Posted on 01/09/2015 11:38:48 AM PST by NYer
Freedom of speech is a great thing. Unfortunately, it comes at an unavoidable price: When citizens are free to say what they want, theyll sometimes use that freedom to say some pretty silly things. And thats the case with the 12 claims were about to cover.
|
Some of them are made over and over, others are rare. Either way, while the proponents of these errors are free to promote them, we as Catholics have a duty to respond.
3. "The Old and New Testaments contradict one another in numerous places. If an omnipotent God inspired the Bible, He would never have allowed these errors."
This is a common claim, one found all over the internet (especially on atheist and free-thought websites). An article on the American Atheists website notes that "What is incredible about the Bible is not its divine authorship; it's that such a concoction of contradictory nonsense could be believed by anyone to have been written by an omniscient God."
Such a statement is generally followed by a list of Biblical "contradictions." However, claims of contradictions make a few simple errors. For example, critics fail to read the various books of the Bible in line with the genre in which they were written. The Bible is, after all, a collection of several kinds of writing...history, theology, poetry, apocalyptic material, etc. If we try to read these books in the same wooden way in which we approach a modern newspaper, we're going to be awfully confused.
And the list of Bible "contradictions" bears this out. Take, for example, the first item on the American Atheist's list:
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." Exodus 20:8
Versus...
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Romans 14:5
There! the atheist cries, A clear contradiction. But what the critic neglects to mention is something every Christian knows: When Christ instituted the New Covenant, the ceremonial requirements of the Old Covenant were fulfilled (and passed away). And so it makes perfect sense that Old Testament ceremonial rules would no longer stand for the people of the New Covenant.
If the critic had understood this simple tenet of Christianity, he wouldn't have fallen into so basic an error.
The next item on the American Atheist list is similarly flawed:
"...the earth abideth for ever." Ecclesiastes 1:4
Versus...
"...the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
So, the Old Testament claims that the earth will last forever, while the New says it will eventually be destroyed. How do we harmonize these? Actually, it's pretty easy, and it again comes from understanding the genre in which these two books were written.
Ecclesiastes, for example, contrasts secular and religious worldviews — and most of it is written from a secular viewpoint. That's why we find lines like, "Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything." (Ecclesiastes 10:19)
However, at the end of the book, the writer throws us a twist, dispensing with all the "wisdom" he'd offered and telling us to "Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man." (12:13)
If a reader stops before the end, he'll be as confused as the critic at American Atheists. However, since the viewpoint that gave birth to the notion of an eternal earth is rejected in the last lines of the book, there's obviously no contradiction with what was later revealed in the New Testament. (And this is just one way to answer this alleged discrepancy.)
The other "contradictions" between the Old and New Testaments can be answered similarly. Almost to an item, the critics who use them confuse context, ignore genre, and refuse to allow room for reasonable interpretation.
No thinking Christian should be disturbed by these lists.
Ditto, as well as the excellent bible study programs developed by some outstanding apologists.
Salvation History - Dr. Scott Hahn
The Great Adventure - Jeff Cavins
There are a wealth of resources.
What "confusion"? I'm not confused. Are you confused?
Disjointed? This is year B. We're doing the Gospel of Mark this year, except during Lent and some other times, when it's John every year.
The Old Testament reading is generally the type of which the Gospel reading is the antitype.
Many Protestants use the a similar lectionary ("Revised Common Lectionary"). Since all you guys are so wonderfully united in all the essentials, shall I assume you're fine with it ... as long as they do it?
***I can see how if one just reads from Chapter to Chapter and book to book it could become confusion.***
Have you actually tried?
. The Catholic church did not "write" the Bible...The Holy Spirit inspired people through the ages to write it...Catholics, however, took the old testament, which was written before Christianity came into being, added the new testament books,teachings,historical events, traditions, personalities, ...and produced, edited, compiled, saved, copied (by hand), provided to libraries, palaces, monasteries and governments the compilation of both the old and new testaments that we now call the Bible. God very effectively used those early Christians (Catholics) to carry His word forward so that we have it today....Without the Catholic Church...there was no one else in the world who would have accomplished that task. We would, of course have the old testament, which the Jewish community would have protected....but the new testament, as we know it today, wouldn't exist.
I can only presume that you are referring to the complete ( Catholic) version of the Bible and not necessarily the Readers Digest condensed and abridged edition provided after the revolution..
There's more than a few Catholics on FR who have claimed otherwise :)
You presume wrong. Try the links - they're delicious.
But a person can help making insulting comments. If a person makes insulting comments then they should not be surprised if someone else feels insulted.
Of course I am displaying the Christian attitude, as opposed to....other people on the thread.
A more intelligent reply than I expected. Thank you.
Prots are confused by the lack of confusion from Catholics.
Delusional people confuse us.
Thank god there are no deluded Catholics. That privilege is reserved solely for those that think Catholics are deluded.
Are we not all a bit Italian at heart?
Now that was funny! LOL!
I don’t care what he says. I know what I know and maybe I am not the most articulate when it comes to explaining it. But! I am confident that Jesus knows I know. That’s all that matters!
We did Hahn’s WOW! I would love to do Cavin’s.
You whine. I reply with a likeness of your deed!
I am not confused by the Bible and I have read the entire thing more than once and I have read more of it then you given the fact that you guys left some books out. Do you find that displaying your ignorance of the subject matter makes you feel better? Because it certainly could be rather entertaining for us Catholics if you would put a little more effort into your replies.
You can get a 'taste' of it here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.