Contradicting Quotations in the Bible

Commenting on an answer to a question on Quora:

Phantom Contradictions in the Bible

This was hard for my formerly fundamental KJV-Only Baptist self to admit. But as I read the gospels in harmony format, I have to concede that the gospel writers were more like NIV translators than like Berean Literal Bible translators.

Anybody who picks on the exact wording of quotes in the Bible is applying grammatical rules that do not seem to have existed anywhere when the Bible was written.

I have seen passages that disagree in inconsequential ways. For example, in parallel accounts, Matthew has Jesus saying “kingdom of heaven” whereas other gospel writers have Him saying “kingdom of God.”

(You may have to open the graphic in a separate window to make it large enough to read.)

Whether it is the kingdom of God’s heaven or the kingdom of heaven’s God makes no difference.

Other examples happen when one writer says Jesus spoke a sentence one way and another writer says says Jesus used the same phrases but in an opposite order.

However, the sense of the quotes are always the same. Reportedly, that was adequate by the standards of the day. Before the 1500s, quotes were merely indicated by multi-use marks in the margins; and I couldn’t find any reference to that practice before the third century. Quotation marks that set off direct quotes weren’t invented until the 1500’s. Clear rules for distinguishing between direct, word-for-word quotation and indirect, paraphrased quotation seem to have come even more recently.

And I have never seen a substantial contradiction.

People who see “contradictions” invariably have jumped to that conclusion. They want contradictions to exist. They are willing to ignore not only logical explanations, but also the logical rule that, if a discrepancy can be rationalized, then persisting in calling it a contradiction crosses into intellectual dishonesty.

Copyrights 2020 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, and please give credit where credit is due.

Bible Contradictions About Eating Pagan Sacrifices

Answering a question on Quora:

Does 1 Corinthians 10:18-22 contradict 1 Corinthians 8:4-13?

The two passages reveal overlapping principles in different contexts. They do not contradict.

Before continuing, follow the first rule of Bible interpretation: Never read a Bible verse; read it in context.

• 1 Corinthians 8 NASB
• 1 Corinthians 10 NASB

Note that if you continue reading after 10:22, the meaning of that passage becomes clearer. So always read at least one previous paragraph, the current passage, and one following paragraph when somebody gives you a passage to read. Preferably more.

As a brand new Christian I drove a girl named Wanda home from a youth activity. I offered to turn on the radio to fill the silence. I would have put it on the station that played “adult” music of the 50s and 60s. It was tamer than “easy listening” is today. But she said “No, I don’t listen to that kind of music.” I looked up to her, so for a long time, I listened only to classical or Christian music.

However, she did something that created cognitive dissonance for me. We happened to attend the same Grad Night at Disneyland. When I saw her a few days later, she expressed delight about the Olivia Newton-John concert, which I had avoided. She had set my standards high and then undermined them.

That incident gnawed at my conscience. After a few years, I started listening to instrumental rock. Gradually, that bar lowered to classic rock, and then only restriction was a matter of taste. After somebody has set a high standard for you, it doesn’t take much of a poor example to erode that standard until you drop it altogether. 

In the Hellenic culture of the ancient Greeks and under Roman rule, much of the food was presented as sacrifices in the pagan temples and then sold in the market places. In some places it was difficult to find food that had not been dedicated to idols. Additionally, on some occasions, traditions such as civic ceremonies required eating in the temples. This posed a practical problem for new Christians who feared that eating such food would bring a curse on them. It also posed a problem for recent converts from the pagan religions who might be tempted to return to worshiping idols.

Many of the Corinthian believers used to be worshipers of the Hellenist or Roman gods. In their minds, eating sacrificed foods, especially in the temples, meant sharing in the sacrifices. That would tempt them to return to their previous pagan cultures. So the passage in Chapter 10 begins by warning young or weak Christians not to take part in pagan sacrifices, especially in any ceremonies that constitute worship of the pagan gods. Then the chapter goes on to teach something for more mature Christians….

Both chapters state that any dedication to the idols holds no actual effect. In chapter 8, the apostle wrote that sacrificed food “will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat” because “we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.” So not only did the sacrifice not do anything, but even the temple and idol had no power of their own.

Chapter 10 agrees, saying, “What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? Rather [meaning “no”]…. All things are lawful, but not all things edify” (10:19–20,23b).

Since the sacrifice of food to an idol does nothing to the food, both passages allow eating such food. A Christian even had the freedom to eat it in the temple. However, both passages command that out of love, the strong Christian with this freedom should abstain from eating such food if it will cause somebody to stumble.

Chapter 8 focuses on avoiding offending weaker Christians who would be upset to see Christians they looked up to eating in temples. Such weaker Christians might see that as an endorsement of the pagan religion and return to it. Chapter 10 teaches a parallel principle but instead focuses on avoiding offending unbelievers.

The principle taught in both is that it does not matter that I know the sacrifice has no effect; if the other person believes the sacrifice has power, then I must set aside my right so they do not stumble.

Can you see how the prime principle is loving others? Can you think of other issues that might have similar applications? Imagine how much better society would be if we all were willing to give up our rights for the sakes of others.

Copyright 2020 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, but please don't offend me by forgetting to give credit where credit is due.

Women Saved Through Childbearing

1 Timothy 2:15 -- But she will be saved through childbearing, if they abide in faith and love and holiness, with self-restraint. -- Berean Literal Bible

This verse has always been a bit of unresolved business in my mind. At first read, it seems to say that women are saved (from sin) by bearing children. That would contradict the many explicit passages teaching that salvation comes through faith alone. A wise interpreter does not let contradictions stand and does not allow ambiguous verses outweigh explicit verses. So we dig and put faith in the knowledge that an explanation exists.

The meaning of "saved" is not explicit. If you ask, "saved from what," you realize that "saved" does not always refer to the salvation of our souls. It can have a more general meaning. 

Similarly, "childbearing" is probably a synecdoche (sin-NEK-tuh-kee), a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something refers to the whole of something (or vice versa). Childbearing probably refers to the whole of rearing children, since the word is followed by a code of lifelong behaviors.

Dr. Andrew Farley has given an explanation that unlocked the verse for me. (The video also explains verse 14.) I would feel comfortable giving this explanation even to people who use it in an attempt to slander Paul and denigrate the scriptures.

The teachings of the pagan religions, especially those of the cult of Diana, had left women who converted to faith in Christ feeling insecure. For example, the cult taught women that focusing on family instead of on career achievement would make them lesser people. Also, Diana was the goddess of fertility and childbearing, so women probably feared that renouncing Diana had removed her protection and made motherhood more dangerous. 

Paul intended to reassure them that God's blessing was still on them if they devoted themselves to crafting the next generation instead of focusing on careers. Faith, love, holiness, and propriety do not save us, but they are the evidence that a sincere conversion produces. 

That reassurance still applies. Society pressures women to abandon family in pursuit of career achievement.

Aside from learning that the passage merely reassures women that they lose nothing by abandoning the mindsets of their former religions, finding this interpretation also gives an example of hermeneutical principles. 

• Words have multiple meanings and levels of meaning.
• Ambiguous passages do not cancel or override explicit passages.
• "Context" in which a verse is interpreted has multiple levels, including sentence, paragraph, book, author, testament, and especially important in this passage, cultural.

The most important hermeneutical principle illustrated for many is that when explanations escape us, we do not choose a doubtful one, conclude that there is a contradiction, or give up. Rather, we keep an open mind, keep digging, and keep gathering background information, even if it takes decades.

Copyrighte 2020, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Please give credit where credit is due.

Tree of Life in Revelation 22:2

From a question on Quora:

In Revelation 22:2, is it one tree of life bearing 12 fruits, or 12 trees of life bearing different fruits? 

The minister could be right — it is twelve trees — or he could be wrong — it is symbolic of twelve human behaviors or attributes produced by the Holy Spirit’s work in a believer’s life. Or he could be half-right because there are twelve trees that symbolize twelve attributes.

Observe the context.

Let’s take verse 2 together with verse 1:

• Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. (Revelation 22:1–2, NASB; in good translations, italics indicate the words are interpolated by the translators to help the sentence make sense in English.)

Notice that “in the middle of its street” at the beginning of verse 2 is actually the ending of verse 1.

Let the Bible define its own terms.

When cross-referencing, give priority to the same author speaking on the same subject.

How does the same writer, John, define the the River?

• Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’” But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:38–40, NASB)

So the river symbolizes God the Holy Spirit and His work. Right away, we should recognize that Revelation 22:1–2 is not to be taken as literal alone. Rather, the passage is filled with symbolism.

Notice that God the Son is called the Lamb. This does not mean Jesus of Nazareth was a sheep. Rather, the title evokes His sacrifice on behalf of those who will receive justification as a gift from the great Giver of gifts.

"Literal interpretation" includes recognizing typology.

So if the River is the Holy Spirit, the the Tree of Life is probably symbolic, too. In Genesis 3, the tree of life is described as though it were a literal tree. Since various persons and things throughout the scriptures have both literal existence and symbolic meaning (“typology”), there’s no scriptural reason to reject Eden’s tree of life as either literal or symbolic. I believe we get a clue about the symbolism of Revelation's tree of life in Proverbs 3.

• 13 How blessed is the man who finds wisdom
  And the man who gains understanding….
  18 She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her,
  And happy are all who hold her fast.

If the tree or trees of life is (are) symbols, then they represent behaviors or attributes, such as wisdom and understanding, that convey and bring blessing. Coincidentally, Proverbs 3 identifies twelve such attributes or actions (depending on how you count them):

1. Knowledge (see Psalm 1:2–3)
2. Obedience
3. Kindness
4. Truthfulness
5. Faith (see Jeremiah 17:7-8)
6. Confession
7. Humility
8. Respect
9. Holiness (see Psalm 1:1, 3)
10. Giving
11. Submission (to correction)
12. Wisdom / Understanding (see Proverbs 3:13 and following, especially verse 18)

The New Testament often cites the Old Testament.

Having established that the tree of life could be symbolic, whether the tree of life in Revelation 22 comprises one tree with multiple fruits or multiple trees of various types becomes more clear. We can confirm that tree of life refers to multiple trees by cross-referencing the prophet Ezekiel’s vision of heaven:

• By the river on its bank, on one side and on the other, will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither and their fruit will not fail. They will bear every month because their water flows from the sanctuary, and their fruit will be for food and their leaves for healing. (Ezekiel 47:12, NASB)

The meaning of bearing every month (Ezekiel) or each type of tree bearing in its own time (Revelation) speaks more to the perpetual production of fruit than to the types of trees taking turns. In other words, the emphasis is on the constancy of the Spirit’s work.

Now let’s put the picture together: In Revelation 22, tree of life is a collective noun. It refers to a class of object that has variety within the class. There may be a total of twelve trees of twelve types, or there may be a billion of each of 12 types. The separation of right-bank from left-bank trees is irrelevant. They share unity in their source.

A central feature of heaven's operation is that God the Holy Spirit flows forth from God the Father and God the Son, performing the work of God. The work of the Holy Spirit continuously produces in God’s people the the traits that result in abundant lives that not only are blessed, but also are blessings to others.

Literal and symbolic meanings are not mutually exclusive.

Returning to Eden’s tree of life, we should remind ourselves that what Ezekiel and John saw could be both literal and symbolic. We do not have to choose one or the other. Our focus should be on the traits that can cause our lives to become more abundant, as well as on God, whose Holy Spirit is the cause of those traits.

By the way, once you digest the symbolism, you can see the Trinity identified in Revelation 22:1-2.


Since I've already posted an earlier version of this on Quora, I can't copyright it; but I still ask that, when you "borrow" it, please give credit where credit is due.

Did "righteous men" who had concubines sin?

Question on Quora:

In the Bible it was said that some righteous men had concubines. Is it not a sin?

Indeed, some “righteous” men had concubines, multiple wives, and even children by incest. Yes, they committed sin. Multiple spouses and non-spouses deviated from God’s perfect plan (See Matthew 19:4-6), but God tolerated “for the hardness of your hearts” in ancient times; there were more destructive sins. And as the scriptures record, it always came at a cost, causing family divisions, subterfuge, and sometimes violent strife.

The confusion comes from misunderstanding what righteous means.

There are two ways to be “righteous.” The way that occurs to us first is to achieve righteousness through human merit. Merit includes three main methods.

1. Heritage. Some think God will count them as righteous because they are descended from Abraham, or maybe grandpa was a preacher.
2. Church. Many think that a church can convey righteousness to them through membership or ceremonies such as confession and baptism. (Have you watched the Godfather movies?)
3. Good works. This includes church activities (#2), refraining from doing evil, and doing loving or charitable acts.

The problem is:

• (1) we will stand alone before God for judgment; deeds cannot be inherited — or as they say, God does not have grandchildren.
• (2 & 3) nobody can be good enough. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) We all blow it. We all sin. And God cannot simply overlook sin and “forgive” it without becoming unjust.
  
  Many think, “I will do good things that will outweigh the bad.” That does not work because we already owe to our Creator the good things we do to justify ourselves. It’s like falling behind on your rent and trying to pay April’s rent with June’s paycheck. We can never catch up or get ahead.

The result is that God cannot allow us to defile His holy presence, and we could not bear the brightness of His glory. If He did not cast us into outer darkness, we would willingly flee there.

The second way to be “righteous” is through accounting. God knew nobody would become righteous by their own merit, so He provided an alternative. God Himself would become a man called Jesus of Nazareth, live a perfect life, and like a big brother, take the punishment that we all deserve.

God placed all our guilt on Jesus, and, in exchange, credits the righteousness of Jesus to all who will receive it. He (God) made Him (Jesus) to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (Jesus). (2 Corinthians 5:21.) God offers this exchange to us as a gift.

Going back to the three methods of human merit: Trying to earn the gift or even partially earn it insults the Giver. You can’t earn God’s favor by insulting Him.

The righteousness of “righteous” men in the Bible came not through their deeds or their restraint from sins such as polygamy. It came through recognizing their guilt, confessing their sinfulness, and trusting God.

In the Old Testament times, the things they trusted God for varied because the object of trust was gradually defined. Since the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, however, the object of trust has been explicitly defined. We call that definition “the gospel.”

For more background, see:

• Polygamy in the Bible - What Does God Say?
• What does the Bible say about polyamory?

Israel's "Genocide" Against the Midianites

The Problem of Evil...

includes an argument that, when God commanded Israel to wipe out certain populations, He contradicted His own nature. If God contradicted Himself, then He is not Good, is misrepresented by the Old Testament, or does not exist.
I've never seen an Atheist put it that logically, but that's what their lazy rhetorical questions imply.
One specific example of "genocides" is Israel's first significant war, one against the Midianites and the five kingdoms led by Balak.
In Numbers 31:16, we read that the prophet Balaam advised the Baal-worshiping nations to lure the men of Israel to sexually sin and to worshiping their idols. Numbers 25 documents that this had resulted in the deaths of 24,000 Israelites. God then orders Israel to war against the nations that had lured them into sin, killing every man, woman, and male child (chapter 31).
Chapter 31 verse 19 adds a new element of understanding. The killing had made Israel's warriors ritually unclean -- which is another way to say, they had sinned. They were required to remain outside the camp of Israel for a week while undergoing purification rituals prescribed in Numbers 19:11-22.
In other words, although going to war had been a necessity, in God's eyes, acts of war were still an evil. This implies that God's judgment reflected weighing the evil of killing in war and the evil of failing to go to war.
Refraining from the war would have violated justice against the Baal-worshipers whose actions had cost thousands of Israelite lives. The events of chapter 25 were an insult to God Himself. Inaction would have left in place the temptation to sin. And the silence would constitute a failure to warn Israelites against repeating their apostasy.
So like the Atheist, God saw the so-called genocides as evil. However, unlike the Atheist, He had weighed the war against its context and judged it necessary. This answer may be generalized to the subsequent wars as Israel took possession of the promised land. One more lesson can be drawn from Numbers 25 through 31. Temptation can have life-and-death costs. Believers must deal decisively with circumstances that would draw us away from God and into sin and idolatry.
Copyright 2020 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for personal and non-profit use, provided credit is given where credit is due.

Did God Change His Mind about Creation?

If God knows all things, why did he regret making man (Genesis 6:6)?

Let's add verse 5 to that:

• Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time.
  And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him in His heart.
  (Genesis 6:5-6, Berean Study Bible)

The logical answer is not always a satisfying answer, but let's deal with the flaw in the question first.  It is illogical to assume that foreknowledge precludes regret. The question assumes that knowing something will happen precludes regretting it when it happens. A parent knows an inoculation is necessary, yet can regret that it causes pain and wailing (or in my case, fainting).

The Hebrew word translated sorrow or regretted has a very wide range of meanings:

• for others: be sorry, moved to pity, have compassion
• of one’s own doings: be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
• comfort oneself, be comforted, ease oneself, take satisfaction (through vengeance)

It’s important to recognize the weakness of any argument based on such an ambiguous word.

• NASB and NKJV use sorrow, which is purely an emotion. 
• In the Atheist’s argument, the NIV's and BSB's word regretted implies admitting to having made a mistake. 
• The KJV's word repent implies a change of mind that motivates a change in actions. 

Both repent and regret go a bit far by implying thought and planning processes whereas sorrow emphasizes the emotional side and is more true to the Hebrew text. 

We could end the argument here: So God experienced an emotion. So what?

An illustration might make this more intuitive. I read of a lone climber who fell in a crevasse and spent several days and nights with his arm pinned. Believing that another night of dehydration, hunger, shock, and exposure would kill him, he decided to amputate.

Imagining myself in his place, once I started… separating tissues, to put it gently… even though the action served a greater good, I would feel mixed emotions. Even though I would be following a plan that saved my life, I would feel conflicted about inflicting agony and the irreversible loss of a limb on myself. I’m not sure I’d have the courage to do that.

Scripture says that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but would prefer that all come to repentance and faith. When God saw the wickedness of man and man’s nearly universal rebellion against Him, He experienced sorrow (or whatever the intended translation was) while knowing the cause of the sorrow served a greater good.


Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for personal and non-profit use, but please give credit where credit is due.

Was Matthias the Twelfth Apostle?

Was Matthias, or Paul, the twelfth apostle?

The apostles cast lots in Acts 1:24-26 to know who should replace Judas. The lot fell to Matthias.

Was this sanctioned by the Lord? Does Proverbs 16:33 endorse it?

First, understand that it does not matter. It does not affect the gospel. It will not affect how we live. However, I’ll spell out my reasons for disagreement with those who say God chose Matthias because there might be something to learn hermeneutically.

1. Most of the proverbs are generalities, not universal promises. I won’t argue this point myself. Instead, I’ll direct you to any parent who reared their child in the love, nurture, and admonition of the Lord, yet that child went permanently astray. Citing Proverbs 16:33 is an extremely weak argument because the literary style of Proverbs prohibits turning 16:33 into a universal endorsement of casting lots. It is also weak because there's no evidence that the disciples should have been casting lots in the first place.
   
   
2. Description of an event does not imply endorsement or prescription. Many bad interpretations of the Bible come from taking the description of an event to indicate its endorsement. Atheists commonly take Old Testament descriptions of murders, rapes, and child sacrifices to mean that God endorses such abominations. But the Bible describes people honestly warts and all. Acts in no way endorses the selection of Matthias as an apostle; it merely documents it.
   
   
3. Jesus told the disciples to chill until the Holy Spirit came. During the time between Jesus ascension into heaven and Pentecost, the disciples should have been waiting, not taking action. Impetuous Peter impulsively perpetrated a violation of that command. God’s choice was Paul, and that choice came later, in God’s timing.
   
   For an Old Testament analogue, recall how Jesse presented all the sons he thought would be qualified to be anointed by the prophet (1 Samuel 16). The prophet had to urge Jesse to present the son he hadn’t thought of, and that son, David, turned out to be God’s choice. Likewise, the disciples set their own criteria for selection and then forced a choice from among their own personal favorites.
   
   
4. There’s no evidence that when they cast lots, they gave God the option of “None of the above.” They forced a selection of a replacement.
   
   
5. When Paul said in his church epistles that he was chosen by God, not by men, it was a dig at the false apostles who were misleading the churches. I would speculate that the net also caught the Eleven’s forcing a premature choice.
   
   
6. Matthias, once chosen, rarely, if ever, appears again in the New Testament. He is not know for any great accomplishment.

Arguments 5 and 6 are very weak arguments, but I think that the arguments, taken together, form a very strong case that the twelfth apostle was Paul, not Matthias. 

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. This is a significantly edited version of a comment first posted on Quora. Permission granted for non-profit use provided credit is given where credit is due.

The Looking Glass Is God's Verbal Revelation

Response concerning the looking glass in 1 Corinthians 13:12 

(Author's name withheld to prevent embarrassment)

1 Corinthians 13:12

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Barnes said in his commentary that Paul here may have referred to the imperfect and discolored glass which was then in extensive use in his era, for we have no reason to suppose that it was then as transparent as that which is now made. It was, doubtless, an imperfect and obscure medium, and, therefore, well adapted to illustrate the nature of our knowledge here compared with what it will be in heaven.

But then - In the fuller revelations in heaven.

Face to face - As when one looks upon an object openly, and not through an obscure and dark medium. It here means, therefore, "clearly, without obscurity." 

That would be a great illustration, but in this case, Albert Barne’s work is outdated. Mr. Barnes died 31 years before Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues and 37 years before the Azusa Street scandal began. Wesleyan teachings had evolved into a Holiness movement, but Charismatism was not on his radar. That affected his interpretation because there was, in his time, no need to respond to various interpretations of the passage. Plus, Greek scholars have learned more about the language since then.

1. The glass in 1 Corinthians 13:12 was a looking-glass rather than a window. 2072. ἔσοπτρον (esoptron) -- a mirror (i.e. an object for looking into). A completely different word is used for transparent materials such as glass and crystals (e.g., in Revelation).
   
2. The same word is used in James 1:23–24. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.
   
3. The mirror is a metaphor for the verbal revelation which reveals our sins and our foolishness. Since 1 Corinthians was one of the first New Testament epistles or books written, the metaphorical mirror comprised the Old Testament, plus bit-by-bit revelation through the gifts of the Spirit (knowledge, prophecy, tongues).
   
4. 1 Corinthians 13:12 sits in the middle of three chapters focused primarily on verbal revelation, so interpreting the looking glass as the Word is consistent with that pattern.

This informs a correct interpretation of verses 9–10. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. Paul has not taken a detour into eschatology; he’s writing about verbal revelation the whole time.

The infant and juvenile church had need of special gifts of revelation because all they had was the Old Testament and the addition of the 27 books of the New Testament over the 60 years after the resurrection. But as the complete collection of written revelation became available, it was time for the church to mature and put away the showy things. When the complete writings became available, the hypothetical “I” would “know” through access to the full written revelation, even as the earliest believers had access to revelation when “face to face” with an apostle.

Bonus tidbit: Gifts of prophecy and knowledge would be done away with (passive voice) by an external condition 2673. καταργέω (katargeó) -- to render inoperative, abolish, and tongues would simply cease themselves (middle voice) 3973. παύω (pauó) -- to make to cease, hinder. This is stated in the context of a paragraph about the written revelation, the mirror, the Word, reaching completion.


Usual disclaimer: If you use this material, please give credit where credit is due.

Hebrews 6:6 -- Not About OSAS

Does Hebrews 6:4-8 mean that a person cannot come back to God and be saved if they once were with God and then fell away from God?

The simple answer is that the passage is not about salvation. Verses 4–8 describe the first century Jewish nation, not individual Christians.

(For simplicity of language, I’m going to use the Jewish author’s term “Jews” to refer to the first-century establishment Hebrews in Judea. It’s a lot easier to type, I do not intend any insult to “Jews” of today, and I assume the reader is intelligent and flexible enough to accept that.)

Two camps within Christianity have argued for centuries over the meaning of then have fallen away. One side (called Arminians, after Jacob Arminius) say that it means Christians can fall away and lose their salvation. The other side (Calvinists, after John Calvin) claim that the Arminian interpretation would contradict other less ambiguous statements in the Bible.

The New American Standard Bible translation is the most consistently accurate word-for-word translation, so I use that here. Here is the passage:

• For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

In the Greek, the structure of verses 4–6 is:

• For it is impossible, those who (identifying phrases), to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify, etc.

The meaning is ambiguous because the identifying phases can be interpreted to mean either Christians or the Jews. The following is a literal translation of the Greek identifying phrases without the adjustments needed to make the sentence fit together in English.

• those who, having once been enlightened
• having tasted of the heavenly gift
• having been made partakers of the Holy Spirit
• having tasted the good word of God
• having tasted... the powers of the age to come
• and having fallen away

Arminians interpret having fallen away to mean that a Christian can fall away. This is based on the King James Version’s mistaken translation, if they shall fall away. If and shall fall makes the phrase conditional and future.

But that interpretation is incorrect because it derives from an incorrect translation. If does not exist in the Greek text, and the verb to fall has the same past tense (called aorist) that all the other verbs have. Having fallen is not about a potential action that might happen in the future. It is about an actual action that had already happened at the time the author was writing.

The phrase does not describe hypothetical Christian individuals in the future. It describes an action that the Jewish establishment had already performed.

If you remove the identifying phrases, the sentence reads thus:

• For it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, seeing that they crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame

If you apply these phrases to Christians, it does not make much sense. Why can’t a straying Christian be restored? How would restoring a repentant Christian crucify Christ afresh and put Him to shame? If restoring a “fallen” Christian re-crucifies Christ, then isn’t Christ re-crucified every time a sinner repents?

In contrast, it becomes quite simple if applied to the Jewish establishment. If you outline Hebews, you will notice that it's all about contrasting the Jewish temple system against the superior system of Christ's gospel and church. Before Christ’s sacrifice, the temple system’s daily sacrifices pointed forward to redemption through His sacrifice. Afterwards, continuing the sacrifices implied that Christ’s sacrifice had not happened, or if it had happened, it was insufficient. (Roman Catholicism’s mass has similar problems.) This was analogous to hanging somebody in effigy. It was an insult.

Also note that the sentence does not say, if one renews them again to repentance, they will crucify to themselves the Son of God…. The meaning is, it is impossible because they crucify…. The temple sacrifices rejected Christ’s coming and sacrifice. The leaders had already been called to repentance and had rebuffed that call.

Hebrews 6:4-6 is ambiguous enough for a careless reading to lead to several possible interpretation. However, it is far more likely that the fallen refers to the Jewish system that rejected Christ, and the evidence that it is impossible to renew the Jews to repentance was that they insulted the person and work of Christ. If you continue on to verse 8, you will see a veiled threat to the Jews that their system was about to undergo God’s judgment.

This dovetails with what we know from history, namely, that God allowed waves of Roman armies to destroy Jerusalem and Judea starting in 67 AD. This was prophesied hundreds of years before (for instance, by Joel) and later by Jesus. So Hebrews 6:6–8 fits into a much larger picture.

Let's not stop at verse 8. Verses 9–12 contrast with the preceding verses. Whereas verses 4–8 describe people who were never saved, verses 9–12 describe people who have been saved.

There are “things” that accompany salvation such as love and ministry (verses 9–10). It does not say that love and ministry produce salvation, but rather, they are found in the person who already possesses salvation. Diligence in producing evidence of salvation produces not salvation, but assurance (verse 11).

Also note a contrast between verses 9 and 12. The beginning of the paragraph treats salvation as a present condition of the Christian whereas the ending of the paragraph treats inheritance, that is, reward, as something that comes at the end of a faithful, persevering life.

God saves through faith alone, but faith plus salvation results in fruits of the Spirit such as love, good works such as ministering to the needs of the church, and perseverance through doubts, temptations, and trials. Those results of salvation produce assurance and result in rewards. Be careful when people try to turn the results or evidences of salvation into causes of salvation.

Purpose in the Resurrection

A friend sent a message that included a quotation of 1 Peter 5:10. When I looked up the verse, it turned out to be from the New International Version, which is a mixture of interpretation and translation. The final phrase turned out to differ significantly from the Greek. What I found at the end of this study encouraged me, and I hope that, if you make it to the end of this post, it will encourage you, too.

NIV: [God] will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.

Literal Greek: [God] Himself will perfect, will confirm, will strengthen, will establish [you] 

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Exegesis

The verbs at the end of 1 Peter 5:10 are an interesting study in themselves. When I look at the Greek, the first thing I notice is that the four verbs form a list, A, B, C, D. The NIV rearrangement and translation (D, and He will make you 1, 2, 3) shifts attention away from God and towards the reader. It also detracts from the beauty of the author's literary style. 

The second thing I notice is that the verbs are active voice* wherein God is the actor. The center of attention is not "you," it is God, and the active voice renders the action dynamic, as contrasted with the adjectives strong, firm and steadfast. 

(*future indicative active, third-person singular)

The verbs can have a variety of literal and metaphorical meanings. The following links take you to pages that cite several of lexicons and cross-references. 

1. katartizó: to complete, prepare -- https://biblehub.com/greek/2675.htm

to prepare, perfect, repair, bring into its proper condition for its destination or use

"Restore" is weak because it means returning to a previous condition. I don't want to be returned to the previous condition wherein I gave in to so much sin. To accomplish God's mission for me, I need to be brought to maturity in Christ.

2. stérizó: to make fast, establish -- https://biblehub.com/greek/4741.htm

usually used with respect to decisions or motivation (e.g., James 5:8); to make firm or resolved; in second person, "establish your hearts" or "resolve to;" also implying, negatively, that God will remove distraction, doubt, and indecision (something I very much need)

3. sthenoó: to strengthen -- https://biblehub.com/greek/4599.htm

to strengthen for the mission ahead

4. themelioó: to lay the foundation of -- https://biblehub.com/greek/2311.htm

to attach to a firm, unmovable base (e.g., Luke 6:49-49, building the foundation upon the rock) 

My paraphrase would be, [God] Himself will complete your preparation, strengthen your resolve, strengthen and energize you, and plant you upon a firm foundation [to accomplish the mission He gives you]. 

Eisegesis

In those five Greek words (the first was autos, Himself), I see a general preparing for a mission by training boys into men and sending them through specialty schools and training missions. Then he motivates and focuses the soldiers, giving them rest, food, and rapid transport, and places them upon impenetrable battlements. (You could word that much better than I, but you get the idea.)

NASB: After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.

I read into this more implications. Since this five-part action of God follows the suffering and even death that the Christians were undergoing, the future time of this transformation has to refer to the general resurrection. Therefore, the verse implies a promise of the resurrection and of the glorified mind, spirit, and body that it will produce. 

Moreover, it promises clarity and purpose. Though we might despair of the apparent purposelessness of suffering and trial in this life (which is addressed prior to verse 10), we will have both purpose and the ability to fulfill that purpose in the resurrection life. 

What touches me, personally, from this word study

The idea that I will be resurrected seems static by itself. Most comments I hear about the resurrection life focus on freedom from aches, illnesses, and trials of life. While I appreciate that, it's never quite touched my heart, although the purposelessness in which I seem to exist could be considered a trial. 

But in the context of my ennui and despair, when you tell me I will have purpose in the next life, and every aspect of the transformation promises clear purpose, the resurrection becomes much more real, much more attractive, and much more a source of anticipation. 

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler; permission granted for personal or non-profit use, provided this copyright notice is included.

The New Covenant Obsoletes the Old

Link: Hebrews 8:6-13

As Greg Koukl says, “never read a Bible verse.” Always check to see how the context gives definition to the passage.

The widest context is the Bible as a whole, so any interpretation must be consistent with the whole teachings of the Bible. The next layer of context is the testament, new or old, in which the passage appears. In this case, the interpretation must be consistent with the rest of the New Testament, but since Old Testament passages are cited, one should consider their contexts as well.

The Old Testament describes the old covenant, that is, the contract between God and Israel. The covenant promised security and worldly blessings to Israel if Israel would represent God to the world. Implied in that is that Israel would obey God’s directions. This was necessary in order to remain morally qualified to represent God.

The New Testament describes a new covenant. The new covenant removes Israel’s exclusive right to represent God, giving it to all followers of Christ. It also unveils more about God’s nature, replaces a covering of sins with an actual washing away of sins, and replaces an unstable relationship between God and a nation with a secure relationship between God and individuals.

The next layer is the audience and theme of the book or letter. Hebrews was written to — guess who? — first-century Hebrews (the ethnic group) after the Jewish establishment (their religion) had rejected and killed its Messiah and begun deadly persecution of their Messiah’s followers.

The book of Hebrews contrasts ways that the new covenant was superior to the old covenant. In fact, if you outlined the book, you would see point after point asserting how the new of-Christ faith solved problems and provided blessings that the Jewish system could not.

The final layer of context is the chapter itself. Chapter 8 can be outlined thus:

• Verses 1–7 — Christ’s role as High Priest is superior to that of the Jewish priests because He mediates a better covenant. (Mediate, in this context, means bringing two parties together to ensure that they understand and meet all the conditions of the covenant.) To discover the many reasons the new covenant is better, read the whole passage, and then read the whole book.
• Verses 8–12 — The writer supports this theme with citations from the Old Testament.
• Verse 13 — In concluding, the writer emphasizes that, when a new covenant replaces an old covenant, the old covenant becomes void. Accepting this required a major mind-change for the audience, Jewish Christians. Even for people like James, the half-brother of Jesus, and the apostle Peter, this change required many years and miraculous evidence to accept. For more details, read the books of Acts and Galatians.

Verse 7 states that God found fault with the old covenant. Since God was the Author of the old covenant, this might seem to mean God made a mistake. However, as we continue reading, we reach a different conclusion.

A covenant is only as good as the parties to the covenant. The fault was not in the covenant, but in Israel’s failure to fulfill it’s duties. God found fault with the people… for they did not continue in my covenant…, says the LORD (verses 8–9).

One reason the old covenant “failed” from Israel’s perspective was that it depended on — to put it in modern terms — levels of bureaucracy between God and individuals. The words of God were contained in scrolls, their distribution depended on “the experts,” and the execution of their provisions depended on corruptible men.

In contrast, under the new covenant, I (God) will put My laws into their (the people’s) minds, and I will write them (the laws) upon their hearts (verse 10). In other words, instead of needing to depend on “the experts,” individuals would be enabled to obey God on their own, and they would be accountable not for obeying the letter of the law, but rather for obeying the spirit of the law. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people makes the relationship very personal — not just a socialized, collective relationship, but rather, an intimate, one-on-one relationship.

Many “Christian” churches, including some of the largest denominations, cling to the form of the old covenant system. They insert “experts,” “prophets,” “priests,” or over-controlling pastors between members and God. A biblical, new covenant church will work hard to bring people and God into personal relationships and edify people so they can stand in that relationship without excessive reliance on the human organization.
Verse 11 needs a bit of background. Directions, such as those in Leviticus about the design of the tabernacle and the conduct of feasts and sacrifices, were highly symbolic. As verse 5 says, they served as a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. Many of them stand out for symbolizing Christ’s sacrifice.

This was also true of prophecies of events that were, in Old Testament times, future events, such as the two comings of Christ — first to provide redemption, and later to take delivery of that which He redeemed.

Reading the prophecies was like looking and seeing a mountain; but when you walk over to the side or walk past the mountain, you see that there were actually two mountains. Since they align in time, you could not differentiate between them. But when you have hiked past the one, you can see that one is in the past and the other is yet future.

The passage(s) cited in verse 11 compress two ages into one description. The first age (or mountain, in the last paragraph) concerns the current age, whereas the second age (the more distant mountain) concerns the age when Christ will have returned, established His reign on Earth, and re-established Israel as the center of His kingdom. In that future time, they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen and everyone his brother, saying, ‘know the Lord,’ for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest of them. The relevant part is the emphasis on establishing that personal relationship between God and us without the interference of, and dependence on, an intervening human organization.

The citation in verse 12 foreshadows another passage in Hebrews. Chapter 10 explains the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice over the old covenant sacrifices. Whereas it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (verse 4), Christ offered one sacrifice for sins for all time (verse 12), so that by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified (verse 14).

Christ does not require continuous sacrificing, as in a particular church. Their continuous sacrifice is like the flawed old testament sacrifices and makes people dependent on the organization. Christ’s sacrifice was complete and perfect. For those who trust in it, it perfects them before the great Judge, washing away all their past, present, and future sins.

(You will find a number of the ideas in chapter 8 repeated in chapter 10.)

In verse 13’s conclusion, When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. That is, the old covenant has no legal effect on anyone who enters into the new covenant.

However, although the old covenant has no legal affect on those in the new covenant, it remains useful for three things: First, through its symbolism, it confirms the new covenant. Second, the portions defining moral conduct remain useful for defining how to love one another.

Third, defining how to love one another has a darker side. It teaches us about our inability to justify ourselves before God. Many fail to grasp this lesson, but it is explicitly taught.

• Therefore the Law [the commands in the old covenant] has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:24).
• Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law [those who think they are “good”], so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:19–20).
• [A]ll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God… (Romans 3:23).

In contrast to justification being out of reach of our efforts, God offers redemption as a gift.

• He [Messiah] shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by His knowledge shall My righteous Servant justify many; for He shall bear their iniquities (Isaiah 53:11).
• …being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24).
• For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8–9).

This excludes any mixture of works and faith, or merit and grace. It also excludes any specious idea that the gift enables one to earn salvation.

• But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace (Romans 11:6).
• Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh [that is, works of obedience]? (Galatians 3:3).

Rather than insulting the Giver by trying to earn the gift and pridefully saying, “I am a good person,” the old covenant teaches us to say, “I would defile heaven with my guilt. I need a Savior and His gift of salvation.” And when that gift has been received, one is no longer “under the Law” of the old covenant. For the Christian, the old covenant becomes obsolete.

I was forgiven. I need forgiveness. Contradiction?

The Bible teaches that salvation means you have been forgiven; yet it also teaches a continuous need for confession and forgiveness. Skeptics twist that into a contradiction. Arminians and Wesleyans twist it into "proof" that salvation is conditional and not secure. Both reflect a need for greater understanding. 

Forgiveness or being forgiven means either an action or a state. The word forgiven has more than one meaning.

• Past participle of the verb to forgive — You were forgiven, meaning, God forgave you.
• Adjective — You are forgiven, meaning, since you were declared forgiven, now you are in a state of forgiveness; it is one of your attributes.
• Present participle — You are forgiven, meaning, I forgive you.

I forgive

Before discussing forgiveness in the spiritual context, we need to recognize a practical context. Sin affects everybody.

• My sin affects me because it has consequences for me.
• It affects God because it desecrates His creation, it is an affront to His holiness, and it rebels against His sovereignty.
• Some sins directly hurts others.

So if somebody says, You are forgiven, they might mean that, assuming you have obeyed the gospel, God has forgiven you. However, they might mean that they forgive you for what you did to them.

God forgives

The state of forgiveness cannot be reversed. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1, NASB).

This is because Christ fulfilled the Law — the Old Testament commandments that condemned us. God God reckons Christ’s death and payment of the debt to our accounts, so in the new birth, we died to the Law of Condemnation and were born into a Law of love.

Romans 7:1–6 uses marriage as an analogy. Marriage is a lifelong commitment. When one spouse dies, the other is free from that first commitment and free to marry another. Similarly, when Christ’s death is imputed to us, it’s like we’ve died to the Law of Condemnation, and God places us under a new law, the Law of Love. So the passage concludes in verse 6,

• But now we have been released from the Law [of commandments that condemn], having died to that by which we were bound [the Law and our guilt], so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter [the Law].

Because God remakes us as His children, His role in relationship to one whom He remakes into His child changes from Judge to Father. Formerly, His end role was to pronounce guilt, hand down the sentence, and execute justice. Now, His role is to train us; and by being trained, we can bring more honor to Him, earn rewards, enjoy fellowship with Him, and become more of a blessing to those we encounter. His end role will be to judge our performance and give rewards rather than to condemn.

On the other hand…

All this means that sin cannot condemn us, but it does not mean that sin does not hurt is. Sin still

• brings embarrassment to God’s name
• wastes rewards
• interferes with our fellowship with God
• interferes with our fellowship with others
• makes us a hindrance to others instead of a blessing
• weighs us down with guilt

Even though we have been forgiven by our Judge so that no penalty of condemnation remains, we still seek forgiveness from our Father because a penalty of lost joy and usefulness weighs us down.

Whereas the book of Romans focused on judicial forgiveness, the book of 1 John focuses on daily life.

• [I]f we walk in the Light… we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin…. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:7–9, NASB)

This passage would seem self contradictory. “He forgives us of all sins, yet we need continued forgiveness?” This is resolved if you recognize the difference between forgiveness by our Judge and forgiveness by our Father.

Again, judicial forgiveness cleanses us from all our sins — past, present, and future. But within that state of forgiveness, we still need that cleansing of conscience and restoration of fellowship with our Father.

That’s why we should, even though our sins are forgiven, live in a continual state of repentance, confession, and attempted reform.

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for personal or non-profit use. Please give credit where credit is due.

Parallel Passages Strengthen the Bible

Someone asked, "Aren't parallel passages in the Bible redundant?"

First, let’s define parallel passages as texts that discuss the same subject. A subset of these includes passages that contain similar or identical wording; and a further subset includes passages that use the same words, especially (but not necessarily) with reference to the same subject.

Passages that discuss the same subject may approach it from different perspectives and provide different, complementary details that would be tedious to read if combined. Parallel passages can provide emphasis to a point, too. The third type is useful because reading a word in a different context can help define it.

Old Testament

Several major examples of parallel passages exist in the Old Testament.

Genesis contains two accounts of creation. One focuses on chronological order at a high level, and the other focuses on the creation of humans. Skeptics say that this means there are two authors, but repetition, parallelism, and restatement of ideas from different perspectives are staples of Hebrew literature.

The Pentateuch, the five books of Moses, contains repeated passages. For example, first God might say something, then Moses conveys it to Israel, and then, years later, Moses reminds Israel and appends details. Repetition emphasizes the message.

One group of parallel passages is in the histories presented by 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, and 1 & 2 Chronicles. After the reign of kings Saul, David, and Solomon, Israel split into two kingdoms, Israel to the north and Judah to the south. 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings cover the history of Israel leading up to the split and the histories of both after the split. In contrast, 1 & 2 Chronicles repeats much of that history but focuses on Judah, omitting many details already covered and adding other details.

The two perspectives serves a purpose. First Israel, and later Judah, were conquered by other nations and their citizens were deported. Later, Israel remained scattered, but Judah was returned to the land.
According to Stephen Bedard,

Samuel/Kings was written at the beginning of the exile. It was a time of repentance and reflection of how they had come to that terrible situation. Chronicles was written after the exile was over and the Jews were trying to re-establish themselves…. Chronicles was written for a Jewish people who needed encouragement and strengthening. (What is the Difference between Samuel/Kings and Chronicles?)

The presentation of different perspectives sometimes gives the appearance of contradiction, but the contradictions can always be resolved. For example, according to 2 Samuel 24:1, God caused David to count the people of Israel and Judah, whereas in 1 Chronicles 21:1, Satan caused David to conduct the census. If you have read Job carefully, however, you realize that for a higher purpose, God sometimes tests or allows the devil to tempt, and God takes responsibility for the things that happen under His control. What happens behind the scenes is much more complicated that simplistic "contradictions," and we don't always have need-to-know. 

New Testament

The most obvious case of parallel passages is among the Gospels. They serve several major purposes.

• In Jewish law, establishing a fact required the testimony of two or three witnesses. Three of the gospel authors were eye witnesses to the events in Jesus’ ministry. So at least three gospels were needed to establish their truthfulness, and then needed to have coincident accounts — yet not so much coincidence that one might become considered redundant, and not so much word-for-word agreement that they presented the appearance of collusion between the authors.
  
  
• Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all have different literary styles that present a different focus. Whereas Matthew focuses on Jesus's teachings and presents Him as King, Mark is action-oriented and presents Jesus as the perfect Servant to a Jewish audience, Luke presents Jesus as the perfect Man to a Greek audience, and John focuses on theology and presents Jesus as God. A single, combined account could not have conveyed the various messages effectively.
  
  
• In The Life of Christ in Stereo: The Four Gospels Combined As One, Johntson Cheney resolved all the so-called contradictions and weaved the four gospels into a single book. I read the book once. Borrr-ringg. Combining all the parallel passages makes for excessively long, complicated sentences, and it obscures the messages of the authors. It’s a valuable aid when putting parallel passages together. Movie-makers ought to use such harmonies of the gospels instead of basing them on a single gospel. But if you try to read such books, you will learn to appreciate the value of four Gospels instead of one.
  
  
• Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain a lot of nearly identical text. Contrary to the speculation of “scholars,” Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not need to copy from a hypothetical document called Q. When a group of disciples witness the same thing, their notes tend to match up. When they preach together, their accounts dovetail even more. Moreover, Mark reputedly became a disciple of Peter and included much of Peter’s preaching in his gospel. Luke was a disciple in the early church and, besides recording much of Peter’s preaching, interviewed many other eyewitnesses to verify and fill in details. So the agreement is not a matter of copying, but of sharing experiences and recall.

In General

Whenever the same points need to be addressed to multiple audiences, parallel passages can result. This is handy because you get to read a point from different perspectives. Different details get addressed whereas compressing all the details into a single passage would make for tedious reading.

• Citing other passages creates parallels. For example, Jesus’s teachers are saturated with citations of Old Testament passages. When He quoted a portion of a passage in Genesis, he probably wanted readers to find the passage and get more background to understand what he was teaching.
  
  
• Skeptics like to point out passages that supposedly disagree with each other. Usually, however, the “contradictions” merely reflect differing perspectives. When you read about a supposed contradiction, remember that if an explanation is possible, then it is dishonest to say with certainty that there is a contradiction. This simple logic usually escapes skeptics who must discredit the Bible in order to evade accountability for their broken relationship with God.
  
  
• Skeptics contradict themselves when they complain that there are too many similarities and also complain that there are differences between the similar passages!

This answer is not complete. It could use specific examples, but the major points have been made, and you will recognize those points as you read through the Bible. Like a combined version of the four gospels, any more would make it even more tedious that it already is.

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for personal or non-profit use. Please give credit where credit is due.