Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
one jezus was as dark as a man from nigeria or somalia.

two. as they always say incest is prohibeted by god and yet adam and eva are doing it with their own otherwise we could be here and the children of them had to do it with eachother.
now we know that this will lead miss created children.

eva was created out of the dna and cells of adam
so genemodification and genealterning therapy is allowed by god and this is a form of cloning but just alterning the strings which make you man or woman.

the star with the birth of jezus couldn't have been a star.

people got over thousand year old or over 100 years of age so this is impossible with out the help of modern types of science.

they speak of flying people better known as angels from the skies.

they speak of stairways out of the skies which only can be cloaked ships.

only the part of the region of where jezus died went dark and not other regions of our planet because texts of the same era dont speak about skies going dark.
only can it get dark with out stars in the skies if a spacecraft is infront blocking all light .

if you want to make some one pregnant with out losing here virgin hood you can only do this with the help of
artificial insimination( sorry about spelliing )

no word is spoken about the buildings and other things which are so much older than the things in our bible.
easter isle and buildings in south america.

big flood wasn't as big but was only in that region cause there living world was smaller than what we know now. only some area's around middle east and greece got flood and not what is now usa . nothing about the ice age.

...

can go on and on and on..

but all things can be traced back an be explaned with our present knowledge and future knowlegde.




posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
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.


I think this comes from the following:

Luke is the only of the four Gospels written by a Gentile. Luke would have most likely have used the Roman/Greek names when recording while the other account is by a Jew - who would have used the traditional Jewish names. So my answer is the Jewish man Jacob who was called Heli.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Haha, that's too bad about your teeth.
Well, the 2 is referring to the fact that each kind of animal was put in the ark as pairs. One male and female, obviously so they could reproduce. However, I'm not sure what you're referring to about the 7. Just give me the verses, and it's ok if you want to do it later cuz of your teeth. In the meantime, I'll keep looking.


Here ya go...

The number of beasts in the ark?

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
RE: Who is the father of Joseph?

So my answer is the Jewish man Jacob who was called Heli.


I figured it was mostly considered a reference thing.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT


Here ya go...

The number of beasts in the ark?

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.


Well, if you've got 7 - you've definitely got 2...so it's not a lie!...LOL



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

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?


You're very correct that we are failures. But He did not create us TO BE failures. The best you could say is that he created us KNOWING that we would fail ourselves. He doesn't cause us to fail. But this is where Christ comes in. Because He knew what would happen, but BECAUSE of His desire to not let us fall away, He sacrificed Jesus to remove our sins, out of His mercy, grace and love.
Will our free will stop once in heaven? Maybe, but that's why we have this time on earth. It is our time to choose. Love withouth choice or out of will is not love. So, we DO have the power to choose. But if someone is in heaven, by that time, I doubt they will be complaining. Plus, satan will be utterly defeated so we will no longer feel tempted.

Now to clear up your initial problem with the ark and animals. I'm sorry that I've been so dense on what you were getting at.


No its not.....LOL

In the oter passage it clearly states 2 of EVERY animal not just the unclean and doesnt mention anything about 7 pairs.

When God says "2 of every animal" earlier in the chapter, He's specifying that he wants both sexes. 2. Each time He says 2 of every animal, He immediately follows up with specifying by saying, "male and female." This is not referring to how many "2's" or pairs He wants. Only that He wants to have females and males. He later specifies of the 7 pairs of all clean, and 1 of unclean.

For it to be inconsistent, it would have to say in the first part that God wanted ONLY ONE female and male of each species, and then going on later to change His mind and talk about 7 pairs all of the sudden. Phew! I really hope I got it this time.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Obviously I'm cheating. I have a sneaky, sneaky website listing hundreds of nitpicky contradictions. Had it for years waiting for this thread to emerge. But I kind of feel mean.


Anyhoo... here's another nitpicky example, this one of so many "cock crowed" contradictions...once, twice, no wait, not at all... it's kind of like who cares?


How many times did the cock crow?

MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.


[Edited on 6-3-2004 by RANT]



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OXmanK
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.


OOOO!!! I'm glad you brought this up!! You are right that there is a loophole!.........IF you look at fate and free will within our linear time. We do this all the time, cuz hey, we live in it. BUT, look how, if you look from God's perspective, fate AND freewill can coexist!

God is outside time, and not subject to it. Time is simply part of His creation, as it is linked with space and matter. God was obviously around before He created it all, so is not bound by time. So let me say this, we all DEFINITELY have free will and choices. God does NOT make us do anything. So how and why are there prophecies in the bible? Why does God sometimes say "this is the way it will happen"? Well, because God is apart from time, He can observe everything at once. Think of a parade. Us humans experience time linearly, so we are on the street watching the floats appear one by one in a SEQUENCE, as they appear to us coming around street corners and buildings. We can only see a small part at once. We can only experience it based on how it comes to us. BUT, God is in a helicopter way above, looking down. He can see the WHOLE parade, in other words, all of human history and future, at once!! So He has this amazing advantage on us. So He can radio down to someone on the street on a walkie talkie and TELL them what's going to come around the corner next! So He is proclaiming what WILL happen before we see it. Does this mean He's MAKING us do it? NO! We all know that when the sun sets at a certain time, it will become night. We are prophecizing. But we that doesn't mean we are ORDERING the sun to set.

So, basically, because of God's perspective, He knew how things would play out from the very beginning. In that sense, everything is pre-ordained. But just because of this fact, DOESN'T mean He is forcing us to choose. He simply KNOWS ahead of time what decisions WE will make, and He has figured that into His plan!!! Make sense??? Lemme know!



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Just kidding. This one seems appropriate.


Do you answer a fool?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Maybe I'll stop on that note.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Hey Rant, don't feel bad. That's what I had in mind for this thread. So bring up as many as you like, but maybe pace them a little, cuz it might be hard to keep up with them all.


Ok, about the crow. Could you point out the discrepancy please? I guess I didn't see what part doesn't match up. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Just kidding. This one seems appropriate.


Do you answer a fool?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Maybe I'll stop on that note.


These two verses seem to be in contradiction. But the writer is saying that we shouldn't take a foolish person seriously and try to reason with his or her empty arguments. This will only make him or her proud and determined to win the argument. In some situations, you ought not to even try to answer a fool, for there is no way you can penetrate his or her closed mind. You may, in fact, be stooping to that person's level if you do choose to answer. Such a fool will abuse you and you will be tempted to abuse him or her in return. There are other situations where your common sense tells you to answer in order to expose the fool's pride and fallacies. Make sense?



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Ok, about the crow. Could you point out the discrepancy please? I guess I didn't see what part doesn't match up. Thanks.


It's nothing. Just a silly knitpicky thing. Some books say the "male chicken" crowed twice, some say he just crowed. Some passages also make it seem Peter remembered Jesus's words as the "male chicken" crows, or inbetween two crows, or right after it crows. Again, nothing to explain here... it's just inconsistency between authors.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Ok, about the crow. Could you point out the discrepancy please? I guess I didn't see what part doesn't match up. Thanks.


It's nothing. Just a silly knitpicky thing. Some books say the "male chicken" crowed twice, some say he just crowed. Some passages also make it seem Peter remembered Jesus's words as the "male chicken" crows, or inbetween two crows, or right after it crows. Again, nothing to explain here... it's just inconsistency between authors.


Oh, lol.
So in that case, I think I'll follow those 2 proverbs verses, and apply them to you. Haha.

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Just kidding.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by RANT


Here ya go...

The number of beasts in the ark?

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.


Well, if you've got 7 - you've definitely got 2...so it's not a lie!...LOL




Is God Clean? People would consider god clean, sacred, ladidadida. The number of God is Seven...7. So tehre you have your clean number of 7...A godly number. The unclean, 2, Is for those to breed. A male and a female. Before Jesus died for us, weren't us humans meant to be born unclean? Isn't Baptism meant to help clean our souls for the mistakes that Adam and Eve made by bitting the fruit of the tree?

I remember reading once that scientists had genetically narrowed human origins down to 7 women.


Anyways sometimes hidden meanings are hidng around in places. You just have to know what to look for.



That still doesn't cover Our creation.

But another thing of old...such as that some of the older races on earth, int he early days used to believe that we had a spirit and a soul. Thus 2. So speaking as "us". I know i do it sometimes. "I have something to show you". "Yeah ok then show us it". "Can you please take us home?"



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
DaRage, yeah you bring up a few good points. I'm not sure if those numbers really referred to the body and spirit. I explained it a little ways back in the thread, but it could very well have a double meaning.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   
(The quotes are translations from the original Hebrew)

"And the Deity Yahweh planted an orchard
In Eden, in the east;
And he placed there the Adam
Whom He had created.
And the Deity Yahweh
Caused to grow from the ground
Every tree that is pleasent to the sight
And good for eating;
And the Tree of Life was in the orchard
And the Tree of Knowing good and evil...
And the Deity Yahweh took the Adam
And placed him in the Garden of Eden
To work it and to keep it.
And the Deity Yahweh
Commanded the Adam, saying:
"Of every tree of the orchard eat you shall;
but of the Tree of Knowing good and evil
thou shalt not eat of it;
for on the day that thou eatest therof
thou shalt surely die." "

"Yahweh took the Adam and placed him in the garden to work it and to keep it." Why did god create the Adam? God wanted a gardener. He gives no other reason for creating him.

God even LIED to Adam, saying that "on the day that thou eatest therof [the Tree of Knowing] thou shalt surely die." God wanted to keep his worker dumb using lies of death to scare him from attempting to eat the fruit.

"And the Serpent... said unto the woman [Eve]:
"Hath the Deity indeed said
'Ye shall not eat of any tree of the orchard'?"
And the woman said unto the Serpent:
"Of the fruits of the trees of the orchard
eat we may;
it is of the fruit of the tree in the
midst of the orchard that the Deity hath said:
'Ye shall not eat of it, neither touch it,
lest ye die.' "
And the Serpent said unto the woman:
"Nay, ye will surely not die;
It is that the Deity doth know
that on the day ye eat therof
your eyes will be opened
and ye will be as the Deity-
knowing good and evil."
And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat
And that it was lustful to behold;
And the tree was desirable to make one wise;
And she took of its fruit and did eat,
And gave also to her mate with her, and he ate.
and the eyes of both of them were opened,
And they knew that they were naked;
And they sewed fig leaves together,
And made themselves loincloths."

Now this "serpent" is always believed to be the devil... why? This serpent came along and told the truth! This serpent wanted Adam and Eve to become knowledgable of who and what they were. This serpent set them free from the blindness and toil that the other deity enforced. Thats not evil! Thats helpful and even shows caring.

I would like to explain sometihng about the word "adam". Do you notice how Adam is never refered to as just "Adam"? (The Englsih translations are wrong btw) He is always called "the Adam" indicating that this is not his name as such but something else that the gods have shall we say "labeled" him?
The term "adama" originally meant earth or soil, but more specifically dark-red soil. Like the parallel Akkadian word adamatu (dark red earth), the Hebrew term adama and the Hebrew word for red (adom) stem from the words for blood: adamu, dam. When the Bible calls the being created by god "the Adam" it employs a favorite Summerian linguistic play of double meanings. "The Adam" could mean "the one from the earth" (Earthling), "the one made of the dark red soil" and "the one made of blood"
God did not name his creation as he would something he loved, it is just a scientific label that was carried over in the translations. The Adam was no more than a tool to his god. (At this point in time at least).

"And the Deity Yahweh planted an orchard
In Eden, in the east;
And he placed there "the one created from blood"
Whom He had created.
And the Deity Yahweh
Caused to grow from the ground
Every tree that is pleasent to the sight
And good for eating;
And the Tree of Life was in the orchard
And the Tree of Knowing good and evil...
And the Deity Yahweh took "the one created from blood"
And placed him in the Garden of Eden
To work it and to keep it.
And the Deity Yahweh
Commanded "the one created from blood", saying:
"Of every tree of the orchard eat you shall;
but of the Tree of Knowing good and evil
thou shalt not eat of it;
for on the day that thou eatest therof
thou shalt surely die." "

God doesn't sound like much of a "father" to Adam when translated fully does he? Adam was not WHO he was, Adam was WHAT he was.

Eve means both "she of life" and "she of rib", because the word for both "rib" and "life" are the same word in Hebrew. Hence the simple mistranslation, Eve was made from Adams life and not his rib (which makes more sense in genetic terms).

So lets recap: On one hand we have "god", the so called one almighty loving being that created his children to love for all eternity. The one who in the bible lied and threatened with death and tried to keep his children docile and unknowing so they would keep his garden for him and then expelled them wanting nothing more to do with them when became "knowledgable". When god found out that Adam and Eve had eaten of the fruit he complains about thhe event to other unseen deities using the plurals "us". Obviously "god" didn't want this to happen, all he wanted was us to keep working his garden.

On the other hand we have "Satan" the evil lord of hell who likes to torture and corrupt blah blah blah. If this was really Satan then we ALL owe him one, without him we might still be working gods garden, this serpent never did anything evil, he helped Adam and Eve and freed them from the labor of the Deity Yahweh.

This doesn't sound like the conventional story of Creation but I havent changed/altered/edited anything, i have merely read it more clearly and with a more open mind and have seen that not all things make sense. If these two beings really are God and Satan (which I don't believe for a second) I know who I like the most and its not the Deity that wanted us to be his docile workers.

Why did the angels and god and all of heaven want humans to be dumb and "unknowledgable" ??
Surely thats not very angelic or godlike and certainly not very loving! Once Adam and Eve became smart god didnt want anything to do with humans and expelled them since they were not dumb anymore...

And about that Tree it is not knowledge of good and evil!

What happened to Adam and Eve when they ate the fruit?? Did the suddenly know what was good and evil?

No! All they learned was that they were naked!

"But wait Faceless this makes no sense why would god not want people to know that they were naked??"

Think about this, what could possibly cause someone to not know the difference between being naked and being clothed? Simple: Man wasn't evolved enough at the time to need clothes. At this time man was no more than a domesticated animal to the gods and therefore didn't need clothes.

Early Sumerian pictures show that before Adam and Eve man served the gods naked. No matter what they were doing Man was always naked. Man needed no clothes because Man was not a civilized race, merely an "upgraded" animal (humans were in the process of natural evolution at the time, but were millions of years to primitive to be of any use).

Why then would man being naked cause so much trouble for god?

The Tree of Knowledge, thats its name. What does it mean by knowledge?

Does this phrase sound familiar: "And Adam knew his wife"... in the Bible when people had sex it was refered to as KNOWING them, hence the Tree of KNOWING, the Tree of Procreation.

After eating the fuit they were aware of their sex organs for the first time! The tree had given Adam and Eve the ability to procreate.

Oh and about Lilith: Sumerian texts clearly state (and illustrations show) that there were many humans before and during the time of Adam. So I find it entirely plausable that Adam had a wife (for want of a better word) prior to Eve. Adam and Eve I believe are commonly depicted as the first people because they were the first to escape the slavery and become proper free people so to speak.
This also explains why Lilith is said to kidnap children: she never ate the fruit of Knowing (procreation) and therefore could not have children of her own.

The Serpent was obviously not just a snake because he could talk to Eve, and knew the truth about the matter of "knowing" and was of such high stature that he unhesitantly exposed the deity as a lair. In most (if not all) ancient traditions the main god always fought a serpent, a tale that undoubtably goes back to these Sumerian gods.

Once again Sumerian and Biblical plays of words occur again. The Biblical word for "Serpent" is nahash which does mean snake. But the word stems from the root NHSH which means "to decipher, to find out", so that nahash could also mean "he who deciphers, he who finds things out" which is a fitting epitaph for Enki, the chief scientist of the gods (Nefilim), the God of Knowledge.

It was Enki who suggested and undertook the creation of primitive workers. As the Sumerian text recorded the course of human events, Enki as a rule emerges as Mankinds protagonist, Enlil (biblical Yahweh) as its strict discipliner if not outright antagonist. The role of a deity wishing to keep the new humans sexually suppressed, and of a deity willing and capable of bestowing upon mankind the fruit of "knowing" fit Enlil and Enki perfectly.

There was a depiction unearthed in Mesopotamia that strongly suggests the biblical tale: a serpent entwined in a tree pointing at its fruit. High above the tree are celestial symbols: the planet of crossing which stood for Anu (the highest of the gods) and the cresent moon, which was the symbol of Enki.

There is even a Mesopotamian version of this in which it is clearly stated that it was Enki that gave Adapa (biblical Adam) the "knowledge"

In Mari a pictorial tale was unearthed engraved on a cylinder seal containing a picture that may well be an illustration of the Mesopotamian version of the tale of Genesis. In the engraving a great god is seated on high ground rising from watery waves-an obvious depiction of Enki (who's symbol is the moon, the controller of the tides). Water spouting serpents protrude from each side of his throne.
Flanking him are two tree like gods. The one on the right, whose branches have penis shaped ends, holds up a bowl that presumably contains the fruit of life.
The one on the left, that has vagina shaped ends, offers fruit bearing branches, representing the tree of "knowing", the god given right of procreation.
Standing next to Enki is another god who is showing anger towards Enki, obviously this in Enlil (Yahweh).

Gods through the ages are refered to by different people in different times by different names, such as here. They are mostly the same deities throughout ancient history just with different names. If you compare them you will see that they are indeed identicle deties.

People take the Genesis as being the first book every writen and the only book to recount the events in it. This is wrong for many reasons and the most obvious (to me) is this: Genesis starts at the beginning of the creation of the solar system and of the (so called) first people. The language at this time however was Sumerian and Genesis is written in Hebrew, a language that didn't exist at the time so how was it written? Obviously Sumerian texts that were written during or shortly after the events were used to write the original Genesis. There are also many other texts in different languages recorded by different peoples from different perspectives that describe the same events in different ways. An example of this is that some people believe that the Garden of Eden is simply a metaphor for a state of being yet other texts from the Sumerian age describe it in detail as being an actual location... but of course the people who worship the bible could never accept the words from another source. In my opinion this is where faith blurs into ingorance.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faceless


Now this "serpent" is always believed to be the devil... why? This serpent came along and told the truth! This serpent wanted Adam and Eve to become knowledgable of who and what they were. This serpent set them free from the blindness and toil that the other deity enforced. Thats not evil! Thats helpful and even shows caring.



So I assume you're a follower of Luciferianism...right?



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   
how come the gosples of john, mark, matt and luke all have differents parts of the last days of jesus. weren they all with him at the end?



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 03:27 PM
link   
When God told Adam that he would surely die when he ate the fruit he was speaking metaphorically. Adam did die to God as did all of man kind. Hence the need for Jesus' death and resurection and our need to be "born again" in Christ through salvation in order to get to heaven. As for the serpent telling the "truth." I say be very careful, Lucifer is the father of all lies
.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
If you can explain all three of my little problems, I'll pick up my bible again.

GE 11:7-9 God sows discord.
PR 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord.


Genesis 11:7-9
"Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel--because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face fo the whole earth.

Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him:
haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

Ok Loki, I'm not sure if this is really inconsistent, but I THINK I see where you're coming from. I take it you're equating the stirring up of dissension among brothers with what God did during the time of Babel. A few points:
First of all, God's laws and desires are for us, and not for Himself. This may seem hypocritical, but not necessarily. A parent who is more mature and wise may use knives for cutting, or matches to light candles but would never let their small child do the same. They may also discuss or talk about topics like sex that are innapropriate for the child to hear. In the same way, God may restrict us from things that we aren't smart about, but that He knows when and how to do it. A man who causes dissension for others is doing so out of wickedness, but God spread people out for their own sake.
Second, because God is superior to everything, anyone who attempts to surpass Him or imitate or stand in for Him, is disliked by God because it would be a lie, and He isn't being respected. God created us, but it isn't right for us to produce clones ourselves. There are other examples. Humans were getting together and trying to glorify themselves with the tower and attempting to equal God. God has right to stop this. And instead of wiping them out again, He simply broke them up to different areas of the world.
Third. What is dissension? Dissension would be to mislead or deceive for whatever reason. What does dissension cause you to be mislead from? From what is true and right. Truth and righteousness stems from and is enforced by God. So, if the Lord broke up the people of Earth, it would be the right thing to do because He did it, and so then would not be dissension. Everything we know of and every concept there is, is from Him, including dissension, so in this way, He is not inconsistent.
Fourth, God, who created everything would not be stupid or careless to blatantly show Himself to be a hypocrit in His very own book.
And fifth, I'm not even sure if what God did at the tower of Babel is even dissension, but if it really is, then refer to the other four points.
Make sense?





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join