What is the biggest bible contradiction?

Get a better translation ...

J.C. de Moore writes in The Rise of Yahwism: "... the people of Ugarit believed in a kind of creatio continua, like the Egyptians and the Israelites."

quote:

---

it's also important to remember that the NAME of genesis is "b'reishit." the whole book is called "in the beginning." while titles in the torah are taken from the first word, it is a fitting title, as the book is entirely about the beginnings (the genesis) of all kinds of things. so "in the beginning" could refer to basically everything ...
  —arachnophilia

---

I hope that wasn't serious ...

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.

May I ask how you determine that an interpretation has authority worthy of respect or, conversely, has been "proven" to have no authority and is a "purposeful misrepresentation"?Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : No reason given.

anastasia, I asked for criteria, not examples. Again: how do you determine that an interpretation has authority worthy of respect or, conversely, has been "proven" to have no authority and is a "purposeful misrepresentation"?

Yes, thank you.So, what you've told us is

1. the authority of an interpretation is solely a function of the accuracy of the translation, and,
2. conversely, an interpretation can be branded a "purposeful misrepresentation" solely as the consequence of it being based on an inaccurate translation.

On the one hand, you bless disparate interpretations of the same translation with coequal respect. On the other, you insist that all interpretation based on errors in translation are disingenuous. This is, of course, absolute rubbish.Could you offer an authorative interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8?

What you prefer and what you insist are no doubt important to you. What is important to me is an understanding of your selection criteria about which you are apparently confused.

OK - and you don't forget that the above is a faith-based assertion: there is little reason to believe that there is a recoverable historical Jesus and absolutely no reason to believe in either the historicity or the fidelity of a dialogue penned 6 to 9 decades after the purported events by an apologist who may well have been an eyewitness to absolutely nothing of relevance.

I take that as a sincere and heartfelt response and respect it as such.