Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Take sandals or not? --Bible contradiction?

Re: About "The Holy Prophet Muhammad day"
posted at 2/11/2009 10:37 PM EST on

First post: 4/1/2008Last post: 2/11/2009Total posts: 172

For, openyourmind786, --next issue:

The Issue:MT 10:10 Do not take sandals (shoes) or staves.MK 6:8-9 Take sandals (shoes) and staves.

MK 6:8-9 “And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.”

MT 10::9-10 “ Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.”

The intent of both of these versions is the same; that is to take minimal provisions and trust God’s goodness in the kindness of strangers. Matthew used the Greek term ktaomai, “acquire,” or of bringing extra provisions (thus the prohibition in this account against “an extra coat”). (In other translations, not the King James version, the word coat is translated “shirt” ). Compare the context of these two books, and also the context of MT 10:9-10 where the words “neither shoes” appear. It is talking about not bringing extra provisions. --dc


  1. I agree that the passages are in broad agreement that those sent should travel light. However, that broad agreement doesn't change the fact that there's an apparent contradiction on the detail of whether travelling light means travelling with or without sandals and staves. Broad consistency isn't enough for inerrancy; consistency of detail is necessary too.

  2. The idea is to come to a rational and unbiased conclusion as to what was most likely being comunicated here and why. I thought I did well in offering up an in-depth, rational and scholarly study of these Bible scriptures. Unlike the Muslims' Prophet Muhammad, who claimed that every single word he wrote down were the exact words actually dictated to him exclusively, word for word, by Allah (God), --such is not so with the Bible. If our only intent is to dig for a supposed loophole in inspired wordage of men, or translations between different accounts by different authors, at different times, or translaters, in order to supposedly disprove the Bible, I believe you will indeed find what you are looking for, which is at least one reason why Jesus taught in parables. Not everyone is meant to understand. If your heart is not right, you will not know God nor find personal salvation, but your eyes will only see the truth of God as foolishness and folly, easily deceived That is God's plan. We are responsible for our own salvation. Through no other name, than Jesus Christ, can any person be saved. We are told to seek, and we shall find. I suggest you try to be honest with yourself here. Or possibly, like most people, just haven't studied the Bible enough to come to a clearer understanding, and trust, about how God works, or thinks, or what is the true nature of God, or how the Bible was written, and the truth and the miraculousness of it all. Sometimes, we try to pull God down to our own level of shallow thinking, and expect God to play by our rules. I would like to think that maybe my pointing out the difference between how the Bible and the Qu'ran were written has helped. Followers of Jesus worship in spirit and in truth, and are not judged by the letter of the law. We are no longer under the curse of the law of sin and death, of wearing or not wearing sandals or shoes on a missionery mission.. Will we die for a misunderstanding? What was the intent of the command? Was there no intent? Was it to test our obedience? --or was there a rational reason? For example; It would be well, if our Supreme Court Justices would do the same in modern day interrreptatiing of the Constitution of our United States. They will sometimes hold to the letter of words only, disregarding the spirit and intent and examples shown by the original authors and people themselves, at the time it was written. Oftentimes the meanings of words change. Take the word "gay" for example. Sometimes the same words can have different meanings to different readers. The word "evolution" for example. We do not always see, read, and interpret the same. That is why we need to also look for and include inferences and examples, the spirit of intent, the true and original authority; that is, what was truely being conveyed, and why. We must have the hearts to seek, and love, and find. "Seek, and ye shall find." We are not puppets on a string, nor robots, nor God's toys. We are human beings, made in the likeness of God, with soul, free-will and spirit. What is real and ever lasting, is faith, hope and love, the most important being love. God is love. God is truth. All else will be done away. Hmmm, I guess I kind of got carried away here. If you still consider your reply to be valid in this instance, I don't know what else I can add. I, myself, do not see it as rational reasoning, but of problems in interrpretation and understanding, or intent. --dc

  3. Perhaps our views are closer than you realise.

    When I look at biblical passages and see broad agreement but contradictions in detail I judge that the Bible is not inerrant (because of the contradiction in detail); I continue to trust in its broader claims, but not in the conflicting details.

    When you look at biblical passages and see broad agreement but contradictions in detail you judge that the Bible is inerrant (because of the broad agreement); you continue to trust in its broader claims but (presumably) not in the conflicting details.

    It seems that our only disagreement is over the use of the word inerrancy: I think that an error of detail is inconsistent with inerrancy. You think that only an error of broader claims would be inconsistent with inerrancy.

    Is that a fair summary?

  4. Well, it appears that your heart is in the right place. "Seek and ye shall find" (Mat.7:7).

    I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that the Bible sometimes has errors in describing details. Do you have any other examples to show, that would bring you to this conclusion? Up to this time, I have found the many so-called contradictions, brought to bear, do not stand up to deeper scrunity. The problem has always been with men and not the Bible. A common one is preachers saying that through the Bible we can tell how old the earth is. It is their methods in determining this that does not hold up to scrunity, not the Bible. When it comes to science, it is scientists vs. preachers, not science vs. the Bible.

    Another problem people have is with the gospel accounts, which is another study. But the bottom line is that the Bible turns out to be accurate. Even in these scriptures we are talking about here; see how one translation says "coat," and another translation sees "shirt."

    If you would like, we can keep working on this one. --dc

  5. Okay, I am still thinking on this...
    I hope I'm not coming across as too stern. (gulp). I am really having a lot of fun with these challenges, and I appreciate your input.
    8) I still think my original answer was a good one. You might try reading it again. It is not just saying that the two scriptures have 'traveling light' in common; but it gets into the original language as to find out what was actually said. The outcome of the study was in finding out that the discussion was about what NOT to bring, --and what they were told NOT to bring with them-- were EXTRA provisions, such as an EXTRA coat (or shirt,) or sandals or whatever. Of course; this could be interpreted either way, and that is why I took you back to the original source, the original language that the interpretation was derived from.