• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

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

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Biblical Contradictions

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by HitchSlap, Dec 6, 2017.

  1. Al Masihi

    Al Masihi Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,853
    Saudi Arabia
    Christian
    Private
    The Biblical term of a pagan is one who is not enlightened spiritually or uncivilized spiritually. The characteristics of pagans are totally different things. Lord of hosts is different from storm god, there’s no proving Yahweh is a storm god unless the Bible says he’s a storm god in plain words. Yahweh is the God of the heavens and everything. So based on your logic is Yahweh a storm, earthquake, or ocean god? Baal as a title used to reffer to Yahweh and Baal as a Canaanite god are easily distinguishable as we know the god of the Caanites was called Baal Haddad. So if the worship of Baal is forbidden it’s talking about Baal Haddad.
     
  2. ShamashUruk

    ShamashUruk Hello

    563
    +67
    United States
    Other Religion
    Private
    A search of the KJV reveals there is no Biblical definition for "pagan". Since, you are not a "pagan" and you define a pagan as "not enlightened spiritually or uncivilized spiritually" your own definition strays from the dictionary meaning, there is no definition for "pagan" that fits your "not enlightened spiritually or uncivilized spiritually". There is however, a person who is uncivilized and unenlightened, which is the grammatical insult applied to a non christian in times of Rome. They are thought to be at time of Rome "hicks", or uneducated, because they reject Christian oppression.

    Not only that, the Israelite's are sub structured as polytheistic, so the only recognition in times before Rome in the Ancient Near East are either going to be societies that worship many Gods or the earliest of societies that worshiped One God are the Egyptian Ankehton. Much later on the Israelite's will worship a One God known as Yahweh (before that he is called El) and El much like Yahweh are Canaan in origin, but they are not Proto Canaan either.

    Baal is also a "Lord of Hosts" in Ugaritic literature, he is the most high in Ugarit and Canaan, while Yahweh is most high in Israelite Polytheism.

    Baal is not called a storm God specifically, yet he is a storm God in Ugarit as well Canaan. There is no "Baal is a storm God" literature, yet by his theophany he is. Yahweh is exactly the same, his theophany shows the same thing.

    But to be more specific, Biblical descriptions of Yahweh as storm-god (1 Sam. 12:18; Psalm 29; Job 38:25-27, 34-38) and divine warrior (Pss. 50:1-3; 97:1-6; 98:1-2; 104:1-4; Deut. 33:2; Judges 4-5; Job 26:11-13; Isa. 42:10-15, etc.) exhibit this underlying unity and pattern explicitly in Psalm 18 (= 2 Sam. 22):6-19, 68:7-10, and 86:9-19.337 Psalm 29, 1 Kings 19, and 2 Esdras 13:1-4 dramatize the meteorological progression underlying the imagery of Yahweh as warrior.

    All the verses of 1 Sam. 12:18; Psalm 29; Job 38:25-27, 34-38 describe Yahweh as a storm God. You don't need the Bible to say "Yahweh is a storm God" explicitly, Bible doesn't say "Baal is a storm God" either, but by his descriptions we know Baal is a storm God, same with Yahweh. That is a very poor assertion. By your logic Baal is not a storm God either, by your logic then Iskur, Hadad etc... are not storm Gods either.

    Yes, Baal is seen as the head of the Canaanite Pantheon, same as Yahweh is seen as the head of the Israelite Pantheon. Storms, Earthquakes, etc...all have a common theme of fertility or more appropriately life and death cycles, they are dying and rising Gods. They cause the earth to tremble, etc... (both Yahweh and Baal).

    Baal-Hadad would not really be an appropriate title in Canaan, the term is generally seen in Neo Assyria for the king who relates to a God or has a personal relationship with a God.

    In the sense of the Canaanite pantheon we see:
    • Ba'al—meaning "Lord," god of rain, thunder, and fertility, sometimes synonymous with Hadad; also used as a title prefixing the names of local deities
    • El—the chief deity, god of the sky, father of many lesser gods and ruler of the divine assembly, also worshiped by the Israelites.
    • El Elyon—Special title of El as "God most High"
    • Yahweh—The Israelite god, worshiped not only by the Hebrews but also by eastern Canaanites such as the prophet Balaam(Numbers 22) and the Shashu of Edom
    There is some scholarly discussion that Yahweh was introduced after El was introduced, which is generally true. However, El may have actually been a Northwest Semitic Deity long before he enters into ancient Iraq.

    You are essentially stating that Baal means Lord and that Yahweh means Lord and that Yahweh is most high, but in Ugart Baal is most high, because all those languages are Semitic and related. The only time Lord and Lord differ is in cultural settings, meaning that the Biblical Numbers 25:3 should then have had no issue with the worship of Baal (as the Israelite's clearly are descendant from Canaan), and that in Hosea 2:16 the renaming of Yahweh to Ishi and no longer being called Baali, no distinction should have been made with the exception for cultural differences. But, this isn't the case, obviously by this time the Israelite's are no longer Canaanite's so yes they would want to distinguish from their distant cousins.
     
  3. Al Masihi

    Al Masihi Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,853
    Saudi Arabia
    Christian
    Private
    Pagan was used by early Christians to describe polytheistic faiths as one who doesn’t have a the true religion and is uncivilized in the spiritual sense, and indulges in the pleasures of the world. Yahweh is the lord of everything not a storm god, yes in this case we need the Bible to directly state, Iksur and Haddad were already known by their people as storm gods, yet you still can’t prove Yahweh to be one. Here’s a few look links aswell:

    https://crossexamined.org/wasthegodofthebiblecopiedfromancientmyths/

    Was Yahweh originally a Edomite or Canaanite god?
     
  4. ShamashUruk

    ShamashUruk Hello

    563
    +67
    United States
    Other Religion
    Private
    Hence, pagan is an insulting term. Polytheism is originally what those societies engaged and believed in, it isn't until Monotheism that we see Christians persecuting non Christians. Hence, Pagan is a derogatory (even by your statement) term in origin.

    Also, religion during those times coincides with legal, socieital, and even cultural dealings. So religion isn't really a separate issue, as you are making it out to be.

    The Christians wouldn't think of Non Christians (or those who didn't want to convert) as hicks, this goes beyond being uncivilized in a spiritual sense.


    Yahweh is the head of the Israelite pantheon (pantheon, because the Israelite's are sub structured as polytheists at the time). Yahweh holds a very prominent role in ancient Israeli symbology, he is the head God.

    But, to the Canaanite's and the Ugaritic people as well the Israelite's Baal holds a supreme position as well. In Canaan and Ugaritic material's Baal is the head of their pantheon.

    That being said, they function (both Yahweh and Baal) as storm Gods, but the term Storm God doesn't limit their duty and scope, I don't know why you would think it would. I also point out that much like Baal, Yahweh is also seen as a divine warrior. The Bible attributes Yahweh as a divine warrior as well, and if you look at the history of storm Gods in each society you'll find that they have more than one role.

    Iskur as you so candidly point out as well Haddu as well Teshub and even Adad all are storm Gods, yet they have more than one role. For example, Iškur is a figure who either can harm or help mankind (Yahweh functions the exact same way in this). Iskur is seen as a warlike figure with his ability to deploy destructive forces (Yahweh functions the exact same way).

    In one Sumerian hymn, Iškur 'destroys the rebellious land like the wind. He makes it barren like the ašagu plant'. Yahweh does the exact same thing, so while you limit in scope the function of the storm Gods, you fail to realize that they all do the same thing and act the same way.

    The Bible is clear that the attributes and actions of Yahweh reflect a storm God.

    And then with Crossexamined, Frank Turek (that is the pastor) even states that "Admittedly, the name of the God of the biblical patriarchs (El), was at times similar & identical to their pagan neighbors, but there was a marked difference in HOW they worshiped El.", but fails to state that El is earlier Yahweh.

    If we are talking about how Yahweh was worship it would seem that worship of Yahweh is carried out by blood sacrifice (see expiation rites in Leviticus). But that there is no "idol" to Yahweh, but the Hittit'es (Indo-Euro) do not have "idols" either.

    The concept is that as Yahweh passes Moses he can only look at his backside, the same happend with Zues where the girl is not allowed to see Zues in full form, lest she should die.

    Again, Frank Turek only points out part of the myth's concerning Yahweh; Yahweh is another figure, but Frank Turek (academically dishonest) doesn't point this out, instead he states that Yahweh has no origin, this isn't true, because we see Canaanite's worshiping Yahweh, and Canaanite's are Pre Israelite.

    Then he points out "Another difference is that when God (Yahweh) creates, He speaks creation into existence, rather than having to fight a dragon or monster, or some other “god” in a cosmic battle for power." You might want to check Enki who divides the languages, his speech alone divides. Or the Sumerian epic of creation of mankind, as Ninhursag creates mankind.

    I also have John Walton’s book, Ancient Israelite Literature In It’s Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels Between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts. This author points out that Yahweh unlike the other Gods of mesopotamia needs nothing from the Israelite's and he can't be persuaded to do anything. Wrong again, Yahweh requires blood sacrifice, he even allows sacrifice to Moloch on the tabernacle (check the expiation rites).

    The 2nd source you cite only talks about Israelite's passing through to Canaan, it doesn't once discuss Abraham engaging in Canaanite Polytheistic practices with Melchezedik.

    Also, Yahweh's origins begin as El, both are seen and depicted as bull'. It is most likely that Yahweh originates with Canaanite Vulcan, in the Bible, Yahweh’s appearance is usually accompanied by volcanic-like phenomena. When he descends upon Mt. Sinai to reveal the Torah to the Jews, the mountain erupts in fire, spewing lava and billowing clouds accompanied by earthquakes and thunderstorms (Exodus 19:16-19).

    Poetic metaphors throughout the Bible describe Yahweh as a fiery deity who makes the mountains smoke (Psalms 144:5) and melts them down (Isaiah 63:19b), just like smelters melt down ore to obtain copper and other metals, the researcher notes. In fact, in Psalm 18:18 Yahweh is depicted as anthropomorphized furnace: “smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it.”

    This BTW is reminsscent of a storm God, which is not limited to Storms as you so aptly assert.
     
  5. Al Masihi

    Al Masihi Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,853
    Saudi Arabia
    Christian
    Private
    No pagan isn’t insulting unless you don’t think worshipping idols is insulting to God. Monotheism was the original faith through Adam, it was only later that polytheism emerged. Here’s another link:

    Was Yahweh Originally a Pagan God? | Catholic Answers
     
  6. ShamashUruk

    ShamashUruk Hello

    563
    +67
    United States
    Other Religion
    Private
    Pagan is a term for those who didn't convert to Christianity, as the "pagans" were considered hicks. When you conclude that pagan isn't insulting unless you don't think worshiping idols is insulting to God.....the question.....which God arises; as the term God itself isn't exclusive to Christian belief traditions and it is a nominal term, and it's actually Germanic in origin.

    And specifically...what language did Adam speak? It can't be Sumerian, because in no texts of Sumer do we find Monotheism. It can't be Akkadian because we don't find Monotheism there either. The only two known Semitic tongue's that involve Monotheism are the Ankehton and the Israelite's, clearly we don't see the Israelite's predating Canaan and we don't see the Israelite's in Ur where Abraham comes from.

    In the biblical account Adam and Eve live in an idyllic garden, and Eve presents Adam with a fruit that he is not supposed to eat. In the earlier Sumerian version, Enki is presented with fruits that he should not eat by his minister Isimud.

    The garden itself is interesting for its parallels in Sumerian, and later Babylonian cultures. The gods were said to like plants and growing things. For this reason Temples had farms and gardens. Ziggurats were given gardens that made the long ascent up to the most holy of places at their tops more pleasant.

    Even the word Eden comes from Sumer. It is derived from Edin meaning steppe plain or grazing land, btw when Isib priests in Sumer would perform exorcisms they would banish the possessing spirit(s) to the steppe or plain (Edin or later Eden). The Sumerian word implied that it was between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers as that would be the logical place for such a land.

    In one of the Gilgamesh writings Inanna had a garden of her own. In that garden she had a tree. At the base of this tree was a snake. In Genesis 3:1 there was also a tree and a snake. Rather than being a threat, this snake was more of a tempter.

    In Genesis 4:15 Cain is banished to the land of Nod, a place east of Edin. If we take the garden as being the fertile crescent that is made lush between the Tigris and the Euphrates, then the land of Nod would be the Island of Dilmun.

    The land of Dilmun itself is closely associated with gardens. The epics of Enki and the Garden is set in Dilmun. Utu, the sun god, was even said to bring fresh water up from the ground to water Dilmun.

    On their own each of these things is little more than an interesting coincidence. Together these coincidences paint a picture of the sort of background that inspired the first parts of Genesis.
     
  7. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +29,520
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Actually the word for one who is not Christian is not specifically pagan but heathen.

    Definition of heathen. plural heathens or heathen. 1 : an unconverted member of a people or nation who does not acknowledge the God of the Bible. 2 : an uncivilized or irreligious person.
     
  8. ShamashUruk

    ShamashUruk Hello

    563
    +67
    United States
    Other Religion
    Private
    That is another term, however, we are limiting this to the time of Rome. However, I am sure that the term Heathen was used as well. But, check your history, pagans were not converted to Christianity either.

    I also don't know what you mean by "not specifically pagan"?
     
  9. Al Masihi

    Al Masihi Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,853
    Saudi Arabia
    Christian
    Private
    Hick isn’t on the definition of pagan, hence why I can’t understand on proving it’s insulting, hundreds of Neo pagan groups uphold the name pagan. Your brining similar parallels without looking at them in context.
     
  10. ShamashUruk

    ShamashUruk Hello

    563
    +67
    United States
    Other Religion
    Private
    Anything in the ancient near east, such as a group like the Hittite's will have worshiped their Gods, just as an example. Because they were a society, they had their own laws, their own culture, their own celebrations, so on and so on.

    What most people don't understand is that religion is woven into the very fabric of their society, ancient Israelite's operated the same way, for example, the Ankheton who worshiped one God and exodus from Egypt, had established that they would worship one God.

    The term theism in any sense will have been foreign to them (theism from the Greek theos), so whether they worship One God (mono) or Many Gods (poly) or asserted One God over others (Heno) it is irrelevant, because the act of worship alone indicates they were religious. Meaning all these groups were religious, religious in a sense that they either worship One God or Many Gods or favored One God over others. The Israelite's for example favor One God over Other Gods, this is a clear example of Henotheism, now whether the claim of "My God is real, true, etc and your God is not" is only a claim, that isn't the focus of this discussion.

    It isn't until Rome that the term "pagan" begins to be coined for anyone who didn't convert to Christianity, these people were seen as uneducated country dwellers (provincial). The very idea that someone who dwells in a country and is uneducated, uncivilized is a hick. Here is the actual dictionary term

    hick: a person who lives in the country, regarded as being unintelligent or provincial.

    The term pagan bares the exact same wording to its definition, feel free to look at the etymology pagan | Origin and meaning of pagan by Online Etymology Dictionary

    pagan: meaning "of the country, which is provincial, also in its definition we find country people; province, rural district," as well we find it's derived from Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier". If you don't know what incompetent means I suggest you research it.

    So yes it was an insult in origin, however when you start going off about neo-pagan groups accepting the term and adopting it and even adding neo (new) for new pagan and that they use the term so they must not be offended, you still confuse its offensive origin. Of course "pagans" use the term because they have been subjected to it and therefore adopt it. In fact there was a persecution of pagans by Christians in the late Roman Empire, so it went beyond just insulting someone for not being a Christian. I find it very contradictory that Christians claim to be persecuted, yet we see the persecution of non-Christians (coined "pagan") due to Constantine. So it goes beyond an insult, it is the very act of murder that is implemented.
     
  11. Al Masihi

    Al Masihi Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,853
    Saudi Arabia
    Christian
    Private
    Henothism means to acknowledge the existence of other gods while worshipping one, while God States besides me there is no god, which means a denial of other gods being in existence. Your really desperate to prove the term pagan is insulting while in reality it isn’t, the word hick isn’t even in the dictionary meaning of Pagan as you’ve quoted. Anyhow I’ve grown tired of this conversation that doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
     
  12. ShamashUruk

    ShamashUruk Hello

    563
    +67
    United States
    Other Religion
    Private
    Hence, from what I said it is worship of One God over Other Gods, it doesn't mean they don't deny the existence of other Gods. They just don't necessarily worship those Other Gods, this concept may actually start in Babylon as they were thought to be Henotheistic.

    I think because you make a claim that the Judeo-Christian God claims that "he" is the only God and there are no other Gods beside him; it is only a claim and isn't proven true.

    You are looking for specifics in the terms and meanings, in this way I could purport that Christianity is a religion and not a personal relationship as most Christians define it, due to the fact that there is no statement in the Bible "Jesus has a personal relationship with his followers". Yet in the Bible we do find the term religion, but we don't find the term "personal relationship" which BTW when you post anything from Frank Turek he is the type to assert a personal relationship between the myth hero Jesus and Christians.

    I'm not reaching for anything, the issue is not really the term "pagan", which yes they were persecuted, yes they were provincial (country dwellers) and yes they were seen as uncivilized. I think to call anyone uncivilized is an insult in of itself.

    BTW it was you who answered me, not the other way around.
     
  13. ShamashUruk

    ShamashUruk Hello

    563
    +67
    United States
    Other Religion
    Private
    There are other contradictions in the Bible that are less implied and more subtle for example:

    The term Tevah used to describe the Ark of Noah, I challenge you to go and look up the word Tevah it doesn't mean "ark" at all, it means to be startled or alarmed. In fact the Yahwehist(s) who pen the book with the epic of Noah in it attempted to borrow a Babylonian word and failed at it miserably.

    Also, the term "Lucifer" in Isaiah is a term that is misunderstood:

    Lucifer does not exist until the stroke of a pen in 382 CE (AD). The genealogy is straightforward to plot. First, the apparent name given in Isaiah 14:12 is not Lucifer, but Hêlēl Ben Šaḥar; this is transformed in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, into Ἑωσφόρος (Heōsphóros): dawn bringer. This is the specific Greek term for the god of the planet Venus when it rises. There is no ambiguity in its astral identification as the morning star. In Greek mythology, Heōsphóros was twinned with Hesperos; they are respectively morning and evening star. Even in identifying these as gods of the star, the planet Venus herself remained that of the love
    goddess Aphrodite, a distinction which needs to be made. The Septuagint, with its rendition of Heōsphóros, was not, however, used as the basis for the Latin Vulgate, which replaced
    the earlier translations in circulation, collectively known as the Vetus Latina. The Latin Vulgate was the work of St Jerome in a project which commenced in 382 CE, and became the standard text in the Western Catholic Church for the next 1000 years. Instead of using the Greek Septuagint, Jerome went to the Hebrew texts themselves, and thence made the fatal translation ‘Lucifer.’
    This is derived from the Latin lucem ferre, light bearer. Clearly this differs from the Greek, ‘dawn bringer,’ although it has the same basic meaning, that of Venus, the morning star. It is only when
    the Latin Lucifer is translated back into Greek that it becomes Φωσφόρος (Phōsphóros). Evidently, dawn-bringer is not a term that can be used interchangeably with phosphoros, which has the more
    general meaning of ‘light-bringing,’ and is applied to many gods and goddesses, such as torch-bearing Hecate. It does not identify the source or the character of the light. Though phosphoros can be applied as an epithet to Lucifer, it would be more accurate to specify heosphoros. The mystery of Lucifer is explicitly concerned with the light of dawn, and its attendant qualities – the reddening of the sky and the magical properties of the dew, an oft forgotten elixir.

    Also, another strange thing about the Bible I find. The Sumerian's had a developed a writing system after their flood (5500 BCE), this was due to Tigris and Euphrates over flowing. They developed sun baked tablets (Cuneiform) I think about 3400 BCE. Obviously, Biblical writings aren't until much later about 1213 BCE. Interestingly there is an epic of a garden (I believe called Eden) and of two characters called Adam and Eve.
    Something interesting to note that Isib Priests which are Exorcism Priests would banish demons (galla or evil spirits) to the steppe or plain (Edin) and later translates to Eden.
    The Biblical garden (not the epic, but the garden itself) is reminiscent of Babylonian hanging gardens.
    Adam and Eve are slices of ANE epics coupled, there are so many and it is very vast, so I can't name them all.

    Interesting how the Bible adopts each epic to make it its own epic and tailors these epics for its targeted audiences.

    Now, whether the claims of these older epics are true or not is irrelevant. The very fact that the Biblical myths reflect much older myths is where we find the contradictions.
     
  14. Al Masihi

    Al Masihi Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,853
    Saudi Arabia
    Christian
    Private
    I do not believe in that whole personal relationship movement, is Jesus God, yes, do we have a relationship with him, yes. However we don’t talk to him like we’re buddies, as we see in the new evangelical movements. It not the worship of one God over many gods, it’s the worship of one God with the denial of the existence of any others. Uncivilized in itself could have many meanings. I answered you with the intent of correcting some of your statements, I’d didn’t want this to turn into a useless argument.
     
  15. ShamashUruk

    ShamashUruk Hello

    563
    +67
    United States
    Other Religion
    Private

    hen·o·the·ism
    ˈhenōTHēˌizəm,ˌhenōˈTHē-/
    noun
    1. adherence to one particular god out of several, especially by a family, tribe, or other group.
    No where does it state that the other Gods are denied to exist, your definition is lacking.

    The Israelite's pick up Monotheism after Babylonian captivity, because the Babylonian's are Henotheistic. In fact Babylon moves several times while in Iraq, but the Bible won't point this out either and by "either" I mean give specifics. The Bible won't tell you how the Canaanite's worked for example, but it will vaguely mention a ritual between Abraham and Melchizedek, Genesis 14:18, ignoring that Melchizedek is a Canaanite priest, since you like Most High so much, they could be referring to Yahweh (most likely) but since Melchizedek is a Canaanite priest he won't deny the existence of any Canaanite deity.

    Uncivilized the meaning is not considered to be socially, culturally, or morally advanced, or impolite; bad-mannered. What other meaning could it have that stray's from what it is supposed to mean?

    What is there to correct? You haven't shown anything that you have posted that is correct. You made a failed argument that because the Bible doesn't say Yahweh is a Storm God, then it must not be true. Yet time and time again (through the Bible) Yahweh's theophany is exactly that of a Storm God. And as noted, Storm Gods did not have limited roles inherent to their characteristics, they could perform a wide variety of functions. Baal is shown to be Storm God as well, btw Storm Gods will have offerings brought to them (for Yahweh this is blood sacrifice) these are the filial duties of the "children" (The Israelite's) to their God Yahweh. In fact we see in Leviticus expiation rites, wherein a goat is sent to Azazel with sins placed on it, because of sins such as child sacrifice to Moloch and other sins in the tabernacle.
     
  16. Dirk1540

    Dirk1540 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +13,493
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Single
    There are many theories about the literary intents behind the various genealogies, I’m convinced that nobody specifically knows for sure. It’s anybody’s guess which exact specifics were having light shed upon them.

    It’s like finding several different timelines depicting the history of the NY Yankees, represented by certain players...all generally move chronologically, all generally start with Babe Ruth, and land on Mickey Mantle, and later land on Derek Jeter, etc. However you can’t quite put your finger on the exact pattern of player selection.

    Does the pattern depict the best player on the team? Or best player during a winning season only? The players who won both regular season and Championship/World Series MVP awards? And the list of possibilities goes on. And a lot of possible answers to the selection process will tend to look similar but not quite identical. Imagine how many possibilities would exist for various Biblical genealogy selections that could have unknown minor differences, yet general similarities.
     
  17. devolved

    devolved Newbie

    +363
    Seeker
    Married
Loading...