The Bible is not inerrant

[micatala]

Again, because of repeated assertions made in other threads that the Bible is inerrant, and because these assertions are not on topic within the threads in which they are being made, I am creating yet another Biblical contradiction thread but focused on just one contradiction.

For now, I will refer to it as an alleged contradiction, giving inerrantists a shot at addressing it.

Yes, there are other contradiction threads, and the issue has been long debated with many alleged contradictions being offered. There is disagreement on whether they have all been addressed adequately or not. While I have not gone through all the other threads to see if this one has been addressed, I think it is worth debating on its own (possibly again).

Question for debate:

Do the various passages within the Bible on divorce and remarriage constitute a self-contradiction, thereby showing the Bible is not inerrant?

Matthew in chapter 5 wrote:
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[f] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Deuteronomy chapter 24 wrote:
1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Note that "indecent" in the passage above cannot mean the same as adulterous, otherwise the appropriate course of action would be to stone the woman.

Furthermore, in Matthew chapter 19 we have.

Quote:
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Deuteronomy allows divorce and remarriage for reasons other than infidelity. So does Leviticus.

Chapter 21 wrote:
7 " 'They must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God. 8 Regard them as holy, because they offer up the food of your God. Consider them holy, because I the LORD am holy—I who make you holy.

Priests cannot marry a divorced woman, but this is special for priests. Obviously it is OK for other men to marry a divorced woman.


Jesus says a man who divorces, except for infideltiy, cannot remarry without committing adultery. He also says a man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


How is this not a contradictory teaching?





Also, the passage in Matthew chapter 19 is often cited as teaching that the only allowable marriage is between one man and one woman. This is often used against gay marriage, but it also implies polygamy is not allowed.

However, polygamy clearly is allowed in other passages.

Paul in I Timothy Ch. 3 wrote:
2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,


Overseers should only have one wife. Clearly it is OK for others who are not overseers to have more than one wife.

If this is not a contradiction within the Bible, it is at least a contradiction in interpretation among those who say "one man - one woman" is the only allowable marriage based on Matthew.

Please restrict comments to the particular areas of divorce and remarriage. Other alleged contradictions should be dealt with in existing threads, or other new threads.

[micatala]

Wow. A whole 24 hours and not one person has responded to the challenge.

To abbreviate, the passages above teach that:

1. A man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Matt. 5:31).
2. A man may marry a divorced woman, as long as he is not a priest (Deuteronomy chapter 24 and Leviticus chapter 21).


Is this not a contradiction?

If it is not, explain how it is not.

[Easyrider]

Wow. A whole 24 hours and not one person has responded to the challenge.

To abbreviate, the passages above teach that:

1. A man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Matt. 5:31).
2. A man may marry a divorced woman, as long as he is not a priest (Deuteronomy chapter 24 and Leviticus chapter 21).


Is this not a contradiction?

If it is not, explain how it is not.

There's more to it than just that. The issue also goes to whether remarriage is acceptable.

Is Remarriage under certain circumstances acceptable?

The third situation that Paul addresses is that of an unbelieving partner who wants a divorce. His instruction in this case is: "But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace" (1 Cor 7:15). Paul is not commanding the unbelieving partner to separate. The permissive imperative "let it be so" (kopisesto) presupposes that the unbelieving spouse has already willfully initiated or accomplished the separation. Consequently, Paul advises to let the separation take its course and become an accomplished fact. The believer need not pursue the deserting spouse and is free from all marital obligations. The Greek verb ou dedoulotai, literally "no longer enslaved," implies that cohabitation with such a person is slavery for the believing partner. Since Christ has called us to peace, the believer may withdraw from slavery in such a case.

This introduces us to one of the most debated questions in the interpretation of a New Testament passage. The question centers on the exact meaning of the verb "is not bound" or "is not enslaved" (ou dedoulotai). Does it mean that the believing party is free in the sense of being permitted to remarry after the separation , or in the sense of being free to separate but not remarry? In other words, is Paul granting to the believing spouse only the right to separate from bed and board or the right to separate and marry another? Does desertion give to the innocent partner the right of divorce with the liberty to remarry?

Some maintain that Paul grants to the deserted believer only the freedom to separate but not to remarry. They appeal to the fact that "Paul says nothing in verse 15 about a second marriage for the deserted spouse."28 They interpret the silence of Paul as indicating that he offers to a deserted believer the same two alternatives given to separated believers, namely, reconciliation or lifelong single life (1 Cor 7:11).

This view ignores the striking difference between the conditional separation of believing spouses mentioned in verses 10 and 11 and the unconditional separation caused by the desertion of an unbelieving spouse envisaged in verse 15. In the former case, Paul strictly enjoins the spouse who has separated to remain unmarried or be reconciled. In the latter case, Paul recognizes the finality of the separation caused by the deserting party by saying, "Let it be so." In other words, "let the case be closed and the separation take place."

"In verse 15," as John Murray points out, "we find a terseness and severity of terms which, viewed from the standpoint of the separation envisioned, are indicative of decisiveness and finality—‘let him (or her) depart,’ that is, ‘let him (or her) be gone.’"29 Because the separation is final, it is unconditional. That is to say, there is no injunction to remain unmarried or be reconciled. Instead, there is the affirmation that the deserted spouse "is not bound" (1 Cor 7:15).

The phrase "not bound" (ou dedoulotai) presupposes the dissolution of the marriage bond and consequently the freedom of the deserted spouse to remarry. This conclusion is supported by Paul’s affirmation in verse 39 of the same chapter that a husband’s death releases the wife from the marriage bond and frees her to marry again: "A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord" (1 Cor 7:39).

<b>The dissolution of the marriage bond by a willful and obstinate desertion is somewhat similar to the dissolution of the marriage bond by death. In both instances, the marriage relationship is terminated by the permanent departure of a spouse. Whether such a departure is caused by death or by the obstinate desertion of an unbelieving partner, the outcome is the same. The surviving spouse is released from the marriage bond and is free to remarry.</b>

CONCLUSION

In this chapter we have found that both the Old and New Testaments clearly and consistently condemn divorce as a violation of God’s original plan for marriage as a lifelong union that enables a man and a woman to become "one flesh." Respect for this fundamental principle demands that a Christian couple experiencing marital conflicts should not seek to resolve them through divorce. If a marriage relationship becomes intolerable, a Christian couple can consider a legal separation. The purpose of the separation should be to provide an opportunity for the couple to work toward a possible reconciliation. <b>It is only when reconciliation is no longer possible that divorce and remarriage are permissible</b>.

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/boo ... age/4.html

[micatala]

The passage cited by Easyrider is certainly relevant.

Here is most of the section fro I Corinthians Chapter 7 in the NIV translation.

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

If I am understanding Paul and the author cited (Samuele Bacchiocchi) by Easyrider, two believers are not to divorce, but if they do (interesting he is allowing it may happen even if it is not allowed!!), they are not to remarry.

On the other hand, Paul holds a believer is allowed to let an unbeliever leave. I will give the benefit of the doubt to Bacchiocchi and say it is possible that it is Ok for the believer to remarry in this case, although it is quite unclear.

Bacchiocchi makes the case that God did not institute divorce, but that since it exists (and did in biblical times) he sought to regulate it through the law to prevent a bad situation from getting worse. This is a reasonable hypothesis, but is not really supported by scripture. Jesus says it is Moses who allowed divorce because of "the hardness of your hearts."



At any rate, this is a third passage on divorce and remarriage. It seems to me this contradict's Jesus teaching in Matthew. Jesus makes no distinction that some may divorce and others are not allowed to. He also clearly disallows remarriage.

A man cannot divorce his wife and remarry, excepting if she has already committed adultery. Is this not what Matthew 19:9 clearly states? How does Jesus teaching not contradict Paul's?

[Lotan]

I will give the benefit of the doubt to Bacchiocchi and say it is possible that it is Ok for the believer to remarry in this case, although it is quite unclear.

Hi Mike,

I think you're quite gracious to let this apologetic doubletalk pass without an objection. Jesus makes his point in 1Cor. quite plainly...

"10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

Paul cites a tradition that comes directly from Jesus - "not I, but the Lord" (Jesus-mythers take note).

"11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife."

As you noted, it's rather odd that Jesus would provide an alternative for those who chose to ignore his direct "command", but this might make more sense in light of the exception for adultery in Matt. 5.

In verse 12 Paul begins to ad lib - "I, not the Lord". His exception for 'unbelievers' is entirely his own creation. Jesus makes no such exceptions because his pronouncements are directed to Torah obsevant Judaists, not unbelieving Gentiles or believing Gentiles with unbelieving spouses. In short, Paul's teachings are heretical by comparison to those of Jesus.

Jesus says it is Moses who allowed divorce because of "the hardness of your hearts."

This is one of those cases where Jesus 'builds a fence' around the Torah. His interpretation of the Law of Moses is actually stricter than is originally called for (contrary to the notion that Jesus freed people from the law), and follows the formula "It was said.../But I say...". There are many examples in Matthew 5. In each case Jesus calls for a more stringent interpretation. For example...

5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

So, it's not enough just to avoid murder. A follower of Jesus has to eschew anger so that they aren't tempted to murder. Here's another...

5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Same as murder, it's not enough just to avoid committing adultery, a follower of Jesus has to avoid even thinking about it. It's a failsafe approach to Torah observance. There are other examples in Matthew 5 if anyone would like to look them up. Jesus' pronouncement concerning divorce follows this same pattern...

5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

In this case it is the commandment against adultery that is the issue, and divorce is seen as a cause of it. In the case where adultery has already been committed, divorce is allowed (but not mandatory). Matthew rephrases Jesus' pronouncement again in Matt. 19...

19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

In no case does Jesus ever make an allowance for divorce for any other reason save adultery. It may be possible that Paul felt that the breaking of other commandments (especially the 1st one) was also grounds for divorce, but we have no word from Jesus on the subject. Instead he clearly implies that adultery is the only exception.

[micatala]

I will give the benefit of the doubt to Bacchiocchi and say it is possible that it is Ok for the believer to remarry in this case, although it is quite unclear.

Hi Mike,

I think you're quite gracious to let this apologetic doubletalk pass without an objection. Jesus makes his point in 1Cor. quite plainly...

"10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

Paul cites a tradition that comes directly from Jesus - "not I, but the Lord" (Jesus-mythers take note).

"11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife."

Yes, I did not distinguish between this passage, which is Paul claiming to speak for the Lord, and the subsequent passages, in which he speaks for himself.

Either way, for purposes of a contradiction, the first passage contradicts the OT.

If we are to take Paul's writings as authoritative or infallible, then Paul contradicts the Lord as you say. We are left with an internal contradiction within this one letter of Paul, or we are left with the conclusion that Paul's opinions on marriage, divorce, and remarriage are quite optional. From other comments in this section, I view them as optional (e.g. "I would that you were all like me" in other words, celibate).

Jesus makes no such exceptions because his pronouncements are directed to Torah obsevant Judaists, not unbelieving Gentiles or believing Gentiles with unbelieving spouses. In short, Paul's teachings are heretical by comparison to those of Jesus.

Ah yes, context. Would this be like Leviticus being addressed to the Israelites and not the rest of us? Somehow I recall someone saying I had to follow Leviticus. Now Easyrider is essentially implying I do not have to follow Jesus' teaching on divorce.

At any rate, that is a matter of inconsistent interpretation, not internal contradiction, which is what I am trying to focus on here.

Jesus says it is Moses who allowed divorce because of "the hardness of your hearts."

This is one of those cases where Jesus 'builds a fence' around the Torah. His interpretation of the Law of Moses is actually stricter than is originally called for (contrary to the notion that Jesus freed people from the law), and follows the formula "It was said.../But I say...". There are many examples in Matthew 5. In each case Jesus calls for a more stringent interpretation. For example...

5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

So, it's not enough just to avoid murder. A follower of Jesus has to eschew anger so that they aren't tempted to murder. Here's another...

5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Same as murder, it's not enough just to avoid committing adultery, a follower of Jesus has to avoid even thinking about it. It's a failsafe approach to Torah observance. There are other examples in Matthew 5 if anyone would like to look them up. Jesus' pronouncement concerning divorce follows this same pattern...

5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

In this case it is the commandment against adultery that is the issue, and divorce is seen as a cause of it. In the case where adultery has already been committed, divorce is allowed (but not mandatory). Matthew rephrases Jesus' pronouncement again in Matt. 19...

19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

In no case does Jesus ever make an allowance for divorce for any other reason save adultery. It may be possible that Paul felt that the breaking of other commandments (especially the 1st one) was also grounds for divorce, but we have no word from Jesus on the subject. Instead he clearly implies that adultery is the only exception.

The other examples may also provide contradictions between Jesus' teachings and the OT. Again, this thread is meant to be devoted to the marriage and divorce question, and Lotan has furthered bolstered the argument that these constitute an internal contradiction within the Bible.


Thus, the Bible is not inerrant. Is there any other conclusion to be reached?



!

[micatala]

In this chapter we have found that both the Old and New Testaments clearly and consistently condemn divorce as a violation of God’s original plan for marriage as a lifelong union that enables a man and a woman to become "one flesh." Respect for this fundamental principle demands that a Christian couple experiencing marital conflicts should not seek to resolve them through divorce. If a marriage relationship becomes intolerable, a Christian couple can consider a legal separation. The purpose of the separation should be to provide an opportunity for the couple to work toward a possible reconciliation. <b>It is only when reconciliation is no longer possible that divorce and remarriage are permissible</b>.

A couple of other things have struck me about this conclusion.

One is the authors contention that the OT and NT clearly condemn divorce as a violation of God's original "one flesh" plan. I am not sure this follows. Especially when one considers that polygamy is clearly condoned, although seen as less than ideal, the "one man one woman" formulation, while arguably the best scripturally, does not supercede any other arrangement.

The second is how subjective the criteria are (if they can even be called criteria in any meaningful sense) under which divorce is to be considered permissible. I would humbly suggest that very similar arguments can be made for gay marriage.


At any rate, I am not usually one to award myself victory in any debate, but am getting close to doing so in this case. I certainly will continue to cite this thread in the future whenever I am presented with claims of Biblical inerrancy.

[micatala]

As with many threads, a number of pages of posts have been lost in this thread. However, this will give us an opportunity to get back on topic.

Again, the challenge is for inerrantists to attempt to explain the contradictory teachings on divorce and remarriage given in the Bible. The main issue is that the OT allows remarriage after divorce even if the divorce was not for reasons of adultery. Jesus clearly does not. In fact, Jesus explicitly contrasts his teaching with that of Moses, so one could easily infer that he intended to contravene the earlier teaching.

[Cathar1950]

As with many threads, a number of pages of posts have been lost in this thread. However, this will give us an opportunity to get back on topic.

Again, the challenge is for inerrantists to attempt to explain the contradictory teachings on divorce and remarriage given in the Bible. The main issue is that the OT allows remarriage after divorce even if the divorce was not for reasons of adultery. Jesus clearly does not. In fact, Jesus explicitly contrasts his teaching with that of Moses, so one could easily infer that he intended to contravene the earlier teaching.

I couldn't help but agree with your last two posts.
Because I don't hold a position that the bible is the "Word of God" as it usually means something else even when the bible writes of the "Word of God".
There is nothing that would indicate the collection of writing that came from different traditions, first from Jewish then the Christian groups that all dispute what was included and excluded over a hundreds of years, that indicate it has no errors or contradicts another part. Even the prophets gave differing messages.
Human evolution gives us reason to doubt we were ever created to be one man and one woman as these are social factors that have been worked out over thousands of years and hardly seem like any intentions of God. Arguments can be made for many varieties of arangments including not getting married at all which might also contradict the written words.
The bible never seems to say it is infallible or inerrant and even the few Psalms are speaking of something other then the bible or even the laws of Moses.
Until later kings even Passover had not been kept and is most likely a rite from an earlier time given new meaning by Priests under Josiah or Hezekiah and later Ezra.
We really don't know what Jesus taught, we have his followers word for it and they disagree.

[micatala]

The bible never seems to say it is infallible or inerrant and even the few Psalms are speaking of something other then the bible or even the laws of Moses.

Yes, there are passages which describe the 'word of God' as perfect, pure, etc. However, as you suggest, these verses refer to only a small portion of the writings we have today, or possibly refer to the more abstract 'word of God', much of which may not ever have been written down.

The closest thing in the NT is a verse in I believe on of the letters to Timothy that all scripture is useful for teaching, instruction, rebuke, etc. to paraphrase. No inerrancy is implied.