Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Studying O.T. is creating problems. | Genesis | FreeThinker | 84806 | ||
Sorry, I didn’t want to post anymore until I read the book, but… ”Concerning Gen. 6 and 7, this is one of those examples where I think that people hold Scripture to an unfair and illogical standard.” God inspires it so I would think that lends itself to be held to a higher standard. “If one account lists a certain amount of detail and then a later account gives greater, but not contradictory detail, where is the problem?” Matthew 27 3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. 5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. 6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. 7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. While in Acts 1 16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. One states that the priest bought the field and the other states that Judas bought the field. There are several more seemingly contradicting stories in the Bible and they are a stumbling block for me. ”No historical narrative can possibly give every possible detail of an event. Historians must pick and choose how much and what details to include. This is the case in Gen. 6. For some reason unknown to us, Moses only mentions the pairs in chapter six, but in chapter seven he expands the detail and includes the references to the clean and unclean.” There are studies that show that Moses didn’t write all that he was accredited with. They suggest that there were many authors. |
||||||
2 | Studying O.T. is creating problems. | Genesis | Morant61 | 84840 | ||
Greetings Thinker! Let's please stick to one example before we move on to another! :-) There are those among liberal scholars who believe that many people wrote the first five books of the Bible. However, there is no documentary evidence of such. What is mean is this - there aren't any copies of the Pentateuch which show evidences of one layer missing and then being added later. All of the manuscripts contain exactly the same text throughout. So, I don't put any stock into this theory. It is based on PURE speculation and nothing else. Someone proposes that there must have been different authors because different words are used for God, as if an author is incapable of varying his vocabulary. ;-) But, back to Gen. 6 and 7. Where is the problem when the first account gives the basics (most of the animals were in fact in pairs) and then the second account gives greater detail and brings out the fact that some animals were taken in sevens? Why is this a problem? Now, concerning Judas allow me to ask you this question. Under what circumstances would a person fall headlong in a field and burst asunder so that one's bowels fall out? The general understanding of this passage is again that varying details are given. The first passage mentions that he hung himself and gives no more information. The second account lists what most have happened afterwards to his body. Like most authors, Luke probably wanted to add detail which was not included in the earlier accounts that there might be greater detail avaliable. Again, I believe that people hold Scripture to an unfair and illogical standard, to which they do not hold any other historical document. The Bible is not primarily a history, but even if it were a strict historical record, there would still be varying levels of specificity in the various accounts. We don't say that modern historical works are in error for carefully selecting which and how much detail they want to include. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Studying O.T. is creating problems. | Genesis | Hank | 84864 | ||
Good post, Tim. But that's come to be expected of you, friend. :-) In regard to your statement of belief that people tend to be inclined to hold Scripture to an unrealisticly high standard, I agree fully and submit that this tendency is a very natural one for fallen man. The sin nature of fallen man is at enmity with God. Man is ever looking for ways ignore God's commands and to escape accountability to anyone outside himself. Unredeemed man is a slave to sin and controlled by the prince of this world (none other than Satan himself), so it is no wonder that man in such a predicament would make every attempt to poke holes in Scripture and take great delight in it. Down through the ages many have made all-out efforts to make the Bible look foolish. While the bones of these 'free thinkers' rot in the grave, the word of our Lord still stands and will stand forever. --Hank | ||||||
4 | Studying O.T. is creating problems. | Genesis | Morant61 | 84904 | ||
Greetings Hank! Thank you! ;-) It has long amazed me how people will throw the charge around that Scripture contradicts itself, when they don't even really understand the word 'contradiction' itself. Something cannot be both A and not A at the same time. This would be a contradiction. However, something can be A and A and B at the same time. This is not a contradiction. In all of my years of dealing with supposed contradictions and errors in Scripture, I have found that the vast majority are readily answered with just a little common sense. There are only one or two 'errors' that I have found which have no easy answer. In these rare cases, the text is most likely built upon an ancient textual error. One of my favorites was someone who told me that the Bible was in error because the text said that Jesus was riding on a donkey, but then it says that 'He sat on them'. :-) What the gentleman didn't realize is that the pronoun 'them' was in reference to the plural word 'clothes' or 'cloaks' which were thrown over the donkey! ;-) So many try so hard to discount Scripture! :-( Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||