Prove that the Bible is full of contradictions-- I double dare you!

[Nogodnomasters]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Are you sure you got that right? IMO, taking responsibility for yourself and others is never easy.

The right way is never the easy way if you work for the governement. You are so hampered by regulations. Our slogan has become, "It is easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission."

[barefootgal9]

Note that it says "The RIGHT way IS the easy way."

This is a very different statement from "The EASY way is the right way."

My middle-schooler is forever in a heap of trouble at school because she keeps choosing the EASY way. Were she to choose, instead, the RIGHT way, she would not be having to stay after school to make up her homework, or having to do lunchtime detention for being late to school.

Avoiding/refusing the Right way leads to disasterous consequences, not only for the individual, but for the world in general. It doesn't mean following the Right way is easy ... it can be a path of extraordinary self sacrifice.

This is the reality of spiritual principles/ethics.

At heart, the purpose of religion (God & Prophets, anyway -- not always as it is understood or practiced) is to lead people to choose the Right -- not the easy.

For instance, there is nothing Easy about following a religious law establishing a stabilized, covenantal institution that protects the wellbeing of a family (marriage), and abstaining from sexual activity outside it. But the realities of trying to raise children alone, in poverty, and the impact of no father model/masculine guidance for children, are much greater hardships both for the idividuals directly affected and society in general.

It is naive, and an injustice to God, to say that these hardships were because He gets ticked and punishes everyone. No, they are the consequences of our own choices.

I don't think the message, for instance, of Noah's flood, is that God destroyed the world cause He was ticked off, tho it is couched in story-telling language. It's deeper meaning is that a flood of disasters is the inevitable consequence of choosing the Easy (or fun) way. The Ark is a symbol of the Covenant -- ie the Law of God (spiritual principles) -- whoever takes shelter in that is in spiritual safety.

God, I believe, is an unknowable reality -- but can quite correctly be thought of as "The Source of Spiritual Principles." In my own opinion, an "atheist" who is dedicated to living by the "Right Way" is much "nearer to God" than an avid religionist who, assuming for himself a priori forgiveness, does whatever he pleases and hurts many with his fire and brimstone condemnations of his fellow human beings -- including the reputation of God.

If those were the only two paths available, I'd no doubt still be an "atheist," too!

[barefootgal9]

Originally Posted by Nogodnomasters

The right way is never the easy way if you work for the governement. You are so hampered by regulations. Our slogan has become, "It is easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission."

Bureaucracies, of course, are another matter... being outside the natural order of the universe!

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

i would point interested readers to an article that is hosted on this site to demonstrate inconsistencies within the Bible as we have it today.

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ne_conspiracy/

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Are you sure you got that right? IMO, taking responsibility for yourself and others is never easy.

This thread is WAY too tempting, could ya'll cut it out please?!?!

[barefootgal9]

I got through about half that lengthy work -- I'll return to read the rest when I can.

Scholars, I do believe, have been suspicious of Paul for quite some time; and I've certainly had my problems with him -- that he and much of what he taught were at odds with the Disciples, I was aware of, but this piece certainly does give the whole miasma a good hard looking at. I would love it if another cache of scrolls were to show up that filled in a lot of those blanks... tho, I don't think we can really expect that.

I have often wondered how much the apparent meanings of the Bible would shift were the books just put in their correct chronological order. (I did set out once to re-read the entire book in that order, but, afraid I didn't really get very far... ) For one thing, it's progressive nature (especially Old Testament) would become more apparent, and a fair number of seeming "contradictions" would be more readily seen as development of concepts.

For that matter -- if there were a publisher out there to be so bold -- I would be very interested to see a Bible (New Testament, at least!) in which the books of the New Testament were clearlly demarcated, something like: Section 1, the three Markian gospels; Section 2, the writings of the early church fathers; Section 3, the Pauline documents and the gospel of Luke; Section 4, the Revelation of John and other Ecstatic texts: Section 5, Rediscovered gospels and extra-canonical texts. (Perhaps a Section 6, pivotal documents in the development of Christian belief - Nicene Creed, Apostle's Creed, Augustine, etc) All, of course, with copious commentaries and historical info. It might be called "The Scholar's Bible."

This probably would not go down well in many quarters (ahem, to say the least!) ... but for myself, I would love to have one!

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by barefootgal9

In my own opinion, an "atheist" who is dedicated to living by the "Right Way" is much "nearer to God" than an avid religionist who, assuming for himself a priori forgiveness, does whatever he pleases and hurts many with his fire and brimstone condemnations of his fellow human beings -- including the reputation of God.

BINGO! -- IMHO.

Cheers,

Operacast

[I, Brian]

In other words: works over faith.

[barefootgal9]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

In other words: works over faith.

... well. I think I said something a little stronger than that.

faith, I think, can lead to greater works, greater energy, greater courage, greater commitment , greater service to humanity, than disbelief.

but faith -- or perhaps, more correctly, "doctrine," can often work more evil than disbelief.

so I would put it "faith and works over works alone, works over faith, faith or works over doctrine"

[mcedgy]

Okay, in response to the challenge here is a two cent look at mostly NT Gospels:

The lineage of Jesus is contradicted between the 1st chapter of Matthew and the 3rd chapter of Luke. Both list Joseph as the father of Jesus. Matthew says the name of Joseph’s father was Jacob while Luke says Joseph’s father was Heli. Mathew says there were about twenty-six generations between Jesus and King David but Luke says there were forty-one. In Matthew, Jesus’ line of decent was through David’s son Solomon but in Luke it was through David’s son Nathan. (Since the Holy Spirit is the father of Jesus, Joseph’s genealogy can be pertinent only as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy that indicates the Messiah would descend from King David.)

The story of the birth of Jesus as told by Matthew (2:13-15) says Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt immediately after the wise men had brought gifts but Luke (2:22-40) says they stayed in Bethlehem for the time of Mary’s purification (forty days) and then carried Jesus to Jerusalem “to present him to the Lord,” and afterwards returned to Nazareth. No mention of a journey to Egypt or of wise men can be found in Luke.

Matthew 27:5 states that Judas took the money he obtained for betraying Jesus and threw it down in the temple and then “went and hanged himself.” Acts 1:18 indicates that Judas purchased a field with the money and “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst and his bowels gushed out.”

As Jesus was led to his execution John 19:17 says that Jesus carried his own cross but in Mark 15:21-23 a man called Simon carried Jesus’ cross to the site.

Matthew 27:44 tells us that both criminals being crucified with Jesus taunt him but Luke 23:39-43 says that only one of the criminals taunted Jesus and that the other criminal rebuked the one doing the taunting and Jesus told the criminal who was defending him, “Today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.” That statement brings to question the three days. Hadn’t Jesus already said he would be in the earth for three days and nights?

Even the last words of Jesus are uncertain. Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 say Jesus cried with a loud voice, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Luke 21:46 says that Jesus’ final words were, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” John 19:30 tell us the last words were simply, “It is finished.”

Many New Testament prophecies demonstrate even greater failures. Jesus indicated the “Son of Man” would return within the lifetime of the audience to whom He was speaking. In Matthew 16:28 he tells his disciples, “There be some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” In Matthew 24:34 he says, “ Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled… mcedgy

[gluadys]

Since I am not committed to a doctrine of inerrancy, it doesn't matter much to me that there are a number of contradictions in the bible when various writers mention the same event. Most of them are quite minor, the sort of thing one expects when oral tradition is passed along different tribal and family lines.

In a few cases, they signal different theologies and political agendas.

Nevertheless, two comments.

Originally Posted by JJM

Are you referring to the two differing creation stories. To me, and remember this is only an interpretation, one describes the creation of humans while the other describes the creation of Earth.

I agree with your analysis, but there are still contradictory elements, notably the order of creation.

I'm sorry to say that you are mistaken in this "contradiction." Well actually I'm not sorry because it simply confirms my faith more but regardless of that this is not what the verses say. If you read the story you see that Josephs brothers threw him in a cistern and left him there. Judah upon seeing the Ishmaelites say to his brother "what is to be gained by killing our brother and concealing his blood? Rather let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, instead of doing away with ourselves. After all he is our brother” (Gn 37:26-27 NAB) while his brothers where returning to the cistern to pull him out some Midianites pulled him out of the cistern. and took him to Egypt. When Reuben Returns to sell Joseph and Joseph isn't there he is upset. SO you see if you read these verses you find that Joseph wasn't sold at all but rather rescued before he could be sold. .

I am not sure this "contradiction" is mistaken. In any case, the full story still contains a contradiction.

Let's begin with Reuben. In vs. 19-20 the brothers plot to kill Joseph, but vs. 21 begins "when Reuben heard it..." This suggests that Reuben had not been part of the conversation until then. vs. 21 goes on to say that he successfully persuaded them not to kill Joseph, but to put him in the dry pit, and explicitly says "that he [Reuben] might rescue him out of their hand and restore him to their father" Note the last phrase.

Then comes the episode with the traders, and then Reuben returning to the pit and finding it empty.

Now the interpretation I always heard was that Reuben was not with the other brothers when the sale was made. Since it was his intent to restore Joseph to his father, clearly he would not have approved selling him to traders of any nationality.

Now vs. 27-28 [Judah says] "Come let us sell him to the Ishmaelites and not lay our hands on him for his is our brother, our own flesh." And his brothers agreed. When some Midianite traders passed by, they drew Joseph up, lifting him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. And they took Joseph to Egypt.

One question, of course, is who is referred to by the bolded "they". JJM's interpretation says "they" are the Midianites who simply pulled him up. But it could just as well be Joseph's brothers. The antecedent is ambiguous in English and I don't know if the Hebrew would be clearer or not.

In any case, the next part of the verse clearly states that Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites, who took him into Egypt. Now if it was the Midianites who pulled him from the pit, it was the Midianites who then turned around and sold him to the Ishmaelites. I don't know much about trading caravans, but I just don't see that happening. Furthermore, it looks as if there are two trading caravans in the same place at the same time. Not impossible, but rather improbable away from a city or oasis.

Nevertheless, whether it was Joseph's brothers or the Midianites who pulled him from the pit, it is clear this verse ends with Joseph in the hands of the Ishmaelites and on his way to Egypt.

Problem is, when we get to vs. 36 it says "Meanwhile the Midianites had sold [Joseph] in Egypt to Potiphar, one of Pharoah's officials, the captain of the guard."

So we still have a contradiction as to who took Joseph to Egypt and sold him there.


To me, the most sensible and parsimonious explanation is that there was only one caravan. Joseph's brothers (minus Reuben) took advantage of its arrival to sell him. Reuben was not in on the sale and only found out about it when he went to rescue Joseph and found the pit empty.

As the story was passed on from generation to generation, the identity of the traders was disputed. Some said it was Ishmaelites, others said it was Midianites.

Eventually the stories of the oral tradition were written down. Notably two versions were written while the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were divided after the reign of Solomon. The Judean version said Ishmaelites; the Israelite version said Midianites. Sometime between the fall of Israel to the Assyrians (722 BCE) and the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians (597 bCE), these two versions were combined into one, and the editor, not knowing which was accurate (and perhaps not wishing to offend anyone) chose to keep snippets of both versions including the dual identity of the traders.

And that's why we have the Ishmaelites and Midianites morphing back and forth in the text of Genesis today.

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by Nogodnomasters

Compare Gen. 1:1-2:4 and Gen.2.5ff

My personal research indicates 2:4 is the beginning of second creation and not the ending of the first. There are differences between the two creations, with the first creation story being younger than the second text. This is a good place to break out your Wellhausen.

According to Richard Friedman (Who Wrote the Bible?) you are both right. The split between the two accounts is in the middle of verse four, like this:

2:4a "These are the genertions of the heavens and the earth when they were created." (end of first account)

2:4b "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, ... (beginning of second account).

Jews, such as Philo of Alexandria re-interpreted the sacred books of the Jews to fit the Greek view of religion. The concept of the Logos entered into the Old Testament. The OT was mistranslated in a few places- deliberately I might add from Hebrew to Greek to represent new ideas.

Deliberately? I don't doubt it. Was one of those deliberate alterations the fateful translation of "almah" (=young woman) in Isaiah 7:14 as "parthenos" (=virgin)?

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by barefootgal9

Julien, I heartukt recommend to you the book "A Guide to Understanding the Bible" by Harry Emerson Fosdick -- I do hope it is still in print. I found this book extremely helpful, as it traces the course of concepts over TIME -- and shows how people's ideas of God, Man, Sin, etc., were gradually brought forward to more sophisticated levels of thinking via the successive teachings of the major and minor prophets of the Bible.

I think you will find an answer to this supposed contradiction when you realize that the Bible spans several thousand years of human development.

[snip]


I think you'll find that discovering the Bible as a record of an unfolding historical process of God guiding humankind (starting with very barbaric by today's standards) towards a truer understanding of Him and our spiritual nature, such seeming contradictions as God wrathful vs God merciful will melt away in greater insights.

1 Corinthians 13

11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Oh, I am glad somebody said it. We fall too quickly and too easily into dualistic oppositions like harsh OT God vs. loving NT God.

In fact, all that the NT says about God's love is said in the OT too, and some of what the OT says about God's wrath and judgment is in the NT too---interestingly, most often in the words of Jesus himself.

The reality is much more complex than a sudden change from OT to NT. We need to remember the OT or Tanakh is itself a complex multi-leveled compilaton of texts written and collected over nearly a millennium and preserving oral traditions that go back another millennium or more. The Hebrew/Jewish people went through a lot of political and cultural upheaval during those years and that is reflected in differing theological views.

As refugees from Egypt and unsophisticated desert nomads invading the settled land of Canaan, YHWH was most important to them as their God of war---the LORD of hosts, who guaranteed them victory against their enemies. In times of peace, they often paid more attention to the local fertility gods who assured a good harvest. And they interpreted disasters, whether plague, locusts, famine, or defeat in war, as signs of divine anger for some fault they had committed.

Not until the reign of Solomon did they become truly established as a nation. But the monarchy brought a different social environment from the old tribal realities. Now the people were divided along class lines. The elite oppressed the poor, hounding them off their lands, using them as forced labour, selling them into slavery. It is these realities that give rise to the vision of God as a moral God who makes moral demands on the nation, as is articulated in the great social messages of Amos, Micah and 1st Isaiah. The wrath of God plays a big part in their message, but it is always a wrath directed against the wickedness of those in high places who abuse and oppress the weak and vulnerable. These prophets invented what is now called in Christian circles "God's preferential option for the poor." And Jesus' message is a direct continuation of the prophetical message. That is why Jesus is so rough on the Pharisees.

The Babylonian exile is another huge watershed. It was the crucible of the exile that finally and fully establishes monotheism among the Israelites. And it is from this time period one gets the beautiful messages of hope in deutero-Isaiah as well as his defence of monotheism. Pure monotheism also requires a change in one's vision of God. Especially if the one God is also seen to be a moral and righteous God. The problem of evil raises its head---together with the first appearance of Satan in the OT. It is in this time that the book of Job is written.

Wisdom literature is another development (indeed Job is part of the body of Jewish wisdom literature along with Proverbs and Ecclesiates). And beginning in the writings of Ezekiel and developing in the post-Exilic prophets and in the book of Daniel is the rich lineage of apocalyptic literature--so very well suited to the trials and tribulations of Judea's experience as a pawn between empires.

So it is really important in assessing OT texts to note which period of history they are from and how the writers of the time understood God's relation to Israel.

And another whole kettle of fish is how the biblical texts get interpreted differently in different time periods after they were written. But that's for another day.

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Are you sure you got that right? IMO, taking responsibility for yourself and others is never easy.

Oh, I agree with barefoot girl or rather her boss. The right way IS the easy way when all is said and done. Though often it doesn't look easy at first. That is also the philosophy of Tao. When you truly follow the right way it turns out to be the easy way, because it is in accord with the nature of things. Fighting nature is always a losing battle.

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by barefootgal9

In my own opinion, an "atheist" who is dedicated to living by the "Right Way" is much "nearer to God" than an avid religionist who, assuming for himself a priori forgiveness, does whatever he pleases and hurts many with his fire and brimstone condemnations of his fellow human beings -- including the reputation of God.

If those were the only two paths available, I'd no doubt still be an "atheist," too!

Indeed, BINGO! and Amen!

Also love your interpretation of the Flood.