Contradictions in the bible

[ellapenella]

These people are not Christians.

What are these "Christian principles" they want their children to believe? That they will burn in hell if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their Savior? That's the first principle they're taught.

you're must be the forum troll. no doubt , right?

[+Link of Hyrule]

While that does leave wiggle room about many details, I think it does put literally all Nicenes on just the hook which I specified. Those who get to see God at all, must do so in the flesh eventually.

Not necessarily, as you say the new wording does allow wiggle room, but that is neither here nor there. The fact is that no one knows what will happen at the end of all things. The most learned theologian has only conjecture to work with. The Bible is of little help since it can be used to support several points of view. That's not necessarily a bad thing, thankfully Eschatology is not an essential doctrine in Christianity. As such, debate on the topic can be fun, but ultimately all we can really say for certain is (and I mentioned this in my previous post to you) that it will happen however God has planned it to happen. For all we know it could be as comedic as a person being brought before God in the flesh, dying because they met God in full glory, and then being raised as a spirit being to be with him. And I'm not saying that it will happen this way, only pointing out that it could be as silly as this, we just don't know.

[ranrod]

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.

[THE MATRIX]

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.

[+Link of Hyrule]

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.

Assuming Genesis 1 was written as a scientific and/or historical account of creation I would agree with you. However, if it was not written with those intentions then it may not be a contradiction at all.

Granted, some Christians (small minority) believe in the Young Earth Creationist ideology that the world really was created in seven days, and to those people your comment has merit to be answered. But most Christians don't think like that.

[eight bits]

PA

You can't be surprised that I don't find that entirely satisfactory .

Of course, it is possible to be a Biblical Christian and to reject the Nicene Creed. Obviously, there wouldn't be a Nicene Creed except that some people (evidently sincerely, even in the testimony of some of their critics) read their Bible differently from the council consensus. This particular point wasn't in contention at Nicea or Constantinople, but the principle is sound.

So, I'll stand by the portion of my post that describes what Nicene Christians believe, all of them, definitionally. I accept as amplification your reminder that there are living non-Nicene Chrisitans, for instance, those who follow traditions historically descended from Nicene denominations (like the Quakers or Unitarian Christians), or readers who go their own way.

Not being a Nicene apologist myself, I don't need to be reminded that Nicenes might be incorrect in their beliefs, but it's fine to observe that, too. Of course, they don't know the truth of what they believe; nobody does. On the other hand, I will counter-amplify that the general resurrection is not a "detail" in eschatology. It was what Paul promised his righteous Gentiles in black letters.

Somebody, in immortal flesh, is going to see God as he is, says Paul's 1 Corinthians.

15: 51-55

Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed,i n an instant, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.For that which is corruptible must clothe itself with incorruptibility, and that which is mortal must clothe itself with immortality.And when this which is corruptible clothes itself with incorruptibility and this which is mortal clothes itself with immortality, then the word that is written shall come about:

"Death is swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"

and 13: 12

At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.

Unless, of course Paul began verse 13 with "Just kidding."

Even with that point resolved (assuming that it is), however, there remains the "contradiction" between two incompatible traditions documented in the Hebrew Bible: that human beings walked with God, as an accomplished fact at the very beginning of our kind, versus that no human being had seen God at the time of Moses. As noted, I have no problem with "contradictions" when discussing the ineffable, but it is fair to point out that some contradiction is seen in the text, as presumably it was in the world, between adherents of the two traditions.

Edited January 10, 2013 by eight bits

[ranrod]

Assuming Genesis 1 was written as a scientific and/or historical account of creation I would agree with you. However, if it was not written with those intentions then it may not be a contradiction at all.

Granted, some Christians (small minority) believe in the Young Earth Creationist ideology that the world really was created in seven days, and to those people your comment has merit to be answered. But most Christians don't think like that.

Well I get that if you're a god trying to explain something extremely complex to ancient man, you might want to simplify a bit. Use metaphors and notions that person might understand. However, I would not alter things like the earth came first, then the light. Being a god he/she/it would know we would soon advance to the point we could disprove that.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Well I get that if you're a god trying to explain something extremely complex to ancient man, you might want to simplify a bit. Use metaphors and notions that person might understand. However, I would not alter things like the earth came first, then the light. Being a god he/she/it would know we would soon advance to the point we could disprove that.

The light coming before the earth was a linguistic device. The first three days of creation are directly related to the second set of three days - days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, 3 and 6. After creating the heavens and earth, the text goes as follows:

Day 1 - God created light

Day 4 - God created source of light

Day 2 - God created the skies and the waters

Day 5 - God created birds to live in the skies and fish to live in the waters

Day 3 - God created land and vegetation

Day 6 - God created animals to live on the land

Day 7 - God rests

This relationship between the days is a common tool used in Hebrew poetry called "Parallelism", where ideas are set out and then later expanded on. The seventh day is then added to give a sense of completion to the days of creation (the number "7" of course being a symbol of perfection and completion in Hebrew symbolism).

The fact that it is scientifically impossible for light to exist before the sun (as in the point you are raising) is entirely beside the point. Genesis 1 wasn't written to be historical or scientific. It was a way for the Hebrews to distinguish their God as different to the nations around them. For example, the Babylonian God Marduk is said to have created the earth by slaying the Goddess Tiamat, the two halves of her body separating to then become the sky and the land. This kind of cosmic battle is a common theme in ancient creation stories around the time of the Hebrews. In contrast, the God of the Bible did not engage in physical battles, he simply spoke the universe into existence (repetition of the phrase "And God said...").

When one takes the time to study this it's clear the text was written with the specific aim of subverting the creation myths of other nations. Add in the poetic elements that are clearly shown and the reason for writing the creation account is now a lot clearer and we need not demand the text to be used scientifically or historically, or even metaphorically.

~ Regards, PA

Edited January 10, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[+Link of Hyrule]

PA

You can't be surprised that I don't find that entirely satisfactory .

I'm not surprised, I'm just saying how I see it. It may be fun to discuss exactly what Paul means when he says we will be "changed" and put on "immortal flesh". I certainly don't know what immortal flesh is. With a lack of actual experience of it, I'm happy to leave it a mystery until such time arises in the future if and when God ever returns to Judge us

~ Regards,

Edited January 10, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[Jinxdom]

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

[Doug1029]

These people are not Christians.

The term is "Christian atheists," not "atheist Christians." The ones I know really don't care how you categorize them. They believe what they believe.

What are these "Christian principles" they want their children to believe? That they will burn in hell if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their Savior? That's the first principle they're taught.

A lot of good, church-going people don't believe in hell, either. I don't think you are aware of the breadth of religious thinking. If a combination of ideas is possible, somewhere, sometime, somebody has tried it on for size.

Doug

[ranrod]

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.

[Doug1029]

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.

In short, they sound just like you.

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.

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.

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.

At Serabit al Khaddim (Rephidim), there are thousands of graves from generations of miners and other folks who worked the copper mines for the Egyptians. An illiterate seventh-century BC Bedouin seeing these and knowing that "Moses" came through there would search for an explanation within his own frame of reference. The story of "Moses" ordering every man to slay his brother, killing three thousand, was the explanation that resulted.

A similar thing happened with the Ten Commandments. Broken tablets lying on the ground at Serabit al Khaddim require an explanation. Those same Bedouins provided the story of "Moses" breaking the tablets. At long last, we have decyphered those broken pieces and know that they have nothing to do with the Ten Commandments, but the story is already in the Bible. 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.

Doug

[scowl]

The term is "Christian atheists," not "atheist Christians."

White blacks or black whites... doesn't make much difference for something that can't exist.

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.

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?

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.

[scowl]

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.

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.

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?

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!

[+Link of Hyrule]

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.

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

~ Regards, PA

Edited January 11, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[ranrod]

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.

[+Link of Hyrule]

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?

[Doug1029]

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

[ranrod]

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.

[Doug1029]

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

[+Link of Hyrule]

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 January 14, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[willowdreams]

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

[scowl]

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.

[Doug1029]

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