Is the Bible really the inerrant word of God? If so how can it contradict itself? Seems to me the contradictions indicate the Bible is a hodgepodge collection of writings by different authors and not a carefully crafted well orhestrated treatise or a well thought out plan..
Just to kick things off here are a few contradictions noted by William Henry Burr
Is God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is God for War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biblical Contradictions
Biblical Contradictions
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Biblical Contradictions
ArnoldLayne wrote: I'd actually like to hear Ted's explanations. He has a manner that makes me want to listen and learn , rather than the pompous, sanctimonious lecturing delivered by some that turns me off
Ditto
Ditto
Biblical Contradictions
If you read the "Does the Qur'an Sanction Violence" thread you will understand why I posted these and may post some more of them later.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Biblical Contradictions
most of what you are quoting Zinky is relevent to happenings during that time period.
Biblical Contradictions
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=14005
Hey Zink you might want to check this thread out. I read this awhile back it is interesting and on the same line as this thread.
Hey Zink you might want to check this thread out. I read this awhile back it is interesting and on the same line as this thread.
Biblical Contradictions
zinkyusa wrote: Is the Bible really the inerrant word of God? If so how can it contradict itself? Seems to me the contradictions indicate the Bible is a hodgepodge collection of writings by different authors and not a carefully crafted well orhestrated treatise or a well thought out plan..
Just to kick things off here are a few contradictions noted by William Henry Burr
Is God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
Who the dickens is William Henry Burr some atheist ? Why doesn't Mr. Burr what God to be pleasent and agreeable ? It is man's sin that cause's his own grief....I see no contradiction here.
zinkyusa wrote:
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
And look why !
NAS Jeremiah 13:8 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 9 "Thus says the LORD, 'Just so will I destroy the apride of Judah and the great pride of Jerusalem. 10 'This wicked people, who refuse to listen to My words, who bwalk in the stubbornness of their hearts and have gone after other gods to serve them and to bow down to them, let them be just like this waistband, which is totally worthless.
I see Mr. Burr has lifted verse's out of Scripture to make scripture look like it contradict's itself ! My my I think you better listen to what God has to say instead of what man are saying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zinkyusa wrote:
Is God for War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
First off that is not an accurate translation: It's more like:
NAS Exodus 15:3 "The LORD is a warrior; The LORD is His name. plus His name is not "Lord" or "Kurios" which is Greek.
zinkyusa wrote:
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
What does a peace loving man do to defend that peace ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zinkyusa wrote:
Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
And doubting Thomas should do some homework and he will see that Joseph's mother's Father is Heli not his fathers father as in Mat.
-zinkyusa wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
I fail to see the cockmanay point of this "contradiction" ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE=zinkyusa]
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Ani veha' av echad anachnu" Here Yeshua is using the great sh'ma (Duet 6:4) the same One as in "Sh'ma; Adonai, our God, Adonai is One."---Yeshua self-assertion of His own divinity is occasioned by his reguard for His followers; "no one will snatch them from"
zinkyusa wrote:
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
In His present condition of being Human and subject of His Human body to death. Yeshua here is speaking of Himself in his limited capacity as a human being. For as the Word he had glory equal to the Father (17:5), but as a human being he humbled Himself. (Pp 2:6-8) ---there were time were he grow tired (4:6) and things He did not know ( Mk 13:32) Yet in His essence, he and the Father were echad One ( 1:1-3, 5:23,6:62, 10:30,14:9)
The Scriptures in their orginal language is the inerrant Word of God.
Just to kick things off here are a few contradictions noted by William Henry Burr
Is God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
Who the dickens is William Henry Burr some atheist ? Why doesn't Mr. Burr what God to be pleasent and agreeable ? It is man's sin that cause's his own grief....I see no contradiction here.
zinkyusa wrote:
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
And look why !
NAS Jeremiah 13:8 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 9 "Thus says the LORD, 'Just so will I destroy the apride of Judah and the great pride of Jerusalem. 10 'This wicked people, who refuse to listen to My words, who bwalk in the stubbornness of their hearts and have gone after other gods to serve them and to bow down to them, let them be just like this waistband, which is totally worthless.
I see Mr. Burr has lifted verse's out of Scripture to make scripture look like it contradict's itself ! My my I think you better listen to what God has to say instead of what man are saying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zinkyusa wrote:
Is God for War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
First off that is not an accurate translation: It's more like:
NAS Exodus 15:3 "The LORD is a warrior; The LORD is His name. plus His name is not "Lord" or "Kurios" which is Greek.
zinkyusa wrote:
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
What does a peace loving man do to defend that peace ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zinkyusa wrote:
Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
And doubting Thomas should do some homework and he will see that Joseph's mother's Father is Heli not his fathers father as in Mat.
-zinkyusa wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
I fail to see the cockmanay point of this "contradiction" ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE=zinkyusa]
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Ani veha' av echad anachnu" Here Yeshua is using the great sh'ma (Duet 6:4) the same One as in "Sh'ma; Adonai, our God, Adonai is One."---Yeshua self-assertion of His own divinity is occasioned by his reguard for His followers; "no one will snatch them from"
zinkyusa wrote:
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
In His present condition of being Human and subject of His Human body to death. Yeshua here is speaking of Himself in his limited capacity as a human being. For as the Word he had glory equal to the Father (17:5), but as a human being he humbled Himself. (Pp 2:6-8) ---there were time were he grow tired (4:6) and things He did not know ( Mk 13:32) Yet in His essence, he and the Father were echad One ( 1:1-3, 5:23,6:62, 10:30,14:9)
The Scriptures in their orginal language is the inerrant Word of God.
Biblical Contradictions
zinkyusa wrote: If you read the "Does the Qur'an Sanction Violence" thread you will understand why I posted these and may post some more of them later.
Well what you posted is a bunch of baloney...:guitarist
Well what you posted is a bunch of baloney...:guitarist
-
Erinna1112
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Biblical Contradictions
guppy wrote: most of what you are quoting Zinky is relevent to happenings during that time period.
So, what, the Bible has an expiration date? How do you know what's relevant now and what only applied to "back then"? How long does it last? When does it stop being relevant? And how do you know?
So, what, the Bible has an expiration date? How do you know what's relevant now and what only applied to "back then"? How long does it last? When does it stop being relevant? And how do you know?
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
I swear by my life - and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. ~Ayn Rand
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
A*M*E*N!
I swear by my life - and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. ~Ayn Rand
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
A*M*E*N!
-
Erinna1112
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Biblical Contradictions
The Scriptures in their orginal language is the inerrant Word of God.
But if you don't read Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek, you're basically screwed, is what you're saying. And rather rudely, I might add. In the first place, I don't believe your statement. And secondly, not many of us have access to the bible in its original form; most of us read translations of translations. How can there not be errors? Copies of copies, written by hand, in candlelight at best. You can't convince me that this document reads precisely the same in English more than two thousand years after several people, widely divergent in time and space, wrote it down.
Nope, not buying it here.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
I swear by my life - and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. ~Ayn Rand
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
A*M*E*N!
I swear by my life - and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. ~Ayn Rand
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
A*M*E*N!
Biblical Contradictions
Erinna1112 wrote: But if you don't read Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek, you're basically screwed, is what you're saying.
That just means you need to study properly. Didn't you go to school to learn things ?
Erinna1112 wrote:
And rather rudely, I might add.
Rude ? No your being rude and nasty to boot.
Erinna1112 wrote:
In the first place, I don't believe your statement.
Actually I don't believe yours either.
Erinna1112 wrote:
And secondly, not many of us have access to the bible in its original form; most of us read translations of translations. How can there not be errors? Copies of copies, written by hand, in candlelight at best. You can't convince me that this document reads precisely the same in English more than two thousand years after several people, widely divergent in time and space, wrote it down.
Nope, not buying it here.
That's really not my problem is it.
That just means you need to study properly. Didn't you go to school to learn things ?
Erinna1112 wrote:
And rather rudely, I might add.
Rude ? No your being rude and nasty to boot.
Erinna1112 wrote:
In the first place, I don't believe your statement.
Actually I don't believe yours either.
Erinna1112 wrote:
And secondly, not many of us have access to the bible in its original form; most of us read translations of translations. How can there not be errors? Copies of copies, written by hand, in candlelight at best. You can't convince me that this document reads precisely the same in English more than two thousand years after several people, widely divergent in time and space, wrote it down.
Nope, not buying it here.
That's really not my problem is it.
Biblical Contradictions
Erinna1112 wrote: So, what, the Bible has an expiration date? How do you know what's relevant now and what only applied to "back then"? How long does it last? When does it stop being relevant? And how do you know?
actually i dont know......i am bowing out to let those who have all the answers continue this debate.
have a nice day.:-6
guppy
actually i dont know......i am bowing out to let those who have all the answers continue this debate.
have a nice day.:-6
guppy
Biblical Contradictions
guppy wrote: actually i dont know......i am bowing out to let those who have all the answers continue this debate.
have a nice day.:-6
guppy
Pal so am I, I haven't the time to waste on bat girl or the dragon lady, I am out of here....
NET Matthew 7:6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.
have a nice day.:-6
guppy
Pal so am I, I haven't the time to waste on bat girl or the dragon lady, I am out of here....
NET Matthew 7:6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.
Biblical Contradictions
Erinna1112 wrote: But if you don't read Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek, you're basically screwed, is what you're saying. And rather rudely, I might add. In the first place, I don't believe your statement. And secondly, not many of us have access to the bible in its original form; most of us read translations of translations. How can there not be errors? Copies of copies, written by hand, in candlelight at best. You can't convince me that this document reads precisely the same in English more than two thousand years after several people, widely divergent in time and space, wrote it down.
Nope, not buying it here.
I sort of agree with you Erin
and on the other hand I understand the need for it to be inerrant for some people. They feel that if it is not inerrant then it is totally wrong, and I disagree with that. There are parts of the bible like the commendments that I can see as being black and white. Stuff like thou shall not kill is quite clear and reasonable for all of us. But a lot of the bible is not clear to me and I interpret what I read according to my experiences, my unique self. Those who claim it inerrant tell me that I do that so I can do whatever I want but that isn't true for and probably not true for most people. Anybody who reads the bible must be doing it for good reasons.
Anyway I'm like you Erin cuz I think after 2000 years of translating and rewriting and changing words, the bible can't possibly be inerrant. But God is inerrant and God lives in all of us. He doesn't make us do anything, but right or wrong He is in us somewhere, in our conscience, soul, heart, whatever.
Nope, not buying it here.
I sort of agree with you Erin
and on the other hand I understand the need for it to be inerrant for some people. They feel that if it is not inerrant then it is totally wrong, and I disagree with that. There are parts of the bible like the commendments that I can see as being black and white. Stuff like thou shall not kill is quite clear and reasonable for all of us. But a lot of the bible is not clear to me and I interpret what I read according to my experiences, my unique self. Those who claim it inerrant tell me that I do that so I can do whatever I want but that isn't true for and probably not true for most people. Anybody who reads the bible must be doing it for good reasons.
Anyway I'm like you Erin cuz I think after 2000 years of translating and rewriting and changing words, the bible can't possibly be inerrant. But God is inerrant and God lives in all of us. He doesn't make us do anything, but right or wrong He is in us somewhere, in our conscience, soul, heart, whatever.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Biblical Contradictions
weber wrote: I sort of agree with you Erin
and on the other hand I understand the need for it to be inerrant for some people. They feel that if it is not inerrant then it is totally wrong, and I disagree with that. There are parts of the bible like the commendments that I can see as being black and white. Stuff like thou shall not kill is quite clear and reasonable for all of us. But a lot of the bible is not clear to me and I interpret what I read according to my experiences, my unique self. Those who claim it inerrant tell me that I do that so I can do whatever I want but that isn't true for and probably not true for most people. Anybody who reads the bible must be doing it for good reasons.
Anyway I'm like you Erin cuz I think after 2000 years of translating and rewriting and changing words, the bible can't possibly be inerrant. But God is inerrant and God lives in all of us. He doesn't make us do anything, but right or wrong He is in us somewhere, in our conscience, soul, heart, whatever.
Read my post right above yours.....
and on the other hand I understand the need for it to be inerrant for some people. They feel that if it is not inerrant then it is totally wrong, and I disagree with that. There are parts of the bible like the commendments that I can see as being black and white. Stuff like thou shall not kill is quite clear and reasonable for all of us. But a lot of the bible is not clear to me and I interpret what I read according to my experiences, my unique self. Those who claim it inerrant tell me that I do that so I can do whatever I want but that isn't true for and probably not true for most people. Anybody who reads the bible must be doing it for good reasons.
Anyway I'm like you Erin cuz I think after 2000 years of translating and rewriting and changing words, the bible can't possibly be inerrant. But God is inerrant and God lives in all of us. He doesn't make us do anything, but right or wrong He is in us somewhere, in our conscience, soul, heart, whatever.
Read my post right above yours.....
Biblical Contradictions
Nevim wrote: Pal so am I, I haven't the time to waste on bat girl or the dragon lady, I am out of here....
NET Matthew 7:6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.
zinky is a man. if you didn't know.
NET Matthew 7:6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.
zinky is a man. if you didn't know.
Biblical Contradictions
Nevim wrote: Read my post right above yours.....
Okedoke. I don't know why I bothered. Guess I don't know nothin' for sure so I'll bow out too to those who know everything like you.
Okedoke. I don't know why I bothered. Guess I don't know nothin' for sure so I'll bow out too to those who know everything like you.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
-
Erinna1112
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Biblical Contradictions
Nevim wrote:
NET Matthew 7:6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.
Bow wow, oink. Oh, and don't forget the fire breath.
It's a typical reaction of someone who knows he's out-argued to call names and vanish. Not once did Nevim post anything that could be called constructive to the debate. He's accomplished something that nobody has in the year and some that I've been here - finding my ignore box.
NET Matthew 7:6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.
Bow wow, oink. Oh, and don't forget the fire breath.
It's a typical reaction of someone who knows he's out-argued to call names and vanish. Not once did Nevim post anything that could be called constructive to the debate. He's accomplished something that nobody has in the year and some that I've been here - finding my ignore box.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
I swear by my life - and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. ~Ayn Rand
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
A*M*E*N!
I swear by my life - and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. ~Ayn Rand
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
A*M*E*N!
-
Erinna1112
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Biblical Contradictions
weber wrote: There are parts of the bible like the commendments that I can see as being black and white. Stuff like thou shall not kill is quite clear and reasonable for all of us.
Not "all of us"...because I don't think even this is black and white.
I also don't think that every single person who reads the bible does so with good intent. Scripture can be - and has been - used to justify everything from slavery to homophobia. Human nature being as it is, it is not universal that bible-reading is always good.
The bible has a great deal of good advice. It's got some wicked spiffy stories, and parts of it are great literature. It is not the be-all and end-all of human existence.
Not "all of us"...because I don't think even this is black and white.
I also don't think that every single person who reads the bible does so with good intent. Scripture can be - and has been - used to justify everything from slavery to homophobia. Human nature being as it is, it is not universal that bible-reading is always good.
The bible has a great deal of good advice. It's got some wicked spiffy stories, and parts of it are great literature. It is not the be-all and end-all of human existence.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
I swear by my life - and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. ~Ayn Rand
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
A*M*E*N!
I swear by my life - and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. ~Ayn Rand
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
A*M*E*N!
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Biblical Contradictions
weber wrote: There are parts of the bible like the commendments that I can see as being black and white. Stuff like thou shall not kill is quite clear and reasonable for all of us.
it's worth noting that the more accurate translation is "thou shalt not murder", which has a very different meaning from 'thou shalt not kill".
it's worth noting that the more accurate translation is "thou shalt not murder", which has a very different meaning from 'thou shalt not kill".
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Biblical Contradictions
this is one of my favorites. it rather nicely shows the flaws in suggesting that scripture is the inerrant word of god. if it were, any christian who eats shellfish is going to hell.
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/Why ... 10-02.html
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/Why ... 10-02.html
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Biblical Contradictions
I'm a Christian who doesn't believe the Bible is inerrant. I have compiled a list of over a dozen "contradictions" I've found in it from my own reading. I put that word in quotes because I believe that they are the mistakes of men, whom God allowed to keep the scriptures over the millenia, and not mistakes of God.
Whoever thinks the Bible has to be inerrant by logic's standards is, IMO, overly concerned about defending their beliefs and is putting their faith in the Bible, not in God, IMO.
Whoever thinks the Bible has to be inerrant by logic's standards is, IMO, overly concerned about defending their beliefs and is putting their faith in the Bible, not in God, IMO.
Biblical Contradictions
Erinna1112 wrote: Not "all of us"...because I don't think even this is black and white.
I also don't think that every single person who reads the bible does so with good intent. Scripture can be - and has been - used to justify everything from slavery to homophobia. Human nature being as it is, it is not universal that bible-reading is always good.
The bible has a great deal of good advice. It's got some wicked spiffy stories, and parts of it are great literature. It is not the be-all and end-all of human existence.
Gracious, if the commandments can thusly be skewed, if killing can suddenly become okay, perhaps I don't belong in this discussion.
As to reading the bible being a good thing, I was not specific I guess. Perhaps it is read for bad purposes but I was thinking in terms of Christians reading it, people like here.
The ten commandments are pretty special to me and they are one thing in the bible that I don't mess with. If you skew them, you can probably pretty well skew anything and everything to suit your purposes.
I won't say any more about that. Funny, it went from total inerrancy to total the other side. I kind of like a middle ground.
I also don't think that every single person who reads the bible does so with good intent. Scripture can be - and has been - used to justify everything from slavery to homophobia. Human nature being as it is, it is not universal that bible-reading is always good.
The bible has a great deal of good advice. It's got some wicked spiffy stories, and parts of it are great literature. It is not the be-all and end-all of human existence.
Gracious, if the commandments can thusly be skewed, if killing can suddenly become okay, perhaps I don't belong in this discussion.
As to reading the bible being a good thing, I was not specific I guess. Perhaps it is read for bad purposes but I was thinking in terms of Christians reading it, people like here.
The ten commandments are pretty special to me and they are one thing in the bible that I don't mess with. If you skew them, you can probably pretty well skew anything and everything to suit your purposes.
I won't say any more about that. Funny, it went from total inerrancy to total the other side. I kind of like a middle ground.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Biblical Contradictions
Erinna1112 wrote: I also don't think that every single person who reads the bible does so with good intent. Scripture can be - and has been - used to justify everything from slavery to homophobia. Human nature being as it is, it is not universal that bible-reading is always good.
The bible has a great deal of good advice. It's got some wicked spiffy stories, and parts of it are great literature. It is not the be-all and end-all of human existence.
As Jesus said, those who do good are drawn to the light, and those who do evil are repelled by it. The issue, IMO, isn't with the Bible itself but with the motives of those who read it. If they have good motives for reading it, it will do them good. If they don't, it will not do them good. We can't blame the Bible for that.
The bible has a great deal of good advice. It's got some wicked spiffy stories, and parts of it are great literature. It is not the be-all and end-all of human existence.
As Jesus said, those who do good are drawn to the light, and those who do evil are repelled by it. The issue, IMO, isn't with the Bible itself but with the motives of those who read it. If they have good motives for reading it, it will do them good. If they don't, it will not do them good. We can't blame the Bible for that.
Biblical Contradictions
Well it appears I missed a lot of fun last night..No need to post anymore contradictions the point has been made..I think the Bible can be used in a loving way with some interpratation and pardon me "correction".. I respect people who use it as such and quietly practice thier faith.
The loudmouths (and you know who you are) just embarass yourselves..
The loudmouths (and you know who you are) just embarass yourselves..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Biblical Contradictions
Go away for one day and look what comes up. A neat topic.
I am going to deal with one of the contradictions, that of Joseph's father. I have gone back to the original Greek or as original as we have. I will explain this later. I use the translation recommended by many scholars and Bible translators, the NRSV.
Matthew 1:16 says "and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whome Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
Luke 3:23 says "Jesus was about thrity years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,"
That is precisely what the Greek says as well.
Yes the Bible does contain many contradictions, in spite of protests to the contrary. These contradictions are accepted by many of the Biblical scholars around the world. To say anything to the contrary is purely wishful thinkings.
I will post a little history as to how we got the Bible we presently have. Most of this information can be found in "Misquoting Jesus" by Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman but is also supported by Crossan, Borg, Spong, Gordon, Svingen and a host of others.
The Bible was put together by a vote at a counsel in about 376 CE. They were faced with not only dozens of manuscripts such as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary and others. Within these there were multiple copiies of each such as a number of different copies of Matthew, Mark and so on. Within the manuscripts of all of the books of the NT. there are some 200 000 variants. Consequently scholarship had then and now a tremendous task to try to get back to the autographs which had long ago disappeared. What they used were copies of copies of copies of copies and so on. Needless to say choices had to be made.
Ehrman feels that we may be able to get back as far as the Bible of 376 but withou further manuscript discoveries we will never be able to get any closer to the original.
Now if we consider for a moment, only the gospels there are several interesting facts. The gospels are not autographs and as far as that goes we do not even know who wrote them. They were arbitrarily assigned names for designation purposes. What they are is a developing tradition. That is they are what the early church had come to believe about this Jesus at the time of the writing of each gospel. Mark was written first in the 60s CE. John was written somewhere in the 90s CE and the rest in between.
The folks who wrote the gospels were recording history remembered, some oral transmission and probably some small written notes. It is doubtful that any of the evangelists ever met Jesus.
The NT contains parables of Jesus and parables about Jesus and his teachings and some of his movements. There are some 14 letters attributed to Paul but only 7 are Pauline. The others are pseudo-Pauline. That is it was common in those days to write under the name of the one you were following even after his death.
About 15% of the words or phrases, if you will, attributed to Jesus can in fact be traced back to the historical Jesus. The other 85% are the words of the evangelists placed in Jesus mouth. They reflect what the church had come to believe about him and in many cases probably reflect some of what he taught. None of the words from John's Jesus can be traced back to the historical Jesus. Many serious scholars do not even believe that Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah though most accept that he was indeed the Messiah.
To rely on the Bible as the inerrant word of God, even the original, is wishful thinking. It becomes the world of God for Christians because God does speak to us through the Bible. The fundamentalist/literalist position leads to idolatry when one begins to worship the Bible as the inerrant word.
Why do some folks need the Bible to be inerrant. I believe it is for the same reason we demand contracts today. We want to be be very sure that the appropriate work is done and appropriately paid for. It is for security for both parties. When one demands that the Bible be inerrant it would indicate that they do not trust God enough to keep his word. They want it in writing signed sealed and delivered.
The OT is the product of hundreds of years or oral transmission and some later written documents. The Pentateuch was finally put together inwriting during the Babyonian exile about 700 BCE. This is long after Moses had left the scene.
The Bible has been copied and copied and altered by the early church as well as the ancient redactos and editors. The last several verses of Mark being a good example. The original ended with verse 8. From verse 9 on has been added by a later editor.
None of this denies the sacredness of the Bible because, in spite of all the problems people still feel that God does speak to them through the ancient wisdom.
What matters is not "Did it really happen this way?" but "What does it mean?" It is the meaning that is important. I think that most can now see how such contradictions came about and essentially they are unimportant one realized that for much of it we are looking at midrash or if you will parable with some kernels of history therein.
I hope this helps those who simply cannot swallow the literalist approach.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I am going to deal with one of the contradictions, that of Joseph's father. I have gone back to the original Greek or as original as we have. I will explain this later. I use the translation recommended by many scholars and Bible translators, the NRSV.
Matthew 1:16 says "and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whome Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
Luke 3:23 says "Jesus was about thrity years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,"
That is precisely what the Greek says as well.
Yes the Bible does contain many contradictions, in spite of protests to the contrary. These contradictions are accepted by many of the Biblical scholars around the world. To say anything to the contrary is purely wishful thinkings.
I will post a little history as to how we got the Bible we presently have. Most of this information can be found in "Misquoting Jesus" by Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman but is also supported by Crossan, Borg, Spong, Gordon, Svingen and a host of others.
The Bible was put together by a vote at a counsel in about 376 CE. They were faced with not only dozens of manuscripts such as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary and others. Within these there were multiple copiies of each such as a number of different copies of Matthew, Mark and so on. Within the manuscripts of all of the books of the NT. there are some 200 000 variants. Consequently scholarship had then and now a tremendous task to try to get back to the autographs which had long ago disappeared. What they used were copies of copies of copies of copies and so on. Needless to say choices had to be made.
Ehrman feels that we may be able to get back as far as the Bible of 376 but withou further manuscript discoveries we will never be able to get any closer to the original.
Now if we consider for a moment, only the gospels there are several interesting facts. The gospels are not autographs and as far as that goes we do not even know who wrote them. They were arbitrarily assigned names for designation purposes. What they are is a developing tradition. That is they are what the early church had come to believe about this Jesus at the time of the writing of each gospel. Mark was written first in the 60s CE. John was written somewhere in the 90s CE and the rest in between.
The folks who wrote the gospels were recording history remembered, some oral transmission and probably some small written notes. It is doubtful that any of the evangelists ever met Jesus.
The NT contains parables of Jesus and parables about Jesus and his teachings and some of his movements. There are some 14 letters attributed to Paul but only 7 are Pauline. The others are pseudo-Pauline. That is it was common in those days to write under the name of the one you were following even after his death.
About 15% of the words or phrases, if you will, attributed to Jesus can in fact be traced back to the historical Jesus. The other 85% are the words of the evangelists placed in Jesus mouth. They reflect what the church had come to believe about him and in many cases probably reflect some of what he taught. None of the words from John's Jesus can be traced back to the historical Jesus. Many serious scholars do not even believe that Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah though most accept that he was indeed the Messiah.
To rely on the Bible as the inerrant word of God, even the original, is wishful thinking. It becomes the world of God for Christians because God does speak to us through the Bible. The fundamentalist/literalist position leads to idolatry when one begins to worship the Bible as the inerrant word.
Why do some folks need the Bible to be inerrant. I believe it is for the same reason we demand contracts today. We want to be be very sure that the appropriate work is done and appropriately paid for. It is for security for both parties. When one demands that the Bible be inerrant it would indicate that they do not trust God enough to keep his word. They want it in writing signed sealed and delivered.
The OT is the product of hundreds of years or oral transmission and some later written documents. The Pentateuch was finally put together inwriting during the Babyonian exile about 700 BCE. This is long after Moses had left the scene.
The Bible has been copied and copied and altered by the early church as well as the ancient redactos and editors. The last several verses of Mark being a good example. The original ended with verse 8. From verse 9 on has been added by a later editor.
None of this denies the sacredness of the Bible because, in spite of all the problems people still feel that God does speak to them through the ancient wisdom.
What matters is not "Did it really happen this way?" but "What does it mean?" It is the meaning that is important. I think that most can now see how such contradictions came about and essentially they are unimportant one realized that for much of it we are looking at midrash or if you will parable with some kernels of history therein.
I hope this helps those who simply cannot swallow the literalist approach.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Biblical Contradictions
Ted wrote: Go away for one day and look what comes up. A neat topic.
I am going to deal with one of the contradictions, that of Joseph's father. I have gone back to the original Greek or as original as we have. I will explain this later. I use the translation recommended by many scholars and Bible translators, the NRSV.
Matthew 1:16 says "and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whome Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
Luke 3:23 says "Jesus was about thrity years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,"
That is precisely what the Greek says as well.
Yes the Bible does contain many contradictions, in spite of protests to the contrary. These contradictions are accepted by many of the Biblical scholars around the world. To say anything to the contrary is purely wishful thinkings.
I will post a little history as to how we got the Bible we presently have. Most of this information can be found in "Misquoting Jesus" by Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman but is also supported by Crossan, Borg, Spong, Gordon, Svingen and a host of others.
The Bible was put together by a vote at a counsel in about 376 CE. They were faced with not only dozens of manuscripts such as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary and others. Within these there were multiple copiies of each such as a number of different copies of Matthew, Mark and so on. Within the manuscripts of all of the books of the NT. there are some 200 000 variants. Consequently scholarship had then and now a tremendous task to try to get back to the autographs which had long ago disappeared. What they used were copies of copies of copies of copies and so on. Needless to say choices had to be made.
Ehrman feels that we may be able to get back as far as the Bible of 376 but withou further manuscript discoveries we will never be able to get any closer to the original.
Now if we consider for a moment, only the gospels there are several interesting facts. The gospels are not autographs and as far as that goes we do not even know who wrote them. They were arbitrarily assigned names for designation purposes. What they are is a developing tradition. That is they are what the early church had come to believe about this Jesus at the time of the writing of each gospel. Mark was written first in the 60s CE. John was written somewhere in the 90s CE and the rest in between.
The folks who wrote the gospels were recording history remembered, some oral transmission and probably some small written notes. It is doubtful that any of the evangelists ever met Jesus.
The NT contains parables of Jesus and parables about Jesus and his teachings and some of his movements. There are some 14 letters attributed to Paul but only 7 are Pauline. The others are pseudo-Pauline. That is it was common in those days to write under the name of the one you were following even after his death.
About 15% of the words or phrases, if you will, attributed to Jesus can in fact be traced back to the historical Jesus. The other 85% are the words of the evangelists placed in Jesus mouth. They reflect what the church had come to believe about him and in many cases probably reflect some of what he taught. None of the words from John's Jesus can be traced back to the historical Jesus. Many serious scholars do not even believe that Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah though most accept that he was indeed the Messiah.
To rely on the Bible as the inerrant word of God, even the original, is wishful thinking. It becomes the world of God for Christians because God does speak to us through the Bible. The fundamentalist/literalist position leads to idolatry when one begins to worship the Bible as the inerrant word.
Why do some folks need the Bible to be inerrant. I believe it is for the same reason we demand contracts today. We want to be be very sure that the appropriate work is done and appropriately paid for. It is for security for both parties. When one demands that the Bible be inerrant it would indicate that they do not trust God enough to keep his word. They want it in writing signed sealed and delivered.
The OT is the product of hundreds of years or oral transmission and some later written documents. The Pentateuch was finally put together inwriting during the Babyonian exile about 700 BCE. This is long after Moses had left the scene.
The Bible has been copied and copied and altered by the early church as well as the ancient redactos and editors. The last several verses of Mark being a good example. The original ended with verse 8. From verse 9 on has been added by a later editor.
None of this denies the sacredness of the Bible because, in spite of all the problems people still feel that God does speak to them through the ancient wisdom.
What matters is not "Did it really happen this way?" but "What does it mean?" It is the meaning that is important. I think that most can now see how such contradictions came about and essentially they are unimportant one realized that for much of it we are looking at midrash or if you will parable with some kernels of history therein.
I hope this helps those who simply cannot swallow the literalist approach.
Shalom
Ted:-6
thank you Ted, your response is very informative, rational, and reasonable.
guppy
I am going to deal with one of the contradictions, that of Joseph's father. I have gone back to the original Greek or as original as we have. I will explain this later. I use the translation recommended by many scholars and Bible translators, the NRSV.
Matthew 1:16 says "and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whome Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
Luke 3:23 says "Jesus was about thrity years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,"
That is precisely what the Greek says as well.
Yes the Bible does contain many contradictions, in spite of protests to the contrary. These contradictions are accepted by many of the Biblical scholars around the world. To say anything to the contrary is purely wishful thinkings.
I will post a little history as to how we got the Bible we presently have. Most of this information can be found in "Misquoting Jesus" by Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman but is also supported by Crossan, Borg, Spong, Gordon, Svingen and a host of others.
The Bible was put together by a vote at a counsel in about 376 CE. They were faced with not only dozens of manuscripts such as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary and others. Within these there were multiple copiies of each such as a number of different copies of Matthew, Mark and so on. Within the manuscripts of all of the books of the NT. there are some 200 000 variants. Consequently scholarship had then and now a tremendous task to try to get back to the autographs which had long ago disappeared. What they used were copies of copies of copies of copies and so on. Needless to say choices had to be made.
Ehrman feels that we may be able to get back as far as the Bible of 376 but withou further manuscript discoveries we will never be able to get any closer to the original.
Now if we consider for a moment, only the gospels there are several interesting facts. The gospels are not autographs and as far as that goes we do not even know who wrote them. They were arbitrarily assigned names for designation purposes. What they are is a developing tradition. That is they are what the early church had come to believe about this Jesus at the time of the writing of each gospel. Mark was written first in the 60s CE. John was written somewhere in the 90s CE and the rest in between.
The folks who wrote the gospels were recording history remembered, some oral transmission and probably some small written notes. It is doubtful that any of the evangelists ever met Jesus.
The NT contains parables of Jesus and parables about Jesus and his teachings and some of his movements. There are some 14 letters attributed to Paul but only 7 are Pauline. The others are pseudo-Pauline. That is it was common in those days to write under the name of the one you were following even after his death.
About 15% of the words or phrases, if you will, attributed to Jesus can in fact be traced back to the historical Jesus. The other 85% are the words of the evangelists placed in Jesus mouth. They reflect what the church had come to believe about him and in many cases probably reflect some of what he taught. None of the words from John's Jesus can be traced back to the historical Jesus. Many serious scholars do not even believe that Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah though most accept that he was indeed the Messiah.
To rely on the Bible as the inerrant word of God, even the original, is wishful thinking. It becomes the world of God for Christians because God does speak to us through the Bible. The fundamentalist/literalist position leads to idolatry when one begins to worship the Bible as the inerrant word.
Why do some folks need the Bible to be inerrant. I believe it is for the same reason we demand contracts today. We want to be be very sure that the appropriate work is done and appropriately paid for. It is for security for both parties. When one demands that the Bible be inerrant it would indicate that they do not trust God enough to keep his word. They want it in writing signed sealed and delivered.
The OT is the product of hundreds of years or oral transmission and some later written documents. The Pentateuch was finally put together inwriting during the Babyonian exile about 700 BCE. This is long after Moses had left the scene.
The Bible has been copied and copied and altered by the early church as well as the ancient redactos and editors. The last several verses of Mark being a good example. The original ended with verse 8. From verse 9 on has been added by a later editor.
None of this denies the sacredness of the Bible because, in spite of all the problems people still feel that God does speak to them through the ancient wisdom.
What matters is not "Did it really happen this way?" but "What does it mean?" It is the meaning that is important. I think that most can now see how such contradictions came about and essentially they are unimportant one realized that for much of it we are looking at midrash or if you will parable with some kernels of history therein.
I hope this helps those who simply cannot swallow the literalist approach.
Shalom
Ted:-6
thank you Ted, your response is very informative, rational, and reasonable.
guppy
Biblical Contradictions
guppy:-6
Thanks. I try to be both as well as being a Christian pluralist.
Actually I will be away for a short while. I am having surgery on my right shoulder tomorrow and may have to type with one hand for awhile, while the right shoulder heals somewhat. I've been told it will take some 6 months to finally get over it but should be able to be active within a few days.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thanks. I try to be both as well as being a Christian pluralist.
Actually I will be away for a short while. I am having surgery on my right shoulder tomorrow and may have to type with one hand for awhile, while the right shoulder heals somewhat. I've been told it will take some 6 months to finally get over it but should be able to be active within a few days.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Biblical Contradictions
Ted wrote: guppy:-6
Thanks. I try to be both as well as being a Christian pluralist.
Actually I will be away for a short while. I am having surgery on my right shoulder tomorrow and may have to type with one hand for awhile, while the right shoulder heals somewhat. I've been told it will take some 6 months to finally get over it but should be able to be active within a few days.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Heal quickly Ted and hurry back. You are breath of fresh air.
Thanks. I try to be both as well as being a Christian pluralist.
Actually I will be away for a short while. I am having surgery on my right shoulder tomorrow and may have to type with one hand for awhile, while the right shoulder heals somewhat. I've been told it will take some 6 months to finally get over it but should be able to be active within a few days.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Heal quickly Ted and hurry back. You are breath of fresh air.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Biblical Contradictions
zinkyusa:-6
Thanks. It is much appreciated.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thanks. It is much appreciated.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Biblical Contradictions
Ted wrote: guppy:-6
Thanks. I try to be both as well as being a Christian pluralist.
Actually I will be away for a short while. I am having surgery on my right shoulder tomorrow and may have to type with one hand for awhile, while the right shoulder heals somewhat. I've been told it will take some 6 months to finally get over it but should be able to be active within a few days.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The very best of luck for tomorrow - I hope it goes well and that you have a swift and complete recovery.
Thanks. I try to be both as well as being a Christian pluralist.
Actually I will be away for a short while. I am having surgery on my right shoulder tomorrow and may have to type with one hand for awhile, while the right shoulder heals somewhat. I've been told it will take some 6 months to finally get over it but should be able to be active within a few days.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The very best of luck for tomorrow - I hope it goes well and that you have a swift and complete recovery.
Biblical Contradictions
Thanks gals and guys. It is much appreciated.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
Biblical Contradictions
I will comment on the complexity of the Bible. When I finally understood Michael Goulder, in Scotland, and the works of John Spong I began to understand the ancient word midrash. It's ancient definition is different than its modern definition. It used to mean both a style of writing and interpreting. It is the kind of thing where we use and earlier writing to interet a later person or event. Dom Crossan prefers the term parable.
When we begin to understand the Bible, both the OT and the NT as parable with some kernels of history thrown in then it becomes much simpler to understand the Bible. Do not ask "Did it happen this way?" but ask "What does it mean?" This banishes all the worries and complaints about both internal and external contraditions. By external I am referring to historical, archaeological and scientific findings simply no longer matter and one does not have to do creative dancing or writing to try to explain them away.
Shalom
Ted:-6
When we begin to understand the Bible, both the OT and the NT as parable with some kernels of history thrown in then it becomes much simpler to understand the Bible. Do not ask "Did it happen this way?" but ask "What does it mean?" This banishes all the worries and complaints about both internal and external contraditions. By external I am referring to historical, archaeological and scientific findings simply no longer matter and one does not have to do creative dancing or writing to try to explain them away.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Biblical Contradictions
Ted wrote: guppy:-6
Thanks. I try to be both as well as being a Christian pluralist.
Actually I will be away for a short while. I am having surgery on my right shoulder tomorrow and may have to type with one hand for awhile, while the right shoulder heals somewhat. I've been told it will take some 6 months to finally get over it but should be able to be active within a few days.
Shalom
Ted:-6
i hope your surgery goes well. Hurry back when you can. hugs, Guppy/rhonda
Thanks. I try to be both as well as being a Christian pluralist.
Actually I will be away for a short while. I am having surgery on my right shoulder tomorrow and may have to type with one hand for awhile, while the right shoulder heals somewhat. I've been told it will take some 6 months to finally get over it but should be able to be active within a few days.
Shalom
Ted:-6
i hope your surgery goes well. Hurry back when you can. hugs, Guppy/rhonda
Biblical Contradictions
Hamster:-6
Jesus is reputed to have said "you shall know the truth and it will set you free". When I learned these things and began to understand I was indeed set free from the slavery of fundamentalist/literalism. I feel very strongly that I was so led by the Holy Spirit as prayer and meditation have been a large part of my life.
When I am called upon to deliver sermons I use my thinking which follows in line with our priest to continue to try and help others to become free as well. Most appreciate what I say. In fact I've never had a negative response.
Free at last.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Jesus is reputed to have said "you shall know the truth and it will set you free". When I learned these things and began to understand I was indeed set free from the slavery of fundamentalist/literalism. I feel very strongly that I was so led by the Holy Spirit as prayer and meditation have been a large part of my life.
When I am called upon to deliver sermons I use my thinking which follows in line with our priest to continue to try and help others to become free as well. Most appreciate what I say. In fact I've never had a negative response.
Free at last.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Biblical Contradictions
Diuretic:-6
Right on.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Right on.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Erinna1112
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Biblical Contradictions
ArnoldLayne wrote: Agreed
Yup.
Whups, forgot that you can't quote a quote. My agreement with Arnold agreeing is that Ted is a breath of fresh air. Thanks, Ted, and feel better soon!
Yup.
Whups, forgot that you can't quote a quote. My agreement with Arnold agreeing is that Ted is a breath of fresh air. Thanks, Ted, and feel better soon!
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
I swear by my life - and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. ~Ayn Rand
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
A*M*E*N!
I swear by my life - and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. ~Ayn Rand
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
A*M*E*N!
Biblical Contradictions
Erinna:-6
LOL
And thanks.
Shalom
Ted:-6
LOL
And thanks.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Biblical Contradictions
Ted wrote: Go away for one day and look what comes up. A neat topic.
I am going to deal with one of the contradictions, that of Joseph's father. I have gone back to the original Greek or as original as we have. I will explain this later. I use the translation recommended by many scholars and Bible translators, the NRSV.
Matthew 1:16 says "and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whome Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
Luke 3:23 says "Jesus was about thrity years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,"
That is precisely what the Greek says as well.
Ted:-6
Do you know anything about Levirate Law, which prescribes that when a man dies childless, his widow shall not marry another, but a brother of the dead man who shall take her and raise up seed for his brother. The child of the second marriage is legally the child of the first.
Deuteronomy 25
Take a peek at who Heli was/is. Then put two and two together, and don't be so quick to pronounce contradiction until you have exhausted research.
I am going to deal with one of the contradictions, that of Joseph's father. I have gone back to the original Greek or as original as we have. I will explain this later. I use the translation recommended by many scholars and Bible translators, the NRSV.
Matthew 1:16 says "and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whome Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
Luke 3:23 says "Jesus was about thrity years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,"
That is precisely what the Greek says as well.
Ted:-6
Do you know anything about Levirate Law, which prescribes that when a man dies childless, his widow shall not marry another, but a brother of the dead man who shall take her and raise up seed for his brother. The child of the second marriage is legally the child of the first.
Deuteronomy 25
Take a peek at who Heli was/is. Then put two and two together, and don't be so quick to pronounce contradiction until you have exhausted research.
Biblical Contradictions
Ted wrote: Hamster:-6
Jesus is reputed to have said "you shall know the truth and it will set you free". When I learned these things and began to understand I was indeed set free from the slavery of fundamentalist/literalism. I feel very strongly that I was so led by the Holy Spirit as prayer and meditation have been a large part of my life.
When I am called upon to deliver sermons I use my thinking which follows in line with our priest to continue to try and help others to become free as well. Most appreciate what I say. In fact I've never had a negative response.
Free at last.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I highly recommend to you and all other Christians here, to do exhaustive study on a puzzling matter before pronouncing errancy and contradiction. You'll find that neither is present in the Bible. Happy studies to you all. It's what you are supposed to do, anyways.
Jesus is reputed to have said "you shall know the truth and it will set you free". When I learned these things and began to understand I was indeed set free from the slavery of fundamentalist/literalism. I feel very strongly that I was so led by the Holy Spirit as prayer and meditation have been a large part of my life.
When I am called upon to deliver sermons I use my thinking which follows in line with our priest to continue to try and help others to become free as well. Most appreciate what I say. In fact I've never had a negative response.
Free at last.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I highly recommend to you and all other Christians here, to do exhaustive study on a puzzling matter before pronouncing errancy and contradiction. You'll find that neither is present in the Bible. Happy studies to you all. It's what you are supposed to do, anyways.
Biblical Contradictions
Atsila wrote: I highly recommend to you and all other Christians here, to do exhaustive study on a puzzling matter before pronouncing errancy and contradiction. You'll find that neither is present in the Bible. Happy studies to you all. It's what you are supposed to do, anyways.
God is seen and heard:
and I will away my hand , and thou shalt see my backparts. (Ex. 33:23) was God mooning someone?
and the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to a friend. (Ex. 33:11.)
For I have seen God God face to face, and my life is preserved. (Gen. 32:30.)
God is invisible and cannot be heard:
No man hath seen God at any time. (John 1:18.)
Ye hath neither heard his voice, at any time, nor seeen his shape. (John 5:37.)
Whom no man hath seen nor can see. (1 Tim. 6:16.)
God is seen and heard:
and I will away my hand , and thou shalt see my backparts. (Ex. 33:23) was God mooning someone?
and the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to a friend. (Ex. 33:11.)
For I have seen God God face to face, and my life is preserved. (Gen. 32:30.)
God is invisible and cannot be heard:
No man hath seen God at any time. (John 1:18.)
Ye hath neither heard his voice, at any time, nor seeen his shape. (John 5:37.)
Whom no man hath seen nor can see. (1 Tim. 6:16.)
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Biblical Contradictions
I am not sure the Bible was meant to be taken absolutly literally. I mean I feel the record of events were the interpretation of the people who wrote them, based on what they saw as the facts.
That is why, at least in the Catholic mass, they read the "Gospel according to Mark, or Paul" or whomever they are reading from that week.
I do not feel that the quotes can be called contradictions, unless you know the actual time frame that each event took place. They could have been hundreds of years apart.
That is why, at least in the Catholic mass, they read the "Gospel according to Mark, or Paul" or whomever they are reading from that week.
I do not feel that the quotes can be called contradictions, unless you know the actual time frame that each event took place. They could have been hundreds of years apart.