Self-contradictions in the Bible.

[plindboe]

Hi all.

I have heard people mention that the Bible contradicts itself in several places, but am not aware of the specific cases in which it does, and hope someone here can enlighten me.

I'm also interested in self-contradictions in the Koran. This 2nd book, is supposed to be God's own words, I believe, which makes it even more interesting if this supreme being is contradicting himself.

I prefer that the contradictions is well backed up with specific examples.

Thanks for any help.

Peter ;)

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by plindboe
Hi all.

I have heard people mention that the Bible contradicts itself in several places, but am not aware of the specific cases in which it does, and hope someone here can enlighten me.

I'm also interested in self-contradictions in the Koran. This 2nd book, is supposed to be God's own words, I believe, which makes it even more interesting if this supreme being is contradicting himself.

I prefer that the contradictions is well backed up with specific examples.

Thanks for any help.

Peter ;)

Oh, Boy! you've opened up a huge can of worms! :D


I predict this will be one of the largest if not the largest thread ever. Does anyone know what the largest thread in JREF history is? :confused:

[Torment]

I have debated about this with others extensively and apparently we atheists don't seem to realize there are no contradictions in the Bible.

You see if I find something that seems contradicting, theists always remind me of several things.

1) You interpreted it wrong.
2) The people who wrote it interpreted God wrong when he told them what to write.
3) It is not meant to be taken literally.
4) I don't see the contradicition, it's all in your head.
5) Look over there! It's George Cluney! *runs away*

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Torment
I have debated about this with others extensively and apparently we atheists don't seem to realize there are no contradictions in the Bible.

You see if I find something that seems contradicting, theists always remind me of several things.

1) You interpreted it wrong.
2) The people who wrote it interpreted God wrong when he told them what to write.
3) It is not meant to be taken literally.
4) I don't see the contradicition, it's all in your head.
5) Look over there! It's George Cluney! *runs away*

Very funny! I like you already Torment.

[c4ts]

I've got something for you. Jesus answering questions like a woo woo! Phillip asks Jesus for proof of God, but Jesus doesn't give him any. Yet Jesus finishes his reply of why he's not giving him any proof with "if you ask me anything in my name, I will do it."

13:31 When Judas had gone out, Jesus said, "Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him right away. Children, I am still with you for a little while. You will look for me, and just as I said to the Jewish authorities, 'Where I am going you cannot come,' now I tell you the same. I give you a new commandment-to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples- if you have love for one another."

Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?"

Jesus replied, "Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later." Peter said to him, "Lord, why can't I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you!"

Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life for me? I tell you the solemn truth, the rooster will not crow until you have denied me three times!"

"Do not let your hearts be distressed. You believe in God; believe also in me. There are many dwelling places in my Father's house. Otherwise, I would have told you. I am going away to make ready a place for you. And if I go and make ready a place for you, I will come again and take you to be with me, so that where I am you may be too. And you know the way where I am going."

Thomas said, "Lord, we don't know where you are going. How can we know the way?"

Jesus replied, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you have known me, you will know my Father too. And from now on you do know him and have seen him."

Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be content."

Jesus replied, "Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me, but if you do not believe me, believe because of the miraculous deeds themselves. I tell you the solemn truth, the person who believes in me will perform the miraculous deeds that I am doing, and will perform greater deeds than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it."

[JANman]

Originally posted by plindboe
Hi all.
I have heard people mention that the Bible contradicts itself in several places, but am not aware of the specific cases in which it does, and hope someone here can enlighten me.
I'm also interested in self-contradictions in the Koran. This 2nd book, is supposed to be God's own words, I believe, which makes it even more interesting if this supreme being is contradicting himself.
I prefer that the contradictions is well backed up with specific example
heres few
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by JANman

heres few
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

That is the main page http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra.html
takes you right to all the contradictions.

SAB is a great site other topics include:
Injustice Absurdities Cruelty Intolerance Insults to Women
Good Stuff Family Values False Prophecies Sex Science and History Foul Language Jehovah's Witnesses Homosexuality


Here is one for the Koran contradictions

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

[stamenflicker]

I've got something for you. Jesus answering questions like a woo woo! Phillip asks Jesus for proof of God, but Jesus doesn't give him any. Yet Jesus finishes his reply of why he's not giving him any proof with "if you ask me anything in my name, I will do it."

C4,

Of all the things you could have picked, this isn't a contradiction. Jesus was clearly saying that the proof was standing right in front of him, Phillip chose not to see it. I'm sure there are a hundred novels and poems requiring similar reading comprehension skills; it's an analysis of the subtext and the interchange that shakes loose the meaning.

Flick

[KelvinG]

Another good site:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/index.shtml

[stamenflicker]

First inconsistancy from the site...

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.

GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

How could the site author / compiler be so stupid? I stopped reading after this one. There is no good scientific reason to assume the sun had to come before light... in fact, good science steers us toward the biblical order for these two physical properties: light preceeds sun & stars and is the measure of matter at all.

Flick

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
First inconsistancy from the site...

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.

GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

How could the site author / compiler be so stupid? I stopped reading after this one. There is no good scientific reason to assume the sun had to come before light... in fact, good science steers us toward the biblical order for these two physical properties: light preceeds sun & stars and is the measure of matter at all.

Flick

So, you read one entry you disagree with and stop. C'mon, just for fun, read some others.

[stamenflicker]

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.

GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.


First up, I'm the guy in the corner of church always screaming in favor of inconsistencies, not against them. I like inconsistency. I think it adds to meaning, not takes away from it. And it relflect a higher degree of creativity in interpreting god.

However, I'll take number two on here for fun.

The reference in the second passage is clearly a reference to farming, irrigation, and fruit. The notion is not so much that trees did not exist, but that man didn't have to plant or pick berries. The picture this author is creating, is substantially different than the one of the first author-- and BTW they are two different authors in chapters one and two.

The purpose of the two chapters is also quite different, with one being more of a poem than anything else (and probably much much older).

Even so, the purpose of the second author is to paint a picture of a humanity that didn't need rain, farming, or plants to subsist, but rather was sustained by god alone. He is foreshadowing the story to the upcoming event in which man will be cursed to work the field.

Note that your second reference in both instances refers to "plants of the field" or "shrubs of the field." And note that the punishment that soon follows man's disobedience requires him to work the field.

"Field" is used intentionally three times to indicate that man was not laboring for food-- not that there were no trees. All instances in chapter 2 are references to farming...

:)

Flick

[stamenflicker]

BTW, I scanned over the next 10-12 and they are pretty silly. I don't mean that as an insult to you, only to the credibility of the web poster.

I suppose if you were a true literalist about every word or phrase, then you might have an arguement. But no human being is.

See the above example: "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."

Only a fool would try to literalize that. Unfortunately, that's what atheism has to revert to when arguing with some Christians. The fault lies with both parties.

Flick

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
BTW, I scanned over the next 10-12 and they are pretty silly. I don't mean that as an insult to you, only to the credibility of the web poster.

I suppose if you were a true literalist about every word or phrase, then you might have an arguement. But no human being is.

See the above example: "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."

Only a fool would try to literalize that. Unfortunately, that's what atheism has to revert to when arguing with some Christians. The fault lies with both parties.

Flick

I'm sure you can understand that some atheists might try and literalize parts of the bible because so many chrisitians act like the book truly is the word of God and is infallible and without contradiction or inconsistency.
However, if you are a christian stamenflicker, I don't get the sense you are like that.

I also believe that much of Donald Morgan's website is done tongue in cheek, and is more of a counter to die-hard fundamentalists who take every word of the bible as absolute truth and without flaw.

And I agree with your previous post, that a little ambiguity is OK.

I just happen to find the bible very uninspired and banal myself. That is my main reason for rejecting it. It has little to do with the fact that it can't keep it's facts straight!

[plindboe]

Woohoo! Several interesting replies so far. And thanks for the great links(I especially enjoyed reading the Koran contradictions, since it's actually written by a quite intelligent muslim, who's trying to open other muslims eyes on the fact that the book is far from perfect). The different web-pages with self-contradictions, are not some I take too seriously, just fun reading. When presenting a "contradiction" I feel it's important to also see a response from a believer, not a fanatical one, but a reasonable one, since some of these "contradictions" really aren't contractions at all, after having analyzed the text more thoroughly. I guess that's one of the requirements for a religion to get so succesful; that the text must be vague, and can mean many things, and it's therefore difficult to point to any obvious errors.

If I were a Christian, I would be one of those "I do not take it literally" types, and I certainly have more respect for those than the types that take it 100% literally, and for instance believes, that the entire Earth was once flooded, even over the tallest mountain tops, and this guy Noah was able to build a boat(150 feet long) and collect 2 of each sex of every of the millions of species, and put them in the boat, and sail around with them for a year. Come on!!! Wake up! :D These people have no sense of reality or a feel on how the world is put together whatsoever.


I just happen to find the bible very uninspired and banal myself. That is my main reason for rejecting it. It has little to do with the fact that it can't keep it's facts straight!

Personally I do not find the Bible uninspired and banal. When trying to analyze some of the text you realize that there is in fact alot of meaning between the lines(just like a good poem for instance). I also find it interesting that it is such ancient texts, and these have had an enormous impact on the world throughout history, mostly bad though :(, but no less interesting because of this. It also contains some great messages to people on how to behave towards one another, though throughout history the very unfortunate "Spread the word" part of the Bible have caused people to mysteriously forget about those rules completely.

Peter ;)

[stamenflicker]

I also believe that much of Donald Morgan's website is done tongue in cheek, and is more of a counter to die-hard fundamentalists who take every word of the bible as absolute truth and without flaw.

Well, it's a good website for those folks. According to Barna, they represent 8% of the Christian makeup... and according to me, they do about 80% of the yelling.

Flick

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Oh, Boy! you've opened up a huge can of worms! :D


I predict this will be one of the largest if not the largest thread ever. Does anyone know what the largest thread in JREF history is? :confused:

This comes up a couple of times a year.. ( Bible inconsistantcies )

As noted by others, one of the best compilations is at:


The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/)

Some of the commentary there is notably biased, but no more so than what you will find at a Biblical apologists site.

The main problem I have with the Bible, is, I expect a little more from the creator of the universe.

It seems he went to a lot of trouble to imitate the style of a paranoid, schizophrenic tabloid journalist.

[Denise]

This bugs me....

2000 years ago some guy named jesus was performing miracles left and right to show the people there was a god. Yet, he says one must have faith ie belief without evidence. So why did he show them the evidence? Were those people better than us because they got to see real live miracles?

Why would a god want us to believe without evidence? One would think he would come down every century or so to show us that he exists. Why would a god create people with the quest for knowledge that humans have and then not show himself? What's the point?

Guess god hates skeptics!:D

[Darat]

Originally posted by Denise
This bugs me....

2000 years ago some guy named jesus was performing miracles left and right to show the people there was a god. Yet, he says one must have faith ie belief without evidence. So why did he show them the evidence? Were those people better than us because they got to see real live miracles?

Why would a god want us to believe without evidence? One would think he would come down every century or so to show us that he exists. Why would a god create people with the quest for knowledge that humans have and then not show himself? What's the point?

Guess god hates skeptics!:D

But Denise you have to remember that a lot of people think and claim that miracles do still occur!

[Ossai]

stamenflicker
BTW, I scanned over the next 10-12 and they are pretty silly. I don't mean that as an insult to you, only to the credibility of the web poster.

I suppose if you were a true literalist about every word or phrase, then you might have an argument. But no human being is. Wrong on your last statement. Every hear of biblical creationists? They take the bible to be 100% literally correct. You should see some of their mental gymnastics.

plindboe
Here are a couple of contradictions within the bible.
Jesus's genealogy and year of birth.
How many apostles were present at the last supper and how many were present after Jesus's resurrection?
How many animals were taken onto the ark? 2 of each kind or 7 of the clean animals even though the definition of what a clean animal is wasn't given until much later.

Ossai

[Denise]

Originally posted by Darat


But Denise you have to remember that a lot of people think and claim that miracles do still occur!

LOL! I'd like to see the loaves and fishes miracle just a little bit more in the world.:D

[Gregor]

Please ignore StamenFlicker - he knows not what he writes.

The differences between the first and second chapters of Genesis are attributed to the fact that much of the first half of the OT is the combination of two distinct texts compiled after the Babylonian exile.

The texts are referred to as "E" and "J." "E" stands for Elohim, the name used for God in text 1 and "J" stands for Jehovah, the name used for God in text 2. Many good studies are out there describing the nature of these two original 'books.' The thought is that this difference arose from when Israel and Judea were divided kingdoms.

The creation narratives are completely different - in a different order and conveying different themes.

There are different versions of the ten commandments (although lay Xians are shocked to learn this).

There are multiple versions of the Assyrian invasion (See 2 Chronicles versus Isaiah). In fact, this one is my personal favorite:

It seems that the Assyrians had combined with the Israelis to attack those in Judea. In Isaiah, the 'prophet' says "don't worry, there is a young girl who is already pregnant, who will bear a son named Emmanuel who will crush the invaders." However, the Assyrians ended up beating the Judean army and this prophesy was not fulfilled - Until later Xians claim it was a prophesy of the coming of Christ. So they change "young girl already pregnant" to a virgin, in the future (400+ years), who will conceive and . . . oh. . . oh. . . well, Emmanuel is close enough to Jesus.

Oh, and read 2 Chronicles (written from the Israel perspective) on the battle.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Gregor
Please ignore StamenFlicker - he knows not what he writes.

The differences between the first and second chapters of Genesis are attributed to the fact that much of the first half of the OT is the combination of two distinct texts compiled after the Babylonian exile.

..............snip ...............

There are multiple versions of the Assyrian invasion (See 2 Chronicles versus Isaiah). In fact, this one is my personal favorite:

It seems that the Assyrians had combined with the Israelis to attack those in Judea. In Isaiah, the 'prophet' says "don't worry, there is a young girl who is already pregnant, who will bear a son named Emmanuel who will crush the invaders." However, the Assyrians ended up beating the Judean army and this prophesy was not fulfilled - Until later Xians claim it was a prophesy of the coming of Christ. So they change "young girl already pregnant" to a virgin, in the future (400+ years), who will conceive and . . . oh. . . oh. . . well, Emmanuel is close enough to Jesus.

Oh, and read 2 Chronicles (written from the Israel perspective) on the battle.


O.K. Gregor, this is all about speculation and personal opinion. There is no room for scholarly analysis. It only confuses people..:D


P.S. ( I enjoyed the information)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Diogenes



O.K. Gregor, this is all about speculation and personal opinion. There is no room for scholarly analysis. It only confuses people..:D


P.S. ( I enjoyed the information)

Good book that goes into detail about the different authors:

UK Amazon link: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060630353/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/026-0046741-0129239

USA Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060630353/qid=1051103702/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-1406495-6870556?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Link to Amazon preview pages:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060630353/ref=lib_rd_ss/102-1406495-6870556?v=glance&s=books&vi=slide-show#reader-link

[aggle_rithm]

I think some of the most interesting contradictions are in the two Nativity stories. It took me many years to realize that there are two distinctly different Nativity stories, because there are few obvious contradictions. Most of them require looking at the stories in the context of history.

One of the Gospels said that Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Another says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. However, we know from historical records that Herod died sometime before a solar eclipse in 4 BC, and Quirinius became governor of Syria six years after the eclipse.

Nothing like an astronomical event to put things in the proper perspective. :)

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm
I think some of the most interesting contradictions are in the two Nativity stories. It took me many years to realize that there are two distinctly different Nativity stories, because there are few obvious contradictions. Most of them require looking at the stories in the context of history.

One of the Gospels said that Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Another says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. However, we know from historical records that Herod died sometime before a solar eclipse in 4 BC, and Quirinius became governor of Syria six years after the eclipse.

Nothing like an astronomical event to put things in the proper perspective. :)

Would you people stop looking for truth in the bible. It's not about reality, it's about interpreting it in any way that your sense of spiritual arrogance sees fit. The flaws, inconsistencies and contradictions only prove what a strong publication it is.;)

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by Torment
You see if I find something that seems contradicting, theists always remind me of several things.

1) You interpreted it wrong.
2) The people who wrote it interpreted God wrong when he told them what to write.
3) It is not meant to be taken literally.
4) I don't see the contradicition, it's all in your head.
5) Look over there! It's George Cluney! *runs away*
Originally posted by stamenflicker
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.

GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

The reference in the second passage is clearly a reference to farming, irrigation, and fruit. The notion is not so much that trees did not exist, but that man didn't have to plant or pick berries. The picture this author is creating, is substantially different than the one of the first author-- and BTW they are two different authors in chapters one and two.

The purpose of the two chapters is also quite different, with one being more of a poem than anything else (and probably much much older).

Even so, the purpose of the second author is to paint a picture of a humanity that didn't need rain, farming, or plants to subsist, but rather was sustained by god alone. He is foreshadowing the story to the upcoming event in which man will be cursed to work the field.

Note that your second reference in both instances refers to "plants of the field" or "shrubs of the field." And note that the punishment that soon follows man's disobedience requires him to work the field.

"Field" is used intentionally three times to indicate that man was not laboring for food-- not that there were no trees. All instances in chapter 2 are references to farming...

Flick Torment, if only you had worded your statement as a prediction instead of an observation, you would have been a millionaire!

[stamenflicker]

Please ignore StamenFlicker - he knows not what he writes.

Gregor,

It's amusing to see you can't enter a rational discussion without tossing off in my direction. Methinks you continue to demonstrate your fear of honest debate. I'm not so sure it's personal from you to me as much as it is the fact you feel threatened every time an intelligent person disagrees with you.

The texts are referred to as "E" and "J." "E" stands for Elohim, the name used for God in text 1 and "J" stands for Jehovah, the name used for God in text 2. Many good studies are out there describing the nature of these two original 'books.' The thought is that this difference arose from when Israel and Judea were divided kingdoms.

Thanks for Old Testament 101. If I thought this was relevant, I'd posted it myself. Two authors, two accounts. Did I not say as much in my thread?

The creation narratives are completely different - in a different order and conveying different themes.

Thanks for being my personal echo once again. I suppose since you said it, it must carry more weight than the stupid Christain ;)

Oh, and read 2 Chronicles (written from the Israel perspective) on the battle.

Oh, and read my post and respond. If your going to mudsling, the least you can do is debate my analysis. Wait, I forgot... you don't read Hebrew.

Flick


PS-- Shroud,

Torment, if only you had worded your statement as a prediction instead of an observation, you would have been a millionaire!

Again, I await a good condradictory interpretation. To assume your position assumes the authors were nothing short of fools, hardly an attainable conclusion given the scope of the work.

[stamenflicker]

Nothing like an astronomical event to put things in the proper perspective.

Not much different than using personal preference to "pick and choose" your own "historical" documents.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

Why would a god want us to believe without evidence? One would think he would come down every century or so to show us that he exists.

How would that help? If he did it once and folks still said no thanks, what's the point?

Flick

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Gregor
Please ignore StamenFlicker - he knows not what he writes.



Why ignore him? I think he has debated this issue brilliantly.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Denise
This bugs me....

2000 years ago some guy named jesus was performing miracles left and right to show the people there was a god. Yet, he says one must have faith ie belief without evidence. So why did he show them the evidence? Were those people better than us because they got to see real live miracles?

Why would a god want us to believe without evidence? One would think he would come down every century or so to show us that he exists. Why would a god create people with the quest for knowledge that humans have and then not show himself? What's the point?

Guess god hates skeptics!:D

If I recall correctly God presents the Hebrews evidence many times that he is watching over them as Moses leads them out of Egypt Despite the mana falling from heaven and the other signs people still moaned and complained and denied or rejected the one true God. Some turned to idol worship for example.

God apparently tried evidence but people still doubted. I wonder: If God was all-knowing would he have known that showing the evidence was futile? Did he decide that if evidence is not convincing that he would quit trying to awe humans?

The only one that seemed to stay loyal was Moses.

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.

GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created. i offer no other interpretations, i let them stand as is. the only need to interpret them is to show that they do not contradict each other. as they are, there is clearly a contradiction.

[Shroud of Akron]

it's not just the bible verses that contradict, so do the messages. such as god being a loving god, yet he killed the innocent first born sons of egypt. god is just, yet you can suffer infinately in hell for a finite crime. god gave all men free will, yet he hardened pharoh's heart against moses. there are more, but it is a pointless issue, overall, the book tries to teach good lessons. i do not hate your god, i just do not understand him.

[Gregor]

SFlick
Again, you have demonstrated that you don't debate, you post something that is flat wrong, you spin it, you spin it, you deny that you posted it, then you move on.

You tried to harmonize the first and second chapters of Genesis by implying "different authors, but they weren't trying to tell creation stories, they had different general intentions." That's not the explanation for the clear contradictions. And you didn't know the J vs. E explanation and chose not to discuss it - but your recent post was a good attempt to cover your gaff.

For Ruby's sake, I could refer to your prior errors on Koine Greek, the age of Luke "majority says well before 70 CE," "Acts written before Galations," & etc. ad nauseum - but for the sake of others, I won't continue.

If you continue posting here as a pseudo-scholar on the Bible, I reserve the right to point out your errors (and they are legion). Oh, and I forgot - you don't comprehend anything you claim to read.

[Tricky]

A few more links:
A list of Biblical contradictions (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#shape_of_earth)
Index to Biblical contradictions (http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/contradictions/cindex.html)
Bible contradictions (http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html)
A short list of Biblical contradictions. (http://free.freespeech.org/firerain/atheism/lies.htm)

There are many more lists, although they contain a lot of duplication.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tricky
There are many more lists, although they contain a lot of duplication.


Strange.. I've noticed a lot of that in Dictionaries and Phone books.

Along the same lines.. You know how you sometimes find typos in books? And if you find another copy of the same printing... Whammo! Same mistakes.. I'ts incredible..

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Diogenes



Strange.. I've noticed a lot of that in Dictionaries and Phone books.

Along the same lines.. You know how you sometimes find typos in books? And if you find another copy of the same printing... Whammo! Same mistakes.. I'ts incredible..
True, but these aren't just lists. They often contain the comments of the person(s) who compiled the lists. And they are not identical, but contain some overlap.

To be fair, of course, there are also lists of Countering Biblical contridictions (http://www.rationalchristianity.net/143contrad.html).

How good you think their explanations are will probably depend on how much faith you have in Biblical inerrancy.

But to me, the biggest contradiction that scholars have never properly resolved is the theodicy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?theodicy) problem. If all things come from God, then evil also comes from God. If all things don't come from God, then he is not omnipotent.

[Skeptical Greg]

Thanks for the extra info..

I understand what you say..

Of course, you understand, that I was making the observation that different people seem to find some of the same contraditions in the Bible.. No surprise..:)

[Skeptical Greg]

The ' Countering the Contradictions '...


I found this one real fast...

Claim: 20. God cannot lie
[Heb 6:18]
God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits to decieve
[2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9]

Answer:
In this case, we need not even consider the scriptures. As "sending forth lying spirits" is not the same as actually lying yourself.

God gets others to do his lying for him..:rolleyes:

Tells me I don't even need to bother with any more. Except for maybe entertainment purposes...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Diogenes
The ' Countering the Contradictions '...


I found this one real fast...

Claim: 20. God cannot lie
[Heb 6:18]
God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits to decieve
[2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9]

Answer:
In this case, we need not even consider the scriptures. As "sending forth lying spirits" is not the same as actually lying yourself.

God gets others to do his lying for him..:rolleyes:

Tells me I don't even need to bother with any more. Except for maybe entertainment purposes...

I know what you mean. I read a number of them and I never before saw the words "context", "parable" and "interpretation" used so many times in such a short space. There was some serious tap dancing going on.

But thanks for clearing up what you meant. I didn't mean to sound like I was on the offensive.

[stamenflicker]

Gregor do me a favor and enlighten my weakened intellectual state:

Again, you have demonstrated that you don't debate, you post something that is flat wrong, you spin it, you spin it, you deny that you posted it, then you move on.

What in my post is "flat wrong" and what evidence will use to demonstrate this, besides of course your insecure accusations which appear at my very presence.

You tried to harmonize the first and second chapters of Genesis by implying "different authors, but they weren't trying to tell creation stories, they had different general intentions."

What has led you to the conclusion of "harmonizing"? If they weren't telling creation stories, what were they doing in Genesis 1 and 2? Is this really a cosmic Backgammon game in disguise?

That's not the explanation for the clear contradictions.

The only thing "clear" about the contradictions is that one author is using a literary device known as foreshadowing (perhaps you've heard of it) to set the "stage" for a future of botanical labor.

And you didn't know the J vs. E explanation and chose not to discuss it - but your recent post was a good attempt to cover your gaff.

My theology professor would be so disappointed to know that I had goofed his instruction in such a blatant manner. I'm glad you were able to ascertain my level of understanding by the omission of information not relevant to making a cogent point.

the age of Luke "majority says well before 70 CE,"

Once again you've posted something I didn't write. And in quotations too, tusk tusk. Many scholars do see a pre-70AD date as possible. I demonstrated that, and you lost the debate. Obviously it's a sore spot. Apply ointment gently.

"Acts written before Galations,"

It's Galatians. And my comment was that it is certainly possible the two documents were written about the same time and such a possibility is the most logical solution to the assumed error surrounding the # Jerusalem trips recorded in the two books. You lost that one too, or at least you failed to supply a counter to my post.

If you continue posting here as a pseudo-scholar on the Bible, I reserve the right to point out your errors (and they are legion).

I'm still waiting, so far you've done nothing of the sort. You've not even bothered to address my analysis of the text and the use of the word "field." Probably because you can't.

Oh, and I forgot - you don't comprehend anything you claim to read.

My, my. Let's continue to take pot shots at the Christian (since I can't debate him). Since the mudslinging is now "in season" might I suggest behavioral modification drugs? I hear Prozac is making a comeback. You should look into it.

( ! )

Flick

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm
I think some of the most interesting contradictions are in the two Nativity stories. It took me many years to realize that there are two distinctly different Nativity stories, because there are few obvious contradictions. Most of them require looking at the stories in the context of history.

One of the Gospels said that Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Another says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. However, we know from historical records that Herod died sometime before a solar eclipse in 4 BC, and Quirinius became governor of Syria six years after the eclipse.

Nothing like an astronomical event to put things in the proper perspective. :)

This "contradiction" is iffy. I checked into this. There are many websites devoted to both sides of this topic. It is obvious that with so much disagreement among historians, biblical scholars, and theologians there is no consensus. If there is no consensus then this "contradiction" cannot be regarded as a fact.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LCBOY


This "contradiction" is iffy. I checked into this. There are many websites devoted to both sides of this topic. It is obvious that with so much disagreement among historians, biblical scholars, and theologians there is no consensus. If there is no consensus then this "contradiction" cannot be regarded as a fact. This is a record for me.. Two new sig lines in the same number of days...

I think this is a new one for your list, Torment..

1) You interpreted it wrong.
2) The people who wrote it interpreted God wrong when he told them what to write.
3) It is not meant to be taken literally.
4) I don't see the contradicition, it's all in your head.
5) Look over there! It's George Cluney! *runs away*
6) If there is no consensus (regarding two versions of the same event) then this "contradiction" cannot be regarded as a fact.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Diogenes
This is a record for me.. Two new sig lines in the same number of days...

I think this is a new one for your list, Torment..

1) You interpreted it wrong.
2) The people who wrote it interpreted God wrong when he told them what to write.
3) It is not meant to be taken literally.
4) I don't see the contradicition, it's all in your head.
5) Look over there! It's George Cluney! *runs away*
6) If there is no consensus (regarding two versions of the same event) then this "contradiction" cannot be regarded as a fact.

Wow! You should be knighted as Sir Strawman Builder. Just kidding. :D. The issue at hand is whether Quirinius was governor when Herod ruled. There is evidence that he did. If he did then there is no contradiction.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by LCBOY


This "contradiction" is iffy. I checked into this. There are many websites devoted to both sides of this topic. It is obvious that with so much disagreement among historians, biblical scholars, and theologians there is no consensus. If there is no consensus then this "contradiction" cannot be regarded as a fact.
The observation that we don't know which case is right does not mean that the accounts are not contradictory, in fact, it defines it as a "contradiction". This is pretty much the case with all contradictions. Both cases seem to claim truth, and there is no agreement which is better supported. If that is not a contradiction, what is?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Wow! You should be knighted as Sir Strawman Builder. Just kidding. :D. The issue at hand is whether Quirinius was governor when Herod ruled. There is evidence that he did. If he did then there is no contradiction.

Spare me the image of whatever issue you have in your hand..:D

If I recall, the question was raised about the diferences in the two Nativity narratives. The question of Quirinius was listed as one of them.
I don't blame you for picking out a piece with which you might score a point or two.

There is considerable disparity between the two accounts, the Quirinius question asside.

And no, I won't bother to delineate them for you.. I assume you have access to a bible.

[Gregor]

SFlick
You've been proved wrong so many times in the past, so I love your Stalinesk revisionist history.

I'll let others read your bush-league apologetics and see if it is consistent with the actual text and my explanation.

Sorry to hear about your flunking theology, tho.

[Gregor]

All we can do is read varying arguments by qualified historians and draw our own conclusions based upon whose arguments are logically constructed.

One source I trust is Richard Carrier, who posts many scholarly articles at infidels.com. Here is an excerpt from a long paper on the date of the nativity dealing with the governor:

"Some have tried to reconcile Matthew and Luke by inventing a second governorship of Quirinius, placing it in the reign of Herod the Great. However, we have no evidence at all that Quirinius served as governor of Syria twice, much less that he did so when Herod was king of Judaea. . . We also know who was governing Syria between 12 and 3 B.C. and therefore Quirinius could not have been governor then (or before, since he was not qualified before the year 12). "

Reading the entire article, and attempts to reconcile the dates demonstrates a pretty clear contradiction to me.

[Ossai]

Go back/forward a few passages in the bible and compare Jesus's geneology in Luke with that presented in Matthey.

[pgwenthold]

I don't know if this is mentioned in any of the links, but it is an internal logical inconsistency that cannot be rationalized by "that's only your opinion" or "historians do not all agree so it is not a contradiction." It can only be accounted for by dismissing the rules of logic.

1) God is a jealous god (all over the OT, including Exodus 20:5 and 34:14, and others)
2) God is love (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16)
3) Love is not jealous (1 Corinthians 13:4)

All three cannot be true.

Other possible answers can be envisioned, but they fail. One may be that God has changed between the old and new testaments. Of course, this contradicts the bible (Malachi 3:6, Hebrew 6:17, James 1:17), too.

The other possibility is that the god of the NT is not the same as the god of the OT. I don't have any good biblical cites for this, but I doubt anyone would want to go that route.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by LCBOY


This "contradiction" is iffy. I checked into this. There are many websites devoted to both sides of this topic. It is obvious that with so much disagreement among historians, biblical scholars, and theologians there is no consensus. If there is no consensus then this "contradiction" cannot be regarded as a fact.

Could you provide the name of a secular historian who thinks that Quirinius was governor of Syria during Herod's reign? The best historical evidence (writings of Josephus) says otherwise.

When faced with two versions of history, which is more likely to be accurate: One that has a clear religious agenda, or one that is simply an attempt to meticulously record past events?

The contradiction is not the only problem with the Nativity stories, which seem to be an attempt to place Jesus in his traditional birthplace of Bethlehem rather than his more probable origin, Nazareth. The whole idea of Joseph going to Bethlehem for a census of Syria (not the whole world, as the Bible says) is ludicrous. Imagine this scene:

ROMAN SOLDIER: OK everybody, listen up. We're going to have a census, and I need to let everyone know where to go register. Anybody here have a famous ancestor? You, what's your name? Joseph? Who was your ancestor... King David? Never heard of him. Where was he from? Bethehem? OK, that's outside our jurisdiction, but what the heck. As you know, we Romans are a pretty easy-going bunch, not really sticklers for paperwork, so you can do what you want...

[Jeff]

Test

[Tricky]

Look! More proof of evolution! A monkey who can type!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tricky
Look! More proof of evolution! A monkey who can type!

At what price though? It looks like it was forced to give up it's fashion sense along the way..

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Tricky
Look! More proof of evolution! A monkey who can type!

It's purely by chance. Given enough time, he could come up with the complete works of Shakespeare.

And...technically, it's an ape, not a monkey.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Diogenes
This is a record for me.. Two new sig lines in the same number of days...

I think this is a new one for your list, Torment..

1) You interpreted it wrong.
2) The people who wrote it interpreted God wrong when he told them what to write.
3) It is not meant to be taken literally.
4) I don't see the contradicition, it's all in your head.
5) Look over there! It's George Cluney! *runs away*
6) If there is no consensus (regarding two versions of the same event) then this "contradiction" cannot be regarded as a fact.

Wow, I feel special that you quoted me. :D But can you do me favor and at least quote me accurately. Quote 6) is NOT what I said. I'll assume it was an honest mistake. ;) My point was that some historians believe these is a contradicton and some historians do not.

[davefoc]

stamenflicker is great. I realize that opinion is not shared by everybody here, but I think he's great. The poor, lonely Christian in this den of atheists fending off undeserved pot shots. Even it's not quite true. it is still an entertaining image.

stamenflicker,
I got a little lost along the way in your posts. Is your point that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, or that there are, but they're not all that important? If the latter, would you share with us a few of what you think are the more interesting contradictions and your own thoughts on them?

[Torment]

Like I implyed before, this topic will go nowhere. :(

That is the beauty of how the Bible was written. Although I can't help but dislike anyone who had a hand in writing it, I have to give them my props on a job well done.

The beauty in it is that it never tells you how to interpret any given passage. It is written so vaguely that nothing can be refuted. This is because of the fact that there is almost no definate thing to refute!

Everything can be considered a mistranslation, not to be taken literally, ect ect ect.

It never even says if half of the things in it are just stories to teach morals or if they actually happened.

Once again, my props to the writers of the Bible. You evil geniuses you! :mad:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Wow, I feel special that you quoted me. :D But can you do me favor and at least quote me accurately. Quote 6) is NOT what I said. I'll assume it was an honest mistake. ;) My point was that some historians believe these is a contradicton and some historians do not.

Quote you accurately?

I added the parenthesis for context, but otherwise it was ' cut and paste.. ).. I'll modify it a bit so it is an exact quote.

Perhaps your thoughts were not conveyed very well ,but I don't think most people would say "a lack of consensus" is all we need to dismiss an obvious contradiction.
The two stories are very different.. Both of them cannot be true.
Trying to rationalize this obvious contradiction only makes the person doing so, to appear irrational.

[Argo Nimbus]

Originally posted by Torment
Everything can be considered a mistranslation, not to be taken literally, ect ect ect.

What I've noticed when arguing with true believers is that they interpret the Bible freely when it's to their advantage, but insist on a strictly literal translation when that is to their advantage. As an example, I had an argument with a Seventh Day Adventist over whether everything in the Bible is true. He insisted that it is, but it sometimes requires a very deep analysis to prove it. So I called his attention to the failed prophesy of Ezekiel (Ezek 26:7-14 ASV, or you can read about it here (http://web2.iadfw.net/capella/aguide/failprof.htm)). Ezekiel told Nebuchadrezzer, King of Babylon, that his armies would capture and destroy the city of Tyre. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah! However, Tyre was located on a small island a thousand yards off the coast of Lebanon and it proved to be a very tough nut to crack, even with the support of Jehovah, because it had a large fleet with which to defend itself. In fact, Neb's armies camped on the shore for 13 years and in the end had to settle for a negotiated settlement that "saved face", but little else (as Ezekiel himself admits in Ezek 29:17-20). As a consolation prize for not capturing Tyre, Jehovah promises, by way of his mouthpiece, Ezekiel, that Neb will capture Egypt instead (which again didn't happen).

So on the face of it, we have at least one passage in the Bible that everyone should agree is false, i.e. Ezekiel 26:7-14. However, this would create problems (since Ezekiel claims to be speaking with the authority of Jehovah), so the Adventist had to do some very deep analysis indeed to head this off. His argument was that the prophesy was true because Tyre was later completely destroyed by Alexander the Great in 332 BC. I pointed out that this happened some 230 years after Nebuchadrezzer had died and it was Neb, not Alexander, who was prophesied to destroy Tyre. Tut tut, no problem, the prophesy was true if anyone at anytime had destroyed Tyre.

What really cinched the argument as far as the Adventist was concerned was something that he learned from me, i.e. that the Greeks under Alexander had defeated Tyre by building an earthen ramp across the channel over which to move his army. He said that he hadn't known about this until I told him, but it confirms the truth of the prophesy because at Ezek 26:8, Neb is told that he will capture Tyre by casting up a "mound", presumably "earthen". The Adventist was really quite excited to learn this. How wonderful it was to have the prophesy confirmed in this way by a skeptic! It didn't do me any good to point out that this required little or no foresight on Ezekiel's part, and it certainly did not require a revelation direct from Jehovah, since cities were routinely captured in those days by building earthen ramps, like the one used at Masada by the Romans.

So when a literal translation doesn't work, a liberal interpretation is quite acceptable. Just don't accept any literal translations or liberal interpretations from skeptics.

--- Argo

[Yahzi]

Gregor
Please ignore StamenFlicker - he knows not what he writes.
I am. But people keep quoting him, and his comments are so stupid they make my head hurt.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Quote you accurately?

I added the parenthesis for context, but otherwise it was ' cut and paste.. ).. I'll modify it a bit so it is an exact quote.

Perhaps your thoughts were not conveyed very well ,but I don't think most people would say "a lack of consensus" is all we need to dismiss an obvious contradiction.
The two stories are very different.. Both of them cannot be true.
Trying to rationalize this obvious contradiction only makes the person doing so, to appear irrational.

My wording may have been a bit confusing. My point was that there are a group of people that believe that there is a contradiction and back it up with historical evidence. There is a group of people that believe there is no contradiction and they back it up with historical evidence. So one cannot assert that this has been proven to be a contradiction because the issue has not been settled. Which evidence are we to accept? That depends of the person's precepts, biases, and presuppositions...

[Libertarian]

People, people, people! There are no contradictions in the bilble. There are only paradoxes. These paradoxes make it a much richer book, a book that requires study and intense research in order to understand it.

Of course, why an omnipotent god would create an earth full of greasy, hairless apes from which he demands constant worship is something I'll never understand.

Nor will I ever understand why, if the guy really wants us to worship him, he doesn't give us some decent evidence!

[stamenflicker]

The poor, lonely Christian in this den of atheists fending off undeserved pot shots

Though this thread may not reflect it, there are some very decent atheists and skeptics who post on this forum. I stick around because they expand my ability to think about a subject from a variety of viewpoints. This particular thread, though I truly think it started with good intentions, is really only another pep rally so several posters can pat themselves on the back for making such wise choices regarding Christianity.

got a little lost along the way in your posts. Is your point that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, or that there are, but they're not all that important? If the latter, would you share with us a few of what you think are the more interesting contradictions and your own thoughts on them?

Most people hate the way I debate because I personally believe how we define things sets the stage for how we interpret things. First of all, you have to define "contradiction." From that defintion, you have to decide if truth claims can co-exist within contradiciton. I posted this example, maybe in this thread, I don't remember, but let me give it more space.

I say to you, "Davefoc, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence." You contemplate what I've told you, but decide what I've spoken might be suspect. Therefore, you go to your local paint store and get a color patch of all greens. You take your color patch to the fence in your neighbors yard and pluck a blade of grass from each side of the fence. Then you hold up each blade on your color patch. You return to me with "your evidence."

"Flick, you are dead wrong. Look at this, we can clearly see here that the colors on both sides of the fence are the same."

Immediately I begin to see the futility of a conversation with you. Though I may try to explain what the saying really means, you insist on taking the statement only at face value. While it is true that you are correct, the grass is not literally greener on the other side of the fence, by insisting on your method of truth-finding, you have ignored truth by insisting on the infantile surface of language. Your mistake is likened to a five year old child who cannot move into critical thinking, but is stuck in literal interpretations of lingusitic events.

Fast-forward to adulthood, and you have on this forum dozens of people with the same childlike language skills. The notion that the Bible contradicts itself and that somehow that contradiction might still carry meaning is beyond the scope and sequence of many thinkers on this board. Literalists to a fault, and burdened by insecurity of their own views, the subsequent attack to follow is one that stops, pulls out a color patch and starts comparing. The sheer joy of discovering their method is "proven" to be correct adds only to the frenzy of immaturity and an absence of critical thinking skills.

To answer your question, sure I think the Bible is full of inconsistency. And I think that is great. To those willing to live in the ambiguity, the inconsistency can shake loose deeper meaning if and only if we make an attempt to get at what the texts intentions really are.

I fully recognize that certain Christians do not take this approach to the Bible. They are literalists and just as guilty of poor taste and intellectual childishness as the atheists who respond to them.

Hope that helps.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

To further address dave's question regarding the most interesting inconsistency in the bible...

"And the Lord repented f the evil which he thought to do against his people." --Exodus 32:14

In this text we not only have God contemplating doing an evil deed, we have God "repenting" for it. Who does god repent to? If god needs to repent, how can we justify Jesus' claim that "None is good but the Father in heaven?"

Author and theologian John Roth creates interesting questions from this and a few other texts in an article entitled, "A Theodicy of Protest." Unlike other theodicies, Roth writes, "This one will not be to good to be true." The problem with most theodicies, according to Roth, is that they legitimize evil-- especially where god appears to be its author. He offers some interesting conclusions, but I'm too busy to post them. An interested member can PM me and I'll try to sit down and outline the response he offers.

Anyway, that's the most interesting "contradiction" I've ever seen. And it far outweighs whether or not their were trees before humans IMHO.

Flick

[Peskanov]

Stamenflicker,

----
"And the Lord repented f the evil which he thought to do against his people." --Exodus 32:14
----

Interesting, but I don't think that is a so remarkable contradiction. In general, god appears very human in the beginning of the bible and slowly transforms in something more and more strange to humans, reaching a near non-understable Jesus, and ending in the undefined holy spirit.

IMHO, the most important contradiction in the bible comes from Jesus trying to invalidate the brutal old rules without stating it. This position degenerates in several incoherent statements along the new testament...Jesus says the old law is OK, but also proclaim new rules that does not allow to follow the old ones...And also cryptically abolish much of them using parables.

I can't see a bigger contradiction than that...It is pretty obvious that christians do not worship the same god that Jesus hebrew contemporaries.

[stamenflicker]

IMHO, the most important contradiction in the bible comes from Jesus trying to invalidate the brutal old rules without stating it. This position degenerates in several incoherent statements along the new testament...Jesus says the old law is OK, but also proclaim new rules that does not allow to follow the old ones...And also cryptically abolish much of them using parables.

That's a interesting analysis. I too see god being humanized more and more as the "bible" progresses, though I tend to see Jesus as being perfectly understandable in relation to the "law." Jesus seemed to be raising the bar by saying that "sure following the law is great, but if your heart's not in it, or if the law takes presedence over human needs, don't feel bad about breaking it." In the instances that we see Jesus break the "law" it's usually to meet a need-- either healing someone or eating, etc.

The classic Jesus saying on this issue is "Man was not created for the Sabbath, the Sabbath was created for man."

Translated to today... "Human beings were created for religious worship so much as religious worship was created for human beings." The ten commandments existed to take humanity in a particular direction, not to be held over humanity's head as a vicious school-master. It seems to me Jesus noted how ineffective these rules were at leading folks in a direction, so he sought after the removal of a external measuring stick and replaced it with an internal one.

Flick

[davefoc]

Peskanov said:
I can't see a bigger contradiction than that...It is pretty obvious that christians do not worship the same god that Jesus hebrew contemporaries.

I have never had religious beliefs but I do have a somewhat Christian background. Based on little more than that and maybe some Jewish friends, I had come to see Judaism as something like Christianity without Christ. That is both faiths have similar morals and both faiths have similar concepts of god, it's just that Christians believe in the divinity of Christ and Jews don't.

I was amazed when I came to study a bit about the old testament to realize how radically different that the god in the old testament is to the one I had imagined. The god in the old testament is this feisty man-like entity, that gets pissed off, seeks revenge, provides assisstance with brutal massacres and seems to be pretty much the God of the Jews and not necessarily anybody else. It seems like the old testament god is like a Greek god except there's only one. This is very different from the Christian concept of this benign all powerful entity who is the god of all people if they will just accept him.

I think you are right, this is the most substantive contradiction in the bible and it is an amazing one given the derivation of Christianity from Judaism.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Torment
Like I implyed before, this topic will go nowhere. :(

That is the beauty of how the Bible was written. Although I can't help but dislike anyone who had a hand in writing it, I have to give them my props on a job well done.

The beauty in it is that it never tells you how to interpret any given passage. It is written so vaguely that nothing can be refuted. This is because of the fact that there is almost no definate thing to refute!


I don't think the writers of the Bible wanted to intentionally obscure the message, the way Nostradamus did in his quatrains. In fact, I don't think they had similar purposes in mind at all. Some of the contradictions, I think, are due to the fact that whoever compiled some of the older books, like Genesis, simply wanted to get everything that had been written into one place. In fact, it is possible that it was compiled by semi-literate scribes who just copied by rote and did not really understand what they were copying. They just wrote down one creation/flood account after another to ensure it would be preserved for future generations. This would certainly explain a lot.

I'm sure that most of the authors of the Bible couldn't imagine that someday people would be arguing over whether their writings were divinely inspired.

[Ossai]

davefoc
I think you are right, this is the most substantive contradiction in the bible and it is an amazing one given the derivation of Christianity from Judaism. That is because Christianity isn't a derivation of Judaism. Christianity, as it is today at any rate, is a Hellenistic Christ cult, Paul just used Jesus as the Christ - promising salvation, while mostly ignoring Jesus's actual teachings. Later Paul, and those who followed him used the old testament to bolster their cult and tie it to a more legitimate religion. (by legitimate I mean an older established religion)

Ossai

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Peskanov
Interesting, but I don't think that is a so remarkable contradiction. In general, god appears very human in the beginning of the bible and slowly transforms in something more and more strange to humans, reaching a near non-understable Jesus, and ending in the undefined holy spirit.


Of course, a "transforming" god contradicts other biblical claims: Malachi 3:6, Hebrew 6:17, James 1:17

[Peskanov]

Stamenflicker,

----
That's a interesting analysis. I too see god being humanized more and more as the "bible" progresses,
---

Sorry, but I was stating the contrary!
In exodus Yahve behaviour is very human; jelaous, angry, compasive...Most of his desires are very human. He talks often with Moses ad the rest near face to face...Also, some references depicts him in human shape.
Jesus is depicted as human with some miracle capability like the old prophets. But in the other hand his messages are often unclear and strange. He rarely states clear opinions, and the new testament provides an image of deep mistery and intellectual superiority and distance; very different than old Yahve's. Jesus is less "human" despite being human!
At the end, the only divine presence which remains is the holy spirit. Little is said about him. He rarely speaks, has no shape or physical presence...It's hard to relate to humans at all.

----
"Human beings were created for religious worship so much as religious worship was created for human beings."
----

I agree with your analysis, but this equals to the abolishment of the old law! The only reason to say "old law is OK" was probably:
1.- To attract his comtemporaries to his message. A direct rejection of the law would have shocked too much any possible follower.
2.- To protect himself; defying the laws directly would have killed him very fast...
Remenber, the old law states: "if your son is disobedient, kill him". Jesus instead says "forgive him".
To cover his ideas, Jesus pretend to accept old rules; so he played a double game:

Matthew 5

5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works , and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law , till all be fulfilled.
5:19
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

[Peskanov]

Ossai,

----
That is because Christianity isn't a derivation of Judaism. Christianity, as it is today at any rate, is a Hellenistic Christ cult, Paul just used Jesus as the Christ - promising salvation, while mostly ignoring Jesus's actual teachings. Later Paul, and those who followed him used the old testament to bolster their cult and tie it to a more legitimate religion. (by legitimate I mean an older established religion)
----

This certainly makes sense, but still Jesus made plenty of references to the old scriptures.
I mean, Jesus also strongly used the old testament as the base of his preaching (well, this is assuming the new testament transcription of Jesus speeches is pretty fidel) so I think part of the contradiction relies in his shoulders.

[Ossai]

Peskanov
This certainly makes sense, but still Jesus made plenty of references to the old scriptures.
I mean, Jesus also strongly used the old testament as the base of his preaching (well, this is assuming the new testament transcription of Jesus speeches is pretty fidel) so I think part of the contradiction relies in his shoulders. Because there were actually two groups of followers. The first group was the Jesus Movement which followed the teachings of Jesus. The second group, the one Paul lead, basically used the Jesus stories as a foundation for their Hellenistic Christ cult. The two groups were supposed to come together and vote on an official stance at the council of Nivecia(sp?) around 300 C.E.. What happened is that Paul's group surrounded that council and didn't let the Jesus movement in.
The Battle for God Karen Armstrong, Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard E. Friedman and a couple of books (which I can't remember the title) by Burton L. Mack. For a look at the Hellenistic Christ cult without the as much biblical baggage being brought in read The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell. Now for some Biblical references to the two feuding groups compare Mathew to the Pauline letters. Both groups have a distinct agenda 1- salvation through christ (new rules) vs. 2 following teachings but honoring the old laws.

Ossai

[stamenflicker]

Sorry, but I was stating the contrary!

My mistake. I re-read your original post. I think there's a lot to support your conclusion.

To cover his ideas, Jesus pretend to accept old rules; so he played a double game:

I agree... but that's the nature of any good reformer. It also important to note that Matthew is likely a more conservative Jewish rendering of the Jesus event.

Flick

[SFB]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.

GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.


... And note that the punishment that soon follows man's disobedience requires him to work the field.



Stamen:

This last statement implies you adhere to the idea of a Christian god interferring with the affairs of humans. Do you believe that was or is possible?

[stamenflicker]

This last statement implies you adhere to the idea of a Christian god interferring with the affairs of humans. Do you believe that was or is possible?

Yes I do.