Biblical Contradictions

[Vadergirl123]

Does anyone care what Limestone Church of Christ has to say on the matter? In what recognized way (and by that I mean recognized by other bible scholars) are they an authority on this subject?

If you don't like/trust them you can read the 2nd link

 

[Quagmire]

Um the list of contradictions. hahaha read my very first post on page 1.

Did you read both of them?

Ah, sorry. didn't realize there were two links there.

Tell you what: since that article is insanely long, why don't you post an excerpt from it here that you feel addresses the question.

Actually, that's what you're supposed to be doing anyway. Just linking to other sites without any explanation or summery in your own words is actually a rule violation.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Actually the claim wasn't "unsubstantiated" since we see in Job that God allows Satan to do things. So you can't say the two verses are contradictory. You can say there's no evidence, but that doesn't really mean anything in the context of a contradiction.

Yes, God allows Satan to do things. But the only time they mention God instead of Satan in Job is when Job speaks, because he didn't know that it was Satan. In the narrative it clearly says who does what. The parts that contradict (2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1) are part of the narrative and should thus not be afflicted by human ignorance.

So the contradiction still stands. There not being any evidence very much supports that it's a contradiction.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Yes, God allows Satan to do things. But the only time they mention God instead of Satan in Job is when Job speaks, because he didn't know that it was Satan. In the narrative it clearly says who does what. The parts that contradict (2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1) are part of the narrative and should thus not be afflicted by human ignorance.

Did you read the 2nd link??

 

[Vadergirl123]

Ah, sorry. didn't realize there were two links there.

No problem, in hindsight I probably should've just posted the 2nd one.

Tell you what: since that article is insanely long, why don't you post an excerpt from it here that you feel addresses the question.

It's not too long it's like 9paragraphs and will only take about 10-15minutes(at most) to read. Also the whole thing addresses the question. If it's too long for you to read at once just take a paragraph a day haha(or hour)

Actually, that's what you're supposed to be doing anyway. Just linking to other sites without any explanation or summery in your own words is actually a rule violation.

Rule violation? I didn't really make any rules about how I couldn't use links.

 

[SnackerBob]

To quote the Forum Rules:

Plagiarism is illegal and never permitted. To quote another author you must always identify the Title, Author, and Publisher. You may insert a short paragraph or one or two sentences from it into your post, showing a link to the source. When using material in this way, you must indicate the significance of the material in your own words. Posts that just show a link and source material will be removed."

 

[Vadergirl123]

To quote the Forum Rules:

Plagiarism is illegal and never permitted. To quote another author you must always identify the Title, Author, and Publisher. You may insert a short paragraph or one or two sentences from it into your post, showing a link to the source. When using material in this way, you must indicate the significance of the material in your own words. Posts that just show a link and source material will be removed."

Ah I see, would me saying, "this link shows a contradiction doesn't exist" be enough to indicate the "significance" of the material. I mean this entire thread is about showing why contradictions don't exist, and my posts don't just have a link and source material as the only thing mentioned.

 

[SnackerBob]

It also feels to me, personally, like the 2nd link is attempting some sleight of hand. At first, it admits that the same word (translated moved in both instances) is used. Then it directs your attention to a situation that doesn't use that word (The Pharaoh of the Exodus), goes back to the original word's use in Job, jumps to the NT and tries to wrap up the entirety with gravity.
This is a link that can only sell you if you're already buying.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Did you read the 2nd link??

Yes, and it really tried to stretch the logic to try and make it fit. That didn't quite work though as they completely disregarded the context. The contradiction still stands.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Yes, and it really tried to stretch the logic to try and make it fit. That didn't quite work though as they completely disregarded the context. The contradiction still stands.

What!?!? We are talking about the same contradiction right? One passage said Satan incited David and another said God did? You really read both those links and thought the verses still contradicted?? Some writers gave credit for doing things he permited, as the writer of II Samuel did. And from other biblical passages we see that God permits things to happen. In this story the Lord had permited Satan to incite David. I don't understand how you see that as a contradiction.

 

[Vadergirl123]

It also feels to me, personally, like the 2nd link is attempting some sleight of hand. At first, it admits that the same word (translated moved in both instances) is used. Then it directs your attention to a situation that doesn't use that word (The Pharaoh of the Exodus), goes back to the original word's use in Job, jumps to the NT and tries to wrap up the entirety with gravity.
This is a link that can only sell you if you're already buying.

The exodus reference was to show how God permits things to happen and the gravity analogy is showing how some of the ancient writers viewed situations. I personally thought Mr. Lyons did a good job in showing how the pasages don't contradict.

 

[Quagmire]

No problem, in hindsight I probably should've just posted the 2nd one.

It's not too long it's like 9paragraphs and will only take about 10-15minutes

9 paragraphs and 15 minutes is too long. Anyway, if all you're going to do is defer to the site and everything it says, how does anyone here know if you've even considered the questions yourself? Or the answers for that matter?

(at most) to read. Also the whole thing addresses the question. If it's too long for you to read at once just take a paragraph a day haha(or hour)

One of the tactics apologists typically use is to make their points and replies so long and convoluted that considering and replying in turn becomes such a task that they wind up wearing out the other side. If someone has a valid point or rebuttal they wouldn't have to resort to those sorts of tactics.

Rule violation? I didn't really make any rules about how I couldn't use links.

No, but we did: ***Rule 7. Referencing, Quotations, and Links
Plagiarism is illegal and never permitted. To quote another author you must always identify the Title, Author, and Publisher. You may insert a short paragraph or one or two sentences from it into your post, showing a link to the source. When using material in this way, you must indicate the significance of the material in your own words. Posts that just show a link and source material will be removed. This rule will be enforced with in our understanding of intellectual property rights and fair use.***

Technically, almost all of your posts in this thread have been rule 7 violations.

 

[Vadergirl123]

9 paragraphs and 15 minutes is too long. Anyway, if all you're going to do is defer to the site and everything it says

It's not that long haha(I mean if you really do want an answer) and remember I said that I was going to do the research myself for the contradictions that don't have christain responses(which is about 30-50) I mean is it really that bad if I don't do research for about 400 contradictions(most of which I don't think the average person even wonders about) but instead spend my time researching 30-50 which most people have thought of?

how does anyone here know if you've even considered the questions yourself? Or the answers for that matter?

I'm not going to lie, most of these questions I've never considered. I never wondered, "who was Amasah's father, how many sons Absalom had, or who Abijam's mother was." Now the BIG contradictions I've wondered about, but I'm trying to get the less time consuming ones out of the way. Again this is only because there's 463 of them and I want to get done within the year. If there were only 50-100 then yeah I'd do ALL the research myself. But I see no harm in giving a link that makes the same point I would(the only difference being I would hae spent 5minutes as opposed to an hour +)

One of the tactics apologists typically use is to make their points and replies so long and convoluted that considering and replying in turn becomes such a task that they wind up wearing out the other side. If someone has a valid point or rebuttal they wouldn't have to resort to those sorts of tactics.

Oh well that's not my intention at all, and if a link did that I wouldn't post it. I make sure to read over the links over myself.

No, but we did: ***Rule 7. Referencing, Quotations, and Links
Technically, almost all of your posts in this thread have been rule 7 violations.

Yes I had another person bring that rule up, However my posts haven't had just the link and source material only, I've made sure to add why I'm sharing the link and why it's significant. so they're okay right?

 

[SnackerBob]

Perhaps it is due to the fact that it isn't specified as such?

 

[Vadergirl123]

Perhaps it is due to the fact that it isn't specified as such?

What isn't specified?

 

[Quagmire]

Yes I had another person bring that rule up, However my posts haven't had just the link and source material only, I've made sure to add why I'm sharing the link and why it's significant. so they're okay right?

A lot of your posts don't seem to have any of your own commentary. At a quick glance, posts 482-489 for example.

 

[SnackerBob]

Well, one verse specifies Satan, the other specifies God. Saying that God allowed Satan to "move" David is stretching interpretation outside of what is written in either Samuel or Chronicles.

That's why it's a contradiction, actually.

 

[Vadergirl123]

A lot of your posts don't seem to have any of your own commentary. At a quick glance, posts 482-489 for example.

Ah okay, I can add some of my "own" commentary However saying what the contradiction is isn't enough. That wouldn't be showing why the link's significant?

Well, one verse specifies Satan, the other specifies God. Saying that God allowed Satan to "move" David is stretching interpretation outside of what is written in either Samuel or Chronicles.
That's why it's a contradiction, actually.

Right, however we know(from other Biblical references) that God permits Satan to do things. So why should we not think this is happening here?

 

[waitasec]

oh my gawd...

 

[Quagmire]

No problem, in hindsight I probably should've just posted the 2nd one.

It's not too long it's like 9paragraphs and will only take about 10-15minutes(at most) to read. Also the whole thing addresses the question.

OK, I read most of it and, no, the whole thing doesn't address the question. the only part that does is this:

or many Bible readers, the parallel accounts that describe David’s numbering of Israel (found in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21) pose a serious problem. “Why does 2 Samuel 24:1 state that God ‘moved’ David against Israel, while 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that it was Satan who ‘stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel’ ”? Can both passages be right, or is this a contradiction?

The Hebrew verb wayyaset, translated “moved” (NKJV) or “incited (NASV), is identical in both passages. God and Satan’s actions are described using the same word. The difference lies with the sense in which the word is used: Satan incited (or tempted—cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:5) David more directly, while God is spoken of as having incited David because He allowed such temptation to take place. The Hebrews often used active verbs to express “not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do” (Bullinger, 2898, p. 823, emp. in orig.). Throughout the Bible, God’s allowance of something to take place often is described by the sacred writers as having been done by the Lord.

And it isn't an explanation, it's an opinion (and what this opinion is supposed to be based on is anybodies guess). The following paragraphs just give other examples of verses where the authors method of interpretation can be applied.

Problem is, the method he's using doesn't seem to have any basis to it other than conveinance.

Basically all he's saying is, "I would like it better if this passage meant this rather than what it actually says. And while we're at it, I'd rather these other passages meant something else too".

This isn't an explanation or a refutation, it's just rationalization.