It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why I struggle with the bible

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Genesis 1 v1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light,"...
5 God called the light "day" and the darkness he called "night"
......
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation...and it was so....
14 And God said, "Let ther be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night,..
16 God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Ok so he made light on the first day but not the sun or any of the other stars till the fourth day, so where does this light come from as all light now comes from our nearest star, our sun. Also he makes plants alive before he makes our sun, this would imply that plants didn't originally use photosynthesis to grow as there was no sunlight just this mysterious "light" which must have disappeared on the creation of the stars as we have no other light source now but no mention of this replacement is made.

Gen 1 v26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,

'our' image, surely if their is only one God they would say in 'my' image not 'our' this implies there was more than one being involved. Yes you will say the angels but there is no mention of them being created so where did they come from?

v27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

So in his own image now singular or does it mean his image rather than anothers?

Gen 2 v18 The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."....
v22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man..

Two things here God had already created woman on the 6th day had he not see v27 and secondly he creates the whole universe out of nothing but takes one of Adam's ribs to make woman - why would he do that when he just created everything else from nothing?

Gen3 v1
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the other wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?......

Ok so serpents could talk back then too could they? There is no mention of God removing the power of speech from the serpent only that he would put emnity between human and serpent.
Also as a punishment for this he v16 'increase the pain of childbirth' and causes man to have v17 'painful toil' to grow food. That really sounds loving doesn't it?
v22 And the Lord God said,"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live for ever."
Again the plural like one of 'us'also if we are supposed to have free will surely we need knowledge to make a choice or we are just automatons. Also this would imply that we should have had eternal life as we were allowed to eat from all trees but the tree of knowledge, lucky for God, Adam had not already tasted it eh? but then I guess he would have removed the priviledge of eternal life as he is omnipotent - but hang on why does he remove Adam then from the garden so can't eat from it, what is God scared of?

Gen4
Cane and Abel - God looks with disfavour on Cain because he did not kill some animals to offer a sacrifice but instead offered the fruit of his toils through the soil.
So Abel is rewarded for killing some animals he had done little with but Cain who has done the 'painful toil' ascribed by God in Gen 3 v17 is not.
Again how is this showing an all loving God Cain follows instructions given to Adam and Abel doesn't but he is the one looked on with favour.

This is only 6 pages into the first book of the bible, the foundation of everything to come and already is full of contradiction. This carries on throughout the whole text of the bible.
In the New Testament, Matthew 5 v38 "You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. v39 "But i tell you, Do not..."
Matthew 24 v34 I Tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
He has just been talking about the end of the age - sun darkening, no light from the moon and stars falling from the sky.
Ok se he said this 2000 years ago and there is no history of this happening so it could not be the truth unless of course that generation is still alive today but their deaths are chronicled in the bible so they are dead and it did not happen in that generation.

v36" No-one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Hang on a minute you just said it would happen in that generation! Also if God, Jesus and the holy spirit are one then surely he would know.

I could go on and on but that will do for starters anyway, I would like reasoned answers to these inconsistencies please and PLEASE try to keep things pleasant I am seeking the way and knocking on the door so if you truly are a christian you are obliged by the bible and the word of God to help me not to flame me!
Keep that in mind if you reply, I would like a reasoned debate not a schoolyard argument.




posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
The Bible has been re-written, re-written and re-written by so many different men, it's basically just whats leftover from some other humans thoughts, feelings, perceptions, standards at the time they changed it..again.

It once probably held great works, but now all the original content has been edited out thanks to man



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I would recommend getting a copy of the original authorized King James Bible - not any of the re-written or re-worded "versions" that modern man has corrupted.

As to all of your questions, the Bible is written the way it is for a reason - which is explained in the Bible why God chose it to be that way. He wants His children to truly and sincerely seek His guidance so quite a bit of it is written in parables. In other words, a person has to be genuinely sincere about seeking answers, and God, before He will allow a person to even understand the scriptures.

The first step I would take, if I were you, would be to ask God to open your eyes and bless you with understanding and knowledge - and then pick up the Bible and start reading.

And I'm glad you are seeking answers - so many on here only want to denounce the book, and God, and their only sources are what someone else tells them or what they read on a website somewhere.




posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Abductee Chick
 


I agree but most Christians view the bible as the inerrant word of god meaning it is still completely factually correct and if so I would like some of the apparent discrepancies explained to me in a meaningful way.
I attended 'The Alpha Course' a couple of years ago and asked many questions of this sort but the answer usually boiled down to either you believe or you don't God is all powerful so can do anything.
Another query i had was if all animals were on the Ark presumably all marine life was in the flood, so was it salt water or fresh water that flooded the earth and how did the marine creatures that neede still water or shallow pools or the amphibians which need land survive? Answer God just made it so he's all powerful!
i mean what kind of explanation is that, if he is all powerful as claimed why did he need the flood in the first place?



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Heh, I love these threads.

I personaly think that God had nothing to do with writing the Bible, men did that, over and over again, rewritten, edited, deleted, written again.

Actually, if you think about it, it is blasphemy to refer to Book of Genesis as "God's work". Such amount of contradiction could never come from a perfect being, only from an imperfect one.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by nomorecruelty
 


The Authorized King James Version is not much better. The best route is to get a Rosetta stone course on Greek and Aramaic and then read the original works before they were translated into English.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by nomorecruelty
 


I do have a copy of the King James as well but it is a much more difficult read due to its archaic prose. I am quoting from the NIV which states in its foreword that is a completely new translation made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts and the scholars were from all ov er the world and different denominations.
"It may well be that no other translation has been made by a more thorough process of review and revision from committee to committee than this one" Also the pastors etc I have spoken with with say the NIV having more study put into it than any before SHOULD be the most accurate.
Thanks for the reply though, I have asked God many times for help understanding his work but as yet to no avail.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I suggest you look on the net for the Sumerian tablets which describes the whole book of Genesis very well.

I forget the name of the guy who translated them - he sort of claims he is the only one who knows what they say - so that is somewhat of a problem.

However, the story matches Genesis and everything actually makes sense with respect to those tablet translations. There are a lot of youtube video's and I think I have watched them all - it is quite long, but I suggest it is worth a look.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I'm not a bible scholar, so sorry if any of this is wrong.

Genesis 1 -

God is explained as a triune being. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All three God. All three separate. All three the same.
God may refer to himself (just a way of phrasing) as "us" or "we".

The timing on the sun, stars, etc. is just not right I guess or you have to chalk it up to "God can do whatever", etc.


Adam and Eve -

Adam and Eve had free will to do whatever they want. They were given one instruction and willfully chose to disobey. God was not afraid of anything. He was simply disappointed that they disobeyed anyway. (Even though he knew it would happen.)

The serpent was Satan. I don't mean to start a debate on who Satan is or anything, but it was said that it was Satan in the form of the snake.

Cain and Abel -

I honestly don't know why God did not have "regard" for Cain's offering. It may be that Cain didn't offer God his first-fruits (which are written about a lot in the Bible). It specifically states that Abel did. This may be why.

A good question is that Cain took a wife before the mention of Adam "knowing" Eve again. That's the classic question from Genesis. Where did Cain get his wife? Where there other Generation 1 humans made directly by God?



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Are you referring to Zecharia Sitchin and the Anunnaki Enki and Enlil and Nibiru or another translation by someone else.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomorecruelty

I would recommend getting a copy of the original authorized King James Bible - not any of the re-written or re-worded "versions" that modern man has corrupted.



?


An original King James version? IT IS RE-WRITTEN BY KING JAMES! What could be more biased than that of a man used to power? One who wanted to figure out a good way to keep people in line?

Sorry, but there are NO versions that are uncorrupted in existence any longer. That book has been destroyed by the power hungry and greedy.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by WickettheRabbit
 


Thanks for the reply.

However God did seem to be afraid of Adam eating the fruit that would give him eteranl life or why would he eject him and bar the way with 'cherubim and a flaming swordsword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life' Also as he is all powerful would it not just have been easier to remove the tree?

Yes many people say that the talking serpent was satan but it does not say that in the bible as far as I can see.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
It is said that the snake in genesis is satan - as well, satan appeared to Jesus in the desert as a snake when he tried to convince Jesus to worship him.

As far as which "version" - if you can understand other languages, yes, obtain the original scriptures. If not, I would stick to the King James Bible.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by johnb
 


Yea I think he's trying to refer to sitchen, but it's not just sitchen who has translated all those tablets.


One story that is from Sumeria is the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is basically Noah's Flood, but written some 2-4k years before the bible was. If it was written beforehand, and has essentially the same story... then which one copied which? and which is the more "authorized" version of the story?

I'd have to say the Sumarian... which in turn says that at the very least, the biblical story of Noah is a fallacy, which leads one to wonder... what else is?

There's a LOT more examples of how the bible is cobbled together from much older sources, retold into a setting appropriate for Jewish history, and then put forth as being "the word of god".

One has to ask themselves, which one came first? And who's plagiarizing whom?



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


I tend to agree with you on this, each time a scholar from the past missed a bit or changed a word the next scholar would copy it and probably add more mistakes, different interpretations of sentences, language by nature changes over time. take the word 'gay' for instance only 30 or 40 years ago this was commonly used to mean having a carefree, happy time but now is used almost exclusively to mean something else.

Also you have to take into account the Apocrypha which are the missing books of the bible that various leaders of religion have seen fit to remove over the centuries as they no longer 'fit'.

I can believe in a godlike being but just struggle with the modern bible's version of events which makes it difficult to have a relationship with him or even her.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   


Why I struggle with the bible


*shrug*

I'm not big bible beleiver myself, but in an attempt to be impartial, the items you're presenting aren't really that difficult to accomodate. You're largely focusing on choice of grammar...but if you want to take the bible seriously you should understand that it was not written in english. The version that you are reading is a translated copy. It's not unreasonable to suspect that there might be some awkwardness of translation here and there.



so he made light on the first day but not the sun or any of the other stars till the fourth day, so where does this light come from as all light now comes from our nearest star, our sun.


There's no contradiction here. Light existed before light bulbs, too.



'our' image, surely if their is only one God they would say in 'my' image not 'our' this implies there was more than one being involved.


God is routinely referred to in the plural throughout the bible. Modern day christians usually seem to interpet this as "the trinity." Their "Father, Son and Holy Ghost." However, keep in mind that the vast majority of the modern day bible is in fact the jewish torah. The "old testament." The "new testament" was added later. If you really want clarification on the constant references of plurality of god in the bible, I recommend you talk to the jews who wrote it, not the christians who have adapted it.



Two things here God had already created woman on the 6th day had he not


Re-read the passages. The first few verses of Genesis give a brief summary of creation. The later verses go back and give a more detailed description. There's no failure of continuity here. It's like me saying "I got up this morning, brushed my teeth and left the house. When I brushed my teeth I noticed a speck of dust on the bathroom window." Obviously I didn't notice the speck of dust after having left the house. The second sentence is giving extra detail about something that happened during the first sentence.



secondly he creates the whole universe out of nothing but takes one of Adam's ribs to make woman - why would he do that when he just created everything else from nothing?


What's your point? You may as well ask why he created man in the first place. Or how for that matter. There's no contradiction or miscontinuity here. It would be like me telling you I wrote poetry in a fresh notebook and then tore out a page of the notebook to write down a phone number because it was convenient to do so. Would you seriously suggest that doesn't make since "because after all, I used a fresh notebook" in the first place?



so serpents could talk back then too could they? There is no mention of God removing the power of speech from the serpent


Popular christian conception is that the serpent was "Satan" in disguise. Which begs the question why god would punish serpents in general simply because satan had assumed their form.

In any case, it's reasonable to suspect this story may be metaphorical. If you look into jewish mysticism, there's a considerable body of evidence to suggest that this whole "tree" thing is an allegory and the "tree" is not a tree in the sense of branches and leaves, just like a computer "directory tree" is also not a tree with leaves, and a "fork in the road" isn't something you eat with, etc.



as a punishment for this

That really sounds loving doesn't it?


And I guess if daddy spanked you as child he didn't really love you either, right?



tree of knowledge
eternal life
what is God scared of?


This is an interesting question. As is the question of motivation in dismantling the tower of babel, and many other instances of the old testament in which god apparently makes a personal appearance. And, I can give you many possible answers. Again, keep in mind that the "modern bible" is not a single, coherent book written by a single individual. It is a collection of writings by many different people over many decades and then collated by the Council of Nicea at a much later date.

"What is god scared of?" Well, one possible interpretation would be exactly what the bible says: god is scared of his creation becoming as knowledgeable and aware as he is. In Exodus 20:4-5 he comes right out and says that he's jealous and vengeful. If you look at the history of the jews, and the constant punishment they think they've been subjected to, then all of this is completely consistent. Modern christianity throws a different light on it, claiming that the the god of the old testament is the "Father" of the trinity, and that they're more interested in the "Son," Jesus. But, ultimately it is a matter of interpretation.



Why I struggle with the bible


If you really want to understand the bible, I'd suggest you read what it says and ignore what people tell you it says. I'm not telling you the bible is true or accurate in any way, but whether or not it is, it may be a valuable signpost of what others before you have believed.

If you find fault it in, then so be it. But if you find fault in it, then find fault in it for what it is, not for what other people tell you they think it's supposed to be.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Jomina
 


Again thanks.

I tend to agree that the bible has just taken the bits it wants from older religions and also appropriated many pagan festivals to be their own. the Sumerian texts do seem to be as far back as we can go and therfore are the most original. However just as nowadays most literature is censored by the PTB (the official stuff anyway) you can bet that anybody that could afford to have heiroglyphs etc chiselled into stone was part of the PTB back then and they would have had their own reasons for controlling the masses. However we are getting off topic and I have still not seen any reasoned answers to my original questions only futher confirmation that the bible is at best a diluted guide for living a better life (New Testament anyway) sometimes I wonder whether it's the same God in the Old and New as in the old he was portrayed as very vengeful - toppling towers, flooding the planet, plague,famines , pestilence, instead death for so much as touching the Ark etc



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by nomorecruelty

I would recommend getting a copy of the original authorized King James Bible - not any of the re-written or re-worded "versions" that modern man has corrupted.


You must be joking !

The KJV is one of the very WORST translations ever.

It was based on the Textus Receptus - from a very poor set of late Greek MSSs.


K.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


Thanks for some clarification.

i take on board many of your points and yes grammar may well play a part but I think to sum up my issue it is that the Christian church claim the bible is the inerrant word of god and therfore contains no mistakes in translation. I have read all of the New Testament a few times and most of the Old but it only really causes me confusion. I am also now working my way through the Qur'an which was given to me by a friend and the Talmud will be next.

Why if you are trying to lead people to salvation would you choose to talk in parables which you know few will understand - Jesus even had to explain to the disciples and they were there with him at the time!
i thought I had found God a few years back but the more I reathe bible and researched the history of it the more confused I have become.

As you point out god is scared of Adam becoming as knowledgeable as he is but why would an omnipotent being be scared of anything and why does he need to be vengeful and jealous if he is indeed the omnipotent perfect being he is made out to be.


[edit on 14-7-2009 by johnb]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
I would recommend getting a copy of the original authorized King James Bible - not any of the re-written or re-worded "versions" that modern man has corrupted.

Um, the King James Bible is a "version" written by modern man. If we look at Christian history, the King James bible is much closer to modern times that it is to the church founders. If you're really going to pull this argument, then you need to go back to the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic originals, and not use an English version at all.

Beware, there, if you go back those versions, you discover all sorts of problems that were "ironed out" of the King James Version (for example, the fact that, in some portions of the Old Testament, "God" is clearly plural: "WE created man in OUR image").



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join