Are there any contradictions in the Bible?

[Unveiled Artist]

Do you have a Biblical directive for that? Is there a command somewhere that says all those Bible writers who used the Tetragrammaton were somehow being disrespectful?

Why would God reveal his name to Moses and be known by that name for thousands of years of it was disrespectful to say it? Why did God say it was his 'memorial name forever' if he thought it was not respectful to use it?

I am at a complete loss to understand this "respect" thing. Some cannot even write "G-d" because of this same mentality....are all vowels somehow disrespectful then?

If you want my opinion, though I know you didnt ask, it is the same as we capitolize God from god. Even though these names are the same person, some rather say Jehovah while others Jesus. Some just by innitials others with a dash. I think respect for Gods name has been throughout history. Some more pronounced than others.

 

[sojourner]

Will you take the Italians or the Spanish to task over their translation?

If they insist rather zealously, and without good evidence, that the name is the only correct one, then, yes.

Hmmmm....that doesn't explain why he was very angry with his people at times, particularly when they disobeyed him.

Sure it does. People have always anthropomorphized God. If God can be said to walk in the garden like a human, God can be said to be jealous like a human.
But that is no proof that God either has legs, or experiences petty emotions.

Why did he want to exterminate them when they tried his patience too many times?

It's a story. Like the flood that never happened.

Human emotions? Or is it we who are created with his emotions? He can love, be jealous, hate, feel pain at heart and a host of other emotions. If he were emotionless...then we would be also.

We have emotions. They are biochemical responses. Since God has no body, God doesn't have biochemical responses.

Names given to Israelite children were often combined with El (meaning “God”) or an abbreviation of the divine name Jehovah. Such names could express the hope of parents, reflect their appreciation for having been blessed with offspring, or make acknowledgment of God. Examples are Jehdeiah (possibly, May Jehovah Feel Glad), Elnathan (God Has Given), Jeberechiah (Jehovah Blesses), Jonathan (Jehovah Has Given), Jehozabad (probably, Jehovah Has Endowed), Eldad (possibly, God Has Loved), Abdiel (Servant of God), Daniel (My Judge Is God), Jehozadak (probably, Jehovah Pronounces Righteous), and Pelatiah (Jehovah Has Provided Escape).

“Ab” (meaning “father”), “ah” (brother), “am” (people), “bath” (daughter), and “ben” (son) were a part of compound names such as Abida (Father Has Known (Me)), Abijah (My Father Is Jehovah), Ahiezer (My Brother Is a Helper), Ammihud (My People Is Dignity), Amminadab (My People Are Willing (Noble; Generous)), Bath-sheba (Daughter of Plenty; possibly, Daughter [Born on] the Seventh [Day]), and Ben-hanan (Son of the One Showing Favor; Son of the Gracious One). “Melech” (king), “adon” (lord), and “baal” (owner; master) were also combined with other words to form such compound names as Abimelech (My Father Is King), Adonijah (Jehovah Is Lord), and Baal-tamar (Owner of the Palm Tree).

You're missing the point. The point is that "El" is a biblical name for God. "Jehovah" is patently not found in the Hebrew or Greek texts. If you're going to insist on God's biblical name, you should use "El." It's far more authentic than some cobbled-together contrivance that's only been around for 900 of the 4000 years of Judaism's existence.

We acknowledge that there are facets to Jehovah's name.....but calling our God by his name in our language is not wrong unless God says it is....can you find me a verse in the Bible that states otherwise?

Again: I don't play the sola scriptura game. But "Jehovah" is patently not "God's name." YHVH is God's name (among others).

Here are some forms of the divine name in different languages

It's not "the divine name." It's a pronounceable convenience.

 

[sojourner]

That statement is false.

No. It's not. The church compiled, wrote, edited, and authorized the texts. The bible is part of the church's tradition.
Sorry to disappoint you; I've got history and scholarship on my side.

Would you like a discussion on just how much of the church's teachings deviate from the Bible? Many churches are following the traditions of men and not the Bible at all.

It's ALL human tradition. ALL. Your argument is moot.

I will start a thread if you are up for a scriptural discussion instead of just a slanging match.

It would be a waste of time, since any evidence you'd bring will undoubtedly be extremely biased and scholastically untenable, based on what I've seen here thus far.

 

[JayJayDee]

You don't seem to understand that neither the Jews nor the Christians for the first 1500 years of their history -- nor most Christians today, practice sola scriptura.

Funny but Jesus did. He said "it is written" in answer to the devil's temptations and at other times.....he referred to God's word because he knew them to be authored by his Father.
Paul and the other apostles taught from scripture. (Matt. 21:13; John 6:45; 8:17; Luke 4:1-13; 2 Tim 3:16, 17)

That's a heretical sentiment dreamed up by Martin Luther during the Reformation. So it doesn't matter if it's a biblical mandate, or not. The Jews have had written scriptural texts for less than half their existence.

Since God only gave them his laws on their release from slavery in Egypt, they did not really exist as his nation until he entered into a covenant with them and gave them his laws. Prior to that the Abrahamic covenant was only in force to produce the Messiah in Abraham's family line. Once the written law was in force, then he expected them to keep their part of the agreement, to obey him in all things.

The practice is very common sense: to name a thing is to have power over a thing. We cannot have power over God, so God's name isn't spoken. Kind of like how royal subjects didn't call monarchs by their name. They addressed them as "Your Majesty."

If Jehovah had wanted to be called "Your Majesty" or any other title, he would not have given Moses his name to tell to his people. He would not have said "“Say this to the Israelites: Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever; this is how I am to be remembered in every generation." (Ex 3:15 Holman)

In view of that, your reasoning appears to be a little flawed.

 

[JayJayDee]

If you want my opinion, though I know you didnt ask, it is the same as we capitolize God from god. Even though these names are the same person, some rather say Jehovah while others Jesus. Some just by innitials others with a dash. I think respect for Gods name has been throughout history. Some more pronounced than others.

If you had written a guide book on how to live forever and it became a best seller, how impressed would you be if the publishers decided to remove your name from a work that took years to complete, and substitute it with "The Woman", thereby rendering you as a non person?

No human author would tolerate having their name removed and substituted from their own work unless they wished to remain anonymous Do you see God wishing to remain anonymous? You cannot have a close and personal relationship with someone unless you know their name. God has not hidden this illustrious name....man has!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You have a good point. I think it is cultural too. I am sure in Jewish communities they speak Gods name and of course it is written in the Torah. To take the name from scripture and display it as any other name, I can see Jews would see that as an insult. Also, they dont recognize Jesus as God.

Im sure Jews have a relationship with God with or without printing Gods name. I just see it as a respectful way of saying, "you are my creator, I worship you, I am not worthy to even speak your name." I actually feel this respect brings them to a closer relationship with God.

Good example: american culture, we look people eye to eye for respect. In many cultures outside the us, that is disrespectful. Id say stating Gods name is a direct way of communicating in a american culture sense, eye to eye. While other cultures bow in subordience to God or in an culture sense, do not feel worthy to write his name.

If you had written a guide book on how to live forever and it became a best seller, how impressed would you be if the publishers decided to remove your name from a work that took years to complete, and substitute it with "The Woman", thereby rendering you as a non person?

No human author would tolerate having their name removed and substituted from their own work unless they wished to remain anonymous Do you see God wishing to remain anonymous? You cannot have a close and personal relationship with someone unless you know their name. God has not hidden this illustrious name....man has!

 

[sojourner]

Funny but Jesus did. He said "it is written" in answer to the devil's temptations and at other times

Well, of course! There is such a thing as the bible, after all. One is bound to refer to it. But what you conveniently neglected to include were all the times Jesus followed "It is written" with "But I tell you..."

he referred to God's word because he knew them to be authored by his Father.

We really don't know what Jesus did or did not know. We only know what the gospel authors said he knew. And since none of them knew Jesus, what they thought is not authoritative as to what Jesus knew.

Since God only gave them his laws on their release from slavery in Egypt, they did not really exist as his nation until he entered into a covenant with them and gave them his laws.

That's a story that has No. Historical. Evidence. Whatsoever. The fact is, the Hebrews are much older than their oldest religious writings. That is fact.

Once the written law was in force, then he expected them to keep their part of the agreement, to obey him in all things.

That's what the authors said. Not what God said. Even so, the earliest written laws didn't exist for thousands of years of the Hebrews' history.

If Jehovah had wanted to be called "Your Majesty" or any other title, he would not have given Moses his name to tell to his people. He would not have said "“Say this to the Israelites: Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever; this is how I am to be remembered in every generation." (Ex 3:15 Holman)

In view of that, your reasoning appears to be a little flawed.

You really need to stop telling the Jews their business. God said, I AM. "I AM" is not "Jehovah."

 

[sojourner]

If you had written a guide book on how to live forever and it became a best seller, how impressed would you be if the publishers decided to remove your name from a work that took years to complete, and substitute it with "The Woman", thereby rendering you as a non person?

Immaterial. God didn't write the bible.

No human author would tolerate having their name removed and substituted from their own work unless they wished to remain anonymous Do you see God wishing to remain anonymous?

Immaterial. God didn't write the bible.

You cannot have a close and personal relationship with someone unless you know their name.

We do know the name of the One with whom we are destined to "have a close and personal relationship": Jesus.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Do you have a Biblical directive for that?

Nobody needs a Biblical directive to justify a cultural tradition. The idea is alien to Judaism, which has always made extensive use of Midrash, Mishnah, and Rabbinic commentary and exegesis, from the very earliest period for which we have any evidence. Even Jesus and the early Christians are drawing on more than just the literal word of the texts of the Hebrew Bible that we have today.

Yes, Jesus uses arguments from scripture, but that doesn't actually prove your point. On the contrary, his interpretations are often novel, creative, and indicative of a strong oral interpretive tradition on top of the old law—which is where he's getting the idea that the spirit of the law can be found lurking behind the letter, and that if people can divine and follow the spirit, the letter is not actually binding in and of itself.

In short, Jesus was not a Biblical fundamentalist and would have had nothing to do with them. The closest thing they had back then were the Sadducees, who refused to accept doctrines that couldn't be found in the Tanakh (hence no resurrection of the dead etc.). And their sect pretty much died out in antiquity with the destruction of the temple cult. So in that sense the sola scriptura hardliners are actually spiritual descendants of some of the early opponents of Jesus and his followers. Jesus was explicitly opposed to fundamentalism, even if fundamentalists don't like to hear that.

So yeah, stop trying to hold Judaism or traditional Christianity to a standard that some folks invented 500 years ago, and that is contrary to the spirit of Jesus's teachings to begin with.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Funny but Jesus did. He said "it is written" in answer to the devil's temptations and at other times.....he referred to God's word because he knew them to be authored by his Father.

Actually, the doctrine that the Bible was literally authored by God is a modern one. There's no evidence Jesus would have held that idea. It was sacred literature in his time, but that's not the same thing as thinking that God literally said those things. That's probably a large part of why he considers their contents to be negotiable, or at least separable from their presumed underlying meaning. And it's not as if he doesn't directly contradict it at times: see his comments on divorce, for a glaring example.

 

[Vishvavajra]

If you had written a guide book on how to live forever and it became a best seller, how impressed would you be if the publishers decided to remove your name from a work that took years to complete, and substitute it with "The Woman", thereby rendering you as a non person?

No human author would tolerate having their name removed and substituted from their own work unless they wished to remain anonymous Do you see God wishing to remain anonymous? You cannot have a close and personal relationship with someone unless you know their name. God has not hidden this illustrious name....man has!

Sojourner has addressed the problem from one angle, so here's another: all metaphors aside, God is not a human being. Trying to psychologize God in human terms, complete with human emotions and human vices like personal pride and selfish anger, can't lead anywhere good. At best you'll just end up projecting all of your own human faults onto God and dragging God down to your level. There is nothing useful to be learned from that exercise.

 

[Ouroboros]

Sojourner has addressed the problem from one angle, so here's another: all metaphors aside, God is not a human being. Trying to psychologize God in human terms, complete with human emotions and human vices like personal pride and selfish anger, can't lead anywhere good. At best you'll just end up projecting all of your own human faults onto God and dragging God down to your level. There is nothing useful to be learned from that exercise.

Also, putting the Bible (words by men describing their experiences and views of God) on a pedestal and worship it as something holy and unchangeable, is to make it an idol. Making a book holy, is to replace God. If there is a God, he/she/it reveals him/her/itself to each person individually. A book is helpful, but it can't replace the real thing.

 

[psychoslice]

I think the bible is full of contradictions, that's why we have so many branches of religions all coming from the same book.

 

[sojourner]

I think the bible is full of contradictions, that's why we have so many branches of religions all coming from the same book.

The bible does contain contradictions, but those contradictions are not largely what led to different denominations. Those denominations may favor one or another of the contradictions, but are not largely informed by them. The reason for so many different denominations has less to do directly with the bible than with other factors. Where the bible figures in that process is in it's polyvalent nature.

 

[psychoslice]

The bible does contain contradictions, but those contradictions are not largely what led to different denominations. Those denominations may favor one or another of the contradictions, but are not largely informed by them. The reason for so many different denominations has less to do directly with the bible than with other factors. Where the bible figures in that process is in it's polyvalent nature.

Yes I can see what your saying, but I still feel that the bible has so many ways of seeing what it contains, because of the way it was all put together, just a load odd books shoved here and there, so we end up with so many denominations shoved here and there all over the world, and many are arrogant enough to believe they themselves have the truth, or know how it should be read.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes I can see what your saying, but I still feel that the bible has so many ways of seeing what it contains, because of the way it was all put together, just a load odd books shoved here and there, so we end up with so many denominations shoved here and there all over the world, and many are arrogant enough to believe they themselves have the truth, or know how it should be read.

I think that's some truth to that.

One verse says to pick up the sword another to give your coat to your enemy. One group of believers pick up the sword and starts a crusade, the other become conscientious objectors to military duty and any kind of violence.

There are so many ways to interpret the text. Another reason to the denominations is probably also that some take some words literally and some take the same words less so.

 

[JayJayDee]

No. It's not. The church compiled, wrote, edited, and authorized the texts. The bible is part of the church's tradition.
Sorry to disappoint you; I've got history and scholarship on my side.

The Catholic "church" was apostate from its inception but it was all there was as far as "Christianity was concerned at the time. The weeds were foretold after all. God can use anyone he wishes to accomplish his will...even his enemies. The church was the custodian of the scriptures (not the author of them) and they tried very hard to keep the scriptures out of the hands of the common man. Perhaps afraid that their views might be challenged by someone with more knowledge. Knowledge is power and they had it all.

In 1559, Pope Paul IV published the first index of books prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church. It forbade possession of Bible translations in Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish, as well as some in Latin. Any who wanted to read the Bible were told to obtain written permission from bishops or inquisitors—not an appealing prospect for those who wanted to remain above suspicion of heresy....we know where that led.

People who dared to possess or distribute Bibles in the common languages of their region had to contend with the ire of the Catholic Church. Many were arrested, burned at the stake, roasted on spits, sentenced to life in prison, or sent to the galleys. Confiscated Bibles were burned. Indeed, Catholic priests continued to confiscate and burn Bibles well into the 20th century.

If the church burned people alive at the stake for even possessing a copy of the Bible, then I 'm afraid the pride you expressed in the church is somewhat misplaced.
How very Christian of them to behave as the fiend they imagined their God to be.

It's ALL human tradition. ALL. Your argument is moot.

It would be a waste of time, since any evidence you'd bring will undoubtedly be extremely biased and scholastically untenable, based on what I've seen here thus far.

So anything you can't prove is dismissed as myth and it's a waste of time presenting you with any evidence because your view is the only one scholastically sound? Can't exactly challenge that now can we?

What happened to faith, hope and love? They don't exist in the mind of cynics apparently.

 

[JayJayDee]

Well, of course! There is such a thing as the bible, after all. One is bound to refer to it. But what you conveniently neglected to include were all the times Jesus followed "It is written" with "But I tell you..."

It's a shame that you don't investigate things a little more sojourner. When Jesus said this he was not dismissing what was "written". He was dismissing the Pharisees rather rigid interpretation of the law. He actually said..."you heard it was said (by the Pharisees)...but I say to you".....correcting the Pharisees is what he did on a regular basis.

We really don't know what Jesus did or did not know. We only know what the gospel authors said he knew.

Yes we do.....we have the first hand accounts in the scriptures......are we to take your word over theirs?

1 Corinthians 2:16..."For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him? But we have the mind of Christ."

And since none of them knew Jesus, what they thought is not authoritative as to what Jesus knew.

Matthew and John were constant companions of Jesus as his apostles. They may not have written their accounts till later, but then scripture is not the work of men....it is inspired by God. (2 Tim 3:16, 17) It matter little to God if you believe that or not.

That's a story that has No. Historical. Evidence. Whatsoever. The fact is, the Hebrews are much older than their oldest religious writings. That is fact.

Who is disputing that?

The designation “Hebrew” was already familiar to the Egyptians in the 18th century B.C.E. This would seem to indicate that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had become quite well known over a wide area, thus making the appellative “Hebrew” a recognizable one. When Joseph spoke of “the land of the Hebrews” (Ge 40:15) to two of Pharaoh’s servants, he doubtless referred to the region around Hebron that his father and forefathers had long made a sort of base of operations.

Six centuries later the Philistines still spoke of the Israelites as “Hebrews.” During the time of King Saul “Hebrews” and “Israel” were equivalent terms. (1Sa 13:3-7; 14:11; 29:3) In the ninth century B.C.E. the prophet Jonah identified himself as a Hebrew to sailors (possibly Phoenicians) on a boat out of the seaport of Joppa. (Jon 1:9) The Law also distinguished “Hebrew” slaves from those of other races or nationalities (Ex 21:2; De 15:12), and in referring to this, the book of Jeremiah (in the seventh century B.C.E.) shows the term “Hebrew” to be then the equivalent of “Jew.”—Jer 34:8, 9, 13, 14.

In later periods Greek and Roman writers regularly called the Israelites either “Hebrews” or “Jews,” not “Israelites.”

That's what the authors said. Not what God said. Even so, the earliest written laws didn't exist for thousands of years of the Hebrews' history.

What has that got to do with anything?

You really need to stop telling the Jews their business. God said, I AM. "I AM" is not "Jehovah."

God's name YHWH never meant "I Am".
YHWH (Je·hoʹvah) the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wahʹ(become); meaning “He Causes to Become”

Or this definition....."A name of the Hebrew God, represented in Hebrew by the tetragrammaton ("four letters") יהוה (Yod Heh Vav Heh), transliterated into Roman script Y H W H. Because it was considered blasphemous to utter the name of God it was only written and never spoken. This resulted in the original pronunciation being lost. The name may have originally been derived from the old Semitic root הוה (hawah) meaning "to be" or "to become"."

Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Yahweh

 

[JayJayDee]

Oops...Posted in wrong thread

 

[Mycroft]

I have been asking the taboo question of "Are their contradictions in the Bible?"

I have posted my findings from the past couple years.

What do you think? Are there any contradictions in the Bible?

Bible Contradictions... Are there any?

All of the Bible's contradictions have been recorded in this interactive map