Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Contradictions in the bible


  • Please log in to reply
591 replies to this topic

#241    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 January 2013 - 11:22 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 10 January 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

The term is "Christian atheists," not "atheist Christians."
White blacks or black whites... doesn't make much difference for something that can't exist.

Quote

The ones I know really don't care how you categorize them.  They believe what they believe.

Or don't believe what they don't want to believe.

Quote

A lot of good, church-going people don't believe in hell, either.  

Why not? Jesus references it several dozen times. Why are they wasting their time in church listening to stuff they don't believe in? Don't they know they're missing some great football games on television?

Quote

I don't think you are aware of the breadth of religious thinking.

I am all too aware of the hypocrisy that many Christians practice. It's fashionable for people to claim they are Christians then ignore 99% of what's in the Bible. As long as they believe in that Jesus guy, they're Christians, so they're better than godless people.


#242    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 January 2013 - 11:35 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 10 January 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

Regarding the violence of the OT god:  many of those references to "Lord" and "the Almighty" are references to Baal, an extremely violent and warlike god.  The distinctions between Yahwah and Baal are lost in the translations.  The Bible directly credits Baal Zephon with providing the wind that blew the water away from the "Red Sea" crossing site.  I'll have to look it up, but I can quote you chapter and verse on that.

Dude, what Bible are you reading? God hates Baal worshipers. He forbade the Israelites from having anything to do with them and slaughtered many who mingled with them.

Quote

Another note on OT violence:  the "Israelites" needed to clear the land of their enemies so they would have places for their own farms.  To do that, they needed to kil everybody in sight.  That was the tactic used by the SS in Russia - and it worked.

The last time I checked, Nazi Germany lost World War Two and Russians are back where they had been massacred, so it would say no, it did not work.

Quote

To get ordinary men to kill unresisting women and children takes either insnaity, or a very high level of military training.  The Bible is bragging about how dedicated and well-trained its people were - whether it was rtue or not.

And it is encouraging present followers of God to be as dedicated. As for well trained, how much training does it take to kill a baby?

Quote

As for "God's" Ten Commandments:  "Moses" went up a mountain with a temple to Hathor on it and came down carrying the Ten Commandments.  Which god do you think provided them?  The Bible is not very specific about which god it is referring to.

So you believe this single "God" in the Bible is actually several gods changing places?

Again, what Bible are you reading? It's sounds a lot more fun than the ones I've read!


#243    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,287 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:47 AM

View Postranrod, on 10 January 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

Ug. For die-hard Yahweh followers:
Not sure what you mean by this.  If you're aiming this question to me in response to my comment on the context of Genesis 1 then I think your post sounds quite dismissive.  If your comment wasn't aimed at me then I guess others would have to answer for themselves, but if you were referring to me at all then I totally disagree:

1. Offhandedly dismiss the parts of the bible that directly contradict your view of the religion - Absolutely not.  Using Genesis 1 as an example, I did not dismiss anything, instead showed clearly how it works in context.

2. Overemphathise the parts of the bible that support your view - All the Bible must support my view or else I wouldn't hold it.  

3. Arbitrarily employ out-of-the-bible references (vast amounts of such - historical and otherwise) to support your view - Nothing arbitrary about it.  I use out-of-the-bible references every time I open my Bible.  In order to properly understand a passage I think about its historical context every time I read any single passage.

4. Do some olympic-quality mental gymnastics to pull it all together - You are welcome to that opinion.  I'm not sure what mental gymnastics you are referring to.

5. Profit - No idea what you mean here.


View Postranrod, on 10 January 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

Given any notion a well versed bible expert can 'make' the bible say anything he wants; no matter how counter-intuitive to the religion it might be (such as killing is a good thing).  Explains the vast amount of attrocities committed in the name of the bible.
Because of this and the vagueness of the bible, telling people the bible is up to the individual's interpretation is one of the most dangerous things you can teach a society.
Because of the openness of interpretation, religions based on Yahweh have fragmented into millions of individual beliefs loosely tied together by just a few common concepts.
1 -Sure, it's true that quote mining can help anyone interpret the Bible any way they like, but it's also true that some interpretations are more correct than others!  Ultimately, if someone can show me a contextually accurate alternative interpretation then even if I disagree with them I would still accept that their interpretation is valid.  It happens now and then.

2 - Individual interpretation is of vital importance.  The alternative is to go back to the days when the church dictated what a passage meant and if you didn't agree you were convicted of heresy and burned at the stake.

3 - To some extent you are right that Christianity is often personal and many people are tied together by a few common concepts.  However, those common concepts are what makes a Christian "Christian".  There are some core doctrines that a person MUST hold if they are to be Christian.  But there are some other doctrines that aren't actually vital for our understanding of God and for salvation, and these non-essential doctrines can be argued and discussed and disagreed with depending on our personal understanding of scripture.  

Best wishes, ranrod :tu:

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android, 11 January 2013 - 05:26 AM.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#244    ranrod

ranrod

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined:29 Aug 2009

Posted 11 January 2013 - 01:38 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 11 January 2013 - 04:47 AM, said:

w and then.
2 - Individual interpretation is of vital importance.  The alternative is to go back to the days when the church dictated what a passage meant and if you didn't agree you were convicted of heresy and burned at the stake.
I would argue a better alternative is to abandon the vague system open to innumerable interpretations and sit down like civilized human beings and write down what we agree to be right or wrong. No excuses.


#245    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,287 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 11 January 2013 - 02:37 PM

View Postranrod, on 11 January 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

I would argue a better alternative is to abandon the vague system open to innumerable interpretations and sit down like civilized human beings and write down what we agree to be right or wrong. No excuses.
And what happens when one person disagrees with another?  And I'll reiterate what I said in my last post - while it may be true that a person can quote mine the Bible to interpret a passage any way they like, it is also true that some interpretations are more correct than others.  As I also said, some sections truly are debatable, and though I do have my own opinions on these passages I'm also willing to admit other interpretations are valid if the situation requires it.  So when it comes to these equally valid interpretations and two people still disagree - where does sitting down at a table to decide the "right" answer come into it?

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#246    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,388 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:30 PM

View Postscowl, on 10 January 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

Dude, what Bible are you reading? God hates Baal worshipers. He forbade the Israelites from having anything to do with them and slaughtered many who mingled with them.
King James Version; Exodus 14:2:  Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn and encamp before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baalzephon: before it shall ye encamp by the sea.

Exodus 14:9 But the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pihahiroth, before Baalzephon.

Baal Zephon now bears the name Gebel Seipha.  It is a small temple to Baal, located on a low hill on the northeast shore of Great Bitter Lake.  The Suez Canal service road skirts the lower edge of the hill, below the ruin of the temple.  Baal Zephon was a minor god of weather and winds.  The "east" wind blew from this hill to the crossing site.  People crossing at the ford could see the temple, giving the impression that Baal Zephon was providing the wind.  In the story, there is no need even to mention Baal Zephon unless you believe that he was the benefactor.

Remember the talking donkey?  It's in the story of Balaam.  Read it very carefully and you will see that it is Baal who is being referred to as "Lord" and "the Almighty."  "Baal" actually means "Lord" and is a title, rather than a name.

Baal is referenced 34 times in the Pentateuch, while Jehovah only rates three mentions - and one of those is just to say that an earlier reference was a redaction.

The Bible also has good things to say about the Queen of Heaven.  Jeremiah 44:18 lays out the consequences of failing to worship her properly and in Jeremiah 44:25, God gives the practice his blessing.

Moses' father-in-law was "a priest of Midian," but his name, Jethro, actually refers to a priest of Ra.

Gebel Musa was not the Mount Sinai of the 13th century BC.  It was selected by the Empress Helena, based on who knows what criteria.  The triple massief at Gebel Serabit al Khaddim fits better.  Serabit al Khaddim is the biblical Rephidim.  "Serabit al Khaddim means "Pillars of the Slaves," while "Rephidim" means "Place of Pillars."  Where are there pillars in Sinai?  At the Temple of Hathor on Gebel Ghorabi - Mount Horeb, aka "the Mountain of God."  "Horeb" derives from "hrt ib," Coptic for "Hathor" (The Egyptian "t" is nearly silent.).  The other two peaks are Gebel Serabit al Khaddim (Rephidim) and Gebel Saniya (Mount Sinai).  The three peaks are grouped in the Bible and grouped on the land.  The Temple was originally built by Amenemhet III and was expanded by Hatshepsut, Thutmoses II and Amenhotep III.  Hatshepsut and Amenhotep III are players in the "Exodus" story, so the temple is intimately connected to the Exodus.  So, again, I say:  "Moses went up a mountain with a temple to Hathor on it and came down carrying the Ten Commandments."

When you study "the Bible" don't limit yourself to one version of it.  The discrepancies between the various versions can be quite enligtening (Where did the biblical Exodus first encounter "manna"?  Different versions, different answers.).  Also, there are many biblical writings that once were part of the Bible and are not now commonly accepted as part of it.  They need to be included.

And there is the context.  There were active Egyptian mines in the Sinai during ALL of the time slots in which the Exodus might fit.  Sinai was crawling with Egyptian soldiers; if there had been enmity between them and the "Israelites" there would have been no survivors to tell the story.  The Exodus had the same structure as an Egyptian work gang.  It had ex-soldiers as members.  It used military signalling methods and military tactics.  These weren't escaped slaves (Though there might have been a few in the mix.).

These people were folowers of Baal Haddad, Baal Zephon, Sin, Ra and Hathor and probably other gods as well.  They even worshipped at the shrine of Baal Peor on Mount Nebo and caught a case of the "plague" from the temple prostitutes (That's in the Bible.).  Jehovah was only one among many gods.

Detailed study of the Bible tells a much different story than the superficial one told by churches.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#247    ranrod

ranrod

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined:29 Aug 2009

Posted 12 January 2013 - 05:57 AM

View PostParanoid Android, on 11 January 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

And what happens when one person disagrees with another?  And I'll reiterate what I said in my last post - while it may be true that a person can quote mine the Bible to interpret a passage any way they like, it is also true that some interpretations are more correct than others.  As I also said, some sections truly are debatable, and though I do have my own opinions on these passages I'm also willing to admit other interpretations are valid if the situation requires it.  So when it comes to these equally valid interpretations and two people still disagree - where does sitting down at a table to decide the "right" answer come into it?

In society we agree on rules and morals and compromise on laws.  Due to our large numbers, it's impossible to make everyone happy, but at least it's black and white and the same for everyone.

The problem with the bible being so open to interpretation is that the bible ends up being a mirror to whoever gazes upon it.  Not a problem if it's a decent person, which I believe is the majority, but a murderer will see a murderer, a rapist will see a rapist, a child molester the same.  There is no truth or lack of contradiction in the bible without the reader's presumption of it.


#248    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,388 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 13 January 2013 - 08:18 PM

View Postscowl, on 02 January 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

I haven't found anything in the Old Testament that is accurate from a historical viewpoint. No one has found any archaeological evidence to support any of the tales in it. There was no nation of Israel as described in the Bible. There were no conquests in Canaan by Joshua (we know Jericho had long been abandoned). At best, Israel was just a pair of city/states.
You might want to reconsider this statement in view of an article which appeared in the December 2010 National Geographic:  "The Search for King David - New Discoveries in the Holy Land."
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#249    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,287 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 14 January 2013 - 02:37 AM

View Postranrod, on 12 January 2013 - 05:57 AM, said:



In society we agree on rules and morals and compromise on laws.  Due to our large numbers, it's impossible to make everyone happy, but at least it's black and white and the same for everyone.

The problem with the bible being so open to interpretation is that the bible ends up being a mirror to whoever gazes upon it.  Not a problem if it's a decent person, which I believe is the majority, but a murderer will see a murderer, a rapist will see a rapist, a child molester the same.  There is no truth or lack of contradiction in the bible without the reader's presumption of it.
And if you can suggest a way to get all the churches together to unify christianity then by all means tell me, like another Council of Nicaea but with thousands (perhaps millions) of bishops. And then let me know if you think people will blindly accept the changes or are they more likely to go and start a new church which is just like what the old one used to be.

I have a HUGE issue with any church setting itself up as the only true authority on God. When searching claims made by a church, if they say that they are the only true church authorised by Jesus Christ and all the rest are wrong then I turn my back on that church because now I know that they definitely AREN'T the right church! I don't believe any church anywhere in the world can lay claim to all the truth, not even the church I attend, and neither learned theologians, and certainly not me personally.

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android, 14 January 2013 - 07:53 AM.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#250    willowdreams

willowdreams

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts
  • Joined:12 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Never let the facts get in the way of the truth- heard during an episode of 'Lie to Me' by Dr. Cal Lightman

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:36 AM

I am coming in soooo late on this topic, but I have read most likely 50% of the replies..  

When I read books, I tend to think about when they were written, to know how to interpret the books. Like in some books I may think 'woah, that is a bit harsh in the mans attitude'actions', then I see when it was written or time period it was intended to be seen as, and i realize, it is harsh in MY time, but in that time, it maybe was a typical view/action.

Anyone ever read the Scarlet Letter? I did (sadly, I really did not care for it)

The bible was written by many different people in different times. When pple read it today, they read it almost as if it is written in today period. During the times it is telling its stories in, or short stories (i see it as short stories, and not godly inspired), it was not harsh. Not really.

It is not even 'in order', and some of the books were removed... and so you do not even see them.

They were written by people who wrote in the style of their time period, their beliefs and traditions.

And lest any say 'but it is the oldest book that made a religion and claims to be inspired by god and least changed'

it has changed dramatically, and it is not the ONLY book that claims to be inspired by god and a religion built around it.

I think the muslims would have something to say about that.. and the mormons.

Why should the bible be considered the only true inspired book?

anyway, there ya go. of course it contradicts itself, it is out of order, books are missing, it is written by different pple during different time periods.. been rewritten and translated to make it more modern and more easily understood by us 'modern' pple.. so umm.. of course it contradicts itself..



That is MY opinion anyway, for better or worse, there ya go

Posted Image


#251    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 January 2013 - 10:40 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 13 January 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

You might want to reconsider this statement in view of an article which appeared in the December 2010 National Geographic:  "The Search for King David - New Discoveries in the Holy Land."

I read that great article. It's far from definitive. I wouldn't be surprised if we find evidence of a David who proclaimed himself king of something but I don't think you're going to find evidence of his massive kingdom as described in the Bible. There should already be evidence of Solomon's even larger Israel/Egypt alliance by marriage if it ever existed but we haven't yet found evidence that Solomon even existed (just one false alarm).

The article shows how desperate people are to find evidence of David and how politics have influenced the archaeology  If you pull God's favorite shepherd king out of the Bible, the second half of the Old Testament falls apart. The excavations are even sponsored by the City of David Foundation.


#252    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,388 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 14 January 2013 - 10:57 PM

View Postscowl, on 14 January 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

I read that great article. It's far from definitive. I wouldn't be surprised if we find evidence of a David who proclaimed himself king of something but I don't think you're going to find evidence of his massive kingdom as described in the Bible. There should already be evidence of Solomon's even larger Israel/Egypt alliance by marriage if it ever existed but we haven't yet found evidence that Solomon even existed (just one false alarm).

The article shows how desperate people are to find evidence of David and how politics have influenced the archaeology  If you pull God's favorite shepherd king out of the Bible, the second half of the Old Testament falls apart. The excavations are even sponsored by the City of David Foundation.
Agreed.  What we eventually find will almost-certainly be something less than the Bible claims, but it will also be something more than the naysayers claim.  Truth is usually in the middle somewhere.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#253    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:26 PM

View PostReann, on 07 January 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:


Yeah, now that you mention it I do recall that somewhere in the bible it says that the face of  God has never been seen by any human, (I think that's what it says)but I don't recall it saying in any human form, I'd have to read it( which I will) .
But, there's parts in the bible that mention Christ being born and I think it says that the word became flesh and lived among us or something like that, do you recall?
See, I think that without an in depth understanding of the predictions and the fulfillment's of them , the bible gets what I'd rather refer to as being confusing. rather than suggesting  contradiction.I just don't see it being that way, even when i have thought it was that way , I've always discovered that i was wrong, maybe i found my suggestions out a couple of years later but i can assure you that I've always discovered i was wrong every time i thought the bible contradicted  itself.

Now, you have that the form of a man or of a woman is the form of a human being. According to Deuteronomy 4:15,16 God has never literally be considered in the form of a man or woman. Why? Because He does not have that form. Man can imagine seing God in that form but only in dreams or visions. God has no form at all. Jesus himself said that God is Spirit. (John 4:24) Spirits are incorporeal. There is no form in incorporeality.

What you ask about "The Word became flesh and lived among us" is found in John 1:14. The reference to Jesus as an individual is based on Christian preconceived notions; but the real reference is to the People whom Jesus belonged to.  

1 - "The Word became flesh". This was fulfilled on the fact that the Word of God was entrusted to Israel only and to no other people on earth, according to Psalm 147:19,20. So, the Word became flesh in the People of Israel.

2 - "And made his dwelling among us". It means that when Israel originated from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it became known as he who made his dwelling among us as a reference to Judah as Immanuel which means God in the world. (Isa. 8:8)

3 - "And we have seen his glory..." this is a reference to Israel as the one set asside to manifest the glory of God in the sight of the nations. (Eze. 20:41)

4 - "The glory of an only son coming from the Father." This finds fulfillment in Exodus 4:22,23 which presents Israel as God's son. "Israel is My son, says the Lord. So, let My son go that he may serve Me."

5 - "Filled with enduring love." That's the love of God as He provided Israel as His Word whom salvation comes from. (John 4:22)

Ben


#254    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:45 PM

View PostSean93, on 28 December 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:



But the bible is God's ultimate and powerful word...and he let it be tarnished in such a way?

Also people interpret different verses of the Bible as literal or metaphorical, there is no agreed consensus of which story is liter and which is not.

God's ultimate and powerful deed was the creation of the universe. The Bible is man's powerful creation attributed to God in the name
of piety. Therefore, the language used to write the Bible was human. It means that as a result of those who lack metaphorical expertise to understand the Bible, the contradictions abound as a result of literal interpretation. The lack of a consensual pattern to interpret the Bible is found in the fallacy of preconceived notions.

Ben


#255    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 15 January 2013 - 07:07 PM

View Postscowl, on 29 December 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:



The Bible is full of stories of God exterminating people He didn't like as well as innocent people who happened to be in the way of those people. Plagues, droughts, earthquakes, and a large flood was God choosing to murder people who did not do what He wanted in many cases without warning.

The Bible is also full of stories of God protecting and supporting people who have acted in deceitful ways, at least by our moral standards (Cain, Jacob, Samson, and others).

Oddly we mere humans now have higher moral standards than God did.

No offense meant but you are a good example of a self-promoted literal interpretation club member who have no idea of what metaphorical language is about. God has absolutely nothing to do with exterminating people with plagues or through natural castastrophes or rewarding others who seem "less perfect than thou." Then, no surprise that your conclusion is that such a God lacks the high moral standards that humans do.

Have you ever heard about the law of cause and effect? That's a natural law which exonerates God from the low moral credibility you assign to Him. According to this law, what we do, good or evil, we ourselves will pay for the consequences. If something seems to you to be an act of God, probably it is but it is not a disaster, catastrophe or tragedy if there is no human casualties. And if there is, God is not to blame but man for having been caught on the wrong place at the wrong time. Therefore, that's our doing and not God's. So, look for the fault in man and not in God.

Ben





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users