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.

 

Faults In The Bible

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I have just begun to read the bible with a different intention in mind. I want to read it as a fictional story, so as to not have any biasing torwards it. I have gotten to Genesis 6 so far, and have noted some very troubling pieces of text. I will list the Book, Chapter, and Verse... and then i will type exactly what my version of the bible says... and i will explain why i have a problem with it.

Genesis 1:26.. "Then God said, "Let us make a man- someone like ourselves, to be the master of all life upon the earth and in the skies and in the seas.""
::I have a problem with when it says "let US make a man, someone like OURSELVES..." which indicates that there is more than one god. This happens again in Genesis 3:22

Genesis 3:22.. "Then the lord said "Now that the man has become as we are, knowing good from bad, what if he eats the fruit of the tree of life and lives forever?""
::Again i have a problem with "...become as WE are...". Another problem i have is that god is supposed to be all knowing and such, yet he seems to be quite ignorant to what is going on. He should have known that the tree was going to be eaten from, and he shouldnt have had to ask Adam why he was hiding.

Genesis 4:14-15.. "For you have banished me from my farm and from you, and made me a fugitive and a tramp; and everyone who sees me will try to kill me. The lord replied "They wont kill you, for i will give seven times your punishment to anyone who does." Then the lord put an identifying mark on cain as a warning not to kill him""
:: My problem with this text lies in the part that says "...fugitive and a tramp; and EVERYONE that sees me will try to kill me" The lord replied "THEY wont kill you, for i will give seven times your punishment to ANYONE who does." Then the lord..." supposedly adam and eve were the first people on earth, and gave birth to cain and abel. Cain kills abel, and fears that EVERYONE else will kill him, and god says that NO ONE ELSE will kill him... there shouldnt be anyone else to kill him, as they are the only people on the earth at this time.

My last problem thusfar does not lie within the text, but the whole bible up to this point seems to be very gender biased. Women are treated as the possession of a man. it is always the mans wife or wives... Animals were not suitable to help adam, so a woman was created to serve adam. This concept is not very godlike if you ask me...

Feel free to argue any of the points i have made, or correct me on anything i may have made a mistake on. I would almost like to see this topic used as a psuedo-debate... i would love to hear others thoughts and feelings, and different takes and views on the problems i have found.




posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
The Bible is laden with issues such as you have found, they actually start at Geneses 1:1. I commend you for attempting to read the text in an objective manner, however, you will be met with much faith based opposition by those having pre-disposed opinions based on theological teaching or upbringing.

Thus far, your findings and questions are quite valid, and as yet adequately countered.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
And this is why we catholics dont go on scripture alone. There are many errors or contradictions. Just look at the message itself not the story.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Demonic Aura
I have just begun to read the bible with a different intention in mind. I want to read it as a fictional story, so as to not have any biasing torwards it. I have gotten to Genesis 6 so far, and have noted some very troubling pieces of text. I will list the Book, Chapter, and Verse... and then i will type exactly what my version of the bible says... and i will explain why i have a problem with it.

Genesis 1:26.. "Then God said, "Let us make a man- someone like ourselves, to be the master of all life upon the earth and in the skies and in the seas.""
::I have a problem with when it says "let US make a man, someone like OURSELVES..." which indicates that there is more than one god. This happens again in Genesis 3:22

Genesis 3:22.. "Then the lord said "Now that the man has become as we are, knowing good from bad, what if he eats the fruit of the tree of life and lives forever?""
::Again i have a problem with "...become as WE are...". Another problem i have is that god is supposed to be all knowing and such, yet he seems to be quite ignorant to what is going on. He should have known that the tree was going to be eaten from, and he shouldnt have had to ask Adam why he was hiding.



This may be wierd but I believe "God" could be Aliens, and this could explain the us and we's.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Plural form of God in the OT begins with Gen 1:1. According to the hebrew lexicon the use of "God" is Strong's Number: 0430 which is 'elohiym and has the following definitions:
Plural:
rulers, judges
divine ones
angels
gods

Plural intensive - Singular meaning:
god, goddess
godlike one
works or special possessions of God
the (true) God
God

I believe the "Plural - Singular" section is what applies here as well as possibly the "god/goddess" or "gods/angels/rulers". This is my opinion however and some others may say it's plural because of the Trinity "Father, Son, Spirit" or something like that. The only support for the god/goddess theory would be the next section Gen1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. However, the following details might tend toward another explaination.

'elohyim (0430) is the Plural form of 'elowahh (0433) which has just two definitions, those being:
God
false god

Now, both 'elohyim and 'elowahh both are considered as Masculine Nouns though which doesn't seem to work with the god/goddess idea but may very well be a "Father, Son" instead which fits with both being Masculine.
Both of them however use the root of "el" (0410) meaning "Power/Strength/etc." but also "god-like, mighty men, demon, angel, false god, God" as well.
"el" (0410) again is the shortened form of 'ayil (0352) meaning "ram(dyed red, sacrificed), leader, strong man, chief" and is from the same as 'uwl (0193) meaning "prominence, wealthy, noble, body, belly".

IMO, looking at all of that together and finding the pattern there seems to be a continuation of characteristics going hand-in-hand where one is opposite or reflection of the other yet both are still the same One.

[edit on 16-5-2005 by mOjOm]



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Gen 1:26 It reveals the triune God, father, son and holy spirit. Which is later reveal and expanded upon. Jesus even says "The father and I are (nueter are) one" that means being in unity, not seperate.

Also note taht God has no defined "shape" no one knows what he really looks like. So the only thing we can think of is taht we are spiritual, like he is.

Gen 3:22 the tree was there so Adam and eve could Obey God, it was the only thing they had to do in order to stay in eden. But God DID know they were going to eat from it and made a plan for a savior. You need to understand that God does not cause sin, man causes himself to sin.

Gen 4:15 Who says Cain and able were the only ofspring of adam and eve. They were the only RECORDED offspring. When Cain went to the land of Nod he obviosuly found a sister, or close relative.

YOu ever read any novels from the early 1900's or even up to the 50s? some of those were just as sexist. I really fail to see the point you are trying to make by making that remark when women ACCEPTED thier role to serve thier husband becasue it was what they were good at. this is like a fat elderly women telling a hooters girl how demeaning and sexist thier job is.

What is your real motive behind doing this?



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   
job 38:4 - 8 explains that the angels were indeed there in genesis 1, when God first started creating the earth.


Job38:4 Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare if thou has understanding
....verse 7. When all the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of god shouted for joy.

and there is always the 8th day creation theory to explain where cain got his wife from. also the sons of god in job 38:7 also lockin the fact that genesis 6 sons of gods are angels that impregnated women, leaving their first habitation as per jude 1.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
Gen 1:26 It reveals the triune God, father, son and holy spirit. Which is later reveal and expanded upon. Jesus even says "The father and I are (nueter are) one" that means being in unity, not seperate.
Only by a huge stretch of the imagination. If Jesus is God and some ghost is also God, then they are one, a singular not a "we." Unless of course they are blue bloods defining royalty. Do Christians refer to their body and soul as we? No! A verse you Christians don't like to acknowledge is: "I, even I , am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour.'" There is no mention of we in there or anywhere else, so why perpetuate the deceit about a we?

What it in fact reveals from Genesis 1:1 is the Egyptian enead, then the ogdoad, then the ruling god with his four demi-god children, then the ruling god with his four children in human form, then the ruling god with his four children and fifth child in human form, and so forth and so forth and so forth.

The OT has no mention, I repeat, no mention of Jesus save to those who attempted to apply prophesy to forge Jesus and to those who have no desire to understand the text.

Faults in The Bible a conspiracy? No way, can't be! The fact that these faults stem from a conspiracy to fool the masses will always be too dificult a concept for some to grasp or want to grasp.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
And this is why we catholics dont go on scripture alone. There are many errors or contradictions. Just look at the message itself not the story.



There are no errors in the Bible and supposed contradictions all have answers. These answers when found have brought forth more truth to be learned. The Bible is like looking for buried treasure.

I'm beating a dead horse, but if you don't go scripture alone you run the risk of being deceiced.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
There are no errors in the Bible and supposed contradictions all have answers. These answers when found have brought forth more truth to be learned. The Bible is like looking for buried treasure.

I'm beating a dead horse, but if you don't go scripture alone you run the risk of being deceiced.


I find it hard to believe that there are "no errors" in the Bible at all. Just the fact that there are certain sections left out and that there is no complete original already compiled means that some alteration and even perhaps willfull editing has had some effect on it. Then there is the main problem which is how it is translated. Not only are there many different translations that vary from one to the next, even if just slightly, there is still the problem of whether or not a translation from the original ancient text is 100% correct. Or even if the alleged "ancient text" we have is in fact the true original and/or the true word of God.

I do agree with you though that when answers are found, which can sometimes be difficult and/or even hidden "between the lines" so to speak, there is much one can learn.

As for your last statement about "going scripture alone" as the only way without risk of deception, I simply do not agree. In fact, I'm of the opinion that anyone who'd rely on the infalibility of the "Written Word" without question is already decieved to some degree. Being that The Word of God goes beyond the limits of what is written in any book or bible verse that would mean His Word is also found beyond those limits. Some might even say that His Word can be heard everywhere & at all times depending on one's own choice to listen.

Think about it like this. If in fact The Word of God, which made All Creation is "The Truth", then it IS and WILL ALWAYS BE, "The Truth". Nobody could change it, even the smallest amount, be it man, angel, demon or the devil himself. However, it's said the devil is very much in control of the physical world and a master at deception. So while he can never alter the True Word in any way, he could easily write down the best "Un-Truth" ever imagined. In other words, Undoing God's Creation isn't possible, but incorrect documentation of it would surely be possible. Also, remember that the best lies are ones mixed and hidden within a much larger truth(s).



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   
SomewhereinBetween that is why the Chrisitna God is called a TRIUNE God, 3 in one. Each with seperate aspect as Father, son and holy spirit, but also part of the same God. It is not something that is very clear by just reading it and it has to be done with careful study and comparison. I really like the pluralty that is slipped into the genesis creation story because it shows even in the begining the Triune was hinted at.

Besides, doesn't royalty allways refer to itself in the plural because of that?



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
gen1:26 and whos there is explained in job 38: around verse 4. when God describes his fashioning of the earth.

trinity is debatable.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Genesis: 3:16 Thy desire will be for thy husband and he shall rule over you
*looks behind to make sure wife is not in room*



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


You can see that Jesus was there in the beginning with God.

I highly recommend getting e-sword. Its a free bible and it comes with the strongs referrence so you can double check words.

www.e-sword.net

You can also download other translations (various english plus many other languages).
I have about 8 different translations and several dictionarys. It helps alot.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
SomewhereinBetween that is why the Chrisitna God is called a TRIUNE God, 3 in one.
This was your quote:

Gen 1:26 It reveals the triune God, father, son and holy spirit. Which is later reveal and expanded upon. Jesus even says "The father and I are (nueter are) one" that means being in unity, not seperate.
Which once more, has nothing to do with jesus much less the concept of father, son and any ghost. So I fail to see the significance of your response. further, the "we" mentioned is that of the Egyptian Gods.


It is not something that is very clear by just reading it and it has to be done with careful study and comparison.
What careful study have you done that proves this Jehosophat? Anything you can offer comes to you either directly from Christian teaching or your own presumption and want to relate the NT to the OT. The fact is, my position is far more studied and supported than yours, for I have offered texts from stone and papyri from ancient Egypt which far outdate your OT and which not only support my claim, but also represent many of the allegories within the OT, both in story line, dating and similiarity. All of this is further supported by hardcore archaeological evidence, whereas, not the Jews and not the Christians have absolutely nothing to prove your fairy tales save to offer your NT text as proof of your NT text.


I really like the pluralty that is slipped into the genesis creation story because it shows even in the begining the Triune was hinted at.
Yes, so do I, except it is 9 gods. It just goes to show how gullible you can be to be accepting Amun/Ra/Aten; Isis; Osiris; Nephtys and that Egyptian bad boy Seth, as your saviour.


Besides, doesn't royalty allways refer to itself in the plural because of that?
What came first royalty or pharoahs?

[edit on 5/18/05 by SomewhereinBetween]




top topics



 
0

log in

join