Interesting Inconsistancy In The Scriptures

[sethpayne]

In another thread zerinius and I were having a spat about the possible inconsistencies in the OT. This got me to thinking that there are lots of inconsistencies -- I don't want to use the word contradiction as this is too strong a word for what I'm describing -- throughout the scriptures that show how human, and divine, the scriptures truly are.

One that I find particularly interesting is the final admonishin juxtaposed with the revelation on preaching to gentiles in Acts.

Directly after the resurrection Jesus told the disciples:

19 ¶Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Then read Acts 10:

https://www.lds.org/...cts/10?lang=eng

Why would Peter have needed a vision to tell him to preach to the gentiles? He'd already heard it from Jesus -- as had the others. This doesn't make sense.

My conclusion: These final 2 verses were added to manuscripts many years after the original had been composed and preaching to the gentiles was commonplace. I believe this is supported by various ancient manuscripts. What I'm not sure about is the *why*. I can see Luke doing this but as Matthew was primarily written to convince Jews of Christ's status as Messiah, it's appearance in Matthew seems out of place.

What inconsistencies puzzle you? What's your best explanation/interpretation?

We've got a cadre of scriptural scholars here. I'm sure they can enlighten us along the way.....

Edited September 13, 2012 by sethpayne

[DBMormon]

Peter missed that Presidency meeting.

[Duncan]

I wrote a paper In University about this one verse in Matthew that is kind of bananas of me but I can't remember the verse now...but basically it talks about Jesus going into the home of a man with leprosy. What I found intriguing was why there is no record of Jesus healing him and also what was a man with leprosy in a home anyways because goes against the Mosaic law. So I think that this man at the time of Jesus' visit didn't have leprosy but contracted it later when the manuscript was written this showing that even though following Christ we will still have trials to deal with-that I couldn't put in the paper

Edited September 13, 2012 by Duncan

[Calm]

Peter missed that Presidency meeting.

Second snort for the day. Good job.

[Tacenda]

Second snort for the day. Good job.

Everytime I see the "snort" smiley it makes me think of Lily Tomlin, "one ringy dingy, two ringy dingy....".

Edited September 13, 2012 by Tacenda

[zerinus]

In another thread zerinius and I were having a spat about the possible inconsistencies in the OT. This got me to thinking that there are lots of inconsistencies -- I don't want to use the word contradiction as this is too strong a word for what I'm describing -- throughout the scriptures that show how human, and divine, the scriptures truly are.

One that I find particularly interesting is the final admonishin juxtaposed with the revelation on preaching to gentiles in Acts.

Directly after the resurrection Jesus told the disciples:

19 ¶Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Then read Acts 10:

https://www.lds.org/...cts/10?lang=eng

Why would Peter have needed a vision to tell him to preach to the gentiles? He'd already heard it from Jesus -- as had the others. This doesn't make sense.

My conclusion: These final 2 verses were added to manuscripts many years after the original had been composed and preaching to the gentiles was commonplace. I believe this is supported by various ancient manuscripts. What I'm not sure about is the *why*. I can see Luke doing this but as Matthew was primarily written to convince Jews of Christ's status as Messiah, it's appearance in Matthew seems out of place.

What inconsistencies puzzle you? What's your best explanation/interpretation?

We've got a cadre of scriptural scholars here. I'm sure they can enlighten us along the way.....

First of all, Bible contradictions is nothing new. If you google for "Bible contradictions," you will get loads of hits. Secondly, it is a big jump from from a handful of Bible contradictions (or apparent contradictions) to the conclusion that the historical narrative is partly or wholly fictional. And thirdly, there are other possible explanations for that particular passage you mentioned. It could be that the message had not completely sunk in when originally delivered, given Jewish prejudices against association with Gentiles; and needed further reinforcement before being fully accepted by Peter, and especially his companions and other Jews (and in fact we know that some Jewish converts never accepted the principle at all).

Edited September 13, 2012 by zerinus

[thesometimesaint]

To use a non-scriptural example. George Washington didn't chop down a cherry tree in his youth, but that doesn't take away the historical fact that there was a George Washington.

[CV75]

What inconsistencies puzzle you? What's your best explanation/interpretation?

Life is inconsistent so I've ceased to be puzzled on that point.

[sethpayne]

To use a non-scriptural example. George Washington didn't chop down a cherry tree in his youth, but that doesn't take away the historical fact that there was a George Washington.

To be quite clear: I am NOT suggesting that inconstancies in an of themselves invalidate historical accounts. They can, IMO, give us clues as to when a text was written and the viewpoint of the scribe/redactor/author.

Another one that drives me nuts -- especially when speaking with certain Christians is how the early OT makes clear reference to God being anthropomorphic and stating that several prophets (Jacob, Moses, Isaiah) saw God. Also, the earliest texts indicate a henotheism and a heavenly court.

Yet, in the later OT texts the anthropomorphic God seems to go away as do references to a heavenly court of "gods."

Then, of course, we read in John our old favorite that "no man has seen God at any time" which, if we are to accept at face value, means we must ignore the early OT. I know the JST tries to fix that verse but I don't know if any of the early John manuscripts support the JST change (perhaps they do..... I'm simply ignorant on the matter).

[sethpayne]

Another tidbit that I find funny is in 4th Nephi 1:6. Lots of words to say "21 years later" I know some critics point to the fact that this seems to contradict the statement that space on the plates was limited so why waste so much space saying so little? Personally I don't think this particular criticism has legs.

Another BoM phenomenon I find interesting is mid-sentence corrections. My favorite is when Jacob uses the name of the Savior, then realizes his audience probably has no idea who he's talking about so he clarifies his word usage before continuing the thought.

Edited September 13, 2012 by sethpayne

[oremites]

Why would Peter have needed a vision to tell him to preach to the gentiles? He'd already heard it from Jesus -- as had the others. This doesn't make sense.

Hindsight is 20/20. How many times does Jesus talk about his death and resurrection and his disciples still didn't get it. Do we conclude that all those references were added later?

As has already been pointed out, you can't expect someone to hear something once and expect the full implications to sink in at once.

That doesn't mean that those verses weren't added later, as you suggest. I just think there's a good explanation for the "inconsistency."

[Tacenda]

Another tidbit that I find funny is in 4th Nephi 1:6. Lots of words to say "21 years later" I know some critics point to the fact that this seems to contradict the statement that space on the plates was limited so why waste so much space saying so little? Personally I don't think this particular criticism has legs.

Another BoM phenomenon I find interesting is mid-sentence corrections. My favorite is when Jacob uses the name of the Savior, then realizes his audience probably has no idea who he's talking about so he clarifies his word usage before continuing the thought.

And it came to pass.....

[sethpayne]

Hindsight is 20/20. How many times does Jesus talk about his death and resurrection and his disciples still didn't get it. Do we conclude that all those references were added later?

As has already been pointed out, you can't expect someone to hear something once and expect the full implications to sink in at once.

That doesn't mean that those verses weren't added later, as you suggest. I just think there's a good explanation for the "inconsistency."

I think the fact that the earliest manuscripts we know of don't have those concluding verses supports the theory that these verses were added later. Especially since we see that later manuscripts *do* have the verses.

That's what makes these tidbits interesting ... there are many ways to view and interpret scripture. I, for one, don't feel compelled to "harmonize" the scriptures so whether those verses were added later or were part of the original isn't really important -- just interesting.

Anyway, enough about my boring examples! I'm curious to see what other passages folks on the board find intriguing and why.

Seth

[rameumptom]

When we consider that most of the New Testament books were written in the late 1st or early 2nd century, long after most of the apostles and early members were dead, we can expect inconsistencies. Oral stories are passed down, while others are made up. Peter's meeting Cornelius in Acts 10 could have been a different oral tradition than that where Christ mandates preaching to every creature.

What is amazing is that there is so much consistency, given 1/2 Paul's epistles were not written by Paul, Revelation was written by a guy named John but possibly not John the apostle, etc.

[Ahab]

In another thread zerinius and I were having a spat about the possible inconsistencies in the OT. This got me to thinking that there are lots of inconsistencies -- I don't want to use the word contradiction as this is too strong a word for what I'm describing -- throughout the scriptures that show how human, and divine, the scriptures truly are.

One that I find particularly interesting is the final admonishin juxtaposed with the revelation on preaching to gentiles in Acts.

Directly after the resurrection Jesus told the disciples:

19 ¶Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Then read Acts 10:

https://www.lds.org/...cts/10?lang=eng

Why would Peter have needed a vision to tell him to preach to the gentiles? He'd already heard it from Jesus -- as had the others. This doesn't make sense.

It does make sense. Repetition can be helpful. Just because you say something once doesn't mean it would be bad to say it again. And what did Jesus mean about teaching others to observe all things he had commanded? Didn't he also tell them to wait in Jerusalem until they had received power from on high... when they would be given the gift of the Holy Ghost? They still needed to be taught, or at least reminded from time to time about who and what to teach.

My conclusion: These final 2 verses were added to manuscripts many years after the original had been composed and preaching to the gentiles was commonplace. I believe this is supported by various ancient manuscripts. What I'm not sure about is the *why*. I can see Luke doing this but as Matthew was primarily written to convince Jews of Christ's status as Messiah, it's appearance in Matthew seems out of place.

I wouldn't consider that unless I saw a blatant contradiction, which this is not. Our Lord told Peter to go teach, and then later he told him again, and even then he told him repeatedly, with repetition. I'm sure there were even other times when he told him again, including some more reminders about what to teach.

What inconsistencies puzzle you?

I can't think of any at the moment.

What's your best explanation/interpretation?

When I'm puzzled I usually look for any possible way where both accounts are somehow in harmony.

And I always ask God what is true.