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
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 51
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictionsPage 3 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
The paraphrasing of what Jesus said in Matthew 6:5-6 is horribly inaccurate. It's this sort of thing where a person flat out lies about what's in the Bible that confuses and mis-directs others.

What? Jesus said in Matthew 6:5-6

5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

My paraphrase said "Jesus condemned public prayer." Are you saying that he was not against public prayer?

Casheyesblond:

As for your queries and allegations, I have a few things to say. You say that I have moved goalposts, but it is the other posters (including yourself) who has forced the train to derail. Of the two primary questions that were writing in my first post have you attempted to answer either of them? Just so that you don't have to look back, the questions are:


If you are of those who believe the Bible has changed from its original form, I ask you this. If the Bible is truly the word of God written through man, would God have let it be changed so dramatically? Would he have not wanted modern man to have the same opportunity to read his unscathed masterpiece as people did 2,000 years ago? And why would he allow man to revise and edit his teachings to the point that entire books are now excluded?

Now, I have been corrected on my use of the time period "2,000 years ago" because the Bible as we know it was not around yet (even though most of the books were).

My other question was:

If in fact you believe that the Bible is true to its original form, I then have a question for you. If God really wanted us to fallow his word to the best of our abilities, why would he leave the Bible so vague, cryptic, and even open to interpretation? Why would he not be more concise and to the point? Would this have not been a much more effective method of getting his point across?


So you can accuse me of moving the goal posts if you want, but I say that you and most of the other people in this thread are the guilty culprits.

I attempted to have a specific discussion on these concepts, but the thread has turned into a 3 ring circus of general Biblical information. My goal is the same as the day that I wrote the thread, and still I come here on a daily basis to try to find someone who has answer one of the two questions. What I find, on the other hand, is everything but.

And yes, there are many posts that I have ignored because they do not pertain to my original post. I do have the right, as the OP and a poster, to ignore any post of my choosing. Especially if it has little, or nothing, to do with the original post.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 52
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/6/2008 2:23:39 PM


What? Jesus said in Matthew 6:5-6

5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

My paraphrase said "Jesus condemned public prayer." Are you saying that he was not against public prayer?


Well Christian Apologists will use one of their standard techniques: If there's a contradiction then invent a context to remove the contradiction. In this case the invented context is that Jesus wasn't talking about group prayer.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 53
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/6/2008 6:58:16 PM
RE msg 143 by the OP:
My other question was:
If in fact you believe that the Bible is true to its original form, I then have a question for you. If God really wanted us to fallow his word to the best of our abilities, why would he leave the Bible so vague, cryptic, and even open to interpretation? Why would he not be more concise and to the point? Would this have not been a much more effective method of getting his point across?
So you can accuse me of moving the goal posts if you want, but I say that you and most of the other people in this thread are the guilty culprits.
I spent quite a bit of time answering this question in msg 43.

I attempted to have a specific discussion on these concepts, but the thread has turned into a 3 ring circus of general Biblical information. My goal is the same as the day that I wrote the thread, and still I come here on a daily basis to try to find someone who has answer one of the two questions. What I find, on the other hand, is everything but.
That was your doing OP. You posted that the thread was about the concept of whether the Bible could be accepted ASSUMING there was a contradiction, not IF there was a contradiction. So possible examples of contradictions in the Bible were not relevant to the topic. However, in msg 65, and 42 times in msg 114, you broke your own rules. Moreover, you are the owner of the thread, and have kept posting on it, so you are in the position of ringmaster, and are well within your rights to keep requesting people stay on topic, and not try to show contradictions in the Bible. So you have not kept off-topic issues out and mentioned 43 off-topic issues just by yourself. You have allowed this thread to become a 3-ring circus.

And yes, there are many posts that I have ignored because they do not pertain to my original post. I do have the right, as the OP and a poster, to ignore any post of my choosing. Especially if it has little, or nothing, to do with the original post.
Yes, but not the ones that pertain to your original post.

So, in order to discuss the original post, and to answer it, I will quote your second question from your opening post and my answer from msg 43:
If in fact you believe that the Bible is true to its original form, I then have a question for you. If God really wanted us to fallow his word to the best of our abilities, why would he leave the Bible so vague, cryptic, and even open to interpretation? Why would he not be more concise and to the point? Would this have not been a much more effective method of getting his point across?

Now, one question you can ask about the Bible, is why does the Bible have any form of contradiction in the first place? Why isn't it all laid down in a nice neat little book?

1) Two reasons are size and clarity. There was a time when the laws of the Bible were collated separately, but this formed 600 books. Even these books were not clear rules, but rather examples, which you could derive plenty more from, than the books held. But that would be way too many to transport, or to copy effectively, and these books were condensed to 6, and even they have various variations, due to errors lost over the years when the Roman Occupation of Israel caused the Jews to be under such extreme pressure, that they were not able to focus properly on the material. The same happened for some commentaries in the time of the Blood Libels in the 12th & 13th Centuries in France and Germany. Quite simply, the Bible survived so well in its Hebrew original, because it was so small. But in order to preserve the original, it had to be presented in a condensed form.

But if you try and condense a set of legal principles, it doesn't work. You have to take out just one line from a whole document, and then collate a few of these lines, and present each in a slightly different nuance, so by analysing the nuances, you can figure out the contents of the documents. Not the exact words, but their content.

The same works for the stories. If you analyse the stories in the original, each word has a specific meaning. In one verse, one word is used, and in another, a similar but slightly different word is used. By analysing the meaning of each verse, you can figure out an unimaginable amount.

2) A further reason is effort. Jews are commanded to study the Bible, and put effort into it, and are considered to be rewarded for it in Heaven. So according to Jewish Law, another reason for the Jews to be given the Bible in this way, was to have something to study.

3) Apart from the command to do so, it makes you think about things and analyse things. This could be one reason why Jews analyse just about everything. Einstein was a Jew, in case you are wondering. So was the inventor of the Polio vaccine, Jonas Salk. So were a lot of scientists. So there appears to be an advantage.

4) A further advantage to this idea of constant study, is that you have something to do. There is a song, by Pulp, called "Common People". Here is the chorus:
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
and then dance and drink and screw
'because there's nothing else to do
http://www.allspirit.co.uk/commonpeople.html

The basic premise of the song is about a rich girl who dates a working class boy, and she finds his antics funny. But he only lives that way, because he lives in poverty, and has "nothing else to do". The Jews could easily have gone this way. For most of their history in the Diaspora, they were the lowest of the low. Their lives were hellish. If they had given into their despair, and got lost in their desires, they too would have disappeared from history, because they would have died out. But because they had something they had to do, whenever they had an opportunity, even be it for 1 minute a day, they were able to rise themselves above the mire for that one minute. That short time gave them the ability to overcome their desires, and survive their poverty and atrocious treatment. It's why Jews survived so many Ghettos. It's also how many Jews kept themselves from addictions. It gave them something to do, and we all need something to do.

It took away their boredom, their despair, and kept them from addictions like alcohol, and kept them alive in very harsh circumstances.

5) A further reason was that the Bible had to be something that could move with the times. It had to be able to cover every possible future, and all the laws and morals that would be needed for the Jews in that future. But at the same time, it had to keep the old laws, to preserve continuity. In order to achieve this, there had to be a certain level of compexity that would allow it to be viewed according to what was happening at the time. That would require contradictions, that could be looked at from many angles, giving slight nuances that would indicate slight changes that would allow taking into account of the changes of the time. One example is electricity. Electricity is not mentioned in the Bible, because people didn't use it, even if they had it, and the simple folk didn't have it, and that would have just confused them. But there had to be enough complexity there to present the ability to figure out how to view electricity with regards to the law, and that was achieved by contradiction.

6) A further reason was subtely. As I explained before, people teach in "layers of consciousness". What a white belt learns in Martial Arts, is not the same as what a brown belt learns, even though they learn the same manoevure. The white belt learns the basic move. The brown belt learns more nuances. The black belt learns even deeper nuances. But how do you give all this over in 1 book? The answer: You present the different moves, with slight differences in nuances, depending on the situation. You can start learning the basic text. As you get to know the text, you notice contradictions. By comparison of those contradictions, you then see greater nuances. This can continue for at least 49 levels.

You could figure the Bible as something like the single Kata in Tai Chi Chuan. You only have one Kata. But it has much subtely to it. You do the same movement in 3 or more places, but each time, it's slightly different, and by understanding exactly how to do each nuance and when, you understand much more about Tai Chi Chuan than you would learn from 30 Katas in another Martial Art. It's said to be the hardest for this reason. It's that deep. So is the Bible.

I'm sure that there are more reasons. But these are quite good ones.

I hope that this helps your understanding.
What is your opinion and your response?
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 54
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/7/2008 11:18:53 AM
Scorpiomover:
Yes you did attempt to answer my questions. You are one of the few.

Taranis X:
Bravo! This is the type of conversation that I was looking for from the beginning. I could not have asked for a more perfect response to my original post. I applaud you.



I think a lot of people here thought that my original post was meant to be accusing, but it wasn't. The questions were directed toward people who believe in the divinity of the Bible because I do not believe in its divinity and therefore couldn't answer these questions myself. As I mentioned earlier, I was only here looking for external viewpoints on the subject. The intent was not to start an argument or prove anyone's ideas wrong. But simply to gain understanding. This is why I felt that providing specific contradictory quotes from the Bible was aside from my point.

During the course of our discussion, you all provided excellent argument and examples to support your claims and I have learned from many of you. So I guess this train wreck was not completely in vain.

Thank you all for your participation. I hope to read more responses like Taranis X's in the near future.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/8/2008 5:16:53 AM
Thanks dweeziel, I may check that book out.

And everyone, please remember, I'm not looking for right or wrong answere...only opinions.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 56
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/20/2008 3:23:49 PM


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.
That doesn't change the fact that the large majority of religious people in the United States get their children circumsized out of religious tradition. Religion causes it. The memo from 50 AD is not good enough. You'd think that if religion were truly against the mutilation of genitals they'd be a lot more vocal about it.I've been circumcised. I do NOT consider it a "mutilation of genitals".
I know plenty of other people who've been circumcised. They do NOT consider it a "mutilation of genitals".
Heck, plenty of people have chosen to become circumcised as adults. They do NOT consider it a "mutilation of genitals".
The World Health Organization do NOT consider it a "mutilation of genitals".
UNAIDS that do NOT consider it a "mutilation of genitals".

However, let us be clear. There was only a religious tradition of circumcision amongst Jews and Muslims. Amongst Christian denominations, the vast, vast majority have never practised circumcision for religious reasons or religious traditions, and that includes the Christians of the United States.

It appears the practice of circumcision in the UK and in America only became popular in the 19th century, and that the science of "germ theory" suggested to American doctors that the penis was a site where many germs would gather, and as a result, circumcision was seen as a preventative health measure.

The reasons for widepsread circumcision in American are very, very simple. Science.
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 57
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/20/2008 10:23:55 PM
The UK? Where are you gettng this stuff from?

I grew up over there & the only guys with multilated genitals were jewish.



It appears the practice of circumcision in the UK and in America only became popular in the 19th century, and that the science of "germ theory" suggested to American doctors that the penis was a site where many germs would gather, and as a result, circumcision was seen as a preventative health measure.



The reasons for widepsread circumcision in American are very, very simple. ......

Ignorance.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 58
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/21/2008 2:39:40 AM

I grew up over there & the only guys with multilated genitals were jewish.
Same here. However, as a result of the threads against circumcision, and it turns out that circumcision was done to most UK males during the 19th Century, until about 1949, when the NHS was brought in.


The reasons for widepsread circumcision in American are very, very simple. ......
Ignorance.
But ignorance is not the exclusive reign of religion. Ignorance can be found in science too. In this case, it appears that a little knowledge of germ theory, and ignorance of how germs are really spread was the cause of circumcision being taken up in the last 2 centuries. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and science is no exception.
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 59
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/21/2008 8:17:52 AM
But ignorance is not the exclusive reign of religion. Ignorance can be found in science too. In this case, it appears that a little knowledge of germ theory, and ignorance of how germs are really spread was the cause of circumcision being taken up in the last 2 centuries. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and science is no exception.

You assumed I was only refering to religion being the cause of the ignorance & it some cults it plainly is (just look at Southern Baptists as an example).
However it's obvious that some of the mutilation is caused by scientific ignorance.. but "some" of the 'ignorance of science" is caused by religious beliefs...

.. & other times it's caused by the person not having sufficient intellect to make a sandwich without supervision...
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 60
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/21/2008 9:17:43 AM
If you seek him and have the faith of a mustard seed, he will guide you thorugh all the inaccuracies.

Then why are there thousands of different religions and tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity? If only 0.01% of all the people in the world are being successfully led by god then it seems that god's master plan is a total failure.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 61
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/23/2008 5:17:36 AM
If you seek him and have the faith of a mustard seed,

I always liked this metaphor, because while many Christians find it motivational seeing as how a mustard seed is so small, people who understand science realize that it's in insurmountable feat since it's impossible to create something tangible (like a mustard seed) out of something intangible (like faith).

It's like the old saying goes...Wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up faster. Only a fool would actually try it.


& other times it's caused by the person not having sufficient intellect to make a sandwich without supervision

HAHAHAHAHahahahahahaha I've got to remember that one.


Then why are there thousands of different religions and tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity? If only 0.01% of all the people in the world are being successfully led by god then it seems that god's master plan is a total failure.

Great point. That's exactly how I feel. Then again, maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses have it right. They say that only 144 thousand are going to heaven right?

I always wondered, if only 144 thousand of them are going to heaven, then why do they keep recruiting. Wouldn't that dilute their chances of going?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 62
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/23/2008 7:04:27 AM
RE Msg: 166 by TheLimey:
You assumed I was only refering to religion being the cause of the ignorance & it some cults it plainly is (just look at Southern Baptists as an example).
That is true. But in the case of Southern Baptists, they actually don't follow the rules of the Council of Jerusalem. They've taken on certain dietary laws from the Bible as well. So it's not ignorance in their case. It's a case of choosing to still follow many of the rules of the Bible.

However it's obvious that some of the mutilation is caused by scientific ignorance.. but "some" of the 'ignorance of science" is caused by religious beliefs...
That is probably true. However, it would be seriously deficient to assume that this was the only cause without checking up on the facts first. It makes sense to me that some doctors would suggest to remove the foreskin, based on the idea of "germ theory", as the foreskin would be liable to be full of germs. A friend of mine used to find all sorts of things under his foreskin. So it is a place where germs would gather.

.. & other times it's caused by the person not having sufficient intellect to make a sandwich without supervision...
I could not imagine ANYONE to be that stupid, because the foreskin is a very dangerous area, and if you are not very careful to follow medical instructions, the circumcised person can bleed to death, which is why all religious circumcisers who follow Judaism are required to study the medical issues involved and to be tested on their medical knowledge and practise, before they are allowed to practise circumcision. If any community was stupid enough to circumcise their males without care and attention to medical matters, you would end up with nearly all the males dying from circumcision, and pretty soon, there would be no males, and no more of that community. So these groups just wouldn't exist anymore.

I won't deny that there has been much ignorance in society. But it would be ignorant of me to claim that only people who think like me can be ignorant. So I don't. Because of this, I avoid criticising other's behaviour, even if I think it is ignorant, unless I know the people in question and know they are ignorant about the one thing I believe them to be ignorant about.

But I would really like to avoid a long and involved discussion into the pros and cons of circumcision. That is already on another thread.

RE msg 169 by RSwindol:
It's like the old saying goes...Wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up faster. Only a fool would actually try it.
I quite agree. It takes hours to fill a cup with spit, maybe days, as you only can make that much spit. But if you wish something to happen, that means that you have every intent for it to happen, and you will therefore do whatever is in your power to make it happen. So you would go and fill the cup up yourself. So there is no question that the cup would be filled up by "wishing" in a matter of seconds, which is hours, or days, before spitting ever would make it full.

I know that is not what you meant. But can you really say you "wish" something would happen, if you are capable of helping it happen, and you don't do anything about it?
How is that different than someone who wishes he would win the lottery, but refuses to buy a ticket? He isn't "wishing" to win the lottery. Neither is someone who "wishes" to fill up a cup, but refuses to do it himself, when he clearly can.

Judaism has a different saying:
Open up to Me an opening like the eye of a needle, and I will open up to you like the doorway of the entrance to the Temple's Vestibule, which was over 30 feet wide.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 63
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/23/2008 7:09:49 AM
So you would go and fill the cup up yourself.

Where did the cup come from?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 64
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/23/2008 12:19:47 PM


So you would go and fill the cup up yourself.
Where did the cup come from?
You have a point. I should have just stuck with a hand. So I'll take your example again.

It's like the old saying goes...Wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up faster. Only a fool would actually try it.
Well, you can't fill your hand with liquid. If you try to spit into your hand until it's full, the spit just rolls off when it's less than half-way full. I tried it once.

But if you wish something to happen, you'll do something to help it happen. So you'll try putting something liquid in one hand and see it rolls off, and then put something solid in that hand, and that hand will be full. You'll spit in the other hand, and the spit will keep rolling off, and it will never fill.

That is another reason why only a food will try it. Spit will never fill a hand, only a solid will.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 65
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/23/2008 1:48:18 PM
Well, you can't fill your hand with liquid. If you try to spit into your hand until it's full, the spit just rolls off when it's less than half-way full. I tried it once.

But I can guarantee that you have never wished in your hand enough to have it overflowing with wish. My point is that when trying to compare the physical amount of something tangible to the physical amount of something intangible, the amount of the tangible matter will always be greater, for one cannot measure the physical amount of something intangible.

It's like trying to compare temperate and humidity to determine witch one is greater than the other. It's simply impossible.


Spit will never fill a hand, only a solid will.

What about frozen spit? lol
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 66
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/23/2008 8:39:23 PM

But I can guarantee that you have never wished in your hand enough to have it overflowing with wish.
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 is that when trying to compare the physical amount of something tangible to the physical amount of something intangible, the amount of the tangible matter will always be greater, for one cannot measure the physical amount of something intangible.
The definition of someone unmeasured is NOT zero, but undetermined. A classical example is that in Mathematics, an unmeasurable quantity is defined by 0/0. 0/0 could be 1, or 2, or a million, because if you multiply 0/0 by 0, you get 0, and if you multiply 1, or 2, or a million by 0, you get 0 as well. You cannot say that something tangible is greater than something intangible at all, just because you cannot measure the intangible, because if you did find a way to measure it, it could easily turn out to be greater than the tangible amount you measured. If you include decision theory into it, then the probability of your unmeasured intangible being less than your measured tangible will always be far less than the probability of your unmeasured intangible being greater than your measured tangible, simply because there are far more quantities greater than any finite amount, than less than it, because the number of quantities greater than any finite amount will always be infinite. So in reality, relying on probability, the odds are that your intangible is far greater than your tangible.


Spit will never fill a hand, only a solid will.
What about frozen spit? lol
If it's cold enough to freeze your spit, it's cold enough to freeze your mouth.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 67
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/24/2008 4:36:23 PM
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.


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?
 Ravenstar66
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 68
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/24/2008 5:09:49 PM
They don't live in Canada! ^^^^^^ LOL

I'm completely baffled on whether this thread has completely lost it original topic
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions
Posted: 3/27/2008 3:04:07 PM


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.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Biblical inaccuracies/contradictions