The Bible contradicts it self?

Missing books of the Bible? Which ones did you have in mind?

 

Hmm, I think that Numbers could be describing how since God isn't a man or the son of man (since he has no creator). God is not a man, so he is blameless and cannot lie or do wrong. Since God is blameless, he doesn't need to repent.

As for Exodus, I believe that it is taken to mean that God changed his mind and I think that he changed his mind because of a prayer that was made to him. Also, repented here is to mean relented instead of repented. I may be wrong but God was making a threat and I think that he did this to hear what kind of response that Moses would make to him. If you know your son very well, you can say certain things to bring out a response that you are looking for... maybe God did this to help Moses to understand his potential by allowing him to realize that kind of man he was by proving it to himself. This isn't to say that God knew what he would say, or that he took his autonomy away. But God probably had a very good inkling as to how Moses might have responded.

Looking at WHY God does what he does is very important in interpreting the Bible. Context always needs to be considered.

 

Thats excelent DZ! Checkin the contents is always a winner. Most often you can find the true meanings of the words by putting them into perspective along with the rest of the Book. -If I say Im angry on a day that Im angry, you cant hold me to that till next week. Most of these contradictions are just that. You can prety much see threw these.

 

Hey! Heres a real good one. This is the kinda shitt I really dont like. How bout where it says that "Cant you see by the natural world that its shamefull to have long hair?' -And then theres Jesus with his hair. Wasnt "hair" used in the Bible to represent the spirit of God? Why was that changed. -I meen bout the passage where it tells ya that "the natural world" shows you by its nature that long hair IS shamefull? These are the real evils done to the Book. The porpousfull changes made by the devil. It never said in the Book that you CANT change any words or add anything to it, it just said its beter to have a millstone round your neak or somethin like that. There lotsa people gonna be runnin round with millstones round trheyre neaks rite round judjment day! Im on my knees Bruddas tryinna avoid the whole mess! Thats all you can do. Just seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and then alla these things shall be added on to you! Mabey even revealed to you. Praise Lord God Jehova in Heavin above!

 

All of these examples so far seem to be playing semantics... God says don't kill but then condones it... The bible says God never changes and then he changes his mind, etc. But what about literal contradictions? Isn't that more what we are seeking here? If the Word of God is perfect in every way (and that is what most Christians believe) then what about all these? They are not as easily explained away as "symbolism" or "metaphoric wording."
Try these on and see what you all think

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 Samuel 24:1
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

1 Chronicles 21:1
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

So who made David count Israel's armies? God or Satan?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 Samuel 24:9
And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.


1 Chronicles 21:5
And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword

How many Were in the Israeli army? 800,000 or 1,100,000?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 Samuel 24:13
So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.


1 Chronicles 21:12
Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me.

Was the threat of Famine 7 years or only 3?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Matthew 1:6
And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;


Luke 3:31
Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

Everyone know's Jesus was the son of David... But which son? Solomon or Nathan?

 

I just wanted to point out real quick that no one knows if Jesus had long hair or not. The most famous pictures of him do so we assume that that was the way it was... But Jesus is also always depicted as a white man. Being born in Israel that seems highly unlikely... At the very least he would have had a serious tan!

 

2 Samuel 24:1 versus 1 Chronicles 21:1 do you think that the way Satan numbers is the same way that God would instruct his people to number and is it the same? Again you have to look at the context... I recommend actually going to these passages and looking at what could be meant by numbering. And it really depends on whether or not they are literal. Personally, I think that the Bible uses common man's language to describe spiritual principals and when need be, is actually literal and means what it says when a serpent got Eve to eat of the fruit, for example.

So who made David count Israel's armies? God or Satan?

Maybe both. God did it his way, then Satan being the jealous brat that he is, asked David in his own way for his own polar opposite reasons. But honestly, I haven't looked at the text itself ATM, but that's what makes most sense to me at this time.

I will try out the others but I am about to step out. But I recommend actually going to the Bible itself and checking to see the context of each passage.

 

"Samuel 24:1 versus 1 Chronicles 21:1 do you think that the way Satan numbers is the same way that God would instruct his people to number and is it the same? " OK i reread the chapers and the ones before them. Numbers are numbers. It was an estimated count of individuals in both accounts. One was acusing the other of misleading the strength of the armies. Still does not explain WHO persuaded David to send Joab to number the people that could fight. Did God or Satan. Then again. After the mass slaughter that David performed liken to the Hitler of the day, I can understand how histroy could get messed up.

 

Missing books such as Enoch / Apocrypha.

Look it up, there's a large chunk of pious knowledge missing from the mainstream Bibles.

 

I don't think it invalidates Jesus' sacrifice. The metaphor of Adam and Eve in Eden conveys a basic truth about the human condition, similar to the Buddhist concept of attachments. Here are two prototypical people in Paradise, and they feel deprived because they want something better--and are willing to defy God to get it. The reality of that human characteristic doesn't depend on Genesis. It can be confirmed in everyday experience, or in the writings of twentieth century psychologist Viktor Frankl. The financial crisis on Wall Street, our troubles in the Middle East and South Asia, the Madof scandal, and other events in the nightly news show that it's still topical and relevant to our lives, and that we haven't changed much. Jesus showed us the way out, not only by his teachings but by his sacrifice, which illustrates where the tendencies of original sin can lead, but also shows that even one of the most horrible instruments of bureaucratic opression can be transformed into a symbol of victory for humanity, if people only understand and accept the principles he stood for.

Now if we don't take the Bible metaphorically and regard it literally instead, are we compelled to believe in the talking snake? Do you believe that? Do you believe that the God who created the universe, our planet, and all life forms by a series of commands, then molded the first human out of dirt like a sculptor and breathed life into him? And that God liked to take walks in the Garden of Eden? Is it even important to believe it? A Church father of the 3rd century, Origen of Alexandria, wrote of the problems of a literalist interpretation of Genesis:
"For who that has understanding will sup­pose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, ex­isted without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indi­cate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally." I agree with Origen's approach. With God, all things are possible, and certainly there are things that my fallible, puny human intellect can't begin to comprehend, but it's all I have to go on, and I sure find that hard to believe, especially when an alternative interpretation makes sense. I think Aesop was also right on target in understanding human psychology, but it never occurred to me to wonder if animals could really talk in ancient Greece.

Maybe so. But why does the sequence of creation then seem different?The sequence of creation in Chapter One is : 1. Light,2. the firmament, earth and sea, 3. lights in the firmament, 4. sea creatures and birds, 4. land animals and a man and a woman made in His image and likeness, who are given dominion over the earth and told to be fruitful and multiply. In Chapter Two, containing the Adam and Eve story, the creation sequence seems to be partly reversed, with man coming first, then all the animals and birds, then woman. Or am I missing something?

 

I must apologize, I’ve been busy and haven’t had time to look into all these “contradictions” but the answer to this one is fairly straight forward.

The answer is BOTH.

Luke, who was a doctor, traced Jesus natural line though, Mary his mother.

Whereas Matthew, who was a tax collector, followed the royal line though Joseph, his adoptive father.

So the two lineages together show that Jesus was both the natural descendent of David and though adoption the heir of the royal line of David.

If you remember, God said that no natural heir of the royal line of David would ever sit on the throne of David again but Jesus had the right to sit on the throne of David because he was an adopted son of the royal line and was a natural descendent of David but not of the royal line.

PS if you’re wondering why both end by saying Joseph and Luke’s doesn’t end by saying Mary, that’s because Joseph is the head of the family and his name would be used in either case to represent Jesus’ family.

 

If you could fit this into your schedule, I wonder if you could clear this up for me?

Maybe so. But why does the sequence of creation then seem different?The sequence of creation in Chapter One is : 1. Light,2. the firmament, earth and sea, 3. lights in the firmament, 4. sea creatures and birds, 4. land animals and a man and a woman made in His image and likeness, who are given dominion over the earth and told to be fruitful and multiply. In Chapter Two, containing the Adam and Eve story, the creation sequence seems to be partly reversed, with man coming first, then all the animals and birds, then woman. Or am I missing something? And why does it seem like God, the omniscient Creator, is operating on a trial and error basis when he's looking for a suitable companion for Adam. First creating animals and birds, and then later creating woman. And do you really, literally believe Adam was molded out of soil and Eve was made from Adam's rib? And that the snake could talk? If that's too many questions for you, pick one, and I'll ask the others sequentially.

 

Like I said before, it's like debating whether a flux capacitor is made out of Gorgon Crystallite or Zobnian Steel.

We don't know if the stories are metaphoric or literal. They may be literal, since God is almighty and in this "supernatural" universe these things happened.

All they're doing is speculating. And speculation isn't truth. Experience is the only truth.

 

You asked for contradictions and when they are presented to you they are blatantly ignored.

You may have been brainwashed through years of dogma and nonsensical preaching why even bother asking for hypocrisy in your bible if you just turn a blind eye to it?

 

Which ones do you think have been blatantly ignored?

You must realize that there is only one of me and at present there are at least 4 people supplying what they think are contradictions and multiple contradictions at that, even though I did ask for only one at a time. That doesn’t even count the number of people that I’ve responded to, like you, that are giving off thread comments.

So none are being blatantly ignored, maybe it’s taking longer than you think it should but they are not being blatantly ignored.

 

If you could fit this into your schedule, I wonder if you could clear this up for me?

Maybe so. But why does the sequence of creation then seem different?The sequence of creation in Chapter One is : 1. Light,2. the firmament, earth and sea, 3. lights in the firmament, 4. sea creatures and birds, 4. land animals and a man and a woman made in His image and likeness, who are given dominion over the earth and told to be fruitful and multiply. In Chapter Two, containing the Adam and Eve story, the creation sequence seems to be partly reversed, with man coming first, then all the animals and birds, then woman. Is there a contradicition here?

 

This question is not a Bible contradiction. Perhaps you should start a thread with this as the OP.

 

In a way, you've answered your own question. Only in Genesis chapter one is the account of creation sequential. The account in chapter two is topical and not sequential, thus does not conflict with the account in chapter one.

 

Although none of these questions are Bible contradictions

Yes. There are no elements in the human body that can not be obtained from the dust of the Earth.

Yes, why not?

The Bible says that Satan was the original serpent, so why do you think Satan would not have the ability to make a snake seem like it’s talking, after all human ventriloquists do similar things all the time. Or for that matter Satan himself, could have materialized as a snake and would have had the power of speech.

 

Well I'll tell you why not. The notion of God sculpting Adam out of dust seems a bit primitive for a deity who in Genesis I was creating cosmic order by a few commands. The idea of making a woman out of a man's rib likewise seems utterly primitive. It could have happened in the sense that anything could have happened through magical powers. I suppose you also believe that Jonah survived in the belly of a big fish for three days and nights. I find it hard to believe that it did happen that way, or that the point of those stories had anything to do with such trivia.

.