The Bible and its Contradictions/Oddities

[yippityyak]

Hi All,

What I want to know is, why are there so many contridictions in the Bible?
An example of this is where God talks and almost condones slavery of other people, but in the New Testament, Jesus talks about loving everyone, including your enemies?

Another thing that confuses me is the fact that a lot of Christians say that the Old Testament is as relevant today as the New Testament is. Why is it relevant today that i own a slave and that I am allowed to strike him because he is my property? And then it goes on to say that if I strike my slave and he dies immediately, I will be punished. But if I strike him and he only dies a day or two later, then I cant be punished because he is my property. If it is not meant literally for it to be relevant today, then what is the meaning of this?

And why does God make Revelation so difficult to understand? Why cant it be written in such a way that we can understand what he is trying to show us?

If anyone can help me, that would be great! Thanks.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

And why does God make Revelation so difficult to understand? Why cant it be written in such a way that we can understand what he is trying to show us?

If anyone can help me, that would be great! Thanks.

Hi Yippityyak! I won't answer all your questions, I'll let others take a stab at them...but your last one did strike me as interesting. God's revelation doesn't have to be hard to understand, if we are yielded to Him and His Spirit to reveal the truth to us. The problem is, we have this thing called sin in our lives that separates us from the perfect Creator, and we have this odd tendency to do exactly what God doesn't want us to do. Due to this separation that we create for ourselves due to our imperfections and our turning away from God, God's words to us become jumbled, if they are heard at all. Luckily, thanks to His saving grace, we have the ability to overcome sin through Him and to learn and understand the truth. Hope that helps! God bless.

 

[yippityyak]

Thanks FerventGodSeeker.
I understand that we all have sin in our lives, but what confuses me the most is that if God wants us to come to him out of our own free will, why cant he make things a little more simple so that we can make an informed decision? I dont like the idea of believing in something that I am blinded to until I actually believe it, not that my explanation makes sense.

I am an ex-Christian, and reading the Bible when i was a Christian and reading it now, as a semi-non-believer seems the same to me. Look, I will never deny the fact that there are certain passages in the Bible that grab you and you are awestruck, but there are certain things that just dont make sense! And it is those things that I cant get my head around and make a decision about.

Certain things about Revelations gets me, like there are two different interpretations for the symbolism of the Horse. One person has told me it means victory over Satan and his "2000 years of ruling" he had or the other explanation from my church was that is meant death. That he rode on a Colt to cut those down who did not believe in him. To me that is two totally different explanations, and just one of my confusions.

Thank you very much for taking the time to help me with this problem i have!

 

[James the Persian]

Are you labouring under the assumption that God wrote the Bible? Or that that's how most Christians view it? It certainly sounds that way. That's a peculiar attitude that you seem to find only in the various post-Reformation churches. None of the problems you raised stand scrutiny once you realise two things. First that the Bible was written by men not God. They may have been inspired by God but they certainly weren't dictated to and so they bring themselves to their writing as any author does. Second, that the Bible was never intended to be understood outside of a well defined oral Tradition that was passed down through the Church - and it was the Church that wrote and collected the Bible. The Bible itself refers to this and it's only when you throw out that Tradition, which is what the Reformers did, that you start to have problems of interpretation like this.

The Apocalypse (Revelation) was always knows to be difficult. It is an account of a vision and is written in symbolic language. The Tradition of the Church is pretty clear on what it means but, for this very reason it remains the only book of the New Testament that is not read in the Liturgy. That Protestants are often more than a little obsessed by the book (whilst rarely showing much understanding of its meaning - hence nonsensical heresies like the Rapture) is another consequence of the Reformer's abandonment of Holy Tradition in favour of their own personal interpretations.

James

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Thanks FerventGodSeeker.
I understand that we all have sin in our lives, but what confuses me the most is that if God wants us to come to him out of our own free will, why cant he make things a little more simple so that we can make an informed decision?

Because on our own, we can't make an informed decision. It is only through God's grace and supernatural empowerment that we even have the faith to believe in the first place.

I dont like the idea of believing in something that I am blinded to until I actually believe it,

Neither does Christianity, in the final analysis.

I am an ex-Christian, and reading the Bible when i was a Christian and reading it now, as a semi-non-believer seems the same to me. Look, I will never deny the fact that there are certain passages in the Bible that grab you and you are awestruck, but there are certain things that just dont make sense! And it is those things that I cant get my head around and make a decision about.

No one, believer or non-believer, will ever fully understand an infinite being with our finite minds. This is not to say that God is entirely illogical, either; He gave us minds for a reason...however, if you're waiting to believe in the truths of Christ, His Church, and His Word until you have absolutely everything put inside a little box where you can explain everything and compartmentalize everything in your head, you will never believe.

Certain things about Revelations gets me, like there are two different interpretations for the symbolism of the Horse. One person has told me it means victory over Satan and his "2000 years of ruling" he had or the other explanation from my church was that is meant death. That he rode on a Colt to cut those down who did not believe in him. To me that is two totally different explanations, and just one of my confusions.

The fact that people have different interpretations of a passage does not make the passage itself invalid.

Thank you very much for taking the time to help me with this problem i have

You're welcome. But you should realize, ultimately, it is only God who can help you to understand His mysteries.

 

[yippityyak]

Thank you for your help guys.

There is another thing that is also confusing to me, this Rapture that everyone talks about. What is it really? I have been told that it is before Jesus returns, where people will just disappear. They are there one minute, and the next not. Is this a story that people make up or is it correct?

I understand what you are saying about waiting to have everything in place before i believe. Its the last thing that I want to do, and I am trying my best not to do it. I guess I am just walking blindly at the moment, trying to find something that is comfortable. And yet, to feel uncomfortable is when you are the most vulnerable and the most likely to recieve what you are meant to.

 

[yippityyak]

Sorry, another thing.
If you take a verse in the Bible and interpret it in any way that you want to, is this not considered going against what God says, in that His word should not be changed or interpreted to suit anyone?

And what of stories that the Bible has been altered by the Roman Catholic church and that there are Books of the Bible that are missing or hidden? Sorry, no offence, but just stories I have heard.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Sorry, another thing.
If you take a verse in the Bible and interpret it in any way that you want to, is this not considered going against what God says, in that His word should not be changed or interpreted to suit anyone?

Yes, see 2 Peter 1:20

And what of stories that the Bible has been altered by the Roman Catholic church and that there are Books of the Bible that are missing or hidden? Sorry, no offence, but just stories I have heard.

The Canon of Christian Scripture has been the same since the Church decreed it in 397 AD.

 

[James the Persian]

There is another thing that is also confusing to me, this Rapture that everyone talks about. What is it really? I have been told that it is before Jesus returns, where people will just disappear. They are there one minute, and the next not. Is this a story that people make up or is it correct?

It's a very recent (19th century) and dangerous heresy. What you have heard about it (people disappearing) is correct although that view is one of several versions of the same idea. The idea in the version you are thinking of is that Christians will be taken away by God so that they don't have to suffer the Tribulation before Judgement Day. It has, unfortunately, become extremely popular amongst a certain section of evangelical Christianity, particularly in America, but it has absolutely no basis in either Scripture or Holy Tradition and was completely unknown to the Church for its first 1800 years.

Interestingly, the same people who tend to cling to the Rapture almost invariably consider themselves sola scripturalist and yet the originator of he belief never even claimed to get it from the Bible but rather from the visions of a woman called Margaret MacDonald. They claim that they can find it spelled out in Scripture (which essentially mean that 1800 years worth of their predecesors were stupid, I guess) but when you actually look at the passages they use for this, in context it is clear that they do not speak of any rapture and one of the favourites only even reads the way they claim because ofa poor translation from the Greek. The Rapture, frankly, has about as much to do with Christianity as hamburgers have to do with ham - sounds on the surface like they might be intrinsically linked but further investigation shows otherwise.

James

 

[James the Persian]

The Canon of Christian Scripture has been the same since the Church decreed it in 397 AD.

Sorry, but no. There never was one defined canon and I doubt there ever will be. Your canon is larger than that of the Protestants but smaller than mine and both of ours are smaller than the Ethiopian canon. This has always been the case and yet up until the Council of Chalcedon all of us formed one Church and all three canons were considered valid. So far as I know we all still consider each other's canons to be valid also. Incidentally, historically there was a fourth canon in the Syriac, though they later revised it to conform to Greek (ours, in other words) usage, which also was considered valid.

There was no single point at which one authoritative canon was declared (though you are right that 397 was a significant date for the canonisation of the New Testament) else why did both your Church and mine need councils to defend our canon against Protestant mutilation? (Yours was Trent, I believe, ours was Iasi).

The simple answer to Yippityyak's question is that what he has been told is a Protestant myth. The Roman Catholic Church never was in a position to change he Bible as Rome never had control over the entire Church. Even if Rome had changed something we would not have followed suit, nor would the Oriental Orthodox as is perfectly exemplified by our differing canons. Even if we had all changed something, there were Christian groups such as he Nestorians who were outside the Church and would certainly never have accepted them - yet their canon is no more different from mine than the Ethiopian is, just having fewer rather than more books.

James

 

[yippityyak]

The Canon of Christian Scripture has been the same since the Church decreed it in 397 AD.

So the stories of a book of the Bible that was written by Mary, Jesus' mother, is not true? Or that (and please dont be offended), the Roman Catholic church took books out of the Bible to benefit themselves and what they were trying to teach?

And the other thing that i also wanted to know about is when in Matthew 7:7 where Jesus says ask and you will recieve. I have not had a prayer that has been answered before, or that could be deemed as being answered, but that if you look at it in a non-religious way, you can see that my actions directly influenced the outcome of that particular problem. But also if people pray for things like healing from Cancer or some other life threatening disease, and their prayer is not answered. Why not? Or if they pray in an unselfish way for a person they dont know but is aware of their illness, and their illness is not cured. Why not?

 

[yippityyak]

Sorry, but no. There never was one defined canon and I doubt there ever will be. Your canon is larger than that of the Protestants but smaller than mine and both of ours are smaller than the Ethiopian canon.
The simple answer to Yippityyak's question is that what he has been told is a Protestant myth. The Roman Catholic Church never was in a position to change he Bible as Rome never had control over the entire Church. Even if Rome had changed something we would not have followed suit, nor would the Oriental Orthodox as is perfectly exemplified by our differing canons. Even if we had all changed something, there were Christian groups such as he Nestorians who were outside the Church and would certainly never have accepted them - yet their canon is no more different from mine than the Ethiopian is, just having fewer rather than more books.

James

So what you are saying is that they are ultimately different? Or did they just divide the words up differently, one having more separatedness than the other? But if they are different and have fewer or more books, then which one is the right one? Which one do you read? And are we assuming that even though they are different in size, the words or meanings are all the same?

And sorry to ask James, but what is Orthodox? Is it Orthodox Jew, Catholic....

Sorry, you are all starting to think I am a bit of a blonde, but just trying to get everything straight so I know where you are coming from. Us woman need a bit more guidance in that department I am afraid!

 

[James the Persian]

So what you are saying is that they are ultimately different? Or did they just divide the words up differently, one having more separatedness than the other? But if they are different and have fewer or more books, then which one is the right one? Which one do you read? And are we assuming that even though they are different in size, the words or meanings are all the same?

Different books. Different contents to the canon, sometimes different names for the same books and sometimes slight differences in the contents of a book. None of them a right or wrong. All are valid (and the New Testamens don't differ except with the Ethiopian Broad Canon and that only contains other books which we consider inspired and useful but non-canonical). Mostly the differences are in the Old Testament. Our view of the inspiration of Scripture and other texts is very much less black and white than the Protestant one, and always has been. A canon simply is a measure - the thing against which we check the other texts that exist. It is not, and never was, considered the sum total of inspired texts. We'd add a lot more to that list.

And sorry to ask James, but what is Orthodox? Is it Orthodox Jew, Catholic....

Orthodox Christian. I'm a member of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, what westerners call the Eastern Orthodox Church. I'm in the Romanian local church but it's the same faith as the Greeks, Russians etc. A very brief history is that initially the Church had five Patriarchal Sees called the Pentarchy. Rome was first amongst equals and Constantinople second, with no Patriarch having power over any other. A dispute arose between east and west over a number of teachings, the major ones being a change to the Creed made unilaterally by Rome and the Pope's claim that he should be head of the Church, over the other Patriarchs. The eastern Sees refused to accept Rome's demands, Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other and the other three Sees (Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem) sided with Constantinople. The See of Rome became known as the Roman Catholic Church and the rest of us stayed together as the Orthodox Catholic Church. That was in 1054 and we've been separated ever since.

Sorry, you are all starting to think I am a bit of a blonde, but just trying to get everything straight so I know where you are coming from. Us woman need a bit more guidance in that department I am afraid!

I actually hadn't even realised you were a woman till just now and I assure you that I don't associate intelligence with hair colour. There's no crime in not knowing something and I'll always happily answer questions. Anyway most westerners (to my frustration as we are the second largest church after Rome) seem to be ignorant of us so I'm used to it. (You do have orthodox in SA, by the way. I know one well and my last parish's council chairperson came from Johannesburg.)

James

 

[yippityyak]

Oh great!
Johannesburg is the centre of our country. All business no pleasure there! Much unlike Durban, which is where I am.

So technically, the important parts are for the majority the same? We all have the same basis on which we build our faith?

Another question I have is about how literally we take the stories in the Bible. One that springs to mind is when Jesus turns the fish and bread into enough for thousands to eat, or that he walked on water. Do we take this literally and say "yes, Jesus actually did that", or are we looking for the meaning in the story?

Another thing i wanted to know is about things like the filling of the Holy Spirit and when people fall down from this. And talking in tongues. This is one aspect that absolutely freaks me out! I am scared of that happening to me and i dont know how i would react if it did. Is this acting, or is there any scientific explanation for it?

Once again, thank you for all your help. Your patience is much appreciated!

 

[James the Persian]

Oh great!
Johannesburg is the centre of our country. All business no pleasure there! Much unlike Durban, which is where I am.

I've seen listings of churches in Johannesburg and Pretoria but I don't know about Durban. Looks as though there's a Greek one there, but I'm not sure.

So technically, the important parts are for the majority the same? We all have the same basis on which we build our faith?

Sort of, but the Bible is not the basis on which we build our faith. That is the Incarnate Christ. The canon of Scripture is the most important written part of Holy Tradition but there are many teachings of the Church that are not explicitly found in it. Nonetheless, it remains the standard against which we measure the orthodoxy (small o delivberate) of any teaching. Does that make sense? What I'm saying is, that the Church constructed the Bible, She was not constructed on it.

Another question I have is about how literally we take the stories in the Bible. One that springs to mind is when Jesus turns the fish and bread into enough for thousands to eat, or that he walked on water. Do we take this literally and say "yes, Jesus actually did that", or are we looking for the meaning in the story?

That depends on the particular story you're referring to, and it's often not an either or question. Very often both literal and figurative interpretations are correct and each one lends something to the other. In the case of your example, I do take it literally and events in Christ's life do not tend to be taken figuratively.

Another thing i wanted to know is about things like the filling of the Holy Spirit and when people fall down from this. And talking in tongues. This is one aspect that absolutely freaks me out! I am scared of that happening to me and i dont know how i would react if it did. Is this acting, or is there any scientific explanation for it?

In my opinion you are very wise to be wary of this. We would certainly argue that these tongues are not the tongues spoken of in Scripture and that the whole Chrismatic movement is both wrong and dangerous. I would say it is down to what we would call plani (Greek) or prelest(Russian), which is spiritual deception. The charismatics do not take the exhortation to test the spirits to see whether they are of God seriously, in my opinion and open themselves up to danger in this way. Many are probably acting, some are probably succombing to mass hysteria and peer pressure but, in addition, if you seek to be filled with spirits you may well get your wish but probably not from God. There is a certain un-Christian lack of humility about seeking after signs and wonders in any case. God gives gifts to whom He wills, not to whoever wants them. And such things as speaking nonsense, falling on the floor, laughing or grunting like an animal are very strange 'gifts' if you ask me.

James

 

[yippityyak]

Many are probably acting, some are probably succombing to mass hysteria and peer pressure but, in addition, if you seek to be filled with spirits you may well get your wish but probably not from God. There is a certain un-Christian lack of humility about seeking after signs and wonders in any case. God gives gifts to whom He wills, not to whoever wants them. And such things as speaking nonsense, falling on the floor, laughing or grunting like an animal are very strange 'gifts' if you ask me.

James

I totally agree with you on this aspect. I feel very uncomfortable when it happens. And this feeling happens when I am supposed to be in the house of God! It doesnt make sense to me that God would make me feel uneasy in His house when I should be feeling something special out of my unique relationship with him.

And I am not saying that people who do these things are evil or are recieving gifts from the devil, but from experience, it REALLY doesnt seem right.

I think in my opinion the talking in tongues would be an ability to interpret or understand Gods word and what he wants from us, instead of talking in different languages.

And, as a Catholic (please dont see me as being arrogant or as a personal attack, but merely as a misinformed person), when you pray to Mary, is this not against what God says as praying to other Gods? Do you ask her in prayer to do things for you, or is it just a general conversation?

 

[kimber1]

first i want to say awesome answers from james i cna't give you anymore frubals at the moment

as a Catholic, no we do not ask Mary to answer prayers for us. rather we ask her to pray for us the things that we need. she is Christ's mother. and sadly in many denominations she is so downplayed it's appalling only being spoken of at Christmas and Easter and then thrown to the wayside. but she is the closest to Christ as one can be without being God. she carried him for 9 months, she nurtured him and raised him. what better way to get closer to Christ than through his mother?

we don't think that she answers our prayers but that talking with her we have someone intimately close to Christ talking to HIm on our behalf.we don't see her as another god by any means.

 

[James the Persian]

I totally agree with you on this aspect. I feel very uncomfortable when it happens. And this feeling happens when I am supposed to be in the house of God! It doesnt make sense to me that God would make me feel uneasy in His house when I should be feeling something special out of my unique relationship with him.

And I am not saying that people who do these things are evil or are recieving gifts from the devil, but from experience, it REALLY doesnt seem right.

No arguments from me here.

I think in my opinion the talking in tongues would be an ability to interpret or understand Gods word and what he wants from us, instead of talking in different languages.

I'd differ with you slightly on this. From Scripture it's clear that talking in tongues was speaking in languages not learned or understanding words spoken in a language you do not know. That is what I believe is genuine speaking in tongues and it's rare but happens. For instance (and I'm sorry but I can't remember the details though I can find out easily enough) there is an account of a French woman visiting a famous starets (that's an elder, usually a monk) with a Russian friend and speaking to him. The Russian woman translated the questions but the French woman understood the answers without translation and remarked afterwards as to how the starets spoke very good French. The thing is that he spoke no French at all and whilst the French woman heard French, the Russian heard Russian. That's clearly a profitable gift from God unlike what the charismatics call tongues.

And, as a Catholic (please dont see me as being arrogant or as a personal attack, but merely as a misinformed person), when you pray to Mary, is this not against what God says as praying to other Gods? Do you ask her in prayer to do things for you, or is it just a general conversation?

I'd just like to clarify that I'm not a Catholic in the sense that most westerners use that word. My Church is in no way part of the Roman Catholic church and we do not recognise the Pope as even being part of the Church let alone having authority over it. Usually westerners refer to us as Eastern Orthodox or just Orthodox.

Now as to your question, the answer is no. You misunderstand prayer to the saints if you think this. When we say that we pray to the saints it is merely shorthand for saying that we ask the saints to pray for us. We do not believe that they have any power to answer our prayers in and of themselves. For us it is no different than asking a living Christian to pray for us. We do not believe those who have gone before are dead but that they are alive in God and that through God's grace they can and do hear us and lend their prayers to our own but, ultimately, all prayer is to God only. Does that make sense?

James

 

[yippityyak]

first i want to say awesome answers from james i cna't give you anymore frubals at the moment

How do you, and why do you, give furbals? Dumb question, I know, but I am new here!

we don't think that she answers our prayers but that talking with her we have someone intimately close to Christ talking to HIm on our behalf.we don't see her as another god by any means.

Ok, so you would say for instance "Jesus, please cure me of this back pain that I have at the moment". Then to Mary "Mary, mother of Jesus, please speak to Jesus on my behalf and ask him to cure me of this back pain that I have?". So she will not answer your prayer but will "have a chat" with her son on your behalf?

And in terms of the Bible, what does it say about Mary? Are we to keep in contact with her? I know that Jesus assigned one of his disciples as her "son" before he died, to take care of her. Does that make that disciple more special than the rest?

And what is the significance of saying the "Hail Mary's"? Or other forms of penance.

 

[yippityyak]

Thanks James!
Yes it does make sense! I always thought it was saying "Mary, mother of Jesus, please heal me" type of thing. I never would have put it into the context of asking other Christians to pray for you.