i know there are places in the bible where it completely contradicts itself. however i am not too knowlegable about it so i was just wndering (since i debate with a friend about things like this quite often)where it does, and on what subjects?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

quote:Originally posted by Magnus_Ungermax:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html (http: //www.infi dels.org/l ibrary/mod ern/jim_me ritt/bible -contradic tions.html )



Excellent.

That's all there is?

I thought there would be more, but thanks for the link. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by outcast:

That's all there is?

I thought there would be more, but thanks for the link. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Ive seen more. But I got that link out of my favorites

These I don't see as contradictory:

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

In the first one he is simply saying that they are in agreement.

-----------

Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 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.

GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

GEN 2:19 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 2 Genesis the story continues to explain how Adam named the creatures. It's a continuation of the story.

-------------

Is it folly to be wise or not?

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

I don't think these are contraditory at all, they just expand one upon the other.

-----------

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?

In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary (PBUH) is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus(PBUH). The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

I'm unsure about this one...but an interesting site regarding geneology: http://www.peshitta.org/



---------

Do you answer a fool?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

These are proverbs...ponderings...not instructions or law. I think most of the writings in the books of Psalms, Proverbs, Lamantations, Ecclesiastes are rather like that.

------

That's just a few of my thoughts.

---------

quote:The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?

In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary (PBUH) is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus(PBUH). The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

could it possibly be because the lists in the gospels are a heap of dingo's kidneys?? :P

and btw in the oldest manuscripts joseph is listed as jesus' father.

outcast: In 2 Genesis the story continues to explain how Adam named the creatures. It's a continuation of the story.

No. In Genesis 2, after God has already made man, he says that he will make a suitable helper for him. That's future tense, saying he *will* create a helper for him.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

In the next verse, God creates the animals. Some translations (NIV is one) erroneously translate this in order to make the contradiction less visible.

GEN 2:19 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.

Here is the NIV's text below:

Genesis 2:19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

You will find that most colleges do not allow the use of the NIV for scholarly work. Although easily readable, its authors had an agenda to "synchronize" the different parts of the Bible, leading to mistranslations such as this.

A few other things I note that are wrong with the NIV translation in this chapter -- Adam isn't used as a proper name until the beginning of the geneology. Although, it does at least note at the bottom that it may be translated as "the man." Also, they put Genesis 2:4 in the section "Adam and Eve" when it's actually the closing line for the poem in Genesis 1:1 - 2:4. This one is another horrible mistake by the NIV translators, having to do with the dogma of creatio ex nihilo. If you want me to explain it further I will, but otherwise I think I'll stop here.

Edit: got my numbers mixed up.

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 08-20-2005).]

I usually use the Tanakh for OT scripture...but I think I used the NIV because that's what many people refer to here.

But I think chapter one rather covers creation overall, and chapter two's focus is more on man and the creation of a mate for man. He gives man the opportunity to call/name/select a suitable mate from what had been created. (or so it seems to me) Man found none and thus woman was created from man unlike the beasts which were created with mates (?).

This represents the reason why 'they become one flesh'. What was separated then becomes rejoined. (?)

But that's just the way I read it though.



I like hearing others opinion on things...so go on if you like. I'll read it... http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

If you notice the idea of the tree of knowledge is introduced in chapter two, then expanded upon in chapter three.

The verse that says why a man leaves his father and mother (I think) is an introduction to the idea of man and God separating as well...

There is a theme of separation/rejoining, separation/rejoining throughout scripture.



At least, that is how I see it...and most people don't like how I see things, it seems.



[This message has been edited by outcast (edited 08-24-2005).]

Your link is completely useless and is totally biased because of the author's obvious atheism.

Most of the "contradictions" are due to author convention. Like in some of the passages, whyis it necessary to repeat word for word the same thingin two places unless youare going to include something new?

Also the "contradictions" never took connotation into account and only took the passages at face value. That is completely unacceptable because the verse numbers werent put there by God. Therefore you cant just single out one sentence. For instance:

Does God want us to commit suicide?

-Judas hung himself

-And Jesus said "Go and do ye likewise"

See? You cant use two seemingly contradictory verses without including their connotation.

And you can't prove they've taken it out of context (i.e. that they haven't taken into consideration the connotation) without citing examples. Not to mention that if you do, you would have to show how all of them are being taken out of context, if not, not all of them remain refuted.

Moreover, the bias is irrelevant if what the article says is true.

ArgonPlasma2000: Also the "contradictions" never took connotation into account and only took the passages at face value. That is completely unacceptable because the verse numbers werent put there by God. Therefore you cant just single out one sentence. For instance:

Does God want us to commit suicide?

-Judas hung himself

-And Jesus said "Go and do ye likewise"

Funny that you'd mention that. The story of Judas' death is one of the instances where I'm certain that the Bible is contradictory. I've seen apologists come up with harmonized accounts, but they almost always quite ludicrous and certainly not what the Biblical authors intended. For your reference, the two accounts of Judas' death are in Matthew 27 and Acts 1.

To outcast: I'll continue on the thing of creatio ex nihilo. I think I'll just cut and paste from my notes that I've been working on...

(notes begin here)

The first chapter of Genesis, and also of the Old Testament, covers the creation of the earth. The story is part of the P document, meaning that it was put into written form by a Priestly Jewish writer sometime during or after the Babylonian captivity. During this period from about 597 BCE to 537 BCE the Jewish exiles were surrounded by the Babylonians and their religious customs. Probably as a response to the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation myth, the Priestly writer took the physical processes described in it and produced from them a story glorifying God. Like the Enuma Elish, it is written in a poetic form, but this is often difficult to see from modern translations.

In order to gain a complete understanding of the poem from the author's point of view, it is necessary to understand the cosmology of the cultures in the ancient near east. They believed that the earth in its present form was essentially flat. It had a solid domed sky, sorta like how people imagine futuristic colonies on other planets might be. Above this dome is a large ocean of water, and above that is where God and other spiritual beings reside. Then you had the area where people live, the land, and the underworld which is located somewhere in the ground.

Genesis 1:1, the opening line, says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." It does not describe an event independent from the rest of the poem, but rather summarizes it. There are two reasons we know this. One is that God does not create and name the sky/heaven until the 2nd day. The other is that the poem has a closing line, Genesis 1:24a, which ends the poem by summarizing it. By opening and closing the poem with a summary, the Priestly author was giving it a symmetrical structure.

However, for theological reasons many still interpret this verse as a statement of creatio ex nihilo, or creation from nothing. According to this modern interpretation, I would think that the heaven referred to here would be the spiritual realm where God lives. You may be able to interpret "the heavens" as outer space, but you must keep in mind that there are no celestial lights yet. The Earth is the chaotic ocean as described in the next verse.

Another interpretation called the Gap Theory says that this "creation from nothing" could have taken place long before the six days of creation. This would seem to be able to explain astronomical, radiological, geological, and fossil evidence for an old age of the earth and universe without giving up a position of inerrancy on the Bible.

(notes end here)

There are several other symmetries aside from the opening and closing lines found in this passage of scripture. One is that between days 1, 2, 3 and days 4, 5, 6.

1st day & 4th day -- day and night; stars, sun, and moon

2nd day & 5th day -- sea and sky; fish, sea monsters, and birds

3rd day & 6th day -- land and plants; land animals and humans

The first three days always have some sort of division, whereas the latter three days God spends his time putting stuff in each part.

You can also how each day is similar to the others in structure. Almost all of them begin with "God said" and end with something like "and there was evening and morning, the # day."

I got a lot of my information from the following link:

http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/theo113/module03.htm

As an alternative to the NIV, I would recommend the NRSV. I've heard almost nothing bad about it, aside from the complaints from fundamentalists that it doesn't synchronize various parts of the OT with NT prophesies. Of course, if you're reading the scripture in its original Hebrew then you probably don't need to worry about this.

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 08-24-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

And you can't prove they've taken it out of context (i.e. that they haven't taken into consideration the connotation) without citing examples. Not to mention that if you do, you would have to show how all of them are being taken out of context, if not, not all of them remain refuted.

Moreover, the bias is irrelevant if what the article says is true.

Bias is an appropriate consideration because it shows that the author could be making up bullshit. Thats the only reason that i brought that up.

As for proving my case, i could, but i wont. I dont have the time at the moment to go through each verse and point out how he is wrong. I can say however that the one i read over havevery simple explanations, despite being miscontexted.

quote:NRSV. I've heard almost nothing bad about it

that can be arranged...

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Bias is an appropriate consideration because it shows that the author could be making up bullshit. Thats the only reason that i brought that up.



Bias in and of itself has nothing to do with "making up bullshit".



quote:

As for proving my case, i could, but i wont. I dont have the time at the moment to go through each verse and point out how he is wrong. I can say however that the one i read over havevery simple explanations, despite being miscontexted.

Great. Don't expect people to take your argument seriously though.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:



To outcast: I'll continue on the thing of creatio ex nihilo. I think I'll just cut and paste from my notes that I've been working on...

--------

As an alternative to the NIV, I would recommend the NRSV. I've heard almost nothing bad about it, aside from the complaints from fundamentalists that it doesn't synchronize various parts of the OT with NT prophesies. Of course, if you're reading the scripture in its original Hebrew then you probably don't need to worry about this.



Thank you for all that. Very interesting...I'll save the link... http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I don't yet know how to read Hebrew, I only have the english 'new JPS translation according to the tradional Hebrew text'.

I remember some of that information from my Western Civ classes, but it has been a few years past. That probably has influenced how I read Genesis though. As a tale rather than being historical/literal. But I think the stories serve the authors purpose, regardless of the original source.

However, my interpretation is probably a bit different than the tradtional Jewish interpretation since I am outside of the Jewish faith [and am somewhat outside of the Christian faith as well...although a bit more familiar with that].

I've been told my views are rather simplistic on these things. But it seems to me that things have been made over complicated...so I've been searching for simplicity in meaning in scripture.

Should it be so difficult that one has to sort through a multitude of documents just to 'correctly' discern it? There is something about that, things like apologetics, that suggest that something is amiss somewhere.

I'm sure some meaning is lost due to cultural changes and influences. That is also why I'm interested in Eastern Christianity vs Western Christianity and the various other fractions within the religion...and the Hebrew faith as well.

Thanks for you input though. I can see some contradictions...just not the ones I mentioned...so I tried to explain why as succintly as I could. Whether I'm right, whether I'm wrong...eh...I'm not married to my opinions as yet... http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)