Contradictions in the Bible

[rrobs]

Curious though. Why don't you think the Biblical scrolls are a reliable archaeological discovery, that sheds light on the past?

Probably because he never considered the possibility. Just saying things without anything to back them up.

 

[rrobs]

I suspect the kind of "evidence" you seem to mean needs to sometimes be approached with some care. Try reading Olver Sacks The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat sometime.

Ah, so Olver Sacks', "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" is where we find truth. Never thought of that before. All the same, personally, I'll will stick with the scriptures.

 

[rrobs]

Like I dont know it was not written on the upper
east side. Sheesh.

"the people to whom it was written"

Sure. Written for and by the people of the time.

No surprise there.

None of that addresses that a "god" who would
do things like the flood, the whole thing he did
to egypt, and divers other atrocities is a psycho monster.

Not that any of it actually happened of course.

But the crude and cruel people of the day naturally
invented a god like them only worse.

Have you read the OP?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ah, so Olver Sacks', "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" is where we find truth. Never thought of that before. All the same, personally, I'll will stick with the scriptures.

I'm sure you know that I was referring to the fact that there have been many, many claims to some kind of direct "revelation" as being the reason that people have believed in one religion or another. The problem, of course, is that first, our minds aren't all that reliable when it comes to the sort of "revelation" that's meant, and second, this has led to a bunch of differing religions.

That second point is truly important: if different religions are the result of direct revelation, and direct revelation is necessarily from God, then either their are multiple gods fostering different religions, one God playing foolies, or no god at all, but some very imaginative humans.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think it is also really important to make another very salient point, here, which is that if -- as is surely true -- the same scriptures can lead to such a wide variety of differing beliefs (there are something like 38,000 Christian sects, a bunch of Jewish sects ). In the same way, there are multiple sects within Islam resulting from differing interpretations of the Qur'an. And all of these have been quarrelling with each for pretty much ever, including, sadly, a huge amount of bloodshed. Even the most cursory reading of history will back me up, and careful reading on this topic will just depress you.

I call it careless of the deity who is supposed to have set forth "His Word" for all to understand, to have done such a poor job of it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I call it careless of the deity who is supposed to have set forth "His Word" for all to understand, to have done such a poor job of it.

It is perhaps worth knowing that, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no unresolvable contradictions found in the Wizard of Oz.

 

[Audie]

Have you read the OP?

Guess ya never read my response to it.

Which what you just wrote aint, btw

 

[Audie]

I think it is also really important to make another very salient point, here, which is that if -- as is surely true -- the same scriptures can lead to such a wide variety of differing beliefs (there are something like 38,000 Christian sects, a bunch of Jewish sects ). In the same way, there are multiple sects within Islam resulting from differing interpretations of the Qur'an. And all of these have been quarrelling with each for pretty much ever, including, sadly, a huge amount of bloodshed. Even the most cursory reading of history will back me up, and careful reading on this topic will just depress you.

I call it careless of the deity who is supposed to have set forth "His Word" for all to understand, to have done such a poor job of it.

Even after 7 purifications.

 

[Audie]

Ah, so Olver Sacks', "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" is where we find truth. Never thought of that before. All the same, personally, I'll will stick with the scriptures.

Maybe avoid snark? You are not very good at it.

 

[Audie]

Been there, done that. Now I'm here.

I never met a seer who I trusted.

Whatevs. Your credibility is right where the
completeness of your response is- zero.

 

[sojourner]

I agree that "There's no real reason to deny what's been demonstrated to be true."... and since that is not the case here, it's okay.

This is delusional.

 

[rrobs]

I'm sure you know that I was referring to the fact that there have been many, many claims to some kind of direct "revelation" as being the reason that people have believed in one religion or another. The problem, of course, is that first, our minds aren't all that reliable when it comes to the sort of "revelation" that's meant, and second, this has led to a bunch of differing religions.

That second point is truly important: if different religions are the result of direct revelation, and direct revelation is necessarily from God, then either their are multiple gods fostering different religions, one God playing foolies, or no god at all, but some very imaginative humans.

If God meant for His revelation to mean different things to different people, then what you say is relevant. However there is an alternative:

God said what He meant and meant what He said, that there is one thing God said to all people.​

It is not God's fault that people, for an infinite variety of reasons, misconstrue the message. At best, of the many thousands of different religions, one, and only one, agrees with the scriptures.

I can read your thoughts now, and no, I'm claiming to be that one. You can relax. In fact, given the uniqueness of every individual who has ever lived, there is at best one of them who is the bastion of Biblical truth. But I'd place my bet on the fact that such a person does not exist at all.

Having said all of that, I can say with complete confidence that 99% of the scriptures are plain enough (NIV is 8th grade reading level) for anybody to get enough out them to make a positive difference in their life. It's just a matter of reading them without the preconceived idea it is a fairy tale. If that's what people look for, it'll be easy enough to see. However, it is equally true, if not more so, that if someone approaches their study with an open mind, they will find a very real guide in life that never fails.

 

[rrobs]

Maybe avoid snark? You are not very good at it.

Well, apparently, you got the point, so I'm at least that good at snark. What more can I ask for? Thanks for the validation, Audie. Ah, shucks, I'm getting snarky again, aren't I? OMG, was I just snarky about being snarly? There is no end to my snarkiness...YIKES!

OK, no more goofing around (I hope you took it as such). I'll get serious. How about this; we stick to the topic and avoid writing style criticism? You write how your write, and I'll write like I write. If something you say goes over my head, I'll simply ask for clarification while avoiding disparaging remarks about your literary prowess. Hopefully, you agree to reciprocate.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I doubt there is anyone else here who "cant
understand" what i said.

Math shows literal interpretation of Kings
is insane.
Science shows literal flood interpretation is insane.

But suture self, as the tele-doctor might say.

Well, I do not use your math or science to interpret the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[rrobs]

Whatevs. Your credibility is right where the
completeness of your response is- zero.

Where do I find the credibility scale you employ in sizing up other people? Or are we just talking about an opinion?

 

[InChrist]

Seriously? This undetectable unknowable and in
all ways 100% indidtinguishable from non existent"god", but
you know all these things about inner workings of its
mind?

Do you ever kind of stand clear of yourself and kinda
say "Wait a sec here..."?

You could try reading His word.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

This contradicts the view of God found in the scriptures.

It contradicts your view of God. Not as found in the Scriptures because I just gave you Scripture.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Yes, that must be it... God is such a trickster!

He can be. satan falls for it every time.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[rrobs]

Well, I do not use your math or science to interpret the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I agree with you. About half of "science" has been at some time or another proven false. Who knows what we think is scientific "truth" today will not subsequently be shown to be false. Using history as a guide, one could conclude about half of it. And we think we understand the nature of things! The foolishness of God is truly infinitely higher than the wisdom of man.

It follows that using science to interpret the Bible would give a 50/50 chance of getting it right. I don't think that is what God intended. He wants us to know. The scriptures can be understood by reading them. They explain a lot more about true science than any of man's science explains about itself.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If God meant for His revelation to mean different things to different people, then what you say is relevant. However there is an alternative:

God said what He meant and meant what He said, that there is one thing God said to all people.​

It is not God's fault that people, for an infinite variety of reasons, misconstrue the message. At best, of the many thousands of different religions, one, and only one, agrees with the scriptures.

You like to offer "alternatives," it seems. Still, it is possible to make important things understood by pretty much everybody. We do this all the time, when people are taught how to multiply 2 numbers together, or to add a new contact on their cell phone, or how to hook up their TV, or how to file their taxes. Yes, a few people screw up all of those things, but you can't tell me you look around and see a world where nobody can agree on any of these things. And believe me, if that were the case, all of the Technical Writers responsible for that documentation would have been summarily and justifiably fired.

And while it might be possible to convince me of your point that "one, and only one" religion agrees with the scriptures, I'm willing to bet you could not begin to make the case for which one it is. Or could even tell me how you would go about making the attempt.

I can read your thoughts now, and no, I'm claiming to be that one. You can relax. In fact, given the uniqueness of every individual who has ever lived, there is at best one of them who is the bastion of Biblical truth. But I'd place my bet on the fact that such a person does not exist at all.

​

And there I would agree whole-heartedly. ​

Having said all of that, I can say with complete confidence that 99% of the scriptures are plain enough (NIV is 8th grade reading level) for anybody to get enough out them to make a positive difference in their life. It's just a matter of reading them without the preconceived idea it is a fairy tale. If that's what people look for, it'll be easy enough to see. However, it is equally true, if not more so, that if someone approaches their study with an open mind, they will find a very real guide in life that never fails.

The problem that you cannot see -- I have no idea why, but I know it's true -- is that the scriptures, no matter what grade-level you might write them at, can't do what you say if taken in their totality. That's because that's not even what they're about. The patently fictional history of the Jews, has nothing to do with helping people understand how to cope with life's challenges! And in fact, that fiction is a huge part of what makes the Bible -- taken as a whole -- such a piece of contradictory nonsense. You cannot, no matter how hard you try, get a God that can be described as "Love" by reading any of it! There's more hate, more murder, more regret, more unfairness, more reneging on promises and what-not than you can shake a stick at.

So you could toss out the whole OT (leave that to the Jews, I suppose, except that then what are you going to use to "prove" the supposed prophecies that make Jesus the Messiah?), and just start with the NT. But even there, it is so obvious that the many writers (not who they claim to be, except for 7 and possibly 8 Paul letters), with radically different viewpoints, sow little but confusion. Faith or works? Works or faith? Both? Neither? I can find all of those.

And it would have been very wise for the early church just to have quietly buried Revelation. But they didn't, and so there it is.