Bible Contradiction?

[loopholes]

should I go on?....

No need to, I get the idea of where you are coming from. I respect your interpretations of the bible and am glad you don't take it literally word for word

 

[pehkay]

No need to, I get the idea of where you are coming from. I respect your interpretations of the bible and am glad you don't take it literally word for word

I thanked you for understanding . Yet, I hope not to misled you that I don't take the word literally too

I still do understand Bible strictly and accurately according to the letter of the words. I was helped by some NOT to think that since the Bible is inspired by God, it will always transcend human language, and is therefore open for spiritual interpretation. This is a dangerous proposition.

But there is a divine revelation in the whole Bible that is consistent and "runs" through the entire Bible. If we sit on either extremes ...

too literal ------------------------------------------------too secular

we going to find problems on either end. What is consistent is the conveyed divine revelation and truth....
eg. Genesis are the seeds and the full bloom/fruits are seen in Revelation.

That's my 2 cents....

 

[ebia]

I agree that these chapters are two different styles. In fact, they were written hundreds of years apart. Chapter 1 refers to the 7 headed pantheon sumerian godhead Elohim (7 day creation story). Chapter 2, the god is of the hebrew Jaweh and has a much different attitude.

I'm happy to agree that the two stories were originally separately written (and have since been redacted), and that one or both borrows from elsewhere. I don't see any need to get any further into the details than that.

Would you refer to the bible as being philosophical?

I probably won't actually say that, but I wouldn't have a problem with it. Kind of depends what one means by it.

 

[TheD]

This seems like an obvious contradiction to me. How could it not be?

How could it be anything other than two possibilities allowed in the same plot? by my perception,
it's hardly a case of 'contradiction'. It's a readers selective choice as each 'contradicting' story progresses.

In this way, The Word is customized even with the alterations just enough to allow the analyzer to
make use of his or her 'free will' presented too them from a collective (Elohim) or simply a singular
claimed creator/owner of another Earth and similar universe (Yahweh).

The writers either had visions and confused this Earth with the other, eventually leading
Christianity itself as the only paradigm too overwhelm humanity for it's 'loving' world view.

Enforcing the 'impossible' is actually a possibility in itself: this means that they are not 'contradictions'.

'God' is possible, does he exist or not? is of no concern if we can't interact with him.
'Jesus' atonement is possible, do we need proof when the manifestation hasn't completed yet?
I don't think so, considering he is eternal 'love' of some sort.
'Satan' sinning is possible, does that mean we should make him a scapegoat for our actions?
not ever, he requires justice and healing like anyone else treated kindly from God's prophets.

The only thing your worried about is a 'contradiction', while denying a premise of separation
and representation too the authors.

The sun doesn't need your faith to keep shining, neither does it require your knowledge to fathom
its radiation. It's a self-sustaining perpetual mix of chaotic plasma, it's not a beauty of nature.

It's a fragment of something greater, and the bible is full of lies and mis guidance too it's followers,
so what? I didn't come here seeking for proof of something non-contradictory.

Contradictions aside, the entire thing needs to be refined. you're no better in regurgitating flaws
then they are easily being constructive about making more through guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Instead of pointing out contradiction, how would you have written these different possibilities
out before their altering or constant change into future generations?

Being agnostic, I hope you find the OT as appealing as i do for
it's direct honesty of brutality and sickly seductive primitive scriptures.

I took no crown, but that of the frozen bliss that awaits me upon absolute discontinuity.
The silent love of the hermaphrodite goddess awaited my return as we both knew it was
possible: every forked road, split stream, and difficult decision would inevitably lead back
too our collective realm with the king resting eternally as our love is cast into the infinitely
infinite. Instead of absolute, unchanging, soverign, inheritence. We chose changing, practical, unrelative, eternal love. Because only our father, our protector, knew the most pure solution
too end the conflict. The note said thus, upon the cup that no longer held pulse: It may now be
full of so much unfathomably complexity, as I join your mother in the ocean of aether.
with love, Christ Jesus.

 

[calluna]

You are welcome to answer the question at anytime.

Jesus welcomes repentant sinners at any time.

 

[loopholes]

I'm happy to agree that the two stories were originally separately written (and have since been redacted), and that one or both borrows from elsewhere. I don't see any need to get any further into the details than that.

No offense intended, but why do you believe in something from a book that you admit to have stories from different ancient religious backgrounds (in regards to the OT)?

 

[loopholes]

How could it be anything other than two possibilities allowed in the same plot? by my perception,
it's hardly a case of 'contradiction'. It's a readers selective choice as each 'contradicting' story progresses.

In this way, The Word is customized even with the alterations just enough to allow the analyzer to
make use of his or her 'free will' presented too them from a collective (Elohim) or simply a singular
claimed creator/owner of another Earth and similar universe (Yahweh).

The writers either had visions and confused this Earth with the other, eventually leading
Christianity itself as the only paradigm too overwhelm humanity for it's 'loving' world view.

Enforcing the 'impossible' is actually a possibility in itself: this means that they are not 'contradictions'.

'God' is possible, does he exist or not? is of no concern if we can't interact with him.
'Jesus' atonement is possible, do we need proof when the manifestation hasn't completed yet?
I don't think so, considering he is eternal 'love' of some sort.
'Satan' sinning is possible, does that mean we should make him a scapegoat for our actions?
not ever, he requires justice and healing like anyone else treated kindly from God's prophets.

The only thing your worried about is a 'contradiction', while denying a premise of separation
and representation too the authors.

The sun doesn't need your faith to keep shining, neither does it require your knowledge to fathom
its radiation. It's a self-sustaining perpetual mix of chaotic plasma, it's not a beauty of nature.

It's a fragment of something greater, and the bible is full of lies and mis guidance too it's followers,
so what? I didn't come here seeking for proof of something non-contradictory.

Contradictions aside, the entire thing needs to be refined. you're no better in regurgitating flaws
then they are easily being constructive about making more through guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Instead of pointing out contradiction, how would you have written these different possibilities
out before their altering or constant change into future generations?

Being agnostic, I hope you find the OT as appealing as i do for
it's direct honesty of brutality and sickly seductive primitive scriptures.

I took no crown, but that of the frozen bliss that awaits me upon absolute discontinuity.
The silent love of the hermaphrodite goddess awaited my return as we both knew it was
possible: every forked road, split stream, and difficult decision would inevitably lead back
too our collective realm with the king resting eternally as our love is cast into the infinitely
infinite. Instead of absolute, unchanging, soverign, inheritence. We chose changing, practical, unrelative, eternal love. Because only our father, our protector, knew the most pure solution
too end the conflict. The note said thus, upon the cup that no longer held pulse: It may now be
full of so much unfathomably complexity, as I join your mother in the ocean of aether.
with love, Christ Jesus.

I agree with much of your post. My question was intended for those who only take the bible literally (fundamentalist). Unfortunately, there are many fundies out there and I do not see how they can say there are not contradictions in the bible when taking it literally.

We are pretty much on the same page my deist friend. I just don't understand why you have to take it one step further and limit the possibilities to there only being a supernatural entity/being

 

[loopholes]

Jesus welcomes repentant sinners at any time.

Jesus the great philosopher or Jesus the great magician. There is a difference to me. One defies reality and the other doesn't.

Let's not assume on anyone's behalf. There lies the problem.

 

[calluna]

Jesus the great philosopher or Jesus the great magician.

It's this false dichotomy, this belittlement, this abuse, and this circularity, that tell of conviction of sin of the Holy Spirit.

You must be born again.

 

[Lpe04]

Here it states man was created before trees were created.

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

It plainly says that trees were created before man in this verse, I don't get what you are saying?

Lance

 

[loopholes]

You must be born again.

Sorry pal, I don't believe in reincarnation. I'm only born once

 

[loopholes]

It plainly says that trees were created before man in this verse, I don't get what you are saying?

Lance

Please finish reading the rest of the scripture.

Thanks

 

[ebia]

No offense intended, but why do you believe in something from a book that you admit to have stories from different ancient religious backgrounds (in regards to the OT)?

Why would the idea that they borrowed another culture's story and subverted it to tell the story of the one true God make it any less likely to be true? To take an existing story (or any other artwork) and rework it to tell a better truth is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

 

[ebia]

Jesus the great philosopher or Jesus the great magician. There is a difference to me. One defies reality and the other doesn't.

Ignoring the fact that saying "Jesus the great magician" misses the whole point of what the miracles are, you're stuck with the fact that take them away and you don't have a great philosopher. You have a handful of quotes that might be called "great philosophy" and a whole heap of stuff (word and action) that says "this is what it looks like when God returns to Zion - it's not what you expected, is it?" Without the miracles that kind of falls in a heap, because you've taken away a good deal of the action that his words are there to explain.

 

[TheD]

I just don't understand why you have to take it one step further and limit the possibilities to there only being a supernatural entity/being

What makes you think I'm limiting anything down too an absolute assumption?
I was presenting it as the possible ability to be a collective again, with or without God involved.
That's hardly a case of reducing my acceptance of infinite creativity down too
a dead faith that refuses to listen too your calls or demands of coming back too reality.

I'm already here, and although my faith may be near death that doesn't make it less of a necessity to carry around. I can accept facts both spiritual and physical, it's the incompatible relationship with others thats making the whole thing seem like nonsensical arguing.

There is allot more out there to be concerned about, a single deity of any sort should fall second of our survival and advancement. That is, with the hope and applied knowledge that we can last that long as a pathetic species.

I've actually just left you with a choice of limits or not, for this very subject.
Even though my questions haven't been answered, I'm not going to flame at you for that small detail.

Would you fight against this flow constantly over some literary acceptance of a fairy tale of mixed values, or would you attempt to redirect these individuals into a symbiotic relationship, for the positive outcome that you desired in the first place?

[I'm guessing a simple, logical sustenance in an illogical realm that will help you over come this obstacle of Genesis 'contradiction'].

If with God everything is possible, without him the possibility would still flow. If you can accept God being 'outside' of time and space, what reasoning is there for the refusal of things presented too you by my
own thoughts and feelings?

 

[loopholes]

Why would the idea that they borrowed another culture's story and subverted it to tell the story of the one true God make it any less likely to be true? To take an existing story (or any other artwork) and rework it to tell a better truth is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

It's called plagiarism buddy

 

[loopholes]

Ignoring the fact that saying "Jesus the great magician" misses the whole point of what the miracles are, you're stuck with the fact that take them away and you don't have a great philosopher. You have a handful of quotes that might be called "great philosophy" and a whole heap of stuff (word and action) that says "this is what it looks like when God returns to Zion - it's not what you expected, is it?" Without the miracles that kind of falls in a heap, because you've taken away a good deal of the action that his words are there to explain.

Aristotle was a great philosopher. What if someone took his teachings (mainly on ethics) and based a religious book on them a few hundred years after his death in order to gain power. That seems very possible and reasonable.

Wait a minute, that sounds kind of familiar

 

[ebia]

It's called plagiarism buddy

To apply a totally modern academic concept to the (whateverth) century BC would be absurdly anachronistic. But even within the 20th century art borrows from the work of previous artists to give it a new expression and a new set of meanings. That's mostly how art has always worked - little art is 100% original.

Aristotle was a great philosopher. What if someone took his teachings (mainly on ethics) and based a religious book on them a few hundred years after his death in order to gain power. That seems very possible and reasonable.

That doesn't address the question - there is very little "great philosophy" in the accounts of Jesus, and what there is isn't original - to speculate that there was this great heap that got lost would be pure speculation based on no evidence.

Wait a minute, that sounds kind of familiar

Not really - we have a heap of Aristotle's philosophy so we know that's what he was. And "What if someone took his teachings (mainly on ethics) and based a religious book on them a few hundred years after his death in order to gain power." would be a gross misrepresentation of the gospels for a number of reasons:
1. we don't have any evidence that Jesus' teachings were actually about ethics. Most of what survives is not primarily about ethics.
2. the N.T. was not written "a few hundred years after his death" but between 20 and 80 years after his death.
3. The NT boosk were not written to gain power - the people who wrote them were part of a heavily persecuted small minority sect and many died for their involvement in that.
4. If you started with a collection of teachings and tried to put a narrative around it you wouldn't get anything like the gospels. There is no way church adding back stories 50-80 years later could or would make that narrative as Jewish as it is. There's also a whole heap of other stuff you wouldn't make up it way it's written, but that's a separate discussion.


So, I ask you again, if Jesus is not who the gospels say he is, what "great philosophy" do you find in his teaching? What evidence for you have for a "great philosopher" if he's not YHWH returning to Zion?

 

[calluna]

Sorry pal, I don't believe in reincarnation.

But you know that you must commit your life to Christ.

 

[loopholes]

1. we don't have any evidence that Jesus' teachings were actually about ethics. Most of what survives is not primarily about ethics.

It was around 2000 years ago so of course it lacks evidence (proof). Just like Jesus's magical miracles lack evidence.

2. the N.T. was not written "a few hundred years after his death" but between 20 and 80 years after his death.

The exact time is unknown. I will admit I was a little off on the time frame, but that doesn't change the basic idea of the analogy.

3. The NT boosk were not written to gain power - the people who wrote them were part of a heavily persecuted small minority sect and many died for their involvement in that.

You are entitled to your opinion for their original purpose is unknown.

4. but that's a separate discussion.

Agreed

So, I ask you again, if Jesus is not who the gospels say he is, what "great philosophy" do you find in his teaching?

I would say his basic teachings of treat others as you want to be treated is "great philosophy". It seems elementary now, but it wasn't so much back then. Sometimes the simplest philosophy is the best.