Donald Morgan Contradictions » Internet Infidels Are any of these contradictions false?
If what you are asking is it possible to apply logic to harmonize all of the various scriptures together then the answer is yes. But in my opinion, neither this way nor the blog posts’ way are healthy ways to read the Bible.
I personally used to be afraid if there was even one such contradiction then I was afraid the whole Bible was false. So I would scour the internet until I found some satisfactory explanation for why the Bible says x and y. I even got a kick out of explaining such contradictions to other Christians who were confused. But today, I would argue these contradictions only arise when reading the Bible in a very foreign and modern mindset compared to how it is supposed to be read. Thus, while things like that blog presumably took a lot of work, they are entirely meaningless to the Bible’s main teaching.
Treating the Bible as something to be “handled” (all potential “errors” and contradictions neatly explained away) or treating the Bible as a source of gotcha quotes that make Christians look dumb are both wrong ways of reading the Bible. You play stupid games you win stupid prizes. These exercises neither disprove Christianity on the one hand nor build strong and lasting faith in Christ on the other.
Life itself is full of contradictions. Literalism doesn’t work well for life any more than it does for the Bible.
It’s also important to take discrepancies as they come. Each time I find a big one, I’m both timid that this will be the one that gets me and I’m also encouraged that by getting into it, my understanding and faith in the Scriptures will be better developed.
Recently, I was caught up with Paul’s statement about how the woman was deceived and not the man. It went against everything I had assumed about how Adam was deceived. I went to a trusted commentary, which then referred me to an apparently significant academic article by some person of stature, and yet they took a hard turn on misogynistic Paul and his questionable place in the canon.
And after all that, just going back and rereading Genesis 3 was enough to make perfect sense of Paul’s statement.
Is a bit like the lesson of history.
As the library of a single culture its main teaching is the remarkable evolution of their God, unparalleled, without peer, in its jihad-ijtihad in flesh to touch His face.
If Adam was not deceived then does that mean he ate the fruit knowing full well that it was wrong? And why does being a brainless twit who does whatever the girl told him to do mean that he is not a transgressor?
But the real contradiction in that epistle is the nonsense which follows about women being saved through child bearing. So only men are saved by grace and women by works? Really?
the woman was deceived which is excusable, but indeed the brainless twit even went on to blame God for it as he gave him the woman because he was aware of his own fault.
Yes and I think that is the real beginning of sin. It was the self-destructive habit of blaming others for your mistakes rather accepting the ubiquitous challenge of life where you learn from your mistakes. This is the pattern followed by Cain and all people since.
I think most commentators see ‘childbearing’ as a reference to the woman being the one through whom the promised seed would be born to crush the serpent’s head.
Also, it isn’t that the man was faultless, by no means, but it was the woman who the crafty creature deceived. Most commentators also see more than a few days difference between the creation of man and woman. So it was as if the serpent knew that his best shot at getting Adam was through his bride, and so the enemy still thinks he can get at Christ through his bride, but she is now forever sanctified by his sacrificial blood and sealed by the Spirit.
Oh… thanks. That makes sense. I still don’t like that passage very much, because it sure doesn’t sound like that is what it is saying. But this explanation does help!
uh uh… that isn’t in the text and I am not reading such a thing into it.
LOL That makes sense though… we Christians being that bride.
I think most of those “contradictions” are not really contradictions. Rather, they represent tensions in the text in the same way the feelings and beliefs and preferences of people in secular matters have nuances.
There are some clear, minor errors in the Bible. The text never claims to be inerrant.
All hermeneutics are subjective. Especially those from the mind to the pen.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.