Contradictions in the Bible

[rrobs]

I did read your post, and understand your view.
What I am really asking, is if God did not ask Satan to kill the Egyptians in the red sea, to kill all the firstborn in Egypt, to kill the people in the flood, including the giants, born to angels, to kill those who looked at the ark of the covenant, or touched it, and were instantly struck dead, etc. who killed them? How did they die, in other words?

When Jesus said, 'Fear the one that can destroy both body and soul', who was he referring to, in your view?

When God asked an angel - his angel - to kill, who was doing the killing.
God also commanded people be stoned to death.

I think it is good when people appreciate the Bible. To me that is a good thing. However, I think it is more important to be able to explain to others, in a clear and simple manner, why they too can believe it.
It certainly will reaffirm your conviction.
For me, if I am reading the Bible, and I come across these verses, and someone says to me, "God did not kill them, because God is love. Satan is the one who kills, and we die through Adam's sin', I would certainly want to understand how that is true.

That's where you come in.

Thanks.

Heb 2:14

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
​

Who holds the power of death? It would take some pretty fancy word twisting to make this verse say anything other than the devil is responsible for death.

If there are verses that say God kills people (and to be sure there are), we have a glaring contradiction. My OP was all about how to make contradictions disappear. This particular apparent contradiction can be cleared up by understanding the "Hebrew idiom of permission," which I think I suggested you study. If not, I'm doing that now.

It isn't, nor was it ever, God's will for people to die.

Ezek 33:11:

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
​

God gave man free will.

Deu 30:19,

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:​

There was no death in God's original plan for man. But, as I said, He didn't create robots. He gave then free will, and if they chose death, so be it.

In any case, we'll all know the score when Jesus makes his second appearance!

 

[rrobs]

So often I am reminded how very fortunate I am
not to have been born into a Christian home.

There is still time. You have no idea how anti-God I was for the first 25 years of my life. But here I am now, believing God's word with every fiber in my body. Not saying you will, but not saying you won't either.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

#302

Seriously? I'm hurt that you think me that thin skinned.

 

[nPeace]

So, what evidence other than the bible do you have for the Jesus saga?

.

.

I guess by "Jesus saga", you mean miracles. Why did you choose that one. Is the "Jesus saga", now the Bible?
There is no direct evidence for every detail of anything - including why you are living.
I won't ask you to give me evidence for every extinct creature. That would not be being reasonable.

However, the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' miracles are recorded.
There is one thing you don't believe. You are still looking for evidence where none can be found.
No reasonable person would expect to find a trail on the sea with Jesus' sandal prints. No reasonable person would expect to find the man with the withered hand healed - How could you find that?

The only evidence that could be left, of the miracles Jesus performed, is what people would record. All those who saw, or heard by word of mouth are dead, and you don't find spoken words in the earth. Written words, yes... and that's what we find.
Historians have acknowledged Jesus' existence, and some even acknowledged he was a "magician".
The Bible contains the record.

So it seems to me, the evidence is there, but apparently you are looking where you won't find it.
The man is telling you, he is hungry. He has the evidence, but you don't know it.
The question is, can you? I think so... If you want to.

 

[nPeace]

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament shows that the word רָקִ֖יעַ (raqia; H7549) derives from the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ, to spread out, stamp out or down (as with a foot) or hammer out. This itself derives from the Akkadian word for metal bowl or kettle.

The Lexicon defines raqiya as "the beaten metal plate, or bow; firmament, the firm vault of heaven. Raqiya was understood as the gigantic heavenly dome..."

Certainly Egyptian imagery in the Hymn to Ra (from which the Genesis creation myths were partly taken) shows the body of Nut (sky) arching over the body of Geb (the earth) as a bowl shape. "Parallels to a hymn to Ra appear in the stories of the heavens and the earth in the book of Genesis (Pp. 6-7, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East, 2nd ed., Matthews/Benjamin)

"In the conception of the firmament as a solid substance (cf. Job 26:11) there is a distinct reminiscence of the Babylonian myth, according wo which the sun-god Marduk split the slain chaos monster in two and used one half of the carcass as a firmament, the other half as the earth. Above it was the heavenly sea referred to in Psalms 29:10 and 148:4, and in Revelation 4:6, etc." (The Interpreter's Bible: Vol. 1, Pg. 472)

"In its fundamental elements this description of the creation of the firmament and the waters above it, of the earth and the waters beneath it, and of the seas upon the earth, is like the creation epic that came from Babylon. The physical picture [see pg. 39 of Old Testament Parallels] is the same: a flat earth with mountains round its rim, on which the dome of the firmament rested as on pillars; in the firmament, windows through which the waters above could come down in rain..." (The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 1, Pg. 472)

"The Israelites shared much of the world view of ancient Mesopotamia. Much of the material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed from other ancient Near Eastern cultures. This is what makes the study of nonbiblical epics so valuable. By making comparisons and by seeing the general religious and literary environment of the ancient Near East, it is possible to understand better how the Israelites perceived their world."
(The Old Testament: Text and Context, Matthews/Moyer, pg. 44)

"The Genesis accounts of the creation utilize some of the this Mesopotamian material as well as other epics composed in ancient Egypt." (The Old Testament, pg. 47)

From these passages, it is shown that there was a continuity in how these ancient, Near Eastern people viewed creation. It is shown how comparisons are drawn between cultures. I think you're torturing definitions and overanalyzing what may or may not have been the case, interjecting biased and unfounded skepticism of the expert's scholastic findings. When the bible uses the word raqiya for sky, all indicators point to the fact that they pictured a rigid dome, just like their earlier neighbors.

Nothing new here from what I said.
I don't think I need to repeat what I posted.
But again, I do acknowledge your choice to accept those opinions.

 

[Workman]

Now remember brothers and sisters,
Yet thy did not say opinions..for opinions had already thine being made for yourself...GATEWAY!..both are with good!..do thine not make them evil(difference).

God Bless

 

[Audie]

There is still time. You have no idea how anti-God I was for the first 25 years of my life. But here I am now, believing God's word with every fiber in my body. Not saying you will, but not saying you won't either.

You've no idea how much each of you christians
in your own ways remind me again and again how
much I dont want to be like you.

I have heard so many times from "theists"
about how they were the staunchest of atheists,
hated god, the worst of sinners and all of that.

So it is the opposite of effective to claim it.

Some of them are of course,just lying, for effect,
while others may be morally weak, or simply
insane.

Not really on those latter. Except sometimes.

You must have been raised in a religious home.
One cannot, after all, be "anti-god" without
some sort of belief in it.

If a person is ever really an atheist, they are extremely unlikely to fall for any religion, though
I am guessing you do not know why that is.

I am not anti god. What an absurd thing. I
am not anti -bigfoot, or batboy either.
Anti-god just shows you believed all along.

As for that belief-
Now, I dont doubt that you (think you) believe
every word with every fibre. Maybe you even
do.

Though really, you are just believing yourself.

That you are good enough to be able to determine
that this "god" is real. That you know what it
said and what it means. That is some terrific
self confidence, so it seems, but really it is
self indulgence.

You've got quite the hole to dig yourself out of, but,
maybe there is time.

 

[Audie]

Thanks.

Heb 2:14

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
​

Who holds the power of death? It would take some pretty fancy word twisting to make this verse say anything other than the devil is responsible for death.

If there are verses that say God kills people (and to be sure there are), we have a glaring contradiction. My OP was all about how to make contradictions disappear. This particular apparent contradiction can be cleared up by understanding the "Hebrew idiom of permission," which I think I suggested you study. If not, I'm doing that now.

It isn't, nor was it ever, God's will for people to die.

Ezek 33:11:

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
​

God gave man free will.

Deu 30:19,

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:​

There was no death in God's original plan for man. But, as I said, He didn't create robots. He gave then free will, and if they chose death, so be it.

In any case, we'll all know the score when Jesus makes his second appearance!

Now you are just preaching, and tossing in that
stupid pascals choice thing at the end.

 

[Skwim]

I guess by "Jesus saga", you mean miracles.

No, I mean the whole story of Jesus.

However, the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' miracles are recorded.

Fine, let's have a couple of examples. And keep in mind that you'll be presenting extra-biblical examples

The only evidence that could be left, of the miracles Jesus performed, is what people would record. All those who saw, or heard by word of mouth are dead, and you don't find spoken words in the earth. Written words, yes... and that's what we find.

Fine, let's have a couple of examples. And keep in mind that you'll be presenting extra-biblical examples

So it seems to me, the evidence is there, but apparently you are looking where you won't find it..

Fine, let's have a couple of the examples you've found. And keep in mind that you'll be presenting extra-biblical examples

.

 

[nPeace]

Thanks.

Heb 2:14

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
​

Who holds the power of death? It would take some pretty fancy word twisting to make this verse say anything other than the devil is responsible for death.

If there are verses that say God kills people (and to be sure there are), we have a glaring contradiction. My OP was all about how to make contradictions disappear. This particular apparent contradiction can be cleared up by understanding the "Hebrew idiom of permission," which I think I suggested you study. If not, I'm doing that now.

It isn't, nor was it ever, God's will for people to die.

Ezek 33:11:

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
​

God gave man free will.

Deu 30:19,

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:​

There was no death in God's original plan for man. But, as I said, He didn't create robots. He gave then free will, and if they chose death, so be it.

In any case, we'll all know the score when Jesus makes his second appearance!

Okay. Just not clear as yet.

These are questions, not a statements. Of course...
So do you believe the flood was a natural disaster, which God did not send? Do you believe the red sea parted, naturally, and God did not open and close it? Do you believe that the fire that fell from heaven and destroyed the men who opposed Moses, was a natural phenomenon, which God did not send?
There are more, but I don't want to overwhelm you.

Also, you didn't tell me what your view is on Matthew 10:28. Who is this one we should fear, in your view.

 

[sojourner]

Nothing new here from what I said.
I don't think I need to repeat what I posted.
But again, I do acknowledge your choice to accept those opinions.

How they thought is how they thought. The scholars know, because they can see it in the anthropological record. There's no real reason to deny what's been demonstrated to be true.

 

[rrobs]

It isn't different. That is my point.

You assume it, because it is what you have been taught, or for some other reason external to scripture. But there are no grounds on which you can argue your stance of taking every word of the bible as "the truth" is better justified than an alternative stance that looks only for messages in it and does not try to attach significance to every word.

Furthermore, by insisting on attaching significance to every word, you create all these problems for yourself, of contradictions that you have to tortuously explain away.

So it seems far more reasonable to adopt the looser approach.

Sorry, but Psalms 7:6 is anything but "external to scripture," and it says that God purified every word, not once or twice, but seven times, I would say he attaches significance to every word. I'll follow His lead.

 

[Audie]

Sorry, but Psalms 7:6 is anything but "external to scripture," and it says that God purified every word, not once or twice, but seven times, I would say he attaches significance to every word. I'll follow His lead.

He must not very omnipotent ifh he has to do
it over and over to get it right.

Are there approximations in the bible?
If so, how pure is an approximation?

 

[nPeace]

How they thought is how they thought. The scholars know, because they can see it in the anthropological record. There's no real reason to deny what's been demonstrated to be true.

I agree that "There's no real reason to deny what's been demonstrated to be true."... and since that is not the case here, it's okay.

 

[rrobs]

Okay. Just not clear as yet.

These are questions, not a statements. Of course...
So do you believe the flood was a natural disaster, which God did not send? Do you believe the red sea parted, naturally, and God did not open and close it? Do you believe that the fire that fell from heaven and destroyed the men who opposed Moses, was a natural phenomenon, which God did not send?
There are more, but I don't want to overwhelm you.

Also, you didn't tell me what your view is on Matthew 10:28. Who is this one we should fear, in your view.

Essentially, I don't believe God wishes evil on anybody. Death, being an enemy (1 Cor 15:26), is one such evil. God does not wish death on anybody, not even on the wicked. They bring it upon themselves. I quoted the verses that say that.

Have you looked up "Hebrew idiom of permission?" If so, what do you think about it?

 

[rrobs]

He must not very omnipotent ifh he has to do
it over and over to get it right.

Are there approximations in the bible?
If so, how pure is an approximation?

I don't think any metal worker purifies their work multiple times because they didn't get it right the first time. I think it is because they want it extra pure. Do you know anything about how metallurgists did their work a couple thousand years BC? I really don't, but it could be an interesting avenue to explore.

Yes, God does give approximations for some things. I would assume, having been purified seven times, they are pure approximations. I don't see pureness and approximations as necessarily diametrically opposed to each other.

 

[nPeace]

No, I mean the whole story of Jesus.

Fine, let's have a couple of examples. And keep in mind that you'll be presenting extra-biblical examples


Fine, let's have a couple of examples. And keep in mind that you'll be presenting extra-biblical examples


Fine, let's have a couple of the examples you've found. And keep in mind that you'll be presenting extra-biblical examples

.

Okay. So you don't need miracles. Fine.

Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia
The Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus

Let me know if you need specifics from Josephus.
I don't have the time right now to extract them, but can do that later.

Curious though. Why don't you think the Biblical scrolls are a reliable archaeological discovery, that sheds light on the past?
They present the strongest evidence of Jesus life.

 

[rrobs]

You've no idea how much each of you christians
in your own ways remind me again and again how
much I dont want to be like you.

I have heard so many times from "theists"
about how they were the staunchest of atheists,
hated god, the worst of sinners and all of that.

So it is the opposite of effective to claim it.

Some of them are of course,just lying, for effect,
while others may be morally weak, or simply
insane.

Not really on those latter. Except sometimes.

You must have been raised in a religious home.
One cannot, after all, be "anti-god" without
some sort of belief in it.

If a person is ever really an atheist, they are extremely unlikely to fall for any religion, though
I am guessing you do not know why that is.

I am not anti god. What an absurd thing. I
am not anti -bigfoot, or batboy either.
Anti-god just shows you believed all along.

As for that belief-
Now, I dont doubt that you (think you) believe
every word with every fibre. Maybe you even
do.

Though really, you are just believing yourself.

That you are good enough to be able to determine
that this "god" is real. That you know what it
said and what it means. That is some terrific
self confidence, so it seems, but really it is
self indulgence.

You've got quite the hole to dig yourself out of, but,
maybe there is time.

Been there, done that. Now I'm here.

I never met a seer who I trusted.

 

[rrobs]

Now you are just preaching, and tossing in that
stupid pascals choice thing at the end.

I suppose I've been preaching all along. I like preaching. It is one activity for which I am not responsible for results. That would be God's job.

1Cor 3:7,

So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
​

It's funny that Christians are often lambasted for "having all the answers." Well, I don't actually claim to have the answers. That would be the purview of the scriptures.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't understand why you guys keep saying no evidence.
Right now I am so hungry. Surely I have evidence of that... but do you?
I'm afraid the evidence you are looking for may well be eluding you... and there is a reason, I'm sure, but that reason is not, that the evidence is not there.

I suspect the kind of "evidence" you seem to mean needs to sometimes be approached with some care. Try reading Olver Sacks The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat sometime.