

The problem was not with Abraham's infertility but with Sarah's inability
to conceive. This was remedied only once by divine intervention.
Abraham had one son before and several after, not with Sarah, all without
divine intervention.--MAW
I'd also add that there is no certain reason for believing the births
described in Gen 25:1,2 came after the birth of Isaac. Abraham could
have had these children with Keturah much earlier. Verses 1,2 could
simply be saying that Keturah has reunited with Abraham after Sarah's
death, and they became married. Then it lists the children that they had
had earlier on (perhaps while living in Ur).

96. Jacob bought a sepulchre from Hamor [Josh 24:32]

Abraham bought it of Hamor [Acts 7:16]

One possible explanation is that Abraham bought the field whereas Jacob
went back and specifically bought the tomb. Compare with Gen 33:19
and Gen 23:10-20. Josh 24:32 and Acts 7:16 were based on those
verses. --MAW

97. God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed forever
[Gen 13:14,15,17; 17:8]

Abraham and his seed never received the promised land [Acts 7:5 / Heb
11:9,13]

Here is a partial answer. God gave the land to Abraham and his seed. We
do see that the land was eventually possessed by the children of Israel
(Abraham's grandson). Yet, in Acts, God did not give Abraham
(personally) an inheritance on the land. True. But Abraham died in faith,
even though he had not obtained the title deed to the property to pass
on to his children. But eventually his descendents did get the land.

To answer this even further (not for the benefit of any skeptics but just
because I can't resist pointing out that this point is much deeper than
just who occupies the land) -- we have to look at Galatians 3:14 which
tells us what the real blessing of Abraham is. Then the seed of Abraham
is identified in verse 16. Then compare with Hebrews 11:39-40 and
12:1-2. This is what Hebrews means when it says they did not receive the
promises, according to the context.

Yes, of course the land was the literal land and the seed was the literal
descendents of Abraham and yes they did get their inheritance and now
they are also on it again (part of it). At the same time, Galatians and
Hebrews are also true. --MAW
98. Goliath was slain by Elhanan [2 Sam 21:19] note: was changed in
translation to be correct -- original manuscript was incorrect.

The brother of Goliath was slain by Elhanan [1 Chron 20:5]

As conceded, the verse in 2 Sam was probably due to a copyist's

mistake.

99. Ahaziah began to reign in the twelfth year of Joram [2 Kings 8:25]

Ahaziah began to reign in the eleventh year of Joram [2 Kings 9:29]

Note that Ahaziah is the son of Joram. It's possible that on account of
Joram's sickness [2 Chron 21:18,19] that Ahaziah became associated
with him in the eleventh year of Joram's rule, but then began to rule
alone by the twelth year.

100. Michal had no child [2 Sam 6:23]

Michal had five children [2 Sam 21:8]

In this case, I'll quote John Baskette's reply previously posted.

What does 2 Sam. 21:8-9 say?

"But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom
she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of
Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of
Barzillai the Meholathite: And he delivered them into the hands of the
Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they
fell [all] seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in
the first [days], in the beginning of barley harvest."

This would appear to be a real contradiction except for the phrase

"whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai."

The phrasing tells you that these sons are not Michal's in the normal
sense of the term because she did not "bear" these children. I.E. these
sons are adopted children.

Lindemann:
Answers to Biblical Contradictions, 101-110
101. David was tempted by the Lord to number Israel [2 Sam 24:1]

David was tempted by Satan to number the people [1 Chron 21:1]

There are three possible responses here:

(1) Biblical writers often dismissed secondary causes and attributed all
things that happened to God, since He is over all things. Thus, God is did
not tempt David, He allowed Satan to influence him.

(2) Arthur Hervey believes 2 Sam 24:1 is better translated as, "For one
moved David against them." In this case, the numbering of the people
was the cause of God's anger, not the result. After all, without this
interpretation, it is not clear why God was angry with Israel.

(3) The verse in 1 Chron translated as "satan" could also be translated

as "adversary." Strictly speaking, in this situation, God was Israel's
adversary.

102. The number of fighting men of Isreal was 800,000; and of Judah
500,000 [2 Sam 24:9]

The number of fighting men of Isreal was 1,100,000; and of Judah

470,000 [1 Chron 21:5]

The account in 1 Chron twice speaks of "all the people" and "all Israel."
The account in 2 Sam does not. Thus, it is possible that the account in 1
Chron is more inclusive, while 2 Sam only deals with the standing army.

103. David sinned in numbering the people [2 Sam 24:10]

David never sinned, except in the matter of Uriah [1 Kings 15:5]

In 1 Kings, it is important to note that David is being compared to Abijah.

Thus, comparatively speaking, David did not fail to keep God's commands
(yet, a comparative approach could not hide the sins associated with
Uriah). Also note, that 1 Kings did not say that David "never sinned." It
said that he did what was right in the eyes of God and had not failed to
keep any of God's commands. If God commanded David to number the
people, there is no contradiction, now is there? Or, one could say that
given David's repentent heart, from God's perspective, he did not sin (see
Psalm 51:2).

104. One of the penalties of David's sin was seven years of famine [2
Sam 24:13]

It was not seven years, but three years of famine [1 Chron 21:11,12]

This could definitely be a copyist's error.

105. David took seven hundred horsemen [2 Sam 8:4]

David took seven thousand horsemen [1 Chron 18:4]

This could be another copyist's error.

106. David bought a threshing floor for fifty sheckels of silver [2 Sam
24:24]

David bought the threshing floor for six hundred shekels of gold [1 Chron
21:25]

"So David paid Araunah six hundred shekels for the site." -- 1 Chron

"So David bought the threshing floor and oxen for 50 shekels." -- 2 Sam

It could be that David paid 50 shekels for the oxen, and the amount paid
for the threshing floor is not indicated in 2 Sam. This is not implausible
given that the account in 1 Chron speaks of the oxen, wood, and wheat,
yet only mentions David paying for "the site."

107. David's throne was to endure forever [Ps 89:35-37]

David's throne was cast down [Ps 89:44]

The throne of the seed of David (referring to Christ) will indeed endure
forever. Psalms 89:44 is poetry saying that David's throne was cast
down.. indeed it never was, although it was threatened for a time by
David's son Absalom. Poetry cannot always be taken literally; also, the
promise in 2 Sam. 7 regarding the eternal throne is not referring to
David. --MAW

This is a poem, and as such, it is dangerous to take it too literally. The

writer of the psalm is lamenting what he perceives as a time when God
has abandoned His people (after spending most of the psalm recounting
all of God's promises and great works). Did God truly abandon His
people? No. But from this writer's perspective, he appeared to. Thus, this
psalm captures and communicates the angst that is humanity's lot.

I think it silly to use a poem to establish a contradiction. For example, in

Ps 139:13, David says he is knit in his mother's womb. Two verses later,
he says he's woven together in the depths of the earth. Is David so stupid
that he contradicts himself in a span of two sentences? Or is the critic so
"stupid" that he/she insists on precise and very literal meanings of words
used in poetry?

108. Christ is equal with God [John 10:30 / Phil 2:5]

Christ is not equal with God [John 14:28 / Matt 24:36]

A few of the "contradictions" are based on a lack of understanding of the

Trinity. This is one of them. In His person, Christ is equal with God
essentially. Economically, for the accomplishment of His plan, Christ took
on humanity, forsaking His equality with God temporarily in order to set a
good pattern of submission and to pass through death for the
redemption of man and the destruction of the devil and to bring His life
to all men. Now He has been seated at the right hand of the majesty on
high, with all things subjected under His feet. --MAW

I agree. These teachings involve a discussion of both the Trinity and the
Incarnation (which is beyond the scope of this reply). Suffice it to say
that it is quite possible that such doctrines could be true, thus these
verses would be a case of both/and, rather than a contradiction.

109. Jesus was all-powerful [Matt 28:18 / John 3:35]

Jesus was not all-powerful [Mark 6:5]

Matt. 28:18 is after the resurrection, after all power was given to Him by
the Father. John 3:35 says that the Father has given all into His hand..
could be referring to all the believers, as in other verses in John...

Mark 6:5 shows us that Jesus was limited by man's unbelief.

This is a recurring theme in the Bible, that although God is all-powerful,

He chooses to limit Himself to man; that is, He chooses to wait for man's
co-operation. This explains why the Bible calls His believers His fellow
workers. God doesn't need man to work together with Him, yet this is His
chosen means of operation. If this is how He chooses to work, this
explains how He is all-powerful and yet "could not do many works of
power there because of their unbelief." --MAW

110. The law was superseded by the Christian dispensation [Luke 16:16
/ Eph 2:15 / Rom 7:6]

The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation [Matt

5:17-19]

Luke 16:16 tells us that the law and the prophets were until John. This is
referring to the Old Testament, which indeed lasted until John.

Ephesians 2:15 tells us that Christ in His flesh on the cross abolished the
law of the commandments in ordinances. This is not referring to the
moral law, but the dietary regulations, the Sabbath, the feast days, and
other practices which set the Jews apart from the Gentiles.

Rom. 7:6 says we have been delivered from the law. This is talking about
the slavery to the law, i.e. trying to keep the law in our flesh rather than
allowing the inner divine life to spontaneously be expressed in a daily
walk that is much higher than that mandated by the law.

Matt. 5:17-19 shows us that Christ did not destroy the moral law, but
rather fulfilled it. He fulfilled it three ways:

(1) He kept the law Himself.

(2) He fulfilled the requirement of the death penalty for us.
(3) He uplifted the law by instituting the higher law

(meant to be kept not by human effort but by His life in the believers.)
--MAW

To this I would also add Paul's teaching in Galatians. That is, the law is a
tutor which brings us to Christ. When a person comes to Christ, the
purpose of the law has been fulfilled.

Lindemann:
Answers to Biblical Contradictions, 111-120
111. Christ's mission was peace [Luke 2:13,14]

Christ's mission was not peace [Matt 10:34]

Luke 2:14 says, "peace among men with whom he is pleased."

Mt. 10:34 says, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

The first verse could very well mean that peace exists among those with
whom God is pleased, i.e., the fellowship of believers. Yet such believers
are like a light among the darkness, and men prefer the darkness. Thus,
the fellowship of believers, while full of peace, incurs the wrath of the
nonbelievers.

One only need consider that in some nations Christians peacefully gather,
yet are persecuted, to see how easy this "contradiction" is resolved.

112. Christ received not testimony from man [John 5:33,34]

Christ did receive testimony from man [John 15:27]

I see it as follows: In John 5:34, Jesus claims that the witness he receives
comes not from men. If we read Luke 1:76, we see that John is to be a
prophet, one who speaks for God. Thus, John's witness, as a prophet, is
really God's witness. In other words, Jesus is not rejecting John's
witness; he is clarifying it. (Also, this verse is particular to the witness for
Jesus early in his ministry.) These verse do not necessarily teach that
Jesus does not receive witness from men.

The verse in John 15 speaks of a different situation. This is after Jesus'

crucifixion and the indwelling of the Spirit.

113. Christ's witness of himself is true [John 8:18,14]

Christ's witness of himself is not true [John 5:31]

This is a bogus "contradiction." Jesus is not saying His witness of Himself

is untrue. He is pointing out that if He alone bore witness of Himself, it
would be untrue. Since Jesus did not bear witness of Himself alone, His
witness of Himself is not untrue.

MaryAnna adds: Was Christ's witness of Himself true? John 8:18 and 14
is talking about the legal stipulation in the Old Testament that a person
giving testimony for himself was not to believe unless he had at least one
other witness. John 5:31 is talking about the verity of Christ as a witness.
Of course, in the sense of verity, Christ's witness is indeed true. --MAW

114. Christ laid down his life for his friends [John 15:13 / John 10:11]

Christ laid down his life for his enemies [Rom 5:10]

Did Christ lay down His life for His friends or His enemies?

Both. The friends mentioned in John 15:13 and John 10:11 are His
disciples. The enemies mentioned in Rom. 5:10 were all of us. He could
easily die for both His enemies and His friends. This could be answered
more completely, but even this simple answer shows that these two
verses are not contradictory. --MAW

115. It was lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death [John 19:7]

It was not lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death [John 18:31]

Was it lawful for the Jews to put Jesus to death?

By Jewish law, as stated in the Old Testament, yes. (John 19:7). But by
the law of the occupying Romans at the time of Jesus' walk on earth, it
was expressly forbidden for the Jews to put anyone to death on their own
without going through the proper Roman legal channels and using the
Roman means of execution (John 18:31). --MAW

116. Children are punished for the sins of the parents [Ex 20:5]

Children are not punished for the sins of the parents [Ezek 18:20]

Are children punished for the sins of the parents?

Exod. 20:5 tells us that God is to be feared, as He has the ability to visit
the sins of the fathers on the children.

Ezek. 18:20 tells us this will not happen if the children repent and turn
away from the ways of their fathers. Not a contradiction. --MAW

117. Man is justified by faith alone [Rom 3:20 / Gal 2:16 / Gal 3:11,12 /
Rom 4:2]

Man is not justified by faith alone [James 2:21,24 / Rom 2:13]

Romans 3:20 man is justified by faith, and not works of law. Gal. 2:16
same. (cf. Gal. 3:11, 12; Rom. 3:28ff).

If we want to be justified, we have to receive the divine life (2 Peter 1:4;

Romans 5:5; chapter 8). Otherwise, no matter how many good works we
do, we can never be justified in the sight of God.

However, after we receive the divine life of God, this will issue in a kind of
living which will manifest our justification (James 2:21, 24; Rom. 2:6-13).

James is making the point that faith without works is dead. Certainly it is
a dead faith if it has no effect on our living. The living is the evidence that
our faith is effective and that we have indeed been justified.

Romans is talking about the law and says that the doers of the law shall
be justified. In the context he is making the point that no one can be
justified by works without faith because it is impossible to keep the law.
--MAW

I agree. It's not that works are necessary additions to faith. Instead, it's
that a living faith gives rise to good works. Thus, we have another
both/and situation. It's interesting that the Bible portrays our
relationship to God as a marriage. A loving marriage is one in which both
faith and acts converge toward the same end (Ephesian 5:22ff).

118. It is impossible to fall from grace [John 10:28 / Rom 8:38,39]

It is possible to fall from grace [Ezek 18:24 / Heb 6:4-6 / 2 Pet 2:20,21]

John 10:28 says the believers, assuming they remain believers, shall by
no means perish forever.

Romans 8:38, 39 says nothing can separate us from the love of God.

So these two verses tell us we don't have to worry about our eternal
destiny, assuming we peservere by God's grace.

Ezek. 18:24 is an Old Testament verse. Simply says a righteous man can
turn to unrighteousness and become unfaithful, and the soul [person or
life] who sins shall die (cf. Romans 6:23; Ezek 18:4).

Hebrews 6:4-6 -- tells us salvation is once for all and cannot be renewed.
And if we fall away, we have only to repent and turn back to the Lord.
Also, the Jewish sacrifices of the Old Testament are no longer valid and
are actually an insult to the Lord who died for us. (Some Christians
indeed interpret Hebrews 6 to say that if you are saved you can lose your
salvation -- so there is dispute among Protestants on the interpretation).

2 Pet. 2:20-21 -- The last state is worse than the first. Some believers
"fall away from grace" in this age and suffer for it. This doesn't mean that
their eternal destiny changes. They will still be with the Lord for eternity,
but they will suffer first and be more miserable than before they believed
in the Lord. This suffering is only temporary. --MAW

MaryAnna's explanations might provoke disagreement among some

Christians, but recall that in the context of this reply, it need only be
possible that she is correct. If she is, the contradictions are easily
resolved.

119. No man is without sin [1 Kings 8:46 / Prov 20:9 / Eccl 7:20 / Rom
3:10]

Christians are sinless [1 John 3: 9,6,8]

Of course no man is without sin, in himself. 1 John 3:6-9 does not say
that Christians are without sin. It says that everything that has been
begotten of God does not practice sin. The word "practice sin" refers to a
habitual life of sin. It does not mean that Christians never do anything
sinful. A believer who truly has an inner knowing of the Lord will not have
the practice of habitual sin in his living. --MAW

120. There is to be a resurrection of the dead [1 Cor 15:52 / Rev

20:12,13 / Luke 20:37 / 1 Cor 15:16]

There is to be no resurrection of the dead [Job 7:9-10 / Eccl 9:5 / Is

26:14]

In this life we have nothing to fear from the dead; they will not come back
to resume their former lives as if they had not died. They will stay resting
in their graves, silent and unable to do anything further to affect their
eternal destiny. They have no power to rise again. 1 Cor. 15:52; Rev.
20:12-13; Luke 20:37; 1 Cor. 15:16

Of course, at the Lord's return there will be a resurrection of all the dead
to judgment. Then some of them will pass on to eternal fire and others
will receive a reward (John 5:28-29). This is not to resume their former
lives. Hence this is not a contradiction. --MAW

Another way of saying it is as follows: The verses in Isaiah may be

teaching that the dead do not normally rise. That is, they don't rise in of
themselves, but they will be raised at a later date. Also, there is a definite
comparative theme - where the dead are forgotten, God is never
forgotten. The verses in Eccl and Job also have a temporal/worldly
perspective. That is, while the living experience rewards, know things
about each other, and are remembered by each other, this is not the case
with the dead. One could also resolve these by claiming as a possibility
that the dead "sleep" until they are raised.

For more detail see http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num10.htm

Navigacija

[0] Indeks poruka

[#] Sledeća strana

[*] Prethodna strana