Are there any contradictions in the Bible?

[sojourner]

I was not discussing the originals in the first place. I was looking at my electronic copy of the King James Version to see if the "lord(s)" in question was in all caps in English or not.

The English typically -- and I'm talking about the more scholastically-responsible translations -- typically renders YHVH as "LORD." The practice recognizes the conceptual difference between the "Yahwist" writer, who refers to God with the tetragrammaton, and the "Elohist" writer, who refers to God as "Elohim." Where Elohim is found, the English typically renders it "God." I'm not a fan of the KJV, but I'm almost sure that the newer editions follow that scholastic practice.

 

[Kenny]

I agree about this corroborating Mary's line, however, that does not diminish that the messiah, at least from the Jewish POV, has to have come from the paternal line. IOW, it would have had to have come from Joseph and not Mary.

And thus the line of Joseph in Matthew. -- - I would still hold to not one or the other but both.

I can see your point and its a valid one of course but I don't think its that simple. The Christian faith is rife with people who were trying to become enlightened. The mystics of Christianity, for example. St Francis of Assisi, St Teresa of Avila, St Bernard of Clairvaux, Fr. Thomas Merton, Hildegard of Bengin, and so on. If you have any interest in reading about Christian mysticism, I suggest Ursula King's examination of the subject.

Yes, another check mark on things to do. Currently I am reading a book by Bart Ehrman along with my required reading in my ongoing studies in my current course of "The Life of Christ".

I think there are other reasons for the need of "enlightenment" because of the dark ages. Since my source of "enlightenment" still is Bible specific, I found the following to be true, (not just because of scripture but by experience), that our spirits are "enlightened" the moment we are united with God through the born-again experience but our soul goes through a series of illuminations that carries us from one point of faith to a higher point of faith. Our spirits cannot be any more enlightened because it is united with the Spirit of God but our soul (mind, will and emotions) needs to be renewed day by day.

Perhaps but again, one can make an argument that reincarnation is a part of the Bible. Malachi speaks of Elijah returning before the "great and dreadful day". and in Matthew, Jesus states that John is Elijah.

Yes, I am familiar with that position. Of course, we don't subscribe to that position. Our position is that there are two people who did not die, that being Enoch and Elijah. The possibility is that they are the two witnesses described in Revelation and will eventually die and be resurrected during the "great and dreadful day".

One of the reasons we don't believe that Elijah reincarnated into John the Baptist is because of what Jesus said:

Matt 17:11 Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things.
12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands."

In Malachi, the "great and dreadful day" is the end times. Most people quote verse 12 and forget verse 11. In verse 11, Jesus makes mention of that "great and dreadful day" with a period and then the next thought. That John came in the spirit of Elijah (fervor) and but it is separate from the actual reappearing of the Elijah

Interesting view. However, do you see that this same argument could be intimating that the Gospels were written by someone with a clear intent in the message?

Yes, the same argument can be made.

If the books are, as you say, 'people specific', how does that jive with the idea that the Bible is 'God breathed'?
As always, I look forward to your opinions in this. Bright blessings to you Ken. Jo

Shouldn't make a difference. If made by "inspiration", it appears for me to have an overall purpose and it provides pieces of a puzzle that gives it a beautiful picture.

 

[Kenny]

One can't explain anything to fundamentalists, because they're so fanatical about already having "the RIGHT answers." Their God-given reason for existence is to teach the rest of us poor, misguided, unbelieving morons about THE TRUTH!!! Reality means nothing -- the "Faith" is "not of this world." Peer-reviewed scholarship means nothing -- "Scholars" have only been taught the biased "religion of men." If everyone would only believe as they believe, the world would then be ushered into God's Kingdom. They can't see that they're largely the ones responsible for the petty divisions in religion, because their view of THE TRUTH!!! is so narrow that division is inherent in that view.

Reading this position, you almost sound... it could almost be viewed as... it has the appearance of being quite fanatical about your position. ALTHOUGH, there is still some truth to what you say as it created petty divisions.

 

[Kolibri]

Thus, the statement ONLY SOVEREIGN becomes crucial as does the fact that Thomas say, "My Lord and my God".

With "only sovereign" you are looking at 2 Tim 6:15 where the KJV uses "only potentate"?
Jesus, among men, is the only one that can claim that title because he was the son of man mentioned at Da 7:13,14.

"I kept watching in the visions of the night, and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. And to him there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom, that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him. his rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed." - Da 7:13,14

-----------------------------
"In answer Thomas said to him: 'My Lord and my God!'" - John 20:28

Was Jesus here still human? No, but he was a materialized spirit - a divine being. That does not mean he was THE God. Just 3 verses later John wrote to the contrary.

"But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name." - John 20:31

 

[outhouse]

Reading this position, you almost sound... it could almost be viewed as... it has the appearance of being quite fanatical about your position.

Unlike you he has a historical education. What you see is a reflection of your fanaticism.

 

[outhouse]

One can't explain anything to fundamentalists,

Oh no!!!!!!! you did unt!

We explain until were blue in the face.

We just cannot pry their minds open to except reality. But you are correct, 1 + 1 will never equal 2 no matter how patient we do explain.


Its sad so much beauty their blind too, will never be seen. Its also one the worlds biggest enemies as anyone who throws away credible education and knowledge has severe issues.

 

[JoStories]

Oh no!!!!!!! you did unt!

We explain until were blue in the face.

We just cannot pry their minds open to except reality. But you are correct, 1 + 1 will never equal 2 no matter how patient we do explain.


Its sad so much beauty their blind too, will never be seen. Its also one the worlds biggest enemies as anyone who throws away credible education and knowledge has severe issues.

Sorry outhouse but we are going to disagree here. I have had many conversations with fanatics of several faiths and on several occasions shown them where their views make no sense. And on the other side of the coin, I have had to readjust my own thinking and incorporate some of their views. For example, to a fundamentalist Christian in the southeast, I showed him where the symbol for the 'cross' came from older symbols such as the ankh and that the 'fish' symbol for Christ came from catal,huyuk ( my iPad cannot spell that as it should be) and so on. I don't agree in particular with your assertion that credible education, as you put it, is e enemy to those of faith. I can point out many highly wducated people of many faiths. Maybe I am misreading you? Not sure on that one sir. And as always, no offense meant to you or,your views. Just my two cents

 

[JoStories]

With "only sovereign" you are looking at 2 Tim 6:15 where the KJV uses "only potentate"?
Jesus, among men, is the only one that can claim that title because he was the son of man mentioned at Da 7:13,14.

"I kept watching in the visions of the night, and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. And to him there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom, that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him. his rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed." - Da 7:13,14

-----------------------------
"In answer Thomas said to him: 'My Lord and my God!'" - John 20:28

Was Jesus here still human? No, but he was a materialized spirit - a divine being. That does not mean he was THE God. Just 3 verses later John wrote to the contrary.

"But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name." - John 20:31

Interesting take. If you believe that Jesus is not God, how do you rationalize that there is a trinity or that God and Jesus are one? This would intimate that Christ was not divine. But rather similar to Perseus as a demigod.

 

[Kenny]

Oh no!!!!!!! you did unt!

We explain until were blue in the face.

We just cannot pry their minds open to except reality. But you are correct, 1 + 1 will never equal 2 no matter how patient we do explain.


Its sad so much beauty their blind too, will never be seen. Its also one the worlds biggest enemies as anyone who throws away credible education and knowledge has severe issues.

Then again, they could say that they were trying to explain too, until they were blue in the face, and no matter how patient they explained they couldn't pry open your mind? (using your own words)

 

[sojourner]

Sorry outhouse but we are going to disagree here. I have had many conversations with fanatics of several faiths and on several occasions shown them where their views make no sense. And on the other side of the coin, I have had to readjust my own thinking and incorporate some of their views. For example, to a fundamentalist Christian in the southeast, I showed him where the symbol for the 'cross' came from older symbols such as the ankh and that the 'fish' symbol for Christ came from catal,huyuk ( my iPad cannot spell that as it should be) and so on. I don't agree in particular with your assertion that credible education, as you put it, is e enemy to those of faith. I can point out many highly wducated people of many faiths. Maybe I am misreading you? Not sure on that one sir. And as always, no offense meant to you or,your views. Just my two cents

The issue wasn't "explaining to one of faith," it was "explaining to a fundamentalist."

 

[Kolibri]

Interesting take. If you believe that Jesus is not God, how do you rationalize that there is a trinity or that God and Jesus are one? This would intimate that Christ was not divine. But rather similar to Perseus as a demigod.

It is my belief, that Jesus is not part of a trinity. He was the first angel created, the only one created directly by his Father, Jehovah. Jesus is still mortal at this point. His life was transferred to Mary's womb. At this point he became fully human. He died as a perfect man - Adam's equal prior to sin. When he was resurrected an immortal spirit body was fashioned for him. As always Jesus is the Word, that is Jehovah's chief spokesman. As regards the term "divinity", it is similar to the term "humanity". Jesus in various ways is like God, thus he is still divine - just not his equal.

 

[outhouse]

they could say that they were trying to explain too, until they were blue in the face

NO they cannot. They have a long history or perverting credible evidence, and going against all modern education and knowledge and they deny FACTS.

Sorry your wrong.

 

[outhouse]

Maybe I am misreading you?

Yep. Im talking about people that refuse facts. Not faith.

Faith is great is used in moderation, it is flat dangerous and a shame on humanity when it interferes with reason and logic and education.

 

[JoStories]

Yep. Im talking about people that refuse facts. Not faith.

Faith is great is used in moderation, it is flat dangerous and a shame on humanity when it interferes with reason and logic and education.

I had a feeling I had misunderstood you. On that point, of faith without reason, we agree. In fact, like you, I find it dangerous as well.

 

[JoStories]

It is my belief, that Jesus is not part of a trinity. He was the first angel created, the only one created directly by his Father, Jehovah. Jesus is still mortal at this point. His life was transferred to Mary's womb. At this point he became fully human. He died as a perfect man - Adam's equal prior to sin. When he was resurrected an immortal spirit body was fashioned for him. As always Jesus is the Word, that is Jehovah's chief spokesman. As regards the term "divinity", it is similar to the term "humanity". Jesus in various ways is like God, thus he is still divine - just not his equal.

Ok I hear that is your belief but it is not one very popular. First of all, most say that lucifer was the first angel. Second, very few state that jesus was or had been an angel. And finally, most modern day Christians beleive that jesus is part of the trinity and in fact, it is one the major points of the faith. How the, btw, or rather, by whom were the Angels created? Adam was not perfect...he was tempted and lusted and had vanity over his naked form. I don't see how comparing Christ to Adam helps,your POV at all. And lastly, being divine means being God. Are you saying there are degrees to divinity? If so, what are they? And last, how do explain the verse where Christ states that he and the father are one?[/QUOTE]

 

[Kolibri]

Lucifer of Isa 14:12 was not an angel, but the king of Babylon. (vs 4). And this was not a name but part of a sarcastic title being applied to him. The Hebrew word here means "shining one".

Most denominations of Christianity have maintained christianized Babylonish beliefs and customs. This was the result of the foretold apostasy, that the apostles and other faithful elders of the 1st century congregation were acting as a restraint against. Colossians 1:15-17 describes Jesus as "the firstborn of all creation" and goes on to say that "by means of him all [other] things were created...the things visible and the things invisible." Jesus was the only direct creation by God, and he was the only one resurrected directly by Jehovah. Jehovah delegated all other things to be done thru his "master worker." (Prov 8:22-31)

Human perfection does not mean that one is not capable of sin. It only means that one does not have a weakness that makes missing God's standards for humans unavoidable. Adam did not feel shame till after he sinned. And marital lust was not part of the sin as the first couple were commanded to "be fruitful and become many." Besides Prov 5:19 shows that marital lust is very much within God's standards for humans. When it comes to temptations, Jesus was much more severely put to the test then Adam was. He proved loyalty under test. (Heb 4:15) Adam's sin was completely avoidable. In fact one can say that Adam's sin was a deliberate devaluation of God and life.

I disagree with "being divine means being God." It means "pertaining to God" - that which is godlike, or heavenly.

"One" is not always numerical, it also can denote unity, as in "one in purpose".

 

[Kenny]

Lucifer of Isa 14:12 was not an angel, but the king of Babylon. (vs 4). And this was not a name but part of a sarcastic title being applied to him. The Hebrew word here means "shining one".

You are actually right. HOWEVER! We know that many times scripture refers to both physical as well as spiritual. The life of Joseph, though speaking of Joseph, is a parallel of the life of Jesus as is so many other examples. Reading through Isaiah14, we find that it refers to both the physical as well as Satan, who shines as an angel of light.

Most denominations of Christianity have maintained christianized Babylonish beliefs and customs.This was the result of the foretold apostasy, that the apostles and other faithful elders of the 1st century congregation were acting as a restraint against. Colossians 1:15-17 describes Jesus as "the firstborn of all creation" and goes on to say that "by means of him all [other] things were created...the things visible and the things invisible." Jesus was the only direct creation by God, and he was the only one resurrected directly by Jehovah. Jehovah delegated all other things to be done thru his "master worker." (Prov 8:22-31)

Scriptures mention that in the last days there would be false prophets and one can only wonder if those denominations that deviated from the scriptures by calling evil good and good evil and that Jesus didn't come in flesh are those who are in the apostasy.

A better understanding of Col 1:15-17 would be:

the firstborn of every creature;
not the first of the creation, or the first creature God made; for all things in ( Colossians 1:16 ) are said to be created by him, and therefore he himself can never be a creature; nor is he the first in the new creation, for the apostle in the context is speaking of the old creation, and not the new: but the sense either is, that he was begotten of the Father in a manner inconceivable and inexpressible by men, before any creatures were in being; or that he is the "first Parent", or bringer forth of every creature into being, as the word will bear to be rendered, if instead of (prwt) (tokov) , we read (prwtot) (kov) ; which is no more than changing the place of the accent, and may be very easily ventured upon, as is done by an ancient writer F7, who observes, that the word is used in this sense by Homer, and is the same as (prwtogonov) , "first Parent", and (prwtoktisthv) , "first Creator"; and the rather this may be done, seeing the accents were all added since the apostle's days, and especially seeing it makes his reasoning, in the following verses, appear with much more beauty, strength, and force: he is the first Parent of every creature, "for by him were all things created" ( Colossians 1:16 ) , or it may be understood of Christ, as the King, Lord, and Governor of all creatures; being God's firstborn, he is heir of all things, the right of government belongs to him; he is higher than the kings of the earth, or the angels in heaven, the highest rank of creatures, being the Creator and upholder of all, as the following words show; so the Jews make the word "firstborn" to be synonymous with the word "king", and explain it by (rvw lwdg) , "a great one", and "a prince" F8; see ( Psalms 89:27 ) ( Hebrews 1:2 Hebrews 1:6 ) .

Some things you say are quite good.

 

[Kolibri]

You are actually right. HOWEVER! We know that many times scripture refers to both physical as well as spiritual. The life of Joseph, though speaking of Joseph, is a parallel of the life of Jesus as is so many other examples. Reading through Isaiah14, we find that it refers to both the physical as well as Satan, who shines as an angel of light.

I thought the same thing when I first read a similar account regarding a judgement against the king of Tyre at Ezekiel 28 and am still of two minds about that one. But in the case of Isaiah 14, as I look the rest of the prophetic proverb there is too much going on that can not happen to a spirit creature. Just look, please, at verses 9-11.

Even the Grave (or "Sheol.") underneath is stirred up
To meet you when you come.
Because of you, it awakens those powerless in death,
All the oppressive leaders (Lit., "the he-goats.") of the earth.
It makes all the kings of the nations rise from their thrones.
All of them speak up and say to you,
'Have you also become weak like us?
Have you become like us?
Down to the Grave your pride had been brought,
The sound of your stringed instruments.
Maggots are spread beneath you as a bed,
And worms are your covering.'
How you have fallen from the heaven,
O shining one, son of the dawn!
How you have been cut down to the earth,
You who vanquished nations.

Satan does not go to Sheol. He will go to Gehenna, or the lake of fire instead.
What nations will be around to say to him, 'have you become weak like us?'

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

Regarding Col 1:15-17, I am still lost in how "first-born of all creation" is somehow changed to mean "Creator". The creator stands apart from the creation. The first of the pottery at the hands of the Great Potter is not the same as the Great Potter.

A man can make a robot and supply it power to make other robots. Does that mean that the first robot is now the man?

 

[sojourner]

I thought the same thing when I first read a similar account regarding a judgement against the king of Tyre at Ezekiel 28 and am still of two minds about that one. But in the case of Isaiah 14, as I look the rest of the prophetic proverb there is too much going on that can not happen to a spirit creature. Just look at verses 9-11.

Even the Grave (or "Sheol.") underneath is stirred up
To meet you when you come.
Because of you, it awakens those powerless in death,
All the oppressive leaders (Lit., "the he-goats.") of the earth.
It makes all the kings of the nations rise from their thrones.
All of them speak up and say to you,
'Have you also become weak like us?
Have you become like us?
Down to the Grave your pride had been brought,
The sound of your stringed instruments.
Maggots are spread beneath you as a bed,
And worms are your covering.'
How you have fallen from the heaven,
O shining one, son of the dawn!
How you have been cut down to the earth,
You who vanquished nations.

Satan does not go to Sheol. He will go to Gehenna, or the lake of fire instead.
What nations will be around to say to him, 'have you become weak like us?'

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

Regarding Col 1:15-17, I am still lost in how "first-born of all creation" is somehow changed to mean "Creator". The creator stands apart from the creation. The first of the pottery at the hands of the Great Potter is not the same as the Great Potter.

A man can make a robot and supply it power to make other robots. Does that mean that the first robot is now the man?

It's always a huge mistake to blur NT concepts into OT passages.

 

[Kolibri]

It's always a huge mistake to blur NT concepts into OT passages.

The reverse is not a bad things. So-called "NT concepts" are often found to not be really "NT" concepts at all, but Greek philosophy read into the passages. And the Christians were told to use the Scriptures "for setting matters straight." - 2 Tim 3:16,17