Monday, July 28, 2008

Answering Bible Contradictions: Part 7

Back to answering acclaimed Bible contradictions! Contradictions are in bold, my answers are in regular type.

Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
MAR 1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
JOH 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; (various trapsing)

You have assumed that the account of Jesus' baptism in John is in the present tense, as it is in Mark, when it is not.

1. John 1:19 sets the context. The things which are present are John the baptist's testimony explaining who he is (John 1:19-25), and of the One who is among them who is greater than he (John 1:26-27).

2. John 1:28 describes the location where this conversation happened, and where John was baptizing.

3. In John 1:29, on "...the next day...", John sees Jesus and expressly says that He is "...the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." John says He is the One that he was speaking about on the previous day, from John 1:30.

4. In John 1:31-33, John tells how Jesus was revealed to him (and to Israel). It was by His baptism. Notice, John's words don't inevitably imply that Jesus had been baptized on that particular day. He makes no mention of when he had baptized Him at all.

5. In John 1:34, having seen, John testifies that Jesus " the Son of God."

6. In John 1:35-36, on "...the next day...", John again points to Jesus, directing his own disciples to the Lord.

You're deriving a contradiction by inferring something in which the scripture doesn't.

Since John 1:35 talks about John seeing Jesus the day after he spoke of baptizing him, and further in the context Jesus is going to a wedding in Cana, and not the wilderness, it should be understood that John is speaking of Jesus' baptism at least 40 days after the fact.

I might see a guy, and point out to someone, "That woman is a Christian! I baptized her into Christ!" Does this necessarily imply that she was baptized that same day? Of course not! Neither do John's words reveal anything about the time of Jesus' baptism.

How many apostles were in office between the resurection and ascention?
1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)
Matthew 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)
Acts 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)
MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

There were eleven men who filled the position of apostles between the time of Jesus resurrection and ascension.

The event Paul refers to in I Corinthians 15:5, is either that which is recorded in John 20:19 (at which there were only 10 present) or John 20:26 (which only 11 were at).

Is Paul wrong when he speaks of the "twelve" apostles? The use of the word "twelve" took on more meaning with these chosen disciples of the Lord than simply a number. Any reference to the "twelve" would automatically be understood as the apostles of Christ. Whether all were present or not, the use of the term is not out of line. Jesus, speaking to these men said,

"...Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

--Matthew 19:28

Jesus knew that one was a betrayer, and that one of those present would not sit on a throne, and yet He referred to "twelve." Why? The reference to the "twelve" was more than an counting of heads, it was in reference to the seat of authority which would be given to the apostles, as judges over the twelve tribes of Israel (spiritually).

Judging1 Cor 3:15 " The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)
1 Cor 4:5 " Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."

First of all, I think you mean I Corinthians 2:15, not 3. But, I still really don't see where the contradiction is. "Judges" or "judged" in most translations is rendered as meaning, "discerned." Paul emphasizes difference between the spiritual man, and the natural man.

The natural man can't know the things of God because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man is able to discern all things revealed by God.

The words "...he himself is rightly judged by no one", would seem that the apostle is saying that the natural man cannot understand the spiritual man. Those who have lived and served before the Lord for any length of time, and dealt often with those outside Christ know this to be true.

When I Corinthians 4:5 is put into its context, Paul mentions his stewardship before the Lord, and about the judgment of the Corinthians, a human court, or even himself on his stewardship. He warns the Corinthians against making severe judgments, which is especially needed in consideration to emotion and character. He identifies the Lord as being the judge upon whom we wait, who will compose the final judgment.

Good deeds
Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

You are confusing two separate issues. In Matthew 5:16, Jesus encourages his followers to live a good life so that their works will draw people's attention to God. However, Christians are not to blow a trumpet before themselves to draw attention to their "goodness" (Matthew 6:3-4).

One scripture deals with making sure you do good deeds, another deals with how you do them.

For or against?
MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.(default is against)

MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.(default is for)
LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.(default is for)

There is no in-between; it is black and white; you are a child of God, or a child of Satan; bound for heaven, or bound for hell.

If you consider yourself indifferent or undecided towards the perfect Son of God who died for you, then you are against Him. You can change from one camp to the other, but you can not hide in-between the two.

Whom did they see at the tomb?
MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

God change?
malachi 3:6
james 1:171
samuel 15:29
jonah 3:10
genesis 6:6

1. Are you saying that Luke's reference to men is contradictory to the "angels," simply because he describes them having white, but yet, in another passage, shining garments? Please. The fact that they are "in shining garments" should indicate that these men were angels, just as if they were in white garments. The reference that they are "men" does not contradict, but only describes them in a different way.

The same writing occurs in Genesis 19:1, when "...two angels..." came to Lot in Sodom. However, when the men of the city came to Lot's house, they asked, "Where are the men who came to you tonight?" (19:5). There are all kinds of scriptures that do this, simply because the angel has probably appeared in a form that men can understand: a man.

The fact that Matthew mentions only one angel, while both Luke and John mention two, is completely foolish to say to be a contradiction, when Matthew probably just never included that detail. It isn't a contradiction, just something left out. There were probably two angels. It's also possible that Mary saw one angel, and then afterward, two. So what? As I said before, what's the purpose for all four gospels if they are all written exactly alike? It is folly to say this is necessary.

2. About God "changing," God never changes. He only changes as we change, but this doesn't mean He changes His mind either. He would have known about our actions already, and being prepared to do He would when that time came, in our realm of time. God is not in time either. We're the ones stuck in time.

Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)
MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

zechariah 11:11-13
(nothing in Jeremiah remotely like)

It looks like it references the quote in Ezekiel. Back then, the priests read the scriptures on scrolls; there was no Bible. Many of the books of the Bible today were compiled into one book, like the first five books of the Bible now being the Torah then. The Psalms were actually three separate sections in the scrolls. Possibly, this example applied with the three books of Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Ezekiel. Thus, were compiled together at that time and called "Jeremy." There is no contradiction.

Who's sepulchers
acts 7:16
genesis 23:17,18

Even if a contradiction could be shown here, it would prove nothing against inspiration, for Stephen was not one of the inspired writers. Luke only records what Stephen said. But of course, there is no contradiction here.

The two Scriptures do not refer to the same thing. The sepulchre mentioned in Genesis was in Hebron. The one mentioned by Stephen was in Sychem. This makes it clear that Abraham bought two sepulchres. If you look at the account of the one at Hebron, he purchased the field surrounding the sepulchre; but, in the case of the one at Sychem, no mention is made of the buying of the surrounding field. These are obviously two different fields.

Just to make things interesting, the other "contradiction" is that Genesis 33:19 states that Jacob bought the sepulchre at Sychem. But no such thing is stated in Genesis 33:19. Genesis 33:19 simply states that Jacob bought the field in the area of Sychem; and, since the bones of Joseph were buried in this field, it probably was in this field that Abraham's second sepulchre stood. This also appears from the fact that Abraham’s second sepulchre and the field purchased by Jacob formerly belonged to the same owners. So in this last case we simply have Abraham buying a sepulchre, while later Jacob buys the field in which the sepulchre stood.


InkStained said...

Wow! It's DestinyLies (Candi) I didn't get to read it ALL but I like it. :D

Harrison Odell said...

Did you know that your comment is the third comment I've gotten, counting every post I've made since I started this blog?

I don't care if you couldn't read all of it, at least I have [i]one[/i] reader! :D Thx.

PunkMaister said...

Well the Libtards banned me from Tree of souls as well, it was good while it lasted, if you ever find another Avatar fan forums let me know, so far onkly Naviblue is the only one that does not have such censoring policies.

axe414 said...

I have read it all thanks!

Free chat widget @ ShoutMix