• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

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

Contradictions in the Bible

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
My statements about God will always be based upon the Bible.

I make no pretense in understanding all about the origin of evil and God's use of it. I believe what God has said about it in the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...
Yes, we all know that. The problem is that you read the Bible literally and that has been shown to be an incorrect interpretation of the Bible. It means that even if the Christian God exists that it is not your version of the Christian God. Your beliefs are irrational and quite often immoral.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
My statements about God will always be based upon the Bible.

I make no pretense in understanding all about the origin of evil and God's use of it. I believe what God has said about it in the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...
Then, since you bury your head in the sand, you have no business objecting when people correct you on where evil comes from in your version of Christianity.
 
Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Audie said:
Perhaps you are just trying to understand, though
what I say is not terribly complex-but to repeat for
clarity:

You turn everything I say into something different.
Even though is is simple.
The bible is pretty difficult.
So-why would anyone believe you are any good
at interpreting it?

You do know that there is a distinction between
believing the bible is gods word, and believing
your chosen version of what it all means?

Note your comment here;;;
My statements about God will always be based upon the Bible.

Kinda like your conversions-to-something-totally -different
of what I've said are based on what I say.
Click to expand...

Give me an example of when I turned something into something different. Maybe I did somewhere, but I don't recall it.

I am not sure as to the distinction in believing the Bible is God's Word and believing the version. When I say I believe the Bible is Gods Word, I am naturally viewing the version I use. Someone else may also believe the Bible is the Word of God, and they have in view the version they use. For example KJV and NASB.

Both are the Bible. Perhaps their is some different use of the English language. Perhaps there is a verse left out of one that is in the other due to earlier manuscripts being found. But both are the Bible, the Word of God.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
A Vestigial Mote

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
You shouldn't.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...
Funny... I would almost take this as a refreshing admittance that there is no good reason to believe... except that by the tone of your other posts I know this is not what you are admitting.

I instead interpret this to be you being very low-key passive-aggressive. It is most likely that you consider me the "chaff" in the "separate wheat from chaff" metaphor so often raised from The Bible. And as such, I believe you are making the statement (without actually making the statement - hence the "passive-aggressiveness") that I am one that God has somehow chosen not to believe, or I am at least one that God foretold would exist - a nonbeliever who is wicked and helping bring about the end of the world, or some such garbage. I know you said none of this - but again, evidence I have gathered from your previous posts is informing my intuition that this is what this reply from you is all about. You feel that some of we humans need to be non-believers, so that God's predictions end up being true. Comedy gold right there.

And from my perspective, this is still you engaged in an entirely poor mode of thinking, for it would show that you do accept all these things for which there is no realistic/practical/rational warrant to believe. And now we come to the part where you tell me that I've got it all wrong.
 
Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Yes, we all know that. The problem is that you read the Bible literally and that has been shown to be an incorrect interpretation of the Bible. It means that even if the Christian God exists that it is not your version of the Christian God. Your beliefs are irrational and quite often immoral.
Click to expand...

I interpret the Bible literally. Big difference. And, that is no problem.

Immoral or moral defines man, not God. God is righteous.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
Give me an example of when I turned something into something different. Maybe I did somewhere, but I don't recall it.

I am not sure as to the distinction in believing the Bible is God's Word and believing the version. When I say I believe the Bible is Gods Word, I am naturally viewing the version I use. Someone else may also believe the Bible is the Word of God, and they have in view the version they use. For example KJV and NASB.

Both are the Bible. Perhaps their is some different use of the English language. Perhaps there is a verse left out of one that is in the other due to earlier manuscripts being found. But both are the Bible, the Word of God.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...

I already pointed out when you converted
what I said, but, as you seem unaware that
you even do it, never mind.

As for the distinction of which you are also unaware-
am not sure as to the distinction in believing the Bible is God's Word and believing the version.

I dont mean the book itself, I mean your chosen version
of what you think it means.

Take "flood" for example. You seem to think there
was a flood, tho you seem also to think it could have
been over two million years ago. Another says the
flood is entirely allegory; another that it is literal, and
6000 years ago; yet another than it was about
that long ago, but local.

You choose to believe your version.
That your version of what it says is "god's word"
and what is more, infallible Truth.

That strikes me as ignorant arrogance in the extreme,
but probably you dont see it so.
 
Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Then, since you bury your head in the sand, you have no business objecting when people correct you on where evil comes from in your version of Christianity.
Click to expand...

You can say anything you want. My views are based upon the Bible. That God uses evil throughout the Bible is true. But God is not evil.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
You can say anything you want. My views are based upon the Bible. That God uses evil throughout the Bible is true. But God is not evil.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...

Evil is as evil does.

But once you understand that "god"
is just a character in a semi historical
novel, there is no need for such contortions
as to say he does terrible things but they
are moral coz he does it.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
I interpret the Bible literally. Big difference. And, that is no problem.

Immoral or moral defines man, not God. God is righteous.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...
There is a huge problem. That leads to self contradiction and dishonesty. A person cannot honestly deny the contradictions in the Bible honestly if they interpret the book literally. And then as you have demonstrated more than once any literal interpretation also calls God a liar, in more ways than one.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
A Vestigial Mote said:
Funny... I would almost take this as a refreshing admittance that there is no good reason to believe... except that by the tone of your other posts I know this is not what you are admitting.

I instead interpret this to be you being very low-key passive-aggressive. It is most likely that you consider me the "chaff" in the "separate wheat from chaff" metaphor so often raised from The Bible. And as such, I believe you are making the statement (without actually making the statement - hence the "passive-aggressiveness") that I am one that God has somehow chosen not to believe, or I am at least one that God foretold would exist - a nonbeliever who is wicked and helping bring about the end of the world, or some such garbage. I know you said none of this - but again, evidence I have gathered from your previous posts is informing my intuition that this is what this reply from you is all about. You feel that some of we humans need to be non-believers, so that God's predictions end up being true. Comedy gold right there.

And from my perspective, this is still you engaged in an entirely poor mode of thinking, for it would show that you do accept all these things for which there is no realistic/practical/rational warrant to believe. And now we come to the part where you tell me that I've got it all wrong.
Click to expand...

That passive aggressive stuff is such a steady
background hum from so many christians that
I did not even take any particular note of it in this
iteration.
 
Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
A Vestigial Mote said:
Funny... I would almost take this as a refreshing admittance that there is no good reason to believe... except that by the tone of your other posts I know this is not what you are admitting.

I instead interpret this to be you being very low-key passive-aggressive. It is most likely that you consider me the "chaff" in the "separate wheat from chaff" metaphor so often raised from The Bible. And as such, I believe you are making the statement (without actually making the statement - hence the "passive-aggressiveness") that I am one that God has somehow chosen not to believe, or I am at least one that God foretold would exist - a nonbeliever who is wicked and helping bring about the end of the world, or some such garbage. I know you said none of this - but again, evidence I have gathered from your previous posts is informing my intuition that this is what this reply from you is all about. You feel that some of we humans need to be non-believers, so that God's predictions end up being true. Comedy gold right there.

And from my perspective, this is still you engaged in an entirely poor mode of thinking, for it would show that you do accept all these things for which there is no realistic/practical/rational warrant to believe. And now we come to the part where you tell me that I've got it all wrong.
Click to expand...

You listed many thing you dislike about the God of the Bible in your previous post. If that is the way you view God, then you shouldn't come to Him.

As to the 'chaff and wheat' it is not for me to determine. One never knows when a person may come to Christ. All I can know at this time is whether one is a Christian or not. And that is hard enough.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Audie said:
I already pointed out when you converted
what I said, but, as you seem unaware that
you even do it, never mind.

As for the distinction of which you are also unaware-
am not sure as to the distinction in believing the Bible is God's Word and believing the version.

I dont mean the book itself, I mean your chosen version
of what you think it means.

Take "flood" for example. You seem to think there
was a flood, tho you seem also to think it could have
been over two million years ago. Another says the
flood is entirely allegory; another that it is literal, and
6000 years ago; yet another than it was about
that long ago, but local.

You choose to believe your version.
That your version of what it says is "god's word"
and what is more, infallible Truth.

That strikes me as ignorant arrogance in the extreme,
but probably you dont see it so.
Click to expand...

I certainly believe my views of some things in Scripture are right. There are other areas where it is somewhat gray and one must give some allowance.

Here on this forum, many of the things discussed are what I would consider dogma. The things that the believer must believe.

There are believers with different views on the flood. I do believe the flood existed and was over the whole earth. I believe the Bible teaches that. Those who disagree do so usually for other reasons then the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
sojourner said:
I’m not. They teach Hebrew and Greek in seminary
Click to expand...

sojourner said:
Here: Firmament - Wikipedia
It’s not scholarly, but it will give you the gist.
Click to expand...
Then, are you certain they are teaching it correctly, because I can't find anywhere in that Hebrew word, where the word bowl can be injected.

raqa simply means to beat, stamp, beat out, or spread out.
From there people add their ideas or interpretations.

According to the article you linked, it says...
The word "firmament" is first recorded in a Middle English narrative based on scripture, dated to 1250. It later appeared in the King James Bible. The word is anglicised from Latin firmamentum, used in the Vulgate (4th century). This in turn is derived from the Latin root firmus, a cognate with "firm". The word is a Latinization of the Greek term Greek: στερέωμα, romanized: stereōma, which appears in the Septuagint (c. 200 BCE).

The word "firmament" is used to translate rāqîaʿ (רָקִ֫יעַ), a word used in Biblical Hebrew. It is derived from the root raqqəʿ (רָקַע), meaning "to beat or spread out thinly", e.g., the process of making a dish by hammering thin a lump of metal.

Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed that the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon, planets and stars embedded in it. According to The Jewish Encyclopedia... (The Jewish Encyclopedia was originally published in 12 volumes between 1901 and 1906 by Funk & Wagnalls of New York)

So basically, persons that hold this view, rely on ideas, and interpretations formulated after the 11th century C.E., and into our modern time, telling us what the Hebrews before the 11th century B.C.E. believed.
And what documents do they have to support their view? What documents state what they claim?
None.

Interestingly, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says this, on page 314, of Volume 1...
Physiography — It has generally been assumed that the Hebrews considered the earth to be a vast circular plain, arched over by a solid vault — "the firmament" — above which were stored, as if in cisterns, the "treasuries" (Job 38 22) of the rain, snow and hail, and some writers have even attempted to express this supposed conception in diagrammatic form. One of the best of these attempts, reproduced below, is given by Schiaparellli, in his Astronomy in the OT. But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages [5th to 15th centuries AD] than upon any actual statements in the OT.

So for some, ideas, interpretations, and assumptions, generally accepted, seems to guide their understanding of the ancient Hebrews, and what they wrote down centuries (at least 20) ago.

However, why are these assumptions considered the best conclusion, when considering Hebrew expressions with more than one meaning, and why accept how they are interpreted?

raqia: an extended surface, expanse
So I see, spread out, and expanse, which are not at odds with scripture, and the alternatives (stamp, beat out) do not need to be taken literal, in a text which often uses figurative language.
 
Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Audie said:
Ok! Jesus is a sheep, Or a door.
Which is it?
Click to expand...

Literal interpretation allows for the use of metaphors, simile's, allegory, symbols, etc. Thus believers as sheep and Christ as the Shepherd is easily understood. Or Christ as the door, the entrance, is understood.

But not everything in the Bible is a metaphor. Thus the Bible is not interpreted metaphorically. It is interpreted normally, and when metaphor's are used, then use them. But, just because something is miraculous or spiritual, does not make it a metaphor.

And if such language is used, it is used to describe a literal truth.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top