Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictionsPage 11 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)


You cannot wish for "wish", because wish is not an entity in itself, but a desire for something to happen. It would be like wanting to have lots of want.
My point exactly. How can one compare the amount of something intangible like faith to the amount of something tangible like a mustard seed? It's simply not possible. Therefore, when someone says "if you have faith the size of a mustard seed then anything is possible", that is nothing more than an indirect way of saying that anything is not possible since no one can ever have faith the size of a mustard seed.
Well, it's an expression. It hasn't got anything to do with religion. All "if you have faith the size of a mustard seed then anything is possible" means is that you have a tiny amount of faith, even something as small as we consider a mustard seed, in anything, but you always hold onto that faith, then you can accomplish great heights. If you have a tiny amount of unshakable faith in your ability to be a good martial artist, you'll practise every day, and you can become a great martial artist. The same is true of being good in business, computers, languages, women, music and many other things. "All you need is a little bit of confidence". Faith is a belief in something. Confidence is a belief in yourself. Confidence is faith in yourself.


If it's cold enough to freeze your spit, it's cold enough to freeze your mouth.
You do know that the human mouth tries to maintain relative body temperature even when it's freezing outside right?
Sorry. I meant the OUTSIDE of your mouth. I've managed to get my lips stuck fast on things in very cold winters even in the mild climate of the UK, and that was at temperatures that spit didn't freeze at.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 70
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 1/10/2009 4:14:07 PM
"For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12)
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." (Jeremiah 17:4)

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." (John 5:31)
"Jesus answered: Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid." (John 8:14)

"And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." (Matthew 28:18)
"the whole world is under control of the evil one." (1 John 5:19)

And Jesus said, "For judgement I am come into this world." (John 9:39)
"I came not to judge the world" (John 12:47)

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16)
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 6:1)

"Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30)
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)

We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)
We should love God (Matthew 22:37)
There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18)

Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:18-22
(Man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 5:5
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 71
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 1/11/2009 1:27:24 PM
RE msg 181 by rockondon:

You know, its not right for someone to else to do all the work, then quote his work verbatim, and pass it off as your own. What's more, it makes it very difficult for people to have any reason to not doubt everything you say, because usually, there is more information in your source, that explains the reasoning, and that is true here as well. In future, please quote your sources.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

Problem is that many people read the Bible in English, and don't understand that each language has its nuances that are necessary for understanding, and cannot be understood fully without them, and there are many such differences of nuance between English and Hebrew, that would naturally lead to a misunderstanding. So invariably, if you rely too heavily on translations, you misunderstand the text, in many books, and here too, this seems to be the case.

Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
In the Hebrew text, Genesis 2 says "VaYitzer", in the Piel, the intensive tense, which is translated in the English to "HAD FORMED", not formed, and so the text is repeating that the animals were already formed BEFORE man was created.

Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:18-22
(Man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
In the Hebrew text, Genesis 1 says "Otam", them, and "Nekeivah", female. But Genesis 2 says "Ishah", woman. Again, 2 different things, indicating 2 different things happened. The essence of female was created at the same time as male. But the independent essence of woman was not, and was created after.

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 5:5
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
In the Hebrew text, Genesis 2 says "Yom", them, and in Genesis 5, it says "Years". However, in Psalms 90:4, it says: 'For even a thousand years in Your eyes are like a "Yom" yesterday, and like a "Ashmorah" in the night.' So it's pretty clear that a Yom can mean a thousand years.

You really cannot expect to understand the Bible fully in every respect, if you don't understand the nuances of Hebrew. I expect that if you really want to understand the Bible, you should attend classes on it, for years, just like many religious person do, 'cause it does take effort to understand it. It's not a Harry Potter book you know.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 1/12/2009 5:59:58 PM
romanticoptimist
Wouldn't be quicker to just post the link for the page you copied it from? I mean, it's not that you're being original.

Have you ever heard of the bible? Every line was cited.

scorpiomover
Problem is that many people read the Bible in English...You really cannot expect to understand the Bible fully in every respect, if you don't understand the nuances of Hebrew.
So the english bibles are okay...so long as you don't read them. Wonderful.
Your argument basically tells us the bible is a worthless piece of trash...but uhh..do you speak ancient hebrew - no? - in that case the ancient hebrew version makes perfect sense.
I'm not about to spend a few decades learning ancient hebrew just to see the same lies and contradictions in ancient hebrew.

If the words that are written are not what is meant then its worthless.
And by 'worthless' perhaps I really mean 'extremely useful' speaking metaphorically when translated from ancient hebrew, lol.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 73
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 1/12/2009 11:41:44 PM
The thread is called biblical inaccuracies/contradictions. Yet, when I post a few of the inaccuracies/contradictions people start complaining. Sorry for sticking to the topic.

Your expectations are totally off-base. Is the Bible a literal communication of God to Man? Is it a literal historical narrative? Obviously not.
I agree completely, but millions of others wouldn't. My examples of contradictions were clearly meant to poke holes in a literal interpretation.

First off, would you expect to pick up a quantum physics text, for example, and then be able to go and decipher the data from a particle accelerator?
Should I expect the text to mean something vastly different from what its words say?

I'm totally fine with the bible being allegorical. I've always thought of it as such - clearly there is meaning behind the words. There are lessons, there are messages, there are metaphors, there are things to be learned, I don't deny that.

You may as well go about looking for inaccuracies and contradictions in any cycle of myths or legends or poems.
Perhaps I would if they were billed as being true historical accounts.

Calling it worthless seems to be a touch extreme.
I concede the point. What I meant is that its worthless when interpreted literally, for all the same reaons that poetry is worthless when read literally. If it is read in the context of a work of allegory and metaphor, I have no qualms.
All I did was point out some contradictions.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 74
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 1/15/2009 6:31:29 PM

Anyone interested might want to ask why such sites (and such critics) hang on so tightly to the 1611 KJV English translation when there are thousands of newer, more up to date, and more accurate versions to choose from?


No matter which version we use someone is going to say it's the wrong one. You don't like the KJV so you say we're using the wrong translation. Yet there's a vocal group of Christians who claim that the KJV is the only correct one because it's the only translation inspired by God. Who are you to argue with God?

Maybe we should follow Scorpionmover's suggestion and read it in the original language. Capital idea! Which text should I use? The Codex Sinaiticus? The Codex Alexandrinus? Which is the right one? And what of the Old Testament. Should I use the Masoretic text or the Dead Sea Scrolls version?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 75
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 1/18/2009 12:36:23 AM
You'll have to excuse the tardiness of my reply. I have to prioritise my life better, if I want to solve world hunger.

RE msg 187 by rockondon:

scorpiomover
Problem is that many people read the Bible in English...You really cannot expect to understand the Bible fully in every respect, if you don't understand the nuances of Hebrew.
So the english bibles are okay...so long as you don't read them. Wonderful.
Some books don't work as a translation without losing the essence of the book, and only work as an adaptation.

That is why the most beloved film of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is an adaptation.
That's why David Cronenberg didn't use the text of William H. Burrough's Naked Lunch for his film, but did an adaptation of the book instead. That's why Burroughs approved the film, even though it wasn't the same as the book.

That's also why in Ancient Israel, during of the Second Temple, when most people knew Aramaic, not Hebrew, when the Torah (OT) was read out in Hebrew to the people, a Targeman (translator) would read out an adaptation, that gave something close to the text, but not quite a transliteration, more an adaptation, because too literal a translation would be misunderstood.

Some books cannot be translated or put on screen that easily, without losing much of the important message, and in order to not lose the whole point of the book, you need to do an adaptation.

Your argument basically tells us the bible is a worthless piece of trash...
My argument tells you that no-one can afford to assume that if you know the translation, you know the book. One of my Maths lecturers even told me that he studied the text in the original German, not an English translation. Even in Maths, the most rigorously detailed of subjects, you cannot afford to assume that you know what you are talking about, just by reading a translation.


but uhh..do you speak ancient hebrew - no?
Do I speak it to you? No. Can I speak it to one who does speak it? A lot better than I can speak Modern Hebrew.

I'm not about to spend a few decades learning ancient hebrew just to see the same lies and contradictions in ancient hebrew.
AFAIK you are entitled to believe anything you want. But I have been told not to assume this for sure, in any subject, not in English Literature, not in Mathematics, not in Physics, not in Chemistry, not in Biology, not in Medicine, and not in anything else, because linguistic translations are not easy. That's why the UN employs so many translators. It's not an easy job.

If the words that are written are not what is meant then its worthless.
They are what is meant in Hebrew, they are just not exact enough in English, for you to expect to take them perfectly at their word, without realising you lose something in the translation.

And by 'worthless' perhaps I really mean 'extremely useful' speaking metaphorically when translated from ancient hebrew, lol.
I would suggest that you be very careful to temper anything you read in the Bible with a large dose of common sense, because you still don't fully understand the metaphors if you are reading a translation, and you might pick up a message that sounds cool to you, but would be harmful in the long run, if you don't apply your common sense to realise what it really means.
 tina-rm
Joined: 3/24/2009
Msg: 76
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 7/19/2009 12:21:10 PM
So, did you ever reach a conclusion about all of the biblical contradictions you noted?
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 77
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 8/2/2009 8:58:05 PM
3) false being, only partially true
the reader understands as their perception of reality allows them to understand and the bible is inaccurate it doesn't work... period..they read it and it is innaccurate they do not misunderstand it. they clearly and completely understand it as their personal experience allows them to recitify it with the physical reality of the world presented. The presentation of known manuscripts is vast and unlimited to those who choose to read that which is avaliable even the bible states that God said all on Earth is mine and I give it to you for your use so those variants which you speak of are completely different religions and to understand and rectify the inaccurcies one must incorporate all religious texts ;translation issues are important issues and until one is fluent in aramaic, hebrew, latin, greek and several other languages I would say translations are left to some very skilled people and we are left with our personal interpretations of the books we have.
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 78
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:26:36 PM
walk away from the belief that the only contradiction or inaccuracies are those which you have posed....
many people believe angels are inaccurate, resurection is inaccurate and creationism is inaccurate, salvation is inaccurate, that deities are inaccurate because these things simply do not exist based on their experience of reality. therefore any report of a God speaking to anyone is inaccurate, or angels speaking to anyone is inaccurate, or creating the earth via gods hand is inaccurate a person dying on the cross and coming back to life three days later is inaccurate...these things are simply mythology to many people inaacurate reports of four headed monsters with wings and thousands of eyes.
NO matter how you reconcile these things; people for purposes unknown to you hold their beliefs and of that they are entitled without being considered ignorant or less of human beings as you are entitled to your beliefs without being considered ignorant or hateful. differences of opinion do not entail hate....
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 79
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 8/5/2009 12:51:21 PM

1:1, 2, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. . . ."

If we take these verses through the creation of light and darkness Genesis 1:5 but not the seperation of water from heavens It states "Thus evening came, and morning followed --the first day... then on the first day we have the sky and water created on the second day earth is pulled from the water- and God called vegetation forth now realize the "greater {light} to rule the day and the lesser {light} to rule the night" had yet to be created for the earth until the third day on the fourth day all creatures of the sea and air were created then fifth day the earth brought forth all the creatures of the land then on the 6th day man was created...


Many see this as inaccurate or see the 6 days of creation and 1 dy of rest being an inaccurate report. by stating that the earth could indeed be older than 4.5 billion years it would also be older than 6 days plus written history... I have reconciled my understandings I do not believe creationism and evolution are exclusionary. It does not change the fact that 6 days does indeed report as inaccurate to our understanding of the reality of the establishment of life on earth with our understanding of time. even as the bible does report that one day of God's is 1000 years to man. And man's representation of time did not exist until the 6th day. the 7th day is rest.....
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 80
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 8/5/2009 4:57:19 PM
I have chosen to reconcile what a holy book says. It is not "my holy book". I do not relegate god to one book translated many times and reproduced. I enjoy most any book with words of guidance in them...

but for those who think the book is without error it's a HUGE issue.

It indeed is... It is even a huge issue to be addressed for those who take the book literally and offer no explanation to disparities between biblical depictions and our reality. In reconciling the text with reality I have stretched my imagination broadly to understand how underdeveloped theories of evolution work in tandem with the oral traditions passed down through milleniums. These oral traditions combined track history with religous underpinnings and patriarchal overtones to finally be rested in written documents their meaning conveyed or lost in the barriers of thought to language.
reconciling by the way is not ignoring, for myself it has been more of an incorporation of ideas. fundamentalist will tell you I am finding what is pleasing to my ear. I've heard it all before..I have my measure of faith and I will nurture it. To each their own.
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 81
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 8/6/2009 6:09:02 AM

Most people don't know or understand the Bible

yes and we are all given to understand it as we are supposed to-- no man is capable of convicting another person's heart. each person has their path.. I hope the book or books you choose to read guide you in your path: provide you with joy and enlightenment on your path: whatever path that may be. I have found mine......


Most people's mind is closed on knowing the truth. They have eyes, but can't see..., so they believe it's wrong
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 82
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 8/6/2009 9:38:37 PM
.
First, it is not an essentual of the Christian faith to hold to actual 6 days.


I did not mention Christians or anyone who has specified a religous doctrine....Christians have chosen a belief and generally it has to do with the bible.Those have accepted unconditionally the bible generally do not find inaccuracies and contradictions.

Many

see this as inaccurate or see the 6 days of creation and 1 dy of rest being an inaccurate report. by stating that the earth could indeed be older than 4.5 billion years it would also be older than 6 days plus written history...
please reread my posts to clarify what I have said.

When I was a new Christian, neither did I. It was not until I understood the significance of the flood evidence that the 6 day account made sense to me.
What one person believes has little relevance on what others have chosen to believe or will choose to believe each person comes to an understanding in their time... let them...

And besides, where is the difficulty to believe God prepared the earth in six days if God rose His Son from the dead in three?
It follows to believe that God is powerful enough to reveal him/her/itself to those who there is purpose without the necessity of a text book that they find inaccurate-- I am sure what belongs to God shall be returned to God all in its due time...
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 83
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 8/17/2009 12:06:59 PM
RE Msg: 226 by seattlerain1:
Earth was created in one day. (the bible could have said ANY amount of time... The Christian god chose to say one *DAY*, so no "but god really meant. . ." argument please.
The first 3 pages of Tractate Pesachim, where there is a long discussion that proved that Yom ("Day") can mean only day, or only night, or day or night. This clearly proved that Yom is NOT what WE call day. Blame it on a translation of a translation of a translation of a language that is so different from English, that even translations of single sentences of common speech from one to the other, often result in entirely different sentences.

Adam and Eve where the first humans.

Adam and Eve had sons which in turn left home and married women (funny since Adam and Eve were the FIRST humans and didn't have daughters.)
How could you miss Genesis 5:4? And the days of Adam after begetting Seth were eight hundred years, and he begot sons and daughters.

I just cannot reconcile this omission with a properly conducted research.

Ergo, I am left with one conclusion, that your research is not up to scratch, and you are therefore seeing what you would like to believe. It is not true. Face it: what you were told was wrong.

However, if everyone you've ever met or come across, either IRL or online, has told you that the Bible is true, and you are the ONLY person in the world that you have EVER come across who thinks differently, then I could at least claim that you have come to this conclusion by your OWN reason, and not just because you were told something, and accepted it without questioning things deeply.

Otherwise, I'd have to say to face facts. As House says: PEOPLE LIE!
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 84
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 8/18/2009 12:21:57 AM
Other people's views aside and this is just my own view or opinion. However I feel with any book or doctrine we are given to take what we can from it. and each person will take what is important for them to take from it. If you read the bible you will find it important for what ever reason you find it important: if it is to say it is hog wash then so be it. others may take other things from it. IMO WE each find our conviction for whatever path we are supposed to follow and those are our truths. Being convicted is no easy thing. Some people feel their conviction should apply to other people not realizing that their conviction only applies to them. Each of us is convicted in our heart of a different path and no one has the same path...
no two snow flakes are the same> no fingerprints are the same why try to force it.

there is a tao saying
I don't have it verbatim but basically it states:

growth is green and flexible and we are closer to life when flexible and bendable
when dry and brittle we are closer to death.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 8/18/2009 5:06:03 AM
RE Msg: 258 by seattlerain1:


Earth was created in one day. (the bible could have said ANY amount of time... The Christian god chose to say one *DAY*, so no "but god really meant. . ." argument please.
The first 3 pages of Tractate Pesachim, where there is a long discussion that proved that Yom ("Day") can mean only day, or only night, or day or night. This clearly proved that Yom is NOT what WE call day. Blame it on a translation of a translation of a translation of a language that is so different from English, that even translations of single sentences of common speech from one to the other, often result in entirely different sentences.
So why would an All-seeing and All-knowing god have humans write 'his law' into a paper book using a changing-language that has been easily manipulated and changed to suit any number of cultures and leaders all with specific agendas?

Why are the ORIGINAL works of this god non-existant? couldn't he have had them saved?

Why would he have them written in a language he KNEW would be a dead language?

Why is "his hand" not on the translations, rewrites, and re / mis interpretations of 'his words'
Ahhh. Now we're onto philosophy. Or to be accurate, theology, and NOT contradictions/interpretations.

I heartily applaud your asking these questions. But before we go on, I think it is wise to reach an agreement about your previous issues, that they have been resolved, to no longer be issues. I do this, because, as Edward De Bono pointed out in his book called "Six Thinking Hats", that if we continue to keep mixing separate issues in a single point of debate, that we will experience the same problems as business meetings do, that we'll end up arguing back and forth endlessly, with no real conclusions in sight, that leads each department head to have no better clarity than before, and to result in each department doing its own thing, the very same thing that it did before, continuing in clashes and conflicts that could be resolved easily, if only we were to ensure that each issue is debated on its OWN merits, not by bringing in other things that aren't truly relevant to that precise point. He's estimated that this approach cuts out 75% of the time spent in meetings of major corporations, with very real and significant advantages to everyone. I truly suggest that you read his book, and implement it.

So, can we agree that your previous issues about lack of clarity in the Bible can be put to bed, at least to say that these issues CAN be resolved, and are not automatically reasons for rejection of the texts?

In THAT vein, I will attempt to address these issues of theological philosophy.
So why would an All-seeing and All-knowing god have humans write 'his law' into a paper book using a changing-language that has been easily manipulated and changed to suit any number of cultures and leaders all with specific agendas?
This issue has multiple SEPARATE issues:

1) Why did G-d write His "law" into a paper book?
Well, paper is just a medium, and still today, it's the most reliable. After all, hard drives fail, and CDs go bad. But the Dead Sea Scrolls have survived for over a thousand years. Not a bad way to keep the text.

2) Why did G-d write His "law" in a changing-language?
IF His "law" was dogmatic, then it would be a problem, because domatism requires things remain the same. But if the law was meant to apply for all time, then things change, and then the law would have to be dynamic to cope. So it would need a "changing-language", so that it could accomodate how the law would transform to deal with issues that are very important today, but were not an issue at all 2000 years ago.

3) Why did G-d allow His "law" to be manipulated?
It depends on your goals. If your goal is just to produce unthinking robots, then you want your laws to be cast in stone. That's not a problem with dynamism, because such robots would never adapt, and would never be able to handle changes in the environment that are not part of their original programming. But, if you want dynamic adaptive organisms, and you want them to realise these things for themselves, and to think into the situations they encounter, then you need to give them a semblance of free will, even with regards to the "law". You need to give them the flexibility to decide for themselves if they wish to follow what the law says, with the spirit of its intentions, or to ignore it, or to read it according to how they want to interpret it. Otherwise, you'd just have a society much like Minority Report, in which humans could be imprisoned for murder just for thinking about it. People NEED to have some level of free choice to follow G-d's law, and not just be unthinking robots.

On another level, why should we need a "law" at all? What's wrong with rape and murder? If there is something wrong with rape and murder, why aren't we inbuilt not to do it? One answer is that there is no real advantage in having a world populated by robots. Part of the reason for the creation of humanity is that G-d wanted to give to someone. But one doesn't really appreciate a gift that is forced on one, only one that one had to work to achieve. So, humans needed free choice to CHOOSE not to rape and murder, even though they might sometimes have the desire to. If the "law" was so clear that it could never be manipulated, then that free choice would be non-existent for nearly all intents. So it must have the flexibility that it can be misunderstood, but only to those who are seeking to do so. That again would explain why we see so many people who ARE misinterpreting the Bible, ending up carrying out nefarious deeds.

A third possible answer is that ANY text can be re-interpreted according to your want, as that ability to justify and rationalise your actions, is part of the human condition.

Why are the ORIGINAL works of this god non-existant? couldn't he have had them saved?
You mean like the 2 Tablets? They were kept in the Ark of the Covenant. They only disappeared, when people ignored G-d's law so much, that it ceased to have any meaning to have it around. At that point, it was carried off by invaders, according to G-d's design, and then it was mislaid by the annals of history. Some say that the Ark of the Covenant and the 2 Tablets are in the Vatican. Others say they are hidden somewhere deep underground. No-one exactly knows. But what is said, is that the reason that they were hidden, was because of prejudice and baseless hatred, and that this problem exists today, and only when such prejudice has been rooted out of our psyches, that it will be worth having them around again. There is only so much even G-d's works can do. Some of the work we have to do ourselves. Even in our personal development, we reach a point where we KNOW what we should do, and it is just a matter of time until we finally accept that we have to do it. When we reach that point, our studies are useless until we are going to put into action what we know already.

Why would he have them written in a language he KNEW would be a dead language?
You mean like Hebrew? It's been spoken by Jews for the last 2000 years, and Jews were the people given the Torah. It's the language of the State of Israel. It's very much alive. It is true that the majority of the world doesn't speak Hebrew. But they never did.

Let's take English as an example. The Domesday Book was written in English, in the English of the time. English is a living language, yes? But English has changed so much, that the English of the Domesday Book is so different from our own, that is is truly an entirely different language. If you want to understand it, you need to know old German, old French, and old Norse, and Latin, because it is a mix of those, and it is waaay too far from modern English to decipher it from the language we use.

If the Bible had been written in a "living language", like English, it would have about as much impact on today as the Domesday Book. Hardly anything at all.

But, it was revealed to a small people, one who spoke a very specific language, that they have kept alive to this day. So they have a very good idea of what it says, and they have the ability to disseminate its teachings to others, and to help others get a better understanding of the Bible, and if they so choose, to learn Hebrew, to understand the original text. That has ensured that the Bible's original text has survived almost completely intact, and has ensured that modern translators have the ability to learn Hebrew and to re-understand and re-transalte the Bible in a modern day context. It makes the Bible a living document, unlike the Domesday Book and other such ancient documents.

Why is "his hand" not on the translations, rewrites, and re / mis interpretations of 'his words'
Who says it isn't? If everything is in G-d's control, then G-d chooses to allow who interprets what, and how, and might even give people the idea on who to interpret and translate His words. WE might choose to not see the plan in all things. But then, we would be like amateur chess players watching a grandmaster. We might think a grandmaster is a fool for giving up his queen, only to find out that this allows him to convert 2 pawns into queens much later on. Much of chess is like that, making moves that seem stupid to someone who has only been watching the game for the last few moves. We humans have only been around for half a second of the day that is the life of the universe to now. It's really silly to think that we're going to grasp the full picture that easily. We need to sit and think about it, a lot.

Of course... YOU (and A Theist) have the CORRECT translations, right?
I'm not saying that I am perfect. But at least I'm considering ALL the options, and not just pushing my views onto you, that you should convert to my beliefs, and that every text you follow is wrong. I don't go around saying that the Buddhist texts are all rubbish and full of contradictions.

Putting the instructions for everlasting salvation (or damnation) into such a manipulated and misinterpreted book seems like a lame ass thing to do by someone who should have known better, doesn't it?
Seems like an even more lame a** thing to do, to start criticising someone else's work, on the basis of a translation of a translation of a translation, and think that you're definitely right, and think that you know better than everyone else who has ever lived, who did believe in G-d. Publish 5000 scientific theories, solve the Theory of Everything, cure every disease, cure war, famine, world hunger, and THEN claim you're smarter than every religious scholar who has ever lived, and THEN you've shown you're smarter than they are. Till then, all I can say is that YOU aren't. Doesn't mean you're definitely wrong. But it doesn't mean you are right either.

Try following Buddhism, and stop holding onto the attachment that you have to prove the Bible wrong.
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 86
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 8/23/2009 11:10:05 PM
"Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good"..Is the King James translation
and in the New king James and the NIV and the NLT and the Catholic Canon-- Prove is translated as test
NAS translates Prove as examine carefully>>> I don't have the greek words written by the scribes so I don't know what was translated.

the following is from a simple Strongs concordance don't know Greek so I can't elaborate on Strongs' translation which is not a scholars translation you can make what you will of it.
while the root word in greek for prove (dokimazo) can be examine, it literally means to test and figurativley means to approve allow or discern, it also comes from the word dokime and through implication to allow or approve, discernment, [maybe through]trial and experience.

The statements before it speak of prophesy and spirit and praying incessently. IMO seem to be private rather than public practices. Therefore, not intended to create public discord but rather introspection and understanding rather than confusion.

The greek root verb for the word dokeo can be used to mean show, to think, to seem either truthful or with uncertainty, be accounted, (of own) pleasure, be of reputation, seem, suppose, think, trow[ means to have faith or belief]



any one of these words could have been utilized in the translation for prove they are all sighted for reference in the translation of prove-- thessolonians 5:21 However dokimazo is the main word cited.
IMO If one chooses to be liberated in translation there are translations that suit many needs or desires, create totally different philosophies. I fiddled with it and came up with several interesting ones. Including one that states if we have faith in all things we show our reputaion Not a thing about thinking...
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 87
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 8/28/2009 7:17:02 AM
RE Msg: 262 by Apothegee:


There are Aramaic/Hebrew originals though
No, actually, there are not. There are copies of copies of copies of copies of the lost originals. Big difference, as you point out nicely in the sentence that preceded this quoted one
They have been saved in the sense that no translation has ever occurred and (scorpionmover will correct me if I am wrong) I believe all Jewish communities have the same Torah, without variations. Unlike the Christian Bible.
Jews have a long history of trying to collect all the manuscrips of the works they use, and compare them, to ensure they have the right "Girsah", text.

During the last several hundred years, some Jews have taken it upon themselves to gather all the texts they could find of major Jewish works, like the Old Testament, the Mishnah, and the Talmud, compare versions, and to write down which version they thought was correct and why. Rashi did so a few times on the Talmud in the 12th Century. Hagahot Ha-Bach (Corrections of the Bach) are written on almost every page of the Talmud, showing the version preserved by the printer, and the recommended corrections.

When it comes to the Old Testament, Jews are equally meticulous. They've even compared their copies to the Dead Sea Scrolls. All in all, there are 6 letter differences, 5 are silent letters, that read pretty much the same, and only 1 is an actual pronounced letter, making only one sound differently. All in 6, the meaning of the verse is virtually identical.

However, with the New Testament, Jews don't follow that. So the Jews have NOT kept meticulous records of the NT. With the NT, there could be multiple different versions, which could differ widely, even in the gospels themselves.

RE Msg: 263 by Khyrene:
Transliteration and misscription are both issues in any case wherein copies are made. The point being that there simply are no guarantees when the variables in play involve humans. Ultimately, it is a matter of faith/belief and that is rather the point.
A fundamental of Jewish religion, is that Jews have to go to synagogue regularly, where a portion of the Five Books of Moses have to be read out loud, to be heard by all present, from a parchment written in the original text, every week, resulting in the whole Five Books of Moses being read every year, although in earlier years it was completed every 3 years. Another fundamental, is that Jews should pray in the original text, so all Jews know Hebrew. Another fundamental is that upon reading the text, Jews are supposed to correct the reader if he makes a mistake, so every synagogue has copies in the original text, which all present use to follow along with the text, and correcr the reader when he makes a mistake even in the reading. Another fundamental is that when scribes write out a new such parchment, called a Sefer Torah, if he writes a name of G-d in the wrong place, he cannot rub it out, even if he wrote it by mistake. So every scribe has to write out each letter painstakingly, to make sure that he doesn't make a mistake. To write a Sefer Torah takes about 3 years! Another fundamental is that all male Jews are required to learn Torah all the time and women can too, but simply are not required to occupy all their free time learning Torah. So every Jew serious about Judaism spends much of their life studying the Torah, and especially the Old Testament, many, many times. Many know it better than you know the alphabet. When you consider this lifestyle, it's as unlikely of Jews to make serious errors in transcription as it would be to find that most American texts of the US Constitution have transcribed that entirely wrong. The OT is read too often, and is referred to too often, to make errors likely. Even then, Jews have acknowledged that a few errors have crept in, and been meticulous to list them all out. They're even meticulous in that.

The whole idea of Chinese Whispers would apply to stuff that you don't use all the time. But not to things that you read almost every day.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 88
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 8/29/2009 7:35:47 PM
A couple of problems with the Bible just off the top of my head:

1. Adam and Eve supposedly had no knowledge of good or evil. How could they be held responsible for being disobedient to God? How were they supposed to know that disobeying God is "evil"? Of course, it's easy for us to judge; we have knowledge of good and evil.

2. So, because of their disobedience, sin has been unleashed upon mankind. Man is now depraved, wicked, imperfect, etc. Yet writing and compiling the words/thoughts of God Himself is the ONE PERFECT ACT sinful man has accomplished? I'm not buying it.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 89
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 8/30/2009 4:19:27 PM
Control? I disagree that people have any control over good and evil or over the world. In any case, this is just one of many examples of the dizzying verbal gymnastics required to reconcile the words of the Bible with the real world. Apologists certainly have their work cut out for them.

Who said the Bible is perfect? For this purpose, let's just equate "perfect" with "inerrant." Talk to a Baptist minister or Pentacostal pastor. Easier still, take a look at "answersingenesis.org" for endless claims to Biblical inerrancy. I would also take issue with your claim that people have succeeded in keeping the Scriptures unchanged for 100 generations or so.

The Bible's most enduring quality is that it is widely open to personal and agenda-driven interpretation. It has the potential to be many things to many people, for good or not-so-good. The Bible is, at the end of the day, just a book (more precisely a compilation of books and letters) written by various (fallible) people, with no more power than that which its (fallible) readers project upon it.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 90
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 8/31/2009 8:25:21 AM

Does Caribbean crisis say anything to you?

No.

In the English translations that I have read, they say that Adam and Eve became ashamed of their nudity. In the "control" paradigm, this does not make much sense. Did they gain control of their shame? Control of fashionable fig leaves?

Even if some of them manage to overcome the language barrier, frankly, I find literalists (both theists and atheists) to be somewhat boring. I mean, it's a complex world!

Indeed. But, to be fair to literalists, they are simply trying to get to the heart of what God wants for them-- and for everyone else in the more unfortunate, control freak cases. If the Bible is simply a highly metaphorical book of poetry, fables, and highly embellished ancient history, then discussing inaccuracies and contradictions (the point of this thread) is to be missing the point. Or perhaps it is the central point in trying to show that the Bible should not be taken literally and as historical fact. Many, many do, you see.

In any case.. if it does not ring true to you, that means it's not yours.

It is if I own it! Seriously though, certain things in the Bible do ring true for me. Certainly not as literal fact. The Bible does not contain much wisdom or narrative that is original or unique in human history and folklore. That the Bible has lasted so well through the ages is a decent example of "Might makes right" and "To the victor go the spoils."

Why don't you seek what works for you, and let others do the same.

What makes you think I haven't, and how is little ole me stopping anyone?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 91
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 9/3/2009 4:52:05 AM
RE Msg: 267 by flyguy51:
In any case, this is just one of many examples of the dizzying verbal gymnastics required to reconcile the words of the Bible with the real world. Apologists certainly have their work cut out for them.
I don't know about that. I know many people who find such verbal gymnastics easy.

I would also take issue with your claim that people have succeeded in keeping the Scriptures unchanged for 100 generations or so.
I used to think so as well. Then I met quite a few people who knew many, many books by heart. One was an old man who used to sit making clothes in the same place where a class was going on, and he'd correct all the pupils reading out the words. A friend of mine was even studying a passage, and they started asking some questions on it. This old man came over to them and started speaking quite quietly. My friend leaned over to listen and found that this old man was quoting an entirely different passage that entirely answered their questions. I've seen so much of this myself, and heard of so much from friends who I know to be honest with me, that I simply have no doubt that it is entirely in human capability to remember the entire Scriptures, by heart, word-perfect. It is just a question of who puts in the effort.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 92
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 11/16/2009 6:51:01 PM
RE Msg: 265 by flyguy51:
1. Adam and Eve supposedly had no knowledge of good or evil. How could they be held responsible for being disobedient to God? How were they supposed to know that disobeying God is "evil"? Of course, it's easy for us to judge; we have knowledge of good and evil.
Who says they didn't know what evil was? The word used for "knowledge" is Da'at. But the Hebrew word that would correspond most closely to what we would call knowledge, is either Limud, or Chochmah. Da'at means experience. Lots of English speakers make this mistake when they first go to Israel. They say about a woman "Ani yodeah otah", which means "I experienced her", or "I had sex with her", and they are corrected to say the correct Hebrew expression, which is "Ani makir otah", "I recognise her". HUGE faux pas. But lots of English speakers make it.

They had KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. They knew that going against G-d's rules in G-d's own world, was likely to get them thrown out, just like you would expect to get thrown out of someone's house for not following their house rules. But they didn't have EXPERIENCE of good AND evil. Experience of evil, is doing the wrong things, especially when you know that you'll probably pay for it, like cheating on your girlfriend who you love. Experience of good, is having the temptation of doing evil and resisting, like when you have the option of cheating or your girlfriend who you love and you turn it down. Adam and Eve didn't really have much of either.

2. So, because of their disobedience, sin has been unleashed upon mankind. Man is now depraved, wicked, imperfect, etc. Yet writing and compiling the words/thoughts of God Himself is the ONE PERFECT ACT sinful man has accomplished? I'm not buying it.
Who says mankind did it perfectly? Sure, man took down G-d's words as dictation pretty good. But that was only from a few men, who G-d spoke to, because G-d knew they were nice enough to not want to fiddle with G-d's words. But you can see through history how many people claim to speak for G-d, when they don't. Just take a look at ex-Pres Bush's speech on the War On Terror. You really think THAT was dictated by G-d? We are very far from the mark of keeping to G-d's words in this time. That's why we have to be very careful to discern between people who really are saying G-d's word, and people who are just trying to use G-d as a justification for their own personal interests, like war.

RE Msg: 267 by flyguy51:
Who said the Bible is perfect? For this purpose, let's just equate "perfect" with "inerrant." Talk to a Baptist minister or Pentacostal pastor. Easier still, take a look at "answersingenesis.org" for endless claims to Biblical inerrancy.
That's a Xian site with links to the Creation Museum. You are talking about one of the most extreme views on the Bible in existence. Can we say "generalisation"?

I would also take issue with your claim that people have succeeded in keeping the Scriptures unchanged for 100 generations or so.
I get that, if you've never been able to memorise anything. But I've memorised a few pages verbatim, and have spent enough time studying that when I would quote stuff, people used to say that I was so accurate, I was like a living computer. But I'm not a patch on my teacher, not 1/1000th of his ability, and he told me that he's not a patch on his father.

The Bible's most enduring quality is that it is widely open to personal and agenda-driven interpretation. It has the potential to be many things to many people, for good or not-so-good.
That's just because of its appeal. The thing that has the most interpretations is probably democracy. As one historian pointed out to me, Fidel Castro's definition of democracy was "one man with a gun". At most, all we can say is that the Bible has a lot of appeal, just like democracy, and therefore there are more people lining up to use it as support for their interests, just like democracy.

The Bible is, at the end of the day, just a book (more precisely a compilation of books and letters) written by various (fallible) people, with no more power than that which its (fallible) readers project upon it.
Just like democracy. After all, we're supposed to be bringing democracy to Afghanistan. Yet, the elections there were ridiculously corrupt, and even with a second go, it was just as corrupt. We're not really doing better than the Bible.

RE Msg: 271 by NerdStatus:
Which is why this doesn't ring true for me: "Whether or not the manuscript is factual or not is, for many, the biggest question surrounding the document.". The biggest question for me is: since there's so many obvious contradictions, and endless interpretations, why would anyone believe the authenticity of the document?
That's a part of many religious people's views, although many have read so many discussions about every last word on the Bible, to the nth degree, that one starts to find it very hard to believe that anyone who would analyse the Bible so deeply across so much of it, would somehow not come to the obvious truth that people who've not analysed the Bible to even 1/10,000th of that level of analysis seem to spot instantly.


Others feel that these faults are products of multiple translations and accidental inaccurate translations.
In some instances of some translations, they would be correct. But translation errors don't account for the majority of contradictions.
I wouldn't say "the majority". You would be amazed just how many translation mistakes English speakers make, that Hebrew speakers laugh at all the time.

It also doesn't help that translation errors just prove that the devine hand of God isn't working if his works aren't being translated accurately. You can't say, "The Bible was written by God (infalable) through man." and admit "The Bible has translation errors.". Either God saw to it you had clear & accurate instruction... or he didn't.
That presupposes that G-d wanted man to just do what he was told. However, there is another view, that G-d wanted man to have the free will to make his own choices, of his own mind, and not just to be a robot. But as Nietzsche pointed out, we make our arguments and beliefs to support our actions and lifestyles. So to dictate our beliefs, would dictate our actions, and deny us the free will that G-d so often seems to want us to have. Thus, there is a very real need for us to have the ability to warp the statements of the Bible, in order to grant us free will to choose how to live and choose our own justifications for them.

Still more believe that they are not flaws at all, but simply subjects that can no longer be fully understood since parts (even full books) of the Bible, that possibly contained information and explanations of these subjects, have been removed or lost.

Those people don't have the first clue about the history of the Bible. The Bible is a collection of writings. There's no deleted or lost passages from these assembled works. Some writings may not have been included... but they weren't every "removed". This is an important distinction.
Yes. But it is true that many people don't have access to the writings that other people have. 99% of people haven't read the Mishnah, or the Talmud, or the Beit Yosef, or the Shuchan Aruch, or the Mesilat Yesharim, or thousands of other books that discuss the Bible, and that contain information that many Jews consider to have been the Oral Law, given together with the Written Law that has come to be known as the Old Testament, by G-d to Moses. Relatively speaking, it's like reading the First Amendment without having read Jefferson's Letter, or anything of the American Legal Code.


If Newton's Theory of Gravitation turned out to be entirely unverifiable, unsupported by any facts, and the few facts it showed were entirely inconsistent... then it would be relevant.
His theories are entirely inconsistent with Einstein's theories. Newton's theories work on a macro scale, and Einstein's on a micro scale, but not visa versa.
Nah. We still teach Newton to high schoolers, because for 99% of the time, Newton is so close to Einstein that the differences are much less than our margin for acceptable error. Really, Einstein's formulae add a small correction to Newton's theories, and only apply to make a significant difference in very rare situations, such as that satellites lose a tiny amount of time every year compared to the Earth, which is normally the sort of thing you would correct without thinking about it. But because Newton expressed his theories using forces, and Einstein expressed his theories using Tensors, the two formulae look entirely different. But when you convert them to the same format, Einstein's just becomes a small correction to Newton's. It's only in a few cases that Einstein's is better. It's just that it's a hell of a lot better. Einstein's formulae are so accurate to our data, that they are far more reliable than anything ever scientifically tested in all recorded scientific experiments.


God has no problem with idolatry, as long as he's the idol.
Not true:
You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
You can't make / shape God, therefore he can't be an idol.
You seem to have quite a grasp of the English version of the Bible.

Einstein knew this when he was producing his theories - and stated they weren't "laws" nor would they be laws. He was working on a unifying "law of everything" even as he published E=mc^2. Scientiests have been working on a theory of everything. The closest thing we have right now is string theory & quantium physics. The former is more of a pseudoscience (because it's predictions can't be directly observed... yet... maybe...), and the lader doesn't explain everything. But, I digress...
Actually, I wouldn't say that string theory is a psedoscience, only that it's not yet been confirmed or disproved, and it's expected to be tested at the LHC.

And, in some cases they're written record of someone's accounts of someone's accounts. And, in all cases, translations of translations of original text that we can't locate. Therefore we're unable to authenticate the translations.
I agree that you cannot locate these translations. But I can locate quite a lot of them. I certainly can locate and have located manuscripts hundreds of years old. I also know a fair bit about translating, and about how Chinese whispers work, by comparing how and when information has been miscommunicated and when it hasn't. Text speak is a great example of this. Get a few 50-year-olds to read a message written entirely in text speak, and most would get it 90% wrong. Get a few 18-year olds to do the same, and they'll all give you the same version right away. It's uncanny. But then when you realise that it's all a matter of the brain's tremendous power to develop unbelievably skills through habit, and you realise that what we would call impossible, is easy for anyone used to it and who does it several times a day as a matter of course. The same is true of any language, and of any text.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 93
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 6/7/2013 7:39:21 AM

Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions


Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions)
NonStampCollector

Uploaded on Apr 26, 2010

This is a video response to all those people who claim that the bible is free of contradictions. Ummm - it isn't. I've looked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions