Is there a contradiction between Deuteronomy and Jonah?

Rather than comparison with routine minor violations of petty law - which are accepted for good reason I think that any reasonable comparison must take into account the severity of the alleged crime and the sentence.So we need a serious case where death or at the least a long prison sentence is expected.Secondly since the issue is not that the prophet had really done anything wrong. The problem is that the law includes an evidential test that leaves out a relevant factor.Since I do not know of any cases where an equivalent test is written in modern law, I would say that a reasonable comparison would be where an expert witness puts forward a strong but erroneous claim as to the strength of the evidence. Even this is a lesser problem since the evidential test is not written into the law and does not require a legislative change to be corrected.There are cases of this sort and when it becomes known it is a scandal. For instance the case discussed here BBC NEWS | Health | Global experts slam cot death policy (and there are many more entries on the BBC news site relating to it).

As I have already stated I do not make any judgement on whether or not Jonah is a false prophet. I don't need to to point out a contradiction.And it is no good to say that since Jonah was a true prophet the test of Deuteronomy 18:22 does not apply. The whole point of the test is to tell true prophets from false. There is NOTHING "incorrect in the context of Deuteronomy" that prevents us applying the test to Jonah.As to your genral answers.1) As Brian has discussed a proclaimation is a prophecy. In this case it also includes a prediction.2) You contradict Jonah 3 which clearly states that God had said he would send calamity and then relented.3) Your answer here contradicts the understanding of Jonah - which God does not correct (see Jonah 4). The Book of Jonah in no way endorses your point.So on no less than three (i'd say four) points you disagree with the Bible and on at least two you add your own opinions to the Bible. SO your point is that the Bible as we have it is wrong but if we add your words to it it will be inerrant ?

Well I would like to know why you say that you can't see the contradiction when in fact you do, and why you minimise the problems by comparing a capital offence to a trivial one. I really don't see how you can say that either are valid.I've already answered Cromwell's point - it is really quite contrary to the Book of Jonah as it is written. The idea is not even hinted at and even God agrees that the predicted disaster did not happen (nor is the qualifier "sinful" part of Jonah's prophecy as it appears in the book). Since Jeremiah makes much the same point and does not suggest that the prophecies need to be qualified by "sinful" or "virtuous" or any equivalents Cromwell's point is simply an irrelevance. He is adding ideas that are clearly not present in the text as it is written.As for any "role rversal" on the part of the inerrantists I think you mistake their stated position for their actual position. Despite what they say the actual message of the Bible is secondary to their own beliefs - and thus they have no difficulty in ignoring or misrepresenting the actual text of the Bible to support their belief in Biblical inerrancy.

I agree the contradictions do not disprove the Bible.As I said in post 1 my purpose in starting this thread is to show that Almeyda's claim claim that there are no contradictions in the Bible is false. If nobody had made that claim the thread would not have been started.

I've got to say that I agree with Sylas on most points. But what I find puzzling - and disturbing - in your posts is the implication that executing an innocent man is a trivial matter.An inerrantist would probably also be worried by the idea that God couldn't reasonably forsee that He might want to change His mind on occasion.

I have no doubt that the application of Jewish law has varied quite significantly - and by the time Jonah was written it seems all but certain that the view expressed in Jeremiah would have triumphed anyway.But I do have to be concerned when a capital offence is compared to motoring offences which are only technically illegal, if that (it would not surprise me if the rules about crossing white lines made exceptions for avoiding cyclists). I also have to be concerned when the only reason given for not executing Jonah is evidence (the statement in Jonah that Joanh was a true prophet) that would not be available at the time.