Bible contradictions

[Subduction Zone]

The source is what matters, not necessarily the fact that it's written in Hebrew.

Jesus probably spoke Aramaic. Though he probably understood both. Does it matter what language that he spoke? None of the Gospels are from eyewitnesses. They merely repat a 30 to 60 year old oral tradition.

 

[Betho_br]

Jesus probably spoke Aramaic. Though he probably understood both. Does it matter what language that he spoke? None of the Gospels are from eyewitnesses. They merely repat a 30 to 60 year old oral tradition.

Your argument carries considerable weight, and I personally appreciate it as it is quite effective against extremist fanatics.

Now, for you to understand why I value the New Testament writings, you would need to grasp how I interpret them, how I use them. Therefore, I would like to provide you with two examples, if you permit.

 

[Betho_br]

Jesus probably spoke Aramaic. Though he probably understood both. Does it matter what language that he spoke? None of the Gospels are from eyewitnesses. They merely repat a 30 to 60 year old oral tradition.

Your argument carries considerable weight, and I personally appreciate it as it is quite effective against extremist fanatics.

Now, for you to understand why I value the New Testament writings, you would need to grasp how I interpret them, how I use them. Therefore, I would like to provide you with two examples, if you permit.

Jesus probably spoke Aramaic. Though he probably understood both. Does it matter what language that he spoke? None of the Gospels are from eyewitnesses. They merely repat a 30 to 60 year old oral tradition.

Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. (Lk. 24:27 NAU)

explained - διερμήνευσεν (Lk. 24:27, 2 Mac. 1:36; Acts 9:36)

The usage is indeed to translate, and you are correct, Jesus understood at least two languages.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I hold in high esteem the Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

I'm asking you why.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your argument carries considerable weight, and I personally appreciate it as it is quite effective against extremist fanatics.

Now, for you to understand why I value the New Testament writings, you would need to grasp how I interpret them, how I use them. Therefore, I would like to provide you with two examples, if you permit.

Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. (Lk. 24:27 NAU)

explained - διερμήνευσεν (Lk. 24:27, 2 Mac. 1:36; Acts 9:36)

The usage is indeed to translate, and you are correct, Jesus understood at least two languages.

I do not quite understand your point and I thank you for the compliment. But Moses was likely a fictional being too, so I do not give what he supposedly said very much credibility.

 

[Betho_br]

I'm asking you why.

Look, for centuries, all of Christian theology asserted that Jesus was forsaken on the cross. Muslims say otherwise. I checked the phrase in the Psalm that Jesus spoke, and it's written that God doesn't abandon the afflicted. This same theology insisted for centuries that there's no prophecy in the Hebrew Scriptures about Jesus being called a Nazarene, according to the Gospel of Matthew. However, it was the prophets Anna and Simeon in Luke who mentioned it. This same theology also claimed that Jews needed to be 'converted,' but it's the New Testament Scriptures of Christians, particularly in the Gospels, including a statement by Jesus, that say a Jew, by fulfilling the law, ensures eternal life and stays away from eternal torment. So, I don't think like the so-called 'Christians.' I appreciate and value the impartial and fair interpretation of the Scriptures

 

[Betho_br]

I do not quite understand your point and I thank you for the compliment. But Moses was likely a fictional being too, so I do not give what he supposedly said very much credibility.

When citing διερμήνευσεν, I am stating that it is written in the New Testament that Jesus actually interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures, and this involves at least two languages, that's all.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Look, for centuries, all of Christian theology asserted that Jesus was forsaken on the cross. Muslims say otherwise. I checked the phrase in the Psalm that Jesus spoke, and it's written that God doesn't abandon the afflicted. This same theology insisted for centuries that there's no prophecy in the Hebrew Scriptures about Jesus being called a Nazarene, according to the Gospel of Matthew. However, it was the prophets Anna and Simeon in Luke who mentioned it. This same theology also claimed that Jews needed to be 'converted,' but it's the New Testament Scriptures of Christians, particularly in the Gospels, including a statement by Jesus, that say a Jew, by fulfilling the law, ensures eternal life and stays away from eternal torment. So, I don't think like the so-called 'Christians.' I appreciate and value the impartial and fair interpretation of the Scriptures

I'm wondering if we are having problems with language. I have asked you twice so far what reasons you have for quoting from a Hebrew translation of the New Testament. So far, you haven't given me any reasons. I have given you a reason why someone might quote the original Greek. I have given you a reason why someone would prefer a translation in their native language. But unless a person is Israeli and their native language is Hebrew, I can think of no reason why they would prefer a Hebrew translation. So once again, I'm asking you why.

 

[Link]

The biggest and easiest contradiction is that emphasis on the righteous and exalted nature of his chosen, yet at the same time, talking about their degeneration and horrendous crimes.

Aaron and the first Mariam vying about the authority of Moses. Solomon turning pagan. Saul turning envious. Lot sleeping with his daughters. David setting up one of his top commanders to be killed.

The verses emphasize on chosen from God in the Bible and they being close to God and higher. Yet it also emphasizes that they degenerate to worse than most humans. It's a huge contradiction in my view.

 

[Link]

Another contradiction is if miracles are signs/proof/indications of truth or not. Solomon surely was given miracles but dies a pagan.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The biggest and easiest contradiction is that emphasis on the righteous and exalted nature of his chosen, yet at the same time, talking about their degeneration and horrendous crimes.

Aaron and the first Mariam vying about the authority of Moses. Solomon turning pagan. Saul turning envious. Lot sleeping with his daughters. David setting up one of his top commanders to be killed.

The verses emphasize on chosen from God in the Bible and they being close to God and higher. Yet it also emphasizes that they degenerate to worse than most humans. It's a huge contradiction in my view.

Jews make no claim to being better people than anyone else. If you want to use the word chosen, then the first question is: chosen for what?

 

[Betho_br]

The biggest and easiest contradiction is that emphasis on the righteous and exalted nature of his chosen, yet at the same time, talking about their degeneration and horrendous crimes.

Aaron and the first Mariam vying about the authority of Moses. Solomon turning pagan. Saul turning envious. Lot sleeping with his daughters. David setting up one of his top commanders to be killed.

The verses emphasize on chosen from God in the Bible and they being close to God and higher. Yet it also emphasizes that they degenerate to worse than most humans. It's a huge contradiction in my view.

Job is an example for these questions. There is a book dedicated solely to this. Job was extremely religious and sought to be exhaustively "just." It is evident that in this carnal world, this is impossible. Even in his fall, Job, obsessed with pride, questioned God about His "justice." This is equivalent to Abel, who sought to escape the curse of the land by offering animals, as well as the 99 lambs in lamb's clothing that are left on the mountain and in the desert because they are just in their own eyes.

God does not love the proud hypocrites.

 

[Betho_br]

I'm wondering if we are having problems with language. I have asked you twice so far what reasons you have for quoting from a Hebrew translation of the New Testament. So far, you haven't given me any reasons. I have given you a reason why someone might quote the original Greek. I have given you a reason why someone would prefer a translation in their native language. But unless a person is Israeli and their native language is Hebrew, I can think of no reason why they would prefer a Hebrew translation. So once again, I'm asking you why.

Perhaps we are having. I enjoy both the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew and the New Testament in Armenian; both reflect a very ancient Greek text with some enlightening variant words.

 

[Link]

Jews make no claim to being better people than anyone else. If you want to use the word chosen, then the first question is: chosen for what?

I'm not talking about Jewish people. But the chosen from them.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm not talking about Jewish people. But the chosen from them.

Okay, then I've lost you. Usually when people refer to "the chosen people" they are referring to the People of Israel, aka the Jews. So if you are talking about some other group, I don't know who you mean.

 

[Link]

Okay, then I've lost you. Usually when people refer to "the chosen people" they are referring to the People of Israel, aka the Jews. So if you are talking about some other group, I don't know who you mean.

I mean the people chosen to be leaders and Prophets by God. For example, David is chosen by God. Solomon chosen by God.

 

[Betho_br]

Okay, then I've lost you. Usually when people refer to "the chosen people" they are referring to the People of Israel, aka the Jews. So if you are talking about some other group, I don't know who you mean.

I'm not a big fan of the word 'chosen.' I remember when my future wife used it to refer to me... I was there, all giddy, as if I had won the love lottery.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I mean the people chosen to be leaders and Prophets by God. For example, David is chosen by God. Solomon chosen by God.

I have never before heard anyone use "chosen people" to refer to that group. I have heard the phrase used for Jews, aka the People of Israel. And I have heard people use it for the church, aka all Christians. So you view is unusual to say the least, since David and Solomon hardly make up a "People."

 

[Betho_br]

I have never before heard anyone use "chosen people" to refer to that group. I have heard the phrase used for Jews, aka the People of Israel. And I have heard people use it for the church, aka all Christians. So you view is unusual to say the least, since David and Solomon hardly make up a "People."

I like what is written about David. The fight against Goliath is very interesting. Israel was on one mountain, and the Philistines were on another, while David and Goliath were in the valley. It is clear that those peoples did not expect a sling and five stones as a battle strategy. Goliath himself confused the sling with a piece of wood.

It is certain that, excluding Goliath's squire who witnessed the entire scene and likely reported it to the Philistines, the people of Israel saw only a fallen giant and a young man holding his head with a sword.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I have never before heard anyone use "chosen people" to refer to that group. I have heard the phrase used for Jews, aka the People of Israel. And I have heard people use it for the church, aka all Christians. So you view is unusual to say the least, since David and Solomon hardly make up a "People."

Would you consider the figurative humble 'sheep' found at Jesus' coming Glory Time - Matt. 25:31-34,37 - as 'chosen people ' ?