The Bible contradicts it self?

Then you are not following the bible and what it supposedly "teaches" you have instead created your own version of the Judaic christian philosophy to suit your needs.

That's o.k it seems the word of the supposed king of kings is constantly being re-written by apologists.

And as for it not being scriptural:

“But I say to you that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever says to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whoever says, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. – Matthew 5:22

“And if you right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that they whole body should be cast into hell. - Matthew 5:29

“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. - Matthew 10:28

“Ye serpents; ye generation vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? - Matthew 23:33

Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. – Acts 2:27

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; - 2 Peter 2:4


He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murders, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. – Revelation 21:7

 

Do you believe that a spiritual teaching would recommend you to gouge your eyes out? Is this meant literally? Also, who's perspective is this? Matthew's or Gods from looking at the context?

""You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

Is this a parable?

Do you think hell in this context is an actual place or a state of mind/earthly condition that one goes into when we follow behaviors that aren't conducive to a good life? Hell is often referred to as separation from God. If you do not follow God's rules, would that not represent a separation from God? If he has rules for you to follow (for your own benefit), and you are not following them, are you separating yourself?

 

Also, let's suppose that there is a hell. Would that be reserved only for the truly wicked, IE people that steal from those that are needy, murder for fun, and do all of this with pride and without an ounce of care? If so, does God SEND you there, or do you put yourself there by your own actions? If we do have free will, then it is always up to us to change. If we don't have free will, and God was just a helicopter parent, what would life be then? Are helicopter parents good parents in your honest opinion?

If there is a heaven, would it be Heaven if all of these wicked people (in the context that I am using) be heaven if these people presided there? How can a fancy club function if there are trouble makers? There would need to be a separation otherwise it would diminish the quality of the club.

The Bible even says that no one can blame those that steal because they are hungry. And that people that truly feel sorry for whatever wrong they have committed will be forgiven. Would those people go somewhere else, somewhere different than surgeons of say, Unit 41?

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=2&version=31

Not for anything, but do you even bother to look at the chapters that these verses come from? There is heavy context here that needs recognition.

 

He was doin' just fine with the "And God said, let there be..." routine. A God that can do that doesn't need to get His hands dirty sculpting in mud. And some consistency would also be nice. Did he make the animals and birds before (Gen.1) or after(Gen.2) man? Also, it seems like a contradiction to me that the omniscient deity discovers that Adam is lonely and tries first animals/birds and then a woman to make him happy. Couldn't God have anticipated the problem at the outset?

And if they don't mention it you conclude that it must not be so?

 

I won't go into the Genesis argument that you made because I believe OWB explained it well.

I do like the Hindu Vedas myself. I think that partly the reasons why Indians are the way that they are is because of Hinduism. They live communal lives and are very modest and humble to each other. I like that. I also enjoy the metaphysics that are described in Hinduism and how the Atman and Brahman express the oneness of reality with God.

But what I have noticed is that there is something subtle within Hinduism that twists the mind in a way that is not readily recognizable. I was once talking to my friend who is a Hindu and I expressed to him that if Armageddon were to come, how would we be warned? If there was impending doom, what should we do to prevent it? His response was pretty amazing to me and I think that it shows the slight twist that I described. He said to me this: "Let us die!" And I asked him if we can prevent death, then should we do what we can to prevent it? Why die unnecessarily? See, in Hinduism everything goes along a cycle of peace and chaos and that we should just accept this ebb and flow. That it is a sign of enlightenment to accept perpetual suffering and renewing, forever and ever, as if it were some sort of game. That death isn't so bad because we'll just be reborn and and that world peace is never possible because of these cycles.

What atheists have shown, is that people have a tendency to read books that has anything to do with a message of meaning and of God. Satan, being an angel, would possess great wisdom and would know what he would need to say to get people to flock to his twisted message. He would do this by using the word and then twisting it in a very obscure and subtle way as to keep people in a state of ups and downs, forever. The Bible does worn of false prophets. "Can Satan cast out Satan?" If you notice, in Hinduism, any ominous Gods are seen as an important part. They may be wicked and harsh, but are necessary in the Hindu worldview. It seems a bit too convenient to me.

Just something to think about.

Also, I never said that you should be following ME. I am merely stating that you should go by the Bible and not scholars, OWB, me, intellectuals, and just take context very seriously. What OWB tries to accomplish to to get us to look at things very objectively and just go according to the WHOLE of the Bible. And if it were made by God, would he be literal or would he be cryptic. If God wanted his message to get across to the world, then why would he make it something cryptic, mysterious, complicated? That's not to say that we'll understand absolute everything the Bible has to offer the very first time that we read it, but that it is a process of learning. And at the very least, the basics will be understood and we can all go from there. "Give us this day, our daily bread."

We don't have to be experts the very first read, but we can be experts later on.

P.S. I am not calling myself an expert.

Also, as for "making Christians look bad". Are you really interested in the truth or are you just in it to look good? People believe that theists themselves make theists look bad, but that doesn't stop us theists from being theists because we believe that it is the truth that God exists. But what I think you meant was that doctrinal christians make biblical christians looks bad by creating their own meanings and thus, creating dogmas and complication. That is what I meant when I said that humans make mistakes. Which is why it is crucial, if the Bible is the word of God, to follow the Bible when it is contextually ok to take it literally and contextually ok to understand it as parables.

So what you are saying, in the end, is that the Bible is just man made, but man made and is something that possesses great wisdom, just as long as we pick and choose which parts are true and which parts are untrue. But if it is truly just man made, then wouldn't there be globs and globs of contradictions, mistakes, twisted ancient dogmas et al present? If I am wrong with your assessment, please let me know. But judging by your posts that you have made, it seems that this is how you view the Bible. But what I am asking is whether or not your view is just that... a view and not grounded in reality. I am sorry for being extra aggressive with this, but I feel that it's important to let it out in the open.

 

I think OWB made much the same point in even the same language in a previous post (#139). Yes indeed, it could happen. Things like that happen all the time in the Hollywood exorcist movies--like that girl's head spinning 'round like a top, too cool. In Hollywood, anything is possible, and I guess in the real world, if Satan is possible, talking snakes are possible, but nobody's ever seen either of them. I believe in Satan, as the personification of evil and human attachment--rather similar to the Buddhist Maya. I'm not sure about his talent as a vetriloquist. It's not the snake per se, but the whole scenario that I find unrealistic in factual detail but very powerful and true metaphorically.

I think you're confusing Genesis with the old Francis TV series.

 

I think you're confusing Genesis with the old Francis TV series.

never said anything about genesis

even gave book and verse... but it's a donkey ..not a mule

 

Hands? Sculpting? Mud? I think maybe you should actually read the Bible before you get into these discussions.

Are you still thinking that the land animals were created on the 5th day and man on the 6th day?

If you’ll notice God already knew that man needed a helper but after naming the animals Adam had found no helper for himself. So at that time God made for him the helper he had already planned on making.

Sometimes parents know or anticipate what their children will need or want but in order for the child to learn and grow they allow the child time to figure it out for themselves. So then, when the child is ready, they then provide what is needed; after all you don't give a bicycle to a one year old, even though you may anticipate that they will want one when they get older.

No, as I said, my conclusion comes from the fact that the inspired writers of the Bible always treat Adam and Eve as real and never treat them otherwise.

Where does your conclusion come from? Are you concluding that because none of the Bible writers say it’s not an allegory, then it must be?

 

Whoa, am I stupid. I re-read the passage, and what it says in Genesis Two in my Bible is the Lord took some soil from the ground and a formed all the animals and birds." It doesn't say hands, sculpting and mud. My mistake. Soil is a lot different from mud. Sure is. Taking the soil could have been with His voice or mind? Forming and sculpting--those are really different, arent they? You sure got me there old man. But I still wonder why the God who just went through the Six stages of creation by issuing commands would be taking soil as a raw ingredient and forming animals, birds--and Man from it."

I hadn't noticed that. Must be the version of the Bible I'm using. Mine does say the Lord, after creating Man, said "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a suitable companion to help him." So He makes birds and animals. But not one was a suitable companion. Then He makes woman. Pardon me for concluding he hadn't thought of making woman at the outset, or thought birds and animals would do the job. Where again does it say he knew at the outset man needed a woman helper? What you're saying suggests God was toying with Adam or testing him. He knows he needs a woman, but gives him birds and animals instead? And after Adam is unable to find the helper he needs among those, God springs the big surprise! That could work. God the tease, the tester, the teacher in the school of hard knocks. But where again does it say God already knew Man needed a helper--before creating Man?

I see. So God was providing a growth experience here. He created man, knowing man would need a woman, but it was good for man to experience the loneliness and unsatisfied need for awhile. Then God gave man birds and animals,and let man discover that they didn't quite do the job. And then, after the big buildup--Woman! But it doesn't exactly say that, does it? You're getting to be quite a theolgian.

Not exactly. But it is clear that the birds were created on the 5th day in Genesis 1. And the discussion of the creation of land animals in Genesis 2 says that they were created before man. After God made them all, "Then God said And now we will make humans beings." But in Genesis2, He makes the humans first. How do you explain that?

No, I'm concluding that since the stories seem like fables to me they're best treated allegorically. And that they make profound sense that way--more sense to me than the interpolation that you've provided.

 

The previous posts provide the basis for lively discussion about talking snakes and all, but I wonder if before going further, somebody could answer the question I've asked six times and is pertinent to the subject of inconsistencies in the Bible. Gen.1 has God creating birds and animals before Man. Gen 2 has God creating birds and animals after Man, and then creating Woman. Is that an inconsistency or contradiction? Please somebody answer, so I can get on with my life.

 

Okay, after God created the heavens and the earth, you think should disregard that and instead of using the matter that he had already created he should continue to make new stuff out of nothing?

Hmm, I guess could have done that but it seems a little redundant to me, seeing as the things he was forming ended up containing the same elements (dust, soil, mud) that he had already created.

 

As has already been explained, no, it is not an inconsistency or contradiction.

 

The thing is just because these stories seem like fables to you, that doesn’t make them fables. Everyday things actually happen and people will say I can’t believe that actually happened but doesn’t make what happened untrue or prove that it didn’t happen.

As for these things having meaning beyond what actually happened, I never said that they didn’t. The fact that Adam and Eve actually happened validates the sacrifice of Jesus but believing that Adam and Eve are merely a fable means that Jesus and his sacrifice is also a fable. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

 

If we all came from Adam and Eve who had to screw their sister?

 

I'm afraid that won't wash. You haven't given anything like a satisfactory explanation. As I recall, all you said was that Gen. 2 was a closer, more detailed look at Gen.1, and that Gen.2 has no sequence. It obviously does have a sequence which I've outlined several times and the sequence differs from Gen. 2. You also said, quite accurately, that land animals were created on the sixth day. But if you read your Bible, it says quite clearly in Gen. 1 that all animals were created before man, and in Gen.2 that all animals were created after man. A conclusionary statement that it's not an inconsistency when it appears to be one won't do. You do seem to be dodging this question, leading me to conclude that Rudenoodle may be right about your modus operandi. If you or anybody else has answered this question in a previous post, please refer me to the answer.

 

I agree OWB, but if you take a step back and look at the bible as a whole it can be used as a metaphor for our own life experience.

We are born in the Garden of Eden with complete dependence and trust in God. Then as we grow up we put our trust in ouselves and the world instead. Then Jesus shows us the way back to the garden by crucifying our old self and reuniting with God.

So the bible can be used to describe whats going on on the inside of a person while at the same time describing what's happening historically. Should we use the bible as a metaphor only? No, but it can be used as both.

 

(Just so we are all on the same page I would like to point out that I am debating for fun. So if in anyway I upset or anger anyone on this board please know It was unintentional. I am not here to pick any fights. Please take all that I have to say with a grain of salt.)

That said... I am assuming you are trying to say that BOTH God and Satan urged him at the same time? ok I can buy that one but the numbers thing...? Numbers are numbers? That seems to me to be a bit of a cop out. If we are to take the bible as the perfect word of god, written by man through the divine ordinance of God himself then Numbers aren't just numbers. Why would God waste his time to put down these numbers if they weren't important? And also if the word of God is perfect then it isn;t history that messed up the retelling. GOD told somebody to write it down... so either God screwed up the numbers or Man did which renders the whole Bible capable of these same man made mistakes. If there is one mistake there may be more...But which ones? If you allow for one you must then allow for more and that my friend will start wearing away at the foundation of your whole belief structure.

Ok I will give you this one. I do read the chapters around the verses I am quoting, I too believe in taking things in context, But I didn't stop to actually COMPARE the lineage. They're not even the same. Score One point for the Bible Thumpers!

So who gets to decide when to take the bible literally and when to say it is being metaphoric? Where in the bible (other than when specifically stated) do we have reason to assume it is NOT literal? Was Lot's wife turned to a pillar of salt? We have no reason to doubt that it doesn't mean exactly that. But according to you sometimes it is metaphorical so maybe god was just symbolizing her lack of faith and disobedience in turning back and it's punishment by the whole salt thing. Could it not be symbolic? Who gets to decide?

Just a though Okie... God creates man, right? Ok In doing so God creates a being to love and to be loved. Would it not be more intimate to use his own hand to lovingly sculpt his "perfect" creation? It's kinda like those rich people that have servants for their servants yet still tend their own gardens. It's something they love. They WANT to get in there and tend to it with their own two hands.



...And by the way YES I am playing on both sides of this field...I seek knowledge and you cannot learn anything if you won't listen.

 

No one gets to decide other than the Bible itself. We should always challenge and correct each other. I personally believe the the Bible is self interpreting as long as we consider context and meaning. The same concept applies from reading any other book. Can Shakespeare be understood without considering context and meaning?
Sure you can create your own meanings from what you read, but what is the author trying to express? Also, don't allow me to discourage you from creating your own meanings from what you read. You could be catching something that others are missing. Everyone is important and we all compliment each other and our ability to understand the Bible.

If the Bible is written by God, then it is just a matter of a leap of faith to believe that lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt. After all, if we were formed from the soil of the ground, then what would be left over but salt? But I agree with you about the symbolizing and metaphor part, and for that reason, that's why I think that it is both both symbolic AND literal, and any other meaning that can be derived from that, but only if it is coming from the Bible itself, and it doesn't have to be coming from a direct chapter either, we can compare the chapters together and possibly gather greater meaning from it. So that we can use this information to gain a deeper understanding of why God did what he did. If the Bible doesn't contradict itself, then we would be able to do this imo.


The thing with the Bible is that it is layered and each layer is just as true as the next imo, and if we really just take context seriously, then we can ALL see it. I think it only becomes an issue when we try to dissect the possibility of whether or not people can turn into pillars of salt, then from that, only create confusion. Because a Christian would think that this is impossible and thus illogical and only do this because they don't want to displease atheist sensibilities. In other words, we become politically correct instead of objective. Although, that's not to say that we can't think about how it would be possible or whether or not that it makes sense. Just saying that understanding the Bible requires us to think on matters that we consider weird. In other words, we would need to open ourselves up to these possibilities and just think on them.

If it seems like a parable, it probably is one. Spiritual teachings are usually parables in the Bible. Just got to look at the content. Also, it wouldn't hurt to discuss with buddies if anything is tripping us up... it's actually encouraged. It's not called the living word for nada But if all else fails, just really focus on content and meaning and the WHY.

 

I like that, and I agree with you. This imo, is the magic behind the Bible. What you said reminded me of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEfJpJ1lhQc