11 errors by Jesus and friends.

[kai]

Stop whining. The fact is that I am actually interested in Jehonadab's opinion and wholly disinterested in Riverwolf's speculation about Jehonadab's opinion. I assume that Jehonadab is perfectly capable of answering for himself.

not whining sir ,but admiring your sword play , on with the show.

 

[rocketman]

Stop whining. The fact is that I am actually interested in Jehonadab's opinion and wholly disinterested in Riverwolf's speculation about Jehonadab's opinion. I assume that Jehonadab is perfectly capable of answering for himself.

Actually Riverwolf was responding to the question you asked tomspug.

But don't let me stop you, I like the flash of the rapier!

 

[Poisonshady313]

Genesis 47:29-31 have to do with Joseph swearing to his father that he would not bury him in Egypt. The blessing referred to in Hebrews did not occur until Genesis 48.

Before looking into any of your other claims I would like to ask did you research these errors yourself or did you pull them from another source?

An error is an error, whether it was found by me or some guy down the street.

And yes... I did research these errors myself.

The main focus of the thread seems to have been put on the accuracy of the translation of the scriptures, or what Tanach texts might or might not have existed at the time and whether or not that was poorly translated, etc....

People have given up on trying to explain away the inconsistencies... instead they admit it is an inconsistency, but they shift the blame everywhere else other than the alleged speaker of the words.

 

[Heneni]

Ahh...a perfect god using imperfect humans to accomplish his will. Quite extrodinary reallly. Why he didnt just side step us and get on with it without us is a mystery.

 

[Riverwolf]

Stop whining. The fact is that I am actually interested in Jehonadab's opinion and wholly disinterested in Riverwolf's speculation about Jehonadab's opinion. I assume that Jehonadab is perfectly capable of answering for himself.

This isn't a one-on-one debate thread; you should expect answers from everyone. If you wanted it to be just for tomspug, you could have said so or put it on his PM.

 

[rocketman]

The main focus of the thread seems to have been put on the accuracy of the translation of the scriptures,

Right, that goes for both NT and OT. And given the minor nature of these issues, we are all merely splitting hairs.

People have given up on trying to explain away the inconsistencies... instead they admit it is an inconsistency, but they shift the blame everywhere else other than the alleged speaker of the words.

I do not agree with your assesment in full. Some of your points have been shown to be simply your interpretation of the NT. When I challenged your 3rd, 7th and ninth point I did not shift blame away from the speakers as you allege.

 

[Harmonious]

Ahh...a perfect god using imperfect humans to accomplish his will. Quite extrodinary reallly. Why he didnt just side step us and get on with it without us is a mystery.

The authors of the books of the OT didn't seem to have the same problem as the authors of the NT.

There are those willing to say that the NT wasn't written, or otherwise inspired by God, one way or the other, and that all the inconsistencies prove that.

 

[Riverwolf]

The authors of the books of the OT didn't seem to have the same problem as the authors of the NT.

There are those willing to say that the NT wasn't written, or otherwise inspired by God, one way or the other, and that all the inconsistencies prove that.

None of the authors of the NT felt they were being divinely inspired, except maybe John when he wrote his Apocalypse(not likely the same person who wrote the fourth canonical Gospel and subsequent letters). Paul wrote many of his letters before the Gospels(and I don't think it's coincidence that they NEVER speak of them; I'd think Matthiew etc. would have said something...), and they were meant to be directly for the churches they were addressed to, and not meant to be put into a codex. Think of chapter 16 of the letter to the Romans; verse 22 in particular.

 

[Heneni]

The authors of the books of the OT didn't seem to have the same problem as the authors of the NT.

There are those willing to say that the NT wasn't written, or otherwise inspired by God, one way or the other, and that all the inconsistencies prove that.

But there are many inconsistencies in the OT as well.

 

[Jehonadab]

Curiosity.

 

[Harmonious]

But there are many inconsistencies in the OT as well.

Not really.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not really.

I can name a few off the top of my head that are right there in Genesis.

God created the world, then he created plants, then animals, then men and women, blessing them. Then the LORD, after making the earth, puts plants in a garden in Eden, puts a man in it alone, then makes animals(yes, he makes animals right there out of the ground, not earlier: "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky..." [Gen 2:19]) in it, then creates a woman out of one of the man's rib.

And don't forget, who was Cain's wife, where did she come from and why is the Torah so silent about it? Was she his unmentioned sister? Did God just create her out of nothing for Cain despite what he did to his brother? And now that I think about it, before Cain even does marry his suddenly appeared wife; after God curses Cain for murdering Abel, Cain complains about being cursed by other people... who don't exist yet! At this point, the only human beings on the earth are Adam, Eve, and Cain himself. Cain shouldn't even fathom other nations of men yet, as he and his parents are now the only ones on earth!

I know there could be parts that are left out, but why were they left out if doing so just causes more questions and even makes some people leave the faith? A single passage about them would have sufficed.

And now that I think about it, in Jewish beliefs, why did the serpent want to tempt Eve in the first place? Was he just looking for a laugh or something?

 

[Harmonious]

I can name a few off the top of my head that are right there in Genesis.

God created the world, then he created plants, then animals, then men and women, blessing them. Then the LORD, after making the earth, puts plants in a garden in Eden, puts a man in it alone, then makes animals(yes, he makes animals right there out of the ground, not earlier: "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky..." [Gen 2:19]) in it, then creates a woman out of one of the man's rib.

I thought it was explained: Chapter 1 in Genesis is more of a Synopsis of all of Creation. It doesn't explain HOW anything was created, except that God said the words, and there it was.

God made the plants on Day 3. I don't see the problem. Just the focus of the narrative is on the Garden of Eden.

God created animals on day 5 or 6, depending on what they were. God didn't just "make them" in Chapter 2. In Chapter 2, we are treated to a few more details of HOW God created them. There is no contradiction here.

And Eve was created out of Adam's rib. In Chapter 1, it says that man and woman were created. Chapter 2 gives a little more detail into HOW God did that, and with a little more sequencing. Again, no contradiction.

And don't forget, who was Cain's wife, where did she come from

That is a good question. Jewish tradition says that both Cain and Abel (and, I suppose, Seth) were born with twin sisters. Cain married Abel's twin sister, and Abel married Cain's twin sister. The laws against incest didn't exist yet, when the only humans available to marry are only siblings.

and why is the Torah so silent about it?

Couldn't tell you. Maybe it wasn't considered a significant detail by God.

Was she his unmentioned sister? Did God just create her out of nothing for Cain despite what he did to his brother?

I asnwered that already.

And now that I think about it, before Cain even does marry his suddenly appeared wife; after God curses Cain for murdering Abel, Cain complains about being cursed by other people... who don't exist yet!

True. But they WOULD exist eventually, and when they heard about it, he feared he would be punished, cursed, and things of that nature.

At this point, the only human beings on the earth are Adam, Eve, and Cain himself.

And his wife, and Abel and HIS wife.

Cain shouldn't even fathom other nations of men yet, as he and his parents are now the only ones on earth!

Not really. The idea of more people eventually existing isn't beyond complete thought. They were born, and other people would be born. And other people, in generations beyond his parents and his wife, would learn of his crime against humanity.

I know there could be parts that are left out, but why were they left out if doing so just causes more questions and even makes some people leave the faith? A single passage about them would have sufficed.

Not everyone asks questions that make them leave the faith, especially for not understanding geneologies. It is known that God didn't include every last detail of creation, or human history in the Torah. Just because one person finds that such a thing is desperately important doesn't mean it will shatter the faith of someone else if they don't know the specific answers to those questions.

And now that I think about it, in Jewish beliefs, why did the serpent want to tempt Eve in the first place? Was he just looking for a laugh or something?

Actually, the most comprehensive answer I've ever received is in a lecture series written by Rabbi David Fohrman. I'll link to it later.

But the quick answer I've come to after studying his series is that the snake had a couple of motives. First of all, he was jealous of Adam. He wanted Eve for himself, and if Eve made Adam eat the fruit, he thought he could get her that way. (The idea makes me shudder, but it could have been possible.)

Also, the simple idea is that the snake simply introduced Eve to the concept of animal logic. Animals don't have "commandments" by God. They have instincts. God commanded Adam (and by extension, Eve) not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, verbally. But the fruit was still desirable.

The snake said that the instinct that said that the fruit was desirable was ALSO from God. And animals were expected to follow that inner voice. But humans were not LIKE the other animals, and were expected to follow the VERBAL command.

This: Serpents of Desire: Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden. An Introduction
Is the first installation of the twelve part series. It has the introduction, ten chapters, and the conclusion.

 

[Riverwolf]

Good answers, Harmonious. I especially like the part about the serpent's motives; I'd never really thought of those before. (though the latter explanation I didn't think of because I don't believe other animals to be "beneath" humans in any way) But I think you missed the part where I said that first God made things, then the LORD made things.

Get it?

Not a major inconsistency and CERTAINLY NOT a reason not to believe that the Torah is God's word, but still an inconsistency, likely on the part of the author if you believe Moses wrote it, though another explanation is that the Torah was written later as a compilation of the histories written by the scribes of Israel and Judea after they separated; where one of them used Elohim and the other used the tetragrammaton. After the stories were compiled, the High Priests stated that God dictated it to Moses so as to establish its authority.

I think you might find this interesting. (I've posted this before on another thread)
YouTube - Who Wrote The Bible (1 of 12)

 

[Poisonshady313]

Good answers, Harmonious. I especially like the part about the serpent's motives; I'd never really thought of those before. (though the latter explanation I didn't think of because I don't believe other animals to be "beneath" humans in any way) But I think you missed the part where I said that first God made things, then the LORD made things.

Get it?

That has been explained already.

When God brought the animals to Adam, they had been made already... as if God is telling the reader "now, remember those animals I made before I made man? Now I brought them before Adam so that he can name them".

As for the notion that there's various authors...no. You can call me Poison... you can call me Shady... you can call me Poisonshady... I'm the same guy.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As for the notion that there's various authors...no.

Folks should understand that Poisonshady is speaking for some Jews, not all Jews. There is significant Jewish scholarship that supports the documentary hypothesis. It is the norm among Reform and Reconstructionist Jews and acknowledged as viable among Conservative Jews.

 

[Riverwolf]

That has been explained already.

When God brought the animals to Adam, they had been made already... as if God is telling the reader "now, remember those animals I made before I made man? Now I brought them before Adam so that he can name them".

You missed my point. I got your hypothesis that the first chapter was a table of contents of sorts, and honestly that does make sense and I hadn't thought of it that way.

My point was the different names being used. Poison and Shady are combined to form your domain name; the tetragrammaton and Elohim are completely different words that mean completely different things. It's an inconsistency of name usage. Why did the author choose to do that? Why not just use one name throughout? It's an indication of poor writing in my opinion, though granted there wasn't really a standard yet, so I guess it's forgivable.

 

[Harmonious]

Folks should understand that Poisonshady is speaking for some Jews, not all Jews. There is significant Jewish scholarship that supports the documentary hypothesis. It is the norm among Reform and Reconstructionist Jews and acknowledged as viable among Conservative Jews.

You do know that Orthodox Jews disregard such "scholarship", right? This "scholarship," as you call it, is completely meaningless to people who believe in the Unity of God, and the Divinity of Origen of the Five Books of Moses.

The belief in such "scholarship" is pretty much a denial of the sanctity of what makes Judaism useful.

 

[Harmonious]

You missed my point. I got your hypothesis that the first chapter was a table of contents of sorts, and honestly that does make sense and I hadn't thought of it that way.

My point was the different names being used. Poison and Shady are combined to form your domain name; the tetragrammaton and Elohim are completely different words that mean completely different things. It's an inconsistency of name usage. Why did the author choose to do that? Why not just use one name throughout? It's an indication of poor writing in my opinion, though granted there wasn't really a standard yet, so I guess it's forgivable.

God has lots of names. Sometimes, we are meant to learn about different parts of God's intentions when different names are used. The Tetragrammaton is usually used in connection to mercy. The name Elohim is usually used in connection to judgment. Other names are used to convey other things about God at different times, but all of the names are still One God.

I also have a lot of names. Harmonious is my handle for the message boards I frequent. I have an English name that I use in Poughkeepsie, as my parents gave it to me, and it honors them to use it.

I also have a Hebrew name that my parents gave me (though they prefer my English name) that my friends outside of my hometown use.

I'm still the same person.

 

[Riverwolf]

God has lots of names. Sometimes, we are meant to learn about different parts of God's intentions when different names are used. The Tetragrammaton is usually used in connection to mercy. The name Elohim is usually used in connection to judgment. Other names are used to convey other things about God at different times, but all of the names are still One God.

I also have a lot of names. Harmonious is my handle for the message boards I frequent. I have an English name that I use in Poughkeepsie, as my parents gave it to me, and it honors them to use it.

I also have a Hebrew name that my parents gave me (though they prefer my English name) that my friends outside of my hometown use.

I'm still the same person.

I know, I know, I know. God has hundreds of names besides Elohim and the tetragrammaton. I already know that. I too have many names besides Riverwolf and my real name; my youtube name is LunDruid, and my first domain name is Kanemochi, which is a Japanese translation of my real name. I've also given two names to my two halfs of light and dark, of which Riverwolf is actually a combination to indicate unity between the two: Riverwind and Nightriver(okay, there's no wolf in either of them, but I'd have used Nightwolf if the name weren't already taken). But I'm still me.

My point is, the inconsistency of using the names interchangeably points to there being multiple authors, and I'm afraid your statement on the situations regarding the uses of the names just furthers my suspicion that that was the case.