Bible Contradictions

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Satan is traditionally considered by many to be the chief leader of the fallen angels, particularly by those towards whom your "writings" are so venomously slanted. I am certain you are well aware of this.

Sorry to interrupt you:
As per scheme of life:-

1. Angel/s-are created by God to do good things, they cannot do evil deeds, they can only do things that are good and commanded by God, they cannot defy God's instructions. Their abode is heaven.
2. Devil/s-are created by God only to do evil things. Their abode is hell.
3. Human/s-They can do good things and also evil things and hence rewarded by God accordingly, they have choice; the first two categories have no choice of their own.

Lucifer is incorrectly, by some, described as the leaders of the angels, if he had been any angel, he could not have fallen and done evil things.
Gabriel or the Holy Spirit is the archangel who communicated between man and God.
This is Ahmadia view – a faith in Islam.
Sir, you may continue you discussion, sorry for the interruption.
Thanks

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Inhumility!

Thank you for your post.

Originally Posted by inhumility

As per scheme of life:-

1. Angel/s-are created by God to do good things, they cannot do evil deeds, they can only do things that are good and commanded by God, they cannot defy God's instructions. Their abode is heaven.
2. Devil/s-are created by God only to do evil things. Their abode is hell.
3. Human/s-They can do good things and also evil things and hence rewarded by God accordingly, they have choice; the first two categories have no choice of their own.

Lucifer is incorrectly, by some, described as the leaders of the angels, if he had been any angel, he could not have fallen and done evil things.
Gabriel or the Holy Spirit is the archangel who communicated between man and God.
This is Ahmadia view – a faith in Islam.
Sir, you may continue you discussion, sorry for the interruption.
Thanks

I appreciate this.

There are other traditions that hold that a devil is a fallen angel. And that the first to fall was Satan, and that same fallen angel Satan was instrumental in the fall of man and woman in the garden.

I agree, an angel does good. But at some point in the past, so our tradition says, the chief angel looked with pride and envy on G-d's creation, and decided to claim it for himself. This angel convinced a host to follow him, one third of the angels of heaven, who all "fell" by his deceit and were cast out of heaven. When this angel was good, he was known as Lucifer. After he fell, he became Satan. So Satan is not "just" a fallen angel, he is *the* fallen angel.

I understand Judaism looks at Satan somewhat differently, perhaps more in agreement with what you say. I do not know enough to speak to that.

[kenod]

Originally Posted by 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.

Most likely what you have is an English translation of the Peshitta, of which there are several.

There is no scholarly consensus on whether the NT was written partly in Aramaic. Very few are of the opinion that the NT was written wholly in Aramaic.

The oldest fragments of the NT are in Greek, and many think the Peshitta was translated from the original Greek.

Any argument based on access to the "real" original text is a matter of "personal revelation", not substantiated research.

[bananabrain]

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.

that's not what we mean by the oral Torah. what you are talking about is the deeper meaning of the individual letters and that is an esoteric discipline which is far harder to understand and appreciate. we use a four-level model of interpretation for text, known by the acronym PaRDe"S. there's a short description here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_...tered_Paradise

but you cannot ignore drash and remez and more importantly you cannot ignore peshat. in fact it is a well known principle of Torah hermeneutics that "the text cannot be deprived of its peshat". i'm not talking about letter mysticism here, but about contradictions in peshat, because those are the ones that people are generally discussing when they talk about the Torah contradicting itself.

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.

there is an idea, derived from the "jerusalem Talmud" (shekalim 13b) that the primordial Torah was made from "black fire on white fire". this was once explained to me in terms of a blank sheet of paper, representing the unknowable Mind of G!D. as you cover the paper with writing, it gets further away from the thought, but becomes more and more understandable.

It is amazing what a wonderful physics book the Torah truly is.

hmmm. it's not a book for teaching physics, though. you can find physics in it, but the laws in it function according to different expectations. i'm not going to argue against the idea that "everything is in it", but if you expect to use the Torah to help you do science experiments, i think that's misunderstanding the nature of both.

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.

umph. i'm not "speaking for judaism at large". in these matters i attempt to give a normative mainstream (orthodox if you like, although i detest the word) view which covers as many bases as possible. however, there is unremarkable unity on this question of contradictions in the Text from the orthodox world, so that is what i am presenting.

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 G!D inspired. However the written text was brought into this dimension from the higher dimensions and said to be written by the finger of Source.

except that the written Torah doesn't actually work properly without the oral Torah, so from a traditional viewpoint the two are considered as one. if you think the oral Torah is "merely a set of judicial laws", then you obviously don't know very much about it. it contains far more than laws and is even more important than the written Torah, as this parable from seder eliahu zutta illustrates:

a king had two servants whom he loved very dearly. to each of them he gave a measure of wheat and a stalk of flax. the clever one took the flax and wove it into cloth, took the wheat, turned it into flour, sifted, ground and kneaded it, baked it into bread and laid it on the table on the cloth, awaiting the king's arrival. the foolish one did nothing. the king returned to his palace. "bring me what I gave you" he said. one of them brought out his bread on the table with the cloth; the other produced the measure of wheat in its box with the stalk of flax on top. which one did the king love more? - it was the one who brought out his bread on the table with the cloth underneath it... in the same way, when G!D gave Torah to Israel it was only as wheat is for making bread and flax for making cloth.

as for this stuff about fallen angels, judaism does not believe in such things. for the jewish idea of ha-satan, go look elsewhere on this site, we've discussed it many times.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Dondi]

a king had two servants whom he loved very dearly. to each of them he gave a measure of wheat and a stalk of flax. the clever one took the flax and wove it into cloth, took the wheat, turned it into flour, sifted, ground and kneaded it, baked it into bread and laid it on the table on the cloth, awaiting the king's arrival. the foolish one did nothing. the king returned to his palace. "bring me what I gave you" he said. one of them brought out his bread on the table with the cloth; the other produced the measure of wheat in its box with the stalk of flax on top. which one did the king love more? - it was the one who brought out his bread on the table with the cloth underneath it... in the same way, when G!D gave Torah to Israel it was only as wheat is for making bread and flax for making cloth.

Wow. This parallels a parable Jesus told about the Talents:

Originally Posted by Matthew 25:14-30

For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Now I'm wondering if Jesus might not be referring to the Torah in this passage.

BB, where did you get that parable and how old is it? Does it predate the Gospel of Matthew?

[bananabrain]

interesting, dondi.

the sefer eliyahu zutta is a midrashic work, but its date of composition is not known with any degree of certainty, anywhere between the C1st and the C5th CE i imagine, roughly contemporary with the codification of the Oral Torah. the point it is making is, of course, that you need to interpret Torah through human intervention, ie the process of making it 'edible', as it were, rather than eating it 'raw', which could make it indigestible. a cursory investigation of the respective attitudes towards the book of genesis of the various jewish traditions and that of literalist christians ought to make the reasons obvious.

i believe the good servant/bad servant structure is common to many parables, so the fact that it is in both midrash and the gospels is hardly surprising, but not conclusive proof of influence either way imho.

i've never really looked at the "parable of the talents" before. it seems to me that it could be interpreted in a number of ways. of course, the "good" servant doesn't actually turn the talents into anything else, he multiplies them, but turns them back into the same as what he had before, but more of it. perhaps this is really about evangelisation and conversion - jesus is perhaps saying here that you have to extend the "kingdom of heaven", not restrict it to an elect group, "buried in the ground". that's just how i read it, which i suppose makes it a support for the pauline universalist position rather than that of james and the other people who just thought christianity was for jews only. i dare say there are a plethora of other ways to interpret it.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Marietta]

flow, Thank you for the response, I agree with you that this kind of logic only ends up taking us in circles and only leads to biting our own tail. As long as a person remains in circular thinking they get nowhere.
Thank You, Midge


You replied:
>>You are hereby forgiven. 123 has tried these tactics with many here, and we just go along to a point...then it ends. Circular logic always ends up with the dog biting its own tail...and that hurts.<<<

[Marietta]

Hello inhumility and Juantoo, The word angel in both Hebrew (Malak) and Greek (Aggelon) simply means, a messenger, somebody with a message or one sent. This angel/messenger can take any form, human or non, good or bad.
Love and Light, Midge

[Marietta]

Hello Kenod, Thank you for the response.
Actually, I have both photo copies of the original language and translations made of the text.
As to my findings there are as many scholars who believe that the original text was the one that the people who wrote the text used in their every day lives. Which was Aramaic.
You state that very few of these scholarly beings hold the opinion that the original text was written in its native tongue. Therefore, I need to ask how many of these scholarly beings you polled to come to this consensus? How was the poll conducted? How many scholars took part in this poll? Was it world wide, state wide or local? What was the religious background and or nationality of those in the Poll? Who conducted the poll? How was the term scholar defined by those taking the poll? May I presume that it is somebody who follows the dictates of given idea put forth by another person. Someone who has studied under someone else assimilating their views instead of digging into all that is available to find out for themselves what the truth really is.
All of these things must be taken into consideration when stating a statistic that deals with the views (especially when pertaining to spiritual issues) held by a group of people.
Love and Light, Midge

[Marietta]

Hello bananabrain, Thanks for the reply.
May I assume that what you are speaking of when you say the oral law is the Mishnah which is the first authoritative compilation of the oral law, as passed down orally from one generation to the next.
Thanks for the web link! Its a great tool.

As for me I ignore the manmade drash while clinging to any remez ((hint, allusion, which is the allegorical exegesis of the text) I see in the text and I never overlook the peshat (plain and simple) that is right in front of my nose. I don't see the English translation of the Hebrew Text as peshat (plain and simple).
I'm sorry but I simply do not agree that rules need to be applied to any text to find what the author intended as the meaning in the text, however I do believe that rules can be used to keep the original meaning in the hearts of man while reading the mistranslated text (when reading a translation). And it helps when translating a text where the original rules to the language have been lost (to most).

From what I have come to understand the reason it gets further and further away from the thought is because we live in a 15 dimensional time matrix and the further down in dimensionality we fall the less energy holding capacity we have and energy is consciousness so with less consciousness we understand less. However as the information falls down dimensionally it comes into this lower dimension in a manner we can understand. Source exists outside of dimensionality, in what is called nothingness but everythingness (ayin, soph).

You replied:
there is an idea, derived from the "jerusalem Talmud" (shekalim 13b) that the primordial Torah was made from "black fire on white fire". this was once explained to me in terms of a blank sheet of paper, representing the unknowable Mind of G!D. as you cover the paper with writing, it gets further away from the thought, but becomes more and more understandable.

From what I have found you can use the Torah not only for learning science but medicine as well, it contains all the science of the universe as the meaning of the word Torah states. I've also found that there is medical cures given when you translate the text backwards.

The reason the two Torah's (oral and written) are considered as one is because hidden within the oral text is the means in which to translate the written text to find the truths contained within it.

When I use the term FA's I am referring to messengers from a higher dimension who came into this dimension and decided to take control here. Fallen Messengers who fell dimensionally as well as mentally by manipulating their genes, removing the gene that causes emotions such as love and remorse. This was done so that none of them could become full of remorse and back out of their plan. This is talked about in the Book of Enoch.
I found the Idea of Satan in the Hebrew text. The word Satan comes from the Hebrew text and means adversary, which is EGO.
Within Peace, Midge

[flowperson]

Midge:

You are making a lot of sense to me...however i came to some of the same conclusions regarding Torah by first wondering about the science side of things (since I was professionally involved in science and technology issues earlier in my life) and then finding confirmation of the concepts I concocted in Torah and Kabbalah... but only after exhaustive tracings of word meanings in dictionaries and concordances.

Keep on keepin' on.

flow....

[Marietta]

Hello flow, Thank you for sharing.
It sounds like you have walked in my steps somewhat as far as your seeking knowledge regarding science and the Torah.
Keep on flowing.

Love and Light, Midge

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Marietta

Hello Kenod, Thank you for the response.
Actually, I have both photo copies of the original language and translations made of the text.
As to my findings there are as many scholars who believe that the original text was the one that the people who wrote the text used in their every day lives. Which was Aramaic.

Marietta, I don't think there are many people who believe Paul wrote to the Gentiles in Aramaic, especially as he quoted the Greek Septuagint.

As for the Gospels, that is open to debate, with many arguments for and against.

I think there are some good arguments that Mark was originally written in Aramaic (see link below) although the oldest extant fragment of a manuscript of Mark is in Greek.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Mark.htm

In another thread you referred to the Greek text of Mark 3:5 to support the argument that Jesus did not get angry. What does your English translation of the Aramaic say?

Here are three Aramaic-English translations to compare ... you'll note that they are not all exactly the same.

http://www.peshitta.org/
http://aramaicnt.com/
http://www.v-a.com/bible/mark_1-4.html#MARK3

I wonder why you prefer the Greek in some instances and the Aramaic in others.

[Marietta]

Greetings Kenod, Thank you for your response.

Why do you think Paul quotes the Greek Septuagint? Could you give me a reference? If he is quoting the Septuagint he is Quoting a mistranslation of the Hebrew text.

Over Two centuries before the birth of the Christ, Alexander the great wanted to rule the world and make Greek the language of the world. At that time Ptolemy II gathered seventy-two men to translate the Hebrew scriptures into Greek and this translation is known as the Septuagint, from which our translations have been derived. The word Septuagint means seventy, however it was actually seventy-two men who did the translation, six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel.
When Ptolemy Philadelphus ordered this translation be done of the Jewish Scriptures (250 BCE) he asked the high priest Eleazar to send him the official manuscripts. Eleazar sent the Pentateuch. It was only the Pentateuch that was requested and received.

The Scribes added this scripture mocking those who followed it.
Jeremiah 8:8: How can you say; we are the wise, and the law of God is with us? Behold, the lying pen of the scribes has falsified them, and written them wrong!



In the Book of Philip, which is part of the New Testament Apocrypha, we are told:

The Godpel of Philip: 13. The archons wanted to deceive man, since they saw that he had a kinship with the truly good. They took the name of the good and gave it to what is not good, in order (first) to deceive him through the names and bind them to what is not good, and then, as if they were doing them a favor, to cause them to remove from the ‘not good’ and transfer them to the ‘good’ which they think is so. For they wished to take the free man and make him their slave for ever.



You replied:
>>>I don't think there are many people who believe Paul wrote to the Gentiles in Aramaic, especially as he quoted the Greek Septuagint<<<

The reason I use the Hebrew when translating the OT and the Greek when translating the NT is because I don't want to get into a debate as to weather or not the NT was written in Aramaic. Also, most people don't have access to the Aramaic text to verify my rendition of a translation. Another reason is that I only have a copy of Matthew in Aramaic. Even the Greek text doesn't line up with what is written in our translations. Furthermore what is taught in the Churches does not line up with what is written in English. If you were to follow the English translation you would still be following the laws of Judaism.

Which of Paul's letters are written to the Romans? Please give me the scripture you use to support this.

In Love and Light, Midge

[kenod]

Originally Posted by Marietta

Why do you think Paul quotes the Greek Septuagint? Could you give me a reference? If he is quoting the Septuagint he is Quoting a mistranslation of the Hebrew text.

Both the Greek text of Romans, and the Aramaic text of Romans, quote directly from the Septuagint (Psalm 14), as you will be able to see from examining these verses of scripture.

GREEK (Romans 3:10-18)
10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
13"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know."
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

ARAMAIC (Romans 3:10-18)
10. As it is written in Scriptures, that:
There is none righteous, not even one.
11. Neither will he learn, nor love God.
12. They all jeered alike and mocked,
And none performed good deeds, not even one.
13. Their throats are open graves,
And their tongues are treacherous
And the venom* of the aspis is under their tongues.
14. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.
15. And their feet are swift to shed blood.
16. Misery and ruin are in their path,
17.The road to peace they know not.
18. And the fear of God is not before their eyes.
http://www.v-a.com/bible/


SEPTUAGINT (Psalm 14)
3 They have all gone out of the way,
they have together become corrupt,
there is none that does good, no not one.
Their throat is an open tomb;
with their tongues they have used deceit.
The poison of asps is under their lips:
whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness;
their feet are swift to shed blood:
destruction and misery are in their ways;
and the way of peace they have not known:
there is no fear of God before their eyes.
http://www.apostlesbible.com/

HEBREW (Psalm 14)
3 All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.

????????????????

4 Will evildoers never learn—
those who devour my people as men eat bread
and who do not call on the LORD ?