Contradictions in the N.T.

[liamconnor]

I apologize, for I am sure this is a hackneyed topic.


Now, though discrepancies and even contradictions in the Bible do not automatically threaten my beliefs (there are some which, if they could be shown, would make me abandon Christianity) still, the mention of "contradictions in Scripture" is made so often, I have forgotten which ones we have in mind.

Let's narrow this down to the N.T. since that is an explicitly Christian compilation.

What are they. Are there ways of reconciling them?

[liamconnor]

Just a reminder, a contradiction is the assertion of two propositions which both cannot obtain.

Except for the date of the last supper, I don't recall running across a single logical contradiction.


did I miss any?

[Justin108]

Just a reminder, a contradiction is the assertion of two propositions which both cannot obtain.

Except for the date of the last supper, I don't recall running across a single logical contradiction.


did I miss any?

Yes, as I posted in post 32. I'll repeat it here:

Matthew 1:16 vs, Luke 3:23

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem--they are different. Luke's genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan and Solomon.From here on, the entire lineage is a contradiction. Even Joseph's father is a contradiction, with Matthew naming "Jacob" as Joseph's father and Luke naming "Heli" as Joseph's father.

[1213]

So according to that one scripture then I am for him. Well whadaya know. I'm a believer! I endorse Jesus!

Congratulations!

But being on his side doesn’t necessary mean that you are believer.

And why would we go with the Finnish translation? Is that the one true version of the bible we can trust?

The thing is the bible also states that whatever we do for others, we do for God. So if we are doing good deeds to others, then we are doing those good deeds for God. So the opposite must surely apply to. If we commit evil against another person, we are committing evil towards God. So EVERYTHING we do is going to affect god. So as soon as God records these acts of hurt towards people, he is recording acts of hurt towards himself. ie the evil he has suffered.

Ok. good point that what we do others we do to God.

Now if I look again the 1 Cor. 13:5, it says:

Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
King James
doth not act unseemly, doth not seek its own things, is not provoked, doth not impute evil,
Yong’s literal
doesn't behave itself inappropriately, doesn't seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil;
World English Bible
And never is she rude, Never does she think of self Or ever get annoyed. She never is resentful,
International standard

So there seems to be many versions of what it says. That is why I think it is best to look what the most original word really is. In King James it is thinketh, which comes from word logizomai that has these possible meanings: AV-think, impute, reckon, count, account, suppose, reason, number, misc.

If one wants to see Bible without contradiction, he chooses think for the right meaning of the word, because it fits well to the scriptures and it fits well to the whole Bible.

But it may be also that 1 Cor. 13:5 is not about same love as 1 John 4:8.

[bluethread]

Just a reminder, a contradiction is the assertion of two propositions which both cannot obtain.

Except for the date of the last supper, I don't recall running across a single logical contradiction.


did I miss any?

Yes, as I posted in post 32. I'll repeat it here:

Matthew 1:16 vs, Luke 3:23

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem--they are different. Luke's genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan and Solomon.From here on, the entire lineage is a contradiction. Even Joseph's father is a contradiction, with Matthew naming "Jacob" as Joseph's father and Luke naming "Heli" as Joseph's father.

Heli was Yoseph's father-in-law. The grammatical connection in Luke is not as strong as it is in Matthew. Without Matthew's account, it could be presumed that Yoseph was begotten of Heli. However, with Matthew's account, it is clear that was not the case. Yeshua was Yoseph's "son by custom", ie adopted son. Yoseph's relationship with Heli is not defined, but is just listed, whereas Yoseph is "begotten" of Yacov. These two passages show how a father-son relationship can be identified specifically or spoken of in general terms.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 49 by liamconnor]

So look it up. Temple Mount is a converted temple of Jupiter, now where they worship Jehovah.

Where do you think the occupying Greeks and Romans went to worship?

Do you know what it said on Roman coins? Copper: Tiberias Caesar, son of the Divine Augustus.
Gold: God Augustus.
Just touching them is blasphemy, and Jesus wants you folks to pay Caesar for his divine blessings?

So, far from being able to advocate paying the tax, he was essentially telling Jews to become defiled just by touching these coins.

PLOT DISCREPANCY!

And isn't it better to rip your eye out rather than stumble?

And tithes to Augustus! Paying tithes to another divinity! Wow! How embarrassing for Christianity!

[/b]

[Justin108]

Heli was Yoseph's father-in-law.

Can you support this claim? Or is this conclusion solely an attempt to patch up an inconsistency?

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes, as I posted in post 32. I'll repeat it here:

Matthew 1:16 vs, Luke 3:23

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem--they are different.

# QUESTION: Why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listings of the other chroniclers?
Because to prove one’s genealogy it was not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. (compare Ezra 7:1-5 & 1 Chronicles 6:1-15) Matthew: He doubtless used the public register and copied from it, if not every name, the ones necessary to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David

#QUESTION: Why do the genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke differ?

Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan and evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, while Matthew traces Jesus ancestry from Solomon through to Joseph (his legally father). (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7).

The lists of Matthew and Luke come together again in two persons, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This could be that Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah; perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri he became Neri’s son-in-law, thus being called the “son of Neri.� Or possibly that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his “son� for that reason also.

Zerubbabel, who was likely the actual son of Pedaiah, was legally reckoned as the son of Shealtiel, as stated earlier.—Compare Mt 1:12; Lu 3:27; 1Ch 3:17-19. Then the accounts indicate that Zerubbabel had two sons, Rhesa and Abiud, the lines diverging again at this point. (These could have been, not actual sons, but descendants, or one, at least, could have been a son-in-law. Compare 1Ch 3:19.) (Lu 3:27; Mt 1:13)

# QUESTIONS: So how many generations 41 or 42?
Depends on how you count: By taking Abraham to David, 14 names, then using David as the starting name for the second 14, with Josiah as the last; finally, by heading the third series of 14 names with Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and ending with Jesus.

Notice that Matthew repeats the name David as the last of the first 14 names and as the first of the next 14. Then he repeats the expression “the deportation to Babylon,� which he links with Josiah and his sons.—Mt 1:17."

SOURCE: Bible Encylopedia "Insight on the Scriptures"

Detailed analysis:
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001647#h=1

[Justin108]

Because to prove one’s genealogy it was not necessary to name every link in the line of descent.

Matthew 1:2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers....

This persists throughout Matthew 1. If Matthew did not mean "father" but actually meant "ancestor", why did he say "father"?

Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan and evidently follows the ancestry of Mary

There's nothing "evidently" about it. Do you have anything to support your claim that this is Mary's line despite the fact that it explicitly states that Joseph was the son of Heli?

[JehovahsWitness]

This persists throughout Matthew 1. If Matthew did not mean "father" but actually meant "ancestor", why did he say "father"?

Below is a quote from my bible enclylopedia:

FATHER

The Hebrew word ʼav, translated “father,� is a mimetic (imitative) word taken from the first and simplest sounds of infant lips. The Hebrew ʼav and the Greek pa·terʹ are both used in various senses: as begetter, or progenitor, of an individual (Pr 23:22; Zec 13:3; Lu 1:67), the head of a household or ancestral family (Ge 24:40; Ex 6:14), an ancestor (Ge 28:13; Joh 8:53), a founder of a nation (Mt 3:9), a founder of a class or profession (Ge 4:20, 21), a protector (Job 29:16; Ps 68:5), the source of something (Job 38:28), and a term of respect (2Ki 5:13; Ac 7:2)

source: Insight on the Scriptures Vol I p. 913

Further reading
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001647#h=1.

I am not an expert in the Hebrew language but the above seems reasonable.

JW

[Justin108]

This persists throughout Matthew 1. If Matthew did not mean "father" but actually meant "ancestor", why did he say "father"?

Below is a quote from my bible enclylopedia:

FATHER

The Hebrew word ʼav, translated “father,� is a mimetic (imitative) word taken from the first and simplest sounds of infant lips. The Hebrew ʼav and the Greek pa·terʹ are both used in various senses: as begetter, or progenitor, of an individual (Pr 23:22; Zec 13:3; Lu 1:67), the head of a household or ancestral family (Ge 24:40; Ex 6:14), an ancestor (Ge 28:13; Joh 8:53), a founder of a nation (Mt 3:9), a founder of a class or profession (Ge 4:20, 21), a protector (Job 29:16; Ps 68:5), the source of something (Job 38:28), and a term of respect (2Ki 5:13; Ac 7:2)

source: Insight on the Scriptures Vol I p. 913

Further reading
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001647#h=1.

I am not an expert in the Hebrew language but the above seems reasonable.

JW

Fair enough. I'll give you this one.

Now on to the next point. Do you have anything to support your claim that this is Mary's line despite the fact that it explicitly states that Joseph was the son of Heli?