Biblical Contradictions

The reason I listened to this is because I was curious about the “one verse” that would cause Ehrman to question everything.  He questions everything except his own understanding.  Maybe there are things that he just doesn’t know.  Over a lifetime of studying scripture I have found that when I come across a difficult passage or “contradiction” to file it away for future reference.  An answer is nearly always forthcoming.  Sometimes it can be ten years later and in a flash of inspiration you will suddenly understand what it means and that the problem was not scripture but you.   See my Comment below the video.

The One Verse That Made Bart Question Everything (41 min)

My Comment: The old Abithar chestnut (Mark 2:26-28) , Mark (or Jesus) was wrong because Ahimelech was high priest. Well, they both must have been very dumb because the temple records regarding priesthood were meticulously kept and anyone pulling such a faux pas would have been immediately pulled up by the general public. It would be like someone naming the wrong president, these were well know facts. Firstly the Greek is ambiguous and elastic (deliberately so) "In the days of Abiathar" the expression means “about the time of Abiathar”. A similar rather elastic usage of the same Greek form comes in Matthew 1:11 “And Josias begat Jeconias and his brethren about the time of the carrying away to Babylon”. But the real reason for the mention of Abiathar rather than Ahimelech lies in the symbolism. Abiathar (“the remnant of my Father”) was the one who let go his loyalty to the sanctuary in order to become a wanderer and an outlaw with David. It was the Lord's way of telling the Pharisees that they were better to exchange their zeal for the temple for the less reputable discipleship of the peripatetic Son of David. So Abithar (from that time period) was deliberately highlighted for theological reasons, moreover the Greek ordinal gematria of his name is 363 which in the Hebrew points to the phrase "the messiah" OR "the serpent" and verse 28 where the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath has the value 616. Now what could that mean? The wisdom of God will confound the wisdom of men. You have no idea what you are dealing with and are leading people astray..

 

Here follows an exchange about “Sons of God” only referring to angels

Actually God promised David that David’s descendant would also be “his son” so the term “sons of God” is flexible (there are other passages). Moreover, Jesus said that the angels neither marry or are given in marriage because they are immortal (no need to procreate) and they have no gender (bit difficult to have sex then). They are spirit beings. If God’s will is to be done on earth as in heaven then how can there be “war in heaven” or “rebellion”. People simply do not understand scripture. The angels of God ALWAYS do his will and the ONLY rebel in the universe is MAN

The Nephelim are/were the “god kings” who were the “men of renown” sometimes translated “Giants” and are found even in ancient Greek mythology as the Titans. The remnants were still in the land at the time of the conquest and had intermarried hence the herem of utter destruction against Amalek. Who were they? Probably the line of Cain and Nimrod etc the builders of civilization as an alternative “sanctuary” the forerunners of the technocrats and alchemists who believe that with enough knowledge (tree of knowledge) they can transcend. I believe that there are still royal bloodlines who trace back to the “Nephilim” or at least they think that they are related to them. When Jesus says your father was a murderer and liar from the beginning he is talking about the serpent. It is not that they are literally the serpent’s seed, but that we all have a choice -either put the serpent to death (like Jesus did) or become the serpent. The big serpent lie is that man can become God (through his own effort). Unlike Adam, Jesus thought it not a thing to be grasped at (Not robbery to be equal with God) and because he subjected everything to the Father he was elevated and given the name above every name.

The construct is unusual because you have “Sons of God” contrasted with “Daughters of Men” and this points to a male-female contrast/duality. We also have the story of the violence and boasting of Lamech to his two wives about killing a young man for offending him. The passage does not tell us why he killed the young man but his daughter Namaah (which means fair or beautiful) is mentioned and we are told that the “Sons of God” saw that the daughters of men “were fair” (I think it is a different word in the Hebrew). In any case it looks like the young man ran off with Lamech’s daughter and was then murdered (honor killing).

Not only that but Solomon who is “the Son of God” (typified Jesus) in the promise to David in 2 Sam 7 was led astray by “many strange women” . The mother of Solomon’s son Rehoboam (who split the nation) was called Naamah and was from the nation of Ammon. I don’t believe in coincidences.