Contribute: Let's explain seemingly biblical contradictions

Helen posted the following regarding four legged flying creatures:

The problem with saying that there is a classificaiton of things with two legs and then all things with more as being "four legged" as a classification is - this is a rescue argument without collaborating evidence. We can rescue any problem by postulating enough definition changes. Is there any evidence outside of the disputed verses that there was in the Hebrew mind a classification of "four legged" meaning all things four legged and more?

Here is some evidence for a different classification scheme:

Acts 11:6-7
nd when I had fixed my gaze on it and was observing it I saw the four-footed animals of the earth and the wild beasts and the crawling creatures and the birds of the air. 7 "I also heard a voice saying to me, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat.'
NASU

Rom 1:23
3 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
NASU

Peter in his mind automatically classified the creatures he saw in the vision as four-footed, wild, crawling creatures, and birds. Note he did not include the four-footed animals with the crawling creatures.

Paul also, in is description, classified the available animals as models for idol formation to be birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures. It seems then, that the classification scheme Helen proposes as an answer was not immediately in the forefront of the minds of Peter and Paul when it came time to portray the various kinds of animals.

To repeat: Its easy to make answers up, but harder to document that they are right.

 

the issue here is the existence of a set of rules. Romans 5 is discussing that the Mosaic Law is not present from Adam to until Moses. it also said that without any law given, no sin will be charged against anyone. with that, it seems that verse 14 of Romans 5 says that the people from Adam to Moses did not commit any sin.

on the other hand, Genesis 4 is definite that sins, or disobedience is done at the same timeframe. with this, therefore, it is to be concluded that a set of laws is existing then. definitely it is not the Mosaic Law, for even the first five books of Moses will affirm to that.

explanation anybody? </font>[/QUOTE]Simple. Paul in Romans was not saying they had not sinned, he was saying they had not sinned in the same way Adam had sinned. They had, however, sinned: "For all have sinned". Hmmm - who wrote that?

 

Jesus told the disciples not to acquire these supplies for their mission, but the possibility seems to be that they could take modest supplies for their journeys.

Jesus told the disciples to take nothing except a single staff for their journey.

Jesus says that the disciples should not take anything at all, not even a staff.


How do you those of you who are inerrantists reconcile these three passages? Do you believe these are somehow three different groups of disciples? </font>[/QUOTE]Not different times - only one major missionary journey of the 12 during Jesus' lifetime.

Concerning Luke 9:3, The Vulgate Latin and Oriental manuscripts read singular staff, but all the other manuscripts read plural staffs, as Matthew 10:10 does.

Jesus forbids the acquiring of a new staff or sandals as extra provisions or “insurance” for the trip, but allows what they already have, the prohibition being against extra baggage. No contradiction or error here. Just another slippery fish for those trying so hard to prove the Word of God contains errors!

[ June 21, 2003, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: John Wells ]