It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Bible contradictions & a Mystery

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV

GE 19:30-38 While he is drunk, Lot's two daughters "lie with him," become pregnant, and give birth to his offspring.
2PE 2:7 Lot was "just" and "righteous."




Lot was not supposed to be in Canaan. God told Abram(Abraham) to move away from his father and other family(physically and probably a spiritual move also). Abraham took his dad and Lot, which he wasn't supposed to do. His dad dies and Lot is still with him and so they both go to Canaan. Lot and Abraham get to crowded and they have to seperate from each other. Lot has first choice and chooses to go to the area closer to Sodom, which was already known for it's wickedness at that point. He pitches his tent toward Sodom, which means when he comes out of the opening of his tent each morning the first thing he views is Sodom. Later we see that the 2 angels who came to destroy Sodom find Lot sitting at the gate to the city(a spot held for the mayor of the town or at the least an important member of the community.) When the 2 angels come to the city Lot knows these aren't just ordinary men and will not let them sleep outside in the streets. They are taken into his house. The men of the city come to sexually abuse the 2 strangers that are with Lot. Lot doesn't want this so he offers the men of the city his 2 daughters to abuse. They want the men and nothing less and are ready to break in and take them. The angels strike them with blindness and to make a longer story short have to physically remove Lot, his wife and daughters and then destroy the city.

So what has happened, Lot was doing "OK" with Abraham but there wasn't enough land for 2 people's herds. So when given first choice where to go he chooses the area closer to the sin of Sodom. Maybe a herd reduction was in order to be able to stay away from sodom, but the temptation of the sins of sodom were inviting. "I'll just get a little closer and that will satisfy me. Well, I might just stroll on into sodom one day and see if it really is as wicked some say. Wow that is bad I wonder if I could make a difference there". We find out that Lot has become important in sodom, but it's the sin there has reached it's fullness and God sends 2 angels. We are told Lot was vexed by what he saw day to day but still stayed. Lot gave an inch and sin took him a mile. He had been so affected by the sin that he couldn't make right decisions. He was willing to give his daughters to be abused. Then later we find out that his daughters were affected by what they saw in sodom and hatched their plan. God was merciful to Lot when he didn't deserve it, yet there was something about Lot,(plus for abrahams sake) that spared Lot from destruction.

Sin takes you farther than you want to go, keeps you longer than you want to stay, and costs you more than you want to pay.

[edit on 8-3-2005 by dbrandt]




posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
purecanadiantrash,

If you are not christian, why would you be defending obvious and glaring problems in the bible? You have no vested interest in distorting the truth, so why would you do so?



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
purecanadiantrash,

If you are not christian, why would you be defending obvious and glaring problems in the bible? You have no vested interest in distorting the truth, so why would you do so?


Though I do believe in God through reasons of my own and those of great philosophers/scientists, I'm definitely not christian and don't follow any religion or dogma whose foundation is the bible, but I don't think these problems are as glaring as you say they are, even though I was once like you - thinking it's chalk full of nonsense, metaphors, contraditions, lies to socialize the masses. I may be somewhat biased through the fact that I do think the bible is an extraordinary accomplishment and in particular a few passages which I originally felt were total B.S. turned out to make perfect, undeniable sense (accurately foreshadowing future knowledge/events) when I learned to take them in the context that they were written in - a language that was tailored to early people with a primitive understanding compared to modern times. This is why I don't rule out anything the bible has to say at face value that seems to contradict on surface.

The bible defines God as omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnificent, which means that even though God has an infinite ammount of power, certainly enough to crush any army at a whim, his all knowing, omniscient nature entails that he knows better than anyone else. So who's to say that God simply knew better than to send Judah in and hammersmash the chariots of iron? Perhaps this delay was instrumental in another good yet to come? Afterall, time is not a factor with our omniscient creator, so he knows every event that has and will ever happen.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Seems to me that one of the major problems with the Bible is simply the fact that it was translated.

When anything is translated it is easy for things to become confounded.
For example one word in hebrew may take a page in another language to explain.

Complicating that fact was the translators did not understand the culture of the people who wrote it. (What did the english translators know of the Hebrew/Jewish culture - not a whole lot).

One example is:
The Christian family does understand that the word Rabbi does mean teacher, however what they fail to understand is that there is another qualification a man must have before the word Rabbi can be applied to him, And that qualification is that he MUST be married. So Christ was Married - like it or not - or his followers would/could not have addressed him as "Rabbi".

Using that example one can easilly see how confused many other concepts/ideals can get.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Its rather unfortunate for you that YOUR 'opinion' on the matter was known before hand by God....and so he told us what meaning of the word to use

Joh 1:38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) .....

So then...why would you ignore the second half of the verse?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   
You have, infact quoted the KJV correctly (as I suspect you know) however what you apparently are missing is that the translators did not translate the text accurately when they translated it themselves.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   
BTW, Nice site...

[edit on 3/9/2005 by dancer]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by dancer
You have, infact quoted the KJV correctly (as I suspect you know) however what you apparently are missing is that the translators did not translate the text accurately when they translated it themselves.


No. I have not,(missed anything) and anyone who opens it will see. (the meaning)

And I do not believe that YOU have more knowledge then them, and I put forth the following so you can see that EVERYONE but YOU seems to have gotten it wrong


Joh 1:38

(ASV) And Jesus turned, and beheld them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? And they said unto him, Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher), where abideth thou?

(CEV) When Jesus turned and saw them, he asked, "What do you want?" They answered, "Rabbi, where do you live?" The Hebrew word "Rabbi" means "Teacher."

(ESV) Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, "What are you seeking?" And they said to him, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?"

(GB) Then Iesus turned about, and saw them follow, and saide vnto them, What seeke ye? And they saide vnto him, Rabbi (which is to say by interpretation, Master) where dwellest thou?

(GNT) στραφεὶς δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς καὶ θεασάμενος αὐτοὺς ἀκολουθοῦντας λέγει αὐτοῖς· τί ζητεῖτε; οἱ δὲ εἶπον αὐτῷ· ῥαββί· ὃ λέγεται ἐρμηνευόμενον διδάσκαλε· ποῦ μένεις;

(HNV) Yeshua turned, and saw them following, and said to them, "What are you looking for?" They said to him, "Rabbi" (which is to say, being interpreted, Rabbi), "where are you staying?"

(ISV) But when Jesus turned around and saw them following, he said to them, "What are you looking for?" They said to him, "Rabbi," (which is translated "Teacher"), "where are you staying?"

(KJV+) Then1161 Jesus2424 turned,4762 and2532 saw2300 them846 following,190 and saith3004 unto them,846 What5101 seek2212 ye?(1161) They said2036 unto him,846 Rabbi,4461 (which3739 is to say,3004 being interpreted,2059 Master,)1320 where4226 dwellest3306 thou?

(KJVR) Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

(MSG) Jesus looked over his shoulder and said to them, "What are you after?" They said, "Rabbi" (which means "Teacher"), "where are you staying?"

(SVD) فَالْتَفَتَ يَسُوعُ وَنَظَرَهُمَا يَتْبَعَانِ فَقَالَ لَهُمَا: «مَاذَا تَطْلُبَانِ؟» فَقَالاَ: «رَبِّي (الَّذِي تَفْسِيرُهُ: يَا مُعَلِّمُ) أَيْنَ تَمْكُثُ؟»


[edit on 9-3-2005 by jake1997]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   
You might read my post again, a bit more carefully...



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Now that you have calmed down a little, Why don't you open your mind to the possibility that the origional translators were Human, and imperfect?

Someone of your knowledge of the scriptures may have an interest in reading the Gnostic texts.
(I am not saying to regard them as Gospel, but there are further teachings there and I belive that you will find them enjoyable).

I belive the quote is: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."




[edit on 3/9/2005 by dancer]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
for the mind. How did I miss this thread this long? My thanks to LadyV and dnero for bringing these topics up
. Now...where to begin... hang with me all, this might take a while. I've got some research to do. I'd venture to say each one of these 'contradictions' could be their own thread. It'd be a whole lot easy to analyse. Nevertheless, chips fall where they may and I'll get to work too. My pledge? I'm sure these have been addressed already somewhere on the web, but I will give it a go using prayer, the Book, and reason. Talk with ya's soon.

Pray, train, study.
God bless.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by purecanadiantrash

The bible defines God as omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnificent, which means that even though God has an infinite ammount of power, certainly enough to crush any army at a whim, his all knowing, omniscient nature entails that he knows better than anyone else. So who's to say that God simply knew better than to send Judah in and hammersmash the chariots of iron? Perhaps this delay was instrumental in another good yet to come? Afterall, time is not a factor with our omniscient creator, so he knows every event that has and will ever happen.


If I was to completely ignore this issue, there are still more. An all powerful, and all knowing God could not make mistakes correct? He couldn't do wrong. But yet he repents. It weakens his heart to see his mistake, when referring to humans in genesis. In exudus, god "thought of doing horrible things to his people". He thought of murder, and he pepented it says the bible. He felt sorry for even thinking about the harm he was to do to the people he created. Now, isn't their some sort of christian rule forbidding the thought of evil, and condemnig it as a sin? An all powerful God couldn't possibly commit a sin. Yet, he does here by his own admission.In the book of samuel, God admits his mistakes on numerous occasions in reference to Saul. In all honesty, I know that there are more for sure, and beyond that which I know, I can assure you that still, more exists.

God has admittedly made mistakes in the bible. You can deny that fact to whatever extent you would like, however it will not take away the words written in the bible. Tell me, is it possible for an all powerful, all knowing god to make a mistake? Wouldn't it have to be by design? If so, why would he openly admit his wrong-doing, and repent for it?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Because the Present day Bible is not what was left to us. We have a Knock off deliberately misappropiated by individuals throughout History.

I was reading about the dead sea scrolls over the weekend. If we take those as the true Bible, then we have a completely different set of dynamics in the new testament. Paul ( saul of tarsus ) is depicted as a whack job. So much for half of the new testament. But, in his view women are second class, and it fit well with the Male dominated society, so the new Testament as filled out by his rantings.

God cant create a simple book...? brought the 10 commandments to Moses, but we are stuck with power mad Popes, Emperors, and despots deciding what to canonize, include, exclude, and create...no thank you.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure if you are saying it to me.

Yes, paul probably was a wack job...and there goes half the new testament along with pentecostals. The bible is full of serious issues, such as a statement forbidding women to speak in church...(Speaking of Paul).



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by purecanadiantrash
, his all knowing, omniscient nature entails that he knows better than anyone else. So who's to say that God simply knew better than to send Judah in and hammersmash the chariots of iron? Perhaps this delay was instrumental in another good yet to come? Afterall, time is not a factor with our omniscient creator, so he knows every event that has and will ever happen.


Wow, very very very good wording and accurate, I learned something.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I really like how dbrant complimented pure trash on a statement, and totally ignored mine. I do understand though, that he wouldn't want to address it for obvious reasons.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
I really like how dbrant complimented pure trash on a statement, and totally ignored mine. I do understand though, that he wouldn't want to address it for obvious reasons.


Well once again, didn't know I had a time limit. I was having a crisis with a 12 year old and a report that's due tomorrow.

This may sound like a slam but it's not, it's impossible to ignore you.

Since we know God can't sin then you have to dig deeper and search. God has emotions, and repent also means to feel regret. Even though God knows beforehand what we are going to do, when we do wrong God can feel regret. That's actually an awesome thought that by our actions we can grieve the heart of God.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Regret? Wouldn't you say regret is always accompanied by a mistake? Who here wants to take a pool on that.

Digging deeper is just ignoring what the bible says in one place, and doing the typical christian duty of replacing it with an opinion of their own. What I don't understand is this. You christians criticise us smart people for questioning things like walking on water and a global flood. Things that are ridiculous to anyone with a brain. You do so in efforts to show that every word of the bible is true. Yet, you ignore half of those words because you don't agree with them...

Like I was telling saint...and you before of course, HYPOCRITS.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
Regret? Wouldn't you say regret is always accompanied by a mistake?

You christians criticise us smart people Things that are ridiculous to anyone with a brain.


I thought you gave up the namecalling and the insults. You know that does make me want to ignore you, so it would be nicer if you stopped.

If my son or daughter robbed a bank I can feel regret for a mistake that they made, but I didn't rob the bank.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
You christians criticise us smart people for questioning things



Originally posted by Seapeople
Things that are ridiculous to anyone with a brain.


And yet people complain about Christian confidence being egotistical. *wipes a tear* Oh wait! Then you call US hypocrites:


Originally posted by Seapeople
Like I was telling saint...and you before of course, HYPOCRITS


Let's see how else you can disassemble your credibility. By all means, do go on
.



[edit on 9-3-2005 by saint4God]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join