Contribute: Let's explain seemingly biblical contradictions

[Paul of Eugene]

Helen posted the following regarding four legged flying creatures:

(c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23)

As in the first objection, regarding bats and birds, the response here is that the classification had to do with locomotion. Animals which did not walk or hop on two legs were "four-legged". This also differentiated the insects from the birds, as both the words owph and seres were general enough to be able to apply to both. That the number four was used idiomatically can also be seen in Proverbs, in verses such as 30:15: "There are three things that are never satisfied, four that never say, 'Enough!'" Thus, grasshoppers, spiders, and centipedes would all be classified as "four-legged." They were not two-legged. But, like birds, they flew.

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.

 

[Aki]

Originally posted by NarrowWay:
It's clear to me that this means exactly the opposite. The author is saying in the first part that losing one's salvation IS something to be very concerned about. He then goes on to say that he expects that those to whom he's speaking will not turn from the narrow path but rather will persevere until then end and be saved.

the Hebrew text is quite a point of debate, and i've seen three totally different explanations for it. regardless of how it is interpreted, though, it remains a fact that there are portions of scriptures which are definite in saying that salvation cannot be lost.

rather than focusing on those verses, i think i would deal on what happens when one gets saved. here are some things:

the believer is:

1. atoned - became one with God.
2. regenerated - made spiritually alive
3. justified - declared righteous by God the Father.
4. born again - had a personal relationship with God.

if salvation is to be lost, then all of the points i mentioned above will also be lost. however, there nowhere in scripture is taught that those things are reversed.

here is another point. at the moment of faith, the believer is said to have eternal life. again, that is at the moment of faith. having eternal life means that it will not be lost. if it is, then it is not eternal life. maybe a potential for eternal life, but not having it at the moment. the scripture is clear, though, that believers have eternal life upon faith.

 

[Aki]

this is to present another seeming contradiction.

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression , who is the figure of him that was to come.

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?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Aki:
this is to present another seeming contradiction.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression , who is the figure of him that was to come.

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?

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
Here’s one:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Matthew 10
9 "Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts,
10 or a bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support.
11 "And whatever city or village you enter, inquire who is worthy in it, and stay at his house until you leave that city.

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.

Mark 6
7 And He summoned the twelve and began to send them out in pairs, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits;
8 and He instructed them that they should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff--no bread, no bag, no money in their belt--
9 but to wear sandals; and He added, "Do not put on two tunics."

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

Luke 9
2 And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to perform healing.
3 And He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics apiece.
4 "Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that city.

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 ]