Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[Napoléon]

You see, you might be surprised to know that I've had several Christians tell me I'm not a Christian.

Nope, it happens quite often, that's why there's thousands of different denominations who each think they have it spot on.

For if I was, they explain, I'd have no doubts. I'm wondering what opinion you have on their observation they have about people like you and me. (By saying you and me, I'm not saying I share the certainty of you atheism, I'm saying share your doubts about the clarity of the Bible.)

Like I said, their opinion is bullshit.

You don't believe exactly as they believe, so you're not a True Christian™.

Millions of Christians disagree with each other on so many aspects of their own religion. Millions more simply pick and choose what they want to believe to suit them, which results in millions of Christians each with their own versions of their religion. Further evidence that, even if their god did communicate to the world in such an ambiguous way, they've all got it completely wrong.

This is more reasoning which leads me to the understanding that the bible is bollocks.

[pgrimes15]

MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Spockrates, did you ever come up with an explaination for the 3 different versions of JCs' last words. The MAT and LUK verses could be reconciled as you pointed out earlier, but the one from JOH doesn't seem to be linked.

Regards

Grimesy

[spockrates]

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


This is stating that whomever believes in Jesus, would have everlasting life.

A disobedient lover of the life of this world can believe in Jesus.

Yeah needing baptism and other stuff, all contradicts this notion. Over here, the verse is clear, all you need is to believe.

Therefore if there is other requirements for salvation, then there is a contradiction.

Yes, I hear what you are saying. That sounds extremely similar to the response an Evangelical would give the Catholic, except for the part about there being a contradiction. The Evangelical would say there is no contradiction, for any genuine Christian will do the good things mentioned in the verses you provided, but these good things are not cause of being saved from hell, they are only a consequence of such a salvation. Good deeds are not the reason for receiving eternal life; they are only the result of such a life. The Catholic, they'd say, confuses corellation with causation, and for this reason, there is no contradiction. For the first verse you mentioned is speaking of the cause of salvation, but the other verses are speaking of salvation's effects.

---

You see, you might be surprised to know that I've had several Christians tell me I'm not a Christian.

Nope, it happens quite often, that's why there's thousands of different denominations who each think they have it spot on.

For if I was, they explain, I'd have no doubts. I'm wondering what opinion you have on their observation they have about people like you and me. (By saying you and me, I'm not saying I share the certainty of you atheism, I'm saying share your doubts about the clarity of the Bible.)

Like I said, their opinion is bullshit.

You don't believe exactly as they believe, so you're not a True Christian™.

Millions of Christians disagree with each other on so many aspects of their own religion. Millions more simply pick and choose what they want to believe to suit them, which results in millions of Christians each with their own versions of their religion. Further evidence that, even if their god did communicate to the world in such an ambiguous way, they've all got it completely wrong.

This is more reasoning which leads me to the understanding that the bible is bollocks.

Well, I would not go so far as to say the Bible is bollocks, but it seems to me that many who misread it are! (Present company excluded, I mean.)



Your answer is actually the one I've given during conversations with those of such certain beliefs. I have to admit that I admire how sure they are of themselves, but I wonder if such a complete absence of doubt makes one more susceptible to deception, rather than less so.

[Mystic]

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


This is stating that whomever believes in Jesus, would have everlasting life.

A disobedient lover of the life of this world can believe in Jesus.

Yeah needing baptism and other stuff, all contradicts this notion. Over here, the verse is clear, all you need is to believe.

Therefore if there is other requirements for salvation, then there is a contradiction.

Yes, I hear what you are saying. That sounds extremely similar to the response an Evangelical would give the Catholic, except for the part about there being a contradiction. The Evangelical would say there is no contradiction, for any genuine Christian will do the good things mentioned in the verses you provided, but these good things are not cause of being saved from hell, they are only a consequence of such a salvation. Good deeds are not the reason for receiving eternal life; they are only the result of such a life. The Catholic, they'd say, confuses corellation with causation, and for this reason, there is no contradiction. For the first verse you mentioned is speaking of the cause of salvation, but the other verses are speaking of salvation's effects.

As I said, you can say hypothetically believers will not disobey God or desire the of this world, it's however unrealistic, reality shows they do disobey God and desire the life of this world.

In other words, these salvation effects are not there in the real world. Christians are not all saints.

[Napoléon]

Well, I would not go so far as to say the Bible is bollocks, but it seems to me that many who misread it are!

But how can you be sure that your interpretation is the correct one? When so many disagree with you, when it is ambiguous, when mistranslations have occurred, when the bible itself has been written and rewritten by all sorts of people throughout history?

It is by a mile, far more likely that a 'correct' interpretation does not exist.

Your answer is actually the one I've given during conversations with those of such certain beliefs. I have to admit that I admire how sure they are of themselves, but I wonder if such a complete absence of doubt makes one more susceptible to deception, rather than less so.

When you discredit reason, and replace it with faith, why do you need to doubt what you believe? The whole thing about using reason is that you do doubt.

[spockrates]

Yes, I hear what you are saying. That sounds extremely similar to the response an Evangelical would give the Catholic, except for the part about there being a contradiction. The Evangelical would say there is no contradiction, for any genuine Christian will do the good things mentioned in the verses you provided, but these good things are not cause of being saved from hell, they are only a consequence of such a salvation. Good deeds are not the reason for receiving eternal life; they are only the result of such a life. The Catholic, they'd say, confuses corellation with causation, and for this reason, there is no contradiction. For the first verse you mentioned is speaking of the cause of salvation, but the other verses are speaking of salvation's effects.

As I said, you can say hypothetically believers will not disobey God or desire the of this world, it's however unrealistic, reality shows they do disobey God and desire the life of this world.

In other words, these salvation effects are not there in the real world. Christians are not all saints.

Agreed. There might be some exceptions, but few (if any) Christians are really like the Christ they profess to imitate. Don't you think?

[Mystic]

Agreed. There might be some exceptions, but few (if any) Christians are really like the Christ they profess to imitate. Don't you think?

A lot are very good people and some are not. But most desire the life of this world.

However, this doesn't mean they are not Christians or believers in Jesus. They believe in him.

Christ is suppose to be perfect, of course, being perfect is not something I'm expecting from Christians.

[Cinjin]

---

This is exactly what it shows, and only a brainwashed person, desperate for meaning, love and an afterlife, could read the entire book, do the tiniest bit of research and still think that this book was written by an omnipotent god.

Ever notice how every god known to mankind has NEVER physically revealed himself to the entire planet?? Ever notice how every god known to mankind has personality traits exactly like humans?? Ever notice that nearly every god known to mankind is ready and willing to kill you and others based on the nationality you were born into?? Most importantly, have you ever noticed that every god that has ever given the human race a message has only ever done so in an old book???

There's many many more, but why do you think these things are?? There's always the fucktard answer: My god (who just happens to be the one true god) requires faith and will reveal himself to those who are "worthy." But isn't it far more likely that they're all a concoction that was produced out of ancient man's need to explain the unexplainable and gain some kind of control over the horrible natural events and accidents that plague mankind's daily lives?

In the bronze age, if your son dies of an infection or an earthquake wipes out your homeland, or the rain refuses to fall on your crops - fear takes over. When most any person (let alone a bronze age simpleton) finds that they have no control over what's happening to them, they look to create ANYTHING that will offer them peace and explain away their woes. The reason why everyone on earth has an old book or an ancient manuscript or tablet is because we're all the same.

The thousands of gods that have been invented over the span of the human race are no more real than the monster that lives under your bed. Both are an interpretation of the stimuli that happen around us. What makes the Bible special? You do. Your acceptance and interpretation of it is all that makes it any different from any other ancient scribblings. Ask any Muslim; they'll tell you that it is a fact that the Quran was written by Allah himself. Well, why aren't we all reading it then? Because the majority of the world already has their own "special book" that their parents told them was the absolute truth. You want to believe your special book is the inspired word of your god? Go ahead ... you're a brainwashed relic of the bronze age.

---

Hey, Cinjin, thanks for the reply. Are these rhetorical questions, or are you asking for my opinion?

Most are meant in a rhetorical sense. However, do feel free to address them how you see fit.
I'm willing to go in circles with you for a short while.

[Angrboda]

The oldest sizable extant copy of the Hebrew OT is dated to 2nd century BC, a complete copy 1000 AD. There are two 7th century BC silver scrolls of the Torah. Translations are made from any of these, as they all match. Since some meaning is lost in any translation, it makes sense to examine the original in cases of importance.

I still don't understand why, if there are in existence ancient scrolls of the Torah which all match, why is there not a definitive translation that everyone can agree on. If it is not possible to make a translation that everyone agrees on how is the bible the inerrant word of god ? If we were talking about a Sophocles play or some other ancient texts that are not making supernatural claims, then we could just agree to disagree about the meaning of any particular word and it would just be a matter of scholarly interest. This is the (origins of) the Bible however, and if I were a christian I would be terrified that a particular doctrine or position came about simply because a scribe thousands of years ago made a mistake.

On another tack, it occurs to me to wonder why the creator of the universe chose to write the instructions to his creations in Hebrew (or Arabic in the Koran if you're a Muslim). Why not in every language that was in existence at that time ?

"The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration, are of themselves evidences that the human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the Word of God. The Word of God exists in something else."

— Thomas Paine, Age of Reason

[Undeceived]

I still don't understand why, if there are in existence ancient scrolls of the Torah which all match, why is there not a definitive translation that everyone can agree on. If it is not possible to make a translation that everyone agrees on how is the bible the inerrant word of god ? If we were talking about a Sophocles play or some other ancient texts that are not making supernatural claims, then we could just agree to disagree about the meaning of any particular word and it would just be a matter of scholarly interest. This is the (origins of) the Bible however, and if I were a christian I would be terrified that a particular doctrine or position came about simply because a scribe thousands of years ago made a mistake.

All Christians believe the original Hebrew text is divinely inspired (if they believe in inspiration at all). The problem arises when there is an ancient Hebrew word with a meaning translators are not sure of. Context is used, but sometimes context is not enough. In any case, we should be safe if (and as it appears) the Hebrew text hasn't changed. Dubious portions of scripture are few and far between. And they have no bearing on the overall message. With four Gospel accounts, it is clear that Jesus died, that He left the tomb, and that many people saw Him. There is no need to be worried about how Judas died. He was so grieved by his actions that he killed himself--that's all we need to know.

On another tack, it occurs to me to wonder why the creator of the universe chose to write the instructions to his creations in Hebrew (or Arabic in the Koran if you're a Muslim). Why not in every language that was in existence at that time ?

I cannot read God's mind, but from scripture I know that He tends to let people work for Him. Why create a miracle to contend with nature when you are the creator of nature and all its beings, designed to do everything you have in mind? Real people wrote the Bible as they were inspired. God chose one group of people to show His judgment and mercy through. 1st century Israel was great to spread the word of Jesus (center of the Roman Empire, trade routes, writing materials). And in following one group from the beginning of time, God determined the language His message to humankind would be written in. The descendants of Abraham could have ended up in China, and the Bible would be in old Mandarin right now. God's precise reasons for choosing the Hebrews we may not know until heaven.