Does Bible Contradict Itself?

[robert derrick]

I have heard stories of people like doctors and lawyers who set out to prove the Bible is false, because it contradicts itself at times, and they end of being believers, because they ultimately saw none.

The first time I had sure knowledge, and not just wishful ideas, that there is a God in heaven, was when I also came to this conclusion as an amateur historian. And so from my heart I knew if the Bible said it, it's true, and If the Bible says that Jesus is Lord, it's true. Whether I knew Him personally or not, was not the point. I just began to know, at least with my mind, that Jesus is Lord.

I believe God has written His Word in such a way as to ensnare those who would believe the Bible is not His written Word, by readily seeing or agreeing that there is a contradiction in it. It is how He takes the so-called 'wise' in their own craftiness (1 Cor 3:19) He exposes both their lack of faith as well as intelligence.

For their to be a true contradiction in anything, then there cannot be any reasonable nor possible explanation to the contrary. Or rather, no way to reconcile the two things contradicting each other. Such as 1 + 1=2, and 1+1=3.

I was once challenged with this supposed contradiction:

On the one hand Scripture says the men with Paul stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:7) And on the other hand Scripture quotes Paul saying plainly that the others with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me. (Acts 22:9)

Apparently they agree they saw the light and stood speechless and were afraid, but did they or did they not hear a voice?

I admit it had me stumped for quite a while, but since by faith I refused to believe there is in fact a contradiction in the Bible. So, I stayed at, until I finally saw the light.

 

[Triumph1300]

I have heard stories of people like doctors and lawyers who set out to prove the Bible is false.

I heard stories about scientists who did the same.
They ended up being born again Christians.

 

[Hemlock]

Did you stay at it til you saw the light - but didn't hear a voice?

I feel I should point out that Daniel Wallace, a Greek expert, said that it said "heard but didn't understand" - because of AKUO with a certain kind of genitive...

But I didn't buy it - still don't. I had some free Bible software at the time - looked at every single instance of AKUO with that genitive, and I disagreed with Wallace, expert that he is.

I don't really believe Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and it did, either. Maybe the sun and the earth cooperated and made it seem like that - but we don't have a geocentric view of the solar system like people use to.

But fine points in accounts of Paul's Damascus Road experience - that is a real stickler. There are more than the 2 accounts that Robert Derrick listed, there is another in Acts and one in Galatians - but the seeming contradiction is in the 2 that he listed.

I don't really know what the answer is - concerning what Paul's companions did or didn't hear - or heard but didn't understand.

Also people think Paul fell off of a horse - though there is no mention of horseback in the 4 biblical accounts of the Damascus Road experience.

In a John Calvin commentary that I can't find anymore, Calvin wrote that "Paul fell off his horse in fear".

God is God, and can make a donkey and a serpent talk if He chooses.

There are accounts in the gospels where one gospel says one man or one angel did this or that - and another gospel says it was two men or two angels.

The ending of Mark - what is the original of verses 9-20? What about the Freer Logion? Mary Magdalene is with other women at one point, and yet by herself when she sees the Risen Jesus. Some scholars think the original ending of Mark got torn off or something, and everything past 16:8 is added later.

Nobody is going to find a valid contradiction.

Remember that Christianity is a system of beliefs wherein Jesus rose from the dead and appeared unto many people before finally ascending for good.

I don't know if I can buy into God deliberately making the Bible "trip people up" - but it could be something like making their ears not hear lest they believe - which I don't understand either.

 

[amigo de christo]

I have heard stories of people like doctors and lawyers who set out to prove the Bible is false, because it contradicts itself at times, and they end of being believers, because they ultimately saw none.

The first time I had sure knowledge, and not just wishful ideas, that there is a God in heaven, was when I also came to this conclusion as an amateur historian. And so from my heart I knew if the Bible said it, it's true, and If the Bible says that Jesus is Lord, it's true. Whether I knew Him personally or not, was not the point. I just began to know, at least with my mind, that Jesus is Lord.

I believe God has written His Word in such a way as to ensnare those who would believe the Bible is not His written Word, by readily seeing or agreeing that there is a contradiction in it. It is how He takes the so-called 'wise' in their own craftiness (1 Cor 3:19) He exposes both their lack of faith as well as intelligence.

For their to be a true contradiction in anything, then there cannot be any reasonable nor possible explanation to the contrary. Or rather, no way to reconcile the two things contradicting each other. Such as 1 + 1=2, and 1+1=3.

I was once challenged with this supposed contradiction:

On the one hand Scripture says the men with Paul stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:7) And on the other hand Scripture quotes Paul saying plainly that the others with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me. (Acts 22:9)

Apparently they agree they saw the light and stood speechless and were afraid, but did they or did they not hear a voice?

I admit it had me stumped for quite a while, but since by faith I refused to believe there is in fact a contradiction in the Bible. So, I stayed at, until I finally saw the light.

That had me stumped a long time ago as well . But , by grace i just kept reading the lovely bible .
The next day the answer came back so clear .
Me too my friend . Just keep on reading those bibles my friends . And let the glorious Lord be praised .

 

[Windmill Charge]

Acts 9,:7 they heard the sound but did not see anyone.
Acts22:9 saw the light but did not understand the voice. Both from the niv.
There is no contradiction here.

It is always the responsibility of the claimant to provide the evidence that supports there claim.

 

[Daniel Veler]

I have heard stories of people like doctors and lawyers who set out to prove the Bible is false, because it contradicts itself at times, and they end of being believers, because they ultimately saw none.

The first time I had sure knowledge, and not just wishful ideas, that there is a God in heaven, was when I also came to this conclusion as an amateur historian. And so from my heart I knew if the Bible said it, it's true, and If the Bible says that Jesus is Lord, it's true. Whether I knew Him personally or not, was not the point. I just began to know, at least with my mind, that Jesus is Lord.

I believe God has written His Word in such a way as to ensnare those who would believe the Bible is not His written Word, by readily seeing or agreeing that there is a contradiction in it. It is how He takes the so-called 'wise' in their own craftiness (1 Cor 3:19) He exposes both their lack of faith as well as intelligence.

For their to be a true contradiction in anything, then there cannot be any reasonable nor possible explanation to the contrary. Or rather, no way to reconcile the two things contradicting each other. Such as 1 + 1=2, and 1+1=3.

I was once challenged with this supposed contradiction:

On the one hand Scripture says the men with Paul stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:7) And on the other hand Scripture quotes Paul saying plainly that the others with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me. (Acts 22:9)

Apparently they agree they saw the light and stood speechless and were afraid, but did they or did they not hear a voice?

I admit it had me stumped for quite a while, but since by faith I refused to believe there is in fact a contradiction in the Bible. So, I stayed at, until I finally saw the light.

Go back and read the two accounts again. One is being told by someone and in Acts 22 it is being told by Paul himself. People use the first account of Paul’s baptism as water but when Paul gives his personal account of the event water wasn’t mentioned at all. The account given was misunderstood by the writer but the actual account would be correct. That is what Revelation was given to us to set the testimony of Christ correctly. There is more I could write on this but I wouldn’t have the space.

 

[Robert Gwin]

I have heard stories of people like doctors and lawyers who set out to prove the Bible is false, because it contradicts itself at times, and they end of being believers, because they ultimately saw none.

The first time I had sure knowledge, and not just wishful ideas, that there is a God in heaven, was when I also came to this conclusion as an amateur historian. And so from my heart I knew if the Bible said it, it's true, and If the Bible says that Jesus is Lord, it's true. Whether I knew Him personally or not, was not the point. I just began to know, at least with my mind, that Jesus is Lord.

I believe God has written His Word in such a way as to ensnare those who would believe the Bible is not His written Word, by readily seeing or agreeing that there is a contradiction in it. It is how He takes the so-called 'wise' in their own craftiness (1 Cor 3:19) He exposes both their lack of faith as well as intelligence.

For their to be a true contradiction in anything, then there cannot be any reasonable nor possible explanation to the contrary. Or rather, no way to reconcile the two things contradicting each other. Such as 1 + 1=2, and 1+1=3.

I was once challenged with this supposed contradiction:

On the one hand Scripture says the men with Paul stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:7) And on the other hand Scripture quotes Paul saying plainly that the others with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me. (Acts 22:9)

Apparently they agree they saw the light and stood speechless and were afraid, but did they or did they not hear a voice?

I admit it had me stumped for quite a while, but since by faith I refused to believe there is in fact a contradiction in the Bible. So, I stayed at, until I finally saw the light.

No sir, however with flawed understanding many think that it does. There are also errors in all translations, but truth can be found in most, and comparisons of versions helps greatly as well.

 

[robert derrick]

Did you stay at it til you saw the light - but didn't hear a voice?

I feel I should point out that Daniel Wallace, a Greek expert, said that it said "heard but didn't understand" - because of AKUO with a certain kind of genitive...

But I didn't buy it - still don't. I had some free Bible software at the time - looked at every single instance of AKUO with that genitive, and I disagreed with Wallace, expert that he is.

I don't really believe Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and it did, either. Maybe the sun and the earth cooperated and made it seem like that - but we don't have a geocentric view of the solar system like people use to.

But fine points in accounts of Paul's Damascus Road experience - that is a real stickler. There are more than the 2 accounts that Robert Derrick listed, there is another in Acts and one in Galatians - but the seeming contradiction is in the 2 that he listed.

I don't really know what the answer is - concerning what Paul's companions did or didn't hear - or heard but didn't understand.

Also people think Paul fell off of a horse - though there is no mention of horseback in the 4 biblical accounts of the Damascus Road experience.

In a John Calvin commentary that I can't find anymore, Calvin wrote that "Paul fell off his horse in fear".

God is God, and can make a donkey and a serpent talk if He chooses.

There are accounts in the gospels where one gospel says one man or one angel did this or that - and another gospel says it was two men or two angels.

The ending of Mark - what is the original of verses 9-20? What about the Freer Logion? Mary Magdalene is with other women at one point, and yet by herself when she sees the Risen Jesus. Some scholars think the original ending of Mark got torn off or something, and everything past 16:8 is added later.

Nobody is going to find a valid contradiction.

Remember that Christianity is a system of beliefs wherein Jesus rose from the dead and appeared unto many people before finally ascending for good.

I don't know if I can buy into God deliberately making the Bible "trip people up" - but it could be something like making their ears not hear lest they believe - which I don't understand either.

"Some scholars think the original ending of Mark got torn off or something..."

I believe the same God who had His words written into the world, likewise had ALL His words preserved in the world. I.e. the Bible we have is ALL Scripture of God, and is ALL the Scripture God ever had written...

 

[robert derrick]

Acts 9,:7 they heard the sound but did not see anyone.
Acts22:9 saw the light but did not understand the voice. Both from the niv.
There is no contradiction here.

It is always the responsibility of the claimant to provide the evidence that supports there claim.

That would be nice if true, but unfortunately there is no Greek manuscript that can be properly interpreted as did not understand the voice. The Greek word in ALL manuscripts is that for physical hearing only, it can in now way be interpreted to include reasoning about what is heard.

The same Greek word is used in both passages, (9:7, and 22:9). For the translator to be faithful to the manuscripts, he or she would need translate 'understand' at both times. Which is not the case in NIV. To me, the translator purposely tried to avoid any confusion by device of translation. At the very least, they are curiously inconsistent.

I have no axe to grind with translators; however this is one reason why I try to avoid 'going to the Greek' in order to rightly divide the word of truth, especially as pertaining to doctrine and law of God. I would also say it is not necessary to try and find and choose a 'best' or most 'accurate' translation in a given language. However, for sake of consistency and honesty with ourselves, I do believe we ought to choose One translation for ourselves, to be our 'authoritative' answer to such things I mean, do we really want to spend our time 'fishing around' so to speak, until we find the answer we want?

 

[Amazed@grace]

Scholars recognize contradictions. Codexes variations, etc...

I think that is why we're told to discern and search for the truth. God will lead us to his words.

 

[robert derrick]

Go back and read the two accounts again. One is being told by someone and in Acts 22 it is being told by Paul himself. People use the first account of Paul’s baptism as water but when Paul gives his personal account of the event water wasn’t mentioned at all. The account given was misunderstood by the writer but the actual account would be correct. That is what Revelation was given to us to set the testimony of Christ correctly. There is more I could write on this but I wouldn’t have the space.

"The account given was misunderstood by the writer but the actual account would be correct."

You mean Luke must have been mistaken, because Paul, who was actually there, knew more about it? I have heard that before.

But I must respectfully reject that. If indeed the writer, Luke, was mistaken about an account that he did not attend personally, but wrote it anyway, then we have a real problem with Luke and the whole Bible.

1. Luke would not only have been stupid enough to write one account in Ch 9, and then a contradictory account in Ch 22 at the words of Paul. And likewise failed to just go back and correct the error. Unless of course Luke is not the only writer of Acts.

2. Since Luke, or whoever wrote that chapter, wrote it as Scripture, then it would be true that not ALL the Bible is Scripture inspired of God, because ALL His Scripture is accurate, true, and inspired by Himself perfectly. (2 Tim 3:16)


One writer getting the account wrong to me is just as unthinkable as God's Scriptures contradicting one another. To me, the details of the account are not near as important as the accuracy of it in the Bible. If one account indeed is inaccurate, then the Bible would be accurately accused of at least one error of men writing therein. And if one, then how many others? Also, it would demonstrate that the Bible is not accurately preserved with Scripture in it only. I.e ALL things written in the Bible are not all Scripture inspired of God.

Biblic inerrancy is so important, because it claims to be the inspired written Word of the God of creation, the God that is in heaven (Dan 2:28), the God who made all things and knows all things.

If it can be proven that: The Bible contradicts itself, or that it contains errors of fact, or of men writing in it, then it is proven once for all that the Bible is not the written Word of the only true God (John 17:3). It is rather just one more book among many books that speaks of a 'God'along with religious and spiritual type things, including some pretty good historical facts. It also can still be claimed to have inspirational teachings, but it certainly is not The one and only inspired of God Book in the world. (Which many would like to believe)

 

[Hidden In Him]

I believe God has written His Word in such a way as to ensnare those who would believe the Bible is not His written Word, by readily seeing or agreeing that there is a contradiction in it. It is how He takes the so-called 'wise' in their own craftiness (1 Cor 3:19) He exposes both their lack of faith as well as intelligence.

I think this is well put.

At the crux of the issue is what sort of God do we believe in? One who knew exactly what He was doing, or one that was sort muddling along and managed to preserve some things properly yet failed to with others, and ultimately is sort of a... well I was going to say Dim Bulb, but I'd take the more respectful approach and simply say, not truly God.

Both sides will "find" what they were looking for if that's what they have their hearts set on. What irks me somewhat is those who invalidate scriptures that go against their theology rather than trying to reconcile them in some way, form or fashion. It's where the discussion breaks down altogether and becomes a total free-for-all. So I am more than happy to enter discussions from the perspective that He is Truly God going in. Entering from perspectives like those of critical (i.e. faithless) scholars who take the position that He is fallible means we have no common ground upon which to build a dialogue, since His "word" can be presumed to be merely the word of men at any point in time during the discussion when the implications of what is being said do not fit their narrative.

Sorry, just sort of talking out loud. It's what came to mind in relation to this question.

 

[robert derrick]

I think this is well put.

At the crux of the issue is what sort of God do we believe in? One who knew exactly what He was doing, or one that was sort muddling along and managed to preserve some things properly yet failed to with others, and ultimately is sort of a... well I was going to say Dim Bulb, but I'd take the more respectful approach and simply say, not truly God.

Both sides will "find" what they were looking for if that's what they have their hearts set on. What irks me somewhat is those who invalidate scriptures that go against their theology rather than trying to reconcile them in some way, form or fashion. It's where the discussion breaks down altogether and becomes a total free-for-all. So I am more than happy to enter discussions from the perspective that He is Truly God going in. Entering from perspectives like those of critical (i.e. faithless) scholars who take the position that He is fallible means we have no common ground upon which to build a dialogue, since His "word" can be presumed to be merely the word of men at any point in time during the discussion when the implications of what is being said do not fit their narrative.

Sorry, just sort of talking out loud. It's what came to mind in relation to this question.

Agree completely.

"...It's where the discussion breaks down altogether and becomes a total free-for-all." It's where 1 Tim 1:4 declares the 'argument' to be endless with nothing built around it, except more and more questions without answers.

I believe the simple and very real difference between godly disputing in the Scriptures, such as Apollos who was mighty in the Scriptures (Acts 18:24) and unedifying arguments that only gender strifes (2 Tim 2:23), is the difference between having a rational dispute about what God is saying in His Word vs. vainly trying to argue about the things of the true God from one's own opinion. Disputing God's things with the Scriptures is one thing, where we can indeed disagree, but trying to argue about God with our own minds is useless for truth, even if we happen to agree. (Unless of course we like patting ourselves and each other on the back while have a drink at the local bar...)

And everyone is indeed entitled to their own opinions, however sincere and faithful held, but they remain just that: their own, unless Scripture approves it as godly and eternal. And I believe this is the heart of what I call the 'first rule' of ministry in 2 Peter 1:20. We should not be ministering or teaching or preaching anything as Scripture, that is only from one's own mind, and not from Scripture itself. It's is what made Moses so faithful to god's house, in that he never gave anything from his own mind (Num 16:22), but only God's commandments to the people.

It's fine to give our opinions all we want, but just be sure not to try and pass it off as Scripture, or God's words on the matter. That is called adding to, taking away, and wresting the Scriptures from what God really says.

"...since His "word" can be presumed to be merely the word of men at any point in time during the discussion when the implications of what is being said do not fit their narrative."

I believe that occurs with those who scour the written universe for different translations, in order to find something written that confirms what they want to think anyway. I believe self-honesty requires we choose one particular translation to be our and final authority for all Scriptural disputes.

 

[Hidden In Him]

"...since His "word" can be presumed to be merely the word of men at any point in time during the discussion when the implications of what is being said do not fit their narrative."

I believe that occurs with those who scour the written universe for different translations, in order to find something written that confirms what they want to think anyway. I believe self-honesty requires we choose one particular translation to be our and final authority for all Scriptural disputes.

I liked your post with the possible exception of these last lines. But maybe we can get into that issue some day. You write some solid things, so it's a pleasure having you as a new member in the community.

Down the road maybe we can have some interesting discussions. :)

 

[robert derrick]

Scholars recognize contradictions. Codexes variations, etc...

I think that is why we're told to discern and search for the truth. God will lead us to his words.

Exactly. I have been at a place where I was entirely too wrapped up in 'original languages' and 'scholarly' translation debates, etc...

I have seen people dive deep into a greek or hebrew word in a Scripture and come out again with an interpretation of that Scripture that has very little to do with the natural and sensical view of it. Which interpretation just happened to be what the 'scholar' wanted to believe and was trying to force down our throats. (So to speak.)

I find the best translators are unbelieving but objective and true scholars. They dont have an axe of their own to grind. No hidden agenda.

I would call much of language scholarship applied to Scripture by invested believers science falsely so called (1 Tim 6:20). Pseudo scholarship.

I liked your post with the possible exception of these last lines. But maybe we can get into that issue some day. You write some solid things, so it's a pleasure having you as a new member in the community.

Down the road maybe we can have some interesting discussions. :)

Look forward to it. Especially about my last few lines. TO me it's just a logical thing. Maybe something on the Nicolaitans. Nothing is said about them directly in Scripture, but I believe a possible inroad would be looking at Nicolas the proselyte in Acts 6.

 

[Gary Urban]

I have heard stories of people like doctors and lawyers who set out to prove the Bible is false, because it contradicts itself at times, and they end of being believers, because they ultimately saw none.

The first time I had sure knowledge, and not just wishful ideas, that there is a God in heaven, was when I also came to this conclusion as an amateur historian. And so from my heart I knew if the Bible said it, it's true, and If the Bible says that Jesus is Lord, it's true. Whether I knew Him personally or not, was not the point. I just began to know, at least with my mind, that Jesus is Lord.

I believe God has written His Word in such a way as to ensnare those who would believe the Bible is not His written Word, by readily seeing or agreeing that there is a contradiction in it. It is how He takes the so-called 'wise' in their own craftiness (1 Cor 3:19) He exposes both their lack of faith as well as intelligence.

For their to be a true contradiction in anything, then there cannot be any reasonable nor possible explanation to the contrary. Or rather, no way to reconcile the two things contradicting each other. Such as 1 + 1=2, and 1+1=3.

I was once challenged with this supposed contradiction:

On the one hand Scripture says the men with Paul stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:7) And on the other hand Scripture quotes Paul saying plainly that the others with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me. (Acts 22:9)

Apparently they agree they saw the light and stood speechless and were afraid, but did they or did they not hear a voice?

I admit it had me stumped for quite a while, but since by faith I refused to believe there is in fact a contradiction in the Bible. So, I stayed at, until I finally saw the light.

One thing I would offer is to remember God is light and not that he can only create it. In the beginging when he said let there be light it was a introduction of the glory of God.The eternal Spirt of God glory moving on the waters . Day three he descoved pride in the heart of lucifer (false light) and His glory departed coruption begun. Day 4 he created the temporal light (Moon as Sun) referenced as under the sun through the bible .In the new heaven earth the glory that began the first creation wil be the light .The sun and moon are under the feet a thing of the past

Moses is the presence of God he had a glow connected with the glory of God not seen .A veil was needed to shield the light . When he broght the hearing of the word of God written on the tablets of stone they refused to hear. God sent them a strong delusion to keep the lie .

seeing the light does not mean persons belives to the end of their new born again faith the salvation of ones soul .We taste and see as he works in us to both give us the light of his will and empower of to do his good pleasure.

It could be likend to Hebrew 6 .Tasted of the good living word participated , but did not drink in .or as a metphor called drink the blood but they rather poured it out

The kind that crucify him over and over exposeing him to public shame as if one demonstation was not enough to glory the father the soure of Light . .

Isaiah8; 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

It would seem that the Holy Spirt was introducing Paul a new member of the gloriuous bride of Christ, the church.

 

[robert derrick]

One thing I would offer is to remember God is light and not that he can only create it. In the beginging when he said let there be light it was a introduction of the glory of God.The eternal Spirt of God glory moving on the waters . Day three he descoved pride in the heart of lucifer (false light) and His glory departed coruption begun. Day 4 he created the temporal light (Moon as Sun) referenced as under the sun through the bible .In the new heaven earth the glory that began the first creation wil be the light .The sun and moon are under the feet a thing of the past

Moses is the presence of God he had a glow connected with the glory of God not seen .A veil was needed to shield the light . When he broght the hearing of the word of God written on the tablets of stone they refused to hear. God sent them a strong delusion to keep the lie .

seeing the light does not mean persons belives to the end of their new born again faith the salvation of ones soul .We taste and see as he works in us to both give us the light of his will and empower of to do his good pleasure.

It could be likend to Hebrew 6 .Tasted of the good living word participated , but did not drink in .or as a metphor called drink the blood but they rather poured it out

The kind that crucify him over and over exposeing him to public shame as if one demonstation was not enough to glory the father the soure of Light . .

Isaiah8; 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

It would seem that the Holy Spirt was introducing Paul a new member of the gloriuous bride of Christ, the church.

Alot said there.
1. On day 3 pride of Lucifer discovered? I have heard that Satan's fall as lightening (Luke 10:18 ) was between Vs 1 and 2.
2. And His glory departed and corruption began? I thought corruption on earth began with Adam's transgression?
3. In Hebrews 6, there is controversy over what is 'impossible'. Some say it is impossible for those tasted of heavenly gif, or been saved, to fall away. But Paul says there first shall be a falling away (of believers?) before the man of sin is revealed (2 Thess 2:3). The context rather is that if a believer truly falls away and crucifies Christ afresh to himself, then it is impossible to renew repentance. Even as Esau found no place of repentance after selling out his birthright. (Heb 12:17)

 

[Windmill Charge]

For the translator to be faithful to the manuscripts, he or she would need translate 'understand' at both times

And by implication of that is if the meaning is understand, then they must also be hearing.

 

[Enoch111]

The ending of Mark - what is the original of verses 9-20? What about the Freer Logion? Mary Magdalene is with other women at one point, and yet by herself when she sees the Risen Jesus. Some scholars think the original ending of Mark got torn off or something, and everything past 16:8 is added later.

The genuineness of The Last Twelve Verses of Mark is indisputable. Please read the monograph by that title written by John William Burgon, an outstanding textual scholar in his own right, who personally researched the matter thoroughly. He even included the page from the Codex Sinaiticus which has a gap which is exactly where those verses were supposed to be. The so-called scholars and critics who have been promoting the lies of Westcott and Hort will not even address this refutation. They simply ignore it. They all "canceled" Burgon because he exposed their lies.

 

[robert derrick]

And by implication of that is if the meaning is understand, then they must also be hearing.

True. I pointed out that NIV translators did not use 'understand' for Vs 9:7 as a means to show they had an agenda for doing so in 22:9.

By false translation they are purposely trying to tie Matthew 13:13 "they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand..." to Paul's accounting.

'Hear' and 'understand' in the Greek lexicon are as irreconcilably different as they are in the English, and no 1st year Greek language student would make that kind of error. Spiritually and philosophically 'hearing and understanding' are intertwined, but grammatically they can never be the same word. Translation of text is an objective science of linguistics, but translation of meaning is a subjective interpretation of Scripture.

1 Peter 2:20 specifically warns us not to put forth our own interpretation as Scripture, which includes doing so by way of 'translation'. Accurately translate for me, don't subjectively interpret for me.

I suppose if there were such a thing as Plato's 'noble lie', then this would fit. The translators are trying to 'cover' for God's Word or for Luke, or both. The problem is that God's Word, the Bible, does not need cover from man. And in doing so, I would say the reader is deprived of the opportunity to believe and trust in the Scriptures, until he or she is personally helped by God to confirm for themselves His promise that His Word is unerring. It is a good exercise in faith and of intellectual honesty.

I have suggested that God wrote His Word in such a way as to test the reader and hearer. He does not do so falsely, but purposely. Our whole life of faith is a test between us and God. Love and faith must be proven. Do we truly believe His Word from the heart or only superficially. Are we willing to go the distance with faith, until the matter is satisfactorily resolved, or do we collapse when the going gets tough.

It must be admitted that maintaining faith in Scriptural integrity, especially in these last days, is a challenge with many assaults from all sides. And I believe part of that challenge is to do so with persuasive and conclusive argument (Job 6:25) (1 Peter 3:15), rather than simply responding with a childish non-answer such as, 'Well I believe it, and that's that.' Or worse, with a false translation for cover.

I believe the NIV translators have done a disservice to the Bible and to the hearer, as well as tarnishing their own integrity.