Biblical contradictions?

[Habitat]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

One of the many famous quotes used by one of the villains in The Princess Bride 

quote

Since its release, Buttercup and Westley’s love story has cemented itself into pop culture, and has become known for its bounty of hilarious and memorable lines.

Any fan of the cult classic will find it impossible not to think immediately of Vizzini when the word “inconceivable” is uttered, or be reminded instantly of Westley when the phrase “as you wish” is said.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/best-quotes-from-the-princess-bride-list-2017-9?r=US&IR=T#/#1-a-book-1

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/154axj/what_did_inigo_montoya_think_the_word/

My brother in law is such a fan of the movie that he named his runabout (fishing and leisure craft) "Inconceivable" 

 

I have heard it mentioned a couple of times ( the movie) but was unaware of its cult status !

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, Guyver said:

Do you know why you’re wrong and don’t know it?

Its because of one of a few good things I got from Rush Limbaugh.  Words mean things.

Since words mean things, you are wrong.  It doesn’t matter what you think the words mean, it matters what the words mean that were written.

The readers decide the truth. FWIW.

lol

See the bolded That is correct It matters what the words mean  that  were written and this depends on what the writer meant, not the reader. 

It is the person who says or writes the words who"owns " the meaning, intent, or purpose of a word.

A reader cannot just go around attributing meaning, purpose, intent  to words.

The y had all those things when they were written and they remain, even 2000 years later   

(except in mutually agreed purely creative writing which is designed to allow for multiple interpretations,   and even then the author will have a specific intent and purpose)

  Otherwise humans cannot accurately communicate anything.

Imagine you wrote or said something with a specific meaning and another said " On no, tha t means  somehtng completely different."

No it doesn't You wrote it. You own it,  and you get to say what its meaning intent purpose etc was, and why you wrote it   Otherwise you  get people telling songwriters poets etc what their lyrics mean rather than the writer explaining their meaning to listeners.   

It must be a modern view as i have never heard it before. 

It is precisely because words have very complex ideas values concepts etc attached to them, that we MUST know and understand the writers use of those words, to know what they were thinking 

Id never heard of rush limbaugh before, so i looked him up 
I cant imagine him agreeing that  you can interpret whatever he says anyway you like.

He would have a point and a message that he expected you to understand/recognise as his pov,  even if you  did not agree with it 

Am i missing something here, or misunderstanding you?.

You cannot possibly believe that another person's words are for you to make your own sense or meaning of (unless the writer/speaker specifically permits or encourages this )  Generally a writer is saying something they want you to understand as THEIR pov, not just create your own understanding of what those words mean  

Finally it has nothing to do with 'truth" A person's ideas beliefs concepts etc., can be right or wrong. 

You can agree with those ides or disagree, but you cant simply rewrite the authors pov into something different    First you have to recognise and acknowledge it  

Lastly i know this is hard, often almost impossible with words from the bible but the same principle applies There are not "many alternate/ acceptable" ways to understand what is written.

There is only one 

That is the pov., intent, meaning, and purpose, of the writer of that piece 

It is a discipline in itself  to learn how to deconstruct such texts 

If you really want to understand the bible don't go to a theologian go to several peole.

 eg A linguist, an historian of the era, and a person who is trained to deconstruct a text  

They might still get it wrong, but you are likely to get a more accurate academic consensus of the original meaning, intent, and understanding, off the writing    than just listening to a theological pov. 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Mr Walker

[onlookerofmayhem]

 

11 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

See the bolded That is correct It matters what the words mean  that  were written and this depends on what the writer meant, not the reader. 

It is the person who says or writes the words who"owns " the meaning, intent, or purpose of a word.

A reader cannot just go around attributing meaning, purpose, intent  to words.

Funny you should say that considering how badly you botched my cottage cheese, cigarette ash space ship to the sun analogy.

11 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The y had all those things when they were written and they remain, even 2000 years later

Indeed they did. Since they are not here to ask their motivation as to word choice and usage, all we can do is interpret them through our modern day filter.

12 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Imagine you wrote or said something with a specific meaning and another said " On no, tha t means  somehtng completely different."

That does seem to happen often in my experience. 

14 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Otherwise you  get people telling songwriters poets etc what their lyrics mean rather than the writer explaining their meaning to listeners.   

Isn't this an exact example of one of the main issues as to the reasons people find so many contradictions in the bible?

It's a testament to the fact that all we have are different translations, interpretations and opinions as to what a group of people wrote down thousands of years ago really meant.

We do not even know who really wrote most of it down in the first place.

I find it farcical that anyone can claim any sense of the true meaning except the authors themselves. You seem to agree.

Are the earliest copies we have the "originals"?Have you read the bible in the original languages that it was written? Hebrew? Aramaic? Koine Greek? Are you fluent in these languages?

I most certainly am not. I don't think many people in the world are. So do we base our opinions on only the translations from those that are?

There are loads of contradictions in the bible because it was written by many people, over a long period of time. They didn't seem too concerned about continuity when they cobbled the thing together. 

 

[Mr Walker]

39 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

 

Funny you should say that considering how badly you botched my cottage cheese, cigarette ash space ship to the sun analogy.

Indeed they did. Since they are not here to ask their motivation as to word choice and usage, all we can do is interpret them through our modern day filter.

That does seem to happen often in my experience. 

Isn't this an exact example of one of the main issues as to the reasons people find so many contradictions in the bible?

It's a testament to the fact that all we have are different translations, interpretations and opinions as to what a group of people wrote down thousands of years ago really meant.

We do not even know who really wrote most of it down in the first place.

I find it farcical that anyone can claim any sense of the true meaning except the authors themselves. You seem to agree.

Are the earliest copies we have the "originals"?Have you read the bible in the original languages that it was written? Hebrew? Aramaic? Koine Greek? Are you fluent in these languages?

I most certainly am not. I don't think many people in the world are. So do we base our opinions on only the translations from those that are?

There are loads of contradictions in the bible because it was written by many people, over a long period of time. They didn't seem too concerned about continuity when they cobbled the thing together. 

 

Indeed That makes my point.

You had some intent which was in your mind but i did not see.

However you owned the words and the y were yours not mine.

I can disagree with what you said, but i have no right to alter your meaning or intent

No we must NOT interpret them through a modern day filter. That's exactly the wrong thing to do.

We need to use historians, both social and others, and  anthropologists and linguists to allow us to see through the eyes of the writers with THEIR filters.

Only then can we comprehend what they were saying and meaning Think like a 21st century person  and you will never get close to their thoughts and intents 

You dont have to know exactly who a writer was, although that would be great But you need to  know their social milieu, the customs and beliefs of the time, their scientific level of understanding  etc and especially you need to know how they used words and language. Were they literal or more metaphorical?  Did they use stories as teaching tools etc.  Is it likely  tha t when the y described a miracle the y utterly believed such things were natural and real?   

No I am not fluent in those languages Neither am i knowledgeable about quantum physics thus i read and use the knowledge of experts to inform myself 

However i do have a pretty good/comprehensive knowledge of all forms of history, of sociology, human psychology anthropology and basic universal linguistics, /human speech and cognition.   etc I did learn latin at high school although i was pretty rubbish at it

Indeed There were many writers of  the bible(around 3 dozen in total spanning a couple of millenia)   and this explains many of the contradictions BUT each writer from each era or milieu must be approached individually to get THEIR perspective and purpose.

And no the bible is not magic holy book. It must be studied using all the other available bits and pieces of data from the time An expert would need to be expert in all the non biblical writings on christianity and theology of the era including the different jewish beliefs of the time     However it is more common for experts t o be experienced in a limited field and that the "body of knowledge"  comes from combining many experts and disciplines .

Edited February 10, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Habitat]

In the realistic department, though, those at pains to point out that the bible is a smorgasbord of contradictions, do so out of a desire to discredit it as being of no value. Or perhaps a extremely unusual hobby of looking for conflicting details in very old books generally. 

[Mr Walker]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

In the realistic department, though, those at pains to point out that the bible is a smorgasbord of contradictions, do so out of a desire to discredit it as being of no value. Or perhaps a extremely unusual hobby of looking for conflicting details in very old books generally. 

lol Maybe

Usually the amount of time invested in anything represents the amount of concern an individual has with that thing   eg the re  may well be a few people interested in the emerging feminism of women during the later half of the 19th century, as portrayed in popular fiction of the time..  

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

In the realistic department, though, those at pains to point out that the bible is a smorgasbord of contradictions, do so out of a desire to discredit it as being of no value. Or perhaps a extremely unusual hobby of looking for conflicting details in very old books generally. 

If you didn't notice,  biblical contradictions is literally the topic of this discussion.

Your attempt to ascribe motivation, with the broadest of strokes, is irrelevant. As usual. 

Have you ever heard of a book club? They sit around and talk about books. Analyze them. Dissect them. 

The bible is arguable the most contentious book ever written. I find it odd that you see no merit in discussing it.

If you don't want to discuss the topic, why do you bother interrupting people who do?

[Mr Walker]

4 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

If you didn't notice,  biblical contradictions is literally the topic of this discussion.

Your attempt to ascribe motivation, with the broadest of strokes, is irrelevant. As usual. 

Have you ever heard of a book club? They sit around and talk about books. Analyze them. Dissect them. 

The bible is arguable the most contentious book ever written. I find it odd that you see no merit in discussing it.

If you don't want to discuss the topic, why do you bother interrupting people who do?

Motivation is important, especially as you point out, with it being such a contentious book 

Some people do use any means they can to discredit it, simply because they do not like it.  

(which also happens in my book club ) 

On the other hand, some have genuine problems with it's content and messages  

[onlookerofmayhem]

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Some people do use any means they can to discredit it, simply because they do not like it.  

I'd say the opposite is also the case.

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Otherwise humans cannot accurately communicate anything.

An exaggeration, but ironically an example of part of the problem: people don't say exactly and completely what they mean, not always and maybe not even usually.

Human communication, like everything else that arises from evolution by natural selection, is as good as it needs to be so that somebody in each generation manages to leave behind living children. Anything more than that is an accident.

And speaking of natural selection, accurate communication is only one of the many uses of language. Liars prosper.

Here in SR&B, it isn't permitted to say that religion is an especially lucrative subject for the talented and skillful liar, so I won't say that here.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Lastly i know this is hard, often almost impossible with words from the bible but the same principle applies There are not "many alternate/ acceptable" ways to understand what is written.

Over in SvS, where I would be permitted to  say that religion is a lucrative subject for the talented and skillful liar, there is a current thread about Judas.

The surviving authentic letters of Paul say nothing about Judas, but Paul does mention that Jesus was ... something (1 Corinthians 11:23). The something is conveyed by the Koine Greek word paredideto - a verb, just about everybody translates it as passive voice (somebody did something to Jesus), but Greek also has this thing we call middle voice, which would in this case look identical on the page. If that's what Paul meant, then whatever the something was, Jesus did it to himself.

Pause for breath: we haven't even considered yet what the underlying action was, and already we don't know who performed the action (Paul never says), not even that Jesus didn't do it to himself. We'll never know, and we'll never know whether that ambiguity was intentional on Paul's part (maybe he doesn't know, maybe he does know but wishes to convey that Jesus was partly responsible, or wholly responsible, or ...), or just that this information is now lost because it wasn't important to the point Paul was making at the time, and so he simply didn't bother to be more complete in his telling of the story.

OK, so what was the something? The available options are very close to the possibilities for the English expression handed over. What does that mean? Betrayed? Maybe. Delivered to somebody? Maybe. To surrender? (Either sense: Jesus surrendered himself to somebody, or that somebody who had custody of Jesus surrendered him to somebody else's custody).

Many translators use their piety and knowledge of the other New Testament scriptures (which didn't exist when Paul wrote; he wrote first), and give us Jesus was betrayed. Really? Even if the Gospels were "historical records" (which they aren't), Gospel Jesus will get "handed  over" in several other senses before the night is over (including in John, where he pretty much does surrender himself). Why, then, would we conclude that of all those possible meanings, Paul meant the one which involves Judas?

To recap: we don't know whether Paul intended to omit the agent or tell us that the agent was Jesus, and we don't know what Paul meant to tell us the agent did. We don't know whether Paul intended to be ambiguous, or simply was ambiguous because he lacked an intention to tell that part of the story at that time, and human language allows a lot to be omitted while still telling something.

All that is one single word, which literally raises more questions than it answers.

Overkill probaby. You have elsewhere confessed that you sometimes post difficult to defend positions (a less charitable critic might say nonsensical BS) for the challenge of defending them. So fine, I am not joining issue with you on your absurd notion about how human communication works in Wally World. I am stating my position on the subject, with an on-topic illustration. Our disagreement is noted, and I have no ambition to resolve it.

There surely are many alternative and acceptable ways to understand what is written.

Edited February 10, 2020 by eight bits

[Habitat]

25 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

If you didn't notice,  biblical contradictions is literally the topic of this discussion.

Your attempt to ascribe motivation, with the broadest of strokes, is irrelevant. As usual. 

Have you ever heard of a book club? They sit around and talk about books. Analyze them. Dissect them. 

The bible is arguable the most contentious book ever written. I find it odd that you see no merit in discussing it.

If you don't want to discuss the topic, why do you bother interrupting people who do?

Well, we know what the police always say, "opportunity and motive", and this thread is the opportunity, I was just filling in the motive for you !  

[Habitat]

15 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I'd say the opposite is also the case.

I agree, I have heard an awful lot of ratbaggery from people stretching credibility well beyond its elastic limits, in quoting the bible to make a case for something. It's the same principle though, desperation to use a text to support a prejudice.

[Guyver]

11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

lol

See the bolded That is correct It matters what the words mean  that  were written and this depends on what the writer meant, not the reader. 

It is the person who says or writes the words who"owns " the meaning, intent, or purpose of a word.

A reader cannot just go around attributing meaning, purpose, intent  to words.

The y had all those things when they were written and they remain, even 2000 years later   

(except in mutually agreed purely creative writing which is designed to allow for multiple interpretations,   and even then the author will have a specific intent and purpose)

  Otherwise humans cannot accurately communicate anything.

Imagine you wrote or said something with a specific meaning and another said " On no, tha t means  somehtng completely different."

No it doesn't You wrote it. You own it,  and you get to say what its meaning intent purpose etc was, and why you wrote it   Otherwise you  get people telling songwriters poets etc what their lyrics mean rather than the writer explaining their meaning to listeners.   

It must be a modern view as i have never heard it before. 

It is precisely because words have very complex ideas values concepts etc attached to them, that we MUST know and understand the writers use of those words, to know what they were thinking 

Id never heard of rush limbaugh before, so i looked him up 
I cant imagine him agreeing that  you can interpret whatever he says anyway you like.

He would have a point and a message that he expected you to understand/recognise as his pov,  even if you  did not agree with it 

Am i missing something here, or misunderstanding you?.

You cannot possibly believe that another person's words are for you to make your own sense or meaning of (unless the writer/speaker specifically permits or encourages this )  Generally a writer is saying something they want you to understand as THEIR pov, not just create your own understanding of what those words mean  

Finally it has nothing to do with 'truth" A person's ideas beliefs concepts etc., can be right or wrong. 

You can agree with those ides or disagree, but you cant simply rewrite the authors pov into something different    First you have to recognise and acknowledge it  

Lastly i know this is hard, often almost impossible with words from the bible but the same principle applies There are not "many alternate/ acceptable" ways to understand what is written.

There is only one 

Mr. Walker, we have no way of understanding what Bible writers intended, or believed aside from the examination of the words they have written.  It may be acceptable to you to “make up” an interpretation of what you think they may have meant or believed aside from the literal meaning of words.....but that doesn’t work for me because I am only interested in truth.

Now, let’s talk truth for a minute.  A thing can be true, partially true, or untrue.....right?  Did I miss anything?

A mathematical theorem or postulate can be tested for its truth.  If it holds up under much scrutiny, then we call it true, and that’s because we cannot show it to be false.  That represents the highest form of non physical truth, IMO.  Everything that is physical is real, eg. all matter, therefore, things that physically exist represent another type of truth as I see it.

But with bible interpretation there is no way to test it for truth.  You may interpret bible writings in one fashion and the next bloke interprets it as something else, and a third person sees it another way.  But, by examining the actual literal writing, and applying literal meaning, we can see if the writings contradict or not.

For example, one of the Bible’s shortest sentences states, “Jesus wept.”  Kinda hard to not understand that sentence.  But, if another bible verse states, “Jesus did not weep,” we have an obvious contradiction.  That’s what I’m talking about.

[Guyver]

10 hours ago, Habitat said:

In the realistic department, though, those at pains to point out that the bible is a smorgasbord of contradictions, do so out of a desire to discredit it as being of no value. Or perhaps a extremely unusual hobby of looking for conflicting details in very old books generally. 

Habitat, people who critically examine the text of the Bible as I have done and continue to do at times, do so because they are interested in truth.  Many religious people claim the Bible is the word of God.  That’s kindof a really big deal.  It means that not only does God exist, but we can understand how he thinks.  This is of tremendous importance to people such as myself.  If God exists, I would love to know about him.

Yet, when I read the Bible, I see things written that indicate to me that “God” had absolutely nothing thing to do with it, but people did.  Especially those in power like Moses.  It seems so clear to me that rather than telling me about God, the Bible was written to control the thoughts and actions of people. And, many people do need their thoughts and actions controlled because they are evil b*******.  Yet, many of us don’t need the Bible’s instructions to do the right thing because we come by it naturally.

And further more, some of those instructions are actually evil.....like sacrificing a goat to forgive your sins, or plucking out the eyes of a person who has harmed you, or stoning a person to death for picking up sticks on a holy day.

[Will Due]

23 minutes ago, Guyver said:

many of us don’t need the Bible’s instructions to do the right thing because we come by it naturally.

 

That to me is the evidence of how it's true that "the kingdom of God is within you". 

 

 

[Mr Walker]

14 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I'd say the opposite is also the case.

Its true that believers will support It because they believe it 

That is the difference between constructive belief and destructive belief, I guess  They seem very different to  me, but that may just be a perspective.

I tend to like beliefs concepts and values which are constructive or positive, and dislike ones which are destructive or limiting for a person  

One is building something with/for a purpose.

The other is trying to knock that building down 

If you don't like the shelter a person has constructed for themselves (or even think they shouldn't need such a shelter) that is fair enough. But trying to knock it down, so they don't have it, is not. 

 

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Guyver said:

Mr. Walker, we have no way of understanding what Bible writers intended, or believed aside from the examination of the words they have written.  It may be acceptable to you to “make up” an interpretation of what you think they may have meant or believed aside from the literal meaning of words.....but that doesn’t work for me because I am only interested in truth.

Now, let’s talk truth for a minute.  A thing can be true, partially true, or untrue.....right?  Did I miss anything?

A mathematical theorem or postulate can be tested for its truth.  If it holds up under much scrutiny, then we call it true, and that’s because we cannot show it to be false.  That represents the highest form of non physical truth, IMO.  Everything that is physical is real, eg. all matter, therefore, things that physically exist represent another type of truth as I see it.

But with bible interpretation there is no way to test it for truth.  You may interpret bible writings in one fashion and the next bloke interprets it as something else, and a third person sees it another way.  But, by examining the actual literal writing, and applying literal meaning, we can see if the writings contradict or not.

For example, one of the Bible’s shortest sentences states, “Jesus wept.”  Kinda hard to not understand that sentence.  But, if another bible verse states, “Jesus did not weep,” we have an obvious contradiction.  That’s what I’m talking about.

 

 

Sorry but that is my point 

We DO have ways of deciphering their intent, as we do for decoding or deconstructing any piece of writing 

A writer only has ONE pov or one intent 

Thats the one we should be seeking. 

Once found we don't have to accept it but we do have to realise that is the one and not attribute our own meaning to it' 

Even if we don't get it perfect we can narrow it down a lot 

This honours the writer but also gives a logical basis on whether we can agree with the writers pov or not 

I am the one saying we must not make up an interpretation, we must find the one original meaning 

Not sure what you are saying.

if i take your words literally it means you see no way of establishing what the writers intended, (i disagree) and should not make it up,  (i agree) leaving you with a pointless exercise in futility ) 

If we can not know the meaning and intent of the writer, we can ONLY use the best techniques to get as close as possible, OR simply go with our own values and feelings 

I don't think the second method is acceptable.

It is easy, but  you might as well be writing the book yourself, rather than trying to find it's true purpose and intent 

There are ways to test for "truth" (in this case the writer's purpose and intent)  in any piece of writing (this discussion is not about agreeing with points the writer makes, but about understanding the purpose of those points in the writer's own mind eg was this point meant to be allegorical, symbolic, or literal truth. Why was the phrase"the four corners of the earth" used?) 

The y are specific methods and skills which can be learned, like any other skills

Edited February 10, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

copied instead of edited

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Guyver said:

Habitat, people who critically examine the text of the Bible as I have done and continue to do at times, do so because they are interested in truth.  Many religious people claim the Bible is the word of God.  That’s kindof a really big deal.  It means that not only does God exist, but we can understand how he thinks.  This is of tremendous importance to people such as myself.  If God exists, I would love to know about him.

Yet, when I read the Bible, I see things written that indicate to me that “God” had absolutely nothing thing to do with it, but people did.  Especially those in power like Moses.  It seems so clear to me that rather than telling me about God, the Bible was written to control the thoughts and actions of people. And, many people do need their thoughts and actions controlled because they are evil b*******.  Yet, many of us don’t need the Bible’s instructions to do the right thing because we come by it naturally.

And further more, some of those instructions are actually evil.....like sacrificing a goat to forgive your sins, or plucking out the eyes of a person who has harmed you, or stoning a person to death for picking up sticks on a holy day.

Evil is a human cultural construct 

It varies across time and cultures

Eg today eating a goat is not evil

In many cultures today sacrificing an an animal is not evil but a part of cultural practice. 

Is the death penalty evil? Is it evil to torture a terrorist to get information to  save the lives of many innocent people 

Is it evil to praise the looks of another person ? Is it evil to dress, and use cosmetics, to make yourself sexually attractive? 

In a thousand years anyone reading writing from today will need to know OUR values and beliefs if they wish to understand  our words eg then any person who eats meat maybe considered evil and barbaric, and the y may wonder how we could ever have done so.  People might be gaoled for making a comment about another's'sexual desirability. 

Ps Personally i think that if you want to know the mind of god and hear his worlds for YOU, then listen to him directly; speak with him directly. Establish a personal daily contact with god   NEVER rely on the advice of another, except as a guide to THEIR relationship with god. God may have an entirely different purpose and intent for you  than it does for them. 

There is no such thing as natural goodness or evil in a human being. (Indeed there is no such thing as natural evil or goodness There is no evil or goodness in nature only in the hearts/minds of men)

We are what we are raised to be, and then what we choose to be.

We can all be entirely good or entirely evil (as perceived by our current society) , but most evolve into something along the spectrum  

And while its fine to be an atheist that is not enough

.A person needs to have a codified set of inner values, moralities and beliefs, on which to base their behaviours and act consistently.

  This must be constructed logically and  philosophically for an atheist, not theologically. It could range from  what is best for me,(or for me and those i am responsible for)  to what is best for my community, to what will have the most constructive outcomes and the least destructive ones, for the planet.  

 

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Habitat]

4 hours ago, Guyver said:

Habitat, people who critically examine the text of the Bible as I have done and continue to do at times, do so because they are interested in truth.  Many religious people claim the Bible is the word of God.  That’s kindof a really big deal.  It means that not only does God exist, but we can understand how he thinks.  This is of tremendous importance to people such as myself.  If God exists, I would love to know about him.

Yet, when I read the Bible, I see things written that indicate to me that “God” had absolutely nothing thing to do with it, but people did.  Especially those in power like Moses.  It seems so clear to me that rather than telling me about God, the Bible was written to control the thoughts and actions of people. And, many people do need their thoughts and actions controlled because they are evil b*******.  Yet, many of us don’t need the Bible’s instructions to do the right thing because we come by it naturally.

And further more, some of those instructions are actually evil.....like sacrificing a goat to forgive your sins, or plucking out the eyes of a person who has harmed you, or stoning a person to death for picking up sticks on a holy day.

So, having taken note of all that, the thing to do would be to disregard it as the "word of God". I don't regard the train timetable as infallible, but I do consult it just the same, if wanting to catch a train. Moral of the story, don't be like the people who use errors to mount a case that the book is worthless, they have an agenda, and I have to tell you, that agenda in NOT seeking truth, it is seeking support for their prejudice. That is crystal clear, despite their protestations to the contrary.

[Mr Walker]

15 hours ago, eight bits said:

An exaggeration, but ironically an example of part of the problem: people don't say exactly and completely what they mean, not always and maybe not even usually.

Human communication, like everything else that arises from evolution by natural selection, is as good as it needs to be so that somebody in each generation manages to leave behind living children. Anything more than that is an accident.

And speaking of natural selection, accurate communication is only one of the many uses of language. Liars prosper.

Here in SR&B, it isn't permitted to say that religion is an especially lucrative subject for the talented and skillful liar, so I won't say that here.

Over in SvS, where I would be permitted to  say that religion is a lucrative subject for the talented and skillful liar, there is a current thread about Judas.

The surviving authentic letters of Paul say nothing about Judas, but Paul does mention that Jesus was ... something (1 Corinthians 11:23). The something is conveyed by the Koine Greek word paredideto - a verb, just about everybody translates it as passive voice (somebody did something to Jesus), but Greek also has this thing we call middle voice, which would in this case look identical on the page. If that's what Paul meant, then whatever the something was, Jesus did it to himself.

Pause for breath: we haven't even considered yet what the underlying action was, and already we don't know who performed the action (Paul never says), not even that Jesus didn't do it to himself. We'll never know, and we'll never know whether that ambiguity was intentional on Paul's part (maybe he doesn't know, maybe he does know but wishes to convey that Jesus was partly responsible, or wholly responsible, or ...), or just that this information is now lost because it wasn't important to the point Paul was making at the time, and so he simply didn't bother to be more complete in his telling of the story.

OK, so what was the something? The available options are very close to the possibilities for the English expression handed over. What does that mean? Betrayed? Maybe. Delivered to somebody? Maybe. To surrender? (Either sense: Jesus surrendered himself to somebody, or that somebody who had custody of Jesus surrendered him to somebody else's custody).

Many translators use their piety and knowledge of the other New Testament scriptures (which didn't exist when Paul wrote; he wrote first), and give us Jesus was betrayed. Really? Even if the Gospels were "historical records" (which they aren't), Gospel Jesus will get "handed  over" in several other senses before the night is over (including in John, where he pretty much does surrender himself). Why, then, would we conclude that of all those possible meanings, Paul meant the one which involves Judas?

To recap: we don't know whether Paul intended to omit the agent or tell us that the agent was Jesus, and we don't know what Paul meant to tell us the agent did. We don't know whether Paul intended to be ambiguous, or simply was ambiguous because he lacked an intention to tell that part of the story at that time, and human language allows a lot to be omitted while still telling something.

All that is one single word, which literally raises more questions than it answers.

Overkill probaby. You have elsewhere confessed that you sometimes post difficult to defend positions (a less charitable critic might say nonsensical BS) for the challenge of defending them. So fine, I am not joining issue with you on your absurd notion about how human communication works in Wally World. I am stating my position on the subject, with an on-topic illustration. Our disagreement is noted, and I have no ambition to resolve it.

There surely are many alternative and acceptable ways to understand what is written.

Without a common/ mutual understanding of  words and the intent of the writer one cannot ACCURATELY communicate anything.  That is not an exaggeration, but it depends how you define accurately 

Have you  seen "Arrival"

In deciphering the story of judas one needs to look at the writer's probable pov, other historical documents, but also which explanation best fits the context of the STORY.

It is not about "truth" but about the writers perception and understanding of truth.

We may never know if or why judas acted as he is described as doing, but we CAN establish a reasonable idea of what different writers thought about his actions and intent . 

There are many ways to understand what is written, but there is only one true/real reason why something was written.

Even if we can never discern this we have a responsibility to do our best; not to simply apply our own beliefs .

Thus you know from other writings of mine that i sometimes choose a less common practice or belief to defend (even sometimes one i do not hold to myself)  in order to make a point or cause peole to think more deeply.   You can, and must, use that knowledge when looking at anything i write  

Ps i never write BS, and can defend any pov i give with logic reason and data  It may not be correct Sometimes I might  even believe it is not correct, but it is always defensible. 

Out of interest My deconstruction of the point you raised is that, given the context, Judas never BETRAYED christ. He may have informed authorities where christ was but to the writers this was an essential plot narrative to arrive at the conclusion of the story and to add pathos  Judas played the essential role allocated to him in the writer's mind As you point out, later writers may attribute other motivations and meanings to this  act because they are living with additional beliefs/ customs, and after arguments and discussions on the topic     

Edited February 10, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Guyver]

4 hours ago, Habitat said:

So, having taken note of all that, the thing to do would be to disregard it as the "word of God". I don't regard the train timetable as infallible, but I do consult it just the same, if wanting to catch a train. Moral of the story, don't be like the people who use errors to mount a case that the book is worthless, they have an agenda, and I have to tell you, that agenda in NOT seeking truth, it is seeking support for their prejudice. That is crystal clear, despite their protestations to the contrary.

Dude.  Whatever works for you is good.  Believe what helps you and don’t worry about your critics.  We all have to make it out of this crazy ride. 

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Guyver said:

Dude.  Whatever works for you is good.  Believe what helps you and don’t worry about your critics.  We all have to make it out of this crazy ride. 

The point is this, I am not hung up on any books, one way or the other, but that people would get themselves invested in using errors or contradictions to use as an argument against the entire thing, doesn't come from a position of academic interest. It comes from an attitude of wanting to sink it. As far as I'm concerned it can float or sink on its own merits, a few holes in a boat can make it leaky, but not necessarily doomed.

[Kenemet]

On 2/9/2020 at 6:57 PM, Will Due said:

 

If there was a book, like the Bible, claiming that its words were written by authority to reveal things about God, about Jesus, about religion in general and within its hunderds of pages and thousands of words, it's proven, say with computer search engines, that it NEVER contradicts itself, not ever, not even once on any of its diverse topics, not once; would you read it? 

The Narnia books fulfill that requirement.  So does Ben Hur and Jesus on Mars and the Secret Gospel of Mary Magdaline ( and 88 more that I haven't read https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/23737.Fiction_with_Jesus_as_a_Character) along with the Gnostic Gospels, the Case for Christ, and many others.  I've read a few in my time.  There are many good ones.

Come to think of it, the Scientologist literature also fulfills that.  i've read it but didn't care for it.

When there is a single author, it's easy to make the material self-consistent.  With a hundred authors, things fall through the cracks.

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Kenemet

[Coil]

On 2/4/2020 at 10:46 AM, K9Buck said:

I am a Christian that is confused by some of the seeming contradictions that appear throughout the bible.  By the way, my hope is that this can be a rather scholarly discussion and NOT a thread for bashing believers and the bible.  Thank you in advance for your consideration.  

Example 1:John 11:26 ²⁶and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
 

 

God is a spirit, therefore, if a person cognizes his eternal spirit, his true spiritual Personality (which you must first believe in), he will no longer identify himself with a mortal biological shell. Since our body and personality are just an earthly and temporary instrument of the spirit on the way to self-knowledge.

We don’t worry about death when our shoes wear out, we just buy a new one, therefore the body is only temporary clothing for the spirit, but a person identifies himself with mortal clothing so much that he does not distinguish where the eternal spirit is and where the temporary spirit-body is.
Therefore, anyone who knows himself to be eternal will see the dying body from the outside as an outer shell and will not only worry about material cares for the body in life. A person is born on earth to manifest the spirit of God and not for earthly concerns.

In the future, the mortal body will be transformed into the eternal energy body of God, therefore death will forever leave humanity and the eternal spirit will again regain the eternal body as it was originally given to man. Christ could take his body only to heaven and he did not have time to complete the transformation of the body on earth in view of betrayal. In other worlds, Christ's mission was much more successful than on earth.