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
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 26
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictionsPage 2 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)


The Bible hasn't changed dramatically at all.


I'm sure you're familiar with the story of Jesus saving the woman from being stoned to death by saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It's a pretty famous story that's been used countless times to teach about Christian forgiveness. Did you know that it was not in the earliest manuscripts? In fact when it does start appearing in the texts it's in different locations (including different books).

The earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark don't contain verses 16:9-20. Later manuscripts have three different endings. A whole branch of Christianity was founded upon handling snakes (Mark 16:18) even though that was not in the original Gospel of Mark.

The passage in 1 John that says that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one is a 16th century fabrication.

The passage in Revelation where Jesus claims to be the Alpha and the Omega is also a late fabrication.

These last two are important because they were added to give support for the doctrine of the Trinity which otherwise lacks any strong support from the Bible.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 27
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/1/2008 9:36:10 PM


YOU ARE BOTH WRONG
and need to expand your understanding of what the Bible is.


An anthology of heavily edited books written primarily by ignorant sheepherders and politicians. If you think it's more than that then please lets us know what you think it is and why. Saying we're all wrong and laughing is not conducive to intelligent dialogue and just makes you look arrogant.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/2/2008 6:37:25 AM
Geometry


...one would have a hard time questioning its existence as an authentic document. Whether or not the manuscript is factual or not is, for many, the biggest question surrounding the document.

This is your personal opinion. It's not in any way indicative of what others may or may not believe.

Let's break this down, shall we?
1. The Bible is an authentic document: This is very true and not an opinion at all. My use of the word "authentic" simply means that it is "real". And if anyone would like to dispute whether or not the bible truly exists, then all you need to do is go to Amazon.com.

2. Whether or not the manuscript is factual or not is, for many, the biggest question surrounding the document.: This is also a true statement since I personally know many people who believe this. I am basing my statement off of what I know, not the other way around.

So, there is nothing in that quote of mine that is opinion as you have claimed.


justAcheckin


Well, at least you are admitting the events happened. You're just more convinced the events were natural occurrences rather than supernatural.

I never said that I believe that all events in the Bible were bogus, but only that the details cannot be verified in many cases due to contradictions that can be found.

With that being said, that doesn't mean that I accept that all event's portrayed in the Bible happened. But there are many events that seem plausible and far be it from me to suggest that those didn't happen. I think that many of the events in the bible were embellished upon to make them seem greater than what they were. Other events I believe were mis recorded in the scripture as a result of flawed perceptions.

It's like ContIbli said: If something doesn't make since, then make shit up. Hell, we even do this today. This is basically what a theory is. The only difference is that a theory is not intended to be portrayed as truth, but as an educated guess. Then again if would be much harder to convince someone to believe in the Bible if Noah built the ark to survive an admiringly theoretical worldwide flood.


Casheyesblond


We the people of the United States, in order to form a 'more perfect' union"...is that possible? Can something truly be considered more perfect....I mean to say,is it not so that something is either perfect or it is not?

You are obviously confused by what the phrase "more perfect" means in this statement. It merely means "better" or "more perfect than it is now", and yes something can truly be considered to be more perfect. I think you are confusing the phrase "more perfect" with the phrase "more than perfect" here. They are two entirely different things.

If you can't comprehend the simplistic yet effective writings within our constitution, then how can we take you seriously when disputing the convoluted teachings of the Bible? It seems to me, by the examples that you are giving, that you are either trying to confuse the issue or that you don't understand the issue.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 29
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/2/2008 12:06:01 PM


Ignorant sheep herders ?

Moses was a Prince in Egypt the civilization that scientist say built the Pyramids in Egypt, and was skilled in all learning of the Egyptians who at that time and place were the leaders of the world in all things (the guys that built the pyramids). I don't see in the description of his life until 40 where he was ignorant and herding sheep, he had problems about the age of 40 when he killed an oppressor of the oppressed and was disowned by his adoptive father the Pharaoh (who he was raised to become) and fled from Egypt for the treatment he received by the Hebrews after killing an Egyptian in a dispute over the the treatment the Egyptian was enacting on a Hebrew.


Moses and the Exodus are myths. He didn't exist and neither did Hebrews slaves in Egypt. There was no mass exodus of Hebrew slaves from Egypt. Instead, the earliest Jews were Canaanites and the Jewish culture and religion grew out of the Canaanite people.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 30
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/2/2008 12:33:55 PM


For those people who chose to disbelieve it would make no difference if we had origional copies. As I mentioned in an earlier post, people do not disbelieve because they see contradictions or other reasons for disbelieving. They see contradictions and other reasons for unbelief because they disbelief. Their heart dictates what they see, feel and speak. IMO it is spiritual blindness, and there is only one cure for it.


It's funny that you should say this because I used to be a Bible believing Christian and it was all the contradictions that convinced me that the Bible is not the word of god.



Some of what you say is true - just as your comments about the thousands of variations. You base your comments on - or rather parrot the writings of - Bart Ehrman. But Ehrman never took the time to explain the reasons for the variations or the fact the vast majority of them are inconsequencial. People such as yourself though are gulliable enough to jump on his band wagon before researching for yourself the validity of his comments.


I don't know why you're trying to link me with Ehrman. I don't think I've mentioned him and I've never read anything by him. The fact that those passages are late additions has been known for hundreds of years. I found out about that long before I'd ever heard of Ehrman.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/2/2008 8:24:30 PM
* perfect ("Perfect" is not relative. A grade can be almost perfect, but your perfect score cannot be more perfect than my perfect score.)

I'm sorry, but trying to compare todays acceptable grammar to acceptable grammar of 200 years ago is crazy. And of course your perfect score can't be more perfect than my perfect score. Because perfect is perfect. But your score CAN be more perfect than my less-than-perfect score.


And yet,as I continue to read your your posts,I took notice to certain things like for examples; imo,how often your have used arguments to support your position and completely ignored those arguments go against your position/special pleading/stacking the deck.

Unless someone can figure out how to argue with themselves, it is a fairly common assumption that if someone is arguing a point, there must be a contrary point being made by an external party. With that being said, every point that I have "argued" has been in response to someone else's argument that went against my own. So how can you say that I have ignored those arguments that go against my position? Opposing ideas are the only ideas to argue, unless you are a fool that argues ideas that are in agreement with your own.


It's funny that you should say this because I used to be a Bible believing Christian and it was all the contradictions that convinced me that the Bible is not the word of god.

I made this same statement a few posts back. This is my position completely. It wasn't until I started to read the Bible that I started disbelieving.
 sarah_one
Joined: 1/8/2008
Msg: 32
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/2/2008 9:25:05 PM

and the scripture cannot be broken;


Is there a difference between the word of God and scripture (that cannot be broken)??
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 33
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/3/2008 3:55:39 PM


What you failed to notice is that I have specifically stated that it is a false belief that proving one inaccuracy exists in a whole work renders the whole work invalid.


You're right. One inaccuracy doesn't render the whole book invalid. It just means that the whole work is not the Word of God. I don't think anyone is saying that nothing in the bible is true.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/3/2008 4:13:10 PM
RE Msg 51 by romanticoptimist:

scorpionmover said: (I)the law on the nations that the Children of Israel "killed". Turns out, that if you were willing to live by the Seven Laws of Noah, which includes don't kill, don't steal, and follow a system of justice, you didn't have to die. So the only people who were killed were people who said they would steal and kill and not care about the law, or similar.
That's not true in all cases. For example, Joshua's assault on Jericho ends with almost every single living thing being killed, slaughtered really. That includes innocent babies and amoral animals. Just prior to that, tens of thousands of Midianites are slaughtered after being captured and/or surrendering. Only the virgin females are allowed to live. All the boys, regardless of age or virginity are slaughtered. In one chapter (Num 33), hundreds of thousands of men, women, boys, girls, babies, and animals are the victims of mass slaughter and revenge, a blood-soaked rampage that makes "Rambo 4" look like a picnic with uber-pacifists! There's no mention at all of them being given the chance to recant their prior non-Israelite worship practices or agree or disagree with the "Seven Laws of Noah".
You don't mention that you have a fully-functional brain. Does that mean you don't have one? No? Why not? Because we take it for granted that you do? Well, the Seven Laws of Noah are taken for granted too. So why say it? Why say it as blood-thirsty, unless you have hate in your heart, and you wish to lay blame on innocents?

RE msg 61 by the OP:

Please keep being evasive. I enjoy it. Here is the basic usage:
I'm not being evasive at all. But I see now that by your definition of the word (which obviously came from a UK web address) our two countries my have different meanings of the word. I am using the Merriam-Webster dictionary's online site at our US address (M-W.com) and I get a much different result.
Well, I normally only use Google define: and an etymological dictionary, because they gives a good variety of answers. But your posts kept on referring to a different source. So I had to expand my usage to include variants such as American. But you should keep in mind that the term "solemn testimony" is an old expression used in English, and as your legal system was mirrored on the English system and then adapted later, I would expect that such a term would have initially been used in the understaning of English, and then subsequently been kept in that understanding.

1: marked by the invocation of a religious sanction
2: marked by the observance of established form or ceremony; specifically : celebrated with full liturgical ceremony
3 a: awe-inspiring : sublime b: marked by grave sedateness and earnest sobriety c: somber, gloomy

As you can see, all three of your definitions point to the mood surrounding the statement (i.e. "somber", "grave", "earnest", "serious"). While my definition, which was taken from one of the most well accepted dictionaries in the US, only refers to the disposition at the time of a statement in one out of three of it's meanings.
I quite agree that all of these definitions, according to Merriam-Webster's definition, seem to imply that a ceremonial party would be solemn. But it isn't how the word is used, and I think you would agree that despite all 4th of July parties being ceremeonial and usually formal, because people usually follow the same form, year after year, for their group, the wor solemn would never be used to describe such a formal and ceremonial party. I cannot excuse this lack of clarity on behalf of Merriam-Webster. They should know better. The fact that your usage of the word is according to what this dictionary says, doesn't qualify the accuracy of the statement, unless you can give me a clear example of where you are right and I am wrong, such as where a formal and ceremonial occasion, that is not serious and is very joyful, is called "solemn".

I think this is a good example of how words can have such different meanings even in the same language based on location. So as I said before, I wasn't being evasive, but merely stating what I knew to be the more accurate definition that I knew at the time.
I agree that you aren't being evasive. But this is where Americans and even many English people make mistakes. You cannot just follow any book blindly, and expect it to work. You have to take real life and experience into account. After all, if you went to a bookstore and bought a book on DIY, and just followed it blindly, you wouldn't be any different than hundreds of other men who do the same thing and make awful things that don't work and are sometimes downright dangerous. So I've tempered what I've read with what I've heard of it used in real life of the many ceremonies held in Britain, such as Royal Weddings, funerals, Jubilee parties, and many other events, with what I've watched of the use of the word on American and British TV, and with the many American and British books of culture that I've read. In all cases, solemn has been used only in a serious and non-joyful occasion.

But even without that, what good is testimony if you cannot take the guy seriously?

Also, why do you continually avoid acknowledgement that this question has been answered in msg 43?

RE msg 62 by CountIbli: This is not a thread on the flood and Noah's Ark. That's a different thread. Also, you are discussing if flood and Noah's Ark are a contradiction. Even if you were 100% right, the topic is why do you not reject the Bible if ONE contradiction exists, but NOT if any contradiction exists. You're going wildly off topic.

RE msg 65 by the OP:
Possible Example: Moses claimed that God manifested himself as a burning bush, but the bush itself was not consumed by the flames. Many people even now would consider this to be virtually unbelievable.
OP, you asked why people believe in a Book when there were contradictions. But now you are claiming that parts are a contradiction. Is this thread about your claims that the Bible has contradictions, or why people believe in a Book when there were contradictions? Which is it? Because if it is about your list of contradictions, then your message is wrong.

Another explanation could be a plant called Dictamnus gymnostylis.
The Bible says "s'neh". That is a TYPE of bush. Not just ANY bush. The generic term "bush" is "siach". So unless you can prove that the Hebrew word for Dictamnus gymnostylis is "s'neh", it just doesn't make any sense to claim that it was the Dictamnus gymnostylis.

Another occurrence on hot, windless days (on a much more common level) is heat exhaustion. Heat exhaustion can cause hallucinations which could explain the voice that Moses claimed to hear.
It is common for people who are are relatively new to a hot climate to have such a hallucination. An example would be the early descendants of the English pilgrims, such as George Washington. So it would make sense for George Washington to have had hallucinations of what really happened in the summer of 1776. However, Moses was a descendant of the Middle East for over 20 generations. So his body would have already have been acclimated to the environment. So it would be as ridiculous to claim that he had a hallucination as it would be for me to claim that all Africans have hallucinations in summer.

RE Msg 75 by CountIbli:
Moses and the Exodus are myths. He didn't exist and neither did Hebrews slaves in Egypt. There was no mass exodus of Hebrew slaves from Egypt. Instead, the earliest Jews were Canaanites and the Jewish culture and religion grew out of the Canaanite people.
The JEWS disagree, because they have an unbroken history from Egypt till now. What is the difference between this and claiming that all Native Americans were vicious savages, who would kill all white babies? Native Americans would argue with you about that. Why do you accept the word of a Native American about his history, and not the word of a Jew about his?

RE Msg 76 by CountIbli:
It's funny that you should say this because I used to be a Bible believing Christian and it was all the contradictions that convinced me that the Bible is not the word of god.
It's funny that you should say this because I used to question if the Bible was true, until I read it in the original. Are you sure that you read the Bible or a bad translation?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 35
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/3/2008 5:22:26 PM


The JEWS disagree, because they have an unbroken history from Egypt till now. What is the difference between this and claiming that all Native Americans were vicious savages, who would kill all white babies? Native Americans would argue with you about that. Why do you accept the word of a Native American about his history, and not the word of a Jew about his?


They're politically and religiously motivated history is useless when it contradicts the facts of archeology, geology, and physics. The "history" found in the Bible has fatal flaws on all major points. Feel free to discount evidence because it interferes with your religious beliefs, but I don't see how that's any better than the medieval Christians who thought that Jews ate baby Christians or killed Christ. Incidentally, why do you think I accept the word of Native Americans about their history?



It's funny that you should say this because I used to question if the Bible was true, until I read it in the original. Are you sure that you read the Bible or a bad translation?


Are you suggesting that the Exodus story is just the result of a bad translation?

Sure, I don't understand Hebrew or Koine Greek. I'll even say that my primary translation, the KJV, isn't a very good translation. If a verse is questionable I'm happy to look at the original and check the translation using lexicons and other resources. That's how I found out that John 1:1 does not support the Trinity doctrine, though the English translation would suggest otherwise. Also one of the contradictions listed at Skeptics Annotated Bible struck me as quite odd (the contradiction is over how David killed Goliath because there are two apparently different accounts separated by a couple verses). So I went back to the Hebrew to see if I could make sense of it and I discovered that the apparent contradiction was simply the result of a translation problem. The problem arises simply because the English language doesn't encode grammatical aspect very well.

I've actually considered the possibility of teaching myself Koine Greek by translating the NT. I only choose Greek over Hebrew because I'm already familiar with the Greek alphabet.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/3/2008 6:01:09 PM
RE msg 95 by CountIbli:
They're politically and religiously motivated history is useless when it contradicts the facts of archeology, geology, and physics. The "history" found in the Bible has fatal flaws on all major points.
What political motivations do they have? Right to the Land of Israel? It was given by the British to those Jews who were downright anti-religious, and established a state that was downright anti-religious for many years.

What religious motivations do they have? Orthodox Jews have been around for 2000 years, and they say that they will only have a full right to the Land of Israel, when the dead come to life. Have you seen any of your dead relatives walking around lately?

I would agree with you that some of what I have initially read on POF and other popular sources of archaeology, geology and physics contradicts what some things say in the Bible. Commonly said morality, too. But what I have seen of this stuff here and in popular culture is no deeper than the bad English translations of the Bible that I grew up with. When I do more research into articles, I find numerous flaws in their logic.

This is a little off-topic. But it's an example. Einstein taught that what we call gravity is actually the space curving around a mass. So space is curved around the Sun, like a bowl, with the Sun in the middle, and the Earth is like a marble that spins around the Sun, drawing ever closer, in ever decreasing circles. A lovely example to explain why the Earth orbits the Sun. But here's my problem: If you tried the same thing in space, where there is no gravity, what would the marble do? It wouldn't do anything. Even if you gave the marble a nudge, it still would do nothing more than spin around the Sun at the same orbit, and just keep getting slower. It's only the downward force of gravity that pushes the marble to get closer to the Sun in the first place. So the example doesn't work, unless you assume that gravity is acting on gravity. So it's just not that simple.

That is my problem with most of facts of archaeology, geology and physics. It looks good on a programme, where it's been presented in one fashion. But the science and the evidence is a lot less clear when you dig deeper to try and understand it properly.

Feel free to discount evidence because it interferes with your religious beliefs, but I don't see how that's any better than the medieval Christians who thought that Jews ate baby Christians or killed Christ.
The only appropriate comparison would be the Nazis and those who follow them today.

Incidentally, why do you think I accept the word of Native Americans about their history?
I don't see any threads saying that any Native American religions are bogus. Do you?

Are you suggesting that the Exodus story is just the result of a bad translation?
Not at all. I'm suggesting that if you read it in English, you didn't read a good translation.

Sure, I don't understand Hebrew or Koine Greek.
Greek wouldn't solve the problem. Only the original languages would. Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, of which I and many others can understand both. Please understand that I grew up with an appalling English translation of the Bible. But I couldn't understand more than a few words of Hebrew, and nothing in Aramaic, until 18. However, it didn't take me that long to learn to understand both, either. So ignorance is not an excuse either.

I'll even say that my primary translation, the KJV, isn't a very good translation. If a verse is questionable I'm happy to look at the original and check the translation using lexicons and other resources. That's how I found out that John 1:1 does not support the Trinity doctrine, though the English translation would suggest otherwise. Also one of the contradictions listed at Skeptics Annotated Bible struck me as quite odd (the contradiction is over how David killed Goliath because there are two apparently different accounts separated by a couple verses). So I went back to the Hebrew to see if I could make sense of it and I discovered that the apparent contradiction was simply the result of a translation problem. The problem arises simply because the English language doesn't encode grammatical aspect very well.
Now you see my problem. Every time I wish to read a verse on POF, I look it up, and I usually have to get out my Hebrew Bible and read that. It's got an English translation too, which was translated direct from the Hebrew, but when I compare the Hebrew to the English, I quickly realise it's not good enough either. Too much of the structure and nuances of the language are lost. The most solid English version was written by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, and that one only does a reasonable job because it's not so much a translation as an adaptation. It's a real pain for me to have to look it up every time, but it's worth it, because then I can confirm whether what I am reading is the truth.

I've actually considered the possibility of teaching myself Koine Greek by translating the NT. I only choose Greek over Hebrew because I'm already familiar with the Greek alphabet.
I wouldn't bother. The Septuagint is still a translation, and Greek is even in the same branch of languages as Hebrew. You'd do better with an Arabic translation, because at Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic languages. If I was you, just learn the Hebrew alphabet. Then get yourself a Hebrew-English dictionary, and a book on simple Hebrew Grammar and put them both on one end of the room, and yourself on the other with the Bible, and start reading. It's what I did. Could barely read a verse in one day. But by the time I'd finished Genesis, I could read it very well and my comprehension completely changed my perspective.

I have no problem with people who don't have the same beliefs as me or Christians. But the separation of Church and State according to Jefferson, from what I understand, was that the State wouldn't interfere with people's religious beliefs, and equally well, the state would have the right to not be unduly influenced by any religious group, and that included the ability of any faction to unduly demand that everyone else had to do what that faction demanded. The state would be independent of lobbying groups, including religious lobbies, and religious and non-religious people would be free to believe and practise what they liked, as long as it wasn't harmful to any other group. Personally, I am beginning to wonder if the state is interfering too much in people's religious and atheistic practices, and that lobbying groups have too much power in unduly influencing the decisions of the state. This includes the "nanny state" of the UK, and the United States.

I am happy to support anti-discriminatory laws that protect the rights of atheists. But I would expect to have anti-discriminatory laws that protect the rights of religious people for the same reasons. It would be one group forcing its rules on another.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 37
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/3/2008 10:28:28 PM
^^^ Well, I know that during the Babylonian exile after the destruction of the First Temple, the Jews picked up Aramaic, and took it as their first spoken language. According to the Talmud, from then on, until way after the destruction of the Second Temple, whenever a portion of the Bible was publicly read in a Synagogue, it was accompanied by a translator, who translated each verse into Aramaic, because most non-learned average Jews only knew Aramaic, not Hebrew. That could only be because they spoke Aramaic, and not Hebrew.

It's true that the Greeks and the Romans both conquered Israel, but both nations never required the majority of the people they conquered to learn either Greek or Latin. After all, Alexander the Great conquered Persia (Iran), but they speak the same language of Farsi (Persian), that they spoke before he invaded. The Romans only seemed to use Latin for naming towns and places, and possibly for their communication with the chieftains of local tribes, but they arranged to have the sons of these chieftains to be educated in Rome for free, and the Romans only really got to control Britain through these chieftains' sons, when they grew up and took over as chieftains of their tribes. Anyway, it's pretty clear that the British didn't all speak Latin while the Romans ruled Britain.

So I think that though many people in Israel probably knew Greek and Latin, the average people didn't know anything but Aramaic. As Jesus was speaking to the people, his speeches would almost certainly have been in Aramaic. So it would make more sense to me to have the Gospels written in Aramaic, so that everyone could read them.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/4/2008 4:59:21 AM

What you failed to notice is that I have specifically stated that it is a false belief that proving one inaccuracy exists in a whole work renders the whole work invalid.

Ah I see. So the issues here is if YOU state something it must be true, and if I state something it must be false. There's that good ole' Christian logic that we've all been waiting for. I know we would find it here somewhere.

RSwindol believes that one inaccuracy renders the whole invalid, that 'whole' being anything.

I believe that one inconsistency or inaccuracy renders the rest of the document questionable. After the document has been recognized as being questionable, an attempt to prove the legitimacy of the rest of the individual statements can be made. But even then, only the statements that were proven to be true are salvaged. The rest of the statement still remain questionable.

He has been given examples that rebut his belief, but keeps changing them to dodge the obvious (that they are flawed).

It's true that I have been given examples that rebut my belief. But none of the examples given were very logical or stable.
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/4/2008 10:03:50 AM

Its the Word of God .....

God is infallible .....

Why does he contradict himself ?????


Actually 'he' doesn't. There isn't a single sentance in the entire book authored by the Sky Fairy. It's ALL heresay....

...which makes it an even bigger joke when used in Court to "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth" & then you swear on a book thats inadmisable in court precisely because it's hearsay. I guess the irony is lost on some people....:)
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 40
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/4/2008 5:53:59 PM

Please list at least 20 of these "many" so that they can be addressed. Thank you.
RSwindol dodged (as he always does), and said: Why would I need to address 20 inconsistencies and inaccuracies? The fact is that if even one can be found, then the validity of the entire document is questionable.
*It's a 'dodge' because he doesn't answer the request with proof, but simply restates his unproven claim again.

OK, romanticoptimist, have it your way. Here are not only 20, but 42. And might I point out that these are only in the Gospels. There are many many more throughout the bible.

1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.

2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?

3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.

4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.

7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.

8) Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.

9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an ass and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.

10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.

11) When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.

12) Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21

13) Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bullshit, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.

14) How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.

15) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.

16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.

17) John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24

18) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 "And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." Mark 7:26 "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter."

19) How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.

20) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.

21) Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8) Paul encouraged public prayer.

22) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works." 1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that ... they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret." Matthew 23:3-5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works ... all their works they do for to be seen of men."

23) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.

24) When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.

25) The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.

26) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…" Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.

27) When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7

28) How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Jesus’ mother) went.

29) Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.

30) There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5

31) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.

32) The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22

33) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17

34) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51

35) Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

36) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.

37) Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.

38) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14

39) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16

40) Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? "The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." John 19:7 "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:31

41) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13

42) Is scripture inspired by God? "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:12 "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/4/2008 10:59:25 PM
RE msg 105 by whitegold765:
no, actually. Your mistake is that you're suggesting that religion, and specifically the bible, be held to the same values as... say... a scientific theory. But it doesn't work that way.
Very true, but let's analyse that:

If someone has a theory, and a minor error is found in it, that doesn't necessarily break the theory. Instead it provides exceptions and questions that are used to further the theory and improve it.
Well, actually, that would be very iffy to say that. Take Darwin's theory of evolution. If Darwin says "evolution is true", and we find ONE inconsistency between Darwin's theory and something else that we notice, then the theory is false. However, Darwin doesn't say that. Darwin is not claiming that evolution is a truth. Darwin is claiming that the the universe works according to evolution. So Darwin is actually saying that his understanding of the universe is that it works according to evolution. So we find a counter-example to evolution, it doesn't mean that Darwin was completely wrong. It means that his understanding of the universe was not perfect.

But, if we find that his data does not show any trace of evolution, that too doesn't mean that Darwin was wrong, because the universe could still work according to evolution, but that Darwin chose data that did not reflect that. But we would say that Darwin was wrong. Why? Because Darwin wasn't claiming that "evolution was true", but that his understanding of the universe was that it worked according to evolution. So it's Darwin's understanding that requires proof. If Darwin's data did not reflect evolution, that would mean that Darwin's understanding of the universe was fundamentally flawed, and we could not trust his understanding, and therefore could not trust his theory. Evolution could still be true. But Darwin wasn't right to claim that he could see that.

There's a big difference here. The difference is that scientific theories don't claim infallability. The bible does, or at least its adherents do. When a book claims to be the inspired work of God, claims to have been given by God to man, claims to be the living Word of God himself, when that book is found to have errors or inconsistencies then yes, it DOES call the whole thing into question.
When we look at the Bible, we are not claiming that the Bible is true or false, either, because we weren't there when it was written. We are claiming that our understanding of the Bible is that what it says is true. So what is in question is our understanding. If we find an inaccuracy or contradiction in the Bible, we are not claiming the Bible is true or false either. We are claiming that our understanding of the Bible is that we have found an inaccuracy or contradiction in it. So if we find an inaccuracy or contradiction in the Bible, we are claiming that our understanding of the Bible is not completely correct. The Bible may still be true. Our understanding is not yet perfect.

It's not the content that is questionable (which it already is if you're zany enough to be anti-rape and anti-genocide like me) it's the veracity and reliability of the document itself.
As I said, no-one can claim the Bible is written by G-d, unless they were actually there when it was written. We can only question the veracity and reliability of our understanding of the Bible.

A comparison would be that you found an extremely old diary, a rare find that chronicled the life of George Washington. Many of the details are hard to verify, but in general it fits with what you would expect of his life and someone who lived at the time. Except for one bit that says "and George checked his watch and found that he was running late for the gym".

One tiny bit, but it immediately calls into question the truth and reliability of the entire document, surely. Would YOU believe it? Could you just ignore that bit and say it doesn't matter? Clearly no.
Perhaps a better example are the historical logs about how the Enigma machine was discovered, and that those logs were used as the basis for the film "U-571". This film depicts the Second World War, and the discovery of the Enigma machine, which are both true. However, the film depicts that the Americans found it, when it was the British who found it. So the film is wrong. Does that mean that the logs are wrong? Not necessarily. It means that the film-makers didn't understand the logs. But the logs are still valid.

Now, we have to ask ourselves at least 2 questions:

1) How accurate is our understanding of the Bible? Most people are reading translations, which have numerous inconsistencies with the original text. Also, most people are working only according to the text and not taking into account if the Bible assumes certain details which most people have never learned, because most people in Europe and North America don't have any direct or chronolical knowledge of what happened there. Most of our data is reliant on archaeological finds, and scraps of documents. I'll give you an example.

Suppose that one day, your neighbour's dog jumps into your garden and finds a human skull. Your neighbour sees the skull, and reports it to the police. The police find 30 skeletons, from about the time you moved in, about 30 years ago. They also find an old document that says "I testify that I killed 30 people, signed (Your first name)". So you did it. You killed all these people. What the police don't know, is that you moved into this house 6 weeks after the time of these murders, and the forensic scientists are able to determine the date of those murders to within 3 months, for murders that happened 30 years ago, but not to within 6 weeks. Also, the person who owned the house before you, had the same first name as you, but a different surname. He even had the same blood group, height, weight, build, hair and eye colour, and was also left-handed. Now, the hall of records does indeed show that you bought the house from someone, who is currently serving 70 life-sentences for over 300 serial killings, found in every garden of the houses he owned. But the problem is that the hall of records for your county burned down last year, and so the record of who owned the house before you was lost, and when you moved in, it was elderly community, and now, all the people are dead or senile. The evidence clearly shows it was you. The evidence which could have proved your complete innocence, is gone. So you did it.

2) How accurate are our contradictions of the Bible? Most of these are based on scientific theories. Now, as you put it before, scientific theories are supposed to NOT be infallible. So they don't have to be true. But we use those theories to contradict the Bible. So they must be true, or our contradictions would be founded on things we are not sure of, making us unsure of our contradictions.

Of course, we could claim that our theories are not perfectly infallible, but that our theories are true, but there are exceptions which we cannot explain yet. But then we are separating the general premise of the theory, and the details, to be completely separate theories, so that we can say which ones are true and which ones are false. But we ARE still claiming that the general premise of the theory is infallible. So what is the difference between that and infallibility?

There are more questions that we can ask. Ultimately, the question is do we want to believe the Bible is true, or false? If we want to believe the Bible is true, then only 100% proof that the Bible was not written by G-d is acceptable. If we want to believe the Bible is false, then only 100% proof that everything the Bible says really happened, including 100% proof that the Bible was written by G-d, is acceptable. To do anything else, would require objectivity, and that would require us to admit that we just don't have 100% proof on these events, because we weren't there, and because we are not claiming that our scientific theories are 100% perfect. But if we were willing to admit that our scientific theories could be proved wrong in even the slightest manner, that at least would allow us to attach those theories to such an extent that those theories that are still left standing, would be acceptable as being almost certainly true. But we aren't willing to do that. Nietzsche called this the Will To Truth, that we only believe that which supports our innermost desires.

RE msg 121 by HarveyLemmings:
So why are we still having our baby boys circumsized?
AFAIK, at the Council of Jerusalem, in 50 AD, circumcision was considered unnecessary for Christians who were not already Jews. So it seems that Christianity does NOT require circumcision for the vast majority of denominations.

Also, since science developed the idea that diseases were caused by germs, the human body was considered as a place where germs could breed. So for a while, it was considered a health concern for many males in the US to have a foreskin, because it needs to be cleaned underneath, and there was a big concern that many young men would not bother, and develop infections. So it was recommended to have circumcision in the US.

Now, it's not considered to be such an issue. However, in March 2007, the WHO and UNAIDS said that male circumcision was an effective form of intervention for protection against HIV, but it is not a complete protection and should not be considered as such. However the U.S. Center for Disease Control does not share this opinion.

As a result, the rate of circumcision in US men is falling, but slowly.

There is a comparison in the case of Pasteurisation in the US. Pasteurisation was only introduced in the US AFTER it became clear that the US dairies were not kept clean and that they were breeding grounds for disease. So pasteurisation should no longer be necessary. But it's still there.

This could be for 2 reasons:
1) There are no more unsanitary dairies, and nearly ALL uncircumcised men properly clean their foreskin, and practise safe sex in the prevention of HIV, or you're going to catch something even whether you are circumcised or not, but this hasn't been filtered to 90% of Christian and Atheist Americans.
2) There are still many unsanitary dairies, and there are still many uncircumcised men properly clean their foreskin, and practise safe sex.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/5/2008 4:25:45 AM
Since the rswindol document states that these examples are all in the Gospels and then proceeds to refer to numerous other books, for the sake of consistency,

Each one of my contradictions quote at least one book of the Gospel. Which means that no only do the books of the Gospel contradict each other, but they also contradict the other books of the Bible. But the fact is, without the Gospel, we would not have these specific contradictions. But that not to say that contradictions wouldn't exists elsewhere. I just thought that I would take a look at a small portion of the Bible.

The fact is that I was asked to point out 20 of these contradictions/inaccuracies that I was referring to. I did that. I offered more than twice as many. Yes, there have been a few people who have tried to point out flaws in these contradictions, and while there are 2 of them now that I will say may have been nothing more than a misunderstanding or misreading, the other 40 still stand as valid contradictions in my book.
this single untruthfulness requires that his whole case be thrown out of court. It only takes one you know.
So let me get this straight. I was asked to give examples of inaccuracies and contradiction. When I listed them you claim that there is a single untruth in my post? I think you will find many more untruths in my post than just one, since my post was based on untruths that reside in the Bible. Specifically in the Gospel.
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 43
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/5/2008 5:48:15 PM
I think the entire book pretty much falls apart from the beginning with the two conflicting versions of the creation... Why exactly is Day #1 & Day #4 the same? If he did it the first day why do it over on the 4th? did he make a complete balls of it the first day?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 44
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/5/2008 6:00:56 PM


WhAAAAA????

Jesus spoke Aramaic. If you think he spoke GREEK. Um... well... I'll just roll my eyes here and let you believe whatever ridiculous thing you want. You're not even worth debating the issue with.


I don't often agree with And Can It Be, but in this case she's probably right. If Jesus did exist (though I'm pretty sure he didn't) then he probably would have spoken both Aramaic and Greek. Much like many people in the world today speak English even though it's not their native language. At that time Greek was basically the default much like English is today.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 45
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/5/2008 6:09:43 PM


Oh God, not another one! How in the heck do you think "teaching yourself Greek" will result in a BETTER or more accurate translation than those translations that have already been done by people who have made it their life's work?????


The point of learning Koine Greek is not to produce a better translation (that would just be the method for learning Greek), but to make it so I don't need to translate into English since I'd understand Greek.



PS: Jesus and God didn't speak GREEK, nor did Jesus's disciples, so how do you even know that the GREEK translation is correct?


The NT was written in Greek, so it is not a translation of Aramaic into Greek. The only thing that might be a translation is Jesus' own words (which are sometimes presented in Aramaic instead of Greek). Unfortunately we don't have any records of these in Aramaic, beyond a couple phrases here or there. For better or worse, we've got Greek.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 46
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/5/2008 6:37:28 PM


What political motivations do they have? Right to the Land of Israel? It was given by the British to those Jews who were downright anti-religious, and established a state that was downright anti-religious for many years.


We're talking about two different things here. I'm saying that the authors of the Tanakh were religiously and politically motivated. Clearly, presenting a historically accurate document was not a concern for them. These documents, however, have become so culturally significant that they are assumed to be historically accurate, much the same way that Westerners take the NT as historically accurate. Even nonreligious Westerners tend to accept the NT as accurate (though they may discount the miracles). As you say, the founders of Zionism were secular, but they probably believed that the Tanakh was more or less historically accurate.



This is a little off-topic. But it's an example. Einstein taught that what we call gravity is actually the space curving around a mass. So space is curved around the Sun, like a bowl, with the Sun in the middle, and the Earth is like a marble that spins around the Sun, drawing ever closer, in ever decreasing circles. A lovely example to explain why the Earth orbits the Sun. But here's my problem: If you tried the same thing in space, where there is no gravity, what would the marble do? It wouldn't do anything. Even if you gave the marble a nudge, it still would do nothing more than spin around the Sun at the same orbit, and just keep getting slower. It's only the downward force of gravity that pushes the marble to get closer to the Sun in the first place. So the example doesn't work, unless you assume that gravity is acting on gravity. So it's just not that simple.


Actually this same reasoning has led my brother to reject Einstein's theory of gravity, even though I tried to explain to him that these popular accounts are inaccurate and just there to help people visualize the implications of the theory. I understand, and even agree with, what you're saying. My background is in math and physics and I cringe whenever I read pop science articles. That's why I go for sources that explain in detail why they claim what they claim. If you haven't already read it I would suggest The Bible Unearthed by Finklestein and Silberman.



I don't see any threads saying that any Native American religions are bogus. Do you?


I'm not sure I've seen any threads on Native American religious beliefs. For the record I think their religious beliefs are as bogus as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. As far as Native American history goes I've read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. It's a biased history, but so is the American history I learned at school.



I wouldn't bother. The Septuagint is still a translation, and Greek is even in the same branch of languages as Hebrew. You'd do better with an Arabic translation, because at Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic languages. If I was you, just learn the Hebrew alphabet. Then get yourself a Hebrew-English dictionary, and a book on simple Hebrew Grammar and put them both on one end of the room, and yourself on the other with the Bible, and start reading. It's what I did. Could barely read a verse in one day. But by the time I'd finished Genesis, I could read it very well and my comprehension completely changed my perspective.


That would help with the OT, but not the NT. Greek actually has a few advantages, now that I think of it. As I mentioned before I already know the Greek alphabet, so it's one less thing to learn. English and Greek are in the same language family so there are going to be more points in common than English and Hebrew. Even though the Septuagint is a Greek translation, it's still better than an English translation of a Greek translation.

Ultimately I would like to learn Koine Greek, Classical Arabic, Biblical Hebrew and Akkadian. Since the last three are all Semitic languages learning one will ease the learning of the others.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 47
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/5/2008 6:41:37 PM


So it would make more sense to me to have the Gospels written in Aramaic, so that everyone could read them.


The gospels were written in Greek, though. I believe this was simply because the Jews as a whole weren't buying into Christianity. The early Christians were able to sell it to Gentiles though, and possibly Hellenic Jews.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 48
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/5/2008 7:12:26 PM


I do not consider this to be a contradiction. It is quite easy to clear it up by reading the passages involved. "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes" (Malachi 4:5 NIV).

As it says in Matthew 11:14 regarding John the Baptist: "And if you are willing accept it, he is THE Elijah who was to come" (NIV). Notice that it doesn't say that John the Baptist is Elijah. No, John came in the spirit and power of Elijah. I believe that is why it says "he is the Elijah who was to come."


I'm afraid this doesn't make sense to me. Malachi says that Elijah, not someone like Elijah, would be sent. Jesus has misrepresented Scripture here.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 49
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/5/2008 8:18:07 PM
RE msg 137 by CountIbli:
We're talking about two different things here. I'm saying that the authors of the Tanakh were religiously and politically motivated. Clearly, presenting a historically accurate document was not a concern for them.
The Jews of the time were very interested in presenting a historically accurate document, but not the Tanach, because according to Orthodox Jews, the Tanach is a document written by inspiration from G-d. So the order doesn't have to chronologically perfect, because it isn't a school book. However, many Jewish authors have written detailed accounts of Jewish history. But that doesn't mean that they were religiously or politically motivated.

If they were religiously motivated, then why write a book that says that the idol worship is so terrible, and then write that the Jews actually did idol worship, before Moses even gave them the Torah, and then say that despite being given the Torah, the Jews fell to idol worship again and again? Why does it say that Jews committed rape, and murder, on many occasions? All that would make the Jews appear to be human and full of human flaws, not perfect saints. That would go against religious motivations.

If they were politically motivated, such as to claim that the Land of Israel is theirs for all time, then why write a book that says that the Jews could be thrown out if they "defile" the land by doing such things as idol worship? It would put the whole subject of political ownership of Israel dependent on their actions and good behaviour, unlike every other nation on Earth, including your own. Moreover, why write that the Jews actually did idol worship, which would imply that the Jews deserved to be exiled? That would show that Israel is capable of being not entitled to the Land of Israel, if they are not acting in all good morals. Both of these statements in the Bible go completely against political motivations.

These documents, however, have become so culturally significant that they are assumed to be historically accurate, much the same way that Westerners take the NT as historically accurate. Even nonreligious Westerners tend to accept the NT as accurate (though they may discount the miracles).
There is no question to me that many non-Jews have a completely different attitude to knowledge than Jews do, and especially when it comes to the Tanach. But that doesn't make it more accurate for them. That's an indication of what most non-Jewish Westerners classify as accurate, being that which supports their lifestyle and actions, which is what Nietzsche called the Will to Truth. But that has no reflection on what Orthdox Jews do, because they don't share the same lifestyle or actions.

As you say, the founders of Zionism were secular, but they probably believed that the Tanakh was more or less historically accurate.
No, they didn't. Most of the founders of Zionism seemed to be of the opinion that the Bible was made of fairy stories. I believe it was Herzl who first proposed the idea of a Jewish homeland, not because G-d said the Jews had a land, but because so that we could be like other nations, with a homeland, and with crime, such as corrupt politicians, rape, drug abuse, murder, and anything else that is found in other groups. For that reason, they proposed many lands, among them Madagascar and Uganda. Ultimately they decided on the Land of Israel because of the British who gave it to them, and because the religious Jews wouldn't accept anywhere else as a Jewish homeland.

Actually this same reasoning has led my brother to reject Einstein's theory of gravity, even though I tried to explain to him that these popular accounts are inaccurate and just there to help people visualize the implications of the theory. I understand, and even agree with, what you're saying. My background is in math and physics and I cringe whenever I read pop science articles. That's why I go for sources that explain in detail why they claim what they claim.
I'd rather you quoted a book that gave the full Math and Science on Relativity, because all the books I read, only talk about it, without giving the real proof, and I too have a training in Math and the Sciences. I'd really like to understand Relativity, beyond the pop-science.

If you haven't already read it I would suggest The Bible Unearthed by Finklestein and Silberman.
It won't help me. I'm a Mathematician and Analyst by training. So I take things apart from every angle. I've come across archaeological info before, and found such things wanting in clear conclusive proof. Plus, both these guys are almost certainly Jews. From a Jewish perspective, saying the Bible is true, is like you turning to me and saying "Don't you know cigarettes will kill you?" If I say yes, then there is an incumbent obligation on me to stop. Similarly, for these guys to say the Bible is true, means that there is an incumbent obligation on them to keep Judaism.

Also, Israel Finklestein studied at Tel Aviv University and is a Professor there. Neil Asher Silberman was trained in archaeology at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. This SHOULD make them more expert in the archaeology of Jewish history. Unfortunately, because the British put atheistic European Communist Zionists in charge of the State of Israel, they were vitally opposed to the religion of Judaism, even separating immigrant children from parents, telling the children that their parents were dead, and the parents that their children were dead, and bringing them up in an anti-religious environment. Most of these children came from Sephardi (Middle Eastern & North African) backgrounds, and were considered as little more than animals by these Europeans, for virtue of being born in the Middle East and North Africa. Many of these children grew up emotionally dysfunctional as a result of being orphaned at a young age, and indoctrinated, and ended up as petty thieves, criminals, drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, and drug addicts. My family is Sephardi, and this happened to a lot of other Sephardi Jews so I feel very strongly about this. This also happened to my brother-in-law's family, and it messed them up very seriously. His family returned to being religious and they are still pretty messed up, but nowhere near the usual criminal underclass of many of my brethren. I have Ashkenazi Jews who are friends who think it's funny to insult me and call me a criminal because of my Sephardi heritage. This is the tip of the iceberg, in terms of how anti-religious the State of Israel is, and it is only extremely slowly reverting to a state without prejudice in regards to religion. This is the environment that both Tel-Aviv University and Hebrew University have been educated. So you'll have to excuse me if I think their opinion might be a little biased.

I'm not sure I've seen any threads on Native American religious beliefs. For the record I think their religious beliefs are as bogus as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. As far as Native American history goes I've read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. It's a biased history, but so is the American history I learned at school.
Well, I'm glad that you are equal opportunist. At least that shows that you are not completely biased and have some level of objectivity, and believe you me, in today's world, that is very rare.

That would help with the OT, but not the NT. Greek actually has a few advantages, now that I think of it. As I mentioned before I already know the Greek alphabet, so it's one less thing to learn. English and Greek are in the same language family so there are going to be more points in common than English and Hebrew. Even though the Septuagint is a Greek translation, it's still better than an English translation of a Greek translation.
Well, on this point I have changed my opinion, somewhat, based on the posts in other threads. I am no longer sure that the NT was written in Aramaic. It might have been written in Aramaic, or Koine Greek. I don't know which. I can see the advantages in learning Koine Greek for yourself.

Also, I am not sure of this, but I was told by someone when I was 22, who said that Ancient Greek was sung, not spoken, as it had tones, like the ones that come with the Jewish tradition of the OT, along with the vowels. He said it helps to understand it. It would be nice to know if this is true or not.

Ultimately I would like to learn Koine Greek, Classical Arabic, Biblical Hebrew and Akkadian. Since the last three are all Semitic languages learning one will ease the learning of the others.
Well, I'd go along with that. I've started trying to learn the Arabic Alphabet, so that I can read the Koran. But I cannot seem to get the hang of it yet. If you have any online references that might help, I'd be obliged.

RE msg 139 by CountIbli:
The gospels were written in Greek, though.
I don't think I made it clear in this thread, but in other threads, I've become quite unsure if the NT was written in Aramaic or Koine Greek.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 50
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/5/2008 8:53:06 PM


I'd rather you quoted a book that gave the full Math and Science on Relativity, because all the books I read, only talk about it, without giving the real proof, and I too have a training in Math and the Sciences. I'd really like to understand Relativity, beyond the pop-science.


A bit off topic, but I'd suggest "Introducing Einstein's Relativity" by Ray D'Inverno (a textbook I'd used in college) and "Gravitation" by Misner, Wheeler, and Thorne (which is the Bible of General Relativity). Both of these books describe the mathematical machinery of the theory, but the best book I've read on the subject is "Tensors, Differentiable Forms, and Variational Principles" by Lovelock and Rund. This last book is especially nice because it costs about $15.



Well, on this point I have changed my opinion, somewhat, based on the posts in other threads. I am no longer sure that the NT was written in Aramaic. It might have been written in Aramaic, or Koine Greek. I don't know which. I can see the advantages in learning Koine Greek for yourself.


I've seen it argued that Matthew was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. I don't think that's fully true because the author of GMatthew borrowed heavily (sometimes word for word) from GMark. The borrowings make it clear that the language was Greek not Aramaic translated into Greek (independently translated, that it, once for GMatthnew and once for GMark). It is possible that those sections in GMatthew not found in GMark were originally in Aramaic, then translated into Greek, and then merged with the parts from GMark. Apparently Mark's Greek was not very good so Greek was not his native language. His ignorance of the geography of Jerusalem is an indicator that he was not from the area, and possibly not even Jewish. Some have suggested he was from Rome.



Also, I am not sure of this, but I was told by someone when I was 22, who said that Ancient Greek was sung, not spoken, as it had tones, like the ones that come with the Jewish tradition of the OT, along with the vowels. He said it helps to understand it. It would be nice to know if this is true or not.


It's partly true. Ancient Greek had tones, like Sanskrit and Lithuanian. Many Asian languages, like Chinese, have tones, as do many African languages. The language wasn't sung, though, unless they were singing. It means that certain vowels were pronounced at a higher pitch. It similar to in English when you ask a question and the pitch of your voice increases towards the end of the sentence.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions