The Bible doesn't contradict itself.
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
DCRunningDiva
Look at me!!! ©
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 9344
Location: Washington DC Metro
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 02/13/06 - 10:36 Post subject: The Bible doesn't contradict itself.
I'm going out on a limb here and posting this in "on topic" because I want to prove to you guys that The Bible is the inherant Word of God and that scripture does not contradict scripture.
In order for us to discuss this in a civil manner I need you to give me scripture references along with your points.
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/06 - 10:54 Post subject:
Good luck Diva - you're much more betterer than me at this stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/06 - 12:17 Post subject:
I don't know the verses, and I'm not one that has ever claimed the bible contradicts itself, but I imagine people would go with the example of "an eye for an eye" in the OT and "turn the other cheek" in the NT.
|
|
|
|
|
DCRunningDiva
Look at me!!! ©
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 9344
Location: Washington DC Metro
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/06 - 13:26 Post subject:
| MechEngDropout wrote: | | I don't know the verses, and I'm not one that has ever claimed the bible contradicts itself, but I imagine people would go with the example of "an eye for an eye" in the OT and "turn the other cheek" in the NT. |
Unfortunately, Mech, that is the whole reason why people think the Bible contradicts itself...they can't give the scripture they are talking about or where the contradictory statement is found. They make an assumption based on what they have heard and don't research on their own. When you analyze the scripture you will see that it doesn't contradict itself. Ever.
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/06 - 13:31 Post subject:
| DCRunningDiva wrote: | | MechEngDropout wrote: | | I don't know the verses, and I'm not one that has ever claimed the bible contradicts itself, but I imagine people would go with the example of "an eye for an eye" in the OT and "turn the other cheek" in the NT. |
Unfortunately, Mech, that is the whole reason why people think the Bible contradicts itself...they can't give the scripture they are talking about or where the contradictory statement is found. They make an assumption based on what they have heard and don't research on their own. When you analyze the scripture you will see that it doesn't contradict itself. Ever. |
It is a popular conversational topic in Catholicism though. Do you know the verses? Do you know why it isn't a contradiction?
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4776
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/06 - 13:42 Post subject:
What about the NT v. the OT? No contradictions there?
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/06 - 14:17 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | What about the NT v. the OT? No contradictions there? |
care to cite examples?
|
|
|
|
|
DCRunningDiva
Look at me!!! ©
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 9344
Location: Washington DC Metro
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/06 - 14:30 Post subject:
| MechEngDropout wrote: | | DCRunningDiva wrote: | | MechEngDropout wrote: | | I don't know the verses, and I'm not one that has ever claimed the bible contradicts itself, but I imagine people would go with the example of "an eye for an eye" in the OT and "turn the other cheek" in the NT. |
Unfortunately, Mech, that is the whole reason why people think the Bible contradicts itself...they can't give the scripture they are talking about or where the contradictory statement is found. They make an assumption based on what they have heard and don't research on their own. When you analyze the scripture you will see that it doesn't contradict itself. Ever. |
It is a popular conversational topic in Catholicism though. Do you know the verses? Do you know why it isn't a contradiction? |
Do you mean these verses:
"But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21:23-25
"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:39
Also noted in Luke:
"If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic." Luke 6:29
Note: for those of you that don't have a Bible you can quickly reference scripture at: www.biblegateway.com
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/06 - 14:35 Post subject:
Eye for eye:
And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
(Exodus 21:23-25)
[Or really all of Exodus 21 speaks of God's laws for the people, several of the basic eye for eye concept.]
Turn the other cheek:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
(Matthew 5:38-39)
And there are several other things that I do not know verses, but the OT had it one way, then Jesus comes along and says, "No, not really. Do this instead."
*Edited to add that the bible verses are taken from the King James version.
|
|
|
|
|
DCRunningDiva
Look at me!!! ©
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 9344
Location: Washington DC Metro
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/06 - 14:56 Post subject:
| MechEngDropout wrote: | Eye for eye:
And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
(Exodus 21:23-25)
[Or really all of Exodus 21 speaks of God's laws for the people, several of the basic eye for eye concept.]
Turn the other cheek:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
(Matthew 5:38-39)
And there are several other things that I do not know verses, but the OT had it one way, then Jesus comes along and says, "No, not really. Do this instead."
*Edited to add that the bible verses are taken from the King James version. |
In today's society it seems almost right to sue companies or people and take them for all they've got. This "eye for eye" principle had a retribution of limits. The custom was to get MORE than even (just like today). But the Leviticus law said, "No, if you're injured you can't take two teeth because you lost one." It was a rule that the retribution should not exceed the actual damage done. It was actually a pretty progressive law. And in the ancient Middle East, the custom was for the family to seek revenge if one of its members was injured or killed. Needless to say, these feuds could escalate quickly, applying a principle like "two eyes for one eye, a whole mouth for one tooth."
Medicine wasn't too advanced in the ancient world. If you lost an eye not much could be done. But if your enemy knew he would suffer the same loss as you, might that not have an effect on his behavior?
In the NT, Jesus laid down a higher ethic: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, 'Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Mat 5:38-39). We can only imagine what life would be like in a world of people who did not seek vengeance. But, Jesus never said the "eye for an eye" law was bad. He simply told his followers that they had to aim a little higher than the law required.
Does that help?
|
|
|
|
|
andydp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 8122
Location: Upstate NY near Albany
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/06 - 17:12 Post subject:
The example I gave of Abraham and Sarah was from a book called "The Ethics of Genesis". Well worth the effort, short book and easy read.
Well then, if it was only a "half truth" isn't that still at least half wrong ? Would it have been ok at 70% true ? The fact is still, Abraham does very well in Egypt as a result of his and Sarah's "half truth". Then, if it was discountable, why did the Egyptians say "why did you lie to us" ?
I'm am making no claim to be a Biblical expert. Dives you're the expert here but as in every case (you me and anyone else) we can all come up with a chapter and verse that will debate your point or uphold my point.
Just one more sign of God's greatness. It would be a boring world if everyone thought the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Jenn
Fresh, Hot & Wild
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 7935
Location: Suite 550
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/13/06 - 23:27 Post subject:
I'm not ignoring you. I will have to check my notes and get back to you.
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/14/06 - 01:13 Post subject:
so am I reading this correctly? people think that because the OT says one thing, and Jesus completes/corrects/redirects it in the NT, it's a contradiction? No, this is not good reasoning at all. Jesus came for a number of reasons, but one of them was because OT law wasn't working well for humans.
at the first reading of Matthew 5:38-41, it appears that Jesus is saying, that we should be meek and passive, real pansies. That is certainly not the case. If you know a bit more about Jesus' audience for this little speech, then you might come to understand what kind of radical Jesus was.
| Matthew 5:38-41 wrote: |
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. |
Offering your left cheek after you've been struck by an oppressor was an act of defiance. The oppressor could have been a slavemaster, a Roman, a husband, a parent. If the oppressor used his fist, it meant that he regarded you as an equal. If he used the back of his hand, he was striking you in a "symbolic" way, to keep you in your submissive role. The oppressor could not use his left hand to backhand someone's right cheek! (left hand is used only for "unclean" tasks.) so it goes like this: a blow to the right cheek from the right hand of an opponent was meant as an insult. Offering your left cheek meant that he had to either use his left hand to backhand you (punishable by a fine) OR, punch your left cheek with his fist, elevating you to equal standing. Your oppressor is thus confounded, robbed of his power to humiliate.
The further instructions are also just as confounding: someone sues you for your tunic, (and only the poorest had nothing left but their tunic) give them your cloak (undergarments) as well. Your oppressor now has everything you own, you leave the courtroom totally naked, and your oppressor is left standing there red-faced, holding your tunic and underwear. In Judaism, nudity was taboo, but for the person seeing or causing the nudity, not the naked person. So the oppressor who has sued you is now viewed by all as causing a great indignity.
Roman soldiers could compel a civilian to carry his pack for 1 mile, but 1 mile only, no further. The soldier could receive severe penalties under military law for forcing someone to do more than 1 mile. This was how Rome attempted to limit the anger of the occupied people and still keep its armies on the move. By refusing to surrender the soldier's pack at the end of 1 mile, you cause quite a problem for the soldier. "what are you up to? Are you insulting my strength? Trying to get me disciplined for seeming to make you go farther than you should?" Then there's the humiliation of a Roman soldier begging a Jew to return his pack.
Jesus is offering a tactic for taking back one's dignity in a non-violent, yet effective way. This way allows the oppressed to take the moral initiative, find a creative alternative to violence, and assert your own humanity and dignity as a person. It breaks the cycle of humiliation and exposes the injustice of the system.
that's powerful stuff.
one more thing, related to the thread, but not necessarily to this long post: What do you believe about God? do you think God can only act as described in the Bible? Can God do something new? As prophets spoke, and God was revealed in a new way, as Jesus came to reveal God in yet another way, is it possible that God is big enough to act in a way in which humans have not yet experienced God before? or does your God have to fit in a box labeled:King James Version?
|
|
|
|
|
DCRunningDiva
Look at me!!! ©
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 9344
Location: Washington DC Metro
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/14/06 - 09:58 Post subject:
| andydp wrote: | The example I gave of Abraham and Sarah was from a book called "The Ethics of Genesis". Well worth the effort, short book and easy read.
Well then, if it was only a "half truth" isn't that still at least half wrong ? Would it have been ok at 70% true ? The fact is still, Abraham does very well in Egypt as a result of his and Sarah's "half truth". Then, if it was discountable, why did the Egyptians say "why did you lie to us" ?
I'm am making no claim to be a Biblical expert. Dives you're the expert here but as in every case (you me and anyone else) we can all come up with a chapter and verse that will debate your point or uphold my point.
Just one more sign of God's greatness. It would be a boring world if everyone thought the same. |
First of all, I am no expert on this subject matter. I just know it to be true that the Bible doesn't contradict itself and, if given the opportunity to prove it I will do my research and prove it to be a fact.
Regarding your question - I don't believe it was right for Abraham to tell a half truth. I do believe he "got away" with some things he wouldn't have if he would have told the truth. The fact of the matter, though, is that God did not allow him to get away with it in the end. That was my point. He was punished for it in the long run. Sometimes we don't always immediately feel the repercussion of our sin. Sometimes we are allowed to feel like we "got away" with something when, in reality, we didn't "get away" with anything at all.
|
|
|
|
|
DCRunningDiva
Look at me!!! ©
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 9344
Location: Washington DC Metro
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/14/06 - 10:04 Post subject:
| keltic63 wrote: | | one more thing, related to the thread, but not necessarily to this long post: What do you believe about God? do you think God can only act as described in the Bible? Can God do something new? As prophets spoke, and God was revealed in a new way, as Jesus came to reveal God in yet another way, is it possible that God is big enough to act in a way in which humans have not yet experienced God before? or does your God have to fit in a box labeled:King James Version? |
I agree with you on the lengthy portion of your post!  I had read that about the left cheek as well.
What do I believe about God? Well, I believe he is all powerful, all knowledgeable, always present. I believe he is who he says he is in the Bible and he can do what he says he can do. I believe God can act any way he desires to act. Does this mean he can only act the way he is described in the Bible? I don't think so. I think there are many things about God that have intentionally been left out of the Bible so we can experience them only when we get to heaven. I don't think we could totally wrap our minds around who he is. We have a hard enough time believing what is in the Bible.
My two cents.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
