Bible Contradictions

[Marietta]

Hello Dondi, Lets continue.

My reply:
I beg to differ. The Bible is indeed a science book. The word Torah according to the Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language: A book containing all the science of the universe, or the book of the Law. The laws were the laws of physics, creation physics at that.
God does not lower him/herself to human standards. When God spoke to man the truth was given, not misunderstandings.

You wrote:
The Bible isn't a science book. Much of the language used in describing the earth is with a human perspective. Even today, we say that the sun rises and sets, when in reality, it is the rotation of the earth that gives the sun the appearance of rising and setting, yet we don't think twice about it.

This is just mans doctrine to cover a contradiction. This also makes the statement that an illegitimate child is non existent and worthless. God loves all of his/her creation regardless of how we enter this world. God knows that it is the spirit of man that truly exists and the body merely houses the spirit. A man and woman do not create a spirit they merely provide a house for a spirit to inter into to experience this existence.


You wrote:
Genesis 22:2: Then, God, said, Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love and go to the region of Moriah.
Genesis 16:15: So Hagar bore Abram a son and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son she had borne.
Genesis 21:2: Sarah became pregnant and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the very time God had promised him. Abraham gave the name Isaac to the son Sara bore him.
We are told that Isaac is Abraham's only son but he also had Ishmael.

Because Ishmael was illegitimate. When God promised a son to Abraham, He intended to keep that promise. But in the long wait for a son, Sarah, Abraham's wife, became impatient, for she was approaching old age. Rather than wait for God to act, Sarah took it upon herself to speed up the process by offering her maidservant Hagar to Abraham to bear him a child. That went completely against God's plan of a promised child through Sarah. In the end, Hagar and Ishmael were banished, and God finally opened the womb of Sarah for her to have that promised child. In this regard, Isaac was the only true son of Abraham.

My reply:
God is not a god of confusion and would not ask a man to sacrifice his son and then later change his mind. God is not double minded and god knows the heart of man and does not have to stoop to playing games with man to find out what man will do.

You wrote:
In the first place, Isaac was not sacrificed after all. Abraham was stopped before he did it. A substitute ram was offered instead. It is a picture of what God would do in offering His Son in Christ centuries later.
In the second place, one must understand that the Mosiac sacrifices were intended to appease God for the sins of Israel. God's lament is that He was tired of the fact that Israel needed to continually sacrifice animals for their sins. God would rather have Israel obey, as I Samuel 15:22 states: "...Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams."

All the Church doctrine in the world does not take away the contradictions that exist within the mistranslated text. There is not contradiction in the original text.

Love and Light, Midge

 

[Marietta]

Hermeneutics

It is well documented, that Christianity as a whole has been led over the past 2000 years into unknowingly following the theological methods of interpretation developed by the Greek philosopher Plato and his followers. This is amazingly enough easy to find.
“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehood schools. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool”(Plato)
Encyclopedia Americana
Theology
Theology is a term compounded of two Greek words, theos (God) and logos
(rational utterance), and it might be taken to mean something like "rational utterance or discourse about god or gods". The term first appeared in Plato's Republic (Book 2, Chap. 18) with reference to poetry. According to Plato norms must be prescribed to which the poetry must conform in matters of Theology. These norms or "rules" of theology were developed by Plato as a means of corrupting the writings of Homer and the other Greek poets, for the purpose of influencing and controlling what people believe when they read. Homer wrote some things about the Olympian gods that Plato and his mentor Socrates didn't agree with. They just didn't think that a lot of what Homer said about the Greek gods, and especially Zeus himself was rational. However the Greeks thought pretty much of Homer so Socrates and Plato couldn't just say that what Homer said was wrong. Not unless they wanted to be stoned or torn limb from limb, since the Greeks considered Homer a prophet, and they considered his "poetry" as scripture.
What the Encyclopedia says is that Plato coined the word Theology for the first time to name a set of rules to which scripture must conform.
Are the Holy Scriptures supposed to conform to rules developed by a Greek philosopher?
According to Plato, these rules were to cover any story concerning any gods anywhere at any time. What other "stories" were around at the time that Plato made up all these rules? THE OLD TESTAMENT!
A major part of the Theology that Plato developed to make scripture conform to what ever He thought was rational, is called Hermeneutics. It is the infiltration of this method of study called Hermeneutics, that when applied to the scriptures in interpretation has culminated in the complete and final apostasy.
A major factor in the ability to deceive using Greek Hermeneutics is by it's application to literature, it convinces the individual reading the literature that he has come to a correct and truthful understanding of what is being said. He thinks he sees, he thinks he hears, he thinks he understands, when the exact opposite is true. He has becomes convinced in his heart that what he knows is the truth, when he is wrong.
Hermeneutics and Theology are hidden things of dishonesty that teach people how to handle words deceitfully. Remember the word Theology was coined by Plato for the first time in his book The Republic, Book 2, chapter 18, and it means “rational utterance about the God or gods.” Suppose that what the scriptures say is not rational to you. You just apply the methods of Theology and Hermeneutics and apply the rules that a Greek Philosopher came up with and you can get the scriptures to conform for you. As Plato said and Christian Theology teaches, rules must be prescribed to which ALL Scripture must conform. If there happen to be parts that don’t conform to your Theology there is a "rule" to explain why.
It can be proven that Christianity adopted this method of Theology from the Theology of Plato. There are many books on “How to study and interpret the Bible.” They may have changed the name of the "god" but the system remains the same. The reason Plato developed Theology was to corrupt the writings of Homer and other Greek poets giving him control over the religious beliefs of the people. The same method of study is taught in every Theological School today.
Theology is not a set of doctrines. Theology is an educational system that teaches rules on how to study religious literature. Most religious literature concerns history and Theology is a system on how to revise what is written without actually changing the writings themselves. It is a highly developed form of deceitful Historical Revisionism. No matter what you apply it to, its purpose is to adulterate and corrupt it.
Hermeneutics gets its name from the god Hermes. It was Hermes who was the prince of Greecia and gave the revelation of the knowledge of how to deceive with words.
Theology's greatest deception is that it has the power to make one think that he is wise and smart. It makes us think that we are like God because we think we understand God's word. However all it teaches is HOW to handle the word of God deceitfully.
Bakers Dictionary of Practical Theology has this to say about " the "science" or "art" of Hermeneutics.
The conscious setting up of rules is hermeneutics from the god Hermes, messenger of the gods, hence hermeneuein, to interpret; hermeneia interpretation, commentary; and the hermeneutic technique, the skill or art of interpretation.
Hermeneutics is both an art and a science. It is a science in that it can reduce interpretation within limits to a set of rules; it is an art in that it draws up its own story lines that are not there, using rules. Some writers have argued that the giving and taking of meaning in understanding is more art than science. But at least it is not all art and what is not art can be treated by a rule.
This book is recommended to every minister, preacher, teacher and Bible student in the Christian world, with a minimum of 49 pages defining the "art" or "science", the "RULES" of how Christians should interpret the scriptures, and this so-called "science" is called Hermeneutics after a PAGAN god. These "rules" are being applied to the Holy Scriptures.
Lying is an art and you can be taught to lie, thinking your telling the truth. There is actually a form of knowledge in how to lie. If I can get you to follow the methods of how to lie, and make you think your telling the truth that would make me very crafty. This is exactly what Theology and Hermeneutics is designed to do, it is the essence of Greek Philosophy. Hermeneutics not only teaches you how to develop a lie it teaches you how to cover it up by a "rule".
Anything that doesn't agree with what you want to prove, you cover up with a "rule". If there isn't a rule you simply make one up. This is why there have been different "schools" of interpretation developed over the years, the latest being the School of Dispensational Interpretation. The rule being that if something doesn't fit what you are trying to propound, you simply say: "This wasn’t written for this dispensation". This keeps us from reading the Old Testament, the Gospels and the book of Revelation. According to Dispensationalist the only part of the scriptures that apply to us is found in the letters of Paul. Yet even when they come to things in Paul's letters that disagree with what they are trying to promote they merely say, "Oh that was written to the Jew not the Gentiles or that has a spiritual meaning. Sometimes right in the middle of a sentence something disagrees with their doctrine and they tell you it's not written to you. This is the deceitful way in which all Theology and Hermeneutics works.
We can’t rightly divide the word of truth, with a system of literary interpretation that was specifically designed to deceive and cover up the truth. Theology was specifically designed to corrupt the writing of Homer, considered scripture and history.
Why would Plato want to corrupt the writings of Homer? That is perfectly simple, he wanted to clean up the image of the gods Homer talked about. Do you think that the Greeks worshipped and sacrificed to the gods because they loved them? Do you think they worshipped them because they were so "good"? Absolutely not, the Greek gods were beautiful yet degenerate thieves, rapists, bullies, liars, murderers, kidnappers some pretty bad guys who got men to worship them through fear of what would happen if they didn't. Homer just wrote it like he saw it, he give an account of what was actually going on at a certain point in history in that part of the world.

Love and Light, Midge

 

[Caimanson]

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that the Bible has errors, just like any other holy book?

I agree that a lot of those contradictions are only apparent, but factual differences cannot be ironed out, just like the one regarding the death of Judas.
Some christians that are more honest with themselves claim that the bible is only inerrant as a guide to salvation.
Now, that is a scary step for someone from an Abrahamic religion with literalist leanings, since once you question the holy book then the whole house of cards may crumble.

 

[Dondi]

Let me go on record as saying that I know that the Bible in it's present form is not perfect. All I was trying to point out is that some contradictions one inds in scripture are a result of a misunderstanding of the text. We coudl argue in circles about this and get apsolutely nowhere for if there is no agreement in how to apporach the Scriptures found in the Bible, the n apparently we are at an impass.
And as far a hermaneutics is concerned, Plato or not, would at least agree that we have to have some background of what is going on with a particular passage before we can fully understand the meaning of it?

I'll give you an example. Isaiah 7:14:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Many Christians will point to this verse as a Messianic prophesy, and on the surface, it would seem logical that this could be applied to the birth of Christ. Indeed, Matthew refers to it in his Gospel:

"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." - Matthew 1:22-23

But if one were to go back to the passage in Isaiah 7, in context, one will find that this child that is born has really no connection with the Messiah, but rather a sign in the king of Judah's dealings with the kings of Israel and Assyria, and that the child is a sign that before it has matured, both these kings (Israel and Assyria) will have their lands forsaken. It is dealing with a different circumstance in a different setting.

This is why it is so important not to look at scripture in isolation for you miss the intent of the scripture by glossing over it.

And Marietta, you totally surprise me with this quote:

This has nothing at all to do with temple ritual. In the other verse we are told that when Jesus comes again we will be able to touch, feel and understand. The job of the Temple Priest was to guard the Ark/Arc of the Covenant which held the rod and the staff, which are radio active portal opening tools. The High Priest who watched over these object was also radio active and could not be touched. This is also why the Big Gold box could not be touched and was carried with wood poles. Jesus was not in the temple when he made this statement and he explained that the reason he could not be touched was because he had not ascended to his father yet. Although if he had gone to the temple to access the rod and the staff to open the portal into the higher dimensions he may very well have been radio active and this may have been the reason he asked them not to touch him. However this does not take the contradictory verse away.

In the first place, I don't even know where you get you idea of what the duties of a Temple Priest are. It is clear from Leviticus 16 that the High Priest offered sacrifices and sprinkled blood on the Mercy Seta of God in the Holy of Holies to make Atonement for hinself and the people of Israel. And it is in this sense that Jesus is offered as the sacrificial Lamb, as I explained in Hebrews.

I have no clue as where you go the idea that the Ark of the Covenant is some sort of radioactive device. I read nothing in scriptures to indicate that it was. But even if that were true, you have one problem with Jesus being radiated from it. There was no Ark of the Covenant in the Temple at the time of Jesus.

I believe that Jesus presented himself spiritually to the Father as High Priest after Mary and the women left the tomb. And then when He appeared to the Disciples, His task as the High Priest in offering Himself as the perfect sacrifice to God, and therefore redeemed us from our sins, and as that task was completed and he could be touched later when He appeared to the Disciples. That makes perfect sense to me and resolves the contradiction.

I don't think God is a God of confusion, just our understanding of Him if we don't take care to study to show ourselves approved in Scripture. The document we have in our hand may not be perfect, but i don't think it is a corrupt as people make it out to be.

 

[Marietta]

Hello Dondi, Thank you for the reply.
We are in total agreement that you need to keep everything in context, line upon line, precept upon precept. However God didn't give us a text that mankind needed to add rules to in which to understand it. The scriptures should be read in the same manner you read any other book. Let the book speak for itself. If one person reads something in a text that someone else doesn't see, that particular thing was what that person needed at that moment along his personal progression.

God never asked for sacrifice, these scriptures were added to keep us in bondage. You tell me how the blood of an animal or anything else for that matter can take away the wrong deeds of a person?

The Bible is a science book when translated without all the rules that have been applied to the language. The very word Torah according to the Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew language: Torah: a book containing all the sciences of the universe, The Book of the Law (universal laws of physics).

I thought it was common knowledge that the main duty of the temple priest was to guard the Ark of the Covenant. As far as what the rod and staff were. I came to these conclusions while translating the Hebrew text and then it was confirmed by through the teachings of Ashayanna Deanne in what are called the freedom teachings. It is hinted at in our bible translations which is why I started doing some research on the topic starting with going back to the Hebrew text. I was writting a book "Genesis the Glory of God and the Apostasy" and was writting a chapter on the Ark of the Covenanet over fifteen years ago. Then three years ago I came across the teachings of Ashayanna Deanne. I will post a seperate post with her explination as to the Ark of the Covenanet.

Why do you think anybody who touched the Ark of the Covenant fell over dead? How do you think they communicated with God using the Ark of the Covenant? We are told that God sat on the mercy seat, which on the top portion of the big gold box which had Seraphim on each end with wings spread out forming an ARC allowing this section to hold higher dimensional frequency. It acted like a radio receiver allowing a higher dimensional being to communicate with them. The contents were two portal opening tools (the rod and the staff) that were used during stellar activation cycles to assist in opening what are called Star Gates. Which are simply vortices of energy creating an opening between frequency bands or dimensions.
In our translated text if you look carefully you will see that there are two distinctly different beings called "The Lord" (YHVH). One is called The YHVH Saboath and the other is called the angel YHVH. These two beings give opposing messages.
God never asked for sacrifice and finds it offensive.
Isaiah 1:10-16:Hear (a)the word of the LORD, You rulers of Sodom; Give ear to the instruction of our God, You people of Gomorrah.
What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, And the fat of fed cattle. And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats.
When you come to appear before Me, Who has required this of you?
Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies-- I cannot endure iniquity or the solemn assembly.
I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to Me. I am weary of bearing them.
So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you, Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil,

Again how can the blood of a man or animal take away the transgressions of another person?

I agree that God is not a god of confusion, and that it is our misunderstandings that need to be evaluated.

Well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree at the extent at which the scriptures are in error.

With Love and Light, Midge

 

[kenod]

Kenod, Are you saying that because your wife is always contradicting herself, that God contradictss him/herself? God is not a God of confusion and is not double minded. God/Source has the ability to speak in plain and simple terms in a straight forward fashion so as not to be contridictory.
Why would God set out to confuse us?
Midge

The point of my little anecdote (post #13) was that my wife did not contradict herself - I failed to understand her meaning because I did not consider all the relevant information.

When you take isolated statements out of the Bible and try to compare them you will get superficial contradictions, not substantiated by thorough study.

Consider this, supposedly written by King Solomon, reputedly one of the wisest men that ever lived, and yet he can't even write two consecutive sentences without contradicting himself ... or can he???

Proverbs 26:4

​

Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest thou also be like unto him.
​

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


​

 

[kenod]

By the way, there are no contradictions in the original language.
Midge

Which is?

 

[kenod]

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that the Bible has errors, just like any other holy book?
I agree that a lot of those contradictions are only apparent, but factual differences cannot be ironed out, just like the one regarding the death of Judas.

It really isn't that difficult.

How did President Kennedy die?

A. He was shot in Dealey Plaza, Dallas.

B. He died in Parklands Hospital from a head wound.

How did Judas die?

Matthew 27:5
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

 

[bananabrain]

well, well, well. what an interesting discussion.

first of all, i ought to say that my interest in this is not a question of whether the "new testament" contradicts the "old testament" or not, because as a jew the "new testament" is not a sacred book for me, so i am only concerned as to whether the "old testament", in particular the Torah contradicts itself or not, so that is what my comments here will refer to.

you will be spectacularly unsurprised at my point of view, which is that the contradictions in the Torah are there for a reason and the reason is that we are supposed to learn stuff from them. they are not, incidentally, "apparent" contradictions. of course G!D Is non-contradictory as well as contradictory, as well as paradoxical, the 'mind' of G!D being of course ineffable and impossible for humans to understand. what we are concerned is with what we are being taught and what we are meant to understand and why the contradictions are there. the basic thing to remember is that this is about Law. where you have a contradiction, the cases must necessarily be different. this is an axiom of the study and hermeneutics of Torah.

a word about "hermeneutics", incidentally - it's a greek word deriving from "hermes". needless to say, the sages did not use the word "hermeneutics". they used a variety of words which could be translated variously as "delve into", "teach", "expound", "explain" and so on. in a contemporary conversation about methodology, it is perfectly acceptable and not at all problematic to use the word "hermeneutics", so let's knock that one on the head straight away. this brings us to another fundamental issue which i suspect may be problematic:

the position of judaism is that there are TWO Torahs. one, the "written Torah" is the Torah text that was written down, the one in your bible. the other, the "oral Torah" is the set of laws and understandings and methodologies and all the other stuff that explains the written Torah. for example, there are rules for divorce in the written Torah but no rules for marriage - yet people obviously get married, it is implicit in the idea of divorce. therefore, there must be rules about how you get married. these rules are in the oral Torah, which existed from the time of the Revelation at sinai and, in some cases, before it, according to our sages. the oral Torah remained oral until the Temple was destroyed by the romans, at which time we decided it was in danger and started writing it down, which became what is known as the mishnah and the gemara, or talmud. these books contain the means to understand the "contradictions" in the written Torah.

if you don't agree with this, incidentally, there isn't much room for discussion. this is what judaism believes and that is pretty much how it is. human interpretation has been agreed to have the power to interpret and in some cases modify the written Torah, as established by the precedent of the "oven of achnai" incident in the talmud. (bava metzia 59b) assuming you're not going to argue with that, we can then move on to specific instances, which i'll have to come back to, since i've run out of time for today.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Marietta]

Kenod, I am refering to the Aramaic text here.

Midge

 

[Marietta]

Hello bananabrain, Thanks for the reply.

I agree that we can learn from the contradictions in the text we have at our disposal. We can learn from the stories in a comic book as well. However people don't make the claim that a comic book is divinely inspired.

As for myself whay I have found in the Hebrew text and I have come to believe is that The Divine Absolute Source of all things which I chose to shorten to Source (Gd if you chose). is in truth all that exists. Everything else is merely the result of an action/thought that Source had. Once Source had a thought and it took form/or non form, that form/non form began thinking and these thoughts took form and so on. There fore the translations we have access to even though manipulated at the hands of mankind with the intent to deceive are in an indirect way still the result of the first action of Source. However I do believe that Source still inspires mankind and talks to those who will listen giving us deeper insights into what the under laying text truly says.

We agree that there are two torah's within Judaism one written and the other one is that which is found between the lines when viewing the Hebrew text and allowing the letters themselves to speak to you. This is where I began to find answers to my questions. After letting a single letter like beth in Genesis 1:1 speak to me I than add the second letter rehsh and they both tell of something together then I add the ahleph and together the three speak. When the group gets to the point that they no longer get along or agree, I go back to the second letter, rehsh and start all over again. Then I take each letter independently of each other and let them each talk to me as I build upon each of their statements. Then I take the groupings that man has broken down and see what they have to say. It is amazing what a wonderful physics book the Torah truly is.
The third Torah

There are almost as many different branches of Judaism as there are Christianity. Each with its differing beliefs. Hasidic, Kabalistic, Reform, Orthodox to mention only a few. And then there are as many differing openions between the people as there are among any system of belief.
Therefore you can not speak for Judaism at large you can merely give your view as to how your mind has come to understand what you have been taught.

The Oral Torah is merely a set of judicial laws put together by the heads of the community and because of the understanding that all comes from the first source they were considered God inspired. However the written text was brought into this dimension from the higher dimensions and said to be written by the finger of Source.

Within Peace, Midge

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Marietta!

I'm not sure what you are asking as to how my beliefs serve me in dealing with the rest of humanity? Please clarify this for me.

OK, it was in response to this:

It is my understanding that the bible has been manipulated and mistranslated on purpose to keep mankind under bondage so that the Fallen Angels can take control of us.

It just seems to me that someone who teaches that the Bible is deliberately manipulated to keep mankind in bondage is themselves trying to bind their flock with an undeserved fear. My opinion, having been under the influence of similar in times past.

I truly believe in the saying "live and let live." I live my life as I see fit and allow others to do the same. I don't try to impose my thoughts upon others, however when asked I do share my personal understanding on any given subject.

This seems to me fair enough.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the rule around our house. My grand kids know it by heart and they are still relatively young. I try to apply this across the board in my life. I have also incorporated the saying "Love your neighbor as yourself" into my life as well because I believe that we are all connected on a much higher level of existence and by causing harm to another will inadvertently brings harm to myself in one way or another (because on a much higher lever my neighbor is myself).

Seems fair enough.

Just the opposite, I do not wish to control anybody however I do wish to take control of my own life and thought processes. There is no fear in true knowledge. Fear is the unknown factor and once you face it and become familiar with it you over come it.

While what you say seems to me to be true, it also seems to contradict the earlier statement, "It is my understanding that the bible has been manipulated and mistranslated *on purpose* to keep mankind under bondage so that the Fallen Angels can take control of us."

Why would a figure of speech contradict itself, when the story is supposed to be the same?
How can a contradiction which has to do with the number of something be cultural?

I wasn't trying to be all inclusive, my statement was short because of time limitations.

The specific "contradiction" I had in mind was:

The earth is not flat, as once thought. It has no corners at all, and "ends of the earth" is not typically interpreted as from outer space. (Besides, what would be the ends? Why should the magnetic poles be "ends" as opposed to the axis of rotation?)

"Ends of the earth" is a colloquialism, and it would not surprise me if it is Elizabethan in origin. The "four corners" (which have been confirmed by satellite observation as four distinctly high points on the globe) is a figure of speech, understood well in a cultural context. We speak of the "four winds," yet is this truly so? Or is there but one wind that happens willy nilly to come from whatever angle as the atmospheric need arises? Or are there countless multitudes of winds, by which the proverbial flap of a butterfly's wings might produce a storm a world away? How can we say with certainty how the majesty of G-d's creation operates? Today, in many cases we have textbook guesses on how things work on an overall basis, such as weather, geography and topology. How could people 500 years ago, or two thousand years ago, or four thousand years ago, understand these same phenomena? So they used colloquialisms and figures of speech...

Obviously, this does not answer all of your questions for all of your contradictions, but it does answer many of them. At least, it has answered the same questions for me.

 

[Marietta]

Hello Juantoo3,
I still don't understand your logic here. Are you saying that if I overheard someone trying to bread into your house and decided to tell you so you could be aware that, this inadvertently would mean that I am going to try to bread into your house? Please help me understand where this is coming from.
You stated:
It just seems to me that someone who teaches that the Bible is deliberately manipulated to keep mankind in bondage is themselves trying to bind their flock with an undeserved fear. My opinion, having been under the influence of similar in times past>>>>

How does making a statement that the bible has been manipulated by the fallen angels as a means of control, contradictory to my belief in Total Free Will?
You haven't taken away any of the contradictions. You have merely tried to cover them up with religious dogma.
Love and Light, Midge

 

[Caimanson]

It really isn't that difficult.

How did President Kennedy die?

A. He was shot in Dealey Plaza, Dallas.

B. He died in Parklands Hospital from a head wound.

Kenod, I doubt wether such conflicting accounts will stand in a court of law.
How could he pay for the field with the reward, if Matthew says that he got rid of the coins in the temple out of guilt?
Now, you can come with all sorts of explanations, ie the branch where he hanged himself broke, he had savings elsewhere, etc.

The point is that this difference is not really important, the moral of Judas' death is more or less the same.
However it does guard you from the dogma that the bible is infallible at all levels.

 

[kenod]

Kenod, I doubt wether such conflicting accounts will stand in a court of law.
How could he pay for the field with the reward, if Matthew says that he got rid of the coins in the temple out of guilt?
Now, you can come with all sorts of explanations, ie the branch where he hanged himself broke, he had savings elsewhere, etc.

The point is that this difference is not really important, the moral of Judas' death is more or less the same.
However it does guard you from the dogma that the bible is infallible at all levels.

Whether the Bible is the infallible Word of God or not, is a matter of faith.

Whether there are contradictions in the Bible is a matter of reasoning. I have never found any that stand up to scrutiny.

How did Judas pay for the field? It is all explained in Matthew 27.


Some also see a connection with John 12:6

He [Judas] did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. (NIV)

​

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Marietta!

I still don't understand your logic here. Are you saying that if I overheard someone trying to bread into your house and decided to tell you so you could be aware that, this inadvertently would mean that I am going to try to bread into your house? Please help me understand where this is coming from.

I'm not sure what making bread has to do with any of this...

You stated:
It just seems to me that someone who teaches that the Bible is deliberately manipulated to keep mankind in bondage is themselves trying to bind their flock with an undeserved fear. My opinion, having been under the influence of similar in times past>>>>

How does making a statement that the bible has been manipulated by the fallen angels as a means of control, contradictory to my belief in Total Free Will?

In short, the implication is that everyone who has any exposure whatsoever to the Bible is under Satanic influence. Of course, if this is so, what makes you think you are not under the same control? The point that you have been made aware? Ummm, I don't think so. Such teaching implies the Bible is not of G-d, but of His adversary, which is counter-intuitive on many levels. I can just as easily teach *your* dogma, that you are under Satanic influence. In the end, we would simply be name calling and pointing fingers, would we not?

You haven't taken away any of the contradictions. You have merely tried to cover them up with religious dogma.

Please keep in mind who first brought out and fired the "dogma" gun. You haven't considered the concept or effect of colloquialisms and figures of speech on the text, you have merely covered the concept up with your own dogma.

I stated, very plainly, that colloquialisms are not the be all and end all answer, but that in some instances your "contradictions" are easily answered by understanding that cultures and languages, including the Elizabethan English of the KJV, do have figures of speech that were not meant to be taken literally. There are some terms that employ poetic license. This is not Satanic, this is how civilizations of old relate to things they do not comprehend.

Dismissal with charges of "dogma" do not derail or take away from this reality. Any studied linguist knows I am speaking truly.

Best of luck in your search.

 

[Marietta]

Greetings Juantoo,
Sorry about that it should have read Break-in Not bread, Oh my I did it twice in one paragraph. Sorry!

You have misunderstood me totally because I didn't intend what you are saying and surely don't believe that reading something that is mistranslated puts anybody under satanic control. Where did you come up with this? Just because someone mistranslated a text and I have read it does not mean that I am under satanic control. Where do you get this stuff?

Please explain how I brought out any kind of Guns. All I have done is explain what I have come to understand. If you don't agree with what I have said and can give proof please do so however don't twist what I have written and accuse me of saying everybody that has read the bible is under satanic control.

How do you know what I have taken into consideration? As a matter of fact I have given a lot of thought to colloquialisms and figures of speech, which is a small part of what has brought me to the conclusions I have come to. You are making assumptions that are not true.
You have not read anything that I have posted that mentions Satan so why do you insist on using that term as though I have used it?
We will just have to disagree on this.
Best of luck to you as you find your way.
With Love and Light, Midge

 

[kenod]

Kenod, I am refering to the Aramaic text here.
Midge

Is it your understanding that all of the New Testament was written in Aramaic?

Do you have access to the original text in Aramaic?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Marietta!

You have misunderstood me totally because I didn't intend what you are saying and surely don't believe that reading something that is mistranslated puts anybody under satanic control.

I suppose that is possible that I misunderstood, like when I did not understand that when you wrote "bread" you actually meant to write "break-in."

Where did you come up with this? Just because someone mistranslated a text and I have read it does not mean that I am under satanic control. Where do you get this stuff?

You. "the bible has been manipulated by the fallen angels as a means of control."

Please explain how I brought out any kind of Guns. All I have done is explain what I have come to understand. If you don't agree with what I have said and can give proof please do so however don't twist what I have written and accuse me of saying everybody that has read the bible is under satanic control.

Why the attitude? All I did was point out to you what you were accusing others of. "It is my understanding that the bible has been manipulated and mistranslated on purpose to keep mankind under bondage so that the Fallen Angels can take control of us."

How do you know what I have taken into consideration? As a matter of fact I have given a lot of thought to colloquialisms and figures of speech, which is a small part of what has brought me to the conclusions I have come to. You are making assumptions that are not true.

Perhaps you have looked into these things in times past, but in our particular conversation it is evident you were not considering linguistic norm.

You have not read anything that I have posted that mentions Satan so why do you insist on using that term as though I have used it?

Considering your first post, and your last one, I think equation between "fallen angels" and "Satan" is quite appropriate.

We will just have to disagree on this.

As you wish. I have yet to meet an esotericist that doesn't get upset when confronted with logic. Ask Tai.

 

[Marietta]

Greetings Kenod, Yes, it is my understanding that the original text of the NT were written in Aramaic.
Yes, I have a copy of the Peshitta.

You wrote:
Is it your understanding that all of the New Testament was written in Aramaic?
Do you have access to the original text in Aramaic?

Love and LIght, Midge