Errors in the Bible

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Gen. 3:15 talks of the seed of the woman which is Jesus.
Really! Are you sure you want to hold fast to this belief? and before him there were many pious and just people, starting with Abram, and particularly with Moses who are just as responsible for spreading God’s love and laws,

God initiated the sacrificial system that would be a foreshadowing of Christ.
Have you actually read the entire book of Isaiah, but since you believe this is why he created sacrifices, then it is about time I introduce you to: Isaiah 1:11:12”To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? Saith the Lord: I am full of burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread y courts?”


If you look into Hitler you will find out he was into the occult and was an instrument of satan
He was an evil man, of that I agree, and alongside him other world leaders, both political and religious, including those well liked by some today, will take their place beside him, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion.






Yes, I want to stick with the fact that the seed of the woman is Jesus. Abram and Moses had sin in their life that they did just like me and you. Jesus is the only one who never sinned so He could pay the penalty for sin. Moses and Abram were to tell others about God but they could not pay the requirements of the law. Only Christ can take away sin from mankind.

The sacrificial system was a foreshadowing of Christ. Sin is a serious offense to God. We cannot be restored to a full relationship to God while we still have it. When a person took that lamb and placed their hands on it and verbally transferred their sin to it and then they saw that lamb lose it's life and it's blood spill out on the ground and see that lamb that 1 minute earlier had life in it and now it lay there lifeless, that was to have an impact on them. That person was to think in their head, and realize in their heart, that that should be me lying there. I deserved death for offending God, not this innocent lamb. Then they were to walk away from that event changed. The sins that they had just left behind with the lamb they were supposed to go and do no more.

Now God talking in Isaiah, and saying that He's full of sacrifices and to what purpose are these sacrifices is not a contradiction and error.

God is saying this, "You know what, you come with your sins and place them on an animal and walk away unchanged. You go right back and do the same things all over again. You think this is how you appease me. (You say, " I know, I'll sleep with my mistress and it'll be OK because I can have an animal killed and my sin will be gone and so I can still fool around.") I've had it with your unchanged hearts, these animal sacrifices weren't ever meant to be the answer. They were temporary and were meant to mean something and were never salvation in it's fulness, and you've taken them and abused them and never understood the real truth of what they stand for. I brought about this system in the hopes of beginning a change you, until the real sacrifice comes(Jesus). It was meant to show you that death is real and you act like it's nothing. So forget it I've had enough of them, it means nothing to you so it will now mean nothing to me."

You say Hitler isn't relevant. One of the worst people who ever lived. He is proof that mankind without God will destroy himself, and that we have an enemy who is desrcibed to us in the pages of the Bible.




posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandtI'm not quite sure what church you are referring to that has it backwards. If you mean the Catholic church, I agree, that denomination is not true christianity.
I made no distinction dbrandt, I clearly stated; “the Christian church,” which encompasses all religions adhering to Jesus as the messiah. And you are sadly mistaken if you think they have it backwards, for theirs is what all other Christian denominations derive their beginning and their doctrine. You may choose to believe that yours, whatever it may be is correct, however, all yours and all else have done is taken what you want from the RCC and molded it to fit your view. The fact remains that all Christian doctrine comes to you from Rome and you as well as I, are not privy to all of the documentation they had at their disposal. However, it appears that I am more knowledgeable of the documentation that is available, and have shown the NT as wel as that doctrine, including the death of Jesus, to be more than contradictory in tens of posts on this forum. So I say to you, the teaching of false prophets is made by false prophets to lead those like you to believe that any others you listen to are the false prophets. Interesting concept no? In fact dbrandt, all of your Christian churches are wrong. Can you prove me wrong without resorting to your Bible to prove your Bible?

My friend, I do not need to ask God to show me your truth, there is not much truth in that, but he has shown me his, and his alone, more than you can imagine. You see dbrandt, any authority has the power to say to the masses, believe what I say and anyone else who says differently lies. Over time as that authority rules, it becomes historical words where fact and fiction are obscured, where you learn your lessons from a young age based on those in authority playing with your malleable mind. I have said this many times before but in fewer words, and to understand it requires the reader to remove the blockage they have because of an unwillingness to learn. God’s wisdom is indeed within the covers of the two testaments, but it has been blurred and blotted by the intervention of man and his manipulation, evil, erudite, stupid or otherwise. This is evident by the prosaic disruptions of men desperately seeking to apologize in his name for that which they do not understand, or to just usurp his benevolence as being a grace sanctified only unto themselves. It is truly simple. God, not Jesus, created us all. He has granted no right of philosophical judgement to any race, creed, select men or man made religion to take the lead and preach their interpretation of his word to the masses. Why? because he has actually given that ability to every single human being, and we carry that within every fibre of our being, there to be tapped into freely without having to be led like lost sheep. If a human, any human would allow their inner guidance more authority over themselves than they do others, then no one, no one dbrandt! would cause us to, or give us an exception for disobeying any of the ten commandments.

You would know this to be so dbrandt if you spent any time at all reading much of the words I have provided as written by the early church fathers, for what you present to me as your position is that which took them centuries to ratify by force and pass down to you as a justification for the obvious flaws of the tale within the gospels. It does not matter how many times you wish to call Jesus God, it will never reduce the words of your creator, the one that is his father, yours and mine; I, even I, am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour. to mean someone he did not specifically proclaim to be he also. To believe otherwise is to believe that your God is weak, afraid to die and most importantly has to beg himself not to kill himself; “…Father…let this cup pass from me…” and …my God, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?”

I feel like I have been reduced to preaching here, something I did not want to do, but it seems that everyone defending their so-called Bible, either the OT or both books, just finds it necessary to apologize for man spun tales of God’s anger as though he were a mortal parent filled with mortal shortcomings on the one hand and declare his plan and complexity unknown as a means to excuse themselves from logically explaining the why on the other hand. But no one actually defends God, dbrandt and that offends me. I have provided many statements made within The Bible in response to you and others, and you all respond with circular logic, logic based on philosophy of faith, or abandon the thread or do not answer those directly because you cannot and are afraid to do so lest it strains that which you feel you must hold fast to in order to gain eternal life, that ingrained but not true innate reasoning. Examine your subconscious and you will see that I am correct in my assessment. God needs no press secretaries, he needs no mullahs, imams, priests, bishops, rabbis, ministers, evangelicals or earthly sons to speak to you, and he has chosen none, for if he did dbrandt, they would all, every single one of them, be telling you the same story, and living exactly as they tell you that you should live. The great lie is that the other is Satan talking. In fact, the very man you worship above even God himself is credited with telling you that to pray you should enter your closet and you call on the one and only God, he does not tell you to call him Jesus or Christ, he tells you to call him "Our father."

You may accuse me if you wish of not reading the Bible if that gives you comfort. I will openly state that you and most in here do not actually read it all, you may read parts of it, you probably read them based on whatever research points you can find to support your arguments, but you do not understand any. For if you did dbrandt, you would not have need to be picking and choosing the method of apology you each apply to your own philosophy; i.e: some is spiritual, some is literal some is mystery, yet no Christian in here can actually agree on anything other than Jesus is their saviour. What does that tell you? It tells me that confusion reigns and you will choose to manipulate the scriptures anyway you like to make it suit your purpose. I on the other hand have been consistent. I have consistently told you there are truths. Those truths are found in profundity, profundity which lies within the subconscious good of every man, woman and child, they cannot be rationalized dbrandt. The blatant contradictions can only be argued away with excuses, and in pointing out those I am also consistent.

So you wish to speak to Hitler still do you? I say he is not relevant. But you are correct he is proof that mankind without God will destroy himself, he has very good company in George W. Bush. and every world leader who lives by the sword. Follow any of them in their warring and fractious ways, and you too are of they…an enemy as described between the pages.

Fine you stick with those beliefs of yours, but I am here to tell you that Jesus was never mentioned in the Old Testament, there is no original sin, there was no foreshadowing of anything within the OT to the NT. And when you stop making up stories to suit your own wishes as I have said above, your eyes will open as to whom is the one, only and singular God…your creator.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   
The Good News Bible is the one that says things closest to how I would have. The reference in Song of Songs, 'I am black and beautiful....', is much better than the other two versions.

For clues to possible coverups, the KJAV has been great. Luke especially.

The idea that any bible has no errors at all seems highly unlikely, and the KJAV is written from a 17th century English, upper class, male perspective.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by otherwise
You have probably heard people say that the story of Jesus is a copy from ancient myths. That is wrong! The fact is actually the opposite. The myths are actually derived from the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus! The virgin birth for instance, was prophecied hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus Christ.



I'm afraid that I'd have to disagree. The Old Testament contains much that derives from even older religions. Babylonian texts that predate the OT by thousands of years prove this beyond a doubt. The Virgin birth may have been prophesised in the Bible but it was also a "myth" that existed thousands of years before the OT was compiled.

As for the KJV of the Bible? I'm afraid that I'd have to disagree yet again. It does contain errors. There is no avoiding this fact and it has been proven to be so. This does not make it worthless and I do not denigrate the book in any way by stating this. But man was involved in the writing of this book, and unfortunately, man isn't infallible.
I believe that the KJV is the best version of the Bible that we have freely available though.

By the way. It's not possible for Moses to have written the first 5 books of the Bible. In those books Moses' death is discussed. How does a dead man write about his own death? Whatever some may argue, Moses was a man and a man is not able to predict the events surrounding his death. And nowhere does the Bible state that God informed Moses of his demise which would be the logic. The first five books were probably written by at least 4 different authors. This is the opinion of the most respected scholars on the subject and you can find the details here - ccat.sas.upenn.edu...

Incidentally, there is a lot of Babylonian myth contained within those first 5 books - ie: The Epic of Gilgamesh/Noahs Flood.

[edit on 3-1-2005 by Leveller]


My understanding, is the Pentateuch its selfs suggests a number of authors, and like your link points out, I belive there to be 4.
JEPD
J for documents belived to be written by someone preffering to call god by the name Jehovah, and dated to around 850 B.C.

The E documents by an author that preffered the name Elohim, and dated to around 750 B.C.

The P for priestly documents, probably written about 1000 years after Moses's death, during the postexilic period.

And the D for Deuteronomy documents dated to around 625 B.C.

You can see some attestment to this in the following,

Exodus 24:4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Exodus 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

Exodus 34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

Its all speculation, but I do not belive Moses wrote of his own death.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
A closer look of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 will show that there are in fact two different Creation myths recorded. The first, which begins at Genesis 1:1 and ends at Genesis 2:3, has Creation set into six days, with various classes of beings and objects created on each day. The second story, which begins at Genesis 2:4, does not mention the six days at all, and seems to reverse the order of creation for some species.

In Genesis 1, Man and Woman are created together on the sixth day, following the creation of the animals. In the second story, however, a single man, Adam, is created after the plants and placed in the Garden of Eden. However, the man was lonely. In order to provide companions for him, the animals are created and brought to Adam (2:18-19). After naming all the animals, a companion is still not found for Adam, so God creates Eve out of one of Adam's ribs (2:20-23).

The order of creation, according to Genesis 1, is therefore plants (1:12), Sun, Moon and stars (1:16), sea and air creatures (1:21), land animals (1:25) and humans (1:27). In Genesis 2, the order of creation is plants (2:5), the man Adam (2:7), animals (2:19) and finally the female Eve (2:22).

Another feature that distinguishes the two stories may provide a clue to their origin. In the first story, the Deity is always called by the Hebrew Elohim (translated to God); while the second story uses the name Yahweh Elohim (translated to Lord God in the King James Version). It appears that the first story was written by someone who used only the generic term for God, while the second was written by someone who used God's personal name (Yahweh). This why it is believed that there was more than one author of Genesis and the other four books that open the bible.

i think its obvious there is more than one author and that moses almost definitely wasn't one of them.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by wiggy
This is my favorite, and I dont know if it has been posted yet, but you do not have to dig very far to find it. I will post the KJV 1611, or any other translation one wishes.

Ge=Genisis


Ge 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Ge 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Ge 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


And then latter........




Ge 2:7 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.

Ge 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Ge 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Ge 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

Ge 2:11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

Ge 2:12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

Ge 2:13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

Ge 2:14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

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

Ge 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat

Ge 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Ge 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Ge 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.



Shaynybaby:
This is what I posted earlier regarding that.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Fine you stick with those beliefs of yours, but I am here to tell you that Jesus was never mentioned in the Old Testament, there is no original sin, there was no foreshadowing of anything within the OT to the NT.



And so we have the decision everyone individually has to make. Do we believe that Jesus is who He said He is and do we then believe that through Him alone is the forgiveness of sins. I say yes and believe it and live for Him. Is the Bible true or false? I'm telling anyone who'll listen that it's true.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by wiggy
Shaynybaby:
This is what I posted earlier regarding that.


well i didnt see you write about there being four authors, each writing their own representation of god (J, E, D, P). i also don't see you saying that there are actually two genesis stories or more that overlap each other hence why there are the mistakes. also i posted about that genesis inconsistancy way back in this thread before yours, i haven't copied any of your post... i just wanted to show a reason why other than what those christians are saying. which would be the first part merely shows what he was going to do and the 2nd part shows what he actually did, but both parts aren't supposed to be taken as a timeline of events...yeah right stop talking bulls**t
lol



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

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by wiggy
Shaynybaby:
This is what I posted earlier regarding that.


well i didnt see you write about there being four authors, each writing their own representation of god (J, E, D, P). i also don't see you saying that there are actually two genesis stories or more that overlap each other hence why there are the mistakes. also i posted about that genesis inconsistancy way back in this thread before yours, i haven't copied any of your post... i just wanted to show a reason why other than what those christians are saying. which would be the first part merely shows what he was going to do and the 2nd part shows what he actually did, but both parts aren't supposed to be taken as a timeline of events...yeah right stop talking bulls**t
lol


Sorry for the confusion, I mearly ment to point out the verses that say animals were created first, then adam was created first.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandtAnd so we have the decision everyone individually has to make. Do we believe that Jesus is who He said He is and do we then believe that through Him alone is the forgiveness of sins. I say yes and believe it and live for Him. Is the Bible true or false? I'm telling anyone who'll listen that it's true.
Actually, unless you witnessed Jesus's life or he appeared to you and attested that he did indeed live and speak as per the unknown authors of the NT, then neither you nor anyone else knows he said anything.

Oddly enough you denounce the RCC yet proclaim the book they gave you to be believable, where your doctrine as discerned by your many quotations, proves to me that you have been fully absorbed into that RCC Pauline teaching. The very man who not only contradicts Christ, but laid down the laws for everything you say you believe in.

Chances are that were you born in a muslem country or of muslem parents, you would be claiming the same about Muhammed. and he supposedly authored his own creed, and said that he was the last prophet, a prophet greater than Jesus, I might add.

I suppose you would also tell me that your belief in the Bible means that Elijah is still to come.


[edit on 1/20/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
When I read that the wedding at Canaa was suggested to be Jesus and Mary Magdalene's union, I very meticulously reread the account.
It is hard to refute that the most sensible and literal conclusion, requiring the least mental gymnastics, is that the wedding is His.
Of course many will point to John 2:3, which states Jesus and his disciples had also been invited.
So, if that is all you need to hear to discount the notion of it being His wedding, there is no use reading further........note that it is John who shares this.
To summarize my reasons for thinking Jesus and Mary Magdalene were betrothed:

1. Mother Mary takes charge of supplying the wine when it ran out, an odd thing for a guest to do, when tradition is that the groom's family does so.
2. The couple who are married at Canaa, are curiously anonymous. Why?
3. Jesus supplies the wine, and the mc praises the groom, thereby supporting the traditional responsibility is the groom's family.
John 2:11 states that this is the 1st miracle, reveals Jesus' glory, and the disciples believed in Him.
4. Nowhere in the NT does it mention Jesus' marital status, one way or the other..........why? A valid question, I feel.
5. Three, not one or two, three times He is called Rabbi, a title which has as a firm prerequisite that the man be wedded.
6. So.....if He is not wedded, why does no one notice the obvious and comment on the contradiction?
7. Jesus preached that marriage is good, and divorce is bad. In this case, we are asked to believe that He did not take His own advice,
on top of the half dozen previous suggestive points. I look at Him as a do as I do, not do as I say kind of teacher, how do you see Him?

8. At the empty tomb, who would you predict would arrive at the tomb first that morning? Those who were closest to Him would.
Luke 24:10 "It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James........."
John 1:29 "Behold the lamb of God" This is John the Baptist being quoted, and the lamb of God he is referring to is Jesus.
Revelations 21:9, (note the similar verse numbers, considering both chapters are by John). "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the lamb's wife."

It is clear that Mary is very close to Him, and that John, the sole recorder of the Canaa wedding is also very close to Him.
Did you know that Giovanna is the feminine form of Giovanni? Iohannas is the feminine for Iohannes, and Joanna is the feminine form of John, all three are examples of the same name, John. Interestingly, Joan is not from John. Just the name Joanna.
John writes Revelations, John describes the crucifixion quite differently than the other 3 'synoptic?' gospels, (synoptic, of one eye....lol)
In the KJAV, Luke 3:27 which is Jesus' dad's lineage, (else why put it in there?), it reads...." Which was the son of Joanna, which was the SON of Rhesa."



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I myself am a believer of the Bible like many others on this post. LAdy V, we dont hate homosexuals etc., its just we dont promote that as a proper lifestyle. for example Its obviously not natural (no offspring produced), and their are many quotes which speak against it. I know many here believe that "RICH POWERFUL GREEDY" persons have written down the Bible (NT) and such, yet none of the early 1st century christians seemed to be any of these, rather they were persecuted severely.

PS. I notice Most of the people who disagree with the bible appear to be rational beings. well use your rationale and read about Pascal's wager.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I suppose you would also tell me that your belief in the Bible means that Elijah is still to come.


[edit on 1/20/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



It appears that way. The main message of the Bible is that their is salvation for mankind found in Christ.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I suppose you would also tell me that your belief in the Bible means that Elijah is still to come.
It appears that way. The main message of the Bible is that their is salvation for mankind found in Christ.
So then if Elijah is still to come, why did your Jesus proceed him. or where did it say he will do so twice, in case you believe Elias is Elijah?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
So then if Elijah is still to come, why did your Jesus proceed him. or where did it say he will do so twice, in case you believe Elias is Elijah?


I think this answers the question. I believe it's in Matthew where Jesus says if Israel would have accepted Him when He came the first time , then John the Baptist would have been the Elijah that was to come. But they rejected Christ and Elijah is still to come.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
I think this answers the question. I believe it's in Matthew where Jesus says if Israel would have accepted Him when He came the first time , then John the Baptist would have been the Elijah that was to come. But they rejected Christ and Elijah is still to come.
Okay, suppose we accept your premise, which is it then that John would have been Elijah if they had accepted it; or?


Matt 17:12- ...Elias is come already, and they knew him not...


Explain to me how it is possible to say he has come, and at the same time claim, well maybe not because the people did not accept this. What you suggest boils down to having an escape clause. I do not buy it.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Explain to me how it is possible to say he has come, and at the same time claim, well maybe not because the people did not accept this. What you suggest boils down to having an escape clause. I do not buy it.


God's omniscience works alot into stuff. I don't have a good answer. The book of Job informs people that all of our questions won't get answered this side of eternity and/or sufficeintly answered for us to quit asking or wondering about.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandtGod's omniscience works alot into stuff. I don't have a good answer. The book of Job informs people that all of our questions won't get answered this side of eternity and/or sufficeintly answered for us to quit asking or wondering about.
I don't wish to hear about God's omniscience when the book is supposed to be divinely written. I want to know how it can be contradictory and why you swallow same by making excuse after excuse.

Do not argue a point using The Bible if you cannot support same. would you accept that nonsense from your government, family, church, countries you feel harbour ill-will toward yours? No you would not.





top topics
 
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join