Brief on Bible contradictions

Thanks to James Zombie Clarke
from Las Vegas.

Sermon

The Lord Has Risen Indeed - by Michael Phillips Apr 12, 2009 am - Easter, 2009

Grace Baptist Church

Cited

The most serious thing he brought up was the conflicting reports of the Resurrection. All four Gospel say Mary Magdalene and her friends were the first to see the empty tomb. But just what was it they saw? Matthew says they saw an angel; Mark said they saw a young man; Luke says it was two men they saw; and John says they saw two angels. So, which is it? Angels or men, one or two? 

If you read the Bible and apply common sense, you see no conflict at all. Since angels are spirits and spirits are invisible, angels cannot appear to us in their true form, for if they did, we could not see them! Most of the time, therefore, they spoke to humans in a human form. As to the difference in number, it seems only one of the angel/men spoke, and he's the only one Matthew and Mark mention-not because the other one's not there, but because the other one had nothing to say. 

Cited 

We speak this way all the time. My wife and I invite a family to dinner. We both come up to them, and I say, 'If you're free for dinner on Saturday, come over at six'. The husband might say, 'Michael asked us to dinner'; the wife, 'Michael and Gladys asked us to dinner'; the son would say, 'Gladys invited to dinner'. Who's lying? Where's the contradiction? Nobody would find fault in these discrepancies-unless he wanted to. 

Can I straighten out every crooked place in the Bible? Of course not; nobody can do that...

Based on four academic degrees in both Christian and secular, (varying degrees of) conservative and liberal, academic institutions, I agree with Pastor Phillips' explanation for bible difficulties.

Research of biblical manuscript evidence does find variant readings. These are attributed to scribal errors and perhaps in some cases, harmonization and clarification.

From

Bible.org: Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary

Cited

Ancient scribes who copied the handwritten texts of the New Testament frequently changed the text intentionally. Although unintentional changes account for the vast majority of textual corruption, intentional alterations also account for thousands of corruptions. In some cases, to be sure, it does seem that the scribes were being malicious. But these instances are few and far between. The majority of the intentional changes to the text were done by scribes who either thought that the text they were copying had errors in it or by scribes who were clarifying the meaning, especially for liturgical reasons.

Cited

Some of the commonest intentional changes involve parallel passages. This is where the passage that the scribe is copying out has a parallel to it of which the scribe is aware. For example, about 90% of the pericopes (or stories) in Mark’s Gospel are found in Matthew. When a scribe was copying Mark, after he had just finished copying Matthew, he would frequently remember the parallel in Matthew and make adjustments to the wording of Mark so that it would conform to the wording of Matthew. This alteration is known as harmonization.

Cited

Scribes also were prone to clarify passages, especially for liturgical reasons.

Cited

Scribes also were prone to clarify what they thought the text meant. Sometimes they were right, sometimes they were wrong. There could be theological issues involved, or issues of mere orthopraxy (proper conduct in the church). 

Cited

Some have attempted this as a primary explanation for the apparent theological changes in the NT, but what they haven’t done is sufficiently anchor a particular reading to a particular time and place in which such a reading would probably arise. Thus, the theological argument must give way to the textual evidence, since the textual variants are capable of being explained by several different factors.

My brief time at the University of Manchester, before I completed MPhil/PhD work at the University of Wales, had me discuss bible and theology with a world-class, Dead Sea Scrolls scholar that told me that the New Testament featured different 'theologies.' Fair enough, writers can present revelation from different perspectives, but in basic agreement with Dr. Wallace, the manuscript evidence and textual variants provide evidence to work through possible theological interpretations. As I did recently:

2 Peter 3: 10

Wallace again

Cited

...we can have a great deal of confidence that the essential message of the original text can be recovered, for there is always a witness to it.

Looking at biblical manuscripts extant, especially New Testament ones, in my case, there are scribal errors and likely scribal harmonization and clarifications at parts. But, biblical theology is logically consistent. It is also without theological or philosophical error, in my view, in the original documents.

This based on a view of divine revelation through human agents.

Primary doctrines, theology (theologies from various biblical writers, prophets, apostles, associates and their scribes) are consistent with the gospel message, and secondary doctrines and theology can be reasoned out and debated with the use of textual variants, when needed.

(Such as with my 2 Peter 3: 10 example)

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

Matthew 21: 28-32 -- Devotional II

Winter: Windows

Previous related entry:

Matthew 21: 28-32 Devotional from January 16 2020

Preparation

This is further preparation work for a writing project at church in the Spring, that I am contributing to.

This will feature more of a devotional focus than most of my work.

Matthew 21:28-32 English Standard Version (ESV)

28 “What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. 30 And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.

Matthew 21: 28-32 -- Devotional II

Meyer opines

Cited

Matthew 21:28-32. Peculiar to Matthew, and doubtless taken from the collection of the sayings of the Lord. Jesus now assumes the offensive in order to convince His adversaries of their own baseness. 

Cited

The publicans and harlots are represented by the first mentioned son; for previous to the days of John they refused to obey the divine call (in answer to the command to serve Him, which God addressed to them through the law and the prophets, they practically said: οὐ θέλω),('I will not' translation from Marshall, my add) but when John appeared they accorded him the faith of their hearts, so that, in conformity with his preaching, they were now amending their ways, and devoting themselves to the service of God. 

The members of the Sanhedrim (Sanhedrin my correction) are represented by the second son; for, while pretending to yield obedience to the law of God revealed in the Scriptures (by the submissive airs which they assumed, they practically uttered the insincere ἐγὼ, κύριε), ('I go, Lord' translation from Marshall, my add) they in reality disregarded it, and, unlike the publicans and the harlots, they would not allow themselves to be influenced by the movement that followed the preaching of the Baptist, so that neither the efforts of John nor the example of the publicans and harlots had any effect upon them in the way of producing conversion. To understand by the two sons the Gentiles and the Jews, is entirely against the context.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MEYER, HEINRICH, AUGUST, WILHELM (1884-1887) Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament, New York, Funk and Wagnalls.

Bible Hub

Devotional 

Conflicting Kingdoms

Again, as I noted in the previous article, using other words, these two categories are generally true. But, not all followers of Judaism, prior to the ministry of Jesus Christ, were outside of the Kingdom of God. Therefore, some within Judaism have accepted the gospel from Jesus Christ's time until now.

I do not understand the text as a ticket to villainize all within Judaism, or all leaders within.

At the same time, not all publicans/tax-collectors and harlots/prostitutes would accept the ministry of Jesus Christ and the gospel. Not all were eventually divinely persuaded and regenerated (John 3, Titus 3) to be within the Kingdom of God.

In my many years of studying the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, admitting via manuscripts extant that there are scribal errors and likely scribal harmonization, at parts; biblical theology is logically consistent. It is also without theological or philosophical error, in my view, in the original documents.

The example from Matthew 21, like others in the Scripture is noting what is generally true in regard to human nature via story, in the New Testament era that Jesus Christ lived in.

At the same time, there are essential New Testament doctrines that are always true such as (non-exhaustively) that there is only one God, the triune nature of God, and that human salvation is by grace through faith, alone, in the applied atoning and resurrection of God the Son, Jesus Christ.

Matthew 21: 28-32 -- Devotional

Facebook

Preparation

This is preparation work for a writing project at church in the Spring, that I am contributing to. This will feature more of a devotional focus than most of my work.

Matthew 21:28-32 English Standard Version (ESV) 

28 “What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. 30 And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.

Courson 

'Jesus likened the prostitutes and publicans (tax-collectors, from the ESV quoted, my add) to the first son. They seemed  unlikely candidates to receive John's message, but receive it they did.' On the other hand, like the second son, the pseudo-religious scribes and Pharisees gave only lip service to the preaching of John.' Courson (158).

Ellison 

This is a parable that teaches the 'unworthiness of the religious leaders'. Ellison (1142). Ellison opines 'they must not be transferred from them to the Jews generally.' Ellison (1142).

(These are two general categories, there will be exceptions in each group)

Ellison continues and explains that there are some textual difficulties with 21: 28-32. 'There is good evidence for placing first the son who said 'Yes' and did not go. Ellison (1142-1143). 'Then , a small but significant group of MSS (Manuscripts, my add), which follow the NIV order, have in v. 31 'the second. (1143).

(I present this as scholarly information. Again, my task for this passage and article is largely devotional)

I reason that Ellison is not stating that the NIV follows this order.

Bible Gateway NIV

Cited

29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

Cited

31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered.

France

Matthew 21: 28-32 places a major emphasis on what 'we do.' France (306). The Hebrew religious leaders (chief priest and elders, verse 23) are contrasted with the tax collectors and prostitutes. France (306). France comments that the tax collectors and prostitutes were the most despised people in that society. (306). These people are considered farthest from the Kingdom of God. (306).

These despised ones (the first) received a 'scandalized reaction' (306) from the religious leaders (the second) by Jesus' association with 'such outcasts' (306). The religious leaders were excluded from the Kingdom of God as they rejected the messages of John the Baptist and more importantly, the ministry works and message of Jesus Christ.

The religious leaders rejected the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and his gospel message, even though they observed how this righteousness changed the tax collectors and prostitutes to the better. (306).

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Matthew’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.

Devotional

Conflicting Kingdoms

The first group of tax-collectors and prostitutes were within the actual Kingdom of God, as although their fallen and corrupted nature led to disobedience to God as represented in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible); eventually God was trusted and obeyed in faith, and these people were covered by the applied righteousness of God preached by John the Baptist and Jesus Christ.

Practically these people became godly, and part of the Kingdom of God.

The second group of Hebrew religious leaders were excluded from the actual Kingdom of God, because although they claimed to worship in divine truth and righteousness, the God of the Old Testament, these religious leaders depended on their own religious righteousness and spirituality which was a false representation (fatally corrupted version) of whom God actually is.

These religious leaders claimed allegiance and obedience to God, but in actuality rejected the God of the Old Testament by rejecting progressive divine revelation from the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ and the actual, divine righteousness they represent.

The Judaism of these leaders fused the teachings of the Old Testament and Mosaic Law and with religious rules and social norms which made the divine work of God, void in their lives. Therefore, they naturally rejected the forerunner of the Messiah and the Messiah, himself.

Practically, these people were ungodly and part of a false Kingdom of God.

(We can grant that some in Judaism were true to the Old Testament, in true faith and are in the Kingdom. These people would have accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah if they existed in his time or later.)

True faith in God is equated with salvation and not necessarily religiosity.

Logic is included in truth

Gyro Park in Nelson:
 Masa Vossy Suza Instagram
and Facebook

Logic is included in truth

Slight edits on April 7 2023 for an entry on academia.edu

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

The review continues...

Me learning symbolic logic continues:

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition : = Equal (s) ε = Epsilon and means is ⊃ = Is the same as ⊨ is Entails ˜ = Not ∃ = There exists ∃! = There exists ∴ = Therefore . = Therefore < = Is included v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives). x = variable . = Conjunction meaning And 0 = Null class cls = Class int = Interpretation
---

From back in April, 2019 (please see archives for my previous work and reviews):

Importantly, philosopher Langer explains that there is no guarantee that there is truth in a logical system. (189). Logic does not necessarily promote a fact, rather 'it stands for the conceptual possibility of a system'. (189). Logic documents with the deduction of premises. It stands for 'the consistency of all propositions'. (189). It is standing for logical validity. (189), not factual certainty or truth. (189). This is standard from philosophy, logic, texts. Certainly not something Langer or I manufactured as original.

Langer demonstrates the following as logical:

Napoleon discovered America

Napoleon died before 1500 A.D. (189).

Conclusion

America was discovered before 1500 A.D. (189).

These two premises imply that America was discovered before 1500 and Langer opines that a third proposition that would be derived (a conclusion, my add) would also be logical and valid. (189). 

Indeed the first two premises are historically false. (189). They are still logically consistent, while the consequent is true that America was discovered before 1500 A.D. (189).

Also logical, but a true premise: n= Napoleon d= Discover a= America

n ˜ (d+a)

Napoleon did not discover America.

January 13 2020

Langer mentions that the text shows that for every proposition there is also an analogous one (221). If there is an entity that when multiplied with any term, leaves that term unchanged, then there is also one that can be added to that term without altering it (221).

Langer's theorem:

-(a + b) = -a x -b (221)

She notes that this theorem is the complement of a + b. (221).

The complement is the amount added to something to make it whole. Each entity needs to complete the other is a universe of discourse. (143).

Langer writes (paraphrased) that she is not explicitly explaining her argument here. (222). She states in regards to breaking down the theorems...

'But this is left to the brave and ambitious reader.' (223).

But in philosophical terms, for the sake of logic, her theorems represent the law of duality. (223). The law of duality between + and x. (223). The theorems which explain the relation between sums (+) and products (x) express this law of duality. (223). The relation between addition and multiplication.

Webster

Definition of algebraic sum : the aggregate of two or more numbers or quantities taken with regard to their signs (as + or −) according to the rules of addition in algebra the algebraic sum of −2, 8, and −1 is 5

Study.com

What Is a Product? When speaking mathematically, the term product means the answer to a multiplication problem. For example: 5 * 3 = 15 

15 is the product The term product first showed up in England in the 1400s and comes from the Latin word productum, which means 'to produce.'

Philosophical relevance?

Philosopher (and Mathematician) Langer opines that everything she noted about sums is also true of products, (224). I am a philosopher and not a mathematician, but seems to me, she is demonstrating the logic and consistency of symbolic logic within algebra, mathematics and philosophy.

Overall, I reason, symbolic logic has minimal practical use, even within most philosophy. But I appreciate that Langer demonstrates the consistency of logic, and as well that the logical is not necessarily true. But, in my embraced philosophy and theology, the truth is always logical. In other words, the truth always can be made sense of with reasonable premises and conclusions.

l = Logic
t = Truth

l ˜ = t

(Logic does not equal truth, strictly philosophically speaking)

l < t

(Logic is included in truth)

(l < t) ˜ ⊨ (l = t)

(Logic is included in truth, does not entail logic equals truth)

Research and study within four academic degrees and years of academic website writing has shown me that I have read and researched many logically presented premises and conclusions, meaning, many logical arguments, that are not likely true.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London. 

Langer's theorem: 

quote 

-(a + b) = -a x -b (221) She notes that this theorem is the complement of a + b. (221). 

Further 

-a + (a + b) = 1 (221) -1 + (1 + 1 = 2) = 1 (My add) -a x ab = 0 -1 x a-b (1-1 = 0) = 0 (With assist from 221) 

There is a law of absorption: a absorbs any sum of itself and any term multiplied with any other product. (217). a x (a + b) means the common part of a and (a + b) which is just a. (217). a + (a x b) means the class of a or a x b is also just a. (217-218). Not just b. Same with c, d, e, f, g, h, i, etcetera.