Did Jesus just misquote the bible?

Contradiction #2

Matthew 12:2-5

2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

3 Jesus answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?

Being somebody who has read the entire bible, when I saw this scripture when preparing for youth bible it immediately caught my eye, because I have never seen such a story in the old testament.

So I immediately started to research and came to the conclusion, that this is nowhere is the BIBLE.  (Even if I consider ALL historical Christian & Judaic books ex: the Apocrypha, Talmud, Synoptic gospels, Dead sea scrolls, and all un-canonized books; it is still not in there.)

 

 

Advertisements

About M. Rodriguez

When I first received Christ salvation, I made it a priority to read the whole bible and I did. But it was the Bible that made me question my faith. For I found it flawed and lacking. Due to this I launched a personal inquiry/investigation into my faith, and ultimately realized that the Christian God of the Bible was indeed man-made. Now I Blog about those findings and life after Christ.
This entry was posted in bible, bible contradictions, christ, christian, confusion, gospel of matthew, jesus, jesus the christ, jesus the messiah, liar, matthew, messiah. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Did Jesus just misquote the bible?

  1. Well, what does that tell you? It tells me that the Bible is not a reliable source for anything. Once you read the history of the Bible, you begin to realize just how cobbled together, disjointed and clumsy it is. There really WAS no original bible. It’s a collection of fairy tales patched together and rewritten and altered over several thousand years. Some books were arbitrarily taken out, some were left in. Some verses, by being transliterated through several languages have taken on completely different meanings from the original texts.

  2. Ryan says:

    Hi godlessmonster, hope you are well

    You wrote:

    “Once you read the history of the Bible, you begin to realize just how cobbled together, disjointed and clumsy it is. There really WAS no original bible. It’s a collection of fairy tales patched together and rewritten and altered over several thousand years. Some books were arbitrarily taken out, some were left in. Some verses, by being transliterated through several languages have taken on completely different meanings from the original texts.”

    There seems to be alot of emotionally charged language here.

    I don’t know you, so I apologise if have misunderstood you.

    But, from what you have posted, here is question for you:

    When you studied the Bible, did you stop when you got the answer you wanted?

    Or to put the question another way:

    If these passages are in fact not contradictions, but merely misunderstood

    Would you really want to know?

  3. humblesmith says:

    The story of David eating the showbread (consecrated bread) is found in 1 Samuel 21. He asks for bread in v.3, and the priest gives him the bread in v.6.
    I suggest getting a good study bible, it will have all the cross-references like this.

    As always, there is no contradictions in the bible.

  4. It seems you are correct humblesmith, but instead of fully answering the question this yet again may be another contradiction. In Matthew Jesus states that it was not lawful for David to eat the consecrated bread. However in the book of 1 Samuel the Priest Ahimelek says to them it is okay for them to have the bread provided that they have kept themselves from women.

    So which is…A)Only permissible for the Priest to eat.
    or
    B) Permissible as long as you have kept yourself from a women

    • TerranceH says:

      I found the Samuel passage in a single Google search, but, amazingly, you couldn’t find it after scouring “ALL historical Christian & Judaic books…” Absurd.

      Even more so is that you expect people to take you seriously. You can’t even formulate a reasonable objection to the Bible, for crying out loud. Everyone I’ve read so far reflects nothing but your own ignorance. I comment on this one because it’s the funniest.

      With respect to this other so-called contradiction you’ve found, guess what? You’re wrong again.

      Jesus was absolutely correct in that it was unlawful for anyone but priests to eat showbread, but the priest made an exception – and this is the ENTIRE POINT of Jesus’ story – provided David and his men were ceremonially clean, by having no contact with women for at least three-days.

      So there goes another one of Rodriguez’ famous biblical contradictions out the window…

      With respect to Abiathar and Ahimelech. The orginal Greek: epi Abiathar archiereos is translated into “when Abiathar was high priest,” but a better translation for the word epi is “in the days of.” And based on more information about Aibathar in the Bible, he was certainly better known to the Jews in Jesus’ time than Ahimelech, so Jesus’ used Abiathar’s name as a point of reference. “In the days of…”

      See how easily these “contradictions” disappear with a little education? You atheists might try it sometime…

      • M. Rodriguez says:

        Matthew 12:3-4 -Jesus answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.

        VS

        1 Samual 21:2-4 – David answered Ahimelek the priest, “The king sent me on a mission and said to me, ‘No one is to know anything about the mission I am sending you on.’ As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place. 3 Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.”

        4 But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from women.”

        …………………………………

        Are you telling me terranceH, that when you read these two stories side-by-side, that they are the same story. NO, they are not the same story. You can try to explain, but they are not the same story in writing nor in context. This is why when I first read this scripture, I could not find the OT vesion of it, because they are not telling the same story.

        They are not even talking about the same thing. This my friend is what we call proof-texting.

        And when I put up this post and followup comments I was still a christian. I did not come out of my christianity until a few months after this, if you would like to read that post, here is the link. https://bittersweetend.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/facing-the-truth/

      • TerranceH says:

        Use your common sense, for crying out loud. Jesus mentions David receiving showbread from a high preist. In Samuel, there is a story about David receiving showbread from a high priest…Your objections are based on Biblical illiteracy and nothing more.

        Additionally, you agreed the story in Samuel is the one referenced by Jesus when you responded to humble –It seems you are correct humblesmith… – so why are you changing your tune now, for the third time? Because you’ve been proven wrong, for the third time?

        Your are the worst atheist debate I have ever encountered.

      • M. Rodriguez says:

        Common sense tells me if a person claims they are GOD but misquotes the bible. They are probably not God.

      • TerranceH says:

        He didn’t misquote the Bible, as I have shown.

      • TerranceH says:

        *debater

      • Nate says:

        Terrence,

        Would it be appropriate to say that Hurricane Katrina occurred in the days of President Barack Obama? Can you at least see how that might be confusing to someone?

        If you would like a better contradiction though, how about the different days and times given for Jesus’ death when you compare the gospel of John with the synoptic gospels?

        Or how about this one? In Gal 3:16-17, Paul says this:

        The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

        According to this passage, there were 430 years between Abraham receiving the promises from God and the law being given to Moses on Mt Sinai. But in Exodus 12:40-41, we see this:

        Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the LORD’s divisions left Egypt.

        If this passage is correct, then the first one can’t be. After all, God made those promises to Abraham before Isaac was even born. Their family didn’t enter Egypt until Joseph had moved way up the ranks under Pharaoh, and Joseph, of course, was Isaac’s grandson. According to the OT, there should have been more like 550-600 years b/t the promises and the law.

        There are others that we could look at, but I find these two to be pretty blatant.

        Thanks for your time.

      • TerranceH says:

        Would it be appropriate to say that Hurricane Katrina occurred in the days of President Barack Obama? Can you at least see how that might be confusing to someone?

        I think you’re comparing apples to tulips. Each of us were alive when Hurricane Katrina occurred, so to us it sounds ridiculous to use Barack Obama as a point of reference, but would the same be true a thousand-years in the future? If “Barack Obama” is a better known historical figure than George Bush, then no, I don’t think it would be so ridiculous. Doubtless, Abiathar was a better known historical figure in Jesus’ time.

        If you would like a better contradiction though, how about the different days and times given for Jesus’ death when you compare the gospel of John with the synoptic gospels?

        Here again we run into a similar problem. You are looking at this through the lens of a twenty-first century pupil, expecting a chronological detail common in modern publication. This is folly. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact time of Jesus’ death because the Gospels are not intended to provide an itemized catalog of Jesus’ life; their intent is to spread the message of Jesus Christ and provide proof of His divinity. Nothing more, nothing less.

        And surely you’ve heard it said that four people can witness the same crime but tell the story four different ways. We have no reason to believe the same thing couldn’t be true for people 2,000 years ago. To expect the Gospels to agree on every detail is an unjustified demand not thrust upon witnesses in modern times, so why should it be thrust upon the Gospel writers, mere human beings after all?

        Lastly, I would advise the purchase of a Bible that has a Harmony of the Gospels section located in the back. It details just how extraordinarily similar the accounts really are.

        Or how about this one? In Gal 3:15-17, Paul says this:

        “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduces 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.”

        According to this passage, there were 430 years between Abraham receiving the promises from God and the law being given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. But in Exodus 12:40-41, we see this:

        “Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of 430 years, to the very day, all the LORD’s divisions left Egypt.”

        If this passage is correct, then the first one can’t be. After all, God made those promises to Abraham before Issac was even born. Their family didn’t enter Egypt until Joseph had moved way up the ranks under Pharaoh, and Josepsh, of course, was Isaac’s grandson. According to the OT, there should have been more like 550-600 years b/t the promises and the law.

        The Baker New Testament Commentary provides a wonderful explanation of Paul’s math. As you will see, Paul was not in error.

        Between the giving of the promise and the promulgation of the law at Sinai there had been an interval of “four hundred thirty” (Exod 12:40) or, in round figures, “four hundred” years (Gen 15:13; Acts 7:6).

        With reference to these “four hundred thirty years” there is much difference of opinion.
        The question has been asked: Was there not all interval of two hundred fifteen years between Abraham’s call and Jacob’s “descent” into Egypt (Gen 12:4; 21:5; 25:26; 47:9)? These two hundred fifteen years plus the four hundred thirty years in Egypt (Exod 12:40) add up to six hundred forty-five years from Abraham’s call to the exodus, and the same number of years (plus a few months, Exod 19:1) to the giving of the law (Exod 20). If the repetition of the promise of Gen 12:1-3 in Abraham’s later years, with specific mention of the seed (Gen 13:15; 15:5,18; 21:12 22:15ff.; 24:7), be taken as the beginning of the interval between the promise and the law, some years could be subtracted from the two hundred fifteen and from the total of six hundred forty-five, but even then the question would remain: How can Paul say that the law came into existence four hundred thirty years after the covenant-promise? Was not the intervening period considerably longer? ….

        [However], the covenant which God made with Abraham was repeated and confirmed in identical language in the promise addressed to Isaac and to Jacob. Compare, for example, Gen 22:18 (to Abraham), 26:4 (to Isaac), and 28:14 (to Jacob), in each of which are found the words: “And in your seed shall all the nations (in 28:14: “families”) of the earth be blessed.” “It may not be unreasonable to suppose that it was from such a time, at which the promise was confirmed (to Jacob) that Paul is measuring the interval which extends to the giving of the law at Sinai” (C. R. Erdman, op. cit., p. 69).
        This, as I see it, best accounts for the figure “four hundred thirty years afterward.”
        The reasonable character of this explanation is evident from the fact that Scripture itself definitely points in this direction, for again and again it mentions Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in one breath. Not only this, but in nearly every case when this occurs it is in connection with the divine promise that the three patriarchs are grouped together as if they were one (Gen 28:13; 32:9; 48:16; 50:24; Exod 3:16; 6:3; 32:13; Deut 1:8; 9:5, 27;29:13; 30:20; I Chron 29:18; Matt 22:32; Mark 12:26; Acts 3:13; 7:32).

        There are others that we could look at, but I find these two to be pretty blatant.

        I’d be more than happy to hear them.

        Thanks for your time.

        Thank you for raising the level of debate.

      • M. Rodriguez says:

        The (Samuel) Old Testament said

        1. The Priest was Ahimelek
        2. Which was in the days of DAVID
        3. And the concern of the priest was that David has been abstinent from Sex

        The (Gospel) New Testament said
        1. The Priest was Abiathar
        2. Who lived in the days of Solomon (1 Kings 2:27), not david another misquote by Jesus. He was atleast a good twenty year after david, probably more.
        3. The concern was that it was the Sabbath, and unlawful to do work on that day (Which really did not seem to be concern of David, who was traveling on the road, which was also considered unlawful, by the more legalistic traditions)

        Nonetheless we have 3 major differences in a VERY VERY VERY short story. Here is an example. What if I told you, that during the World War my great-grandfather went St. Mary Catholic church for food, and the only reason they decided not to turn him away was because he was a Catholic.

        But come to find out, that when my brother tells the same story he says. In the days of the Vietnam War my great-grandfather went to First Baptist Church for food, and even though it was past closing time and against church policy to feed people after closing time, they made an exception for him and gave him bread.

        You tell me… Are these the same story, considering I changed the timeframe by about 20-30 years, the reason why they were fed, and the person/place they visited. Considering the same differences, how can you say that Jesus did not misspeak in retelling the story.

      • TerranceH says:

        You’re arguing a semantical difference that fails to take into consideration the point Jesus was trying to make. Namely, that exceptions are made for the right reasons.

        He used Abiathar as a point of reference because, like I said, he was known as a High Priest, a respect religious figure, and was much better known than Ahimelek. Jesus wanted to hammer home the point that even the highly respected Priests of yesteryear made exceptions for the right reasons.

        Suppose Jesus had said:

        “In the days of David, David was given showbread by Ahimelek.”

        Who the hell is Ahimelek would undoubtedly be a prevalent thought among Jesus’ audience, for Ahimelek isn’t mentioned that often in the Old Testament. Additionally, nobody, or few, would have known that he was a high preist.

        Furthermore, you’re failing to consider that Abiathar was in fact High Preist during David’s reign, so whether or not Abiathar gave David the bread is besides Jesus’ point.

        It’s obvious to serious people that Jesus is referencing the story in Samuel.

      • TerranceH says:

        To reject the Bible on such flimsy, nonsensical, petty nonsense is absolutely ridiculous. Jesus didn’t say something the way you think it should have been said, so all of a sudden Jesus misquoted the Bible.

        Riiight.

        Like I said, you are the WORST atheist debater I have ever encountered.

      • M. Rodriguez says:

        Maybe I do make a bad atheist debator TerranceH, but I did make a very Good Christian Debator back in the day. And if there was one thing I could argue was the bible.

        You’re arguing a semantical difference that fails to take into consideration the point Jesus was trying to make.
        But I am glad you agree with me that the differences between the scriptures are semantical. Lets say I tell you a story of a Car Crash, But I get wrong the person involved in the car crash, What caused the car crash, and when the car crash was. But I get right what the car hit. Did I accurately re-tell the story?

        You could argue that I got the general context and point of the story right, that there was a car crash and hit a pole. But Out of 5 major points in the story, I get 3 wrong. Now this may not be that big of a story, but lets say I am a witness to the events. And I have to get my testimony of the events in the court. Would I be a reliable witness?

        I KNOW you keep preaching CONTEXT & POINT of the Story, but given that the person who is re-telling the story is considered to be God. I would expect more than just context.

      • TerranceH says:

        Your argument fails, M. Rodriquez, because Jesus didn’t say Abiathar gave David the showbread. He said, “In the days of Abiathar,” using him as a point of reference.

        But let’s say you’re right. Let’s say Jesus got wrong. Or, wait! There is another alternative, isn’t there? Perhaps the Gospel writer or the transcriptionist many, many years later got it wrong. Perhaps the transcriptionist couldn’t read it clearly, so figured it it was Abiathar!

        There are too many possibilities for you to even consider calling this a contradiction that somehow proves Jesus isn’t God.

      • M. Rodriguez says:

        Or, wait! There is another alternative, isn’t there? Perhaps the Gospel writer or the transcriptionist many, many years later got it wrong. Perhaps the transcriptionist couldn’t read it clearly

        ah now your are starting to get.

        Welcome to my slippery slope of a deconversion, that led with questioning the authority of bible and reliablity of the bible. In that if the bible is not God’s Perfect Word can we still trust it. And if so, how do we know we can trust it? and what parts can we trust?

  5. Nate says:

    There’s actually a larger issue with this reference. In Mark 2:23-28, Jesus says this occurred in the days of Abiathar the high priest. But as humblesmith referenced, the actual account in the OT is found in 1 Samuel 21. And there, it looks like Ahimelech is high priest, not Abiathar.

    Some have tried to answer this problem by saying that Abiathar was alive during that particular episode, so Jesus’ statement is still true. But that’s obviously not the intent of the passage. After all, if someone said that the tragedy of 9/11 occurred during the days of President Barack Obama, wouldn’t you correct them? He may have been alive at the time, but that event did not happen while he was President.

  6. papapound says:

    Christian theologians have delved into all of the cultural and semantic issues of passages like this and my view is that this finer point exists for any Christian’s pleasure. Because 1 person can’t connect the dots on some finer point does not make the issues with that finer point irresolvable. Seems there are so much history and so many documents, one could go on forever attempting to resolve issues with finer points. This takes me back to Jesus. He said something about gnats that relates to this phenom.

    However, I am not attempting to take away from or minimize any one’s personal struggle with faith or the Word of God. But, I am thinking/saying there are different perspectives and different levels of approach to resolving these issues. Where I am going, at least in my own thinking, is that any one of the finer points has no implications about who Jesus is. Who Jesus is–is the bottom line for me. I am thankful I have resolved that for myself.

    If anyone reading this is taking a “Bart Ehrman” approach in attempting to answer the question to who Jesus is–I am afraid they never will get there. I brought that point up because the title of this blog alludes to his book, Misquoting Jesus. Bart Ehrman is a highly trained scholar–gone off the deep end. He has a very rigid view of the discipline he made famous to the uncaring public–textual criticism. His rigid view of that discipline allows him to ‘lie’ and reprint errors that have been pointed out to him from previous works. So, listener/reader beware. All is not as it appears on the surface. All angles in the discipline of textual criticism may not have been brought forth. Context may not have been properly supplied.

  7. Nate says:

    humblesmith,

    I don’t disagree with your overall point. However, I don’t recall Bart Ehrman lying about anything in the books of his that I’ve read. He might think these issues are more important than some other scholars do, but that doesn’t make him a liar. I happen to agree with him; I think if the Bible isn’t inerrant, then there’s no point in thinking it’s inspired. I know that other people feel differently. But to many of us, Ehrman’s approach seems very reasonable, even appropriate.

  8. It’s funny you bring up Bart Ehrman, because on the post WHO IS THE BEST ATHEIST DEBATER https://bittersweetend.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/who-is-the-best-atheist-debater/ I got quite a few suggestions for Bart Ehrman.

    And I watched my first video of Bart Ehrman the other day, And to be honest he was kind of what I what I was looking for, so one who will go deep into the scriptures and find answers. It just so happens that he’s an atheist skeptic.

    Most of the answers I got for christian apologist really are closer to christian philosophers, and really don’t go deep into scripture. And this is important to many cause the reason I started the blog was primarily was is the bible inerrant and a trustworthy source. And as a christian I’ve always felt this way. Sola Scriptora.

    To be honest, I never heard of Bart ehrman until a few days ago. (Some of the stuff I already knew from my own studies of the history of the bible and textual criticism. But he really impressed in regards to his depth of knowledge on the subject.)

  9. Pingback: Is there a contradiction in Matthew 12:2-4 and Mark 2:23-28 and 1 Samuel 21:1-6 « Wbmoore's Weblog

  10. James McKay says:

    As for the references that I found on the supposed contradiction…

    Exodus 25:23-29: “Make a table… Overlay it with pure gold… And make its plates and dishes of pure gold as will as its pitches and bowls for the pouring out of offerings. Put the bread of the Presence on this table to be before me at all times.”

    then

    Leviticus 24:5-9: “…Set [the loaves of bread] in two rows, six in each row, on the table of pure gold before the Lord… This bread is to be set out before the Lord regularly, Sabbath after Sabbath… It belongs to Aaron and his sons, who are to eat it in a holy place…”
    The phrase ‘Aaron and his sons’ was referring to the priests. (see Exodus 30:30: “Anoint Aaron and his sons and consecrate them that they may serve me as priests).

    Note: The above references contain gaps to help emphasize the point. I encourage you to read the full passage (and it’s context) to verify the omissions do not misrepresent the passage.

    • rami says:

      The funniest thing is that David said that he wanted no one to know about it. But somehow, everybody knows about it. This is a clear point of interest. Now another point to clearly see is how Rabbis interpret this passage in the Talmud. Something that I did not yet do. But encourage people to do.

      • rami says:

        The funniest thing is that David said that he wanted no one to know about it. But somehow, everybody knows about it. This is a clear point of interest. Second David would have been able to walk. I condone a more detailed reading of scripture. And from my understanding coupled with Oral code

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s