Bible Contradictions?

It’s been a while since I’ve found a link to or a list of supposed Bible contradictions online so I thought they had gone out of style since they tend to be logical boobie traps.  When I was young in the faith I would copy these “contradictions” down and go through the Bible testing the validity of the claim, often times they can be challenging, especially to a new believer.  With time and patience you will soon find the Bible to be trustworthy and without the supposed contradictions.  Part of the problem is the way in which we approach the Bible, all of us approach it with a group of presupposed ideas, things we believe before ever reading the Bible.  We deceive ourselves when we have been convinced that we can remain neutral and investigate the scriptures, or anything for that matter, without holding any preconceived ideas before doing so.  This affects our method of study as well.

I’ve found that many of the supposed contradictions on these lists can be removed by understanding what a contradiction really is, that being, two contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true.  The example often sited by unbelievers is 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 were we find two accounts of David being provoked.  We read in 2 Samuel that God provoked David but in 1 Chronicles we read that it was Satan.  We must ask if these two accounts contradict each other?  Does one make the other logically impossible?  These verses are ripped from their context to create, at a glance, a contradiction.

Considering the context we can conclude that both are truth.  Rather then re-type up an answer I’ll post a section from Come Reason Ministries :

Now, let’s examine the passages in question. 1 Chronicles 21:1 states that, “Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.” Notice the idea behind this passage is the temptation of David. Satan was actively involved in David being moved to have a census. Further in the chapter, David admits this is a sin when he declares “I have sinned greatly, in that I have done this thing.(vs. 8)” So the context of the passage plainly demonstrates that the census was an act against God.

In 2 Samuel 24:1, though, we read this, “Now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel and it incited David against them to say, ‘Go number Israel and Judah.’ ” Notice the emphasis in this sentence is the anger of God. Though linguistically the sentences are very similar, we must understand the context and what the writers’ intents were as they penned these accounts. There would be no contradiction if BOTH statements are true ones.

We know that God will not tempt anyone(James 1:13). In fact He can keep us from temptation. We are taught to pray for such in Matthew 6:13. In fact, 1 Cor. 10:13 says, “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.” The statement that God doesn’t allow some types of temptations (those which you aren’t able to resist) shows that He is in control of what chances for sin you may have. In other words, God will place a barrier between Satan and the believer and only allow him certain access. Also implied in this is the idea that Satan and his minions do seek to make the believer fall.

To answer supposed contradictions can take time, especially when providing a context to the verses or chapters you are dealing with.  The skeptic will at times purposefully  ignore the clear context for their overriding presuppositions and this is extremely difficult to overcome.  For more information see links below :
Countering Bible Contradictions

Give Your Shirt Away

Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Trinity Foundation

Lectures on The Myth of Neutrality

Christian Worldview

In the Soul

The Doctrine of Revelation

The work of the Spirit in the heart is as indispensable as was the work of Christ on the Cross. The necessity for the Spirit’s inward and effective operations are from the darkness, depravity and spiritual emptiness of fallen human nature. He alone can discover to us our dire need of Christ, convict us of our lost and ruined condition, create within us a hatred and horror of sin, bring us to consent to Christ’s sceptre, and make us willing in the day of His power to take Christ’s yoke upon us. By nature we are totally averse to holiness, and from birth have been accustomed to doing evil only. It is impossible for us to take into the arms of our affection a holy Christ until the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus first takes hold of us. Moreover, there is a transcendency in spiritual things which far exceeds the highest flight of natural reason. Nature stands in need of grace in order for the heart to be rightly disposed to receive the things of God, and no human culture or education can effect that. A Gospel which comes to us from Heaven can only be savingly known by an inward revelation from Heaven. The Gospel is a revelation of Divine grace, such as had never entered the heart of man to conceive, still less is it capable of comprehending it—their Author must apply it to the heart. – A. W. Pink

The Invisible Hand

…every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

From Wiki:  In economics, the invisible hand, also known as the invisible hand of the market, the term economists use to describe the self-regulating nature of the marketplace, is a metaphor first coined by the economist Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments. For Smith, the invisible hand was created by the conjunction of the forces of self-interest, competition, and supply and demand, which he noted as being capable of allocating resources in society. This is the founding justification for the laissez-faire economic philosophy.

China turns to Adam Smith

 

 

“What is more unexpected is that it is China that has an appetite for the father of modern capitalism, while the West is rediscovering Marx.”  Telegraph.co.uk

 

Sola Scriptura Articles

Last Saturday I visited the ROM in Toronto to see the Dead Sea Scrolls.  A buddy of mine was going down so I hitched a ride and we discussed a wide range of topics and they got to me thinking about sola scriptura.  What follows are a few articles from the net that deal with sola scriptura and the defence of the doctrine.

A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura

“Roman Catholics present these very same arguments to argue in favor of Roman tradition, papal tradition! And then you turn around and find out that Eastern Orthodox polemicists use exactly the same arguments in favor of what they call their ‘Holy Tradition’ which is contrary to papal tradition. And so here you have two august Christian bodies (professedly Christian bodies) claiming the authority of tradition, and yet their authorities conflict with each other; their traditions conflict with each other.”

Surprised by What by Jake Magee

“Although there are various reasons that are offered to justify their conversions, I believe that the issue of what is authoritative is one of the most fundamental to consider.  For the Protestant, it is Scripture alone that stands as the rule of faith.  This doctrine is known as Sola Scriptura.   For Roman Catholics, Scripture alone is insufficient to aid the believer and needs the compliment of church tradition and the church magisterium.  It is also the opinion of many of the authors in Surprised By Truth that the issue of authority is paramount in the debate between Catholics and Protestants.”

Just Say No

“Among the various distinctives of Eastern theology, apophaticism is perhaps among the most compelling and distressing. It is compelling because it employs a principle familiar, even intrinsic, to special revelation, but distressing because it takes this principle out of its enscripturated and enculturated context. The employment of apophatic methodology within the Eastern theological tradition addresses once again the age old issue of the “knowability of God” as well as the ramifications for one’s approach to this issue.”

Triablogue: Ten objections to sola scriptura

“Over the years, Catholic apologetics has raised a number of objections to sola Scriptura. Let’s run through the major objections and rebut them one by one.”

Sola Scriptura! A Reformed Theology Resource

“Whenever tradition is elevated to such a high level of authority, it inevitably becomes detrimental to the authority of Scripture. Jesus made this very point when he confronted the Jewish leaders. He showed that in many cases their traditions actually nullified Scripture.”

How many differences are found between the Scrivener text and the Stephanus and Beza texts?

“There are approximately 190 differences between the Scrivener text and the Beza 1598. There are 283 differences between the Scrivener text and the Stephanus 1550. These differences are minor, and pale into insignificance when compared with the approximately 6,000 differences — many of which are quite substantial — between the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus.”

Judgment Seat of Christ – Leonard Ravenhill

“WHY DO YOU USE THE OLD KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE?”

from the pen of Don Fortner

This is a question I have addressed before on this broadcast; but it is a question I am frequently asked as I travel around the country. I have been asked several times, just recently, “Why do you still use the old King James version of the Bible?” I realize there are many who use other, more modern translations of Scripture. If the people I preach to used another translation, I would probably use the translation they used, if it were acceptable. (The only modern translation acceptable to me is the New King James Version.) However, I do prefer the King James, or Authorized Version for the following reasons:

1. All other translations are developed by comparing ancient manuscripts. If a passage is found in the oldest, best manuscripts, and in the majority of them, it is received. If not, it is deleted. THE KING JAMES VERSION IS A TRANSLATION BASED UPON THE RECEIVED TEXT. It is a translation, but not a comparative translation.

2. THE KING JAMES IS, IN MY OPINION, THE BEST, MOST ACCURATE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. Certainly, there are some passages that are translated more accurately in other versions. But on the whole, I think the Authorized Version is best.

3. THE KING JAMES IS THE MOST READABLE TRANSLATION. Granted, we no longer use, “thee”, “thou”, and “ye”. But that does not mean that we are unable to read and understand such simple words. Though we do not use the “eth” ending on our verbs, it is important to note that ending as it is used in the Scriptures. Whenever it is employed, it means that the verb is a verb of continuous action. For example, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16).

4. EVERY ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES THAT I HAVE READ EITHER OMITS 1 John 5:7 OR SAYS THAT IT SHOULD BE OMITTED. Though it is taught throughout the Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is plainly stated in only one verse in the Bible – I John 5:7. “This text”, wrote John Gill, “is so glaring a proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, that the enemies of it have done all they can to weaken its authority, and have pushed hard to extirpate it from a place in the sacred writings.”

For me, these are sufficient reasons for staying with the King James. God has always preserved his Word in the language of the people, and in the King James it is preserved in our language for us. If you must have a modern English translation, I suggest The New King James Version.

AMEN.

Grace Baptist Church of Danville - Grace For Today Radio Message #702

2734 Old Stanford Road – Danville, Kentucky 40422-9438

Donald S. Fortner, Pastor -Telephone 606-236-8235 – Email grace@mis.net

“”Only acknowledge thine iniquity” (Jer. 3:13)

Preached At Galeed Chapel, Brighton, on Lord’s day morning Sept.23rd, 1923

Repentance has in it also a free spirit of confession. The Lord speaks of this to His backsliding people by Jeremiah. “Only acknowledge thine iniquity” (Jer. 3:13). It is a great thing to have a free spirit in this. I know the spirit that would make us say; I am clean in some things where I have not been clean. There is a spirit in man that would hide his transgressions. “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper, but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy” (Prov. 28:13). This is one of the beautiful things that you find in true repentance; a free confession of your sins before the Lord. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:8,9). I have felt a very warm love to repentance, and a wish that I could repent every day of my life and repent deeply of the sins which I daily commit. It is a mercy to be kept from outward transgression, but with all this mercy there is inward falling and failing; and it is a mercy when the testimony of God’s word so comes to us in the convincing light of the Spirit of God as that we do feel, and say before God that we have sinned.

Faith and Repentance by J. K. POPHAM

The Moral Law not Injured by the Everlasting Gospel

Quot. Now I dare venture to say, that some of you expect, from this text, that I should give you the following interpretation of it: That since the Scribes and Pharisees made a great bustle about righteousness, that the righteousness here meant is the righteousness of Christ. But that is not the meaning of this text. Are you alarmed at it? No; the text don’t relate to justification, but-to sanctification.

Answ. I think my brother Rowland is entirely wrong here; and that he does contradict the Saviour himself, who, in this text, shews the need of what he had said before. The Lord had, in a preceding verse, blessed them that did hunger and thirst after righteousness, and said they should be filled: and then goes on to tell them, that he came to fulfil the law. Which fulfilling obedience of his was to fill them that hungered and thirsted after righteousness. And without this excellent obedience of his being imputed to them, which exceeds all the obedience of the Scribes and Pharisees, they could in no sense be filled, nor in any case enter into the kingdom of heaven. It is righteousness, sir, that gives us a right and title to the kingdom; and it is sanctification that gives us a meetness for it. Righteousness, and not sanctification, is what the text means.

Quot. There is a meaning in these words, and it must be a solemn one: “Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” And now I will be bold to say, that the righteousness of Christ, here mentioned, is this: that when the Pharisees thought they should be justified by an external righteousness of their own performance, our Lord gives them to understand, that a man will never enter into the kingdom of heaven, that does not talk of being justified by it. But he will never go to heaven, he will never be in a kingdom of grace in time, he will never be in glory to eternity; unless in his personal state, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, he is made more righteous than a Scribe or a Pharisee, inwardly, and experimentally, and internally. That is the meaning of my text.

Answ. I must confess, reverend and dear sir, that I do not understand this. You here call it the righteousness of Christ mentioned. Before, you said, that it was not Christ’s righteousness meant in the text, &c. It is justification that brings a man into a state of grace, and it is the same that gives a man a title to heaven: The righteous nation, that keepeth the truth, shall enter in. “Whom God justifies, them he glorifies.” This act of justifying includes sanctification, both by the blood of Christ and by the Spirit of God, for it is always accompanied with it. It is the Spirit that works faith in the heart to believe; it is the Spirit that applies the atonement; it is the Spirit that takes the righteousness of Christ, and shews it to us, and reveals it in us, and bears his soul-satisfying witness to the glorious work: “We are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” The righteousness of faith, and the testimony of the Spirit, always go together: “He that believes hath the witness in himself.”

You can read the rest here.