Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
Bling

Contradictions in the bible

592 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Peoples' 'preconcieved notions' are only so because that's how you precive them to be. I don't know what branch of Christianity you're from and I don't care but I can tell you now that your views on the Bible are seen as preconcieved notions to other sects and branches of the faith, more so to other religions too.

There's no point in me saying anything more though because my notions are simply preconcieved and by default, I'm wrong if I disagree.

Edited by Sean93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of Genesis 1 is a big contradiction with what we know is reality. I don't know who would be surprised that we have greater knowledge than ancient men living over 5000 years ago but I am surprised how it doesn't un-convince more people. Earth being created first and then a source of light? hmm, if someone told me that was supposed to come from the guy who created it all, I'd tell him to go sell his snake oil elsewhere.

No offense meant Ranrod, but you seem to be another literal interpretation club member. The whole Genesis account of Creation is a huge allegory that, if interpreted literally, will result with the conclusion you have arrived to: The earth being created ahead of a source of light. The Jewish writers of Genesis did not mean to follow a chronological development of creation of cosmic elements but of man; and not even so, chronologically. Just to share with you one of the items of Creation, when the Lord declared "Let it be light," Lemaitre in 1992 attributed to the big bang that divine statement that gave origin to the universe which was thought to be eternal since Aristotle and until 1992 ACE. Then, what followed millions of years later was the creation of man according to Jewish culture. So, the main theme of the Genesis account of Creation is not the universe in general but of man in particular.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there is contradictions in the bible. It was rewritten by corrupt Christians and Right Wing Extremists in order to both subjugate other Christians and Women and to use it as an excuse to justify their crimes to humanity in order to gain wealth and power. All you have to do is to look at any Christian Church and the number of deaths committed by the hand of Christians claiming it was gods will.

This of Christians and of religions in general to claim their crimes to God's will, I agree with you considering their agenda. But it does not mean that indeed God has anything at all to do with what has been done by man. Man has been granted with free will which not only exonerates God from any criminal responsibility but also blames man for misusing his free will to do evil.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I see in the bible is this 0/2 = 1 - 1(instead of it totaling to be 0. The whole God at rest thing comes to mind about not breaking it down back to 0. ) and trying to explain it and showing ideas of making sure the equation doesn't get broken down back to 0. (The whole god at rest thing comes to mind about not breaking it down back to 0) Hence all of the contradictions. The 10 commandments the breaking of the 10 commandments. With an emphasis on creation and not destruction(although killing somebody isn't actually destruction but changing simply for the fact your body doesn't disappear from existence) so that we don't get back to 0.

Everything is based off of it. Which makes perfect sense because the idea of God of the bible is a very illogical one.

To first have something you need to define it and when you define it, everything else isn't it.

The idea of being in the immortal flesh makes sense. You are gone but you are still in people's memories could be nothing more then that. Your body is dead 0 but your memory lives on 1 but you not so much -1. As long as you are remembered you still exist.

You take the creation story using that illogical math, then you try to explain it with stories of events and mixing it with events that did happen, you get one of the most contradictory books of all time.

Then again I'm bat crap crazy :P

Hey Jinxdom, no offense meant but your last statement is the one I agree with. The rest is mere verbal juggling that explains nothing. But, let me give you the benefit of the doulb and see if I can pick up something to write a response to. Yes, here, "Your body does not disappear from existence so that you get back to 0." We have in Ecclesiastes 12:7 that at death the body goes back to the dust and the breath of life goes back to God, Who gave it. As far as Physics is concerned, the dust is what results from the body of man but it is no longer a human body. Well, I am sorry but you are not distinguishing what is literal from what is metaphorical. The truth is that body will result in dust but the body will no longer be there.

Then, here is another statement of yours I can say something about it: "The idea of being in the immortal flesh makes sense; you are gone but you are still in people's memory." To begin with, there is a contradiction in this statement between "immortal flesh and gone." There is nothing immortal about man, even his memory. Do you remember your great, great, great grandmother? Of course not! Hence no immortality for man, even in the memory of him. What does make sense in this statement then?

Last but not least, I can't agree with you that the Bible is the most contraditory of all times, unless you are talking about those who lack the expertise to understand metaphorical language.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ug. For die-hard Yahweh followers:

1. Offhandedly dismiss the parts of the bible that directly contradict your view of the religion

2. Overemphathise the parts of the bible that support your view

3. Arbitrarily employ out-of-the-bible references (vast amounts of such - historical and otherwise) to support your view

4. Do some olympic-quality mental gymnastics to pull it all together

5. Profit

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.

That's evidence that man is free to use his free will as he pleases, according to his preconceived notions. Do you do any differently from that? This attribute becomes subject only to superior knowledge and power of persuasion. If you don't have it, you might as well join the club.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense meant Ranrod, but you seem to be another literal interpretation club member.

No offense meant Ben, but what's wrong with that?

The whole Genesis account of Creation is a huge allegory that, if interpreted literally, will result with the conclusion you have arrived to: The earth being created ahead of a source of light. The Jewish writers of Genesis did not mean to follow a chronological development of creation of cosmic elements but of man; and not even so, chronologically.

Before the Genesis Creation was determined to be utter hogwash, which religious leaders were claiming it was all allegory? It wasn't until science proved the story was impossible that people started "reinterpreting" it as some degree of fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peoples' 'preconcieved notions' are only so because that's how you precive them to be. I don't know what branch of Christianity you're from and I don't care but I can tell you now that your views on the Bible are seen as preconcieved notions to other sects and branches of the faith, more so to other religions too.

There's no point in me saying anything more though because my notions are simply preconcieved and by default, I'm wrong if I disagree.

Well, lat us say, you have found the right way to walk into the bosom of reality.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last but not least, I can't agree with you that the Bible is the most contraditory of all times, unless you are talking about those who lack the expertise to understand metaphorical language.

Again with the metaphorical interpretation! I could say that about any book. For example... "Mothman" by John Keel isn't supposed to be a journal of paranormal events that happened in West Virginia in 1967 despite the names and precise dates given. It's actually a... metaphor for the turbulent times. Mothman represented the invasion of social change America was experiencing which frightened complacent people who drove down roads not expecting anything unusual to happen, then they struggled to comprehend what they had seen. Yeah, a metaphor!

Ben, just admit the whole book is a compilation of ancient fiction and move on. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again with the metaphorical interpretation! I could say that about any book. For example... "Mothman" by John Keel isn't supposed to be a journal of paranormal events that happened in West Virginia in 1967 despite the names and precise dates given. It's actually a... metaphor for the turbulent times. Mothman represented the invasion of social change America was experiencing which frightened complacent people who drove down roads not expecting anything unusual to happen, then they struggled to comprehend what they had seen. Yeah, a metaphor!

Ben, just admit the whole book is a compilation of ancient fiction and move on. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

Well, don't you thing that a better way to discuss the issue is to share with me what you think is baloney? I cannot just take you word for it and move on. Where to, other illusions? I am not yet convinced that what I stand for is baloney. On the order hand, I do

see a lot of baloney in the literal interpretation of poetic or religious beliefs.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This of Christians and of religions in general to claim their crimes to God's will, I agree with you considering their agenda. But it does not mean that indeed God has anything at all to do with what has been done by man. Man has been granted with free will which not only exonerates God from any criminal responsibility but also blames man for misusing his free will to do evil.

Ben

7 months ago a coworker of mine who attends her church regularly was upset by the fact that a donation box that contained several thousands of dollars for underprivilidged children to go to summer camp was stolen. It was one of the church members. How is that Christian? Not only that but a few members suspected the thief yet said nothing. The money still today was never recovered however the thief was later caught. The thief provided no excuse or remorse. There's your Christians for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's your Christians for you.

And you believe one person attending a church, calling themselves Christian, and then showing no remorse when found out to be sinful (thievery) is representative of what it means to be a Christan?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you believe one person attending a church, calling themselves Christian, and then showing no remorse when found out to be sinful (thievery) is representative of what it means to be a Christan?

Thats only but one of the horror stories of the so called christians stories and the number of corrupt people who claims to be christians i have met over my lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats only but one of the horror stories of the so called christians stories and the number of corrupt people who claims to be christians i have met over my lifetime.

So you believe them to be what, exactly? Representative of Christianity? A small minority? Conversely, your friend the church-goer dismayed about stolen money? Is she the majority or minority? Those people who gave their hard-earned money to impoverished youth (before some dude stole it) - are they representative of Christianity?

Give me something here, I'm trying to work out what led you to share a story about an unrepentant thief and declare "there's your Christian".

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ This is why beliefs are better kept private.

When one person of any sect, organization or faith does a wrong, the whole entire community that follows said beliefs fall under that bar too. No good comes out of flaunting your beliefs, in fact only bad things come from it; persecution being one of them. This is why I hate those religious protests, Atheist conventions and all that other ****. Why do people feel the need to advertise themselves for? If someone asks me what I believe and I think it's relevant to answer, then I will; if I don't feel it to be needed, I won't.

There was an ongoing dispute this week at a UK airport. 4 employees were wearing religious items (Crucifixes) around their necks when working, despite policy saying that they were not to do so and then they call that prosecution...WTF?!

These people should leave their crucifixes in their pockets, a piece of cheap metal won't help you and thinking you deserve special treatment because of your faith is bullshiz. Not to mention the possible ramifications that can arise if other co-workers have differing beliefs and are just as vocal about them - It's not good for the workplace and certainly not good for business.

Moral: Unless it's relevant or part of a discussion, S T F U and stop flaunting your beliefs and that goes for everyone of all affiliations, sects etc.

Edited by Sean93
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, don't you thing that a better way to discuss the issue is to share with me what you think is baloney?

The problem is that once you take a metaphorical slant on written words, it's a bottomless pit. Anything can mean almost anything. The words will mean anything the interpreter wants them to mean so discussion is pointless.

This was not how the Torah was written (excluding the two Creations of course!). It was written as literal laws without room for interpretation. You do this, you will be killed. You do this, God will be pleased. Here were people doing things that made God happy. They are rewarded. Here were people running afoul of God's wishes. Bam they die, they catch leprosy, or some other unfortunate circumstance happened to them. Anyone who tries to turn these very simple literal words into metaphors is simply trying to obfuscate their clear meaning. By our modern morals, God behaved like a bloodthirsty dictator so it's not a pleasant read.

When you get past the Torah, things do get surreal occasionally especially in Psalms and Ezekiel. I can see pulling metaphors out of some of these verses but most of it is straightforward and literal. There isn't even a parable until 1 Samuel (unless there's one in Ruth which Christians put after Judges for some reason).

Once you get to Jesus and his habit of using parables to avoid saying anything specific, then interpretation is wide open. It's no wonder why there are so many thousands of versions Christianity now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you get to Jesus and his habit of using parables to avoid saying anything specific, then interpretation is wide open. It's no wonder why there are so many thousands of versions Christianity now!

...and that is why, ultimately, the choice of what to believe is the responsibility of the individual.

I like to be told what others believe; that is a form of growth in itself.

I don't mind being told what I should believe; I still have the ability to choose.

I draw the line at being told that I can't believe.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 months ago a coworker of mine who attends her church regularly was upset by the fact that a donation box that contained several thousands of dollars for underprivilidged children to go to summer camp was stolen. It was one of the church members. How is that Christian? Not only that but a few members suspected the thief yet said nothing. The money still today was never recovered however the thief was later caught. The thief provided no excuse or remorse. There's your Christians for you.

Matrix, I am not a Christian. But I can't side with you without a thourough inquiry on the reasons that prompted the thief to rob

the church. There are reasons that Reason itself ignores.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that once you take a metaphorical slant on written words, it's a bottomless pit. Anything can mean almost anything. The words will mean anything the interpreter wants them to mean so discussion is pointless.

This was not how the Torah was written (excluding the two Creations of course!). It was written as literal laws without room for interpretation. You do this, you will be killed. You do this, God will be pleased. Here were people doing things that made God happy. They are rewarded. Here were people running afoul of God's wishes. Bam they die, they catch leprosy, or some other unfortunate circumstance happened to them. Anyone who tries to turn these very simple literal words into metaphors is simply trying to obfuscate their clear meaning. By our modern morals, God behaved like a bloodthirsty dictator so it's not a pleasant read.

When you get past the Torah, things do get surreal occasionally especially in Psalms and Ezekiel. I can see pulling metaphors out of some of these verses but most of it is straightforward and literal. There isn't even a parable until 1 Samuel (unless there's one in Ruth which Christians put after Judges for some reason).

Once you get to Jesus and his habit of using parables to avoid saying anything specific, then interpretation is wide open. It's no wonder why there are so many thousands of versions Christianity now!

You say that there isn't even a parable until 1 Samuel. The whole Genesis account of Creation is a huge parable. A real allegory that, interpreted literally, it becomes so ridiculous that cause atheists to laugh at the naivete of theists. Then, all prophetic messages are given in metaphorical language. The bottom line of the Psalms is usually poetic. Poetry can never be interpreted according to the type but to the archetype.

And so forth. I know that metaphorical language is too hard to master. That's why we have hundreds of branches within a religion, especially Christianity. As a result of this promiscuity of a lazy mind, the Truth

is either distorted or remains hidden.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as various eyewitness to a crime or traffic accident often contradict each other on minor points, the Bible is naturally no different, being written by a vast number of assorted eyewitness to human interaction with offworld beings over thousands of years.

In fact if there were NO contradictions in it, it'd be too squeaky-clean and good to be true!

So, because it contains contradictions it means we can trust it all the more, warts and all..:)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as various eyewitness to a crime or traffic accident often contradict each other on minor points, the Bible is naturally no different, being written by a vast number of assorted eyewitness to human interaction with offworld beings over thousands of years.

In fact if there were NO contradictions in it, it'd be too squeaky-clean and good to be true!

So, because it contains contradictions it means we can trust it all the more, warts and all..:)

I understand what you mean which does sound very logical. But IMHO, usually, contradictions rise as a result of interpretations

based on preconceived notions and on the lack of understanding of metaphorical language.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.