Contradictions in the Bible
Published: Monday, Jan. 28, 2013, 8:59 p.m.
Regarding Maris Sanner's letter “Study the Bible” (Jan. 20): I have studied the Bible — read it cover to cover several times. Most people haven't. That's why I cited the quotes I did in my letter “Christmas not that unique” (Dec. 30), which contradict the quotes Sanner cited.
Like it or not, Matthew 25 and Revelation 20 both describe “Last Judgement” accounts citing only works, not faith, as the deciding qualifications for heaven or hell. I did not create the contradictions; they are contained within the Bible. James disputes Paul over faith versus works. Cite what you want, but my counters remain.
To save others the time of reading the whole Bible cover to cover to find the contradictions, I recommend two books to pinpoint and view what the Bible and the spirit shows those with eyes to see: William Henry Burr's “Self-Contradictions of the Bible” and C. Dennis McKinsey's “The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy.”
My intent in studying the Bible was not to find its errors or contradictions; I simply wanted to know what it said. The Catholic religion of my youth told me to seek and value truth. I have found the truth, albeit it was not what I or others of a particular faith expected or wanted me to find.
There was a security in my childhood faith that I miss. But the God I know expects me to have faith in the gifts of reason and to use the talents he has given me — even if I, too, am just a poor carpenter's son.
As to the salvation of the “good thief” on the cross with Jesus, the Luke Gospel says he was saved by his good of speaking well of Jesus when the other thief reviled Jesus.
But, in Mark and Matthew, both men crucified with Jesus “reviled him.” In those Gospels, therefore, there was no thief saved!
The writer, a Mt. Pleasant native, holds a master's degree in religion.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Privatization disastrous
- Leave ‘God’ out
- Mayors & guns
- Problems with Roenigk driver
- Immigration a local issue
- Carnegie Free Library’s friends
- Legacy: All lose
- More overreach
- Not in public’s interest
- About Quinn & Rose II
- Regulate e-cigarettes