Another Biblical contradiction

[Vance]

Is Rob Bowman still posting?

Time will tell.

I am interested to see his defense of inerrancy.

[Zakuska]

Ha! We're all screwed if it's limited to only those three. I just used them as an example because the text did. Were told that they will be a large group of people to whom Christ will say "I never knew you: depart from me" and in Luke 13 Christ compares that day to a master who locks the door and those who are out side will not be permitted in, so taking that into consideration the "all" would be referring to all who belong to Christ. They would be alive unto him even after our mortal death.

But according to Paul and John... ALL man kind belong to Christ. He purchased them after all.

Romans 5:18

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Romans 10:12

For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Romans 14

9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

1 John 2:2

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

[Hick Preacher]

But according to Paul and John... ALL man kind belong to Christ. He purchased them after all.

Romans 5:18

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Romans 10:12

For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Romans 14

9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

1 John 2:2

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Yeap, but some people reject the gift that Christ purchased for them.

Acts 20:28 ...feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

1 Corinthians 6:20, 7:23 ...ye are bought with a price...

[Zakuska]

Yeap, but some people reject the gift that Christ purchased for them.

Acts 20:28 ...feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

1 Corinthians 6:20, 7:23 ...ye are bought with a price...

And yet 1 Corintihians 6 just a few verses before speaks of unbeleivers being sanctified too.

[seriously honestly]

And yet 1 Corintihians 6 just a few verses before speaks of unbeleivers being sanctified too.

where are you looking, zak?

[Hick Preacher]

And yet 1 Corintihians 6 just a few verses before speaks of unbeleivers being sanctified too.

There may well be a difference between one who in free agency overtly rejects the Gospel, and one who does not believe because he/she never heard or understood.

[Zakuska]

where are you looking, zak?

Sorry... 1 Cor 7:11-20

[paulhadik]

for those of us who are simple minded.....what is the point of this thread?

you do understand that true bible study isn't a cursory glance of scripture but a deep digging into God's truth right?

[Vance]

you do understand that true bible study isn't a cursory glance of scripture but a deep digging into God's truth right?

Do you think these contradictions are found with a "cursory glance" rather than "a deep digging into" the Bible?

[Hick Preacher]

Do you think these contradictions are found with a "cursory glance" rather than "a deep digging into" the Bible?

I think these contradictions are found by going quote fishing from sites like these--

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Such lists of 'Bible Contraditions' have been compiled and published for a couple hundred years in popular literature. It does not take a deep reading of the Bible to come up with such contradictions. Today all you have to do is Goggle "Bible Contradictions"-- and you got a nice list to toss around.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

I was away for five days, and I have in the meantime had to reassess how much time I spend posting here in response to posts like yours. You will find, I think, that I will continue to participate here, but I will be trying to avoid certain types of discussions and ignoring certain types of posts. I realize that certain individuals will claim this is because I "don't have answers" and the like, but nothing I could possibly say would prevent such comments, so I will just have to try harder to ignore them.

Since I don't have time to do everything, I am going to be attempting to focus my research and discussion in a few areas. The main area of research for me this year will be on the Book of Mormon. I will be more likely to post in threads dealing with Book of Mormon apologetics than in other areas.

[paulhadik]

Zak

to prove my point

"for unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour which is Christ the Lord"

the "contradictions"

born to you---the shepherds weren't even pregnant! didn't mary have this child?

this day--day? the presence of the angels at the moment of his birth would seem to indicate he was born at night...

Christ the Lord---I thought he was to named Immanuel by that other angel in Matthew

were these angels evven paying attention?

OR

could it be that true Bible study takes just a little more effort?

[Zakuska]

Zak

to prove my point

"for unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour which is Christ the Lord"

the "contradictions"

born to you---the shepherds weren't even pregnant! didn't mary have this child?

this day--day? the presence of the angels at the moment of his birth would seem to indicate he was born at night...

Christ the Lord---I thought he was to named Immanuel by that other angel in Matthew

were these angels evven paying attention?

OR

could it be that true Bible study takes just a little more effort?

Apples and Oranges Paul.

In the above case we have one account and is an example of taking what is said too literally.

In they Case I listed in the OP. You have 3 against 1 blatantly contradicting each other.

[ebeddoulos]

I think these contradictions are found by going quote fishing from sites like these--

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Such lists of 'Bible Contraditions' have been compiled and published for a couple hundred years in popular literature. It does not take a deep reading of the Bible to come up with such contradictions. Today all you have to do is Goggle "Bible Contradictions"-- and you got a nice list to toss around.

Care to toss around the biblical story of the naked man and the herd of suicidal pigs? I have researched this Biblical oddity somewhat extensely. The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke all have a version of the story. When Jesus asked the naked man his name, he was told:

[Zakuska]

Apparently not. There is no rational explanation for it. Other than something is indeed an error.

Which would crumble the foundations of Evangelical Christainity. Sola Scriptura and all.

<Crickets chirping>

[Vance]

<Crickets chirping>

. . . .

<Crickets chirping>

. . . .

<Crickets chirping>

[Vance]

It is also strange that the "Inerrancy" threads have been left to die.

. . . .

<Crickets chirping>

. . . .

<Crickets chirping>

[Zakuska]

It is also strange that the "Inerrancy" threads have been left to die.

. . . .

<Crickets chirping>

. . . .

<Crickets chirping>

Is the tide finally turning?

Have they finally realized it's an indefensable argument?

[ebeddoulos]

I suspect they got lost with my example because they could not find the answer in Gleason L. Archer's "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties". Shucks, I did not even ask them whethor or not there was only one [Mark & Luke] man or two [Matthew] men.

• Mat 8:28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
  Mar 5:2 And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
  Luk 8:27 And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.

I believe that the reason they did not respond is that to do so would required them to (1.) provide evidence that a particular Bible version and gospel had the location correct, (2.) provide a plausible reason why the other Bible versions and gospels got it wrong and (3.) how that evidence and reason impacts the theory of sola scripture and Biblical inerrancy. I think they might be able to come up with a weak answer to #3 but only by providing an opening big enough to fly a C5A Galaxy through loaded to the rafters with Books of Mormon. By failing to respond they are admitting that God gives mankind the agency to change the scriptures and Gospel of Jesus Christ. That admission directly impacts such things as the great apostacy and the need for the restoration by the prophet Joseph Smith. They are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard spot.

[Zakuska]

There is a plausible explanation for the two men vs the one man contradiction. It's basically the same explanation we give for the Two personages Joseph saw in the vision vs other renditions only mentioning the one.

I'm just say'n...

[Vance]

There is a plausible explanation for the two men vs the one man contradiction.

Absolutely correct, IF you don't believe in "inerrancy".

But how would an inerrantist explain it away? Did God whisper different stories to the authors, which they infallibly recorded?

It's basically the same explanation we give for the Two personages Joseph saw in the vision vs other renditions only mentioning the one.

I'm just say'n...

Yeah, but you aren't an inerrantist.

[Zakuska]

Absolutely correct, IF you don't believe in "inerrancy".

But how would an inerrantist explain it away? Did God whisper different stories to the authors, which they infallibly recorded?

Yeah, but you aren't an inerrantist.

Which just illustrates that critics shouldn't hold a double standard (I won't hold my breath ) and allow us the leeway RE. Joseph Smiths Vision renditions, when In fact they have to use the same reasoning to explain this difficulty.

[ebeddoulos]

Of course you are right. That is why I did not use the "1 man vs. 2 men" in my "Locate the Naked Man and Suicidal Pigs" example of a Biblical contradiction. As you pointed out, the answer is too easy and one which they can easily plagiarize from the Latter-day Saints. Instead I went into some detail showing that there is a Bible contradiction which is found across the synoptic gospels and is universal when comparing Bible versions with each other. Those who try to deny the contradiction or to explain it away are just spitting in the wind.

[Zakuska]

Heres one that isn't so easily explained away. But does need some splanin.

We all know the Prophecy about Elias comming to prepare the way before the Lord, and that Jesus Identified Elias as none other than John the Baptist.

Matt. 17

12But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

13Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

But then one has to ask... why Did John the Baptist deny it?

John 1

21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

Something tells me some one got the wrong script!

[Vance]

Care to toss around the biblical story of the naked man and the herd of suicidal pigs? I have researched this Biblical oddity somewhat extensely. The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke all have a version of the story. When Jesus asked the naked man his name, he was told: