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

So are you saying that God speaks to people through a poorly translated innaccurate book and that's the best he can do?

He lacks confidence lol

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to go back and re-read what I wrote. I said translation requires that the translator choose between a word-for-word exact translation or a translation that communicates the idea expressed by the words.

I don't need to re read as I formed my opinion to your comment the first time.

All this goes to prove that the bible is probably a poorly translated version of a story book and not the miraculous method god has chosen to speak his people. It is not the 'word of god'!

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me why Sampson was okay having a relationship outside of marriage with Delilah but Delilah was made to look like that bad one in that story? If sex before marriage is against Gods word shouldn't they both be labeled sinners? And I think I asked this in another thread and don't think I ever got an answer...but why was it okay for Lot to offer up his own daughters for the townsmen to rape?? This is the man God saved out of everyone...a man who offers up his own daughters in place of two strangers (angels in disguise) for the town to have their way with?? Doesn't sound like any man I would ever honor.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For several years I was a participant in CBED (Christian Biblical Errancy Debate) forum. What I observed was that the forum was directed at underminining only the fundemantalist position of a perfect Bible. It was thought by the host that proving contradictions was somehow going to disporove God. The host didn't realize that his atheist position was also premised on the unconscious need for the fundementalist position to be valid so that he could prove God doesn't exist if he finds contradictions.

The end result was that neither the fundamentalist were correct about a perfect Bible, nor was he correct about errors disproving God.

The Bible is NOT perfect, nor a complete canon, nor the final word of authority. But it IS a very valuable resource of knowledge about God that should be understood as deeply as possible.

I also observed that the antagonist of the Bible were very good at data mining the Bible for extremely obscure referances. Their main problem was that they had a blindness to the actual Biblical narrative, which meant they often had things so rediculously out of context, that their examples of supposed contradictions were often just utter ignorance of mind. This is why the "talking snake"thing threw them so badly. They didn't have actual insight into the Garden of Eden account because they, like the fundies, confined themselves to the Bible to a large degree, and never drew upon the source materials the bible itself is drawing upon.

It is manifest in reality that even though the Bible isn't perfect, apparently it isn't of extreme concern to God. Indeed since mankind has the capacity to percieve problems in the text, he also has the capacity to read through them without derailing. Unless of course he has fundementlist conditioning, in which case his capacity to see errors, understand the Bible, and correct in his mind any problems, is severely diminished.

Before you allow yourself to be overwhelmed by an energetic antagonist of the Bible with outrageous amounts of contradictions they find, just realize that their knowledge of the Scriptures is superficial, and they tend to see contradiction where they aren't, see them in every verse, and most of it is based upon ignorance.

Before you allow yourself to be convinced of a perfect authoritative Bible by a dazzling fundemantalist, remember they are also very superficial in their understanding of the Bible, and see perfection where it doesn't exist. This also is based in ignorance.

What is the situation then concerning the two camps at either side of the battle ground? The situation is that the discussion is a dynamic example of the fallacy of "Excluding the Middle" or the "False Dichotomy". Either side would say if there is an error, "God is phoney", which is an extreme, unrealistic and unreasonable position for either the proponants or the antagonist camps to be suggesting. In reality, God is not dependant upon a perfect Bible. God existed long before anyone ever thought about selecting their collection of approved official text into a single canon.

Beware of this lopsided thinking. Have no illusions of a perfect Bible. But have no illusions that the Bible is somehow invalid either. Have no illusions that it disproves God by being imperfect, or that truth is not in the Bible. Profound truths and even secret knowledge is all through the Bible if you know what you are looking at. It is NOT to be utterly dismissed as this is an irrational response to the question of Biblical errors.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need to re read as I formed my opinion to your comment the first time.

All this goes to prove that the bible is probably a poorly translated version of a story book and not the miraculous method god has chosen to speak his people. It is not the 'word of god'!

So, you've made up your mind and any explanation you can't actually form a valid argument against you're just going to dismiss? Why even start this thread then?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me why Sampson was okay having a relationship outside of marriage with Delilah but Delilah was made to look like that bad one in that story? If sex before marriage is against Gods word shouldn't they both be labeled sinners? And I think I asked this in another thread and don't think I ever got an answer...but why was it okay for Lot to offer up his own daughters for the townsmen to rape?? This is the man God saved out of everyone...a man who offers up his own daughters in place of two strangers (angels in disguise) for the town to have their way with?? Doesn't sound like any man I would ever honor.

Viviana you have asked a question that you may not realized are so deep that the answers may be harder to grasp than the controversy of leading to the questions.

I suggest we look at Lot's case first. There are several levels of perception that apply to such a question.

Let's look at it from the "sensory" level first. In the sense of the events of Lot offering to substitute his own children, his daughters in place of the angels, to be raped and tormented, probably to death, as an action and adventure account full of drama, we see people in utter terror behaving in a desperate manner while under assault. Other examples of such deperate human responses to extreme situations would be when a mother eats her children, because a siege of her city has starved the people and herself. At face value that is the answer.

Now let's take it a bit beyond the sensory and start interpreting the events "Intutitively" not at face value, but how we "think about them".

So..was it Okay? Well hell, it may not be! In all human empathy, what would you do if a mob came to break into your house and rape everyone and kill them? So if we look at it from the level of emotional empathy, we can understand why they did what they did. Not saying it is right, but we aren't going to be to hard on the victims for their decisions anyhow. We haven't walked in their shoes kind of thing.

You were looking at it from principled "sensibilities". For you it was a real story, but one which you interpreted through your lense of abstract sensibilities. You just can't imagine throwing duaghters to the mob to protect strangers. I share such sensibilities with you. But those are OUR sensibilities. Other culutres have diffent sensibilities. Some cultures regard eating an egg as horrid and perverse. They think we are horrible for eating an unborn animal (chicken). If we imagine the sensibilities involve with Lot, in his mind it seemed the lesser of two evil outcomes for duaghters to be raped, and the rest of them survive, than for there to be committed a Homosexual gang rape and they all die.

Was it right? Well hell, I think I would go down in a blaze of glory myself, but that is just my sensibilities. Your too probably. But we weren't there and we aren't Lot. We have to allow for Lot's sensibilities, cultural and otherwise.

Now if you think Vivian, this message is long, with untill you read what I'm going to say next. But PLEASE continue to follow me here.

The next level of interpretation I'm going to share is the "mystical" level of perception:

Vivian, you own life has mystical meaning which you probably don't realize. But that doesn't make it untrue for you. In the case of Lot and his duaghters, we find in these literal events, a meaning and an understanding of a higher reality being depicted as if the events symbolically depict the higher reality. This is a secret knowledge "key".

When Lot offered his virgin daughters to the murderous raping mod to protect strangers, it has a higher meaning that is talking about God and you, and I. Lot represents God, his virgin daughters represented Jesus Christ. the angelic strangers represent you and I, the evil mob represents those who killed Jesus and demons of Hell.

Do you recall where Abraham offer his son Isaac as a scrifice of sin? This act made Abraham and God "friends" because together they both understood the offering of their Child for sins. Abraham joined God's club of one willing to offer his child for other's sins. God saw Abraham was serious, and stopped him. But God knew Abrahams heart, that he was going to do it, Just like God was going to do it later on. So by this, God and Abraham were mutual and in the club and friends on this common basis.

Likewise, Lot entered this same club. Lot was willing to offer his virgin Daughters to Save those not even near to him, strangers. So in the mystical sense, right or wrong on Lot's part, God allowed the drama to unfold because of the message involved. Lot joined the club with God and Abraham as one willing to sacrifice his child to save.

And this is exactly what God has done for you and I. We are the two strangers God is saving. Jesus is the two virgins saving us. Neither Lot nor Abraham ultimately had to experience the loss of their child(ren), by God's mercy. But God actually did experience the horrific loss of His Only Begotten Son, the perfect ideal man, Jesus Christ our Savior.

For God so loved the world (us who are strangers to God) that He gave his Only Begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him might not perish, but have everlasting life. Think about the higher meaning, the "Key" that I have given you and see how it fits with Sampson and Delilah. And think about the higher reality as well. In the realms of heaven, God really did send Jesus to take our place so that the murderous, desoltation of our souls might not take place, but that we would be saved by Jesus who died for you and I and took our place for us, who are strangers and sinners to God, and are now become adopted and belived Children of God, thanks to Jesus Christ.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me why Sampson was okay having a relationship outside of marriage with Delilah but Delilah was made to look like that bad one in that story? If sex before marriage is against Gods word shouldn't they both be labeled sinners? And I think I asked this in another thread and don't think I ever got an answer...but why was it okay for Lot to offer up his own daughters for the townsmen to rape?? This is the man God saved out of everyone...a man who offers up his own daughters in place of two strangers (angels in disguise) for the town to have their way with?? Doesn't sound like any man I would ever honor.

Nowhere on the Bible does it say that it was OK for Sampson to sleep with Delilah. Actually, God allowed Sampson to be caught, blinded, and enslaved because of his rebellion to God.

Does it say that it was OK for Lot to offer his daughters? No, it doesn't.

The Bible often narrates the events, leaving it to the reader to understand, based on their own common sense, whether something was right or wrong.

What I get out of these stories, is that God works with people depiste the fact that they are imperfect. None of the people in the Bible are perfect, except one. Other than Jesus, you can pick out and of the "main characters" of the Bible and you will read more bad stuff they did than good stuff.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Viviana you have asked a question that you may not realized are so deep that the answers may be harder to grasp than the controversy of leading to the questions.

I suggest we look at Lot's case first. There are several levels of perception that apply to such a question.

Let's look at it from the "sensory" level first. In the sense of the events of Lot offering to substitute his own children, his daughters in place of the angels, to be raped and tormented, probably to death, as an action and adventure account full of drama, we see people in utter terror behaving in a desperate manner while under assault. Other examples of such deperate human responses to extreme situations would be when a mother eats her children, because a siege of her city has starved the people and herself. At face value that is the answer.

Now let's take it a bit beyond the sensory and start interpreting the events "Intutitively" not at face value, but how we "think about them".

So..was it Okay? Well hell, it may not be! In all human empathy, what would you do if a mob came to break into your house and rape everyone and kill them? So if we look at it from the level of emotional empathy, we can understand why they did what they did. Not saying it is right, but we aren't going to be to hard on the victims for their decisions anyhow. We haven't walked in their shoes kind of thing.

You were looking at it from principled "sensibilities". For you it was a real story, but one which you interpreted through your lense of abstract sensibilities. You just can't imagine throwing duaghters to the mob to protect strangers. I share such sensibilities with you. But those are OUR sensibilities. Other culutres have diffent sensibilities. Some cultures regard eating an egg as horrid and perverse. They think we are horrible for eating an unborn animal (chicken). If we imagine the sensibilities involve with Lot, in his mind it seemed the lesser of two evil outcomes for duaghters to be raped, and the rest of them survive, than for there to be committed a Homosexual gang rape and they all die.

Was it right? Well hell, I think I would go down in a blaze of glory myself, but that is just my sensibilities. Your too probably. But we weren't there and we aren't Lot. We have to allow for Lot's sensibilities, cultural and otherwise.

Now if you think Vivian, this message is long, with untill you read what I'm going to say next. But PLEASE continue to follow me here.

The next level of interpretation I'm going to share is the "mystical" level of perception:

Vivian, you own life has mystical meaning which you probably don't realize. But that doesn't make it untrue for you. In the case of Lot and his duaghters, we find in these literal events, a meaning and an understanding of a higher reality being depicted as if the events symbolically depict the higher reality. This is a secret knowledge "key".

When Lot offered his virgin daughters to the murderous raping mod to protect strangers, it has a higher meaning that is talking about God and you, and I. Lot represents God, his virgin daughters represented Jesus Christ. the angelic strangers represent you and I, the evil mob represents those who killed Jesus and demons of Hell.

Do you recall where Abraham offer his son Isaac as a scrifice of sin? This act made Abraham and God "friends" because together they both understood the offering of their Child for sins. Abraham joined God's club of one willing to offer his child for other's sins. God saw Abraham was serious, and stopped him. But God knew Abrahams heart, that he was going to do it, Just like God was going to do it later on. So by this, God and Abraham were mutual and in the club and friends on this common basis.

Likewise, Lot entered this same club. Lot was willing to offer his virgin Daughters to Save those not even near to him, strangers. So in the mystical sense, right or wrong on Lot's part, God allowed the drama to unfold because of the message involved. Lot joined the club with God and Abraham as one willing to sacrifice his child to save.

And this is exactly what God has done for you and I. We are the two strangers God is saving. Jesus is the two virgins saving us. Neither Lot nor Abraham ultimately had to experience the loss of their child(ren), by God's mercy. But God actually did experience the horrific loss of His Only Begotten Son, the perfect ideal man, Jesus Christ our Savior.

For God so loved the world (us who are strangers to God) that He gave his Only Begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him might not perish, but have everlasting life. Think about the higher meaning, the "Key" that I have given you and see how it fits with Sampson and Delilah. And think about the higher reality as well. In the realms of heaven, God really did send Jesus to take our place so that the murderous, desoltation of our souls might not take place, but that we would be saved by Jesus who died for you and I and took our place for us, who are strangers and sinners to God, and are now become adopted and belived Children of God, thanks to Jesus Christ.

Thank you but I don't buy it. Lot didn't know they were anything but strangers. Personally I think your grasping for straws to say that what he was doing was God like. For a book that claims to be so black and white, it sure speaks in a lot of riddles and for a God that wants to be taken serious, he sure plays a lot of games.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere on the Bible does it say that it was OK for Sampson to sleep with Delilah. Actually, God allowed Sampson to be caught, blinded, and enslaved because of his rebellion to God.

Does it say that it was OK for Lot to offer his daughters? No, it doesn't.

The Bible often narrates the events, leaving it to the reader to understand, based on their own common sense, whether something was right or wrong.

What I get out of these stories, is that God works with people depiste the fact that they are imperfect. None of the people in the Bible are perfect, except one. Other than Jesus, you can pick out and of the "main characters" of the Bible and you will read more bad stuff they did than good stuff.

oud

It says it was okay for Lot to do this by God saving him and killing everyone else for being "sinners". Lot in my eyes is a sinner and he should have went down with the rest of them if that's how your amazingly forgiving and loving God wanted to handle it. A sin is sin is sin....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oud

It says it was okay for Lot to do this by God saving him and killing everyone else for being "sinners". Lot in my eyes is a sinner and he should have went down with the rest of them if that's how your amazingly forgiving and loving God wanted to handle it. A sin is sin is sin....

Proverbs 14:9

Sounds like something a gang member would say.

Proverbs 14:9

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you've made up your mind and any explanation you can't actually form a valid argument against you're just going to dismiss? Why even start this thread then?

I've already responded to you, and yes I have made up my mind about things - and I choose atheism. I'm sorry if you don't feel you can persuade me otherwise! And the question of why I started this thread is pretty obvious.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proverbs 14:9

Sounds like something a gang member would say.

Proverbs 14:9

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour.

Its hard to tell the righteous from the sinners in the Bible. Its like evil vs evil lol

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see that nothing's changed around here. I wish I could take the time to devote some time to answering this thread, but I'm just unable to get online that much these days. But to answer as quick as I can, I would honestly say it is a matter of context. I don't know why, but many non-Christians seem to cringe whenever a Christian says the dreaded "C" word. It's like they think that "context" is a euphemism for manipulation. I suppose some of the time, some Christians may indeed scream context as a knee-jerk reaction. I am well aware that not all Christians know their Bible's, and in fact many who have been brought up in the faith have never actually read their Bible outside of Sunday School. So I suppose it's understandable if context is associated with knee-jerk reactions. With that said, however, I would like to point out that many of these alleged contradictions are cleared up when a proper contextual study is done.

Context should be applied to every passage in the Bible, and not just the passages we find tough or hard to understand. As IamsSon pointed out in a post on the previous page, the Bible is written in a different language, with several human authors writing for different audiences in different styles. If we choose to ignore these issues, we will miss the point of the Bible. Even if a passage sounds nice and we think we can just lift it and use it to support our views or ideas, then we are guilty of non-contextual quoting.

But as has been alluded to, we who post here on UM have already made up our minds. Christians are likely going to agree with my post (as I agreed with IamsSon's post). Non-Christians probably won't. Then of course are the hardcore literalist Christians who will probably disagree with everyone except their own small circle of beliefs, but those people are a completely different kettle of fish, and unless things have changed since I was last here (and they don't seem to have) then these types of people don't often spend time on UM to begin with, and if they do they either settle down and become more moderate, or they leave and never come back.

Just a few thoughts :)

~ Regards, PA

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you but I don't buy it. Lot didn't know they were anything but strangers. Personally I think your grasping for straws to say that what he was doing was God like. For a book that claims to be so black and white, it sure speaks in a lot of riddles and for a God that wants to be taken serious, he sure plays a lot of games.

Viviana, Well at any rate, I'm pleased that you took the time to consider it. Yes the mystical intepretation is the hardest to make concrete for realization in the consciousness. And of course the Bible is not just black and white as some people try to say. it is the hardest book in the world. And God does indeed purposefully use symbolic and allegorical abstrations. A lot of people prefer plain spoken concepts, but then again the abstract languages of God, and God culture, do appeal to some people. I personally prefer plain speech, but I'm adept at abstractions, metaphore, ritualism, symbolism, allegory, and mystical knowledge, so I can plow through most of the stuff in the Bible at esoteric levels. I complain to God though about WHY does He just have to use veiled occult messages. But I have resigned myself to just get used to it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Viviana, Well at any rate, I'm pleased that you took the time to consider it. Yes the mystical intepretation is the hardest to make concrete for realization in the consciousness. And of course the Bible is not just black and white as some people try to say. it is the hardest book in the world. And God does indeed purposefully use symbolic and allegorical abstrations. A lot of people prefer plain spoken concepts, but then again the abstract languages of God, and God culture, do appeal to some people. I personally prefer plain speech, but I'm adept at abstractions, metaphore, ritualism, symbolism, allegory, and mystical knowledge, so I can plow through most of the stuff in the Bible at esoteric levels. I complain to God though about WHY does He just have to use veiled occult messages. But I have resigned myself to just get used to it.

Thank you for taking the time to answer me and trying to explain it. I'm glad that you were able to get used to it and I agree, it does appeal to some.To each their own as they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view on the original post is this; it's difference between seeing God with our human eyes. As contrasted with seeing God in heaven after death.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oud

It says it was okay for Lot to do this by God saving him and killing everyone else for being "sinners". Lot in my eyes is a sinner and he should have went down with the rest of them if that's how your amazingly forgiving and loving God wanted to handle it. A sin is sin is sin....

I agree with you that Lot was a sinner. All of us are sinners, so saying Lot was a sinner and yet God saved him is not saying much really. We are all sinners, God saves us BECAUSE we are sinners. Lot offered his daughters because he was trying to protect his guests. In our cultures honor is almost an unknown term, much less a practiced value, but in the culture in which Lot lived, honor demanded that he do everything in his power to protect people he had accepted as guests. As sick as it may seem to us, through the lense of our cultural mores, Lot was actually doing a righteous thing.

I've already responded to you, and yes I have made up my mind about things - and I choose atheism. I'm sorry if you don't feel you can persuade me otherwise! And the question of why I started this thread is pretty obvious.

It really has nothing with persuading you. However, your response was derisive and dismissive in a way that indicated you would prefer to criticize and misrepresent an argument rather than actually give it thought and consideration; given that, it just made me wonder what the purpose of starting this thread was since it does not seem to be a real attempt to get reasonable answers to the questions you posted. Edited by IamsSon
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you that Lot was a sinner. All of us are sinners, so saying Lot was a sinner and yet God saved him is not saying much really. We are all sinners, God saves us BECAUSE we are sinners. Lot offered his daughters because he was trying to protect his guests. In our cultures honor is almost an unknown term, much less a practiced value, but in the culture in which Lot lived, honor demanded that he do everything in his power to protect people he had accepted as guests. As sick as it may seem to us, through the lense of our cultural mores, Lot was actually doing a righteous thing.

It really has nothing with persuading you. However, your response was derisive and dismissive in a way that indicated you would prefer to criticize and misrepresent an argument rather than actually give it thought and consideration; given that, it just made me wonder what the purpose of starting this thread was since it does not seem to be a real attempt to get reasonable answers to the questions you posted.

They weren't his guests...they were strangers. Its not as though they were family members who just drove across the country to see him. They men he didn't know and I'm not sure what culture its deemed hororable to offer up your virgin daughters to protect 2 strange men but in my mind and most people I know its not in the very least. You can make it right in your mind however you want, to each their own but like I said before I think your pulling at strings. And yes we are all sinners...so why does God chose to destroy some and not others if a sin is a sin is a sin. ....no sin is worse than the other I thought??

Edited by Viviana98
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we choose to ignore these issues, we will miss the point of the Bible.

Can someone help me out here? What exactly IS the point of the Bible? Its so full of contradictory statements (whether you take them in or out of context or not) that its really hard to get at what the actual point is. Even just the very large general differences between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are enough to confuse anyone. Why didn't someone a long time ago go through the book and at least fix the contradictions? Did they not realize how ridiculous it makes the whole thing look?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone help me out here? What exactly IS the point of the Bible? Its so full of contradictory statements (whether you take them in or out of context or not) that its really hard to get at what the actual point is. Even just the very large general differences between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are enough to confuse anyone. Why didn't someone a long time ago go through the book and at least fix the contradictions? Did they not realize how ridiculous it makes the whole thing look?

Okay, I realize you are asking about the basic plot and motive of the scriptures themselves. But your question is a little bit more complex than just stating an outline of the narrative of the faith.

First of all, the Bible as such is not able to convey the complete narrative of the faith since it was itself limited to merely sixty six selected text. So the faith narrative is fragmented somewhat by the very existence of the Bible as a canon. If you learn the faith's larger narrative, it is awesomely EPIC, and the existence of the narrative conveys the presense of the immortal author.

Secondly: The testimonies in the Bible are intended as testimonies of encounters and interaction with God in the theist definition of things. So the point of each individual testimony is just that, testimony. As such those who testified only have some consistency with the major paradigm, archtypes and God characterization, simply because it was the same God speakng to each of them revealing the part of the story He is conveying in their own lives. The paradigms, archetypes and God traits thus become recognizable patterns to the initiated observer, who can see what is consistent and inconsistent in the various testimonies. In other words, you don't hear about Captain Picard in a Lord of the Rings Epic. We know the story elements and traits, even if an Ancient Jews tells one part of the story he got, and an Eskimo tells the part he got 3000 years later, we recognize the setting, the story and the author. Nevertheless the Bible compilers were not real good at it, and so missed a great many chapters when they slopped together a crude canon of those testimonies. But the point is the testimonies reveal a higher reality, a God, His involvement with humanity through many ages and stages, and His relevance to mankind in an ongoing narrative that is written in human events, instead of paper.

Thirdly: Now for the Bible compilers, the point of collecting their selected text into a single Canon, was to use the Bible as their official doctrinal statement for the Orthodox Church.

Forthly: The idea of Bible "Authority" came in fashion many centuries later with Martin Luther. The new concept of "Biblical Authority" was invented to refute yet another arrogation of authority called "Church Authority". Neither is so authoritative as represented so we have Tweedle Dee vs Tweedle Dum trying to be the boss. Neither the Bible nor the "Church" are listed in the heirarchy of authorities that the Bible itself list. But the point of the Bible for the Protestants of yore, was to have something to thump over the heads of "Church" and drive them down a notch or two. It seems to have worked, despite what an utter fallacy it is.

Fifthly: Jesus expresses to me His endorsement of the Bible. I know it has warts. But Jesus backs it up as essentially correct and valuable to His ministry to humanity. So for him the point is that it is very useful and full of great truths, despite its limitations. For instance, with a Bible you can learn about immortality and how to recieve it. You can learn about God, higher realities and even secret knowledge. So the point for Jesus is, the Bible is just so valuable to humanity.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are over 50,000 contradictions in the bible. The ardent believer and biblical scholar will admit it's no longer the actual words of god......

Only 38,000 verses in the Bible yet 50,000 contradictions? Hard to believe. Post a reference please.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view on the original post is this; it's difference between seeing God with our human eyes. As contrasted with seeing God in heaven after death.

Does God stop saying stupid stuff in heaven, or does logical thought die with the brain?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Viviana, Well at any rate, I'm pleased that you took the time to consider it. Yes the mystical intepretation is the hardest to make concrete for realization in the consciousness. And of course the Bible is not just black and white as some people try to say. it is the hardest book in the world. And God does indeed purposefully use symbolic and allegorical abstrations. A lot of people prefer plain spoken concepts, but then again the abstract languages of God, and God culture, do appeal to some people. I personally prefer plain speech, but I'm adept at abstractions, metaphore, ritualism, symbolism, allegory, and mystical knowledge, so I can plow through most of the stuff in the Bible at esoteric levels. I complain to God though about WHY does He just have to use veiled occult messages. But I have resigned myself to just get used to it.

That's a big problem I have with the whole thing, that it all comes down to interpretation. There seems to be no definitive interpretation. Your view MAY be right, but with the same information people can get many other different interpretations that can make just as much sense.

And that comes to the big problem. The message of the bible is so vague, so hidden, so dependant on interpretation that it can so easily become lost.

The 'message of god' is meant to be so important but because it's spoken so vaguely it loses all meaning. It can be misinterpreted, mistranslated, misrepresented and a dozen other things all because of the way it's done. To be honest, to me its like a warning sign. A warning sign has to be written in plain speech so that it's easily understood (or with a well recognised, clear symbol of it's meaning). The bible is like a warning sign that, instead of just being one clear, easily understood message, is a page of text. While such a sign may convey the same message as the simpler one, because it is so long it not only doesn't come across as well, but the whole thing because surplus to requirement, it becomes as dangerous as if the sign wasn't there. In fact it becomes far more dangerous if, instead of sending a clear message it sends one which requires interpretation and can be taken to mean 7 dfiferent things.

Look at what most of you say. Most people that say they're christians don't even read the damn thing. They rely on what their priests and pastors have to say instead and those people seem quite happy to 'lift' passages out of context just as much as christians say denouncers do.

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever feel like just saying 'meh, believe what you like'...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They weren't his guests...they were strangers. Its not as though they were family members who just drove across the country to see him. They men he didn't know and I'm not sure what culture its deemed hororable to offer up your virgin daughters to protect 2 strange men but in my mind and most people I know its not in the very least. You can make it right in your mind however you want, to each their own but like I said before I think your pulling at strings. And yes we are all sinners...so why does God chose to destroy some and not others if a sin is a sin is a sin. ....no sin is worse than the other I thought??

Actually, in the culture of that time/location they were his guests because he welcomed them into his house, and it mattered not one whit whether they were family, friends, or strangers. If you study the Middle Eastern cultures, even today disrespecting or endangering a guest is an incredibly shameful dishonorable thing. I'm sorry you do not understand these cultural differences.

As to why God chose to destroy the people of Sodom and Gomorrah and not Lot and his family, if you read the story, the answer is there.

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.