L
- Status
G
Gaber
Guest
Ys, I know that interpretation and all that went before it, Yet it is hard to swallow, even given the allowances, that His “bithday” has a possible span of 49 years with a twelove year gap. Tell me, if you were so close as the authors allegedly were, then would you be capable of such error? And I’m questioning it because if indeed the conditions of “inspiration” were as you say and such blatant differences occur, how did they not occur otherwise, in other reprtage about Jesus? You are going to take the say so of dubiously qualified men with an agenda three hundred years later? That is an oversimplification, but if you are as competent as you seem to be about Biblical intetion, you also know of some of the skelatons in our closet. Or maybe you don’t consider, or rationalize those as well?
It is all much simpler, as far as I can tell, than this particular stream of religious heritage has made it to be.
C
Crumpy
Guest
There is a book called The Divine Symphony published by the Jewish Publication Society.
The OP may wish to look at this subject from the standpoint of the Jewish faith and tradition. The overwhelming approach within Judaism has been one of reverence for the word of God, to start off with, accepting that it is true. Then, the next general approach has been one of harmonization, to study how to harmonize the texts.
The book I mention above takes the approach that God has given us parallel texts, for example, to stimulate us to think about them more deeply.
In the Jewish Talmud (“study” [of scripture]), there are often different opinions about the meaning of scripture (as there have been from as far back as we can tell). These opinions were compiled side-by-side so that questions could be studied as long as it may take to resolve any problems.
The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford U. Press) has an addendum of almost 300 pages discussing many aspects of Jewish biblical interpretation, including efforts to harmonize or explain, etc. problematic texts of scripture.
The death penalty, if nothing else, teaches us that God is just. People who sin are punished. We have examples of this to prove the point. Would we be convinced that God was just if He didn’t punish evil doers?
God was dealing with, as the Bible says, a stiff-necked people.
The OP may wish to look at this subject from the standpoint of the Jewish faith and tradition. The overwhelming approach within Judaism has been one of reverence for the word of God, to start off with, accepting that it is true. Then, the next general approach has been one of harmonization, to study how to harmonize the texts.
The book I mention above takes the approach that God has given us parallel texts, for example, to stimulate us to think about them more deeply.
In the Jewish Talmud (“study” [of scripture]), there are often different opinions about the meaning of scripture (as there have been from as far back as we can tell). These opinions were compiled side-by-side so that questions could be studied as long as it may take to resolve any problems.
The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford U. Press) has an addendum of almost 300 pages discussing many aspects of Jewish biblical interpretation, including efforts to harmonize or explain, etc. problematic texts of scripture.
I, too, can place myself outside of scripture and question it. Thank God I have faith and study it from the inside, from the standpoint of a person of faith. The Bible makes a lot more sense if you read it with faith, from the get-go.
Paradoxically, the places in the OT where God has issued a death penalty for sin really show how much He loves us. HUH? God has shown us what our sins are, giving us a chance to repent from them. The Jews were ecstatic that God gave them the revelation of the OT. They consider it God’s love letter to them.The death penalty, if nothing else, teaches us that God is just. People who sin are punished. We have examples of this to prove the point. Would we be convinced that God was just if He didn’t punish evil doers?
God was dealing with, as the Bible says, a stiff-necked people.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
There are contradictions, if you restrict your understanding to the literal sense of the scripture.
The literal sense of the Scripture carries the message, but the deeper senses of scripture actually contain the “payload” that God needs us to absorb. Not to figure out, but to absorb.
Paradox is a strong [thought] structure that lives a long time. If Jesus just said, “My Father is good. Pray to Him in my name. Allow my Helper to guide you after I’m gone. Love each other as you love yourselves, and don’t take any wooden nickles,” then Jesus would have really told us everything we ever need to know. But that only makes us observers and wannabees. If we really want to be in the story, we have to allow the story to “happen” to us.
It is neither necessary or for most people particularly useful to understand the literal sense. Moreover, scholars argue every day – even on CAF – about what passages mean. The arguments go on for millenia while the true wisdom is only found with an unquestioning reading. Unquestioning doesn’t mean you buy into the literal sense with its paradoxes; it means just let it soak in and if we can quit trying to figure it out, judge it, and assign its position in our minds, the Helper will take care of it.
It’s like if a bunch of observers go up to an elephant having never seen one before, one will think it’s a tree, another think it’s a rope (tail) another think it’s a sword (tusk) etc. Each person will be right, to the degree that their minds can extrapolate what they see into the “bigger picture.” So we cannot evaluate each part of the scripture against other parts that are looking at truth from a different angle.
That’s why Jesus spoke in parables. The details of His stories were not important except that they helped paint a “thought picture” that Jesus wanted us to experience to help condition our minds – our intellectual “wineskins” – for new truths (wine) to be put in.
Put another way, any time we’re thinking about, talking about, debating over the literal meaning, we occupy our minds with our own stubborn thoughts which get in the way of the Holy Spirit’s very much more subtle approach. It’s like a dog watching the hand of its master, right after the master has thrown a stick, trying to figure out what the hand is doing when the master really wants it to go run after the stick.
Alan
The literal sense of the Scripture carries the message, but the deeper senses of scripture actually contain the “payload” that God needs us to absorb. Not to figure out, but to absorb.
Paradox is a strong [thought] structure that lives a long time. If Jesus just said, “My Father is good. Pray to Him in my name. Allow my Helper to guide you after I’m gone. Love each other as you love yourselves, and don’t take any wooden nickles,” then Jesus would have really told us everything we ever need to know. But that only makes us observers and wannabees. If we really want to be in the story, we have to allow the story to “happen” to us.
It is neither necessary or for most people particularly useful to understand the literal sense. Moreover, scholars argue every day – even on CAF – about what passages mean. The arguments go on for millenia while the true wisdom is only found with an unquestioning reading. Unquestioning doesn’t mean you buy into the literal sense with its paradoxes; it means just let it soak in and if we can quit trying to figure it out, judge it, and assign its position in our minds, the Helper will take care of it.
It’s like if a bunch of observers go up to an elephant having never seen one before, one will think it’s a tree, another think it’s a rope (tail) another think it’s a sword (tusk) etc. Each person will be right, to the degree that their minds can extrapolate what they see into the “bigger picture.” So we cannot evaluate each part of the scripture against other parts that are looking at truth from a different angle.
That’s why Jesus spoke in parables. The details of His stories were not important except that they helped paint a “thought picture” that Jesus wanted us to experience to help condition our minds – our intellectual “wineskins” – for new truths (wine) to be put in.
Put another way, any time we’re thinking about, talking about, debating over the literal meaning, we occupy our minds with our own stubborn thoughts which get in the way of the Holy Spirit’s very much more subtle approach. It’s like a dog watching the hand of its master, right after the master has thrown a stick, trying to figure out what the hand is doing when the master really wants it to go run after the stick.
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
L
Loveolivia
Guest
P
pghtocmh
Guest
The problem I see with contradictions in the Bible is that so many people, including Catholics base many of their beliefs on the words in the Bible to the point that they examine each word. How many debates and explanations have we seen on these boards explaining each word in a verse of the Bible. If there are contradictions especially in the gospels which are supposed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit how can we put so much emphasis on the words in the Bible?
G
Gaber
Guest
Pretty simple. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Maybe He spoke other languages as well, since He had been in Egypt and possibly to India. The Gosples were written mostly in Greek and some in Aramaic as far as we can tell. We have no originals. Those that were availble eventually made it into Latin, and the whole bunch into English at some time. Perhaps you know a foreign language and understand from expereince that really, you can’t say the same thing in two languages. “Idem non idem.” That is why translators sometimes are called liars. Then we have the problem of differents states of awareness of Jesus, the “recorders,” who Jesus was talking* to*, the understanding of language–His and theirs–of the translators, their understanding of the ideas of what they were “translating,” etc, etc, etc. You get the picture.
It is instructive to read some of the material from George Lamsa’s transaltion of the Bible, which,btw, is many books by many authors, each speaking differently. That’s another factor. In the Lamsa version we discover, as speakers of English, that the word usually translated as “camel” can as well be traslated “rope,” a word that makes more sense in context thatn “camel.” In another story, the word translated as "raven: can as well mean “Arabs” or the inhabitants of Orab. There are many other examples of this kind.
NDTHRSTHFCTTHTHBRWWSWRTTNWTHTVWLSRPNCTTN. That string of caps is how ancient Hebrew was written. Can you figure out, since I did it as an Eglish sentence, what I said? At least you know it is a sentence. What if it was a page of script with no break, and you are not a native speaker?
We know as well, unfortunately, that in translation there have been deliberate alterations to original texts as well. You may have noticed that modern Bibles omit a few lines and say a few things a bit differently. So scholarship regarding translation, collections, canons, etc, has changed over time. We also know, for instance, that authorship can be misattributed. Nearly half the books Biblically attributed to Paul aren’t his. And Peter didn’t write Peter 1 &2, at least not personally. And where are so many other Gospel texts, and why were they included or not? One Church Father claimed that ther had to be four Gosples, no more no less because there wer four directions and other things that came in fours. So we have the level of intellect and understanding of those who made such choices for us as well.
So maybe you can get a bit of a taste as to why words are important. If you are listening to music, and there are wrong notes played, is it either accurate or pleasant? Same for language, only worse, as words carry not only sound, but dictionary, implied, symbolic, case, tense, contextual, multiple, local, and chronological changed meanings as well.
So maybe that helps to understand why folks argue about words, we all having different ears to listen with as well. My favorite story about all that is of a lady who would have greatly benefited by learning a foreign language. She refused, because “God writ the Bible in English, and that’s good enough for me!”
V
Veedar
Guest
The kind of certainty the many religious people feel, catholics included, is an illusion. The gospels were written between 40 and 70 years after Jesus was murdered, by anonymous authors. The authors were not eyewitnesses to the events (the apostles probably couldn’t read and certainly couldn’t write). There are many discrepancies in the gospels, many of which exist because of theological differences between different schools of thought in early christianity, and layer upon layer of oral traditions.
But you don’t have to be a scholar to see that the idea of an inerrant bible is deeply problematic. Just read the Bible. Read all of it from cover to cover while questioning what you read along the way. There are many theological differences in the Old Testament, but that is not what is most important. Most importantly, look at the morals you find in the old testament. Ask your self what you would do if you were asked to do some of the things God asks people to do in the Old Testament.
What would we do today with a father who took his only son into the mountains to sacrifice him to his favorite deity because he heard voices in his head telling him to do so? Would the authorities perhaps let him continue to raise his son once he told them that the voices in his head stopped him from killing the child, saying that it was only a test of his loyalty to god? What God of infinite love and compassion would put a father to such a test in the first place, and shouldn’t the willingness to commit such an act actually be failing the test?
People are ordered to commit genocide by god in the bible, to kill women, children, infants and animals. What kind of person does it take to do something like that? To chase screaming women and children and and kill them? In Norway, where i live, there is an ongoing trial right now, dealing with someone who was willing and able to murder minors because of his ideology. Could something like that EVER be justified, even if a god said to do it? What kind of a god would order something like that?
What kind of god would send plague after plague upon the entire egyptian people because of what a pharao (who was not democratically elected, btw) did? The bible even says that god hardened pharao’s heart so that he could use pharao to show off his great power. Wow! Innocent firstborn sons were supposedly killed all over egypt, causing immense grief to their families just so god could show how powerful he was? Perhaps a nice god if you are an israelite, but isn’t God also the God of the egyptians?
Why would god kill Bathsheba’s son because of what his father did? Or for that matter, punish a woman, (who wasn’t worth much more than cattle and had no choice but to do what the king wanted), by robbing her of a son?
Was God really blessing David in in killing 200 Philistines and bringing their foreskins to Saul? (I remember sitting at mass, listening to this text from 1 Samuel 18 read aloud, and hearing the priest say “This is the word of the Lord” and the people, I hope unconsciously, answering “Thanks be to God”).
Etc… Etc… Taking the time to read the bible and asking questions can be a very enlightening experience. I think it is impossible to both take it seriously and claim it is the inerrant word of God. It is the words of men about God, sometimes really inspired, but at other times reflecting the worst of human tendencies.
G
Gaber
Guest
All this is very well said, Veedar. And none of it need compromise faith as such. But as you imply, it is good and useful toward the desired outcome to be consciously aware of what you are doing and why. I appreciate your contribution.
G
Gaber
Guest
OH—And welcome to the forums!
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
I do not think there are contradictions in the Bible, only your own misunderstanding of a verse. Can you say what you think are contradictions?
G
Gaber
Guest
You are kidding, right?
A
adstrinity
Guest
This thread was started one month ago. Four pages later and he still hasn’t provided any examples. How has a thread gone to four pages when he didn’t mention any point?
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
No. What do you think are contradictions?You are kidding, right?
T
tarboy
Guest
To stop this pretending that they don’t exist, here is a link infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Nobody should be bothered by them though, since the bible never claims to be an exact history manual. It’s natural for different witnesses to remember events differently.
When you use the bible as the inspired word of God, to help you grow and live a Christ like life, it does it’s job well (contradictions be damned)
ps. it also doesn’t claime to be a science manual
Nobody should be bothered by them though, since the bible never claims to be an exact history manual. It’s natural for different witnesses to remember events differently.
When you use the bible as the inspired word of God, to help you grow and live a Christ like life, it does it’s job well (contradictions be damned)
ps. it also doesn’t claime to be a science manual
V
Veedar
Guest
One example: Matthew 27 and Acts 1. The death of Judas.
According to Matthew:
- Judas felt remorse
- He threw the pieces of silver into the temple
- he hanged himself
- The pharisees took the blood money and bought a field.
- “That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.”
- Judas kept his money (implied)
- He bought a field for the blood money.
- Judas fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.
- “Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood”
Perhaps you want to play a game of mental gymnastics and “reconcile” the two accounts by creating a “gospel according to Abyssinia” where Judas first hangs himself, the rope breaks, wind turns him upside down so he falls headlong, Judas buying the field really means the pharisees did it on his behalf with his money (even though he first threw it away) etc… If so, you have made a new version of the story, without a shred of evidence, unheard of by matthew, luke or the early church, to convince yourself that the two accounts are not contradictory.
I submit that to any rational individual without a pre-commitment to a very narrow idea of inspiration, it is obvious that these are two different traditions of the death of Judas, that they are contradictory in a number of ways, and that we simply do not know what happened to him. Both accounts contain some information about a field of blood, and Judas dying an unnatural death, so perhaps they get this information from an older source, closer to the event.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
I do not click on atheist websites because I am not contributing to their view count. If you think there are any contradictions then put them here or I recommend looking at:
errancy.com
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
This is a perfect example of a claim of contradiction when it is a misunderstanding. It is not a contradiction to describe two things that happened. Acts 1:18 describes what happened after Judas hanged himself in Matthew 27:5. Definition of a ‘contradiction’ means that one statement makes another statement untrue but both are said to be true. Acts 1:18 and Matthew 27:5 are not in contradiction.
I am not sure what Papyrus you mean.
studytoanswer.net/consref/judas_suicide.html
Henry Morris:
More information:
wrestedscriptures.com/d02contradictions/matthew27v6-7acts1v18.html
P
pghtocmh
Guest
I certainly understand the difficulties and issues with translation from other languages. That is really the point of my post. People will get into debates based on a singulart word in the bible. Seems very silly and illogical to debate a particular word when we don’t know if the word has changed from one translation or copy made.
- Status