What is the biggest bible contradiction?

But there is plenty of reason to claim otherwise. A respected Jewish rabbi of the period would have been married with children - that is the default condition. If anybody wants to claim he wasn't, the onus is on them to prove it. Well... not fully understanding of the human condition? When somebody tells you you need to be like a little child, you want Him to have spent a few sleepless nights with a sick one. I agree. But it isn't just the desire to sin that makes one "completely and utterly human" - it's the knowledge that we have sinned and the ability to deal with that knowledge.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Yes. If you've never been sick, you're not "completely and utterly human". If you've never been drunk or had a hangover, you're not "completely and utterly human". If you've never been in love, never hated, never been angry, never been jealous, never been emarassed, never wished you were dead, you're not "completely and utterly human"."Completely and utterly human" is a contradiction in itself. Nobody human is complete. We're each a subset of what makes up humanity.My point was that some Christians want Jesus to be "completely and utterly human" without any of the traits that make us human.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Oh Ringo...So... You're saying that in order to be human... (In other words to qualify)... one must sin???It isn't enough that we must endure the temptation?I think the most profound thing about the Bible is the message that humanity was created to be like Jesus!The message is that being human is reflecting the power of God. And in order to reflect that power... one must be in touch with it's source.Man cannot look to himself for a power that only originates with God.It seems to me that the thing you find sinful, is the declaration that we were meant to be perfect, and that if we are not, then we are sinners.Yet... you let the cat out of the bag my dear laddy... You acknowledged that to err is human. In other words, you acknowledged that you are a sinner.It is very interesting. Very interesting indeed, that you find sin, a necessary component of being Human.Anastasia is correct. It is not impossible to not sin. The only thing it requires, is compete submission to God's will.That you acknowledge that sin is sin is too rich!Talk about a contradiction... you say that sin is sin, yet make provision for it as a prerequsite for humanity. If that were the case my dear Ringo... it would not be sin! It would simply be who we are.That is the question isn't it... Who are we?The answer is found, in the person of Jesus Christ!Are you saying that He cheated by being God?That's a rather foolish charge don't you think? Kind of like dimissing the school teacher's credentials because the teacher already knows the subject.Shouldn't we be glad that the teacher can teach from a position of authority? After all, who wants to be led by an equal?

Christians who claim that Jesus was the suffering servant AND claim he was never married or had children present a contradiction as well.The suffering servant would have children:Isaiah 53:10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. Christians argue that 'seed' (zera) is used metaphorically, yet in every occurrence related to offspring in the OT it is used to signify biological children.If Jesus never had any children, then he wasn't the servant of Isaiah.Brian.

We are all first century con men?Brian.

somewhat. i was just saying that it was a fitting (if unintentional) title.

---

no, that's not what i'm saying. what i'm saying is strictly logical. god can becomes a man if he wishes. but if and when he does, he ceases to be god, by definition. you are either god or man, but not both. they are opposites. so can "deer" and "fish." nothing cryptic there. eloah is the word elohim is probably derived from. and it happens to be singular. shall i prove it to you again? every case of the word elohim in the bible, in reference to yahueh, is singular because it is used with a singular verb. because the word ends in -im, it's plural case looks identical.i have an even better example for you, in english. look at the word "mathematics." it ends in -s, our "plural" case, but say it in a sentance for me. "mathematics is hard." hmm, "is." singular verb. the word is singular, it just looks plural to someone who doesn't know better. no one who speaks english would say "mathematics are hard." because one would not beg themselves for something they could just easily do without the fuss. and anyone who sits around whining for themselves to do something it a fool. this makes jesus as a sacrifice to mankind from god, not a sacrifice from mankind to god. are you ok with that reading? god taking human form and god being born of a human being are very different things. there would be no need for god to impregnant mary -- why couldn't jesus just stroll down from heaven one day, fully formed and adult? moshe split the red sea and produced water from a rock. those are god-like tricks, aren't they? one can be given power and authority by god without being god. see for instance in job, where satan is given godlike power over job. satan is not god, is he? any son of his brother, zedekiah, is a rightful heir to the throne of judah. zedekiah, as you recall, was the last king of judah after jehoiakim and his son were removed from power. jehoiakim's claim to the throne ended there, and the line should have continued from zedekiah. (read kings a little more carefully. i have a thread on this somewhere) you have to be in the line of david to sit on the throne. i'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. if you are not a descendant of david, you are not in his line. and there are lots of rightful heirs in the line of zedekiah.however, it's a moot point, since jesus was never king of judah, and never sat on the throne. mary is irrelevant. women determine cultural heritage. men determine royalty. you're misreading that rather egregiously. the issue is about who's son, not about being god. in hebrew of the hundred and tenth psalm has:

quote:

---

, —

​

naum yahueh l'adonai

​

said yahueh to my lord.

---

the two "lords" are NOT the same. one is the name of god, the other is a relatively common title. see for instance how lot addresses the disguised angels in genesis 19:

quote:

---

Gen 19:2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house...

---

same word. and he didn't know they were angels.i think the best explanation (even though it makes jesus mistaken) is that the lowercase "lord" here is david. it's a psalm of david, but it's a mistake to think these were all songs by david, just because tradition says so. but even if you don't like that reading, and accept that it is about the messiah, then at least understand that in the bible, adonai carries little or no implication of divinity, just of heirarchy. listen. you're thinking about this way too hard. if i say "this whole country is dumb for electing george w. bush" do i mean that every single person who lives here is an idiot? even if i say so? and do i mean that every person who has ever lived here or ever WILL live here is also an idiot? at best it's a statement about the present.

quote:

---

1Ki 15:3 And he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father.

---

bar and ben both mean "son." bat means daughter, yes. just for fun, try and find the plural of "daughter" if you don't believe me. it's not bat plus the -ot feminine plural ending like one would expect. it's ben plus the feminine plural ot, and thos "banot." literally, a feminine plural of "sons." ethiopians are north-eastern african. their claims to judaism might be plausible, but are unverified. (they also claim to be in possession of the ark of the covenant). the south african jewish tribe is the lemba, the majority of which possess the kohanim modal haplotype, and thus are legitimately semitic sons of aaron, levites, even though the look completely african. oh, and while we're on contradictions.

quote:

---

Deu 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

---

ruth is a late text, and generally not considered authoritative by jews. it fails to mention god in any significant way, and ruth essentially seduces a man if i recall.in case you're looking for the solution to this contradiction, obed's mother was a jewish woman, naomi. not ruth, his biological mother. it's an odd tradition, but when families are left without male heirs, sometimes children get re-arranged in the family tree. the bible is full of people with special relationships with god. and certainly every christian i have ever met claims to have one too. read more closely. look at specifically:

quote:

---

When He does wrong, I will punish Him

---

and

quote:

---

But My love will never be taken away from Him,

---

and compare that to "my god, my god, why have you abandoned me?" halakah does not.

quote:

---

Lev 2:1 And when any will offer a meat offering unto the LORD, his offering shall be [of] fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon:

---

flour and oil are acceptable sacrifices too. the focus on the blood is an entirely unfounded (and morbid!) reading of the text. it is the giving heart that grants forgiveness of sin, not death. don't believe me?

quote:

---

Luk 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

​

Luk 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

---

and nobody died. clearly, he can and does. he told adam that if he ate from the tree, he'd kill him on the spot. he did not. time after time god forgives man in the old testament. christians just tend not to look for it. but it's there. which is impossible if they are one and the same. one day on the cross? they liked to keep people alive on those things, you know. better punishment that way. how is that prophetic? he's asking a question, out of despair and torment. ever watch star trek? this is the biblical kobyashi maru test. there is no right answer. the story tells us one thing, actually. it tells us that god does not want human sacrifice. by phrasing the jesus story in terms of this genesis story, and applying it as a parallel, you are actually undermining this jesus bit. because this story is the bit that removes all possibility of "jesus as sacrifice." it's like phrasing armageddon in terms of the flood myth, in which god tells us he'll never destroy the earth again. yeah, they line up nicely. but if the point of the first time is that there won't be a second... it's hard to use it that way. christian sure don't. they have answers for everything, usually involving very little textual analysis. or, you know, actually fulfilled any messianic prophecies. no peace on earth. no return of missing tribes of israel. no king of judah. you kind of have to do those things to be the messiah. that's the definition. really? everyone on the earth has to be christian? that's not the way i remember revelation going at all... there are whole threads on that. we went through about 2/3rds of the supposed messianic prophecies, found most of them to not actually be prophetic, and every one that was we look at and found to not possibly be about jesus. perhaps you should find those threads. we only stopped, because people wouldn't shuttup about isaiah 7:14. and please don't even start on that here. melchizedek? the preist of yahueh in (jeru)salem, before abraham? i'm not aware of this line sticking around, but it's a detail i may have forgotten. was samuel one? it's not a surprise that jesus followed jewish law. in hebrew, ben adam means "mortal." ben elohim are a class of angels or demigods. ben david were kings. which one was jesus? how about we just acknowledge that the scripture is contradictory, instead of supposing contradictory ideas to rectify it? yes, but one cannot be all three at once. havaing looked into qabalah (before it was popular) i can confidently say that it is mystical bs, the equivalent of gnosticism in the christian church. it bases its beliefs on a completely separate set of texts, basically saying that the bible is the dumbed-down version intended for man, but the qabalah is the secrets given to the angels. more like vice-versa. it's a pet hypothesis of mine, that john was attempting to attract gnostic-minded people back to mainstread early christianity. exactly. read them carefully and independently. you'll find that, well, the devil is in the details. yes, and to say that a mortal being is god is also blasphemy. i've heard this before. and there are a number of problems. let's examine them.first is that while "shet" does mean "appointed," he is given that name because he was "compensation" for abel. it means "appointed in the place of another."second, "enosh" means "man." the sense is mortality, but it comes from the word for "sick," anash. the modern hebrew ish and isah for man and woman are probably related as their plurals are nashim and anashim.third, mahalalel comes from mi-halal-el. "from light of god" halal, btw, is the same word as hillel, or heylel ("lucifer"). just so you know."enoch" or chanok comes from chanak, meaning "dedicated." not a surprise, as enoch was the one who walked with god. "methuselah" apparently means "man at arms" lemek means "fool" or perhaps "poor person" (in the sense of money)i don't think it says what you want it to say. it's like a rhyme scheme, but instead of rhyming it repeats. can you see how the lines are parallel? one line will say something, and the next will say the same thing in slightly different terms? sometimes adding something?

---

I thought you were saying ...

• it is important that
• the "NAME" [sic!] of genesis is b'reishit
• (even though Torah titles are no more than conventions)
• therefore [?]
• "in the beginning" could refer to basically everything

... as opposed to:

• It's important to note that "b'reishit", the Hebrew name given to Genesis, simply reflects a convention and has no relevance to the discussion of the Torah and creation ex nihilo.

Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : No reason given.

Anastasia wrote:

quote:

---

I did not realize there was a Trinity debate going over here too.

---

The logical inconsistency of the trinity is a problem that has been present for over 1,800 years. All of the early Christianities (Sabellians, Thomasines, Roman, Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites, and literally dozens more) were centered around Jesus - so he had to be at least special or divine. But they needed to tie to the old testament to gain respectability. But the OT said over and over and over that there was only 1 God to be worshipped. Plus you had that darn holy spirit flying around. What to do, what to do????The Roman church solved it by developing the trinity idea between the years of 150 and 300 CE. That’s why the trinity isn’t mentioned in the Bible, which is made up of books all written by around 150. That’s also why the Gospels contain so many things that contradict the trinity (like the baptism and Jesus/Father conversations mentioned), and why the trinity is poorly supported by the Bible. The only verse in the entire Bible that explicitly gives the doctrine of the trinity (1John5:7) is well known to be a forgery.Christians for centuries have tried to read the idea of the trinity into out of context verses in the Bible. On closer examination they all vaporize in a puff of fluffy thought. For example:Genesis Chapter 1 : God says “let US create man . .”“US” is plural - so that must mean the trinity!! Or, it could mean 2, or 5, or 8 or 1032 or . .. Hardly evidence of the trinity.Isaiah chapter 6:
And one said in a loud voice to another, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of armies: all the earth is full of his glory.“Holy” is used three times! It must mean the trinity is true! Oh, but our oldest copy of Isaiah only says “holy, holy” (2 holies), and even with holy holy holy, that hardly means the trinity. If I say you are a cool, cool guy, I’m not saying you are two people in one person who is really two people but is really one essence of one person in two forms of one person who isn't just in two modes or forms but is really two distinct people in one personhead (with equal parts that aren't parts, nor peices parts), which isn't contradictory, or it is, but it is beyond your ability to understand, so stop asking pesky questions.But there are vague references to Jesus in the OT, like in Judges, when moses holds up his arms, he looks like a cross - which has to be referring to Jesus!You’ve got to be kidding - just holding up one’s arms doesn’t make it a reference to Jesus, and certainly doesn’t prove the trinity. The old testament doesn’t talk about Jesus - that’s why nearly all ancient Jews rejected Christianity. They knew their scripture. Christianity had to grow among the non-jews, which it did.In the of a million words that make up the Bible, you’d think that if the writers of the Bible thought the trinity existed, then some phrase like “God is composed of three beings, the father, son, and holy ghost - these three are one god.” wouldn’t be too much trouble to write. That was only 17 words, and what could be more important than God’s nature?But no. instead we get entire stories copied word for word twice that go on for pages, or pages and pages of geneologies of people who are never again mentioned, or stories about ancient beauty pageants. I guess all those were more important than actually saying the trinity exists.This class explains the development of the trinity well. I highly recommend it, and it isn’t expensive ($35 for cassette - that’s like less than dinner & a movie for two). It is by a world expert on early Christianity, and isn’t preachy.
The Great CoursesThe lack of biblical support for the trinity that we are discussing are why newer Christian churches are rejecting the traditional trinity. That includes the Pentecostals, the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.This started even back in the 1600s with Unitarians. UU’s (who are no longer doctrinally Christian) grew out of the Unitarian Christians, who were called "Unitarian" as a derogatory term by the traditional Christians (who are “Trinitarians”).Have a fun day-Edited by Equinox, : added comma

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Yes Brian! You got it!All except for Him.And as sons of God, Christians are the seed you define with the tenacity of a teacher of the law (lawyer).Christians now inherit (inheritance is another symbol of sonship) eternal life in Christ. It's an 'adoption' in the New Testament.It's a new birth into the divine family.The first century con man bit is so fitting... Apart from God, that is exactly what we are, since God is necessary to illuminate reality for us. God illuminates reality to us in many ways. The only thing we lacked was someone to illuminate for us what humanity really is.Emanuel (God with us) accomplished everything so that we may become sons of God.You are right about something Brian... If Jesus was not the messiah (the Christ) then he is the antichrist. If He was not telling the truth, then He is a deceiver. He made it simple for us to figure out. He reduced the equation to black and white. He spoke in terms that anyone honest could understand. He is either a liar, or He is God in the flesh.There is only Christ, and one antichrist. Those who hear the truth follow the truth. Those who do not, follow their father.Personally, I think you are the deceiver Brian (and it goes for me as well). Apart from God we are one head, of a beast in the sea of mankind. We are one snake in a brood of vipers. We are one fish, in the streams of Pharoah; One scale, on the flesh of leviathan. We lie hidden among the vegitation (the Poplars and fig leaves).But as Plants need photosynthesis for growth, so those of us who are spiritual need truth-synthesis to flourish. And we who are spiritual, see you hiding in our midst. We do not condemn. We ask that you come from behind your concealed position as we once did and bask in the sunshine. You're only concealed in your own delusion. You are not concealed to God or those who's eyes are open.It is your inheritance to gain. It is why you were created... to be a son and not a pauper.

Keep your chin up friend.Acts 13:41
"'Look, you scoffers, wonder and perish, for I am going to do something in your days that you would never believe, even if someone told you.'"http://EvC Forum: What is the biggest bible contradiction? -->EvC Forum: What is the biggest bible contradiction?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Clark
Also, the JW's Bible has even more contradictions and problems than the orthodox Christian Bible.

---

I'm particularly interested in this statement. Should we make a new thread or discuss it here briefly?
Would be very nice to know about these problems and contradictions in JW's Bible. Please, if you have the time.

---

I have a little input here.I looked into this question after my sister became a J.W., and I have a JW translation and have read some of it. Mainly from commentaries by bible scholars, it looks like the translation is pretty much similar to most bibles (like the NIV), except for two points:1. Whenever God is referred to, the write Jehovah, regardless of what word was actually used (like elohim, the lord, whatever).2. They blatantly changed John 1:1. It used to read "and the word was God", and they changed it to "and the word was a god". They changed this because the passage is explicitly talking about Jesus, and they don't believe Jesus was God. They believe Jesus was an incarnation of the archangel Michael (not Gabriel or whoever else). Obviously, like is often the case, the beliefs are more important than what the text said before they changed it. It must have been a previous mistake, after all. That's the same reasoning that could have been why so many early christians changed our Bible in the early centuries of Christianity.Other than those two changes, there apparently aren't other differences nor more contradictions than other translations of the Bible. In reading it I noticed that it still had the verses that we know are later additions, like the ending of the gospels of Mk and Jn, the "first stone" story in Jn 8, etc. I even asked my sister about that, but I only got the boilerplate line of "the bible is perfect because God has been protecting it".Oh well.Have a fun day-P. S. I've always wanted to get a bunch of JW's together to make little magic cloth bags with me at a howard johnson's hotel, while eating those chocolate hostess snacks. Then I'd be making MoJo, eating HoHos at the HoJo with the JoHoHos! Edited by Equinox, : Oh no, HoHo HoJo typo, D'Oh!

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

quote:

---

If He was not telling the truth, then He is a deceiver. He made it simple for us to figure out. He reduced the equation to black and white. ...He is either a liar, or He is God in the flesh.

---

It's hard to know where to start with that statement. First of all, if someone is wrong, that doesn't mean that they wanted to lie. Einstein denied quantum mechanics, but he wasn't lying, he was just plain wrong. Newton was wrong (or at least not completely right) about gravity, yet he clearly wasn't some quantum mechanics master who witheld QM because he wanted to deceive us with this diabolical newtonian system. My mom told me as a child that we were planning on making a underground fallout shelter because the USSR was going to nuke us within the decade. She didn't lie, she was just plain wrong. Both my mom and Einstein are ethical, and intelligent people - anyone can be wrong.And that's not even getting into the very controversial question of whether Jesus himself actually ever claimed to be God, or if that's just a later Christian fabrication."Reducing things to black and white" is the easiest way to get to an answer that is quick, simple, and wrong.

quote:

---

He spoke in terms that anyone honest could understand.

---

That is a topic for whole new thread. Between the question of whether we have a clue about what he may have actually said, and the nasty things recorded from him in gospels, to so much more, I certainly don't have time to even scratch the surface of that statement.

quote:

---

There is only Christ, and one antichrist.

---

Scottness, do you regularly claim things that are contradicted by the Bible? Or do you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe, cafeteria style? 2John 1:7 says that there were already many antichrists, even 1,800 years ago. From the King James Version:

quote:

---

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

---

See ya-Edited by Equinox, : No reason given.Edited by Equinox, : minor add.

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

quote:

---

I've always wanted to get a bunch of JW's together to make little magic cloth bags with me at a howard johnson's hotel, while eating those chocolate hostess snacks. Then I'd be making MoJo, eating HoHos at the HoJo with the JoHoHos!

---

Okay, now that's bad.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

Yes. No.As I said, an important part of being human is the guilt - the knowledge that we are flawed and the responsibility to try to undo the damage caused by our flaws. I'd say the opposite: Jesus was created to be like humanity - but this thread is about contradictions, not profundiites. Bingo. If He was God, that would certainly be cheating, yes. You misunderstand your own analogy. Claiming that Jesus was God and man is like claiming that a person is teacher and student at the same time. If a teacher enrolled in his own class pretending to be a student, that would certainly be "cheating". Should we expect our teacher to walk around in baggy pants with His hat on backwards, saying, "Yo, yo," and calling everybody "dog"? Me.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC