Name Any "Inconsistency" Of The Bible, And I'll Explain How It's NOT Inconsistent

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Valhall

I must disagree with you on this....

God deliberatly chose not to see how his number one project, the entire reason he created the universe, the ones in his (or their) immage, would do?

Sounds like a sloppy way to run the universe if you ask me......LOL

Seriously I think thats kinda bending over backward to find an explaination that fits.




posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki

Originally posted by SimpleTruth

Originally posted by Loki
"Thou Shalt not commit adultery"

Inconsistency: Hagar.

Explain, please.


Sure, that's a good one. Used to wonder that myself. However, let's look at how Genesis is written. Genesis is simply narrative, just relating what happened and what the certain people that it focuses on did. So, yes Abraham had sex with Hagar, but the bible isn't condoning or endorsing that. True, it doesn't condemn it either, but again, it's simply narrative. Genesis is meant for explaining the origin of humans and the early parts of our existence. It doesn't focus on telling us what is right or wrong but is like a third party observation. So, because of this, it's not inconsistent.

However, as the story goes on, there are negative effects because of the fact that Abraham and Sarah didn't trust God would give them their own son, so Sarah had Abraham sleep with Hagar to produce a child. As it continues, things end up complicated and unfortunate. Sarah and Hagar have tensions between them from then on, Ishmael and Hagar are kicked out and struggle through the desert. So, in effect, the consequences of the adultery were shown to be negative. In THAT way, you can conclude that it was not smart and wrong. And you'll notice that ANY time in the bible that adultery is committed, something always results in a way that brings pain to the people involved. I hope that helps.


I have heard this argument before, but I've been told over and over that the bible is sacred because it is the word/work of god through men.

If it's just a narrative history, isn't that just another inconsistency?


Sure, the bible is written by God through men. But being a narrative shouldn't mean it's inconsistent. God is giving us an account of our early history. He's describing what happened so we all know where we came from. Later in the bible, He concerns Himself with declaring law and morals. But like I said, even though God doesn't interrupt his own story in Genesis to say "by the way, when Abe and Hagar did it, that was sin," the affects are clear that it was negative. To be a true inconsistency, Abraham would have had to commit the adultery, but then God blesses him for it or something similar to that affect. Let me know if that still isn't clear. On to your next one:

Another.

I used to consider myself a good christian, until I found this.

I hope your faith is strong.

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

Yes, this troubles people a lot. After God had finished, His creation was good and was perfect how he intended it. So He was pleased. Later, the reason why He becomes displeased is because things have changed. Adam and Eve had sinned, changing things, and by Noah's time, the earth was filled with people who were evil. So, obviously God becomes displeased because of this. Now, if God is omniscient, He would've known that this would happen. Well, yes He did. So why would He create something that would turn out to be messed up? Well, first, because He gave us freedom of choice and will, basically humans corrupted it. It WAS perfect, but we royally screwed it up. And even though God KNEW this would happen, He still went through with it because He knew that despite the evilness, Noah was still good and so was his family. Therefore, His plan was still worth carrying out because it did not completely fail. That help? Still confusion?



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
What about Cain adn Abel? Cain did all he could to please God, but God just kept giving him the short end of the stick. Smacks him upside the head and whatnot.

here's the beef:

1.Omniscient folk generally don't ask where people are.
2. Benevolent people generally don't condemn peopel who did their best.

The second issue I can think of outside my personal fondness of Cain (everyoen shoudl actually go out and pour out a forty for the World of Darkness, by the way- they're killing it) is the parable of Jesus and the fig tree.

So, the Jesus and his homeboys are walkign along, adn they get hungry. So, they spies them a fig tree, but they can't find any figs on it. So jesus lays the smackdown on it and withers in and whatnot. Where's the compassion? Where's 'do unto others'?

[EDIT]- Bible-loving midwife foudn teh passage- Mathew 21:18

DE

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by DeusEx]


LOL! Okay, Cain didn't do all he could please God...negatory good buddy. He came to God and presented a sacrifice with an unwilling heart and a bad attitude. God rejected his "token" sacrifice because Cain basically didn't even want to be there. Much like religious rituals of today that people just mime and wish they were home watching football instead.

God did nothing more than reject a half-arsed offering...so what did Cain do? Went out and murdered his brother. Yeah, that makes sense. So exactly where did God give the short end of the stick? He let him live, didn't He?

Concerning God asking Adam where he was...I don't view that as God not knowing. We have to keep in mind what had just happened. The first death. Adam and Eve had suffered the first death - that of the spirit. Prior to this point God's spirit had actively communed with Adam's spirit. Now Adam's spirit was no longer able to commune with God's due to its sinful nature...this was God literally asking Adam where his spirit had gone? Where are you? (in the spirit) God knew the answer...I think He wanted to see what Adam had to say for himself.

Concerning Matthew 18:21 - until you are willing to read this verse in context, which requires reading Matthew 18:18-22...there's really no point in putting in a lot of effort that you have missed the entire point - which was a pretty big point.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
This is one of my old posts. It is a very glaring inconsistency and I would love to hear your ideas how it isn't.

I know, I'll probably be flamed for bringing up an old issue, but it is a risk I will take.

First off, I know that the "fate vs. free will" argument will never be settled and definetly not by my little observations. It is like the Euthenasia debate or abortion debate. But anyway...

Just a little background, I am of a Judeo-Christian upbringing and live my life by the standards and commandments set in them. I have been thinking a while on my own faith and convictions and have been burdened with one thought. That the Christian bible has a huge loophole in it with the subject of free will and fate.

First off, God made us in his own image and yada yada yada. But he puts these two people in the Garden of Eden and told them not to eat the "forbidden fruit". Then, I believe, a couple days later Adam and Eve eat the fruit and thrown out of Eden. If this was all fated, one would argue, "Why would God even bother with telling them not to eat the fruit?" If this was all free will, then there would be no questions. Same could be said about Sodom and Gamorrah; "Why would God bother making a plan with Sodomites if he is just going to kill them all?"

That is the argument for free will, obviously.

For Fate, we have our prophets and prophecies. Jesus told Peter that he would betray/deny Jesus three times before the cock sounded. If there was free will, how would Jesus know this. Free will can only work if there is no ultimate plan. It would negate the idea of free will. There are also other predictions/fates in the bible.

It just doesn't add up to me. It contradicts itself. Therefore I conclude there is no God and there is only the lizard people....kidding.

I would love to hear what other people believe on this issue. If you can find anymore contradictions please feel free to posting them. Also, I'm not a blind follower of any train of thought and am open to ideas/suggestions/porn/whatever...anywho...thanks for reading this.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Valhall

I must disagree with you on this....

God deliberatly chose not to see how his number one project, the entire reason he created the universe, the ones in his (or their) immage, would do?

Sounds like a sloppy way to run the universe if you ask me......LOL

Seriously I think thats kinda bending over backward to find an explaination that fits.


Actually, I don't think it is. People just keep viewing God from a people view. Yeah, if you think God has some required action or behavior in order to keep your selfish butt happy and alive, I guess you could have a big problem with Him allowing us to turn crap and then wanting to wipe us out and start over.

If you view from His perspective it makes a lot more sense. People who only want to take are definitely always going to have a great big problem with this. I for one want to give God exactly what He wanted from the beginning of this experiment...so I'm okay with it.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   
So watch out for excessive quoting, people of Christ.

Now to make this something of more than a one liner, I ask again, how the notion of God refering to itself as "us" fits into the concept of one God. Is God really just a name for a group of holy beings? Refer to my previous post for specifics.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   


Actually, I don't think it is. People just keep viewing God from a people view. Yeah, if you think God has some required action or behavior in order to keep your selfish butt happy and alive, I guess you could have a big problem with Him allowing us to turn crap and then wanting to wipe us out and start over.


Its not him allowing us to turn to crap that I have a problem with it is him not KNOWING that this was EXACTLY what was going to happen. To me it says one of two things

1. He created the human race to be a failure.
OR
2. He didnt know this was going to happen

Number one seems kinda mean to me and number 2 means that he is somewhat less than all knowing



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Yes DeuxEx, in regards to your first post, I think Valhall pretty much summed it up. Let me know if it still doesn't seem right. Thanks



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Valhall

I must disagree with you on this....

God deliberatly chose not to see how his number one project, the entire reason he created the universe, the ones in his (or their) immage, would do?

Sounds like a sloppy way to run the universe if you ask me......LOL

Seriously I think thats kinda bending over backward to find an explaination that fits.


Well, I'm not sure about God choosing not to view certain things, sorry valhall
However, it WAS man's fault that God's creation got messed up. He knew this I would say, but He still decided to go with His plan and because of the fact that Noah was still good, and God knew that the earth would repopulate and that there would be many more good people later on, so it was still worth it. Make sense?



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Yes DeuxEx, in regards to your first post, I think Valhall pretty much summed it up. Let me know if it still doesn't seem right. Thanks


Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. 19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. 20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.


Yes, yes, I read this Val. However, I thought that Jesus was agaisnt the smiting, and especially against the faith-based smiting. It wasn't the fig tree's fault it didn't have figs. Noen the less, Jesus smote it. This goes against his entire message, quiaff?

DE



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk



Its not him allowing us to turn to crap that I have a problem with it is him not KNOWING that this was EXACTLY what was going to happen. To me it says one of two things

1. He created the human race to be a failure.
OR
2. He didnt know this was going to happen

Number one seems kinda mean to me and number 2 means that he is somewhat less than all knowing


And this is exactly what I was trying to talk at in my original post. IF God created us with the ability to either love Him or not love Him, He had to have done that for a reason. That reason would be: So that those of us who do choose to love Him, will love Him and He receives the blessing of willingly given love - which something He can't get any other way than to create a creature that can do that for Him. Now whether He knew that the first pass was completely going to go sour or not is probably something we're going to have to ask Him some day - I don't think any of us can say we know what the answer to that is. But that the first pass did go south, and He regretted that every one had made the wrong choice and denied Him love and so decided to try again speaks to me that He's not cheating on this exam...He's taking His chances that we will, in fact, come through for Him and provide Him the love He seeks.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx

Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. 19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. 20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.


Yes, yes, I read this Val. However, I thought that Jesus was agaisnt the smiting, and especially against the faith-based smiting. It wasn't the fig tree's fault it didn't have figs. Noen the less, Jesus smote it. This goes against his entire message, quiaff?

DE


Well, the whole point to the tree-smiting incident was to get to the parable. Don't you think this particular incident kind of stuck out in the disciples' minds bein's that Christ didn't go around smiting all that often? So he smote a tree and taught a lesson - I don't think this is that big of a problem.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ktprktpr
So watch out for excessive quoting, people of Christ.

Now to make this something of more than a one liner, I ask again, how the notion of God refering to itself as "us" fits into the concept of one God. Is God really just a name for a group of holy beings? Refer to my previous post for specifics.


K, another legitimate question. The plurality denotes God, but also the Holy Spirit, and the Son. And obviously, the bible talks about the trinity later in the new testament. God has these three forms, but can be all at once. Therefore, He may refer to Himself as we. Now, you may wonder about the fact that Jesus isn't born until way later, so how could He be around at the time of that verse? Well, true Jesus hadn't live on earth yet, but the Son and Spirit have always been around. God is outside and not subject to time. And because the Son IS God, Jesus is outside of time as well and therefore is just existant at all times. He only subjects Himself to time when He lives out His life on the earth. Make sense? Lemme know.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   


He knew this I would say, but He still decided to go with His plan and because of the fact that Noah was still good, and God knew that the earth would repopulate and that there would be many more good people later on, so it was still worth it. Make sense?


A lot more than the other explantion but the fact still remains that he created us to be failures.

And the freewill thing dosent really cut it eather because say you go to heaven whats to stop you from sinning there?

Or does he stop the free will after you die?

And if he could keep sin out of heaven without stopping freewill why couldnt he do the same here?



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Yes ktprktpr, I was wondering the very same thing.

Genesis 1:26-27

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

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



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, the whole point to the tree-smiting incident was to get to the parable. Don't you think this particular incident kind of stuck out in the disciples' minds bein's that Christ didn't go around smiting all that often? So he smote a tree and taught a lesson - I don't think this is that big of a problem.


Whatever happened to forgiving the tree? It's inconsistent behavior from Christ. He was all up and against the smiting as a whole. Most times he wanted to teach a lesson, he did somethign like fix a leper of turn water into funk. The question is why did he have to smite the tree to make this particular point (ei. faith goes a long ways)?

DE



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Yes DeuxEx, in regards to your first post, I think Valhall pretty much summed it up. Let me know if it still doesn't seem right. Thanks


Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. 19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. 20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.


Yes, yes, I read this Val. However, I thought that Jesus was agaisnt the smiting, and especially against the faith-based smiting. It wasn't the fig tree's fault it didn't have figs. Noen the less, Jesus smote it. This goes against his entire message, quiaff?

DE


Hey, Val made a good point, but here's an additional one. Jesus also used that opportunity to display His power and authority over nature and in effect, everything. Now, trees don't have minds, spirits, conscienceness, or feel pain, so Jesus was not cruel here. That is why He most likely decided to teach the lesson of smiting with the tree, so the tree could be withered, instead of a person.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I think it's more than just the trinity.

I believe the plurality is in reference to God and the Sons of God which are referred to often in the Old Testament.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx

Whatever happened to forgiving the tree? It's inconsistent behavior from Christ. He was all up and against the smiting as a whole. Most times he wanted to teach a lesson, he did somethign like fix a leper of turn water into funk. The question is why did he have to smite the tree to make this particular point (ei. faith goes a long ways)?

DE


Maybe he was REALLY REALLY hungry...lol.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

More where that came from...if you're up to it.





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join