Contradictions in the Bible

[rrobs]

It's been proven. Sorry.


Hindu has a concept kind of like this, but it comes to a different conclusion. It refers to "sun vision" and "moon vision." In sun vision, everything is contrasted with everything else. We need that kind of vision. In moon vision, everything sinks into sameness with everything else. We need that kind of vision too. We need to be able to see subtle differences that make for uniqueness. We also need to be able to see the inherent unity of all things. Wisdom is knowing the difference and what one needs when.

I think a lot of the Eastern books are all pretty similar. I know the Bible promises eternal life and I know Taoism doesn't really touch on anything related to God. Do you know if any other religions promises eternal life? If so, what, if anything, must one do to get it. I suppose I could search it out in the internet, but since we're talking I thought you might know.

 

[sojourner]

I think a lot of the Eastern books are all pretty similar. I know the Bible promises eternal life and I know Taoism doesn't really touch on anything related to God. Do you know if any other religions promises eternal life? If so, what, if anything, must one do to get it. I suppose I could search it out in the internet, but since we're talking I thought you might know.

First off, Christianity is an Eastern religion. It's been "Westernized," But its roots are Near East.

I know that many of the aboriginal religions (such as Quechuan Shamanism) teach infinite life (close, but not exactly the same). Hindu and Buddhism teach reincarnation, which is closer to the infinite life of Shamanism. Islam teaches eternal life.

I know that in Peruvian Shamanism, one doesn't "attain" infinite life. Life is just naturally infinite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think a lot of the Eastern books are all pretty similar. I know the Bible promises eternal life and I know Taoism doesn't really touch on anything related to God. Do you know if any other religions promises eternal life? If so, what, if anything, must one do to get it. I suppose I could search it out in the internet, but since we're talking I thought you might know.

Pastafarianism.

 

[rrobs]

First off, Christianity is an Eastern religion. It's been "Westernized," But its roots are Near East.

I know that many of the aboriginal religions (such as Quechuan Shamanism) teach infinite life (close, but not exactly the same). Hindu and Buddhism teach reincarnation, which is closer to the infinite life of Shamanism. Islam teaches eternal life.

I know that in Peruvian Shamanism, one doesn't "attain" infinite life. Life is just naturally infinite.

Christianity is absolutely Eastern. I think forgetting that is the major cause of misunderstanding. The ancient Eastern person, their way of thought, manners, customs, etc, are radically different than our modern Western society. I always remind people that the Bible was not written last year in New York of LA.

For what it's worth, the big lie the devil told Eve was that they would not die after God plainly told them they would die. To this day we think our deceased loved ones are in heaven right now (interesting that few say their loved one is in hell). Sincere Christians, thanks to tradition, actually believe the devil more than God when it comes to death. If nobody dies, then why does the Bible speak of resurrections?

I think the scriptures are clear that people do die and they will stay dead until Christ returns. Then everybody will get up to be judged. The ones that are judged unworthy will die again ('the second death") and stay dead from that point on. The scriptures say there is no consciousness in death, so it's not like those people will spend an eternity in torment. They just won't live forever in an earthly paradise, much like the original plan God had in mind when he put Adam and Eve in Eden.

 

[rrobs]

You are misunderstanding Genesis. It cannot be taken literally. You are not reasoning logically.

Could not some parts be taken literally? For those parts that can't be taken literally, we simply look to figures of speech. That's true of pretty much any literature that's ever been written. It's also true of the way we carry on day to day conversation. Why pigeonhole Genesis to one or the other? Why not a little bit of each?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Could not some parts be taken literally? For those parts that can't be taken literally, we simply look to figures of speech. That's true of pretty much any literature that's ever been written. It's also true of the way we carry on day to day conversation. Why pigeonhole Genesis to one or the other? Why not a little bit of each?

Why even bother? Rather than trying to force a square peg into a round hole why not treat them as morality tales? They fail as history, and they fail as theology.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

"Most accurate" isn't really the aim. "Most authentic" is the goal. You see, we're digging through layers of redaction and translation -- and retranslation. The less layers, the more authentic the product.

The KJV is a wonderful translation -- especially for its time. But there are a few translations that are better. I like the NRSV, generally.

Most accurate is the goal.

The more manuscripts, the better the accuracy.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Luke never met Jesus. He lived in Antioch and knew nothing about the geography of Palestine.

You're avoiding the question...why? Was there a Jesus or was He just delusional exaggeration?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most accurate is the goal.

The more manuscripts, the better the accuracy.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Umm, no. You really don't know what "manuscripts" are or why they are not that impressive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're avoiding the question...why? Was there a Jesus or was He just delusional exaggeration?

Good-Ole-Rebel

How about both?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

History, yes, but not in terms of factual reporting. This history is mythic history, by and large. I still say a class in hermeneutics would be of help to you.

You can say whatever you like. The Bible declares these movements as real and historical. Not 'mythic'. And, I believe what the Bible says.

A class in hermeneutics is like a class in Bible study. You go to the class that you believe supports your view. It is like saying 'Scholars say that'. You can find 'scholars' on every side of the isle. Means nothing...but sounds so good and authoritative.

You don't believe the Bible. I do. That is fine.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[sojourner]

Most accurate is the goal.

The more manuscripts, the better the accuracy.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Shows what you know about the translation process. Very, very little.

Translation isn’t about accuracy so much as it is about authenticity. That’s because, due to differences in linguistics, cultural awareness and colloquialisms, an “accurate” translation isn’t always possible. The translators shoot for the authenticity of the message. It has much more to do with gist than transliteration.

The earlier the source, the less chance for translational and editorial error that takes us further from an authentic message.

 

[sojourner]

The Bible declares these movements as real and historical

No. It doesn’t ever say that in the case of Genesis.

You don't believe the Bible

Yes, I believe that the Bible is what it is.

 

[Desert Snake]

You don't need contradictions, when you have verses or ideas that don't make sense. A 'contradiction', is secondary, to that.

 

[Desert Snake]

Shows what you know about the translation process. Very, very little.

Translation isn’t about accuracy so much as it is about authenticity. That’s because, due to differences in linguistics, cultural awareness and colloquialisms, an “accurate” translation isn’t always possible. The translators shoot for the authenticity of the message. It has much more to do with gist than transliteration.

The earlier the source, the less chance for translational and editorial error that takes us further from an authentic message.

I'm not going to 'interpret', a nonsensical verse, so that it might have meaning. That isn't the job of the reader.

 

[Faithofchristian]

There are apparent contradictions in the Bible, but that is only because we don't yet have the answers. Some people are always use that as a reason to reject the Bible as the Words of God. They will find something to blame for it.

I believe I understand your point but I do disagree. I think the KJV translators did a great job with their translation. With all the technology we have today, I doubt you will ever see a better translated Bible.

Concerning the word 'air' in (1 Thess. 4:17), you actually fall into the mistake that many do. You allow your theological belief to affect your translation. You don't believe in the rapture so 'air' can't mean 'air'. A translator translates no matter how crazy, wrong, or miraculous, what he is translating sounds. And one of the key rules when there is a dispute among manuscripts to a verse, is to accept the more difficult one.

Plus, the word used for 'air' in (1 Thess. 4:17) is used as 'air' in other places. (Acts 22:23) (1 Cor. 9:26, 14:9) (Rev. 9:2) (Eph. 2:2)

Good-Ole-Rebel

Your still missing the point.
What you have to do is look in the way
( Air) is being used.
It's all base on the terminology in which
( Air ) is being used.
There are many ways ( air) can be used.
But do they all mean the same thing.
Why of course not.

I saw birds flying in the air.
I filled the balloons with air

Both sentences are using the word
( Air ) but not meaning the same thing in each sentences.
It determines in what way ( air) is being used.

the word 'air' in (1 Thess. 4:17) is used as 'air' in other places. (Acts 22:23) (1 Cor. 9:26, 14:9) (Rev. 9:2) (Eph. 2:2).

If you had notice in each book and verses the word ( air) is being used. Not meaning the same thing.
Its all determined in the terminology in how the word ( air ) is being used.
How many ways can you use the word
(air ) but not meaning the same thing.
In each sentences.
So it's all base in the terminology in the way
( Air ) is being used.
( Air) can be taken one way in one sentence and all the while in another way in another sentence.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Shows what you know about the translation process. Very, very little.

Translation isn’t about accuracy so much as it is about authenticity. That’s because, due to differences in linguistics, cultural awareness and colloquialisms, an “accurate” translation isn’t always possible. The translators shoot for the authenticity of the message. It has much more to do with gist than transliteration.

The earlier the source, the less chance for translational and editorial error that takes us further from an authentic message.

If it is not accurate, it is not authentic.

Early does carry some weight. But it is not the only factor involved. And just because a manuscript is earlier, doesn't guarantee it is accurate. In other words, if you found an earlier manuscript, that doesn't mean it automatically requires you to disregard later manuscripts.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Desert Snake]

If it is not accurate, it is not authentic.

Early does carry some weight. But it is not the only factor involved. And just because a manuscript is earlier, doesn't guarantee it is accurate. In other words, if you found an earlier manuscript, that doesn't mean it automatically requires you to disregard later manuscripts.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Greetings.

You aren't saying that the Bible interprets itself, are you? It clearly doesn't since there are wildly differing religious beliefs, concerning the texts. So, how is that not, interpretation? In fact literalism, itself, does not lend to distinct trinity, it certainly doesn't.

 

[sooda]

You're avoiding the question...why? Was there a Jesus or was He just delusional exaggeration?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Yes there was a Jesus who probably didn't walk on water.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Your still missing the point.
What you have to do is look in the way
( Air) is being used.
It's all base on the terminology in which
( Air ) is being used.
There are many ways ( air) can be used.
But do they all mean the same thing.
Why of course not.

I saw birds flying in the air.
I filled the balloons with air

Both sentences are using the word
( Air ) but not meaning the same thing in each sentences.
It determines in what way ( air) is being used.

the word 'air' in (1 Thess. 4:17) is used as 'air' in other places. (Acts 22:23) (1 Cor. 9:26, 14:9) (Rev. 9:2) (Eph. 2:2).

If you had notice in each book and verses the word ( air) is being used. Not meaning the same thing.
Its all determined in the terminology in how the word ( air ) is being used.
How many ways can you use the word
(air ) but not meaning the same thing.
In each sentences.
So it's all base in the terminology in the way
( Air ) is being used.
( Air) can be taken one way in one sentence and all the while in another way in another sentence.

You tried to smoke it up a bit. But all you are saying is your don't believe in the Rapture so 'air' must not mean 'air'.

Good-Ole-Rebel