Biblical Contradictions, Part II

Let’s use deductive reasoning to figure out the logical answer.Pro stated:"All Bible verses are from the NIV, and can be reference here:…" He gives you a link to the NIV "Bible."Con states:In the debate, "Is the NIV Bible Satanic?", I demonstrate that this translation is highly flawed with deceptive language that misrepresent the context of the original HGT. http://www.debate.org...This source reveals the NIV cannot judged on veracity.Pro stated:"Kings and Jeremiah disagree on which day of the twelfth month Jehoiachin was freed...."From his words we infer that the only alleged discrepancy is the day of the month, not the month.Con states:Let’s review the English words from another biblical sources, the NKJV (all scriptures from this source unless quoting Pro).1.Jeremiah reads: "lifted up the head of Jehoiachin…brought him out of prison." The Hebrew words translated "lifted" and "brought" are nasa & yatsa. Strong’s Concordance says the two Hebrew words bear a double application: literal and figurative (nasa, http://biblehub.com... & yats, http://biblehub.com... Look for the heading Strong's Exhaustive Concordance at the bottom.)2.2 Kings reads: "released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison." Again, the Hebrew word used is nasa.3. If nasa can be used literally or figuratively, logic tells us most empathetic that Jehoiachin couldn't literally be freed from prison on two separate dates unless he was re-arrested on the 26th. Logic tells us it is rigmarole to figuratively set Jehoiachin free on different dates. Logic tells us that our only remaining logical explanation is that nasa is figurative on the 25th day and literal on the 27th day. 4.Example:On the December 25th, Judge Littlefoot found the evidence against Sharon incomplete and ordered her immediate release. After going through the release process, Sharon finally walked out the county jail on the 27th. The King of Babylon probably showing mercy or found a technicality and granted Jehoiachin’s freedom on the 25th. After the paperwork was completed, Jehoiachin was physically released on the 27th. Here we see, based on contextual application, the words of God, not contradicting themselves but providing details of two separate events that correlate.Pro stated:"This one is self-explanatory. Three of the gospel writers can't agree on Jesus' final words before his death."Con states:Pro’s statement is contradictory. He claims it is self-explanatory then implies that the self-explanation is 3 disagreements. I say this is contradiction under the use of textual scrutiny. Here's how:1.For the 3 writers to “disagree on what was said” they must actually state the disagreement and say what is wrong. None of them do so. Textual scrutiny. Emphasis mine throughout.Matthew: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?...And when Jesus cried out AGAIN with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit." (Matthew states Jesus said something else after My God, my God…. He states it precedes Jesus succumbing to death.)Luke: "Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit. Having said this, He breathed His last [breath]." (Luke states Jesus said something before breathing his last breath. He states it precedes Jesus succumbing to death. There is no contradiction. It's simply two bits of information spoken by the same person --Jesus. John: "when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, It is finished! And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit." (John states Jesus said words that preceded him succumbing to death. They don’t nullify what Luke claim but rather complete Jesus 3-part cry of death. Notice too, John claims the 3 words came after Jesus drunk the sour wine. What Pro didn’t illustrate to you was both Matthew & John note the sour wine element and that it chronologically divides both out loud cries.Pro stated:"Who is mistaken, Peter or Matthew?"Con states:Neither. It is the NIV who is mistaken. The NIV omitted these words: "Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity…(https://www.biblegateway.com...)." Strong's Concordance & lexicon only document Hebrew & Greek words found in the HGMs and HGT, not words that don't exist. Therefore these words exist in the original Bible and illustrate Judas's figurative purchase, which Peter was also noting.1.We see the writers connecting a literal instance (Priests’ field purchase) and a figurative instance (Judas’ wages of iniquity field purchased). No contradiction when one is recorded as literal & the other recorded as a figurative connected to the literal. (http://biblehub.com...) Based on Hebraic (and Greek) textual language applied when equal English understanding & logical examples, we see no contextual contradictions. The errors for perceived biblical contradictions are: erred English translations (as I stated in R1), failure to check the original Hebrew & Greek wording; failure to do hermeneutics in both Heb., Grk., & Eng. context.