Errors in the Bible

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Originally posted by shaunybaby
why would i want to read an internet bible...ive got one sitting next to my computer always. im not religious, im not a christian...the bible however, if read in a non-spiritual or non-religious way can be a great read. if you start to make sense of the bible, try to make it literal, try to see it in a religious or spiritual way, or interpret it to be inspired by god then personaly i think the book becomes flawed in many ways.


Open your mind a little. It would appear (based on your posts) that your current reading of the Bible is only to find flaws.


when i started reading the bible it was because my christian friend wanted me to go to church with her. i thought well i may aswell see what this religion is all about and went about reading the bible. her interpretation was that the bible was literal. i was very open minded before i read the bible. it was only after i found these flaws that i decided my new opinions and ideas.

thanx spittincobra for pointing out his closed mindedness, it means i dont have to.




posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

You have been "told" Adam was the first man, he was not.


Why not tell us who the first man was?

I will ask, Who was the first "man" here on earth?



[edit on 3-1-2005 by SpittinCobra]



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by DrHoracid

You have been "told" Adam was the first man, he was not.


Why not tell us who the first man was?

I will ask, Who was the first "man" here on earth?



[edit on 3-1-2005 by SpittinCobra]


Adam was the first in the line of DAVID. "Mankind" existed outside the garden. Pick a name any"name". The point is, read the verses and ask for wisdom, perhaps it will come..............



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
i did read the versus, with an open mind, no wisdom came to me. all that came to me from reading the bible was something that doesnt seem at all spiritual to me. if there really is a true god then i will go to heaven. based on the fact that if god created me then it's not my fault if i cannot find him or jesus within my lifetime.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i did read the versus, with an open mind, no wisdom came to me. all that came to me from reading the bible was something that doesnt seem at all spiritual to me. if there really is a true god then i will go to heaven. based on the fact that if god created me then it's not my fault if i cannot find him or jesus within my lifetime.


Keep reading it gets better. You will find Jesus if you truely seek him. The "not my fault" thingy didn't work very well for Adam or Eve so I'd let that one go............



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Some people--Christians, Muslims and Jews--operate from "Bibliolatry." They believe it's ALL in the Book. They never leave the Book. They only quote from and justify what they see in the Book.

Bibliolatrists drive me crazy. I've "studied"--forty years--long enough out of the Book to know when to follow Jesus' words and when to follow Paul's words and when to hold the Law sacred.

But the Book is never sufficient. Why not just shut up and let God speak His Own Way--"the still small voice" of Reason, Compassion, Mercy, and Gentleness? Why not participate in All the Covenants, not just one?



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
You get what you look for, what ever that is. If you look for it you will find it.

Thats with anything and everything, look and you will find.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
you say the ''not my fault'' thing about adam and eve like you personaly knew them. well i am still reading, ive read the first 5 books of the old testament, and most of the new and then ill go back to read the rest of the old testament. when i first picked it up i wasn't looking for jesus, i was looking for answers, answers that showed some sort of devinity. however, none of my questions in my mind were answered. im now not reading the bible to find jesus nor for any spiritual guidence...im reading it for more logic and maybe some entertainment aswell.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
you say the ''not my fault'' thing about adam and eve like you personaly knew them. well i am still reading, ive read the first 5 books of the old testament, and most of the new and then ill go back to read the rest of the old testament. when i first picked it up i wasn't looking for jesus, i was looking for answers, answers that showed some sort of devinity. however, none of my questions in my mind were answered. im now not reading the bible to find jesus nor for any spiritual guidence...im reading it for more logic and maybe some entertainment aswell.


Defrag has a point also. The bible is a reference book for faith, a history book of past and future. Christ is already working in your live. Be happy......



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi

But how do you seperate those books that were "Godly inspired" with those that some guy just wrote and pretended were from God?


Would a perfect God allow the works that were not from Him to make it into our Bible?

It is going to take some faith to accept this. You can find in history where man has had his hand in the Bible. It is one of the major points that non-believers use to claim the Bible is not a holy work, but a creation of man. I accept that man wrote the Bible. I accept that a council of men decided what would be in the Bible and in what order. I know that God was in all of it.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
the whole of the bible is supposed to be god inspired. apparently some parts are actualy quotes from god that the person wrote down what god said. however, even when those edits, translations and when people decided what books would become 'the bible' etc, christians still say that was god inspired because the holy spirit was within each of those people when editing, translating the bible etc. i really don't see much truth in that.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby


the four gospels, matthew, mark, luke and john, were written decades after jesus died. argue all you want because that is the truth. those four gospels that show jesus' life were written by people that lived after jesus died, and that also never met the messiah himself. paul the founder of christianity wrote luke, and this was the first of the four to be written. the next was 'matthew', this book was written after 'luke' for the reason that the person, who wrote matthew, didnot believe that the book 'luke' told the 'true' story of jesus in its entirity. in some parts of matthew, mark and john, which were all different versions of luke, sometimes copy word for word from luke and hold so many contradictions that we cannot get a clear idea of jesus' life from these four gospels.


Well, some of this is true and the rest is wholly fictional. All of the Gospels were written decades after the death of Christ. That is true. No one believes otherwise. The reasoning behind that was the simple fact that the disciples had heard Jesus say that he was coming back soon. They were waiting for his return. If was coming back quickly, why would there be a need for a written word, the first hand word of the apostles would do perfectly. It was not until some of the apostles began to die, that the others decided that they needed to write this stuff down.

As for the gospels - Mark and Luke were not disciples and may not have been present with Christ. Luke was a greek doctor who travelled with the apostle Paul on many of his missionary journeys. His information for the gospel of Luke was taken from many of the disciples still living at the time.
Mark also spent some time travelling with the apostle Paul. HIs information about the time of Jesus' ministry came from Peter, as this Gospel came from Rome shortly after the time of Peters death (not the only reason, but one of them).
Matthew was one of the twelve and so was John. Those two witnessed the ministry for themselves.
Matthew was geared towards the Jews, Mark towards gentiles, Luke towards the Greeks and John was written specifically to show Christ's divinity.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
the virgin birth was a stolen hindu legend, where krishna, was born to a virgin 'devaka' in the fulfilment of a prophecy, and was also visited by wise men, who were guided by a star. from that legend we can see many parallels to the nativity/virgin stories of jesus.


If that were true, then explain the multiple prophecies in the OT that speak of this birth.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
(Ps 91:1) You who dwell in the shelter of the Most High, who abide in the shadow of the Almighty, say to the Lord, My refuge and fortress, my God in whom I trust. God will rescue you from the fowlers snare, from the destroying plague FOR GOD COMMANDS THE ANGELS TO GUARD YOU IN ALL YOUR WAYS. With their hands they shall support you, lest you strike your foot against a stone.
This meant that God would command angels to guard the messiah. However, this did not happen to Jesus because was not the messiah. i know people will say 'but if jesus didnt die for our sins etc etc'. well im not talkin about jesus had to die for our sins. from ps 91:1, it clearly says that the messiah will be saved, whether or not jesus had to die for our sins...he should have been saved.


Jesus was saved. Are you aware of what he was doing for those three days he was dead? He took the power of death away from Satan (spiritual death). God raised him from the dead. His physical body was not saved from the torment that he had to endure, that he spoke about often to the disciples, but he was saved. You forgot to mention all of the prophecies about his crucifixtion.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Shocking as it may be to most Christians, Jesus wasn't the founder of Christianity, and to make matters worse, most Christian doctrines such as claims of divinity, Original Sin, and the Trinity rely not only on Paul but also heavily on John, who was a Greek. Jesus was a Jew and taught Judaism. The books that reflect those teachings are the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and James.


The apostles James and John were brothers, sons of Zebedee, part of the inner circle of apostles that Jesus relied on. This James is not the same who wrote the epistle of James. That was written by the brother of Jesus. My point is that even if were true that John was a greek, who cares? As is related in the gospel of John, he celebrated three passovers with Jesus during his ministry. If John was not a Jew, he was certainly following Jewish customs and relious practices.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
The books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were written in four different view points. The four different views preach the fact that God works in different ways from one to the other. These four ideals were combined together, which are now the five beginning books we read in the bible.


Don't forget that these books have their place in the holy works of both the Muslims and Jews.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
with all these edits, all these changes, all these inconsistancies, it is hard to change from a non-believer in to a believer who has total faith in their lord. however, if you start out a believer and learn some of this knowledge i have shown here then it is hard to comprehend when you have built up so much faith in the bible and god. this is why most christians will not accept what i have said. however, all of the above is fact, not here-say...it is all factual evidence.



[edit on 3-1-2005 by shaunybaby]


There are no inconsitencies. For a perfect and all knowing God, the edits and such are trivialities. He dealt with all that withou breaking a sweat. The Bible is whole and accurate.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the whole of the bible is supposed to be god inspired. apparently some parts are actualy quotes from god that the person wrote down what god said. however, even when those edits, translations and when people decided what books would become 'the bible' etc, christians still say that was god inspired because the holy spirit was within each of those people when editing, translating the bible etc. i really don't see much truth in that.


It's not required that see the truth in this. What kind of God would we have who could not keep His Word from corruption? Again, if I believe that there are errors in the Bible, then I would also have to throw out my belief that I serve an infallible God. If God is fallible, thenhow can I believe anything that comes from His word? The Bible would be useless drivel.

But, I believe that God is perfect, and therefore His word is also. I know that the power of God has no limits. I can see Him working in my life, that of my family and those I am close to. It is not a far step away to believe that He can keep His written word whole.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Adam was the first in the line of DAVID. "Mankind" existed outside the garden. Pick a name any"name". The point is, read the verses and ask for wisdom, perhaps it will come..............


Interesting concept, but again, not held up by the scriptures themselves.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Genesis 2:7-8

Then a couple of chapters later:

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Genesis 2:15

Notice that there is no "a" or "the" in the first passage? This would suggest that Adam was the first man as the second passage refers to him by name.

A corresponding example would be "I cut down wood. I then took the wood to the shed." It's the same wood but doesn't become personalised until after it has been cut. Or in Adam's case: created.

We are also specifically told that outside of the Garden of Eden there were fields and that there were no men.

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Genesis2:5

So I do agree with you that we have been "told" that Adam was the first man. The Bible tells us that itself. But it does contradict itself as you point out. This would seem to lead us to the conclusion that there was some confusion in the authorship. It would seem obvious to me, that one person would not make such a glaring error with the creation story, but add another person into the equation and it's entirely possible. Especially if those authors are working with an even older creation "myth" as seems to be the case here - the Enuma Elish.


www.cresourcei.org...



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
You are adding words where there are none. There "may" have been a time lag between Gen 1 and Gen 2. Or it was simultaneous. But this is two different creations of man. Its more like growing flowers then "picking" one to put in a vase.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
A few points id like to add

The bible has been changed over the years due to certian churches being power hungry and changing things to suit thier needs. Like omitting gods name for example. "Hallowed be your name" what name???

Jesus was/is not God. Saying "oh father why have you forsaken me" to yourself sems a bit odd. And this isnt the only occasion where he prayed to "his father"

The Jerusalem Bible is a good translation, as accurate as possible translated by numerous neutral bible experts and where uncertainty appears, it is stated. The Tetragamatron (gods name) is also present in the Jahweh form.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
You are adding words where there are none. There "may" have been a time lag between Gen 1 and Gen 2. Or it was simultaneous. But this is two different creations of man. Its more like growing flowers then "picking" one to put in a vase.


I haven't added anything.
Also, why the time lag? Wouldn't this therefore indicate different authorship?

I would suggest that there was only one creation story in the OT, but that it was written by two different authors and therefore did not exactly marry up. There is absolutely no evidence to point to Adam not being the first man and in fact the literature shows otherwise. It is just contradictory on when exactly he was created.

As for "gowing flowers and picking one"? You don't say "I grew flowers and then put the flower in a vase" do you? That's what you are suggesting the Bible verse says in essence - "I grew men and then put the man in the Garden of Eden". It doesn't work that way.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by defrag99
How does one know what is true and what is false?

Read and study; compare and contrast; reckon and reason.

And pray for clarity; and it will come to you.


The best commentary on biblical inconsistencies that I know of comes from a former priest whose web-site

www.liberalslikechrist.org...

has a huge following.

He also constructed a side-by-side analysis of the teachings of Jesus versus the teachings of the apostle Paul. Very informative.




its also good to point out, God does NOT listen to the "unsaved" at all. he hears them, but doesnt listen. also, theirs a verse in the Bible that states that God wont allow his words to be permanetely changed in the Bible, and that if u find one fault in a book's teaching, take the writter out, stone him to death, and burn all his books and disregaurd it all.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the whole of the bible is supposed to be god inspired. apparently some parts are actualy quotes from god that the person wrote down what god said. however, even when those edits, translations and when people decided what books would become 'the bible' etc, christians still say that was god inspired because the holy spirit was within each of those people when editing, translating the bible etc. i really don't see much truth in that.


Shauny, I hate to break it to ya (not really) but your not gonna find God anytime soon. why?
it says in the Bible "No man seeks after God, no not one" and then later on explains how people only seek out God if God puts it in them to seek God out.
God has obviously not put it in you, so u will not find him, because your not looking and you cant, u cant cause of that verse right now.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
Shauny, I hate to break it to ya (not really) but your not gonna find God anytime soon. why?
it says in the Bible "No man seeks after God, no not one" and then later on explains how people only seek out God if God puts it in them to seek God out.
God has obviously not put it in you, so u will not find him, because your not looking and you cant, u cant cause of that verse right now.


nice sarcasm...love it! ''hate to break it to ya...(not really)''. lmao.
thing is you gotta ask yourself one question, 'do i really care?'
well i didn't have this viewpoint before i read the bible. it was only after i read the bible that i came to the conclusion of my 'verse'. so before i was looking for god, but because i read the bible i no longer did, and no longer even feel the need to look for him. im reading the bible now as pure entertainment.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join