Innerancy.

[tabibito]

Well I actually don't think this is a contradiction so much as I think it's an instance of modern evangelical theology being severely wrong in its reading of Paul. I don't think Paul is trying to teach that God's required standards of righteousness cannot be met by humans, I think that's a severe misreading of Paul, that Paul would have objected to vehemently, and which places Paul into contradiction with the context of his own proof-texts and with many other biblical passages.

That it do

[Adrift]

Nope. It is simply a matter of certain parties misrepresenting what their cherry picked (I think that's the term) citations, Paul's included, are about. Once again you have adequately addressed the issue.

I'm having a hard time finding in these passages where all of them "claim specific people or groups are righteous", and that's not really the point of the quotes anyways. Paul is not saying that no one was ever called righteous in the Old Testament. Surely he knows that some were called that, but he's making the point that Jews are no different than Gentiles in that they all sin, and come short of the glory of God, even those who abide by the Law.

Starlight is confused about the concept of righteousness, and what Paul means by that in the context of Romans. FF Bruce untangles this a bit in his commentary on Romans,

Source: The Letter of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary by Frederick Fyvie Bruce, pp. 73-74

To understand the sense in which the gospel is said to reveal God's righteousness it is necessary to bear in mind some facts about the concept of righteousness in the Old Testament, which forms the chief background of Paul's thought and language.

'The idea of right and wrong among the Hebrews are forensic ideas; that is, the Hebrew always thinks of the right and the wrong as if they were to be settled before a judge. Righteousness is to the Hebrew not so much a moral quality as a legal status. The word "righteous" (saddiq) means simply "in the right", and the word "wicked" (rasha') means "in the wrong". "I have sinned this time", says Pharaoh, "Jehovah is in the right (A.V. righteous), and I and my people are in the wrong (A.V. wicked)", Exod. ix. 27. Jehovah is always in the right, for He is not only sovereign but self-consistent. He is the fountain of righteousness . . . the consistent will of Jehovah is the law of Israel.'

God is himself righteous, and those men and women are righteous who are 'in the right' in relation to God and his law. When, therefore, the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, it is revealed in a twofold manner. The gospel tells us first how men and women, sinners as they are, can come to be 'in the right' with God and second how God's personal righteousness is vindicated in the very act of declaring sinful men and women ' righteous'. This second aspect of the matter is not dealt with immediately, but the former is expanded sufficiently to show that the principle on which God brings people into the right with himself is the principle of faith, and for this statement Old Testament authority is adduced in the words of Habakkuk 2:4b, 'the righteous shall live by his faith'. Habakkuk 2:4b may be called the 'text' of this Epistle; what follows is in large measure an exposition of the prophet's words.

© Copyright Original Source

And in his introduction, Bruce breaks down Paul's general message in Romans,

Source: The Letter of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary by Frederick Fyvie Bruce, pp. 59-60

I. I am in no way ashamed of the gospel: no indeed, it is the message which God uses effectively for the salvation of all who believe. This is the message which reveals God's way of putting men and women right with himself by the exercise of faith, in accordance with the statement of Scripture: 'It is the one who is righteous through faith that will live.'

II. The need for such a message becomes clear as we contemplate the world of mankind. Not only do we see divine retribution working itself out among pagans, whose wrong way of life is the fruit of wrong ideas about God; we see the Jewish nation too, in spite of their knowing the law of God and enjoying so many other privileges, failing to keep the law they know. In fact all human beings, Jews and Gentiles alike, are morally bankrupt before God; no-one can hope to be pronounced righteous by God on the basis of any work or merit of his own.

III. If men and women are to be pronounced righteous by God, then, it must be by his grace. And God in his grace has made it possible for them to be put in the right with him, thanks to the redemptive work of Christ. On the ground of his sacrificial death, Christ is set before us as the one who makes full atonement for our sins; and we may, by faith, appropriate the benefits of his atoning work. Thus God maintains his own righteousness, and at the same time bestows righteousness on all believers in Jesus, regardless of whether they are Jews or Gentiles. The law of God is thus vindicated, and the sacred Scriptures are fulfilled.

If you consider Abraham, for example, you will find that this was the way in which he found acceptance with God: 'Abraham believed god', says the Scripture, 'and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.' (Nor is he an isolated case; the same principle can be seen at work in the testimony of David.) Mark this too: these words about Abraham were spoken while he was still uncircumcised, showing that this way of righteousness by faith is for Gentiles as well as for Jews. Abraham is thus the spiritual father of all believers, irrespective of their racial origin. And the statement that Abraham's faith as reckoned to him as righteousness means that if we believe in God, whose saving power has been revealed in the death and resurrection of Christ, it will similarly be reckoned to us as righteousness.

© Copyright Original Source

Getting directly into the Romans passage itself, let's take a look at what it says, and those passages it quotes,



The first quote comes either from Psalm 14 or Psalm 53.





Nothing there about the righteous.

Romans 3:13 is a combination of Psalm 5 and 140,

Scripture Verse: Psalm 5

Listen to what I say, Lord!
Carefully consider my complaint!
2 Pay attention to my cry for help,
my king and my God,
for I am praying to you!
3 Lord, in the morning you will hear me;
in the morning I will present my case to you and then wait expectantly for an answer.
4 Certainly you are not a God who approves of evil;
evil people cannot dwell with you.
5 Arrogant people cannot stand in your presence;
you hate all who behave wickedly.
6 You destroy liars;
the Lord despises violent and deceitful people.
7 But as for me, because of your great faithfulness I will enter your house;
I will bow down toward your holy temple as I worship you.
8 Lord, lead me in your righteousness
because of those who wait to ambush me,
remove the obstacles in the way in which you are guiding me!
9 For they do not speak the truth;
their stomachs are like the place of destruction,
their throats like an open grave,
their tongues like a steep slope leading into it.
10 Condemn them, O God!
May their own schemes be their downfall!
Drive them away because of their many acts of insurrection,
for they have rebelled against you.
11 But may all who take shelter in you be happy!
May they continually shout for joy!
Shelter them so that those who are loyal to you may rejoice!
12 Certainly you reward the godly, Lord.
Like a shield you protect them in your good favor.

© Copyright Original Source

These passages come closer to making a distinction between the wicked and the righteous, but they're not contradicting Psalm 14 and Psalm 53, rather the Psalmist is pleading to God to lead him into righteousness, and he predicts that those who are led into righteousness will be brought into God's presence, as they certainly will, and as Paul himself declares.

Romans 3:14 quotes Psalm 10 which refers to the wicked and those they oppress, but, again, does not contradict Psalm 14 or 53.

Romans 3:15-17 is quoting Isaiah 59



Again, none of this contradicts Paul's point, rather it agrees with the general sentiment expressed in Romans 3.

Finally, Romans 3:18 comes from Psalm 36 which discusses the rebelliousness of evil men, and a plea to God to vindicate his faithful followers, but, again, this doesn't take away from the main talking points of Psalm 14 and 53, nor does it contradict Paul's message in Romans 3.

Again, F.F. Bruce putting these passages into context,

Source: The Letter of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary by Frederick Fyvie Bruce, pp. 92-93

D. ALL MANKIND FOUND GUILTY (3:9-20)

'Well then,' the interlocutor proceeds, 'you have said that it is an advantage to belong to the Jewish nation. Does it not follow that we Jews are superior to those Gentiles who lack the privileges we enjoy?' 'No indeed,' says Paul; 'we may have received greater advantages, but we are in fact in no better case than they are. They have sinned, it is true; but then, so have we. All, Jews and Gentiles alike, are bound to plead guilty before the bar of God. The situation is well summed up in the words of Scripture.'

Here Paul adduces a catena of Old Testament quotation in which the general sinfulness of humanity is summed up. The catena comes in here to clinch a case already established by various arguments. If the quotations were examined one by one, it would be necessary to relate them to their historical contexts; some at least of them had a particular rather than a universal reference. But the general picture which they here present rounds off the case which Paul has been building up. And if he supposes an objection to his use of these quotations, the objection is not that he has detached them from their historical contexts, but that they refer to the wicked Gentiles only, not to Israel. 'No," he replies, 'these quotations are taken from the Jewish Scriptures, and therefore the people whom they have primarily in view are Jews." What is written in the law (here meaning the Hebrew Bible as a whole) applies naturally to the people of the law. The law brings out men and women's sinfulness but does nothing to cure it. Jews as well as Gentiles, then, have to confess themselves morally bankrupt. If there is any hope for either group, it can be found only in the mercy of God and not in any claim that individuals or nations may try to establish on him. Because of the universal fact of sin, the way of acceptance with God by reason of our works of righteousness is closed - the notice is clearly worded: 'No Road This Way.'

© Copyright Original Source

NT scholar Ben Witherington III makes an interesting point about Romans 3 in "Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary",

Source: Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary by Ben Witherington III and Darlene Hyatt, pp. 95-96

Some have protested the view that Paul could be talking about the universal sinfulness of every last human being (see, e.g., Stowers, A Rereading of Romans, passim) and have tried to argue that this was not a Jewish view of things. In fact, however, there were other early Jews who affirmed that none were righteous. Rabbi Eliezer, who lived at the end of the first century A.D., also affirmed the universal sinfulness of humanity, including all Jews (see Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 101a). This also seems to be clearly affirmed at Qumran (cf. 1QH 4. 29f.; 7.17; 9.14f. - "None is righteous according to thy sentence, nor guiltless in thy judgement"). Thus universal sinfulness is not a uniquely Christian idea, though perhaps it was not the dominant view in early Judaism.

© Copyright Original Source

Oh, as an interesting side note, concerning Augustine's misreading of Romans 5:12, a number of scholars have made the point we can still reach the same conclusion about original sin with the correct translation. This blog post mentions a number of approaches to the subject.

[Adrift]

True enough - but if we are to believe the accounts, the offspring were produced according to whether the procedure had been followed or not. Given that the procedure could not have produced such a result, there arises the need to account for the results. You have quite thoroughly eliminated any possibility that a "natural" explanation is viable.

The supernatural explanation is mentioned in the next chapter:



So, it really has nothing to do with Jacob's actions, as much as with God's intervention. As demonstrated in so many other examples in the OT (and a number of places in the NT), God requires an individual to perform some sort of act of faith preceding his divine intervention.

[jpholding]

Ben Witherington

vs

a site called "Bible Babble"

















Wow. Tough choice.

[tabibito]

I'm having a hard time finding in these passages where all of them "claim specific people or groups are righteous", and that's not really the point of the quotes anyways. Paul is not saying that no one was ever called righteous in the Old Testament. Surely he knows that some were called that, but he's making the point that Jews are no different than Gentiles in that they all sin, and come short of the glory of God, even those who abide by the Law.

upright (δικαιος = righteous

NT scholar Ben Witherington III makes an interesting point about Romans 3 in "Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary",

Oh, as an interesting side note, concerning Augustine's misreading of Romans 5:12, a number of scholars have made the point we can still reach the same conclusion about original sin with the correct translation. This blog post mentions a number of approaches to the subject.

Original Sin (as in the idea that all men are deemed sinners because they inherited sin from Adam) is by no means supported by a correct reading of Romans. A full and thorough examination, point by point, shows that death comes to all men because, not Adam, but all men sinned: themselves, personally. The matter is given full exposition in Ezekiel 18, with verse 20 stating what is reiterated throughout the chapter "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.". Jeremiah also makes the same statement.

[Adrift]

upright (δικαιος = righteous

This reply of yours doesn't appear to me to be interacting with the post you're replying to. I know it was long, but did you read all of it? Again, Paul certainly knows that some have been called righteous in the Old Testament, he himself acknowledges that Abraham was righteous in the very next chapter. So what does Paul mean when he quotes the scripture that none are righteous? Well again, he's making the point that none are righteous by their own works. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Righteousness must be accounted to people by God when they put their faith in Him. And more to the point, the Jews are no different than the Gentiles in this regard.

Original Sin (as in the idea that all men are deemed sinners because they inherited sin from Adam) is by no means supported by a correct reading of Romans. A full and thorough examination, point by point, shows that death comes to all men because, not Adam, but all men sinned: themselves, personally. The matter is given full exposition in Ezekiel 18, with verse 20 stating what is reiterated throughout the chapter "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.". Jeremiah also makes the same statement.

Take it up with those theologians who say otherwise. My point by linking to the blog is that, contrary to Starlight's diatribe, it's possible to reach Augustine's conclusion (and "in a more exegetically supportable manner" ) regardless of his incorrect reading of Romans 5:12.

[37818]

Your challenge appears to be "find a passage that I can't make up fake and creative explanations about to show that it's 'really' when 'properly understood' Totally Not False Like It Looks". Since you can, of course, make up fake and creative explanations about any passage, what's the point?

After a quick google for lists of errors and browsing the results, I think this list of errors is one of the better ones that shows some simple contradictions. It's far from complete of course, but shows some of the more obvious and simple contradictions. A lot of them result from the fact that Chronicles vs Samuel/Kings cover the same historical timeline but give different accounts.

A few of my own personal favorite errors / problems (not mentioned in the linked list above) are:
1. The story of Jacob's breeding of speckled cattle through having the cattle breed in speckled shade (Gen 30). From a modern scientific perspective this beautifully depicts the common historical Lamarckian ideas of evolution, and how things were often understood prior to modern discoveries of genetics and DNA. Breed cattle in front of speckled shade, get speckled cattle, what could be more obvious... except that of course we now know that's not how it works.

2. The story of Saul/David/Jonathan in Samuel and Kings is interesting because the writer has pasted together awkwardly about 3 different historical accounts of the events and not properly edited them to flow. So the accounts contradict on issues like: when Saul and David first meet, and how; On when Goliath was killed and in which battle; etc.

3. "No one is righteous, not even one". This is an interesting theological conundrum. Paul cites in Romans 3 a series of 6 OT quotes purporting to show that "no one" is righteous. However if you look up the OT references for those you find in all 6 passages that the original author is not in fact claiming that nobody in the world is righteous and all 6 passages actually claim specific people or groups are righteous. Also, numerous other passages in the bible state that certain people or groups are righteous... e.g. "Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation" etc.

Item 1. Is a known matter of disagreement on interpretations. Adrift cited that it was an intervention by God.
Item 2. You yourself suggested known textual issues. We would need to look at a specific.
Item 3. Can be addressed by citing other scriptures. It being a matter of disagreement over interpretations. All humans being sinners before a holy God. And God counting some as righteous. "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." -- Ecclesiastes 7:20. ". . . And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. . . ." -- Genesis 15:6. ". . . And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. . . ." -- Mark 10:18.

We can discuss one of those or another further if you so choose.

[Starlight]

Ben Witherington

vs

a site called "Bible Babble"

Witherington's quote was talking about the interpretation of Romans. Nothing to do with Bible Babble, keep up.

[tabibito]

Well I actually don't think this is a contradiction so much as I think it's an instance of modern evangelical theology being severely wrong in its reading of Paul. I don't think Paul is trying to teach that God's required standards of righteousness cannot be met by humans, I think that's a severe misreading of Paul, that Paul would have objected to vehemently, and which places Paul into contradiction with the context of his own proof-texts and with many other biblical passages.

On this one I have to disagree: Paul was indeed saying "that God's required standards of righteousness cannot be met by humans" who remain in the flesh. He does not say, however, that those standards are unattainable to those who are in the Spirit, and he does deny that a person who is faithful to God is still in the flesh. "You are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you."

[tabibito]

This reply of yours doesn't appear to me to be interacting with the post you're replying to. I know it was long, but did you read all of it? Again, Paul certainly knows that some have been called righteous in the Old Testament, he himself acknowledges that Abraham was righteous in the very next chapter. So what does Paul mean when he quotes the scripture that none are righteous? Well again, he's making the point that none are righteous by their own works. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Righteousness must be accounted to people by God when they put their faith in Him. And more to the point, the Jews are no different than the Gentiles in this regard.

I have no point of disagreement with this one ... probably. It depends on the limits you assign to "Righteousness must be accounted by God when they put their faith in him."

[Starlight]

On this one I have to disagree: Paul was indeed saying "that God's required standards of righteousness cannot be met by humans" who remain in the flesh. He does not say, however, that those standards are unattainable to those who are in the Spirit, and he does deny that a person who is faithful to God is still in the flesh. "You are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you."

BTW tabibito I've started a new thread on this general topic here. As I think the discussion deserves more visibility than being 6 pages into a thread on inerrancy in an obscure sub-forum.

[Same Hakeem]

The fact remains that the Bible has error in light of the contradiction between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 (KJV, ESV, RSV). 2 Kings 8:26 says "Ahaziah was 22 when he began to rule"; however, 2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Ahaziah was 42 when he began to rule." For sure, 22 and 42 are not same.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Most scholars are quite certain this is a copyist error which does not affect Inerrancy.

[Cerebrum123]

Most scholars are quite certain this is a copyist error which does not affect Inerrancy.

He's been told this over and over again. He equates a copyist error in the Bible with God lying for some strange reason.

[Same Hakeem]

Most scholars are quite certain this is a copyist error which does not affect Inerrancy.

Whether the result of this contradiction (between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2) in the Bible today is due to copyist error or other reasons, the fact remains this contradiction (between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2) proves that the Bible today is not fully inspired by God.