It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Plot holes in the bible and what the motivation for it would be

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:50 PM

originally posted by: TzarChasm

your comments here make me wonder if lucifer was cast out of heaven for pointing such things out. the king of kings sabotaging the greater order for the sake of a minor player, ie the human race. becoming obsessive and irrational to the point of losing the war just to win a skirmish. why else would an omnipotent force of creation sack a third of its royal army, including one of the most prized members of his personal guard?

God gave angels free will just like he gave man. A third of the angels rebelled against God because they wanted to be worshipped and sit in his place, but they were cast out instead. There is no plan of salvation for the fallen angels who knew who God was, but chose to rebel against him anyway out of their own desire to be worshipped. Free will once again at play.
edit on 6-6-2017 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:06 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

You quote Wikipedia thus:

In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations or restrictions.

Correct. In the scholastic understanding.

The Scholastics were mediaeval Roman Catholic philosophers whose main concern was to resolve the contradictions between the God of Scripture and the God of the Philosophers — the very contradictions we have been discussing in this thread. So yes, obviously, scholastic definitions of omnipotence are compatible with the limitations on divine power evident in the Bible. One would expect them to be.

The simple, commonly accepted, dictionary definition of omnipotence is (of a deity) having unlimited power.

The rest of your post is too confusing to read, perfectly reflecting the confusion of the Scholastics who attempted to make God simultaneously omnipotent and limited in His scope of action.

But I am curious about one thing: did you not know the difference between ‘scholastic’ and ‘scholarly’, or were you being knowingly dishonest when you posted your reply?

edit on 7/6/17 by Astyanax because: of Aquinas.

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:17 AM
a reply to: Deetermined

Without suffering there is no free will and without free will you wouldn't have any choices.

Is that so?

whereislogic has just been arguing that God is omnipotent (free to do anything He likes) but, at the same time, unable to do evil.

If that is possible, then it should be possible for God to give us freedom of choice and still ensure that none of our choices cause pain and suffering to any living being. It’s the same thing: He makes us free to do whatever we choose, but limits our choices to positive ones only. Gives us free will, but makes us unable to do evil.

That is what a truly wise and benevolent deity would do — not force his creations (including innocent animals) to undergo suffering just so that they know who’s boss.

I’m very sorry, but the free will excuse just won’t cut it. You can’t even prove that free will exists.

edit on 7/6/17 by Astyanax because: of more to say.

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 02:05 AM
a reply to: Astyanax

The bible states quite plainly that God is Omnipotent. Regardless of the interpretation of the word God must be able to: create the universe, man, earth. Have telepathy, non permanent polymorphic abilities (Moses cane turns into a snake), control weather, control insects. I think you get the picture, if it's in the bible he can do it.

It would seem Gods omnipotence is somewhat restricted on earth. Maybe this is part of his experiment. Maybe God is self limiting. Maybe God enjoys the chaos. Whatever it is its strange.

It is a bit odd the way he kills humans that are in defiance of his wishes. Lot's wife turns to a pillar of salt. Egyptians lose all their first born. Sodom get smashed by meteors. He gave humans free will but seems that, at least In OT, it came at a price.

Betray the religion, lose your life.

God is all powerful but even God has to rest. Maybe his omnipotent abilities were weakened.

The story conflicts are always between OT and NT.

When did the NT come out?

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 05:54 AM

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Deetermined

If that is possible, then it should be possible for God to give us freedom of choice and still ensure that none of our choices cause pain and suffering to any living being. It’s the same thing: He makes us free to do whatever we choose, but limits our choices to positive ones only. Gives us free will, but makes us unable to do evil.

Do you realize how silly that sounds? Limited free will isn't free will.

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 06:30 AM
a reply to: DiaJax

The bible states quite plainly that God is Omnipotent.

Aside from the use of the word that is translated as ‘almighty’ and could be nothing more than a conventional form of praise, where in the Old Testament does it say that God is omnipotent? I cannot think of a single instance. Yes, He created the heavens and the earth, but while that implies great power, it certainly doesn’t signify omnipotence.

The story conflicts are always between OT and NT.

That’s right. Between the old Hebrew tribal tales, which were made up by primitive people and feature a God as primal and violent as themselves, and the creativity of civilized, educated people, who conceived of a God who was wise, loving and all-powerful.

When did the NT come out?

Most scholars agree that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest book of the New Testament, written around 70AD, or about forty years after Jesus was crucified. The most recently written, such as the Epistles of John, came out as late as 110AD. You'll find a complete table of estimated completion dates here.

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 06:32 AM
a reply to: Deetermined

Limited free will isn't free will.

I see you take my point. Limited omnipotence isn’t omnipotence either.

Now, concerning free will: can you (1) prove it exists, (2) explain why it’s worth having at the price of such awful suffering and (3) explain how you can square such views with simple human kindness and decency?

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 06:56 AM

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
a reply to: spy66

The verse 8 you are talking about isn't even about man. Unless you think man is a firmament.

Why would you think you just dug yourself out of a whole when it got deeper? All that "in depth study?"

by Disturbinatti

It seam that you are not fallowing me at all. I am trying to tell you that there is a contradiction in genesis Chapter 2 compared to what is mentioned in genesis Chapter 1.

Have you read genesis Chapter 1 and 2 properly or are you just winging this as you go along?

You said you meant "verse 8, not day 8."

You actually quoted verse 8 of one account and it doesn't mention man at all it mentionied the firmament. So you claiming that the creation of man is at verse 8 is also incorrect.

In both accounts.

Verse 7 of the second account tells of the creation of man.

You quoted verse 8 of the first claiming it's what you actually meant regarding where/when the creation of man was.

In summary you don't seem to be able to follow along, I am not being cryptic or erroneous so I advise you just admit you were saying that you know more than you do about the Bible.

And admit you actually did believe day 8 was when man was created.

Your excuse, "I meant verse 8", is fallacious as neither first or second account of creation has the creation of man at "verse 8" either.

This game you are trying to play, making your fallacy my fault because I "can't follow" isn't going to work.

It would seem you can't even follow a simple two chapter story to the point of comprehension and wish you could so need to tell others of their alleged lack of "in depth [comprehension due to]study."

Assert whatever you want. People do it all the time and it never makes anything false actually become true. If you have rhetorical skills you can b.s. your way through life on an "empty stomach" meaning your mind, like a hungy person's stomach, is empty, but it will be a life of b.s.

Right before you starve to death a feeling of euphoria comes upon the starving making you falsely believe you are feeling well. It is a delusion the mind tells itself before death and the probable origin of religous fasting, until the discovery of Soma it was probably the only way to experience a vision. A hallucination actually.

Because when you eat again you realize you may not have felt hungry or in danger but actually were on the brink of death, and that food (knowledge in this metaphor) is essential to life and that one who has no food/knowledge but thinks he/she does or is full, even half, is deluded.

But by all means blame me because you can't follow along. Saying that I can't is a great way of deflecting from the fact that I have said nothing you can point out as erroneous, if you try you will get an explanation that is correct because I don't say, "This is the case" if I don't know if "This is the case."

I would never claim an in depth knowledge of something anyone who can read can tell you don't have, of the Bible, as neither 1:8, 2:8 or day 8 mention the creation of man which you actually said was day 8 and tried to get out of it without thinking it through.

You quoted 1:8, it said the creation of the firmament and didn't mention man's creation, as quoted BY YOU.

I ask again when did day or verse 8 magically change in your Bible to read day 8, 1:8 OR 2:8, was the point of creation of man?

Do you follow?
edit on 7-6-2017 by Disturbinatti because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 07:13 AM
a reply to: spy66
Actually it may have been xsstealth and as I said I responded to the wrong person.

You probably just replied before I fixed it or something.

Am I mistaken or did you day 8 was the day of creation?

If not the confusion is you think I am talking to you but I may have meant to message xsstealth.

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 07:54 AM

originally posted by: silo13

originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: DiaJax

2. God asking dude to kill his son. If the heavens parted right now and god came down himself and asks me to murder my kids... we arent gonna be friends. Send me to hell, whatever you wanna do, but i aint killing my kids. And how dare you ask me to do such a thing!!! Thats a disgusting way to test someones faith.

Abraham knew God wasn't going to kill his son as he'd been promised Abraham mant times his bloodlines would be those that bring the Son of God.

Abraham knew? How do YOU know what he knew (pbuh)? He was saying to Isaac that God will provide the Ram but obviously he didn't want to tell Isaac what was happening. Like Jepthahs daughter who actually IS sacrificed, Isaac was willing to do it if it was His will.

Jephthah's daughter didn't fair so well and she was sacrificed, to God, as a promise kept if victory in battle was granted Jephthah.

Abraham p was literally going to kill Isaac, this is fundamental to the whole Bible because it's an example of extreme devotion to God.

Not lip service because of knowledge in advance of the incident, of its outcome. God ordered it Ibrahim p was going to do it.

End of story. It's Ishmael pbuh in Islam and not Isaac but the story is the same pbut.

I don't think you can produce evidence to support the claim as he didn't bring a ram, Isaac knew and was willing to go along with it and James counts Abraham's faith in submission to whatever God asks as a proof that "faith without works is dead." Of his righteousness through works of Torah.

If Abraham "knew" his faith is irrelevant, he would now KNOW.

Instead he had faith in God and was willing to do his will if it meant sacrificing his own son, which Jewish exegesis states is the sacrifice of his ego, and what one who does God's will does.

If he knew it renders the story pointless.

Also you are just assuming that against the proof, factually speaking the Torah doesn't support your theory. The New Testament doesn't either.

Abraham also told the men who went with them to the mountains to wait for them at the base of the mountain saying THEY would return the next day.

Also - his son Isaac was not a young boy, he was almost 30. He was as faithful as his father.

Also not true and you have no Biblical evidence, according to Jewish tradition he was a lad, and the Bible doesn't disagree.

Show me where it says "30 y.o."

Abraham was obedient and because he was his bloodlines will be blessed throughout all eternity.

This is true.

Ishmael is forever blessed because God blesses him to be father of 12 Princes, and blessed in general.

Jewish tradition (Zohar and S. Yashar) states Keturah is a repentant (from idolatry) Hagar, so Keturah's sons are also Hagar's, she is Hagar.

It makes sense. Ugarit, Canaan, modern day Ras Shamra, Syria, was named after Agar/Hagar. When in Canaanite a U, is A in Aramaic/Hebrew, as in Illu vs Elah, and as in Heber/Eber, Ananias/Hananias h's can be dropped and added with little difference.

Apparently they deified her (pbuh), the Canaanites, because in the Ugaritic texts there is a lesser god Ugar(Hagar), who the powerful city state was named for.

Like Leban/Lebanon, the (Aram/)Arammaen, both referring to Phoenicia, Lebanon a place and Aramaic their language.

There are more examples. Asshur/Asshuria/Assyria



Who btw had 3 Canaanite wives and his sons also took Canaanite wives, making the Judahites forever half Canaanite/Phoenician/Carthaginian, a people who were allies of Israel, colonizers of places Jews would flee to after the dispersion like Brit-on, Iberian Spain, Iberian Georgia, Hibernia, many places.

This whole encounter was set down to prove many things. God's faithfulness to man and man's faithfulness to God.

It proves Abraham's righteousness and Isaac or Ishmael's depending on religion, only, it is not "proof" of anything else regarding anyone else.

It's also a foreshadow of the sacrifice of Christ, God's son, who would die in our place.

I am pretty sure Christians think every word in the Tanakh is a foreshadowing of Christ (pbuh), many things may be.

Not this. Jesus pbuh is modelled on the Azazel ritual of Leviticus and was actually allegedly killed, this is called poor eisegesis, reading whatever you want and making it justify what you believe by misinterpretation of the spirit and letter of the Bible.

Pretty cool happening when you think about it!


What is "cool" about this?

It is not a "cool" story.

It is a disturbing tale that ends with a moral lesson that makes it no longer disturbing as WE know that God never intended on Isaac's being sacrificed.

What makes Abraham pbuh a role model of submission to God's will is he DIDN'T KNOW.
edit on 7-6-2017 by Disturbinatti because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 08:07 AM

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Disturbinatti

The second account doesn't provide cronology and doesn't in any way contradict the cronological sequence of the first.


Man was the last living thing God fomed in genesis Chapter 1.

God even let Earth bring forth the trees and all living Things before God formed man. God also formed Man as male and female.

In Genesisi Chapter 2. Lord God first formed Adam from the dust on the ground. And then Lord God formed A garden east of Eden.

Just a side question.

Why did Adam not give a name to the serpent?

Adam named all the beasts that Lord God made in the garden of Eden.

- All the beast that Lord God formed. Are they the same beasts we have to day?

If you had just read, I said I messaged the wrong person and I erased it, all my messages where to xstealth and you know why because I sent them to you by mistake.

I also told you that and fixed it so I don't know what to tell you, I wasn't actually talking to you, maybe I forgot and messaged you again.

Adam did name the beast called serpent.

He named it serpent.

Ridiculous question.

I will return one. Although it's the usual answer that is ridiculous and the question proof of that by itself. Angels aren't beasts of the field, Satan is an angel.

Why do people think that a beast of the field is an angel named Adversary/Satan with access to Heaven​ and God?

When a beast that crawls on its belly is obviously not?

Jews call the SERPENTS Samael and Lilith. Have a whole mythology about the being the serpents and explaining the Torah account well in the Zohar.

But how do Xtians rectify this obvious fallacy to make it no longer fallacious? The Zohar is clever, the theology of Xtians is not.

But Christians have no explanation.
edit on 7-6-2017 by Disturbinatti because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 08:30 AM
a reply to: spy66

The first telling of creation is of Man and Woman from the dirt both, as equals. Lilith, Adam's rebellious first wife isn't submissive and invokes YHVH and becomes the "rider on the Serpent", as is Samael.

They are called that because they are responsible for the corruption of Adam and Eve, each being seduced by one.

After the fall and exile from Eden they are not called serpents literally as the Serpent who tempted Eve was obviously cursed to the point it can't be considered an angel, as it's a beast.

Regardless of Jewish tradition the second account is irreconcilable with the first and the reason for the Lilith story in A. of ben Sira, the Zohar.

So the second time to ensure Eve is created not equal, in the manner of Adam and Lilith, but from a rib of Adam making Eve not equal in terms of manner of creation.

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 09:33 AM
God is one God.

Jesus pbuh was like all Prophets pbut and taught to worship one God and not any more.

Trinity is pagan.

Ressurected sun god Baal son of Dagan (source of "Decan", g&c are interchangeable as in gama /cama) son of God/El, died at the hands of his enemy Yam(Sea), descended to the underworld to Mot(Death) and ressurected.

Was crowned Baal Elyon or Most High Baal.

El is Father of the Elohim (Gods), but Baal is crowned Elyon in the Canaanite myths, ressurects/reborn on the summer solstice and dies at Ishtar (Easter), the Babylonian Asherah to Tammuz who is Baal.

Tammus means twin and is the nickname of Judah ben Yusef aka Twin Twin, Thomas Didymus.

Edom(Herodians) and Babylon (Rome) paganized Nazarene Judaism. With Herodian Jew Saul.

A Benjaminite ​isn't literally from that tribe but code for Herodian Jew, Edomite.

They didn't exist after the second Temple and before were small, after being nearly annihilated at Shechem.

Herod Arche-laus
Herod Acher-Saul

As in hated king Saul.

Acher is Paul in the Talmud because ben Abuya is one of many other names he used, Acher means other as in an other name is used.

In Archelaus case it's just an anagram that let's us know what a Benjaminite​ Wolf is, Jesus pbuh says "Beware the wolf of Benjamin."

That's the whole clan. Antipas is an anagram for Sapati[a]n or Sabbatean, p&b are interchangeable too.

V&B also.

Vespasian is Be-Sabasian (Sabaians?)

Meaning he was a Sabian, many Romans were, especially Titus Flavius Sabazius, Sabellius, Sabinus, etc. They are also Phoenician-Carthaginian-Canaanite, some.

Vati-Can=Bet-Cain, house of Cain.

Aristobulos=Priest of Belas/Baal.

Berenice=Bar Nicea, not a real person but esoteric for the early Church which married the "First Man"(Primal Man) "Of the prominent Alexander family (reference to Philo Alexander, who wrote the doctrine of the "Primal Adam" famous in Kabbalah today.

Paul tries copying the much smarter Philo, marrying Philo with the religion of the Apostles, albeit poorly, the Spiritual vs earthly Adam.

edit on 7-6-2017 by Disturbinatti because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 10:39 AM
a reply to: Astyanax

Being the one with "All the power", it was not uncommon for nobles to attempt to prove their Emperor's "Omni Potens" to the people, by demonstrating his effectiveness at leading the Empire.

Same meaning (what was mentioned after "scholastic understanding" would fall under the same usage above, or would fit that usage). That is how it was used by the Latin speaking people. You provided no evidence that the term "Omni Potens" as it was used in the Latin in the 1st century CE (when the bible was completed) was used differently than what was mentioned after "scholastic understanding". It is not me who is using a "new meaning" to fit with my line of argumentation that omnipotence is not compatible with certain limitations or restrictions. Your argument about medieval Roman Catholic philosophers doesn't apply to these nobles used as an example and they weren't the only ones using that term in this manner because people at the time already understood the terminology to be compatible with certain limitations or restrictions; scholastic or otherwise. Your interpretation that it is not compatible with certain limitations or restrictions was not used and you have provided no evidence that it was, by anyone at that time; which wouldn't even negate how it was used and meant by the bible writers. And we aren't talking about medieval times here, we're talking about how people in the Roman Empire used the terminology, it's their language. I also gave a hint (and link) about people who used the Hebrew and Greek terms before there was a Roman Empire. That's what matters here, not your modern re-interpretation that is convenient for bible critics.

It's what the bible writers wrote, how they used the words and meant them, and how their readers in their time would have understood those words that should be ascertained if one wants to evaluate whether there are any plotholes in the bible. Not a straw man version or interpretation of what they were supposedly talking about that is more conveniently painted as having plotholes or contradictions.

The words used for "almighty" in Hebrew and Greek, were understood in the same manner as described by wikipedia under the Latin "Omni Potens" when it mentions that it is "compatible with certain limitations or restrictions". You can't just change history to what you want it to be to help with arguing against what the bible taught and is still teaching: God is "almighty" which is a translation of Hebrew and Greek words that are compatible with certain limitations or restrictions and were meant and understood that way by both the writers and the readers respectively. That's not going to change by people debating about these words centuries later in demonstration of 1 Timothy 6:4 and providing evidence and a demonstration of the reliability of the bible when it comes to predicting and describing human behaviour.
edit on 7-6-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 10:51 AM
a reply to: Raggedyman

See Abraham knew God, knew God had a plan, had seen Gods plan work, trusted in Gods love I understand you cant comprehend what is being shown, dont think others cant Abraham knew God was not going to take his son, how do we know Abraham knew God as his father But no matter what I say or show you, it doesnt matter You want to hate and blame God Thats fine, its your choice

No one is hating or blaming God.

Get over yourself, I see this in every thread where God or Christianity is brought up and you are involved.

You have one big lesson to learn being a Christian, I hope you realize that lesson/test that has been given to you.


Abe didn't know, the whole thing was a test in faith. He went ahead because he did have faith and passed the test.

Its basically what life is, if you are a religious person that is, that believes in an all knowing and all powerful creator.

We are tested every moment of our lives to make choices that will in turn help form the future for better or worse.

Its ok to be ignorant, its not ok to remain ignorant when shown the truth

Why not?

Who are you to judge?

Your logic is like a childs. Its what I see now must be the same as it always was. You believe life arose from what. Watch the cognitive dissonance and anger ensue. Anger, it seems you are laying out a bait to attract the attention you are requesting

Oh pray to Jebus, help this lost soul.

You have said this a few times and yet if one looks at your posting and lets say how you actually started that post with "What" certainly points to you having issues with out being able to let things go.

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:10 PM
a reply to: Astyanax

If that is possible, then it should be possible for God to give us freedom of choice and still ensure that none of our choices cause pain and suffering to any living being. It’s the same thing: He makes us free to do whatever we choose, but limits our choices to positive ones only. Gives us free will, but makes us unable to do evil.

I'm convinced this is what life would have been like if we'd not choosen to sin.

Now, living in this 'fallen' world, yes we have free will but we also have to pay the consequences for our actions.

Many don't like the use of the collective 'we' when speaking of the first sin in Eden - all I can say to that is too bad. It is what it is.


posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:12 PM
a reply to: InhaleExhale

Abe didn't know, the whole thing was a test in faith. He went ahead because he did have faith and passed the test.

Abraham KNEW because not only did he tell the men who came with them his son and he would return the next day - but greater than that - Abraham was promised many times from Isaac's blood many nations would be born more than the stars in the sky, but yes, he did go ahead out of faith.

As I stated in another post Abraham was walking through a foreshadow of the crucifixion where the lamb would be slaughtered, the son would be killed, but would still live - as Isaac still lived.

God doesn't break His promises.


edit on 0716Wednesday201713 by silo13 because: spacing

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 07:59 PM
a reply to: InhaleExhale

A question was asked
An answer offered

If you dont like it, oops

If someone chooses to remain ignorant, thats fine.

God was very different to other gods of that time, sacrifice, especially child sacrifice was NEVER called for
(in Leviticus a law was made to make it ceremonial)

“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?” Says the Lord. “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs or goats.” Isaiah 1:11
“For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Hosea 6:6 (quoted by Jesus in Matthew 9:13, 12:7)
“For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering.” Psalm 51:16

If Abraham knew God, had a personal relationship with God as the text reveals, then Abraham was just going through the motions

posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 08:05 PM
a reply to: Disturbinatti


Can't go anywhere with this until I know what that means.


posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 12:46 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

That is how it was used by the Latin speaking people.

Scholasticism was a particular philosophical movement with a particular object, which was explained to you earlier. The Scholastics limited omnipotence in order to absolve God of the blame for all the evils of Creation.

I understand why you prefer to believe in a limited deity. It makes God more human, doesn’t it — a little bit more like you — and gives Him an excuse for failing to answer prayers or put an end to all the evil in the world.

Well, here is the news. If there is a God, He is nothing at all like a human being, and cannot possibly be either moral or merciful. Which is why I prefer to act as if He did not exist. If He did, it would be necessary to defy Him.

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in