Joined: Nov 2006 Gender: Female Posts: 2,203 Karma: 1
Apparent Contradictions in the Bible Compared To R « Thread Started on Nov 18, 2006, 5:28pm »
Apparent Contradictions in the Bible Compared To Real Ones In The Quran and the Book of Morman:
It is high time that some start to realize that there are only apparent contradictions in the Bible, but when examined closely we find that these are all due to failure to comprehend what is being said, failure to understand the writing styles of the time the item was written, failure to understand the sentence construction of the ancient language, errors in translation, and biases on the part of the translator.
LET’S LOOK AT ONE EXAMPLE, MATTHEW 12:37-40 FROM WELL KNOWN:
"Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and {yet} no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (New American Standard Bible; NASB)
"Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (New International Version; NIV)
"Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (New King James Bible; NKJB)
"Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (King James Version; KJV)
APPARENT CONTRADICTION AND ITS EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO MATTHEW 12:37-40:
Some see an error or contradiction in these scriptures related to the amount of time Jesus (Yeshua) was in the grave, but there is NONE. The true facts are: “Yes, it does seem that way. We must remember that the Bible was written in other languages by cultures far removed from ours. Most alleged contradictions stem from a misunderstanding of certain terms and phrases. For example, Jesus predicted that He would be in the grave for "three days and three nights"(Matt.12:40). When we read the passion narratives, we see that He was crucified late Friday afternoon and that He rose from the dead, early on Sunday morning. It is impossible to get three days and three nights out of this, and I have seen many atheists refer to Jesus' prophecy as a "blatant error which completely destroys the credibility of the Bible."[source - I'd Like To Believe In Jesus, But...By Bob Siegel , Published by Campus Ambassador Press, A ministry of Mission To the Americas Wheaton, Illinois]
COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 12:37-40 EXPLAINING THESE SCRIPTURES:
For those who want a more detailed explanation, here is an exert from a well known commentary, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament:
Verse 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Speech is one of the greatest endowments of humanity; and the greater the gift, the greater the sin of perverting it to unworthy purposes. It would be impossible to sum up all the sins of mankind in the area of sinful speech. It must appear even to casual thought of it that words, as used by millions, constitute the bulk of human shame and wickedness. James said, "If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also" (James 3:2). Beyond everything else, man should watch what he says. One's words can justify when they confess Christ, or teach the truth, or serve to make peace, bestow a blessing, or give encouragement; but on the other hand, when words condemn, cast a reflection, subvert the truth, utter profanity, vulgarity, hatred, or malice, or any one of a million other evil things - then such words bring the condemnation of those who speak them.
Verse 38 Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we would see a sign from thee. This arrogant request came from a group who had already accused Jesus of being in league with the devil and who had already seen signs aplenty; but in this case, they were demanding a sign of their own choosing. Luke stated that they sought a "sign from heaven" (Luke 11:16). By that, they no doubt meant some spectacular wonder without moral value but which would appeal sensationally to a man's curiosity. Christ always rejected that type of sign, as, for example, when he refused to jump from the pinnacle of the temple (Matthew 4:6). In fact, there is more than a suggestion that the Pharisees' request for a sign was but a renewal of Satan's temptation of the Lord in the wilderness. Christ always refused to perform wonders for his enemies like Herod or the Pharisees. He did work miracles for the benefit of John's disciples (Luke 7:18-22), and raised Lazarus that the people might believe (John 11:42). For more on "a sign from heaven," see under Matthew 16:1.
Verse 39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet. The "adulterous generation" refers not merely to the morals of the people but to the rejection of Israel's covenant with their God. Barnes wrote: The relation of the Jews to God was represented as a marriage contract with God as the husband and the Jewish people as his wife (Isa. 57:3; Hosea 3:1; Ezek. 16:15). Hence, their apostasy and idolatry are often represented as adultery. The "sign of the prophet Jonah" refers to the resurrection of Christ, the greatest and most wonderful miracle of all time. Jesus' announcement of this "sign" at that time was actually a prophecy of his death, burial and resurrection. The Old Testament had plainly indicated the Messiah would rise from the dead (Psalms 16:10); but, in keeping with his usual methods, Christ again laid claim to Messiahship, but in such terminology, and in such analogies, that his enemies would not see it, or if they did, would be unable to prove what he meant!
Verse 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The use of "whale" in this verse is in error; the Greek word is "sea-monster," as a glance at the English Revised Version (1885) margin will show; not that there is any essential difference, for the Bible states that "God prepared" a great fish (Jonah 1:17). In the book of Jonah is related also how God "prepared" a gourd (Jonah 4:6), a worm (Jonah 4:7), and a sultry east wind (Jonah 4:8)! Why it should be considered for God a more difficult matter to prepare a great fish than any of those other "preparations" is surely a mystery! Regarding the truth of the Jonah narrative, it appears absolutely incredible that Christ, one of the Godhead, would have made a mere folk tale the principal prophecy and sign of his resurrection from the dead. We here register a protest against those expositors who are so wise above their Saviour in casting a reflection of doubt upon this astounding incident from the Old Testament. From Jesus' reference to it here, it appears that the experience of Jonah was an authentic event which God "prepared" to be a prophecy of a still greater one, the resurrection of Christ. The question of "three days and three nights," as signifying the time of our Lord's remaining in the tomb, is one of the most widely discussed issues in the New Testament. An overwhelming number of scholars hold the conviction that the expression is a Hebrew idiom referring to any part of three days and nights which included an entire day, the two nights on either side of it, and portions of the other two days. The present custom of accepting a month to be 28, 30, or 31 days is held to be similar to the Hebrew custom of so loosely determining "three days and three nights." The traditional view that Christ was crucified on Friday and raised on Sunday draws its principal support from Matthew's word that Christ should be raised "the third day" (Matthew 16:21). This view asserts that if he was crucified on Thursday, and raised on Sunday, then he would have been raised on the fourth day. In spite of the fact that a good case can be made out for the above explanation, some very respected students of God's word take another view. Torrey said, "There is absolutely nothing in favor of Friday crucifixion, but everything in Scripture is perfectly harmonized by Wednesday crucifixion." F12 Torrey's argument is the following: (1) Christ was crucified the day before the sabbath (Mark 15:42). (2) This does not necessarily mean the day before the ordinary sabbath, because the Jews always honored the day before the Passover (15th of Nisan) as a special "high" sabbath, no matter what day of the week it fell upon (Exodus 12:6; Leviticus 23:7; Numbers 28:16-18). (3) The truly important question is, therefore, whether "day before the sabbath" refers to an ordinary Saturday, or the special "high" sabbath related to the Passover, and occurring on any day of the week, depending where the 15th of Nisan fell. (4) John's gospel plainly says it was "the preparation of the Passover" (John 19:14), and that it was "an high day" (John 19:31). These Scriptures plainly show that the ordinary sabbath was not meant. (5) Thus, Christ was crucified on the day before the "high day," or first day of Passover. Since the Passover (15th of Nisan) in the year 30 A.D. fell on Thursday, the "day before" would make it Wednesday on which Christ was crucified. (6) Scriptures supporting this view are: Christ said he would rise "after three days" (Mark 8:31). "After three days" he would rise again (Mark 9:31; 10:34). "This is now the third day since these things were done" (Luke 24:31). Whatever one thinks of Torrey's argument, it must be admitted that it is supported by more Scriptures than the traditional view. Warning: devout souls will not be troubled by this question; for, if it had been necessary to know the day of the week, the Lord would have revealed it. Furthermore, to resolve this question finally and dogmatically, it would be positively necessary to know the exact year of our Lord's passion; and THAT is not certainly known. Not even the exact year of his birth can be determined. It can never be known what day of the week was the 15th of Nisan until the overriding question of WHAT YEAR is fixed. This, of course, is the weakness of Torrey's position. He takes the year 30 A.D. as the base of his calculations. The heart of the earth is a figurative expression for the grave which is also called "the lower parts of the earth" (Psalms 63:9; Ephesians 4:9).[source - Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, by Coffman, James Burton, Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. 1983-1999.]
OTHER, SO CALLED HOLLY BOOKS, HOWEVER HAVE REAL CONTRADICTIONS, NOT JUST APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS:
Let’s look at other so called Holy Books and see some real contradictions.
The eastern "scriptures" have no interest in history, because this is the world of illusion from which we are to be delivered. Ancient polytheistic religions likewise had no interest in history. Their gods acted only in myths, removed as far as possible from real history.
The Koran is almost entirely assertions of Allah. It has very little historical interface, and what there is contains clear inaccuracies.
Sura 26:55-60 says that the Israelites under Pharaoh were but "a scanty band" (in contrast to the multitude mentioned in Ex. 1:9) and that in leaving Egypt they forsook "their gardens and fountains and splendid dwellings" (in contrast to their slavery and hardship mentioned Ex. 1:11-14). This renders the whole motive for Israel's deliverance obscure.
Sura 5:119 reflects Muhammad's gross misunderstanding of the Trinity-that it is composed of the Father, Jesus and Mary.
The Book of Mormon makes many historical references, but it too is full of historical anachronisms and geographical inaccuracies.
1 Nephi 2:5-8 states that the river Laman emptied into the Red Sea. But there has never been any river that emptied into the Red Sea, either in historic or prehistoric times.
Alma 46:15 states that believers were called "Christians" back in 73 BC-fully seven decades before Jesus was even born![source - Xenos Christian Fellowship Christian Principles Unit 3: Provisions for Spiritual Growth]
Joined: Nov 2006 Gender: Female Posts: 2,203 Karma: 1
Re: Apparent Contradictions in the Bible Compared « Reply #1 on Nov 19, 2006, 12:02pm »
Some Make A Big Deal Out of A Mistake in a Translational Construct:
INTRODUCTION:
There are men being led by the Devil per 2 Corinthians 4:4, “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” (Authorized King James Bible; AV) who make a big deal out of seemingly contradictions in a Bible translation such as the Authorized King James Bible such as the following,
Acts 9:7, “And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.” (Authorized King James Bible; AV)
And,
Acts 22:7, “And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” (Authorized King James Bible; AV)
Who do not bother to consider that translators are faced with a very difficult task of trying to capture what the original writer was saying in his own language. Some do a better job than others in capturing in another language what the thoughts of the original writer, writing in his own language, was really saying. This task is even more difficult when the original language Koine Greek is no longer a spoken language and one is translating and/or trying to translate into another language of an entirely different language group such as English. Yet these false prophets and false accusers try and mislead and deceive as warned against at Matthew 24:24, “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (AV).
Let’s look at an actual example of this deceitful practice.
ACTUAL EXAMPLE OF A DECEITFUL CHARGE OF CONTRADICTION:
Here is an actual example of this deceptive and deceitful practice of charging falsely contradiction; whereas, in reality it is nothing but a trivial faulty translational construct which many occur in the Authorized King James Bible for two distinct reasons, as follows:
[1] The original translators did NOT have access to many ancient manuscripts for cross comparison and the knowledge of ancient Koine Greek was way below what it is today.
[2] The actual translators strived to do a good job but were handicapped due to their insufficient knowledge of the ancient language so could NOT always accurate capture the thoughts of the original writer writing in his own language.
Now with that in mind, let’s look at the misleader’s actual post: <<”Let me deal with the first part of your article[*1] about paul seeing jesus on path to damascus you said, Acts 9:7 ''And the men which journeyed with (paul) stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.'' I find this very difficult to believe infact i have a verse which contradicts the mentioned above. Acts 22:9 ''And they that were with me (paul) saw indeed the light and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.'' But then again what can you expect from a uninspired man. The next part i would like to deal with is the Galatians, you said, that there was no other gospel, let me show you that there was another gospel. GALATIANS 1:6 ''...I AM SO ASTONISHED THAT YOU ARE SO QUICKLY DESERTING THE ONE WHO CALLED YOU BY THE GRACE OF CHRIST AND ARE TURNING TO A DIFFERENT GOSPEL...''. I know many former christians which believe the ''DIFFERENT GOSPEL'' was the genuine gospel of christ. The ''DIFFERENT GOSPEL'' carried alot of weight because people started turning away from the one Paul preached.”>>. [*1 = Muslims Deceitfully Attack the Apostle Paul by Iris the Preacher, 2006, and can be now viewed at, http://religioustruths.proboards59.com/i....read=1163880097]
Note, he also takes an unwarranted attack on the Apostle Paul, a man personally selected by the resurrected Jesus (Yeshua) Christ to carry on his work of proclaiming the gospel of Jesus (Yeshua) as clearly shown in the Ninth Chapter and Twenty Second Chapter of the Book of Acts, how far can one go with false accusations?
Now let’s look at the translational construct situation.
TRANSLATIONAL CONSTRUCTS – THE REALITY:
This transnational construct trivial difference in the Authorized King James Bible between Acts 9:7 and 22:9 is well known, let’s look at some data on it:
<<”… the most well-known alleged contradiction came up - that of Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. In October of 1986, I received a letter from Mr. Barker. He sent me a four page document entitled “Did Paul’s Men Hear A Voice?” In it he gave a great deal of information on the usage of the genitive and accusative cases relevant to the word akouo (to hear) and its direct objects, primarily phone (sound, voice) since these are the important terms in discussing Acts 9:7/22:9. Though not dealing with all of the issues involved (in my opinion), Mr. Barker did a fine job in stating his belief that the two passages are contradictory. To close our presentation of "Letters to an Anti-Theist,” we will examine this “contradiction."
It is quite easy to see the supposed contradiction at this point. The King James Version reads: 9:7 - “And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 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." Clearly the question is - did the men hear the voice or not? To answer that question, we must, obviously, deal with the text as written by Luke in its original languages. This is an excellent example of a situation where the original words must be allowed to be heard in the argument, for we could be charging Luke with a simple mistake that he did not make. Also, we need to notice that modern versions translate the passage differently. For example, the New International Version reads as follows: 9:7 - “The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 22:9 - “My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.” Note that in the NIV the contradiction no longer exists; in the first passage the men hear a sound; in the second they do not understand the voice of the one speaking to Saul. Mr. Barker and other critics would assert that the NIV has translated in accordance with interpretation and convenience rather than according to language and usage. But is this so? Lets examine these passages and see.
First, before going into the text itself, we must address the issue of “what is a contradiction?” The law of contradiction, stated briefly, would be that you cannot have A and non-A simultaneously. You cannot have a chair in a room and outside the room at the same time. That would be a contradiction. But, is this what we have in this case in Acts?
The answer can only be no, we do not have a contradiction here. First, let’s transliterate the passages so that their differences can be seen: 9:7 - akouontes men tes phones 22:9 - ten de phonen ouk ekousan phones legouses moi It would be good to list the differences between the passages:
1. In 9:7 akouo is found as a nominative plural participle; in 22:9 it is a plural aorist verb. 2. In 9:7 phone is a singular genitive noun; in 22:9 it is a singular accusative noun. 3. In 9:7 akouo precedes its object; in 22:9 it follows its object. 4. In 9:7 the phrase is not modified; in 22:9 it is modified by “of the one speaking to me.” 5. In 9:7 Luke is narrating an event in Greek; in 22:9 Paul is speaking to a crowd in Hebrew (or Aramaic).
Clearly the critic is placed in an impossible position of forcing the argument here, for the differences between the two passages are quite significant. Hence, the argument must proceed on the grounds of contradictory meanings only, for the grammar of the two passages will not support a clear “A vs. non-A” proposition. We then must answer the question, are the differences between these passages significant enough to warrant the NIV’s translation? Do we have a solid basis upon which to assert that what Paul meant was that the men heard a sound but did not understand what the voice was saving? I believe we do, and I am not alone on this. Following are some of the comments made by some eminent Greek scholars about these passages: Thus in Acts 9:7, “hearing the voice,” the noun “voice’ is in the partitive genitive case [i.e., hearing (something) of], whereas in 22:9, "they heard not the voice," the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear). “The former denotes the sensational perception, the latter (the accusative case) the thing perceived." (Cremer). In John 5:25, 28, the genitive case is used, indicating a “sensational perception” that the Lord’s voice is sounding; in 3:8, of hearing the wind, the accusative is used, stressing “the thing perceived." (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words by W.E. Vine, pages 204-205). Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in 9:7 it is natural to take it as being likewise (as with the “light” and “no one’) a distinction between the “sound’ (original sense of phone as in John 3:8) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that akouo is used either with the accusative (extent of the hearing) or the genitive (the specifying). It is possible that such a distinction here coincides with the two senses of phone. They heard the sound (9:7), but did not understand the words (22:9). However, this distinction in case with akouo, though possible and even probable here, is by no means a necessary one for in John 3:8 where phonen undoubtedly means “sound” the accusative occurs as Luke uses ekousa phonen about Saul in Acts 9:4. Besides in Acts 22:7 Paul uses ekousa phones about himself, but ekousa phonen about himself in 26:14, interchangeably. (Word Pictures in the New Testament by Dr. A.T. Robertson, volume III, pages 117- 118). The fact that the maintenance of an old and well-known distinction between the acc. and the gen. with akouo saves the author of Acts 9:7 and 22:9 from a patent self-contradiction, should by itself be enough to make us recognize it for Luke, and for other writers until it is proved wrong. (A Grammar of New Testament Creek by James Hope Moulton, vol I., page 66. Robertson quotes this approvingly in A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research on pages 448-449). The partitive gen. occurs in NT with verbs of perception, especially with a personal object. For akouo, the class(ical) rule is that the person whose words are heard is in the gen. ...but the thing (or person) about which one hears is in the accus., and akouo c. accus. may mean to understand...We have to ask whether the class, distinction between gen. and accus. has significance for exegesis in NT. There may be something in the difference between the gen. in Ac. 9:7 (the men with Paul heard the sound ) and the accus. in Ac 22:9 (they did not understand the voice). (A Grammar of New Testament Greek vol. III by Nigel Turner, pg. 233).
Basically, these writers are referring to the possibility that the difference in the case of the term akouo would in this instance (9:7, 22:9) point to a difference in meaning. However, as Mr. Barker points out in his letter to me, and as Dr. A. T. Robertson said above many years earlier, this distinction cannot be written in stone. Why then do we feel that we are correct in asserting this difference as the the "answer” to this supposed contradiction? Context. Though none of the above authors went deeply into the subject, an examination of the context of the passages in question here make it very clear that Luke meant a difference to be understood in what he was writing.
The key element in this investigation is pointed out by R. J. Knowling (Expositor’s Greek Testament vol. 2 ed. by W. Robertson Nicoll pages 231 -233) and by John Aberly (New Testament Commentary edited by H. C. Alleman page 414). In Acts 22:9 Paul is speaking to a crowd in Jerusalem. According to Acts 21:40 Paul addressed the crowd in Hebrew (NIV says Aramaic - exactly which dialect it was is not very relevant). He mentions to his Hebrew listeners that when Jesus called him, he called him in their own language - Hebrew. How do we know this? In both Acts 9:4 and in Acts 22:7 Saul is not spelled in its normal form, but is spelled in its Hebrew (or Aramaic) form Saoul. What does this tell us? It tells us that the “voice” spoke in Hebrew. Therefore, Acts 22:9 would he referring to the fact that the men who accompanied Paul did not understand what was said for they could not understand Hebrew! The text supports this very strongly, for Paul modifies his saying “they did not hear (understand) the voice” by adding the vital phrase, “of the one speaking to me (to lalountos moi).” The emphasis is on the speaking of the voice, which would indicate comprehension and understanding. Now, given the above scholar’s quotations, and the context of the passages, can anyone seriously deny that there is a perfectly plausible explanation for this supposed contradiction? I think not.” [source - The Hall of Shame by by James White of Alpha & Omega Ministeries]>>.
So we can see that this false accuser of the Apostle Paul is only blowing hot air as there is no real contradiction, but simply a trivial error in the translational construct.
CONCLUSION:
This supposed contradiction was not a contradiction in reality, but a simple and trivial failure by the translator to fully capture the thoughts of the original writer writing in his own language, a simple error in a translational construct.
Interestingly, all supposed contradictions are of the same and/or similar nature; the inability of the translator to fully capture the thoughts of the original writer, writing in his own language, or failure to comprehend some ancient culture thing or item such as “pim” whose meaning was not known until a very recent archaeological study, for details, see, THE BIBLE'S HISTORICITY AND CORRECTNESS TESTIFIED TO BY A "PIM", by Iris-the-Preacher, 2005, now can be read at, http://religioustruths.proboards59.com/i....read=1163273452
![[Home]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif "[Send Topic To Friend]")
![[Print]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[homepage]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Logged