Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A contradiction in the bible

page: 37
17
<< 34  35  36    38  39 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by watcher73
I love you and I'm a forgiving god.


(time passes)


DIE IN THIS WORLDWIDE FLOOD SINNERS!

(more time passes)

HAI GUYZZ!!! Now my name is Jesus and I love you again.

No contradictions in the bible AT ALL!



[edit on 17-12-2009 by watcher73]


You really are confused about the whole scenario that is brought forth in the Bible. I would encourage you to study it some more, because you've missed the reasoning for what's happened/happening. Don't give up.




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by shasta9600
 


Jesus existed as Jehovah of the OT and came in the flesh to reveal the Father to the world.... unknown to the world. I also don't believe in the trinity doctrine.


Jesus is God's son. Where in the Bible does it ever say that Jesus was Jehovah and came to the earth to make himself known? I'd like to know the where it is, if it does in fact say that.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by shasta9600]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by shasta9600
 


"Before Abraham was, I AM..."
Jesus, the I AM
Perhaps the boldest claim Jesus made about His identity was the statement, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58). Translated into English, His statement may appear or sound confusing. But in the Aramaic or Hebrew language in which He spoke, He was making a claim that immediately led the people to try to stone Him for blasphemy.

What was going on here? Jesus was revealing His identity as the actual One whom the Jews knew as God in the Old Testament. He was saying in one breath that He existed before Abraham and that He was the same Being as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Anciently when the great God first revealed Himself to Moses in Exodus 3:13-14, Moses asked Him what His name was. "I AM WHO I AM," was the awesome reply. "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Jesus clearly claimed to be this same Being—the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (verse 15).

"I AM" is related to the personal name for God in the Old Testament, the Hebrew name YHWH. When this name appears in our English Bibles, it is commonly rendered using small capital letters as LORD. It is transliterated as "Jehovah" in some Bible versions.

When Jesus made this startling statement, the Jews knew exactly what He meant. They picked up stones to kill Him because they thought He was guilty of blasphemy.

"I AM" and the related YHWH are the names of God that infer absolute timeless self-existence. Although impossible to translate accurately and directly into English, YHWH conveys meanings of "The Eternal One," "The One Who Always Exists" or "The One Who Was, Is and Always Will Be." These distinctions can apply only to God, whose existence is eternal and everlasting.

In Isaiah 42:8 this same Being says, "I am the LORD [YHWH], that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to carved images." A few chapters later He says: "Thus says the LORD [YHWH], the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the First and I am the Last; besides Me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).

To the Jews, there was no mistaking who Jesus claimed to be. He said He was the One the nation of Israel understood to be the one true God. By Jesus making claim to the name "I AM," He was saying that He was the God whom the Hebrews knew as YHWH. This name was considered so holy that a devout Jew would not pronounce it. This was a special name for God that can only refer to the one true God.

Dr. Norman Geisler, in his book Christian Apologetics, concludes: "In view of the fact that the Jehovah of the Jewish Old Testament would not give his name, honor, or glory to another, it is little wonder that the words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth drew stones and cries of 'blasphemy' from first-century Jews. The very things that the Jehovah of the Old Testament claimed for himself Jesus of Nazareth also claimed" (2002, p. 331).

Jesus identified with YHWH
Dr. Geisler goes on to list some of the ways Jesus equated Himself with YHWH of the Old Testament. Let's notice some of these.

Jesus said of Himself, "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11). David, in the first verse of the famous 23rd Psalm, declared that "The LORD [YHWH] is my shepherd." Jesus claimed to be judge of all men and nations (John 5:22, 27). Yet Joel 3:12 says the LORD [YHWH] "will sit to judge all ...nations."

Jesus said, "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12). Isaiah 60:19 says, "The LORD will be to you an everlasting light, and your God your glory." Also, David says in Psalm 27:1, "The LORD (YHWH) is my light."

Jesus asked in prayer that the Father would share His eternal glory: "O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was" (John 17:5). Yet Isaiah 42:8 says, "I am the LORD, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another ."

Jesus spoke of Himself as the coming bridegroom (Matthew 25:1), which is how YHWH is characterized in Isaiah 62:5 and Hosea 2:16.

In Revelation 1:17 Jesus says He is the first and the last, which is identical to what YHWH says of Himself in Isaiah 44:6: "I am the First and I am the Last."

There is no question that Jesus understood Himself as the LORD (YHWH) of the Old Testament.

When Jesus was arrested, His use of the same term had an electrifying effect on those in the arresting party. "Now when He said to them, 'I am He,' they drew back and fell to the ground" (John 18:6). Notice here that "He" is in italics, meaning the word was added by the translators and isn't in the original wording. However, their attempt to make Jesus' answer more grammatically correct obscures the fact that He was likely again claiming to be the "I AM" of the Old Testament Scriptures.

"I and My Father are one"
The Jews confronted Jesus on another occasion, asking Him, "How long do You keep us in doubt? If you are the Christ [the prophesied Messiah], tell us plainly" (John 10:24). Jesus' answer is quite revealing: "I told you, and you do not believe" (verse 25). He had indeed confirmed His divine identity on a previous occasion (John 5:17-18).

Jesus adds, "The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me" (John 10:25). The works He did were miracles that only God could do. They could not refute the miraculous works Jesus did.

He made another statement that incensed them: "I and My Father are one" (verse 30). That is, the Father and Jesus were both divine. Again, there was no mistaking the intent of what He said, because "then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him" (verse 31).

Jesus countered, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" The Jews responded, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God" (verses 32-33).

The Jews understood perfectly well what Jesus meant. He was telling them plainly of His divinity.

The Gospel of John records yet another instance in which Jesus infuriated the Jews with His claims of divinity. It happened just after Jesus had healed a crippled man at the pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath. The Jews sought to kill Him because He did this on the Sabbath, a day on which the law of God had stated no work was to be done (which they misinterpreted to include what Jesus was doing).

Jesus then made a statement that the Jews could take in only one way: "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working." Their response to His words? "Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath [according to their interpretation of it], but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:16-18).

Jesus was equating His works with God's works and claiming God as His Father in a special way.

Jesus claimed authority to forgive sins
Jesus claimed to be divine in various other ways.

When Jesus healed one paralyzed man, He also said to him, "Son, your sins are forgiven you" (Mark 2:5). The scribes who heard this reasoned He was blaspheming, because, as they rightly understood and asked, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (verses 6-7).

Responding to the scribes, Jesus said: "Why do you raise such questions in your hearts?...But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—He said to the paralytic—"I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home" (verses 8-11, NRSV).

The scribes knew Jesus was claiming an authority that belonged to God only. Again, the LORD (YHWH) is the One pictured in the Old Testament who forgives sin (Jeremiah 31:34).

Christ claimed power to raise the dead
Jesus claimed yet another power that God alone possessed—to raise and judge the dead. Notice His statements in John 5:25-29:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live...All who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."

There was no doubt about what He meant. He added in verse 21,"For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will." When Jesus resurrected Lazarus from the dead, He said to Lazarus' sister, Martha, "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25).

Compare this to 1 Samuel 2:6, which tells us that "the LORD [YHWH] kills and makes alive; He brings down to the grave and brings up."


Source: www.ucg.org...



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Obviously you have a literal concrete linear paradigm of thinking.

That is so beneath the created intelligence between your most distant hair follicles.

So be it though. The flood happened due to willful disobedience to the word of God. And God was ashamed of that so He told Noah and all "I promise to never do that again, and here is a sign I place in the sky, a rainbow, to remind you of that."

Of the fifty seven greatest philosophers in the history of the world 40 of them believed in God. The remaining seventeen did not believe in God, and do you know what else they all, the non believers, had in common?
They all had deep seated resentments with their biological fathers.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Hi Fmcanarny—

Do you actually ‘believe’ what you wrote earlier:
“In Truth there is no Contradiction. The Bible is the inerrant word of God, and so has no contradiction. No way to get around that.”

What ‘bible’ pray tell are you claiming to be the inerrant word of, and to which clan-god are you referring?

If by ‘the bible’ you mean the Hebrew scriptures, you did know, didn’t you (?) that there are several contradictory sets of documents that purport to go by that name, including the various and sundry Hebrew Vorlagen (unpointed consonantal Hebrew and Aramaic textual underlays) to all the various and contradictory Greek translations (the socalled Greek Septuaginta version called the LXX, as well as that of Symmachus, Aquila, Theodotion, &tc.), the 10th century CE pointed Masoretic Text (from a single MSS out of Leningrad) arbitrarily pointed (vowelled) by the Masoretes based on their own curious consonantal text, the SamPent found amongst the fragments of the Dead Sea Scroll material at Qumran (caves 1-11) copied between BCE 280 and 68CE during the 1st failed Jewish War against Rome and sealed up into Time Capsule Caves

Much of this material was re-discovered in Nov of 1946 through the end of 1956 by Palestinian Bedouin), and the Greek translations themselves—so we are not dealing with one ‘bible’ but rather several very fluid transmission families of MSS which circulated in antiquity in different places and all hand copied (and hand-manipulated) by scribes of various levels of proficiency BEFORE the socalled Council of Javneh of 90CE when the ‘babylonian’ proto-Masoretic unpointed consonantal text of the ‘scriptures’ was used as a basis for voting in which books would be canonical for the Jews who lost their Temple at Jerusalem (Rabinnic Judaeisms) after 70CE.

The differences between these various ‘hebrew scriptures’ if you count the consonants letter by letter (you did know, didn’t you, that the Hebrew scriptures were originally written without vowels?) is sometimes up to 20% or more---see e.g. the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, whose oldest text copies omit nearly 13 full chapters…

If by ‘bible’ you INCLUDE the 5446 contradictory Koine Greek MSS of the so-called NEW Testament, you will have to grapple with the fact that no two texts are exactly alike and that there are in fact major differences in content between them (especially counting letter by letter as e.g. Bart Ehrman did in his post Graduate research, much to his Shock and Awe) e.g. by comparing the Codex Sinaiticus and say Codex Ephraemi and the Codex Bezae Biglot, even in terms of what books were considered ‘canonical’ (e.g. Sinaiticus adds the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabbas as part of the 'canon' of the ‘bible’ which existed in certain places around 325CE &tc.)

So you do not have one single ‘bible’ to believe in, just a mish-mash of hand written copies that simply don’t match each other. So HOW can anyone claim to know what the word of the god is if there is no single text to use as the source for such a claim?

The problem of persons who defend ‘the inerrant and wholly inspired word of scripture’ belief is that persons that cling to such jejune fantasies generally cannot read the original languages in which their ‘bible’ was originally written (viz. unpointed PaleoHebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek) and thus must rely on translations of various quality and accuracy, nor do they have a clear grasp as to the actual facts of the highly complex hand-copied ‘source’ manuscript situation as these various families of contradictory texts circulated in various places and in various political and historical situations in Antiquity.

Can you explain your statement a little for us please? If you think the so called King James Versions which came out in 1620 and 1621 are of any use, you can put that thought away, since that panel of linguists had no access (as we do today) to any of the socalled Dead Sea Scroll material, but based their ‘old testament’ on the pointed Masoretic text of 960 CE used by Rabinnic Jews today (and not the Hebrew Vorlag, say, that underlay the Greek LXX which Jerome used in his Vulgate used by Catholics) ...

Nor did the English Court translators in 1615-1620 have any access to Greek MSS beyond Codex Alexendrinus (A) and Codex Bezae Biglot (D, the socalled Western Codex)—that is, they did not know of Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Ephraemi, Codex Vaticanus or the ‘Freer’ Codex Washingtoniensis to name just a few (and none of the papyri)—so you would have to be fairly well versed in all these little matters if you purport to be able to claim that ‘the bible’ is the word of any god, whether the clan-god of the post-Exilic Jews (YHWH) or any other clan-god from the many tribal amphyctionies that roamed the middle east in antiquity.

So I’m afraid that THERE IS A LOT GETTING AROUND THAT if you get my drift.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


There are not two conflicting accounts in Genesis. There are 2 single accounts of 2 separate events. The first account is when God created everything, which means he designed everything and planned it all out. The second account is when he actually made everything, and that was an unspecified amount of time and in a more natural order to how we would expect it to go.

The key verse which separates these two accounts is 2:4:

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

We see in the entire first account is uses the Hebrew word for "create", but then verse 2:4, it says that the account that is coming up details the "generations" of the creation, or in other words, the actualization of it, and it uses the different Hebrew word for "made", which is not the same as creating.

If you think about it, when you create something, you first imagine it in your mind, and you design it, or plan it out. That is the actual act of creating. It's like what an architect does vs. a builder.

This is a huge mistake that people make because they don't study it out in detail in the original language of Hebrew (or pay careful attention to the English).

Nearly all of the so-called "contradictions" have similar explanations that are mainly a result of sloppy or casual interpretation.



[edit on 19-12-2009 by downisreallyup]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
you do realize that the burning bush that told Moses the 10 commandments was Jesus right? and that he was with Adam and eve in the garden of Eden. john 5:37 no one has ever herd nor seen my father. every time God speaks in the bible it is actually Jesus who spoke. when the bible says "LORD" cap L cap O cap R cap D, this means he who is "I AM" Jesus is the one who said to not worship any graven image before him. the holy trinity is a break down of the incarnations of the beginning, the middle and the end of the being that is God. when it refers to father and son it is meaning that a man did not impregnate the woman, God did. Jesus was the human form of "God". the holy ghost was the spirit of "God" once the human body of Jesus was dead. but besides all of that I must ask a few questions.

why do you take the time and the trouble to prove something wrong in which you have choice to believe in? why must you try so hard to tell people that they are wrong? if there is no God and Christianity is wrong, why must you throw it into the faces of though's who decide to believe? why must atheists try to bring down other people because they believe in something? why cant people mind they're own business and just let others be?

I love my God and I always will. no matter who try's to tell me why I shouldn't.
I hope you decide to let things be and live your life with out interfering in others.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by fallow the light
why cant people mind they're own business and just let others be?

I love my God and I always will. no matter who try's to tell me why I shouldn't.
I hope you decide to let things be and live your life with out interfering in others.


Why can't homosexual people marry in lots of states of the USA?

Divine the answer to this question and you'll find the answer to your first question.

I'm happy for you. No really, however.................
Stop people telling me my soul needs saving and you'll get me to fulfill the second.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by shasta9600
 


"Before Abraham was, I AM..."
Jesus, the I AM
Perhaps the boldest claim Jesus made about His identity was the statement, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58). Translated into English, His statement may appear or sound confusing. But in the Aramaic or Hebrew language in which He spoke, He was making a claim that immediately led the people to try to stone Him for blasphemy.

What was going on here? Jesus was revealing His identity as the actual One whom the Jews knew as God in the Old Testament. He was saying in one breath that He existed before Abraham and that He was the same Being as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Source: www.ucg.org...


Thanks for the response. Those are some interesting points. Since that was a lot of info, I'll start with the first scripture you qouted at John 8:58. If we go back further in John chapter 8, to verse 16-18 we find this quote....

"And yet if I do judge, my judgement is truthful, because I am not alone, but the Father who sent me is with me. Also, in your own Law it is written, the witness of two men is true. I am one who bears witness about myself and the father who sent me bears witness about me." (John 8:16-18)

If Jesus was in fact Jehovah himself, in a human body, he would not refer to his Father as being a second witness about him.

Further on in John 8:28-29, Jesus says...."When once you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him."

If this was God himself speaking, he wouldn't say "I do nothing of my own initiative, but just as the Father taught me." It doesn't make sense, because Jehovah does everything of his own initiative, since he is the creator and he decides how things will be.

Nor would he say "he did not abandon me to myself". There would be no point in saying this, if he himself was God.

In verse 54...."Jesus answered: if I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me, he who you say is your God; and yet you have not known him. But I know him. And if I said I do not know him I should should be like you, a liar. But I do know him and am observing his word.

He wouldn't refer to himself as his Father and talk about knowing him, if he himself was God.

I think the confusion comes in verse 58, when Jesus says that before Abraham came into existence "I am" or in other translations "I have been". If Jesus was born after Abraham how could this be? Well, I believe that In the heavenly realm, before Jesus was born on earth, he was Michael the 'Archangel'. He was the leader of angels (Archangel). Not God himself. He was God's son in heaven before he came to earth, when he was born on earth, and still his son after he died on earth and went back to the heavenly realm.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Since Jesus was "THE WORD" made flesh. That is the word of God the father, God is inseparable from his word, they are one in the same identical, inseparable, and distinct in being.

because of the immaculate conception, Jesus possesses the genes of a human, Mary, the virgin mother of God, and the genes of God.
Therefore He is both man and God.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Since Jesus was "THE WORD" made flesh. That is the word of God the father, God is inseparable from his word, they are one in the same identical, inseparable, and distinct in being.

because of the immaculate conception, Jesus possesses the genes of a human, Mary, the virgin mother of God, and the genes of God.
Therefore He is both man and God.
Isaiah 55:11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

I doubt that God has genes. I would imagine that God made a replica of Joseph's genes to cause Mary to become pregnant, seeing as Jesus is supposed to be a descendant of David.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
any way it remains a mystery



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by shasta9600
 


Yet in the new testament we read......

16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonains 4:16-17).


Seeing that Jesus is no longer the archangel "Michael", why would Michael's shout be heard as Jesus returns to earth? Not to mention, the bible does not say, nor does Jesus say that He indeed was Michael, the archangel. Archangels aren't considered children of God in the bible. They are servants of God.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
God is not a person who we can look at or touch.
We know God by what He does, and we know God exists because things happen that come from His will that things happen.
Jesus said that You know I come from God because of the things that I am doing.
Jesus is not just an ordinary person. Jesus existed in the world by the will of his Father that certain things got done, and it was expected that there would be a person who would arrive at a designated time to work things out for an improvement of the situation of mankind. Jesus did miracles that helped people as an indication that he was this person. God filled with His own power to change the history of the world, his specified chosen man who would be the fulfilment of the promises made to humans since the expulsion from Eden and through the patriarchs and the prophets and the kings.
God is working and we have the concrete evidence of it in the person of Jesus and because God has established his place forever, the spirit of God that is the continuation of the working of God is also manifest and it is because of the saving grace through Jesus that we can be that evidence by living righteously.


[edit on 23-12-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 



well of course there are going to be contradictions in the bible; it is not innerrent. And Christians are not Jews-- they base their teachings off of the greek father's interpretation of the scripture

but yes, you are right in saying that the trinity does not sit well with the bible. The bible does not ever clearly support this, and it is doubtful that the people who wrote the bible (all Jews, even the NT) believed anything more than strict monotheism.

however, religion is a finger that points to the truthh, not the truth itself. We can let it be our guide.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


Gen 6 and Job says "the sons of God" in reference to angels.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sigismundus

The differences between these various ‘hebrew scriptures’ if you count the consonants letter by letter (you did know, didn’t you, that the Hebrew scriptures were originally written without vowels?) is sometimes up to 20% or more---see e.g. the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, whose oldest text copies omit nearly 13 full chapters…



So they found an incomplete ancient manuscript of Jeremiah and you think that is some sort of evidence that scriptures have been corrupted? Hardly! The Jewish scribes are famously careful.

For example the Great Isaiah scroll was found in the Dead Sea Caves in 1947. Dated at about 100 BCE and is the oldest copy of Isaiah known to exist. Previously, the Codex Leningrad, dated at 1000 AD, was the oldest known copy of the Hebrew Bible (including the book of Isaiah) in existence. The Masoretic text from 700 AD was an attempt at standardizing the text and pronunciation by comparing all of the then known copies of the Hebrew Bible to form one complete text that represented the original writings. The vowel pointings were also added to the text to standardize the pronunciation of the words. The Codex Leningrad is one of the surviving Masoretic texts.

The following is a quote from "A General Introduction to the Bible" concerning this Isaiah Scroll.



"Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The three remaining letters comprise the word LIGHT, which is added in verse 11 and which does not affect the meaning greatly. Furthermore, this word is supported by the Septuagint (LXX). Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission - and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage."

SOURCE: (Norman Geisler & William Nix, "A General Introduction to the Bible", Moody Press, Page 263).




If by ‘bible’ you INCLUDE the 5446 contradictory Koine Greek MSS of the so-called NEW Testament, you will have to grapple with the fact that no two texts are exactly alike and that there are in fact major differences in content between them (especially counting letter by letter as e.g. Bart Ehrman did in his post Graduate research, much to his Shock and Awe) e.g. by comparing the Codex Sinaiticus and say Codex Ephraemi and the Codex Bezae Biglot, even in terms of what books were considered ‘canonical’ (e.g. Sinaiticus adds the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabbas as part of the 'canon' of the ‘bible’ which existed in certain places around 325CE &tc.)


Bart Ehrman the atheist "theologian". He's playing you guys for some easy cash. The vast majority - 99%- of your 5446 "contradictions" are differences in spelling and have absolutely no effect on the meaning of the text.



Although Ehrman acknowledges that the overwhelming majority of these scribal changes are those (such as spelling errors) that are, in his own words, "completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance" (p. 207),[1] he repeatedly breezes over this critical point and focuses instead on the much rarer intentional scribal additions or changes, most of which have already been removed in our modern translations or, even if preserved, have little or no impact on Christian doctrine.

www.answeringinfidels.com...

The doctrine of inerrancy is generally applied to the original autographs which we do not have, the original writings were accurate. However, we do not have the original manuscripts. Why didn't God preserve the originals? Probably due to man's inclination toward idolatry, if we had the originals, some people would probably be worshiping papyri.

What we have are copies of copies of copies. Are these accurate, or have they been tampered with? We have some 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. When you include the quotes from the church fathers, manuscripts from other early translations like the Latin Vulgate, the Ethiopic text, and others, the total comes out to over 24,000 ancient texts. With so many ancient texts, significant alterations should be easy to spot. However, those who accuse the New Testament of being corrupted have not produced such evidence.





[edit on 12/30/2009 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Hi Big Whammie

Couple of things. Number #1 there were TWO (count'em TWO) versions of the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah found in Caves 1 and 4 amongst the Dead Sea Scroll Fragments (1QIs-a, which is more or less complete, is proto-Masoretic in form with about 7% difference in consontants from comparing it with the MT used by Rabinnic Jews and Protestants to-day) and then there is 1QIs-b which is a different 2nd version of the consonantal text which is about 22% different from the MT used today (based on a SINGLE MSS from Leningrad from c. 960 AD with the vowell pointing added) that is if you take the time and energy to count consonants letter by letter--so you do NOT have anything like a SINGLE version of the text of 'Isaiah' to speak of when you read the Dead Sea Scroll Material closely--and that's only 1 book !

There are also fragmented columns found in Cave 4 written about 200BCE of the consonantal Hebrew VORLAG (text underlay) of the later Greek LXX Septuagintas which differ from the Masoretic version of the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah about 25% counting letter by letter, with some marginalia as well.

You claim that the Rabbinic Scribes were 'careful' in their copying and this would apply certainly to copies AFTER say 400AD of the proto and Masoretic consonantal text that became "standard" after the Rabinnic council of Javneh in AD 90 after the caves of the dead sea scroll material were sealed up into 'time capsules' in June of AD 68 during the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (AD 66-72) when Jerusalem was ground to powder and most of the texts of the Jews were destroyed (some scrolls that had been locked away in caves were opened by Bedouin according to Origen c. AD 217 and others were opened by arab shepherds c. AD 790 and the bulk in Nov of 1946 to 1956 under the socalled auspices of the Roman Catholic Vatican Run Ecole Biblique).

The Javnian Rebbes (under the auspices of Hillel II from Babylon) would have destroyed any scrolls that did not match their's (the ones in the caves were hidden from them and were saved)

But anything prior to Javneh in AD 90 (pre-centralisation of text type) shows 'the most remarkable fluidity of textual transmission imaginable' e.g. by comparing letter for letter the Vorlagen to the various Greek LXX Septuaginta versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Samaritan Pentateuch (for the Torah), the protoMasoretic versions at Qumran as well as other Aramaic Targums (quoted in Greek translations as proof texts by the author(s) of the 1st canonical Greek Gospel (Matthew, whoever he was) prefaced by the phrase 'this was done in order to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet so and so...' when the compiler is using a DIFFERENT hebrew text other than the Hebrew consonantal underlay to the 'standardised' Greek Seputagint in more than 4 out of 10 citations.

So you would have to take a look at pre400 AD Rabinnic copies of the consonantal Hebre Scriptures yourself to see that the copyists were clearly NOT COUNTING MIDDLE LETTERS or anything of the sort until long after Javneh/Jamnia in AD 90 (i.e. after the text had settled down into what is read by Protestants and Rabinnic Jews today for the socalled Old Testament: Roman Catholics use a translation of the Old Latin Vulgate of Jerome which is taken from one of the Greek LXX Septuaginta versions, sometimes following Aquila, sometimes following Theodotion (e.g. in Daniel) and sometimes following Symmachus (and sometimes none of these other texts).

Anyone who thinks they are looking today at a single text of the 'old testament' that was unchanged over time in antiquity by reading the socalled Masoretic Text today, is not conversant with the actual state of affairs of the textual situatioin as it has been known for a long time by scholars.

By the way, Bart Ehrman was a fundmentalist 'Christian' before he was able to handle many of the oldest textual copies of the socalled New Testament (5446 Greek MSS, no two alike, many of them fragmentary, and many containing books that are no longer considered canonical such as the Epistle of Barnabbas or The Shepherd of Hermas &tc.) and once he started 'digging way deep into the weeds' of the texts themselves (after a decade of soul searching and many hours of weeping into his hands) decided that most of the present state of the Bible as we now know it has been hopelessly corrupted by deliberate alterations of the texts in certain places by certain groups at certain times---for religious and political reasons, and not innocent mistakes much of the time.

To call Ehrman an 'athiest' is a misleading statement: he styles himself an 'agnostic seeker of the Truth' and it was his very handling of these manuscript materials that caused him to see the light as it were in terms of the wretched state of the texts so many millions ignorantly base their whole Weltanschauung upon---leading others into as much darkness as they themselves dwell inside.

I would advise a careful study of Ehrman's books (they are written for the lay person unskilled in 1st century Koine Greek or unpointed paleo-Hebrew as you seem to be, i.e. it is deliberately written by Dr Ehrman for a general American-English speaking audience) since they are a great way to get up to speed and become conversant with this material which seems at this stage of your life to be quite out of your reach...but you have to do the work yourself, rather than rely on apologetic liars in the churches whose own agendas are being protected by incorrect statements of facts (e.g. the post-Exilic Hebrews were very careful in their transmission of their sacred texts' &tc.) which oversimplifies a much more complex hand-copied 'fluid' (non-standardised) mss-textual transmission heritage that changed a great deal over time and in different places (even the hebrew Aleph-Bet was changed to the now-familiar square Aramaic lettering from the Phonecian styled paleo letters during the time of Ezra c. 420BCE when much of the material of the Hebrew consonantal texts was re-edited into its present more-recogniseable forms we read today from a larger body of vastly more variable and complex material).

Be very very very very careful about what you say here and how you say it...since the material is multi-layered and the amateur in these complex matters (much of which is kept from the 'believing masses' by their congregations) can easily be led astray if he is not very careful....



[edit on 30-12-2009 by Sigismundus]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by iesus_freak
reply to post by Locoman8
 

Gen 6 and Job says "the sons of God" in reference to angels.
Some people assume that is what is meant, but it is not exactly clear from those verses. If indeed angels were meant, it would have been a simple thing to just say angels.
In the case of Genesis 6, it could mean the sons of Seth marrying the daughters of Cain. Nimrod is an example of a mighty man of renown. He was the founder of cities, in opposition to God. Before the flood, Adam would have been the established leader and would have been something like a king. My guess is that because of the marriages, separate kingdoms were established, against the patriarchal type government that God would have wanted.
In Job, there is no indication that the sons of god were sons of YHVH. They may have been on a somewhat equal footing within the heavenly council of God, where different ones of these designated members were over a particular nation or region. Job would have been on the border perhaps, and another one (of these sons) was not happy because YHVH was helping him out, and would have preferred to have been recognized by Job himself, thus causing a sort of rivalry within the court.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 34  35  36    38  39 >>

log in

join