What is the biggest/most negating contradiction in the Bible?

[Spiritone]

The OT at the beginning describes, many Gods, and later says that God can not be 'seen or known etc.' There are many descriptions of 'God' and his communications with certain people but when we go into the NT Jesus talks about our Father who is his Father who never talks to anyone. The messages of Jesus are absolutely ideal and an indication to humans on how to live and seems to be a higher level of understanding than the OT teachings.

 

[rusra02]

Thou shalt not kill/murder...

...shall be stoned to death and their blood shall be upon them

Murder is forbidden in the Law. Why then, does God command execution of criminals? This is in line with his justice. The execution was done according to the legal requirements of the Mosaic law, and God did not consider such executions a violation of his command not to murder. It is not a contradiction.

 

[rusra02]

Just curious.

The Bible is inspired by God, and does not contradict itself. (2 Timothy 3:16,17) The supposed discreptancies people point to are most often due to misunderstanding what the Bible says. Haven't you ever been misunderstood?

 

[rusra02]

I feel the same way. Like the Garden of Eden. Adam eats the apple, and God doesn't automatically know, until Adam tells him. Makes no sense.

What makes you think God did not know that Adam had sinned. The one forming the eye, can He not see?

 

[rusra02]

The first three Gospels report the Carpenter in the wilderness and tempted, following His baptism.

John chronicals a different report.....
The Carpenter is calling disciples immediately and then is seen at a wedding changing water into wine.

The gospels presented different perspectives of Jesus life and ministry. What one gospel mentions another may omit, or may discuss different details of the same event. John apparently completed his account last and had the othe gospel accounts at his disposal. He chose under inspiration to write of many events the other gospel writers did not mention, and to omit events well covered by the other gospel writers (Matthew, Mark and Luke) Just as eyewitnesses to the same event will see and emphasize aspects of the event that others may not, the same is true of the gospel writers. All the accounts together present a harmonious and accurate record of Jesus life, ministry, and teachings.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If the Mosaic Laws do not apply to him, then presumably Christ's sacrifice would not release him from them, would it?

What law was he under, and does the sacrifice of Christ have anything to do with his commitments to God? In the Epistles, Paul phrased everything in terms of the Old Law, presumably meaning Mosaic Law.


Which is more just?

- simply erasing sin
- inflicting unimaginable and undeserved punishment on the innocent, then simply erasing sin

Christ was under the Mosaic law.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

 

[Danmac]

Thou shalt not kill/murder...

...shall be stoned to death and their blood shall be upon them

Is it against the law to confine a person in a prison against their will?

Is it against the law to kill someone?

Is it against the law to take what doesn't belong to you?

 

[Draka]

Is it against the law to confine a person in a prison against their will?

No

Is it against the law to kill someone?

Whose law and who is doing the killing?

Is it against the law to take what doesn't belong to you?

Whose law and who is doing the taking?

 

[Draka]

Oh, and I must say it's kind of amusing when someone comes in, and with their very first post they profess Christ and call another person a "devil-worshipping anti-christ" right off the bat. Yep, amusing. Why? Because they won't be around long if that's a normal tactic for them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Christ was under the Mosaic law.

And Mosaic Law forbade human sacrifice.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

And this makes needless torture a good thing how, exactly?

 

[Danmac]

No

Whose law and who is doing the killing?

Whose law and who is doing the taking?

The original wording say's, "Thou shalt not murder". That involves criminal intent. As you have pointed out. Killing someone can be justified at times. So the Bible doesn't contradict itself by saying don't murder, while at the same time giving the government permission to put people to death.

 

[Danmac]

First off, you need to read the rules of a forum you join before you go posting.

If pointing out that Christianity is just as much based in myth as any other religion and that is has its faults and inconsistencies is "talking crap"

So do you believe in the triple goddess or the horned god?

 

[Draka]

The original wording say's, "Thou shalt not murder". That involves criminal intent. As you have pointed out. Killing someone can be justified at times. So the Bible doesn't contradict itself by saying don't murder, while at the same time giving the government permission to put people to death.

How do you know the original wording is "murder" and not just "kill" as it has been translated both ways quite frequently? Just wondering how you know that.

 

[Draka]

So do you believe in the triple goddess or the horned god?

I believe that they are manifested spiritual aspects of the larger Divine Source. I do not believe in any physical accounts as their physical accounts are myths. Myths have a purpose. I'm not negating the importance of myth, but to take it all literally does its meaning a disservice. You can get so much more out of myth and allegory when you accept it and treat it as such than to try to take something as literal fact. Especially when it has proven time and time again to be false...such as creation myths. To lock oneself into believing something which is factually untrue affects one's higher reasoning abilities.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you know the original wording is "murder" and not just "kill" as it has been translated both ways quite frequently? Just wondering how you know that.

You can look at the original text. Some translations miss nuances in the original language; some interpret the text for or against a particular viewpoint.

And I wouldn't say it's been translated both ways frequently. AFAIK, the only Bible in common use that translates the commandment as "you shall not kill" is the English translation of the Vulgate, which is only one version (albeit a popular version), and it has the problem of being translated to English through Latin instead of directly from the Hebrew.

Also, there can sometimes be another issue (especially with older translations, such as the King James Bible), the English language can change, so our current usage of a word doesn't always match the usage of the word at the time the translation was made. I don't think this is so much an issue for "murder" vs. "kill", but it is an issue for "charity" vs. "love": the 17th Century usage of the word "charity" is closer to our modern definition of "love" than our modern definition of "charity".

 

[Draka]

You can look at the original text. Some translations miss nuances in the original language; some interpret the text for or against a particular viewpoint.

And I wouldn't say it's been translated both ways frequently. AFAIK, the only Bible in common use that translates the commandment as "you shall not kill" is the English translation of the Vulgate, which is only one version (albeit a popular version), and it has the problem of being translated to English through Latin instead of directly from the Hebrew.

Also, there can sometimes be another issue (especially with older translations, such as the King James Bible), the English language can change, so our current usage of a word doesn't always match the usage of the word at the time the translation was made. I don't think this is so much an issue for "murder" vs. "kill", but it is an issue for "charity" vs. "love": the 17th Century usage of the word "charity" is closer to our modern definition of "love" than our modern definition of "charity".

Perhaps that is true. I still can't help but think it is still a little hypocritical to say not to kill or murder but then say it is ok to stone someone to death. No mention of trial or government, just that...if a person curses their parents...stone them. All this talk of love and forgiveness and yet...hurl stones at this guy until he slowly and torturously dies before you because he had the gall to fall in love with another man. Just reaks to me you know?

 

[dust1n]

Draka, you claim to follow wicca, which =witchcraft which =evil which =devil worship.

LOL, it's like a newborn trying to do math!

 

[logician]

"Blessed are those that have not seen, yet believe"

 

[Danmac]

How do you know the original wording is "murder" and not just "kill" as it has been translated both ways quite frequently? Just wondering how you know that.

Here is a link that explains it pretty well.
Truth Or Tradition - Ratsach, Hebrew word mistranslated kill in Sixth Commandment, Bible study

 

[Danmac]

I believe that they are manifested spiritual aspects of the larger Divine Source. I do not believe in any physical accounts as their physical accounts are myths. Myths have a purpose. I'm not negating the importance of myth, but to take it all literally does its meaning a disservice. You can get so much more out of myth and allegory when you accept it and treat it as such than to try to take something as literal fact. Especially when it has proven time and time again to be false...such as creation myths. To lock oneself into believing something which is factually untrue affects one's higher reasoning abilities.

So we should treat it as though it is make believe, but act upon it as though it is a reality. Is that what you are saying?