Contradictions in the Bible?

[dilloduck]

sin--disobeyed--did a no-no---goofed up whatever

 

[Phaedrus]

Note: in response to Loki

Meh I follow the flow of a thread rather than the topic. If somebody wants to steer the topic back, I'll oblige.

:happy2:

 

[LOki]

I rest my case.

The disobediance is not in dispute.

You have yet to demonstrate, in any manner, that in disobeying Gods admonition that Adam and Eve should not eat the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve had sinned.

 

[dilloduck]

I understand everything perfectly now!

 

[Joz]

The disobediance is not in dispute.

You have yet to demonstrate, in any manner, that in disobeying Gods admonition that Adam and Eve should not eat the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve had sinned.

And what might you call it?

 

[Phaedrus]

eating fruit?

They disobeyed God quite directley, they are fallen.

 

[Phaedrus]

As it seems we are no longer looking for contradictions persee, I think the parable of Abraham and Isaac is somewhat more suited to the point I think Loki is trying to make. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

 

[Eightball]

Still, though, it's second hand information. Why didn't Adam write the Bible? Not to mention that when you compare actually stories and history (ie- war battles, etc.) you are reporting plausible events. When we get into the supernatural, how are we supposed to trust anyone?

The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that second, third, fourth-hand, etc. Cannonical scripture passed down, can and is very accurate, with little or no, changes grammatically.

Early man didn't have a dictaphone, or electronic recorders, but what he did have that were very accurate were Scribes.

Do you understand the fastidiousness of Jewish religious Scribes. When they copied scripture or other documents to new parchments, they were under such pressure to be exact in their copying, that one slight ink error meant that an entire parchment had to be destroyed and a new one restarted. Secondly, they were also under the pressure of knowing that they were passing down or reproducing God's words to their people, and any error in translation would be on their consciences beyond the grave.

The Isaiah Chapter 53 Dead Sea Scroll parchment has been compared to present day translations, and been found to be so close except for some minor grammatical differences(not errors), that it's considered identical by experts both within and outside the Church. We are looking at nearly 2,000 years of time since the writing of the Isaiah 53 parchment, and the modern translations such as the NASB, NIV, ASB, RS. Even the King James that was penned from handed down recopied manuscripts back in 1611 A.D.. is basically the same as those newer versions. The newer versions were not based on the King James manuscripts but on older manuscripts too.
.....
Here's the one "corker" that secular man can't fathom about the Cannon. They base their critique upon the fallibility of man, i.e. re-translations upon re-translations must = error compounded upon copying error.

They forget that "if" the scripture is "God Breathed" or "God Inspired"; meaning that those that authored the books of the 66 in the Cannon were inspired directly by the Creator, then error would be a moot point, unless the Creator is fallible.

Now if the originally authored/penned/quilled/ or whatever "God Inspired" works were accurately translated, now the re-translating must be brought into question. That in fact is what one main stream cult uses (The Church of Latter Day Saints/Mormon Church) as their premise for their translation(BOM or Book of Mormon) or bible that has been historically(by the Smithsonian) debunked, and is a poor plagarism of the Cannon by false prophet, Joseph Smith Jr(A documented scam artist/treasure hunter, along with his father J.S. Sr.),..

How can man be accurate in handing down what God originally said to man? It's too simple, for secular man to fathom. If we adhere to the premise that God is Omnipresent(In and around everything), Omniscient(knows all), and Omnipotent(all powerful), then why is it that those that question biblical accuracy have an argument? It is a spiritual dilemma! Understanding or believing God(who is Spirit) requires Spiritual discernment. Spiritual discernment is only possessed by those that have experienced true Spiritual conversion. I.E. Not one's name on a church roll, or their parents were Christians......etc........but personal, Spiritual transformation via a broken and contrite heart before God, accepting the existence, and the work of Christ for them and mankind, as depicted in the scriptures. In other words, finally seeing themselves as they really, accurately are, before their Creator.

Wouldn't you think logically that a God that possess those three above-stated qualities would be able to protect the accuracy of His word throughout the centurys? That goes on the premise that God is actually active in the lives of mankind, and in some of mankind(prophets of the O.T. and N.T. Apostles and authors as well), He has emphatically communicated His thoughts, and emotions via the written language of mankind.

So it comes down to this. Christian or believing man knows that God is willing, and able to "protect" His word no matter how many centurys pass by. That's because God is omnipotent(all powerful). He also exposes those that falsely present that which is not His word, or His accurately translated word, too. That's a display of His ever-presence and protection of His true Word, too.

The problem lies in secular man's inablitity to accept that God is Omnipotent in this area and in all other areas of creation/life in general.

That's why conspiracy theories(Da Vinci Code/ James brother of Jesus Ostuary discovery/fraud) and other stories will continue to be propagated throughout the history of man in relation to Biblical historicity, and accuracy.

You will find that one of the main tell-tale signs of a cult, is how they "handle" the Christ of the bible. Is He totally divine, and totally man, or is he just a mere man who had delusions of grandeur. The divinity(Jesus being both a man and God in Triune relationship with God the Spirit, and God the Holy Spirit) must be attacked successfully. Does Christ stand the test of time? He sure does!

Secondly, the crucifixion of Jesus, must be refuted too, as this is integral with the foundation of the Christian faith. Also his ressurrection is part and parcel to it all.

Summary: Here's what has in the past and will continue in the future to be critiqued/attacked by secularists/agnostics/atheists in order for them live comfortably in conscience with their humanity and the deeds of their humanity.

1. Question the validity/accuracy of God's Word.
2. Question the existence of the Christ.
3. Question the Virgin birth of the Christ.
4. Question the miracles of the Christ.
5. Question the actual historicity of the crucifixion of the Christ.
6. Question the actual 3rd day or any ressurrection of the Christ.
7. Question the taking-up of the Christ into heaven and His seating at the right-hand of God.
..........
To accept Christ's existence as described in the Cannonical scripture is to have to reckon with one's self's status/standing before one's Creator. For many, this is just too much to handle, as the basic selfish nature of man can't let go of his own foilbles and philosophies of his existence and face "accountabiltity".

Nowadays, accountability of one's self is so out of vogue. A contrite(broken) heart is to much to endure, even if the contrite heart experience is the avenue to salvation/conversion. Man has two choices. He can honestly look the Christ in His eyes, and crumble-down on his face and realize his minisculeness before an all powerful, all knowing, all present, but loving, forgiving Creator, or he(man) can shake his fist and deny that he has need of any help, but his own in fathoming the meaning of his existence.

Anger is not always the best defense........sometimes giving up is the best defense.......especially when it involves eternal importance.

Looking in the eyes of Jesus should emit the Romans 3:23 response, "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.". Many forget that following this often quoted verse is "For He is the justification through grace(unmeritted favor towards all men)........."

Pride of man in himself......his education, his logic, his control issues of himself and others around him, are his biggest enemy. He has inherited this nature from his initial rebellion back in Eden. From thence-on all men have been cursed with a selfish nature that fights with itself, and with others for control, and understanding of his destiny.
*Selfish nature = Doesn't always reveal itself in selfish actions, as it it masked in in charitable deeds that really only feed and satisfy the selfish nature. I.E. being "religious" is different from being spiritually, "In Christ", or subservient to Him willingly. Being religious, can be a very prideful/self-centered occupation of the soul. All along, we self-delude ourselves into thinking how much we are the greatest gift to mankind, yet our hearts are not contrite, our vision of ourselves is not in proper perspective when placed before Almight God. Before God, all things created are but "nothing". It is God that takes, "nothing" and it makes it "special". When God makes a "nothing" special, then that specialness is a gift; an underserved gift; grace. Man has the free-will to reject that grace which encompasses every aspect of his life.

He holds the keys to life, death, Hades, children, adults, teens, .........all of creation. Even the earth begs to convince us of God's existence(Romans Chapter 1), but we flatly refuse to accept this plea.

 

[Joz]

You just have to actually read my responses. I quote you and my responses are to your quotes.
As for finding your own words, note the "Search" function at the top of the page.

No where in this thread was human sacrafice mentioned before your one post. And no where in this thread did I say that man was not evil by his own doing. And please, don't take that tone with me. I'm not your mother, I don't have to put up with it.

 

[LOki]

And what might you call it?

A mistake ... bad luck perhaps, but not evil. Not evil, then not sin.

Man's nature became evil redeemable only by the blood of Christ.

No where in this thread was human sacrafice mentioned before your one post.

Heh.

And no where in this thread did I say that man was not evil by his own doing.

But you did say he could not do evil by himself, in direct contradiction to your assertion that man's nature is evil.

And please, don't take that tone with me. I'm not your mother, I don't have to put up with it.

I am not responsible for what you percieve my tone to be, yet prescisely because you are not my mother, I feel disinclied to step-and-fetch-it for you. And since I'm not your boy, I don't have to do your research on your own posting for you. Fair enough?

 

[1549]

I might be walking into the middle of a few arguments here, but I thought I might as well throw this contradiction in here:

John 3:16 vs. Matthew 7:21

The former seems to say the believers will be saved. The latter says it is not good enough to be a follower of Jesus. Instead you must act as God wishes to enter the kingdom of heaven.

I guess this sort of fits into the debate "would Hitler be allowed into heaven if he is a believer in Jesus". I have a friend who follows a very literal translation of the bible. He always argued that Hitler would be allowed in. My own religion (catholicism) would probably think that if Hiter begged for forgiveness before his death he would be allowed in.

I have always thought that God would favor deeds over beliefs. Life is so much more complicated than just believing or not believing. There are people who know very little of the bible and have never come into contact with it because of the environment they are living in. I do not buy that the God I believe in would not take into account the role of circumstance. In other words, if you lead a selfless charitable life, God would allow you into his kingdom regardless of your faith.

On the other hand, if you believe in God, but do unchristian things such as murder or commit terrible sins, God will be less forgiving.

My own thoughts on the matter...

 

[Phaedrus]

A mistake ... bad luck perhaps, but not evil. Not evil, then not sin.

Evil? Sinning is going against God, not being "evil". Some might see a contradiction there, but that's their perrogative.

 

[LOki]

Evil? Sinning is going against God, not being "evil". Some might see a contradiction there, but that's their perrogative.

Is that so? That's what God told Adam and Eve? You can demonstrate?

 

[Phaedrus]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sin

 

[Joz]

Heh.

I misread the post. I apologize.

I am not responsible for what you percieve my tone to be, yet prescisely because you are not my mother, I feel disinclied to step-and-fetch-it for you. And since I'm not your boy, I don't have to do your research on your own posting for you. Fair enough?

I never expected my own children to step & fetch. I merely asked you to back up what you said. You couldn't do it.

 

[Phaedrus]

w00t akward silence over!

 

[LOki]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sin

Good. You can use the internet, Adam and Eve couldn't. Nice definition of sin post fall, with the knowledge of good and evil, we can make great use of this information--now apply it to Adam and Eve prior to their fall.

I think it is all too clear that, after the fact, after establising our knowledge of good and evil, after finally establishing the capacity to make knowledgable choice, we sin when we defy the will of God, because that's the way we have sin defined--did God do so for Adam and Eve? Given the explicit goodness of man's nature, and his explicit ignorance of good and evil, does it follow that the concept of "sin" was even particularly relevant to Adam and Eve?

I misread the post. I apologize.

No sweat.

I merely asked you to back up what you said. You couldn't do it.

Incorrect, I can do your research on your own posting--I just won't. The fact that I won't do it for you does nothing to change your very own,"Man is evil by nature; he couldn't have done it on his own."

 

[Phaedrus]

Given the explicit goodness of man's nature, and his explicit ignorance of good and evil, does it follow that the concept of "sin" was even particularly relevant to Adam and Eve?

They knew they shouldn't have. Ignorance be damned, disobeying God has little to do with good and evil. You just don't do it! To paraphrase Napolean, ignorance is no excuse. They Sinned, and I provided a valid definition of Sin.

If you want try and ameliorate their blame be my guest, but have no pretentions that you are right. For some reason it's tragic, but their fault can't be mitigated. Empathize all you will, but the blame is theirs, and theirs alone.

Edit: Regardless of whether they knew the definition of Sin, they did know to abide by God's will. That's my main point.

 

[Joz]

....I can do your research on your own posting--I just won't. The fact that I won't do it for you does nothing to change your very own,"Man is evil by nature; he couldn't have done it on his own."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=427755&postcount=104

Talk about taking things out of context! We were talking about man setting boundries, such as the 10 Commandments, on his own because man is evil by nature; he couldn't do it on his own.

 

[LOki]

They knew they shouldn't have.

On what grounds did they know?

The story is very clear that they knew AFTER having eaten the Fruit, but not before. Are you aware of some indication that I am not aware of?

Ignorance be damned, disobeying God has little to do with good and evil. You just don't do it! To paraphrase Napolean, ignorance is no excuse.

An interesting point. Allow me you ask a hypothetical, just to illuminate, and drive firmly home the point: If God ordered you to do evil--something you knew absolutely (by whatever means of absolute knowledge you need) to be evil--and you defied God's command to do this evil, by this definition of sin you assert, such defiance is still sin?

They Sinned, and I provided a valid definition of Sin.

You did, and I do not fault you for consistency in your definition, I belive I have validly questioned the application of this definition, and I'll ask you this: Is God's incapability of sin derived soley from the tautological assertion that God cannot defy himself? If so, is it then true, based soley on the assertion that He cannot sin, that God is not exempt from being evil?

If you want try and ameliorate their blame be my guest, but have no pretentions that you are right. For some reason it's tragic, but their fault can't be mitigated. Empathize all you will, but the blame is theirs, and theirs alone.

Oh, no, no! Accepting the story of Adam and Eve is accepting they did what they did. I am attempting to discern the nature of what they did, and if the nature of what they did is necessarily the sin in God's eyes that you have judged it to be in yours.

Edit: Regardless of whether they knew the definition of Sin, they did know to abide by God's will. That's my main point.

What exactly was the nature of Adam and Eve's knowledge of God's will, and abiding by it? And form what source do you derive your assertion?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forum...5&postcount=104

Talk about taking things out of context! We were talking about man setting boundries, such as the 10 Commandments, on his own because man is evil by nature; he couldn't do it on his own.

Ah! Correct me if I am wrong in my analysis of this. When you said, "Man is evil by nature; he couldn't have done it on his own.", the "...he couldn't have done it on his own..." part had nothing to do with the "Man is evil by nature;... portion of the sentence it was attached to, but rather the sentence before it: "But where do you think the boundries of society come from?"

Is your assertion then that man cannot, on his own, form boundaries of society because his nature is evil?

If it is, it changes nothing about my arguments regarding the explicit fact that man's nature is good, rather than evil. It does however take away my confusion regarding how you might hold both notions that man is evil by nature, but not evil on his own. Sorry about that.