• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the Bible Allegorical or Literal?

Audie

Veteran Member
We tend to forget that the Bible is a collection of numerous texts, not a single book. I think story arcs within a single book may also have been separate at one time. Thus, we have to take each arc as its own thing.
I doubt anyone forgets that.
The “believers”, though, think those are all part of a seamless whole unified by the power of god.

The scattered sources are even presented as proof that is all the word of god, though I cannot recall how to work through the convolutions needed to get to that conclusion.
 
Last edited:

InChrist

Free4ever
I agree that Christianity would be one religion today if they did not take interpretations so seriously. Once they put theology over love one another their message of love one another meant nothing to the world anymore. You cannot preach love to others and at the same time be split into thousands of sects.
I don’t necessarily see all the variety within Christianity as negative. I have had friends in many different churches and denominations over the years and we have all been united in the essential teachings of the Bible and especially in Jesus Christ and love for one another. I don’t think all the different denominations are ideal, but they highlight different aspects of the Christian faith. God is at work in each unique believer’s life and I think He patiently allows room for variety as all come into maturity and unity in Christ.



…And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

Ephesians 4:11-16
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I guess I mostly mean the first few chapters of Genesis, as well as a global flood and exodus. Those things don't teach us much. Now I do like the Prophets.

I find the prophets hard to understand when I don't know what part of history they are referring to.
I think the archaeology of the exodus and conquest of Canaan have really been messed up and put into a time period that does not correspond to the Biblical timing of the events. In the correct time period the Biblical history of the Exodus and Conquest start to look real according to the archaeology.
No Exodus means that Judaism is not true. Making the Exodus and Conquest into allegory means to deny the reality of the entire Hebrew scriptures imo.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm just going by what the NT says. I don't necessarily believe it's true or right, but I do agree with the born-again Christians that the NT teaches that sin and death entered the world through one man's disobedience, Adam, and is saved by one man's sacrifice, Jesus.

It sounds as if you believe what the born again Christians say about the NT but you don't believe in the NT period. You don't believe in the NT because the only way to look at the NT is through the same lens as the born again Christians. As you don't agree with them you discard the NT in a similar manner to how you discard what the born again Christians say about life. On the one hand you want to sound neutral and uncommitted. Actually you have decided but you don't want to declare yourself an atheist.

For all the people that want to soften that and find an alternative interpretation, I don't mind. After all, who wants to believe the whole of the Bible and the NT too literally. But... if it is the Word of God, then it should be. And even Baha'is have called it that. I don't. I think it is made-up religious myth. I don't believe it is literally true, but it might be. And I understand why those born-again Christians insist on taking it literally.

Reading a book and taking it literally is an obvious first step.

Baha'is seem to be saying is that the "truth" of the Bible and the NT is that it definitely should not be taken literally but to find the "true" allegorical meanings behind the things it says. And those allegorical meanings and interpretations given in the Baha'i writing is presented here as being the real truth. And that's the problem... there is no other "truth". Baha'is seem to be just as stuck on their interpretations of the Bible and NT as any Fundy Christian is for theirs. Which causes nothing but division. With neither side given in, because they both "know" they are right.

You are misinterpreting and distorting the Baha'i position. You need to be clearer about your own views and avoid misrepresenting both the Baha'i and Christian view.

Then add the Atheists... All they ask for is tangible proof. Baha'is say that without science, religion can fall into be superstition. Which kind of implies that a true religion should have some objective evidence as being true. But those debates go nowhere. Baha'is say the "evidence" is the messengers, his character, his mission and his writings, or something like that. Atheists says that is not good enough. And Baha'is say that is all they are going to get, take it or leave it. Atheists have left it. Lots of Atheists have been posting anymore in the Baha'i threads. There gone. More division.

Now you are misrepresenting atheists.

Then there is the Hindus and Buddhists... Same thing a unifying connection is not being made. They have their beliefs, and in many ways Baha'is are essentially telling them that those beliefs are wrong. More division.

You mean more misrepresention?


Can the Baha'i Faith solve this problem? Or is it better to be true to your beliefs that your Baha'i teachings are the truth from God, and they can't be compromised? Yet, it seems as though, the others are expected to compromise theirs. Since, to Baha'is, they are not true... at best, only bits and pieces of their beliefs are true.

I don't see the Baha'is asking anyone to compromise let alone change. We're all entitled to our respective beliefs whether Christian, Baha'i or atheist.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes that’s complete guesswork not a bit grounded in fact. Not blowing my own trumpet but I’m a PhD scientist and can tell the difference between theoretical science and established science. This is all going to God’s plan. God told Daniel knowledge would increase before end times and conversely said that people would believe lies so that they didn’t believe in God.

Don’t get on your hobby horse again Mr F, I’m not going to debate this with you yet again.
I'm a scientist too. I never would have guessed you were a scientist. What is your field?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
You are misinterpreting and distorting the Baha'i position. You need to be clearer about your own views and avoid misrepresenting both the Baha'i and Christian view.
Then enlighten me... What is the Baha'i position? And what do you think is the Christian position that I'm misrepresenting?
Now you are misrepresenting atheists.
I'm going by what Atheists here on the forum have send in response to claims made on threads started by Baha'is. Again, what do you think I'm saying that is misrepresenting Atheists?
You mean more misrepresention?
Again,here on the forum Buddhists and Hindus have complained about Baha'is misrepresenting their beliefs. So, what do Baha'is believe about Hindus and Buddhists, and how have I misrepresented them or misrepresented what Baha'is believe about them?
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
I don’t necessarily see all the variety within Christianity as negative. I have had friends in many different churches and denominations over the years and we have all been united in the essential teachings of the Bible and especially in Jesus Christ and love for one another. I don’t think all the different denominations are ideal, but they highlight different aspects of the Christian faith. God is at work in each unique believer’s life and I think He patiently allows room for variety as all come into maturity and unity in Christ.



…And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

Ephesians 4:11-16

The problem is that Christianity doesn’t speak with one voice so where is Christianity? To the seeker it presents confusion because no one knows where to find Christianity. One cannot profess love and brotherhood to others while divided among themselves. So people are unable to find truth when so many sects claim they are right and other sects wrong. Who do you believe?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Then enlighten me... What is the Baha'i position? And what do you think is the Christian position that I'm misrepresenting?

I'm going by what Atheists here on the forum have send in response to claims made on threads started by Baha'is. Again, what do you think I'm saying that is misrepresenting Atheists?
Again,here on the forum Buddhists and Hindus have complained about Baha'is misrepresenting their beliefs. So, what do Baha'is believe about Hindus and Buddhists, and how have I misrepresented them or misrepresented what Baha'is believe about them?

What is your belief CG? I'm happy to tell you what my position is as a Baha'i. There are diverse views within Christianity, Atheism, Buddhism and Hinduism. They are not all opposed to the Baha'i Faith. Certainly some are within each group but so what?

The Baha'i position in regards the NT is complex, because the NT is complex. Labelling it all as either literal or allegorical is foolishly simplistic. There's clearly aspects that are literal history such as the crucifixion of Christ and aspects that sre not literal history such as the book of Revelation.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I find the prophets hard to understand when I don't know what part of history they are referring to.
I think the archaeology of the exodus and conquest of Canaan have really been messed up and put into a time period that does not correspond to the Biblical timing of the events. In the correct time period the Biblical history of the Exodus and Conquest start to look real according to the archaeology.
No Exodus means that Judaism is not true. Making the Exodus and Conquest into allegory means to deny the reality of the entire Hebrew scriptures imo.


Definitely not true, none of the 4 or 5 versions in scripture. Dr Joel Baden lectures at Yale Divinity and is an excellent scholar of the Hebrew Bible.

Canaanites Were Israelites & There Was No Exodus


Prof. Joel Baden

1:20 DNA shows close relationship between Israelites and Canaanites. Israelites ARE Canaanites who moved to a different place.


6:10 Consensus. Biblical story of Exodus and people coming from Egypt and taking over through battle is not true. With slight variations here and there basically everyone will tell you they gradually came from the coastlands into the highlands. Canaanites moved away to the highlands and slowly became a unified nation after first splitting into tribes.


No Israelites until after 1000 BCE.


18:18 Isaiah 1 is 8th century. Ch 40 is suddenly different. Cyrus shows up, enter end times, Persian influence. Messianic concepts.

The only reason one would not see this is if committed to the idea that it’s not written in separate parts.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
There is no good reason to think it is a myth.

No good reason? All of the Yale Divinity lectures on the historicity of Genesis are 100% it's a re-worked Mesopotamian myth.

These are all peer-reviewed PhD textbooks/monographs,

John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.
2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”
The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”
THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”

The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”
The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”


Seams and Sources: Genesis 5-11 and the Historical-Critical Method




10:45 snake in Eden is a standard literary device seen in fables of this era

(10:25 - snake not Satan, no Satan in Hebrew Bible)


14:05 acceptance of mortality theme in Eden and Gilamesh story


25:15 Gilgamesh flood story, Sumerian flood story comparisons

26:21 - there are significant contrasts as well between the Mesopotamian flood story and it’s Israelite ADAPTATION. Israelite story is purposely rejecting certain motifs and giving the opposite or an improved version (nicer deity…)


36:20 2 flood stories in Genesis, or contradictions and doublets.

Yahweh/Elohim, rain/cosmic waters flowing,


40:05 two creation stories, very different. Genesis 1 formalized, highly structured

Genesis 2 dramatic. Genesis 1 serious writing style, Genesis 2 uses Hebrew word puns.

Genesis 1/2 use different terms for gender

Genesis 1/2 use different names, description and style for God


Both stories have distinctive styles, vocabulary, themes, placed side by side. Flood stories are interwoven.

Genesis to 2nd Kings entire historical saga is repeated again in Chronicles.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I think there is no need for interpretations. It is enough to let the Bible explain what it says. And I believe the conflicts don't really come from the Bible. They come from people who don't like the truth and instead develop own doctrines to rule others.


There are endless contradictions in the Bible.
Just a few:

Contradictions in the pentateuchal narrative come in a variety of forms, from the smallest of details to the most important of historical claims. On the minor end are ostensibly simple disagreements about the names of people and places. Is Moses’s father-in-law named Reuel (Exod 2:18) or Jethro (Exod 3:1)? Is the mountain in the wilderness where Yahweh appeared to the people called Sinai (Exod 19:11) or Horeb (Exod 3:1; Deut 1:6)? Of somewhat more significance are disagreements about where, when, and even why an event took place. In Numbers 20:23–29, Aaron dies on Mount Hor; according to Deuteronomy 10:6, however, he dies in Moserah. In Numbers 3–4, after Moses has descended from the mountain and is receiving the laws, the Levites are assigned their cultic re- sponsibilities; but according to Deuteronomy 10:8, the Levites were set apart at a site in the wilderness called Jotbath.10 In Numbers 20:2–13, Moses is forbidden from crossing the Jordan because of his actions at the waters of Meribah, when
he brought forth water from the rock; but then according to his own words in Deuteronomy 1:37–38, Moses was prohibited from entering the promised land not because of anything he did, but because of the sins of the people in the epi- sode of the spies. Major contradictions, with important historiographical and theological ramifications, are also present in the text. The premier example of these is the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2: in what order was the world cre- ated? was it originally watery or dry? were male and female created together, or was woman made from man’s rib? is man the culmination of creation, or the beginning? Other examples are equally problematic. For the cult: was the Tent of Meeting in the center of the Israelite camp (Num 2–3) and did Yahweh dwell there constantly (Exod 40:34–38), or was it situated well outside the camp (Exod 33:7), and does Yahweh descend to it only to speak with Moses (Exod 33:8–11)? For prophecy: could there be other prophets like Moses after his death (Deut 18:15), or not (Deut 34:10–12)? These contradictions, from minor to major, are difficult, and frequently impossible, to reconcile.


The second category of narrative inconsistency is doublets: stories that are told twice. In order to qualify as a literarily problematic repetition, two passages must not only tell a similar story, but do so in a way that renders them mutually exclusive: they must be events that could not possibly happen more than once. Thus one of the most often cited doublets in the Pentateuch, the patriarch pass- ing off his wife as his sister in a foreign land (Gen 12:10–20; 20; 26:6–11)—which is actually a triplet—does not count. As hard as it is to believe that Abraham would pull the same trick twice, and that Isaac would do the same a generation later, there is nothing in these stories that prohibits such a reading. The two stories about Abraham and Sarah are set in different regions (Egypt and Gerar), with different characters (Pharaoh and Abimelech), while the story about Isaac and Rebekah, although set in Gerar with Abimelech, obviously features differ- ent protagonists at a different time. On the grounds of narrative alone, all three stories could well belong to a single author.

There are truly problematic doublets, however. The city of Luz is renamed Bethel by Jacob in Genesis 28:19, as he is on his way from his father’s house to stay with his uncle Laban. The city of Luz is again renamed Bethel by Jacob in Genesis 35:15, on his way from his uncle Laban’s house to rejoin his father in Canaan. (Not to mention that Abraham had already built an altar at Bethel, already not called Luz, in Gen 12:8.) Similarly, the site of Beersheba is given its name on the basis of the oath sworn (nišba ̄ ‘) between Abraham and Abimelech in Genesis 21:31. It is named again by Isaac in Genesis 26:33, on the basis of the oath sworn between him and Abimelech. Jacob’s own name is changed to Israel when he wrestles with the divine being in Genesis 32:29. Jacob’s name is
changed to Israel again by God at Bethel in Genesis 35:10. These doublets are mutually exclusive: in each case, the naming or renaming is recounted as if it is happening for the first and only time.

More striking are the narratives relating the thirst of the Israelites in the wil- derness. In Exodus 17:1–7, just after they have crossed the sea and before they arrive at the mountain in the wilderness, the people complain that they have no water to drink; Yahweh responds by telling Moses to strike a rock, from which water will come forth. Moses strikes the rock, the water comes forth, and the place is named Massah and Meribah. In Numbers 20:2–13, well after the Isra- elites have left the mountain, in the midst of their wilderness wandering, the people complain that they have no water to drink; Yahweh responds by telling Moses to speak to a rock, from which water will come forth. Moses strikes the rock, the water comes forth, and the place is named “the waters of Meribah.” In these stories not only is the same name given to two different places, and for the same reason, but the stories themselves are remarkably similar.

In fact, all of these doublets, and others not discussed here, overlap with the previous group, that is, narrative contradictions. For the double telling of a single event entails two competing historical claims about, at the very least, when that event happened. As we have seen, not only when, but also the char- acteristics of where, who, how, and why may vary from passage to passage, even when the central “what” remains the same.

Contradictions and doublets can be found both across pentateuchal texts, as described above, and within individual pericopes; that is, the same problems exist on both the macro level and the micro level. The standard example of this is the beginning of the flood story, in Genesis 6:17–7:5. In 6:17–22, God tells Noah that he is going to bring a flood and instructs him to bring into the ark two of each kind of animal; we are then told that “Noah did so; just as God had commanded him, so he did” (v. 22). In 7:1–5, Yahweh tells Noah that he is go- ing to bring a flood and instructs him to bring into the ark two of each unclean animal and seven pairs of every clean animal; we are then told that “Noah did just as Yahweh commanded him” (v. 5). The story thus presents the same events happening twice—God’s announcement of the flood, instructions about the animals, and the fulfillment of those instructions by Noah—which marks it as a doublet. The story also tells us that on the one hand, Noah is to bring two of every animal (and he does so), and on the other, that he is to bring two of every unclean and seven of every clean animal (and he does so)—a glaring contradiction.

Similarly, in Numbers 14, after the episode of the spies, Yahweh tells Moses that the first generation of the Exodus will die before reaching the promised
land, all except for Caleb (Num 14:21–24). Immediately thereafter, he speaks again and says almost the same thing: the first generation of the Exodus will die before reaching the promised land, all except for Caleb and Joshua (vv. 29–35). Virtually the same message is delivered twice in a row—it is a doublet—but there is a significant distinction in the content, a disparity in precisely who is to survive—and it therefore also entails a contradiction.

The third category of narrative problems may be called discontinuities.........
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Definitely not true, none of the 4 or 5 versions in scripture. Dr Joel Baden lectures at Yale Divinity and is an excellent scholar of the Hebrew Bible.

Canaanites Were Israelites & There Was No Exodus


Prof. Joel Baden

1:20 DNA shows close relationship between Israelites and Canaanites. Israelites ARE Canaanites who moved to a different place.


6:10 Consensus. Biblical story of Exodus and people coming from Egypt and taking over through battle is not true. With slight variations here and there basically everyone will tell you they gradually came from the coastlands into the highlands. Canaanites moved away to the highlands and slowly became a unified nation after first splitting into tribes.


No Israelites until after 1000 BCE.


18:18 Isaiah 1 is 8th century. Ch 40 is suddenly different. Cyrus shows up, enter end times, Persian influence. Messianic concepts.

The only reason one would not see this is if committed to the idea that it’s not written in separate parts.

As I said, they ignore the dating of the Exodus in the Bible and look for archaeological evidence for the Conquest in the ground is 1200 BC instead of 200 years earlier--1400 BC.
The Merneptah Stella, dated to 1205 BC mentions Israel as a people. This could not be true if the conquest happened in 1200 BC. Instead of realising it mean the conquest happened earlier they say that therefore there was no conquest. Weird but true.
So what does Joel Baden know if he does not know about the Merneptah Stele.
There is evidence for Israel in Egypt and for the conquest but archaeology is a science of opinion to an extent and when wrong opinions get in there from heads of departments etc, we have to wait till these people die and other leading archaeologists come along who can see the truth.
IOWs a minority opinion in archaeology is not necessarily wrong
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
No good reason? All of the Yale Divinity lectures on the historicity of Genesis are 100% it's a re-worked Mesopotamian myth.

These are all peer-reviewed PhD textbooks/monographs,

John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.
2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”
The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”
THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”

The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”
The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”


Seams and Sources: Genesis 5-11 and the Historical-Critical Method




10:45 snake in Eden is a standard literary device seen in fables of this era

(10:25 - snake not Satan, no Satan in Hebrew Bible)


14:05 acceptance of mortality theme in Eden and Gilamesh story


25:15 Gilgamesh flood story, Sumerian flood story comparisons

26:21 - there are significant contrasts as well between the Mesopotamian flood story and it’s Israelite ADAPTATION. Israelite story is purposely rejecting certain motifs and giving the opposite or an improved version (nicer deity…)


36:20 2 flood stories in Genesis, or contradictions and doublets.

Yahweh/Elohim, rain/cosmic waters flowing,


40:05 two creation stories, very different. Genesis 1 formalized, highly structured

Genesis 2 dramatic. Genesis 1 serious writing style, Genesis 2 uses Hebrew word puns.

Genesis 1/2 use different terms for gender

Genesis 1/2 use different names, description and style for God


Both stories have distinctive styles, vocabulary, themes, placed side by side. Flood stories are interwoven.

Genesis to 2nd Kings entire historical saga is repeated again in Chronicles.

The facts that are used are the same facts that more conservative scholars use, and have for decades, but the conservative scholars do not use them to deny the truth of the Bible.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
There are endless contradictions in the Bible.
Just a few:

Contradictions in the pentateuchal narrative come in a variety of forms, from the smallest of details to the most important of historical claims. On the minor end are ostensibly simple disagreements about the names of people and places. Is Moses’s father-in-law named Reuel (Exod 2:18) or Jethro (Exod 3:1)? Is the mountain in the wilderness where Yahweh appeared to the people called Sinai (Exod 19:11) or Horeb (Exod 3:1; Deut 1:6)? Of somewhat more significance are disagreements about where, when, and even why an event took place. In Numbers 20:23–29, Aaron dies on Mount Hor; according to Deuteronomy 10:6, however, he dies in Moserah. In Numbers 3–4, after Moses has descended from the mountain and is receiving the laws, the Levites are assigned their cultic re- sponsibilities; but according to Deuteronomy 10:8, the Levites were set apart at a site in the wilderness called Jotbath.10 In Numbers 20:2–13, Moses is forbidden from crossing the Jordan because of his actions at the waters of Meribah, when
he brought forth water from the rock; but then according to his own words in Deuteronomy 1:37–38, Moses was prohibited from entering the promised land not because of anything he did, but because of the sins of the people in the epi- sode of the spies. Major contradictions, with important historiographical and theological ramifications, are also present in the text. The premier example of these is the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2: in what order was the world cre- ated? was it originally watery or dry? were male and female created together, or was woman made from man’s rib? is man the culmination of creation, or the beginning? Other examples are equally problematic. For the cult: was the Tent of Meeting in the center of the Israelite camp (Num 2–3) and did Yahweh dwell there constantly (Exod 40:34–38), or was it situated well outside the camp (Exod 33:7), and does Yahweh descend to it only to speak with Moses (Exod 33:8–11)? For prophecy: could there be other prophets like Moses after his death (Deut 18:15), or not (Deut 34:10–12)? These contradictions, from minor to major, are difficult, and frequently impossible, to reconcile.


The second category of narrative inconsistency is doublets: stories that are told twice. In order to qualify as a literarily problematic repetition, two passages must not only tell a similar story, but do so in a way that renders them mutually exclusive: they must be events that could not possibly happen more than once. Thus one of the most often cited doublets in the Pentateuch, the patriarch pass- ing off his wife as his sister in a foreign land (Gen 12:10–20; 20; 26:6–11)—which is actually a triplet—does not count. As hard as it is to believe that Abraham would pull the same trick twice, and that Isaac would do the same a generation later, there is nothing in these stories that prohibits such a reading. The two stories about Abraham and Sarah are set in different regions (Egypt and Gerar), with different characters (Pharaoh and Abimelech), while the story about Isaac and Rebekah, although set in Gerar with Abimelech, obviously features differ- ent protagonists at a different time. On the grounds of narrative alone, all three stories could well belong to a single author.

There are truly problematic doublets, however. The city of Luz is renamed Bethel by Jacob in Genesis 28:19, as he is on his way from his father’s house to stay with his uncle Laban. The city of Luz is again renamed Bethel by Jacob in Genesis 35:15, on his way from his uncle Laban’s house to rejoin his father in Canaan. (Not to mention that Abraham had already built an altar at Bethel, already not called Luz, in Gen 12:8.) Similarly, the site of Beersheba is given its name on the basis of the oath sworn (nišba ̄ ‘) between Abraham and Abimelech in Genesis 21:31. It is named again by Isaac in Genesis 26:33, on the basis of the oath sworn between him and Abimelech. Jacob’s own name is changed to Israel when he wrestles with the divine being in Genesis 32:29. Jacob’s name is
changed to Israel again by God at Bethel in Genesis 35:10. These doublets are mutually exclusive: in each case, the naming or renaming is recounted as if it is happening for the first and only time.

More striking are the narratives relating the thirst of the Israelites in the wil- derness. In Exodus 17:1–7, just after they have crossed the sea and before they arrive at the mountain in the wilderness, the people complain that they have no water to drink; Yahweh responds by telling Moses to strike a rock, from which water will come forth. Moses strikes the rock, the water comes forth, and the place is named Massah and Meribah. In Numbers 20:2–13, well after the Isra- elites have left the mountain, in the midst of their wilderness wandering, the people complain that they have no water to drink; Yahweh responds by telling Moses to speak to a rock, from which water will come forth. Moses strikes the rock, the water comes forth, and the place is named “the waters of Meribah.” In these stories not only is the same name given to two different places, and for the same reason, but the stories themselves are remarkably similar.

In fact, all of these doublets, and others not discussed here, overlap with the previous group, that is, narrative contradictions. For the double telling of a single event entails two competing historical claims about, at the very least, when that event happened. As we have seen, not only when, but also the char- acteristics of where, who, how, and why may vary from passage to passage, even when the central “what” remains the same.

Contradictions and doublets can be found both across pentateuchal texts, as described above, and within individual pericopes; that is, the same problems exist on both the macro level and the micro level. The standard example of this is the beginning of the flood story, in Genesis 6:17–7:5. In 6:17–22, God tells Noah that he is going to bring a flood and instructs him to bring into the ark two of each kind of animal; we are then told that “Noah did so; just as God had commanded him, so he did” (v. 22). In 7:1–5, Yahweh tells Noah that he is go- ing to bring a flood and instructs him to bring into the ark two of each unclean animal and seven pairs of every clean animal; we are then told that “Noah did just as Yahweh commanded him” (v. 5). The story thus presents the same events happening twice—God’s announcement of the flood, instructions about the animals, and the fulfillment of those instructions by Noah—which marks it as a doublet. The story also tells us that on the one hand, Noah is to bring two of every animal (and he does so), and on the other, that he is to bring two of every unclean and seven of every clean animal (and he does so)—a glaring contradiction.

Similarly, in Numbers 14, after the episode of the spies, Yahweh tells Moses that the first generation of the Exodus will die before reaching the promised
land, all except for Caleb (Num 14:21–24). Immediately thereafter, he speaks again and says almost the same thing: the first generation of the Exodus will die before reaching the promised land, all except for Caleb and Joshua (vv. 29–35). Virtually the same message is delivered twice in a row—it is a doublet—but there is a significant distinction in the content, a disparity in precisely who is to survive—and it therefore also entails a contradiction.

The third category of narrative problems may be called discontinuities.........

Who can go through such a big post of cut and paste stuff about the Bible. So I picked Numbers 14 21-24 and Numbers 14:29-35 to see the contradiction and cannot find any.
Can you point it out?
 

Apostle John

“Go ahead, look up Revelation 6”
I'm a scientist too. I never would have guessed you were a scientist. What is your field?
My field was Chemistry. Natural product synthesis. Don’t you think I debate using logic then? I often find I get responded to by the same person who uses nonsense.

How do atoms form molecules form dna to form consciousness in nature without the Creator? This has gone unanswered so far. I would only expect a pithy answer anyway from atheists.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I'm a scientist too. I never would have guessed you were a scientist. What is your field?

"I am a scientist " is a moderately common claim from people whose own words belie the claim.

One possibility is that they ooce did research but their scientific integrity is so compromised by religious views that they are fired or are otherwise incapacitated and no longer are scientists. Dr K Wise is a sad example of that.

Others may think that doing low level work under supervision in maybe a testing lab makes them "scientists".

Something like having a grade school teacherchirp to her kids "you are all little scientists" when they do some class project.

Whichever the case such claims by people who thInk it gives credibility to their arguments against science seem most lacking in self awareness, especially regarding how the blatant falsehood does the opposite of making their statenents credible.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
First I want to say thanks joelr, you have given probably the weirdest contradiction claims I have ever seen. :D

There are endless contradictions in the Bible.
Just a few:

Contradictions in the pentateuchal narrative come in a variety of forms, from the smallest of details to the most important of historical claims. On the minor end are ostensibly simple disagreements about the names of people and places. Is Moses’s father-in-law named Reuel (Exod 2:18) or Jethro (Exod 3:1)?

But, is it right to think that in ancient era people were like Madonna, known only by one name? Is it not possible for an ancient person to have more than one name? :D

Is the mountain in the wilderness where Yahweh appeared to the people called Sinai (Exod 19:11) or Horeb (Exod 3:1; Deut 1:6)? Of somewhat more significance are disagreements about where, when, and even why an event took place. In Numbers 20:23–29, Aaron dies on Mount Hor; according to Deuteronomy 10:6, however, he dies in Moserah.

It seems to me that you are connecting scriptures erroneously.

Was mount Hor in Moserah?

In Numbers 3–4, after Moses has descended from the mountain and is receiving the laws, the Levites are assigned their cultic re- sponsibilities; but according to Deuteronomy 10:8, the Levites were set apart at a site in the wilderness called Jotbath.10 In Numbers 20:2–13, Moses is forbidden from crossing the Jordan because of his actions at the waters of Meribah, when
he brought forth water from the rock; but then according to his own words in Deuteronomy 1:37–38, Moses was prohibited from entering the promised land not because of anything he did, but because of the sins of the people in the epi- sode of the spies. Major contradictions, with important historiographical and theological ramifications, are also present in the text.

Also in this case it seems to me that you have misunderstood, or wrong information what is actually said in the Bible.

The premier example of these is the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2: in what order was the world created? was it originally watery or dry? were male and female created together, or was woman made from man’s rib? is man the culmination of creation, or the beginning?

That shouldn't be so difficult, if one just reads what is said in the book, without own assumptions.

Gen. 2 tells actually how man and woman were formed, not created. It is possible that it is about different matter than Gen. 1, which speaks of creating things. Genesis 2 doesn't speak about creating, it speaks about forming and planting of the garden of Eden.

However, it is possible that Gen 2 is just more accurate description of how man and woman was created. It can be said they were created together, even if it was done as in Gen. 2.

Other examples are equally problematic. For the cult: was the Tent of Meeting in the center of the Israelite camp (Num 2–3) and did Yahweh dwell there constantly (Exod 40:34–38), or was it situated well outside the camp (Exod 33:7), and does Yahweh descend to it only to speak with Moses (Exod 33:8–11)? For prophecy: could there be other prophets like Moses after his death (Deut 18:15), or not (Deut 34:10–12)? These contradictions, from minor to major, are difficult, and frequently impossible, to reconcile.

I don't see any problem in those scriptures, when I read them directly from the Bible as it is written. And actually, it is amazing how anyone can see a contradiction in those. Maybe you should copy the Biblical text directly here and explain how you come up to the contradictory conclusion.

....Thus one of the most often cited doublets in the Pentateuch, the patriarch pass- ing off his wife as his sister in a foreign land (Gen 12:10–20; 20; 26:6–11)—which is actually a triplet—does not count. As hard as it is to believe that Abraham would pull the same trick twice, and that Isaac would do the same a generation later, there is nothing in these stories that prohibits such a reading. The two stories about Abraham and Sarah are set in different regions (Egypt and Gerar), with different characters (Pharaoh and Abimelech), while the story about Isaac and Rebekah, although set in Gerar with Abimelech, obviously features differ- ent protagonists at a different time. On the grounds of narrative alone, all three stories could well belong to a single author.

Nothing of that means there is a contradiction.

There are truly problematic doublets, however. The city of Luz is renamed Bethel by Jacob in Genesis 28:19, as he is on his way from his father’s house to stay with his uncle Laban. The city of Luz is again renamed Bethel by Jacob in Genesis 35:15, on his way from his uncle Laban’s house to rejoin his father in Canaan. (Not to mention that Abraham had already built an altar at Bethel, already not called Luz, in Gen 12:8.)

Translations that I use, don't say Jacob renamed the place, it is said only that he called the place... , which obviously is not the same as rename.

He called the name of that place Bethel, but the name of the city was Luz at the first.
Gen. 28:19
Jacob called the name of the place where God spoke with him “Bethel.”
Gen. 35:15

Similarly, the site of Beersheba is given its name on the basis of the oath sworn (nišba ̄ ‘) between Abraham and Abimelech in Genesis 21:31. It is named again by Isaac in Genesis 26:33, on the basis of the oath sworn between him and Abimelech. Jacob’s own name is changed to Israel when he wrestles with the divine being in Genesis 32:29. Jacob’s name is
changed to Israel again by God at Bethel in Genesis 35:10. These doublets are mutually exclusive: in each case, the naming or renaming is recounted as if it is happening for the first and only time.

Also in this case my translations say called, not named. It is weird where do you get the idea of renaming or naming.

More striking are the narratives relating the thirst of the Israelites in the wil- derness. In Exodus 17:1–7, just after they have crossed the sea and before they arrive at the mountain in the wilderness, the people complain that they have no water to drink; Yahweh responds by telling Moses to strike a rock, from which water will come forth. Moses strikes the rock, the water comes forth, and the place is named Massah and Meribah. In Numbers 20:2–13, well after the Isra- elites have left the mountain, in the midst of their wilderness wandering, the people complain that they have no water to drink; Yahweh responds by telling Moses to speak to a rock, from which water will come forth. Moses strikes the rock, the water comes forth, and the place is named “the waters of Meribah.” In these stories not only is the same name given to two different places, and for the same reason, but the stories themselves are remarkably similar.

I think these can be about the same event. I don't see any reason why not, nor any real contradiction.

....Similarly, in Numbers 14, after the episode of the spies, Yahweh tells Moses that the first generation of the Exodus will die before reaching the promised land, all except for Caleb (Num 14:21–24). Immediately thereafter, he speaks again and says almost the same thing: the first generation of the Exodus will die before reaching the promised land, all except for Caleb and Joshua (vv. 29–35). Virtually the same message is delivered twice in a row—it is a doublet—but there is a significant distinction in the content, a disparity in precisely who is to survive—and it therefore also entails a contradiction....

Apparently you have a very different idea of what is a contradiction. I don't think there is a contradiction in that or other "doublets". Different amount of information doesn't necessary mean a contradiction.

And it seems to me that you have some different translation, because I don't see Bible saying "the first generation" in here:

but in very deed, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of Yahweh; because all those men who have seen my glory, and my signs, which I worked in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet have tempted me these ten times, and have not listened to my voice; surely they shall not see the land which I swore to their fathers, neither shall any of those who despised me see it: but my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and has followed me fully, him will I bring into the land into which he went; and his seed shall possess it.
Num 14:21–24
 

Attachments

  • upload_2023-2-27_14-4-1.png
    upload_2023-2-27_14-4-1.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 1
Top