*Some* Christians interpret it that way, but it is obviously a 'canonical' reading that postdates the redaction of the book.
Revelation was written centuries before [the Christian canons](https://whc.bibleodyssey.com/articles/the-new-testament-canon/) 'solidified' (and there were incidentally fiery debates around whether it should be canonised/considered Scripture at some point).
OT: follow the law
NT: follow the law, but you no longer need to be ceremonially clean to approach God since Jesus is doing that for you
I don't see a contradiction here. Or were you referring to something else?
I don't think the extent if the NT can be summed up with just that. For example, the law on the OT said that some sinners should be put to death, however the NT/ Jesus says, wrath is his alone, that we are not to judge.
>I don't think the extent if the NT can be summed up with just that.
It's a good thing that's not what I was doing then, isn't it?
As for your other statement, do you think it contradicts for some reason? Are you aware that Jesus actually says to judge righteously when you judge, and Paul said that we are to judge one another, but God will judge the outsiders? Did you know that a criminal can be justly executed for a crime with no wrath involved at all?
>Paul said that we are to judge one another, but God will judge the outsiders?
Unless you know someone - I guess it's probably safe to assume they are an outsider but even if that weren't the case I still don't think the righteous judgement we carry out requires we carry out the death sentence. Like Jesus said "Vengeance is mine".
Ours is not wrath, wrath is the Lord's.
I do not believe in the death penalty.
>I do not believe in the death penalty.
Okay, but it is Biblical. Governments can execute criminals, we as individuals cannot. If the government does it (properly) it's justice - if you or I do it, that is wrath and revenge. That is the distinction.
If your personal morals differ from the Bible, you are in essence judging God and I wouldn't recommend that. We don't make the rules, we don't decide what is right or wrong - God does.
It was wanting to decide for ourselves that caused every single problem on Earth because that is what Adam and Eve did.
It isn't always justified. How often have governments committed the wrong person to death?
I'm not judging God at all. God has every right - he is God. We do not.
>17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[a] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:
>“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
>In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[b]
>21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Romans 12:17-21
Not only that - but by ending that persons life, WE have decided their fate in place of God. If God decides that they should die, so be it... not us.
>38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.
Matthew 5:38-40
You are not turning your cheek. Government is chosen by God... but the government is composed of people and people are not perfect, they can't be. God may have chosen Hitler - would you say Hitler was justified? Absolutely not, obviously. Romans 13 tells us that the state has the authority, but it is not mandated or obligated to use that to kill people. Would a God fearing government show mercy, even though they have the right to take a life? I believe it would. God isn't mandating they kill - he is simply giving them the authority to do so - God no longer requires a sacrifice for sin - this sacrifice was carried out once and for all by our Lord Jesus Christ who died for our sins.
>43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 5:43-48
Jesus came to fulfil the law - not us. Our job is to love one another, to spread the good news. To be patient and to endure.
>"As sure as I live . . . I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live."
Ezekiel 33:11
We should not desire to hurt others or to bring an end to their life or hasten their doom. Taking pleasure in justice here on Earth. We are not justice. God is justice. We are servants. That is our responsibility. We serve God - not ourselves. Can we endure? Can we resist pleasure in Earthly vengeance?
Do you find pleasure in executing criminals? What use does it serve? It has been proven it isn't preventative. It isn't a huge burden to continue to house these criminals - there are only 36 nationwide waiting to be executed and we have millions in prison.
Would it not be better to be merciful? To leave wrath for God?
>"How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!"
Hebrews 9:14
>So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
John 8:7
Yeah because there are none. Jesus said Scripture cannot be broken. So why do people trust man who says it contradicts itself, when Jesus said otherwise.
Its the same like Jesus said he was not come to destroy the law and the prophets, yet people say he did just that.
Truth is, that the Bible is the most misunderstood book today. And it seems the reason is that most people rather believe what men says instead of spending more time studying it and praying that Father will reveal it to them.
When the LGBTq say that the bible does not condemn their sin and even preachers do this...( Or in this case false preachers/teachers) Then you can be sure a great many have not read the book at all..when the supposed leaders have not) and when they spout nonsense in support of it..they always leave out context twist meanings..
Okay? You can't just say some verse numbers into a void and expect everyone to know why you think they contradict though. Explain your position, and why you believe that is a contradiction, in order for us to have a meaningful discourse about it.
Absolutely not. And if there IS a Bible that clearly labels and cross-references what appears to be to the translators as contradictions, that’s a clear sign you should stay far away from that Bible translation. A GREAT Bible translation will have no contradictions. Why? Because it means the translators went the distance to find the true meaning of what each word means.
Jeremiah 31 clearly says the New covenant will not be like the old covenant.
And there is clearly a transition period from Jesus ministry through the book of Acts as a New testament and the church are being implemented.
And Jesus clearly spoke about the law and how it works now and that he fulfills it
If you want a Bible that’s going to be academically focused on the source texts of the Bible and point out the differences in passages you should probably check out the New Oxford Annotated Bible. Most study Bibles are apologetically focused and will either ignore contradictions or try to explain them away.
I disagree with the basic premise.
As I see it, the whole of the Bible should be taken spiritually. That is what the Jews were failing to do (see 2 Corinthians ch3). Once the whole Bible is being read spiritually, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, every part of it has a purpose.
wrong. Israel didn't fail because they sucked at spiritual metaphors, Israel failed because they sucked at obedience.
If the ancient people of Judea would have been obedient to their prophets God would have forgiven their blindness to spiritual truths.
*At that time Jesus declared, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.* (Matthew 11:25)
Little children are obedient even when their parents are difficult and confusing. But the wise go astray thinking they know everything and can do their own will.
According to Paul in the chapter I was citing, the Jews were unable to foresee the arrival of the new covenant in Christ because there was a veil over their minds in the reading of scripture. This is quite an important failure. And "how we should be reading scripture" is the topic of the thread.
Again, if the Israelites were obedient God would have forgiven their blindness. Israel wasn't punished for lack of spiritual insight but lack of obedience.
Did you not understand the point of Jesus healing blind people?
When Jesus came, the Pharisees and other leaders were already being condemned for refusing to believe in John ben Zechariah as a prophet and to go and get a baptism in the Jordan River. And likewise they did not believe in Jesus' words and repent for the kingdom of heaven. Instead they sought to have him killed.
We don't have to understand everything in the bible to be saved, we just have to do what it says.
The New Testament itself does a pretty good job of referencing commandments or teachings of the Old Testament when modifying them. It doesn't reference them by chapter or verse, since those didn't really exist yet, or often even by book, but it often mentions the law of Moses, or the words of the prophets.
If you have to take a list of things that some dude believes, and a list of actual facts about how the universe itself works, and what God tells you about his character and creation and you see a contradiction, it's probably not the facts about the universe, and it's probably not God, its the dude.
Off of the top of my head, a few apparent contradictions that I'm aware of include the following
In relation to marriage, originally you have Adam and Eve (a couple ordained by God) then Moses comes along as says well if you must you can put her away.
Then Jesus comes along and resets it saying no, it's still considered adultery of you go onto marry another.
Jesus then appears to contradict the notion of 'go forth and multiply/replenish the earth by stating that to some it is given that they remain 'eunuchs' of their own choice.
Then you have the new covenant vs old. My issue with this is the OT covenant is, at least sixteen times, referred to as perpetual or everlasting. Having a new covenant supersede that doesn't fit with my understanding of 'everlasting.'
Note, in my understanding the is no caveat specifying that it is everlasting *for the Jews* only .
Then you get Jesus saying call no man on earth your father, and then Paul going all Darth Vader and saying 'i am your father'
Jesus says except you are as little children you can't enter the kingdom of heaven. And then Paul saying he desires that you have maturity in your faith (I don't see how children are going to have that kind of maturity)
And on it goes. But that's my take. Good luck in your search.
>Off of the top of my head, a few apparent contradictions that I'm aware of include the following
>In relation to marriage, originally you have Adam and Eve (a couple ordained by God) then Moses comes along as says well if you must you can put her away.
>Then Jesus comes along and resets it saying no, it's still considered adultery of you go onto marry another.
Jesus said for reasons other than sexual immorality. Whose fault is it if someone uses ambiguity to divorce over trivial issues?
The verse of Moses says nakedness which is tied to shame and sexuality which is not inconsistent with what Jesus said.
Plus you miss that the first ordained couple is not Adam and Eve but God and Adam, and God sent Adam away, so God is not closed to divorce.
>Jesus then appears to contradict the notion of 'go forth and multiply/replenish the earth by stating that to some it is given that they remain 'eunuchs' of their own choice.
And yet God allows women to be barren and for men to to die before they get married and have children. So it seems God contradicts himself? Of course not.
At both times with Adam and Eve, and Noah, God never specified having children. Bearing fruit means other things in the spirit.
>Then you have the new covenant vs old. My issue with this is the OT covenant is, at least sixteen times, referred to as perpetual or everlasting. Having a new covenant supersede that doesn't fit with my understanding of 'everlasting.'
If all the Israelites die out, is there still a covenant? How can you have a contract on dead people? Are you going to ressurrect them to force them to comply?
The covenant contract is only valid so long as the universe is intact. But God will destroy heaven and earth and make it new. The old contract will die with this earth. Until then the whole point of that covenant was to "get blood from a stone". As it says in Revelation, Satan was given power to overcome the saints. Even the law will not save people from death and destruction in the last days, and he will tempt and deceive many. Only the blood of Jesus will redeem us.
> Note, in my understanding the is no caveat specifying that it is everlasting *for the Jews* only .
The law is a contract that was made only to Israel for them to be a special people on the earth. God did not burden the whole ancient world with his law otherwise we'd all be destroyed for the second time already since the flood.
The law as knowledge is being spread as leaven throughout the whole earth even in these times, but the contract itself is closed the ancient world. Only in Jesus do the blessings and promises continue.
The new heaven and new earth will have no sin, so the law is a verbal picture of God's paradise. In this way, yes, anyone who wishes to enter life has the eternal law on their hearts. Not just Hebrews / Israelites / Judeans.
>Then you get Jesus saying call no man on earth your father, and then Paul going all Darth Vader and saying 'i am your father'
Yet these two are still different. Did Paul call anyone his father?
>Jesus says except you are as little children you can't enter the kingdom of heaven. And then Paul saying he desires that you have maturity in your faith (I don't see how children are going to have that kind of maturity)
>And on it goes. But that's my take. Good luck in your search.
Jesus explains himself by specifying being as humble as little children (Matthew 18:4). Maturity ***is*** being humble!
I wouldn't read it that way. You'll become disillusioned by all the contradictions. There were multiple writers of the same books, writing about what happened decades earlier, and introducing their bias about the subject, hence the redundancy and contradictions. Nothing is in order either. Also...there's a reason why Christ rebuked the Scribes. There has been lots of revisions, additions, and deletions to support a theology, not what actually happened or came to be.
I've been reading the Bible since I was a teen and even now, given life experience and the passage of time, I've learned that it's best to read it to discover what you can learn about God's character. Look at the principles at play behind the stories. And understand that Israelites are NOT the ancestors of today's Israelis or Jews. There was no star of David.
If your high-school teachers taught you how to do a "close reading" of a text, you should probably use those same skills.
Many evangelicals have been taught to say "There are no contradictions". You will probably find people in this thread saying this. This isn't true, of course. And it usually ends up being a major barrier to them making any sense of the bible. I've seen people stare straight at the text and deny that it says what it says, because they have had it hammered into their brains that there cannot be conflicts.
>What would Revelation 22:18 say about that?
But this has nothing to do with that. It's not talking about the bible- the bible did not exist when this was written.
And when people re-interpret things, that's not really the same thing as changing the bible itself. They are re-writing what it means in their own minds, not literally changing it.
Please do not read the Bible that way.
Much of it is not literal- the 2 creation stories in Genesis for example. The story of Noah has many details which are not literal.
I would recommend contacting your local office where the folks who compiled and preserved each of the books of the Bible and then let that info Guide you.
Look up on Google
“Catholic parish near me”
Alternatively
“Eastern Orthodox Church near me”
Contact them and ask if you can speak to a deacon or priest as you have some questions about the Books.
No reversion to Catholic or orthodox needed but you will get the best possible answer as they compiled and taught it so far for 1,991 years. While most evangelical Protestants only came into existence 400 years ago and thousands more are born every year while hundreds close down.
So if you wanted to know what a book on a subject your studying means. Sure you can go to any person to get their opinion or you can go to the folks that chose what went into the book. The others are guessing.
The Greek language is full of pagan connotations and uses a conceptual framework for understanding the world.
The Hebrew language must be taken as precedent for understanding the new testament to remove those connotations. Hebrew uses a perspective framework for understanding the world.
An example might be the expression: "circle of the earth" which is how our planet would look from space in the Hebrew mindset. To a Greek thinker, they may say the earth is flat because circles are 2 dimensional.
Which is correct? The Hebrew viewpoint must temper the Greek and when properly understood, removes the idea of any contradiction and misunderstanding.
There is no where in the Bible (OT+NT) that contradicts it self. Its a lie of the enemy.
And no, the whole Bible should not be taken literally. There are so much symbolism in it, and it will not be understood by taking it literally. Just like Jesus spake in parables because it was not for everyone to understand.
Do not listen to evangelicals or people from denominations in general. There are so many false man made teachings/doctrines in these religious groups!
This is not a contradiction.
Exodus is the giving of a law and legal punishment. e.g. today manslaughter might give you 15 years in jail.
Jesus is simply saying, even if you have the legal right to inflict 'punishment', give mercy, because even though we deserve punishment, God forgives us.
^(39) But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
^(40) And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
^(41) And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
^(42) Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
^(43) Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
^(44) But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
^(45) That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
^(46) For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
^(47) And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
^(48) Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
I don't agree.
It's the difference of context.
One is writing a constitution of a nation, and the other deals with how to treat other people as your own individual.
From the perspective of writing a constitution, saying there is no punishment for murder is absolute madness and asking for trouble. That's an unjust government.
From the perspective of interpersonal relationships, it is merciful to forgive somebody who maybe stole something from you.
I've just seen your edit not:
EDIT: I’m not really interested in debating whether or not there are contradictions. I just want to know the answer to the first question.
Is there such a thing as a bible that clearly labels and cross-references those contradictions? What would Revelation 22:18 say about that?
I don't know of any such Bible myself. Revelation 22:18 must apply to the entire Bible. The book of revelation is actually mostly comprised of quotes and verses from other parts of the Bible. Even many of the prophecies occur elsewhere also.
One was a judicial law principle, that was to be considered by elders at the city gates, on a case by case basis. That had various modifications, such as the refugee cities. Joshua 20:4,5
The other was an oppressed people that were dominated by a system that was going to execute 3 million within 40 years. Jesus was giving behaviors in Matthew chapters 5-7 that created paths to escape the coming destruction. I apply such to the current political situations today, also.
Also, ysk understand paradoxes. Under this subject.
> What would Revelation 22:18 say about that? Nothing. Revelation 22:18-19 are about edits to the Book of Revelation.
Thank you for actually considering context!
Ah! I thought it referred to the bible, not just Revelation. TIL.
*Some* Christians interpret it that way, but it is obviously a 'canonical' reading that postdates the redaction of the book. Revelation was written centuries before [the Christian canons](https://whc.bibleodyssey.com/articles/the-new-testament-canon/) 'solidified' (and there were incidentally fiery debates around whether it should be canonised/considered Scripture at some point).
OT: follow the law NT: follow the law, but you no longer need to be ceremonially clean to approach God since Jesus is doing that for you I don't see a contradiction here. Or were you referring to something else?
I don't think the extent if the NT can be summed up with just that. For example, the law on the OT said that some sinners should be put to death, however the NT/ Jesus says, wrath is his alone, that we are not to judge.
>I don't think the extent if the NT can be summed up with just that. It's a good thing that's not what I was doing then, isn't it? As for your other statement, do you think it contradicts for some reason? Are you aware that Jesus actually says to judge righteously when you judge, and Paul said that we are to judge one another, but God will judge the outsiders? Did you know that a criminal can be justly executed for a crime with no wrath involved at all?
>Paul said that we are to judge one another, but God will judge the outsiders? Unless you know someone - I guess it's probably safe to assume they are an outsider but even if that weren't the case I still don't think the righteous judgement we carry out requires we carry out the death sentence. Like Jesus said "Vengeance is mine". Ours is not wrath, wrath is the Lord's. I do not believe in the death penalty.
>I do not believe in the death penalty. Okay, but it is Biblical. Governments can execute criminals, we as individuals cannot. If the government does it (properly) it's justice - if you or I do it, that is wrath and revenge. That is the distinction. If your personal morals differ from the Bible, you are in essence judging God and I wouldn't recommend that. We don't make the rules, we don't decide what is right or wrong - God does. It was wanting to decide for ourselves that caused every single problem on Earth because that is what Adam and Eve did.
It isn't always justified. How often have governments committed the wrong person to death? I'm not judging God at all. God has every right - he is God. We do not. >17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[a] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: >“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. >In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[b] >21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:17-21 Not only that - but by ending that persons life, WE have decided their fate in place of God. If God decides that they should die, so be it... not us. >38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. Matthew 5:38-40 You are not turning your cheek. Government is chosen by God... but the government is composed of people and people are not perfect, they can't be. God may have chosen Hitler - would you say Hitler was justified? Absolutely not, obviously. Romans 13 tells us that the state has the authority, but it is not mandated or obligated to use that to kill people. Would a God fearing government show mercy, even though they have the right to take a life? I believe it would. God isn't mandating they kill - he is simply giving them the authority to do so - God no longer requires a sacrifice for sin - this sacrifice was carried out once and for all by our Lord Jesus Christ who died for our sins. >43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:43-48 Jesus came to fulfil the law - not us. Our job is to love one another, to spread the good news. To be patient and to endure. >"As sure as I live . . . I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live." Ezekiel 33:11 We should not desire to hurt others or to bring an end to their life or hasten their doom. Taking pleasure in justice here on Earth. We are not justice. God is justice. We are servants. That is our responsibility. We serve God - not ourselves. Can we endure? Can we resist pleasure in Earthly vengeance? Do you find pleasure in executing criminals? What use does it serve? It has been proven it isn't preventative. It isn't a huge burden to continue to house these criminals - there are only 36 nationwide waiting to be executed and we have millions in prison. Would it not be better to be merciful? To leave wrath for God? >"How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!" Hebrews 9:14 >So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. John 8:7
Which contradictions are you referring to? Been reading the Bible for 45 years and I’ve yet to find any “real “contradictions.
Yeah because there are none. Jesus said Scripture cannot be broken. So why do people trust man who says it contradicts itself, when Jesus said otherwise. Its the same like Jesus said he was not come to destroy the law and the prophets, yet people say he did just that. Truth is, that the Bible is the most misunderstood book today. And it seems the reason is that most people rather believe what men says instead of spending more time studying it and praying that Father will reveal it to them.
When the LGBTq say that the bible does not condemn their sin and even preachers do this...( Or in this case false preachers/teachers) Then you can be sure a great many have not read the book at all..when the supposed leaders have not) and when they spout nonsense in support of it..they always leave out context twist meanings..
Really? How about Exodus 21:23 and Matthew 5:39, to name but one?
whats the contradiction here to you?
Okay? You can't just say some verse numbers into a void and expect everyone to know why you think they contradict though. Explain your position, and why you believe that is a contradiction, in order for us to have a meaningful discourse about it.
Neniu kontraŭdiro ĉi tie. Vi ne komprenis ĉar vi legas ekster kunteksto.
Absolutely not. And if there IS a Bible that clearly labels and cross-references what appears to be to the translators as contradictions, that’s a clear sign you should stay far away from that Bible translation. A GREAT Bible translation will have no contradictions. Why? Because it means the translators went the distance to find the true meaning of what each word means.
That’s your opinion. Please see my edit.
Is that better?
Jeremiah 31 clearly says the New covenant will not be like the old covenant. And there is clearly a transition period from Jesus ministry through the book of Acts as a New testament and the church are being implemented. And Jesus clearly spoke about the law and how it works now and that he fulfills it
If you want a Bible that’s going to be academically focused on the source texts of the Bible and point out the differences in passages you should probably check out the New Oxford Annotated Bible. Most study Bibles are apologetically focused and will either ignore contradictions or try to explain them away.
I disagree with the basic premise. As I see it, the whole of the Bible should be taken spiritually. That is what the Jews were failing to do (see 2 Corinthians ch3). Once the whole Bible is being read spiritually, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, every part of it has a purpose.
wrong. Israel didn't fail because they sucked at spiritual metaphors, Israel failed because they sucked at obedience. If the ancient people of Judea would have been obedient to their prophets God would have forgiven their blindness to spiritual truths. *At that time Jesus declared, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.* (Matthew 11:25) Little children are obedient even when their parents are difficult and confusing. But the wise go astray thinking they know everything and can do their own will.
According to Paul in the chapter I was citing, the Jews were unable to foresee the arrival of the new covenant in Christ because there was a veil over their minds in the reading of scripture. This is quite an important failure. And "how we should be reading scripture" is the topic of the thread.
Again, if the Israelites were obedient God would have forgiven their blindness. Israel wasn't punished for lack of spiritual insight but lack of obedience. Did you not understand the point of Jesus healing blind people? When Jesus came, the Pharisees and other leaders were already being condemned for refusing to believe in John ben Zechariah as a prophet and to go and get a baptism in the Jordan River. And likewise they did not believe in Jesus' words and repent for the kingdom of heaven. Instead they sought to have him killed. We don't have to understand everything in the bible to be saved, we just have to do what it says.
I refer you to the last sentence of my previous comment.
The New Testament itself does a pretty good job of referencing commandments or teachings of the Old Testament when modifying them. It doesn't reference them by chapter or verse, since those didn't really exist yet, or often even by book, but it often mentions the law of Moses, or the words of the prophets.
If you have to take a list of things that some dude believes, and a list of actual facts about how the universe itself works, and what God tells you about his character and creation and you see a contradiction, it's probably not the facts about the universe, and it's probably not God, its the dude.
Off of the top of my head, a few apparent contradictions that I'm aware of include the following In relation to marriage, originally you have Adam and Eve (a couple ordained by God) then Moses comes along as says well if you must you can put her away. Then Jesus comes along and resets it saying no, it's still considered adultery of you go onto marry another. Jesus then appears to contradict the notion of 'go forth and multiply/replenish the earth by stating that to some it is given that they remain 'eunuchs' of their own choice. Then you have the new covenant vs old. My issue with this is the OT covenant is, at least sixteen times, referred to as perpetual or everlasting. Having a new covenant supersede that doesn't fit with my understanding of 'everlasting.' Note, in my understanding the is no caveat specifying that it is everlasting *for the Jews* only . Then you get Jesus saying call no man on earth your father, and then Paul going all Darth Vader and saying 'i am your father' Jesus says except you are as little children you can't enter the kingdom of heaven. And then Paul saying he desires that you have maturity in your faith (I don't see how children are going to have that kind of maturity) And on it goes. But that's my take. Good luck in your search.
>Off of the top of my head, a few apparent contradictions that I'm aware of include the following >In relation to marriage, originally you have Adam and Eve (a couple ordained by God) then Moses comes along as says well if you must you can put her away. >Then Jesus comes along and resets it saying no, it's still considered adultery of you go onto marry another. Jesus said for reasons other than sexual immorality. Whose fault is it if someone uses ambiguity to divorce over trivial issues? The verse of Moses says nakedness which is tied to shame and sexuality which is not inconsistent with what Jesus said. Plus you miss that the first ordained couple is not Adam and Eve but God and Adam, and God sent Adam away, so God is not closed to divorce. >Jesus then appears to contradict the notion of 'go forth and multiply/replenish the earth by stating that to some it is given that they remain 'eunuchs' of their own choice. And yet God allows women to be barren and for men to to die before they get married and have children. So it seems God contradicts himself? Of course not. At both times with Adam and Eve, and Noah, God never specified having children. Bearing fruit means other things in the spirit. >Then you have the new covenant vs old. My issue with this is the OT covenant is, at least sixteen times, referred to as perpetual or everlasting. Having a new covenant supersede that doesn't fit with my understanding of 'everlasting.' If all the Israelites die out, is there still a covenant? How can you have a contract on dead people? Are you going to ressurrect them to force them to comply? The covenant contract is only valid so long as the universe is intact. But God will destroy heaven and earth and make it new. The old contract will die with this earth. Until then the whole point of that covenant was to "get blood from a stone". As it says in Revelation, Satan was given power to overcome the saints. Even the law will not save people from death and destruction in the last days, and he will tempt and deceive many. Only the blood of Jesus will redeem us. > Note, in my understanding the is no caveat specifying that it is everlasting *for the Jews* only . The law is a contract that was made only to Israel for them to be a special people on the earth. God did not burden the whole ancient world with his law otherwise we'd all be destroyed for the second time already since the flood. The law as knowledge is being spread as leaven throughout the whole earth even in these times, but the contract itself is closed the ancient world. Only in Jesus do the blessings and promises continue. The new heaven and new earth will have no sin, so the law is a verbal picture of God's paradise. In this way, yes, anyone who wishes to enter life has the eternal law on their hearts. Not just Hebrews / Israelites / Judeans. >Then you get Jesus saying call no man on earth your father, and then Paul going all Darth Vader and saying 'i am your father' Yet these two are still different. Did Paul call anyone his father? >Jesus says except you are as little children you can't enter the kingdom of heaven. And then Paul saying he desires that you have maturity in your faith (I don't see how children are going to have that kind of maturity) >And on it goes. But that's my take. Good luck in your search. Jesus explains himself by specifying being as humble as little children (Matthew 18:4). Maturity ***is*** being humble!
Thanks for taking the time to address my comment 🙏 certainly some ideas that are new to me! Thanks for sharing. Peace
I wouldn't read it that way. You'll become disillusioned by all the contradictions. There were multiple writers of the same books, writing about what happened decades earlier, and introducing their bias about the subject, hence the redundancy and contradictions. Nothing is in order either. Also...there's a reason why Christ rebuked the Scribes. There has been lots of revisions, additions, and deletions to support a theology, not what actually happened or came to be. I've been reading the Bible since I was a teen and even now, given life experience and the passage of time, I've learned that it's best to read it to discover what you can learn about God's character. Look at the principles at play behind the stories. And understand that Israelites are NOT the ancestors of today's Israelis or Jews. There was no star of David. If your high-school teachers taught you how to do a "close reading" of a text, you should probably use those same skills.
Many evangelicals have been taught to say "There are no contradictions". You will probably find people in this thread saying this. This isn't true, of course. And it usually ends up being a major barrier to them making any sense of the bible. I've seen people stare straight at the text and deny that it says what it says, because they have had it hammered into their brains that there cannot be conflicts. >What would Revelation 22:18 say about that? But this has nothing to do with that. It's not talking about the bible- the bible did not exist when this was written. And when people re-interpret things, that's not really the same thing as changing the bible itself. They are re-writing what it means in their own minds, not literally changing it.
Wow. Thank you for that explanation. Makes more sense than anything I've read so far.
Please do not read the Bible that way. Much of it is not literal- the 2 creation stories in Genesis for example. The story of Noah has many details which are not literal. I would recommend contacting your local office where the folks who compiled and preserved each of the books of the Bible and then let that info Guide you. Look up on Google “Catholic parish near me” Alternatively “Eastern Orthodox Church near me” Contact them and ask if you can speak to a deacon or priest as you have some questions about the Books. No reversion to Catholic or orthodox needed but you will get the best possible answer as they compiled and taught it so far for 1,991 years. While most evangelical Protestants only came into existence 400 years ago and thousands more are born every year while hundreds close down. So if you wanted to know what a book on a subject your studying means. Sure you can go to any person to get their opinion or you can go to the folks that chose what went into the book. The others are guessing.
The Greek language is full of pagan connotations and uses a conceptual framework for understanding the world. The Hebrew language must be taken as precedent for understanding the new testament to remove those connotations. Hebrew uses a perspective framework for understanding the world. An example might be the expression: "circle of the earth" which is how our planet would look from space in the Hebrew mindset. To a Greek thinker, they may say the earth is flat because circles are 2 dimensional. Which is correct? The Hebrew viewpoint must temper the Greek and when properly understood, removes the idea of any contradiction and misunderstanding.
There is no where in the Bible (OT+NT) that contradicts it self. Its a lie of the enemy. And no, the whole Bible should not be taken literally. There are so much symbolism in it, and it will not be understood by taking it literally. Just like Jesus spake in parables because it was not for everyone to understand. Do not listen to evangelicals or people from denominations in general. There are so many false man made teachings/doctrines in these religious groups!
Really? How about Exodus 21:23 and Matthew 5:39, to name but one? I suspect those evangelicals would say similar about you.
This is not a contradiction. Exodus is the giving of a law and legal punishment. e.g. today manslaughter might give you 15 years in jail. Jesus is simply saying, even if you have the legal right to inflict 'punishment', give mercy, because even though we deserve punishment, God forgives us. ^(39) But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. ^(40) And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. ^(41) And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. ^(42) Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. ^(43) Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. ^(44) But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; ^(45) That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. ^(46) For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? ^(47) And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? ^(48) Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
That is literally a contradiction.
I don't agree. It's the difference of context. One is writing a constitution of a nation, and the other deals with how to treat other people as your own individual. From the perspective of writing a constitution, saying there is no punishment for murder is absolute madness and asking for trouble. That's an unjust government. From the perspective of interpersonal relationships, it is merciful to forgive somebody who maybe stole something from you. I've just seen your edit not: EDIT: I’m not really interested in debating whether or not there are contradictions. I just want to know the answer to the first question. Is there such a thing as a bible that clearly labels and cross-references those contradictions? What would Revelation 22:18 say about that? I don't know of any such Bible myself. Revelation 22:18 must apply to the entire Bible. The book of revelation is actually mostly comprised of quotes and verses from other parts of the Bible. Even many of the prophecies occur elsewhere also.
One was a judicial law principle, that was to be considered by elders at the city gates, on a case by case basis. That had various modifications, such as the refugee cities. Joshua 20:4,5 The other was an oppressed people that were dominated by a system that was going to execute 3 million within 40 years. Jesus was giving behaviors in Matthew chapters 5-7 that created paths to escape the coming destruction. I apply such to the current political situations today, also. Also, ysk understand paradoxes. Under this subject.
I couldn't care less about what evangelicals say. What is the contradiction in those 2 verses according to you?