Saturday, July 26, 2008

Answering Bible Contradictions: Part 6

Back to Bible contradiction answers! As before, acclaimed contradictions are in bold and answers are in regular type.

Who bought potter's field
ACT 1:18 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.
ACT 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

MAT 27:6 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.
MAT 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
MAT 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

In Acts, Luke indicates that Judas purchased the field, while Matthew reveals that the chief priests bought the field. This is only difference in perspective, not contradiction.

The chief priests conducted the transaction for the field. However, it was neither with their money, nor would they have claimed the money. In Matthew 27:6, the evil nature of this money is talked about. They would not allow it to be included in the treasury, and certainly did not take possession of it for themselves. It had to be disposed of somehow. Thus, they purchased the field with it. Was it their field? No, for it was not their money that purchased the field. Remember, the priests did not want the money. The field was purchased by means of Judas, thus it was Judas' field. There is no contradiction here.

Who prophesied the potter's field?
Matthew 27:9-10 (mentions Jeremy but no such verse in Jeremiah) is in Zechariah 11:12-13

Matthew regards this prophesy to Jeremiah when it seems much like the credit should go to Zechariah.

"And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD."

--Zechariah 11:12-13

Matthew didn't make any mistake. He simply quoted from two prophets but only mentioned Jeremiah. Matthew mentions the purchase of a field, but however, Zechariah does not. This is where Jeremiah comes in. Jeremiah 18:2-12, 19:1-13, and 32:6-9 speak of potters as well as the purchase of a field. There is no mess-up.

Who bears guilt?
GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

You are taking the scripture out of context, again. In Galatians 6:1-2, the apostle Paul teaches that Christians ought to look out for one another; that our love is to drive us to help one another to overcome the tricks of Satan.

Though we are commanded to aid one another, the apostle acknowledges that we will stand before the Lord alone. Thus, each one is to "...examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone..." When it comes to our judgment before the Lord (cf. v 7-9; Romans 2:6; 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:10), we will not stand with another, but alone.

Do you answer a fool?
PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

I have no doubt you have probably heard of a 'catch 22'. To act in one way brings an unwanted result, to act in another fashion brings a different unwanted result. Dealing with a fool is a 'catch 22'. If you answer him, it may happen that others will equate you with the fool. If you don't answer him, then he will probably consider himself wise from what he has said, for he has silenced you.

And almost the exact same kind of thing is occurring here. Guess who the fool is.

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

SA2 21:8 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:

Before being returned to David, Michal gave birth to five sons to Adriel, the son of Brazillai (II Samuel 21:8).

However, on account of her conduct, it appears that the Lord made her unable to bear children. The writer's comment in II Samuel 6:23 would seem specific to her barren nature before David, as the same writer shortly thereafter mentions the five sons bore to Adriel.

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

Where's the contradiction? Isn't it possible that at the age of eight, Jehoiachin was exalted by his father to reign along side him for the remaining years of his life (10 years), and upon the death of his father, in II Kings 24:5, at the age of eighteen, Jehoiachin began to reign alone. It appears that he "apprenticed" under his father, learning his father's evil ways, and then repeating them according to later scripture.

Proverbs 18:22
1 Corinthians 7 (whole book. See 1,2,27,39,40)

The Bible constantly talks about marriage as a good thing, even from the very beginning of creation. Paul, who wrote the words under consideration by the question in 1 Corinthians, certainly did not think it wrong to have a wife. In the same letter, he asks,

"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

--I Corinthians 9:5

If it were wrong or bad to have a wife, he would definately not speak of his right to have one.The words in I Corinthians 7 must be understood in their historical context. He says,

"I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be."

--I Corinthians 7:26

There were circumstances that faced the church at the time of Paul's writings, which dictated the attitude of his words concerning marriage.

In I Corinthians 7:32, Paul speaks as he does that the saints might " without care." And again, he says,

"And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction."

--I Corinthians 7:35

He understood that a person who was married had to try to please his spouse (I Corinthians 7:32-34), which could be a distraction to serving the Lord. However, Paul commands elsewhere,

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord."

--Ephesians 5:22

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it..."

--Ephesians 5:25

Paul was never against marriage.

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Refers to Paul hearing the voice, but not knowing what it said. Simple logic.

No comments:

Free chat widget @ ShoutMix