Contradictions in the Bible?

[thalbergmad]

I look forward to the holy ones answer to the last post.

Thal

[pianistimo]

i will check out soho. 

if it were me doing the science - i'd be a bit skeptical about using ear thermometer technology to study the sun - but i suppose that vicariously studying it without actually poking it - is a safer way to go.  this core temperature seems a bit of a joke if it could be off 500,000 K's.  but, then - this is really in-depth science and someone has to have some theories. 

i guess that one could even try an ear thermometer to gauge the hotness of people.  i might try it on my husband next time he gets sick - just to make him laugh. 

speaking of hotness - has anyone gone on 'ratemyprofessor'  and been shocked that there is a 'hotness' rating.  at first - i tried to ignore it.  i thought, how indecent.  but, then - i thought since he had zero - that it really shouldn't be that way.  so i tried to bump him up - but i had already put in my rating and i don't think it took.  so he's a good professor but has a poor hotness rating.  i kinda feel bad for him.

[thalbergmad]

 
if it were me doing the science

We would be back in the dark ages

[prometheus]

What is an 'ear thermometer'?

[asyncopated]

i'd be a bit skeptical about using ear thermometer technology to study the sun

LOL I never thought if it like that.  What I mean is that the principle is the same.  The equipment used is vastly different.

Basically, it measures temperature by analysing the infrared spectrum.

this core temperature seems a bit of a joke if it could be off 500,000 K's

Yes. What do you need a more accurate number for?  The numbers are really quite meaningless, in the sense that there is no way for you or me to visualise what is going on.

It is more of a guage for the total amount of energy that the sun gives out and also for us to understand what can happen in the sun.   We can figure out the processes that can occur, because we know how much energy it takes to separate an electron from a proton in a hydrogen atom, and can calculate the same numbers for any other element.

At that kind of temperature things are well past burning (which is the hottest thing we can probably visualise).  Matter stops being in the form that you an i know it, rather it is a plasma soup of electrons and ions colliding with one another, constantly fusing and breaking apart again, absorbing and releasing energy (on the average it gives out more energy than it takes in). 

What is an 'ear thermometer'?

https://www.testyourhealth.co.uk/product/0010/Thermometer

Prometheus, I hope she answers your questions.

[prometheus]

Oh.

It is tipical that she tries to change subject by saying something stupid and senseless.

[pianistimo]

ok.  let's start in the book of judges - which i presume is where you are talking about the israelites killing off their enemies. 

judges 6:1 - God gives israelites into the hands of midianites for seven years because they 'did what was evil in the sight of the Lord.'  then, it talks about what their enemies were doing this whole time.  'whenever the israelites would plant seed, the midianites and the amalekites and the people of the east would come up against them.  they would encamp against them and destroy the produce of the land, as far as the neighborhood of gaza, and leave no sustenance in israel, and no sheep or ox or donkey.  for they and their livestock would come up, and they would even bring their tents, as thick as locusts; neither they nor their camels could be counted; so they wasted the land as they came in.  thus, israel was greatly impoverished because of midian; and the israelites cried to the Lord for help.'

now, before this - you know israel was enslaved by the pharoahs of egypt.  they had just come out of 'slavery.'  i suppose that they were not in a mood to 'fight' - but this was survival.

look at any peoples that have survived through history - and war is a fact of life.  if you only attribute it to israel (and vicariously God - as he helped them defeat their enemies) - then you are saying that the agressors (who were taking sustenance and not wanting to live peacefully) were in the right! 

also, God GAVe the land of canaan to the israelites - but israel at this particular point is too scared to go up against their enemies as God directed them to - to take the land completely.  gideon says in verse 15 'but sir (God), how can i deliver israel?  my clan is the weakest in mannaseh and i am the least in my family.'

The Lord said to him,'But, I will be with you, and you shall strike down the midianites, every one of them.'  at the same time God gave a promise for help in battle - he also told gideon to get rid of the baal statues that belonged to his father.  but, as soon as gideon died - 'the israelites relapsed and prostututed themselves with the baals, making baal-berith their god.'  (verse 33)

so even though God delivered them many times from their enemies - they'd forget and worship other Gods.  i believe the fact that they continually had enemies made them occasionally remember the true God and be humbled by the times when they were not able to win victory over their enemies.

now some of the reasons stated are not the entirety of the story.  in judges 11:17 'when israel went through the wilderness to the red sea and came to kadesh.  israel then sent messengers to the king of edom, saying, 'let us pass through your land'; but the king of edom would not listen.  they also sent to the king of moab, but he would not consent.  so israel remained at kadesh.  they they journeyed through the wilderness (the long way) and went around the land of edom and the land of moab, arrived on the east side of the land of moab, and camped on the other side of the arnon.  they did not enter the territory of moab, for the arnon was the boundary of moab. 

israel then sent messengers to king sihon of the amorites, king of heshbon; and israel said to him 'let us pass through your land to our country.'  but sihon did not trust israel to pass through his territory; so sihon gathered all his people together, and encamped at jahaz, and fought with israel.  then, the Lord, the God of israel, gave sihon and all his people into the hand of israel, and they defeated them; so israel occupied all the land of the amorites, who inhabited that country. 

[prometheus]

ok.  let's start in the book of judges - which i presume is where you are talking about the israelites killing off their enemies. 

I though that when I use the word 'Numbers' you realised I was talking about the book of the bible that is called that way. Not about the math of science.

Numbers Chapter 31, verse 16-17. Go pick your bible and look it up.

I refuse to read what you posted here. I didn't read it.

[pianistimo]

whenever other countries see land being taken - they go to land grabbing.  the ammonite king now comes to israel and says 'wait' you took my land.  then they say - no we took the amORites land - 'do you intend to take their place? should you not posess what your god Chemosh gives you to possess?  and should we not be the ones to possess everything that the Lord our God has conquored for our benefit?'  (aside:  this particular king was greedy and just then was making war on israel for moving into the territory next to him).  jephthath says 'it is not I who have sinned against you, but you are the one who does me wrong by making war on me.  Let the Lord, who is judge, decide today for the Israelites or for the Ammonites.'

and, so on until the philistines dominated israel for 40 years.  then, sampson comes along.  it's really a push and pull thing - where israel is not completely the victor.  the agressors are on all sides and israel defends her right to exist.

[prometheus]

Yes, but what do you think about Numbers Chapter 31, verse 16-17?


If you were god would you given Moses the same advise?

[pianistimo]

the book of numbers (ch 31) is still a book about a census of israel and not the full story.  the exact same story in the book of judges is about the SAME midianites that i spoke of in my last message.  maybe you should be the one to compare chapters between books because the bible is a very intertwined book.  midianites are midianites - and the same midianites in the book of numbers are the same midianities in the book of judges. 

the story is the same - they came up out of egypt.  tried to settle peacefully.  were overtaken by the midianites for seven years (sabotaged by them in planting) - finally had enough - and God allowed them to overtake their enemies.

they did not provoke.  the enemy was provoking.

[prometheus]

What do you think about what God told Moses to do?

I can argue about the Midianities with you, it is incorrect, but I refuse.

What do you think I would have done to Moses and his people if I were god? What would I have done with the Midianities?

And, can you give me of an example of a character in literature that is more 'unpleasant' than god here? And why?

Either answer my questions or be honest and say that you won't. That will be fine. But don't give me non-sense.

[pianistimo]

i will only answer your questions when you agree that i am already being honest in my answers and that they may be nonsense TO YOU - but are not nonsense.  the bible speaks for itself.

perhaps you are raising what - in our generation - seems like a moral question.  should God allow people who are evil to live.  after the new testament - God made it plain that he sends his rain on the just and the injust.  but, his intent is to cause the earth to be renewed with His Holy Spirit.  so what we see today (wars and rumors of wars) will be replaced by a kingdom that is forever.  not made with human hands.  and there will be no more death and no more sorrow.  implements of war will be made into 'plowshares.'

most other 'gods' of the romans - and so forth - (even old testament gods) needed appeasement.  they were not forward thinking enough to have reasons other than 'the god needs this.'  on the other hand, our God is a forward thinking God and His thoughts lead to reason.  a reason for existing.  a reason for going forward into 'battle' as a soldier against a spiritual warefare of the mind.  the deaths of people lead to the same evils over and over - like a circle.  peace is a state of mind.

[prometheus]

You aren't being honest. You can't if you claim that the earth is 6000 years old.

Theists have a hard time to be honest.


Ok, you refuse to answer the question or say something about that part of Numbers. Well, fine. But don't forget what is in the bible there. And that is is terrible. Fine that you don't want to admit this here and now. But do remember the bible teaches bad things. When you teach your children that the bible is a good book know that it is also terrible.


As for Numbers vs Judges, Moses isn't in Judges. The Midianites are in both books. But in Numbers Moses his people live in peace next to the Midianites. Until God tells them to kill all of them.

And yes, then the Midianites oppress the Israelites.

Numbers 25 said that the Israelites and the Midianites live peacefully together. Then in chapter 31 God orders Moses to commit genocide.

In the book of judges we have many more wars with the Midianites.


If I were god I would never have ordered Moses to kill off all of them, including babies and children.

If I were god I would have taught both of them to be peaceful people. And if I were god I would have been able to do so.


So yes, you refuse to defend the bible. Yes, the bible speaks for itself. And so does the level of your honesty. May others make their own judgement. But I already have mine.

[pianistimo]

judges tells the story of moses - and it is the same midianites that oppressed israel right after they came out of the wilderness. 

what God was doing was USING israel to show the nations about that their god's were worthless to defend them.  that God could use a very small nation to defeat many many nations in the area.  this is where the idea of 'manifest destiny' probably started.  that God had a plan - He started it in motion with israel - and continues it today through another nation (a holy nation) made up of Christians.

our battle will be the one at Christ's return - as He is our warrior.  He will fight THE NATIONS at his return.  that won't be a small battle.  rev. 17:14 'they will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of Lords and Kingof Kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.' 

it doesn't matter what you think my level of honesty is because you are not God.  perhaps at that time you may be able to ask God - why did the midianites have to die?  all i can see is what i read in the bible.  only God knows the indepth answers to His own reasons.

[prometheus]

So you worship a god that kills whole peoples, including children, to show that their gods are false?


If that is what your god teaches... Sheesh, I can't even say it. It is too 'evil'.

Let me just stay it is not only immoral to worship such a god. It is also bad for you. I know you are not in prison for murder. That just shows your innert morality. I mean, with only gods morality you would be in prison for murder right now.

Judges 1 starts with the mentioning of the death of Josua, who succeded Moses after he died.

[thalbergmad]

all i can see is what i read in the bible. 

Well, we agree on something then.

[pianistimo]

He died at 110 years of age.  when God is for you, who can be against you.  you might consider that evil.  I consider God the author of creation - and if He made creation good - He certainly wasn't evil.  look around, prometheus.  we make the world evil by hating each other.  God is love.  not hate.  the enemies of israel hated them because they kept God's word and were blessed. 

[thalbergmad]

when God is for you, who can be against you.  

That is a huge problem when people who follow other religions think the same thing.

[thalbergmad]

the enemies of israel hated them because they kept God's word and were blessed. 

Possibly a little more to it than that.

[ahinton]

all i can see is what i read in the bible.

Well, we agree on something then.

As I wrote several months ago in response to a thread begun by "ada":
"I don't want to make her a foe
But must say to "pianistimo"
The things that you're li'ble
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so..."

Case closed (please)...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

yes.  probably a lot more to it.  i mean- he had to pick somebody.  nobody's perfect.  they were guneau pigs.  but, noone seems to want to take their spot - because when God picks you for a job - you have to finish it.  no matter the difficulties.  sort of like weightlifiting, except you wait for God to pick up the really heavy items.

[thalbergmad]

yes.  probably a lot more to it.  i mean- he had to pick somebody.  nobody's perfect.  they were guneau pigs.  but, noone seems to want to take their spot - because when God picks you for a job - you have to finish it.  no matter the difficulties.  sort of like weightlifiting, except you wait for God to pick up the really heavy items.

Can i please have the "password" of the day, so i can de code this post.

Thanks

[cziffra]

Can i please have the "password" of the day, so i can de code this post.

Thanks

The password for her posts has always been about 6 tabs of LSD

that's only way to even think you can comprehend her incoherent ramblings.

[ahinton]

Can i please have the "password" of the day, so i can de code this post.

Thanks

Whatever gives you the idea that you'll need only one?...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

God is love. 

So if you butcher thousands of children in the name of god it is love?

And not something that is not right?


What if I believe that everyone who has green eyes has green eyes because of the devil. And thus is not the work of god. Then I go on a killing spree killing all people with green eyes. Is that love? Or is that insanity?

What about all the little children that were raped that day by the Israelites? The bible is fiction but back in the days this was common. Imagine what those little girls experienced. First their fathers were slain on the battlefield. Then they watched how the Israelites plundered their village and broke into their homes. Their mother was killed before their eyes. And then their little brothers too, which they tried to protect, a little 12 year old girl trying to protect her 10 and 8 year old brothers. They are just killed without hestitation. Then those men take the girl and fight who is to take her as a wife. This one guy is bigger and stronger. He pushes away his fellow soldier and then rapes the girl.
Later the girl becomes his wife.


And then you tell this little girl that she should be grateful for all the love that is bestowed on her by Jahweh? Because maybe all the terrors in the world were unleashed on her, now she will be forced and brainwashed to believe in the true god?

If you then you are an incredible sick person.

Do you realise how close that barbaric violence is still to us? How easy it is for an actual caring human to go out and sack a enemy village, killing all males and old woman and raping the younger ones? It used to be normal. And it is also written down in the bible because back then it was normal.

But now we are supposed to be civilised. No more genocide and mass murder.

But you defend it in this case because it is in the bible. Then it is love. What about Sudan? You created a post about Sudan just a while ago. There exactly the same is happening. Do you think the atrocities there are also 'love'.

[pianistimo]

prometheus,

you can imagine whatever scenes you want - but it doesn't mean that happened in the OT.  do you realize that the israelites were probably the most merciful of the 'warriors' in those days - because #1 they did not want to fight  #2 they were defending themselves (not proactively going out from town to town and trying to decimate people)  #3 they knew that if they created a lot of enemies - then the same would come back to them.

the women may have been 'taken' - as in given in marriage - but not under a certain age - and not the married women.  other groups that worshpped other gods did not make any distinctions like this that i am aware of.  i believe who you are referring to is 'the enemy.'  the enemies of God are destructive and evil and their progeny will teach the same to each generation.  that is how evil flourishes. 

when the righteous rule - there is peace.  we will not know or understand this peace until Jesus Christ makes the rule law.  and love IS His priority.  not our sin.  sin is under the law- but love is over the law.  so all the wars past and present - will be as nothing - because HE ressurrects the dead.  there is someplace in the bible that says that 'all will be taught of God - and noone will say 'know the Lord...' because everyone will know Him. 

this doesn't appeal to our modern senses because it is not democratic.  but, God is fair - not democratic.  he doesn't ask us to vote on his decisions.  if He decides that an enemy should go - they go.  who are we to question Him?  we are his creation.  i don't think we will be disappointed for following Him.  apparrently you do.  that is because you do not see the love of God yet - in order, peace, rule of law. 

in human societies - government is accomplished by many people - resulting in chaos, lack of knowledge of who needs help and who can give it fastest, no rules that are binding, and no peace EVER.  have you ever seen a government that truly brought peace.  that is why at this time of year - they say 'peace on earth - goodwill to men.'  only Christ can bring it!  not just once a year - but EVERY DAY.

btw, i tend to think that how peace is accomplished for a small unit (such as a family- or one or two people) is much much different than a group or a nation or a world of nations.  too much competition without God's intervention.  for Him to reveal His will would be a sigh of relief for all those who live in nations around the world that truly want peace. 

[prometheus]

It isn't described in the OT. But it does happen in Sudan and it happened all over the place in the past.

And the OT describes god telling his people to commit such an act.

Your defences:

1) Maybe they didn't. But god told them to. I didn't blame those people. I blame god. He should have known better, shouldn't he? Jesus would never have said such a thing. But the god of the OT does.

2) They weren't defending themselves. They were going to follow god in avenging a punishment god gave them for something they were to blame for themselves. It says so explicitly.
Anyway, you don't kill children out of self defence. They were destroying the whole people. Genocide is never self defence.

3) Yes. But where's the 'turn the other cheek'? And they did create enemies themselves by invading someone elses land. But, they managed to live in peace with these people. Until god forced them to kill them off until the last male because of something absurd.

This is not the 'love' of Jesus Christ. This is the absurdity of the god of the OT.

this doesn't appeal to our modern senses because it is not democratic. 

Uuh, what?!

Killing children does never 'appeal to our modern senses', Even when we vote on it. Hitler was elected democratically, though he then made himself a dictator and forced war upon his people, and the rest of the world.

It has nothing to do with democracy. I know you hate it, but this is not a moment to lash out to it.

You are a primitive person. You should feel more at home with the Taliban in Afghanistan or the hunting tribes in Sudan.

Unless you are being dishonest again. I know you are. You are just trying everything to defend your stupid book. Just accept it's crap. Don't give me this bullshit.

[pianistimo]

the only thing that is crap is our current system of world government.  it has no rule of law that is consistent for every nation.  that is why you see it as oppressive - because you've never seen a good system.  what if everyone obeyed the rule of law.  is that terrible.

what if people today suddenly didn't steal, kill, murder, etc. - would that be terrible?

now, i happen to think there will be a one world government created soon - but it is prophecied to turn on itself.  first, it will be 'peace, peace' and then war because humans don't understand the way to peace is through the Holy Spirit.  there is no other way.  the Holy Spirit is the mind of God and there is no other 'mind' or 'knowledge' that can surpass it in TRUe LOVE.  not a fading love.  an everlasting love.  God has loved us eternally!  and, He wants all to come to the knowledge of Him and be with Him instead of apart from Him.

it's kind of like parenting - but on a bigger level.  it has been found - through all kinds of research on child development - that children who's parents put into practice boundaries and limitations ...and then slowly, as the child matures ...let go of these incrementally until the child is mature feel more loved.  the child who can do anything at anytime - does not feel the love.  even babies prefer to be 'swaddled' - or tightly bound because they feel the security in knowing the parents are going to take care of them and gently ease them from one transition to another.

as i see it - we are going to be 'transitioned' from this world to a totally new and different world during the millenial reign of Christ on this earth.  those who are ressurrected to the first ressurrection will have a new body.  not a physical one.  they will actually be LIKE Christ in body.  they will 'be changed, in a twinkling of an eye - at the last trumpet.'  then the dead shall be raised (some incorruptible - and some not) - as in ezekiel 37 or so - and there will be quite a surprised look when they are ressurrected from bone to sinew to flesh in their bodies that they previoiusly had.  why?  because it  ain't over yet.  why else would ezekiel have bothered to write that whole entire chapter?  they aren't in heaven!

[prometheus]

I don't understand. There is currently no world government. And I doubt there ever will be one.

I never said that something is oppressive. I am not even going to bother what you think I find oppressive.

What if everyone obeyed the rule of law? Well, first of all; again that will never happen. And how good it is, that depends on the nature of the law.

What I called terrible is the bible, a book that is supposed to offer moral teaching, where there is a large amount of stories where god, the supposed definition of morality, orders his people to kill innocent children and kills innocent children himself.

[pianistimo]

the United Nations was created to be exactly that.  a unity of nations.  the european union may be just europe right now - but many other nations WANT to join.  the pope is encouraging turkey.  not exactly a european nation - although WOULD be if they joined, right? 

i think people will change their minds about God's mercy when they see His plan in full.  it is not to kill innocent people - as you imply - but to keep the population of the earth full of righteous people so they are not affected by those who perpetuate evil.  this is only decided by God at the judgement.  so you can't say - well, are you righteous.  i don't know!  i hope so!  i hope God counts Christ's sacrifice in my stead because that is what He came for, right?!  to save us from ourselves and our own ways of thinking and doing - so that we can be like Him (Jesus Christ) and serve others.  to put others needs before our own.

[chopiabin]

The Bible itself represents a contradiction to reality - as do all mythological religious texts.

Take the story of Adam and Eve for instance: besides the obvious fact that this creation myth has no truth in it, consider what it symbolizes. Man is punished with mortality and knowledge of "sin" because he reached out after knowledge. The myth is actually quite telling - Christianity and its absolute morality have hatred of knowledge (and reality) as their roots.

Any wonder that the rise of Christianity coincides quite conspicously in time with Rome's collapse? The New Testament is little more than a product of the intense hatred and resentment of a subjugated people. Christ was a teacher of non-judgment, but his death, which was the product of a hysterical mob, was used by virtually the same mob as a symbol to the suffering and oppressed. Christ, whose role as "god on the cross for the sake of man" must have been widely appealing to the masses, was used as  the foundations of an ideal - that pity is noble. What a convenient morality for the weak, the suffering, the resentful, the pitiable

In the formation of this ideal and its mythology what qualities came to be known as evil?  Roman ones perhaps? All suspicion of wealth, of self-interest, of knowledge, of sensuality, sexuality, of power - this is fundamentally Christian, fundamentally anti-Roman. Read Pope Innocent III's On the Misery of Man - in it one finds the church's hatred of human nature, of the instincts, and of all that drives life forward (one particularly good quote, "Lucky are those who die in the womb, for the never have to taste the bitterness of life").

Christianity is a balm for suffering - yet it encourages pity, which is the weakest emotion and only leads to more suffering and increasing dissatisfaction with life.

[pianistimo]

but it wasn't knowledge, per se, it was the 'knowledge of good and evil.'  for us to decide for ourselves what is good and what is evil.  to not seek God.

[chopiabin]

Precisely!!  We are the ones who do define what good and evil are!! Or at least we have that ability. Most people are simply blinded by their upbringing to realize that what is considered "good" today has not always been the same; likewise with "evil". "God" punished man for seeking out knowledge about morality - because any honest inquiry shows that no morality is absolute.

[pianistimo]

i disagree.  it seems not absolute - but evil always has something painful associated with it. name one of the ten commandments that has no real curse to it.  even dishonoring your father and mother has a very 'real' curse.  you have a lack of relationship - and help and bonding - and therefore a very real possibility for a more difficult life - and a shorter life span.  people sometimes laugh at God because they don't think He can follow through on His own words.  He says, if you honor your father and mother - you'll have a long life.  now, i'm sure there might be a few older people that will joke about this - but generally from past generations it was the norm to respect one's parents.

if disrespecting is ok. then, it sort of leads down a path of bliss for a while until a visible roadblock is seen.  if you disrespect your parents - you are more likely to disrespect anyone in any visible position of authority.  now, i'm all for freedom - but i think children grow into it - and don't start from the top down.  respect leads to 'pause for thought' rather than haphazard testing - as a sort of way of finding out about the world.  if your parents already experienced a few things - why not learn from them.

you get the idea.

[timothy42b]

name one of the ten commandments that has no real curse to it. 

How about,

"Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk." 

King James Version, of course, but check any translation, I'll bet it is still in there.  Of course if you only read the version posted in the courthouse, and don't go the actual source, you won't know this is one of the actual Ten Commandments.   But it is.  (Amazing how so few people who like to debate the Bible have actually read it.) 

Tick, tock.  Tick, tock. 

I'm waiting.

While we're on the subject, the reading in one of the services this Sunday was from ?Mark 4?, and I happened to notice that the chapter before it had a geneology.  Curious, I flipped back to Matthew Ch 1 and read that geneology.  (sp?)

Joseph must have had two fathers, because they don't match.  what's up with that?  And don't give me that maternal vs paternal explanation - remember I actually read it. 

The curse?   

[pianistimo]

that is called a statute - not one of the 10 commandments.  how would it connect to the following?:

1 you shall have no other gods before God.
2 you shall not make graven images
3 you shall not take the name of the Lord in vain
4 remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy
5 honor your father and mother
6 you shall not kill
7 you shall not commit adultery
8 you shall not steal
9 you shall not bear false witness
10 you shall not covet

it just doesn't fit.  it is an old covenant prohibition for the israelites in the wilderness and an example of kindness in the instance that the israelites had to eat something - but not to kill the next generation of their flocks for no purpose and/or show their children that they were heartless by 'boiling a kid' in it's mother's milk.

the things you pick from the bible are really moot today.  who is a butcher that you know?  we do not truly have opportunity to know if our meat market has related meat.  so who cares today?  nobody.

but, people do care when the 10 commandments are broken.  they are in existence today because Jesus Christ kept them and admonished us to keep them from NT times.  if a person kills someone else - that is more definable than a statute about small matters.  Christ called them the weightier matters of the law - and defined our lives by love instead of small matters done out of precision. 

[ahinton]

the things you pick from the bible are really moot today.  who is a butcher that you know?  we do not truly have opportunity to know if our meat market has related meat.  so who cares today?  nobody.

So who decides - and, for that matter, who has the authority to decide - what should be deemed to be "moot" and what should not? You are not usually selective about Biblical texts, your customary line - if I understand it correctly - being that if it's in the Bible it's true and that all the translation and social and other changes in the world since biblical times make no difference to its importance.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

about the genealogies - the genealogies appear not to match because lukes should read ' the son in law of Heli...'  this is Mary's line according to many commentaries.  Joseph and Mary's bloodline meet in the middle.  Christ had to come from the line of Judah - which was the promised kingly line from David.  both of these genealogies meet even before David - if i recall... and they prove that Christ is of a lineage on both parents sides (even though His physical and spiritual Father was God) - so that people would know that He keeps His word and promises.  He promised David there would ALWAYS be a man on the throne - keeping the bloodline today - it would be the throne of England. 

if you go back a few threads - i have a site that explains how the bloodlines of the royal throne carries judah (Davidic line) through the fact that Jeremiah came with Baruch and Tea-Tephi to Ireland many years before (500 BC?) and she married an irish king.  the throne was overturned three times (just as the bible said) from ireland, to scotland, to england!  the coronation stone is probably nothing less than the stone that Jacob slept on - and other kings of judah were coronated on.  the 'stone of scone.'  also, it is said that Jesus Christ is heir of ALL things - both the literal throne and the spiritual one.

[thalbergmad]

about the genealogies - the genealogies appear not to match because lukes should read ' the son in law of Heli...'  this is Mary's line according to many commentaries.  Joseph and Mary's bloodline meet in the middle.  Christ had to come from the line of Judah - which was the promised kingly line from David.  both of these genealogies meet even before David - if i recall... and they prove that Christ is of a lineage on both parents sides (even though His physical and spiritual Father was God) - so that people would know that He keeps His word and promises.  He promised David there would ALWAYS be a man on the throne - keeping the bloodline today - it would be the throne of England. 

There is more evidence for the Loch Ness Monster than there is for the above.

Thal

[cfortunato]

Not a contradiction within the bible as such, but a contradiction with proven biological theory. The "immaculate conception" is clearly fabricated. With an error so large, I ask how can we take anything within this book seriously?
Ed

P.s. Please don't say "god did it", otherwise the unicorns in which you don't believe will trample you in your sleep (I don't expect you to follow that TwinkleFingers).

Since you don't seem to be aware that Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic doctrine from the 1800s, is not in the Bible at all, and has nothing whatsoever to do with biology, why would anyone take anything you say seriously?

[cfortunato]

certain animals reproduce in other ways. You say that we evolve correct? Why couldn't Mary have some mutation and have the capabilities of breeding with herself?

boliver

Heck, why couldn't the creator of the universe make a sperm?

[prometheus]

Those messages are three years old.

[chopiabin]

Does anyone realize that we would never be having this discussion about the Quran, or Ovid's Metamorphoses, or the Book of Mormon? We all assume that those are not all factual documents - why do we even debate it? Any text compiled over a thousand years and manually copied and translated for centuries is absolutely certain to have both internal and external contradictions - why do we give the bible the special opportunity to "prove" itself? Even if proved internally flawless, it would still be a religious text, which is to say, that it represents the moral history of a people - an amalgamation of fact and speculation, of supernatural beliefs and superstitions, all tainted with the hysteria of a mindless mob, and a deep hatred of all that was Roman, privileged, noble, powerful.

The periods in history in which Christianity has achieved its height in power and reigned virtually absolutely are almost always characterized by decreasing creative energies, more apathy, more self-loathing. Take the Middle Ages - after Rome's decline (affected internally by Christianity, externally by German warriors), the Catholic Church found the perfect opportunity to consolidate and extend its power. With the church as virtually the only recognizable institution in a world suddenly filled with chaos, the former citizens of Rome cleaved to her protection, and the Church began to take on secular and political functions.  If one looks at the papal doctrines from this time, one is taken aback by their misanthropy and seeming hatred for life - Pope Innocent III, a powerful and ambitious pope who ruled at the height of Catholic power, wrote On the Contempt for This World and other ascetic doctrines in which the main them can be summed up in a quote from Innocent: "Lucky are those who die in the womb, for they never have to suffer the bitterness of life".

Innocent was prudent - he used his authority to make vassals of kings, to excommunicate his opposers, and to gain secular power for a supposedly "sacred" institution. In  his misanthropic writings, his prudence lies in their poisonous nature - as a preventive measure againsty anarchy, paganism, and "immorality" in Roman power-vaccum. One convinces the commoners (or, with fantastic imagery, the Teutonic  tribes) of their worthlessness, of their vileness, of their inherent evil - and they run to the outstretched hand of the church.

Look at the art from the MA - it reflects man's confusion, his fear, his insecurity, a great self-misunderstanding. Art was not valued aesthetically, but only with regard to its symbolic meaning. As one enters the Early Renaissance, one finds wealthy, proto-capitalist societies - these societies represent the real birthplace of modern individualism, and, though they often called themselves Christians, the humanists really worshiped man's "inherent divinity" - theirs was not a god of pity, but rather a god of affirmation, of a great "YES" to life that brushes off suffering, that refuses to pity in order to maintain strength, a burgeoning and overflowing creative spirit that is evident in all   the works and achievements of the Renaissance.     

[timothy42b]

that is called a statute - not one of the 10 commandments.  how would it connect to the following?:

 

Well, you could be right, I suppose, but how do you know?

When the US had that scandal about the judge posting the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, I was curious enough to go to the Bible and actually look them up.  It's not as simple as you think, if you haven't done this yourself (and you haven't, I can tell).

I found several references to "Ten Commandments," so I knew they existed.

I found several places in Exodus that had lists that roughly included our familiar Ten, but none of them called them Ten Commandments, and none of them really added up to Ten without considerable editing.   Try it yourself and see. 

Then in Exodus 34 I finally found the one and only list of Ten that the Bible actually calls Ten Commandments.  The Bible calls it that, not me, and who am I to disagree?  There is nowhere else in the Bible that I could find where a list is actually called Ten Commandments, and I looked pretty hard. 

But this list is NOT the familiar one, and it DOES include not simmering a young goat in goat's milk.  Why that was a problem for the Israelites is beyond me, but it was important enough to somebody for Moses to write it on stone tablets. 

[timothy42b]

about the genealogies - the genealogies appear not to match because lukes should read ' the son in law of Heli...' 

Because it SHOULD read? 

Why not deal with how it DOES read?

Translation errors are minimal here; this is from Greek, not a double translation from an earlier version of Hebrew.  Just go look at it and see what you think.  The genealogies seem to match back around Abraham, but for several generations before Joseph I can't see any match.   

[lostinidlewonder]

There are no contradictions in the bible, just error in our interpretation. A lot of the material in the bible has to be READ IN CONTEXT. You cannot take one phrase here or there and try to learn from that.

Anything you do you do to honor god, upholding the law instead of keeping it (since humans are inseperable from sin). If you think you find things in the bible that do not make sense then you explore it, not let yourself get hit into a brickwall of doubt  and short sightedness. Don't get confused over small issues which do not paint the big picture! You keep the larger picture in mind and then research the finer points, what is the point in getting caught up over fine points if you have no solid foundation to start with??!

[ahinton]

There are no contradictions in the bible, just error in our interpretation.

That is merely a bald statement; it does not explain of justify itself with details as to how everything that seems anomalous is down to the interpretative license of the reader two millennia later rather than the lack of consistent commonality of expression of the various authors. If you expect to be believed in your statement here, you would have to cite ample irrefutable evidence for this interpretative error in each and every case.

A lot of the material in the bible has to be READ IN CONTEXT.

But then so it should in Hamlet, Paradise Lost, Finnegan's Wake or A Clockwork Orange! - but then who defines that context, who interprets it and how can you guarantee that its interpretation will not metamorphose over time? The first of these cannot be answered at all, the answer to the second is every individual who has ever read the work in any language at any time and the answer to the last is that the only possible guarantee is that the interpretation of both the material itself and the context in which it is read WILL metamorphose over time, because that is in the very nature of constant human change and development.

You cannot take one phrase here or there and try to learn from that.

Such selective reading is, of course, inadvisable, as it is likely to result in biased views, but then the remainder of your statements here seem almost to suggests that this is precisely what you yourself are doing in any case!...

Anything you do you do to honor god, upholding the law instead of keeping it (since humans are inseperable from sin).

This surely applies only to those who believe in God; those who read the Bible are not confined to believers.

If you think you find things in the bible that do not make sense then you explore it, not let yourself get hit into a brickwall of doubt  and short sightedness. Don't get confused over small issues which do not paint the big picture! You keep the larger picture in mind and then research the finer points, what is the point in getting caught up over fine points if you have no solid foundation to start with??!

This appears initially to be sound advice, but it does not stand up to a realistic approach in practice. What IS that "big picture" and who decides what it is? One of the problems is that not every one of the Bible's authors expresses things identically, nor are they each of equal literary prowess. The Bible is an historic document incorporating documents from a whole series of chroniclers; one may as well expect every contemporary journalist today to cover a series of events in identical fashion.

It seems to me that what you are seeking to advocate is that people read the Bible WITHOUT "interpreting", so that there would then be no issues of the kind that you are attempting to address here. This is a hopelessly untenable and unworkable approach, since the Bible's various books and chapters were all written - and have all been read - by humans, none of whom were the kinds of clone suggested by "ada" in the recent God killed the soapbox star thread on this forum; add to that the fact that, whilst the authors all emerged from a roughly similar cultural, social, political and geographical background, the readership over the last two thousand years or so has embraced those of just about every conceivable background.

Unlike you, I am not prepared to make statements like those above without at least some attempt to support them, so, since this is first and foremost a music-oriented forum, let me give you an illustrative example from music. In his remarks some years ago about the rise of the "authentic performance" movement, the English composer Robert Simpson (1921-1997) noted that one of its most significant problems is that all the research in the world, no matter how exhaustive and brilliant, can render it possible for anyone to listen, for example, to the music of J S Bach as Bach's contemporaries would have heard it, because our ears today are accustomed to Xenakis - in other words, our aural experience itself adopts an inevitable rôle as an "interpreter" to the extent that it affects the way in which we hear all music, whether or not we have heard it before.

Likewise - and again this is merely an example - the events covered in the Bible are obviously from a pre-Islamic era, yet they all occurred in certain parts of the Middle East and south east Europe; when anyone reads the Bible today, he/she will almost certainly have to do so with the foreknowledge of at least some aspects of subsequent Middle Eastern and European history and this foreknowledge will inevitably colour its effect.

No - I'm sorry to have to disappoint you, but such bald, unquestioning and inflexible statements as yours here simply won't do, for they will not - and indeed by definition cannot - stand up to scrutiny and still less to practical application.

Best,

Alistair

[asyncopated]

10 you shall not covet 

My neighbour doesn't have a slave, so I can't really covet one.  Well, not that I know of.  But I want one! Gimme gimme gimme.

[chopiabin]

I agree with you alistair, but I feel that there is a point being missed - it is not the internal contradictions in the bible that are important; nor is it terribly important that it blatantly contradicts reality and testable scientific hypotheses; what is important is that it is not meant to be taken literally. If one reads it as literal truth, then one does so out of baseness, lack of imagination; lack of sensitivity for symbolism and the sublime - one does so, and, in so doing, one merely misinterprets.

Why not look beyond the petty contradictions within the text and focus instead on the much more powerful philosophical objections to the fundamental assumptions of Christianity and its accompanying moralism?

If Christianity and Christian morality are no longer beneficial for the highest (and most secure, most self-affirmative) men of today, then it is simply because they have outgrown it. What life-affirming values can take their place?