smb (03/09/83)
The problem with citing or disproving Biblical contradictions is that different parties on the net are starting from different postulates. If you start from the assumption that the Bible is divine, accurate, and inerrant, then *by definiton* there are no contradictions; not only can everything be explained, but there is a reason for (and hence a teaching from) the apparent problem. As I've previously mentioned, in orthodox Judaism such explanations are considered to be part of the "Oral Law", which is accorded equal status with the written Law. If, on the other hand, you assume that the Bible was written by different people and edited into its current form at a later date, then there's no problem with contradictions; it's simply a case of imperfect editing and/or transcription errors.
jdj55611 (03/09/83)
Refering to another version of the Bible is an easy way to deflate an argument. If you are willing to expand definitions and generalize, it is easy to show your s or anybody elses case. Some groups even write their own versions to justify their beliefs ( The Jehovahs Witnesses, for example ). How the Bible is translated can add to misinterpretation. "Peace on Earth, good will to men" is translated in some versions as "Peace on Earth to those who do God's will". As I stated in my introduction, the biggest contradiction is the multitude of religions springing from a Book that teaches "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism." What need to happen is a supplement to the Bible which can be used for comparison. After all, "in the mouths of two witnesses shall the Word be preached." Unless God can straighten out the confusion by giving us that additional information to clear up the ambiguities we'll never make any headway in reaching unity. Off on a well-deserved two week vacation, J. J.