Prove that the Bible is full of contradictions-- I double dare you!

[Nogodnomasters]

Compare Gen. 1:1-2:4 and Gen.2.5ff

My personal research indicates 2:4 is the beginning of second creation and not the ending of the first. There are differences between the two creations, with the first creation story being younger than the second text. This is a good place to break out your Wellhausen.

The first two Genesis accounts have similarities and differences (i.e. man was made after the beasts in Gen. 1:25-26 and before the beasts in Gen. 2-28-20). The major difference is that the Priestly source uses the God Elohim and the “J” source uses Jehovah. The “J” source tends to have more astrological significance than the rest of the Old Testament.

This text is a major problem for those who adhere to the world wide flood young earth theory.- i.e. creationist. When you ask this group about the Grand Canyon, millions of years in the making, they claim the flood reshaped the surface of the earth and created the canyon. However 4 rivers are identified in Genesis prior to the flood, three of which still exist today. So now the flood didn't reshape all the earth, just the parts that look very old.

The part I like is how God, who is supposed to know everything- brings the animals by Adam so he can see what Adam will name the beasts. This indicates an older view of a god who was not everywhere, not all knowing, and perhaps not all powerful. There are many such cases in the Bible such as this which rears its ugly head. In fact the Hebrews were content with this style of God until the Greek influence. The Pythagoreans introduced this concept of the Monad to the world which resulted in the "Omni- everything" God.

Jews, such as Philo of Alexandria re-interpreted the sacred books of the Jews to fit the Greek view of religion. The concept of the Logos entered into the Old Testament. The OT was mistranslated in a few places- deliberately I might add from Hebrew to Greek to represent new ideas.

God was given a spiritual face lift.

[Marsh]

I agree that debating over the small inconsistencies with single words and single phrases is tiring. But isn't there a difference between their being contradictions in a book, and the book being a contradiction in and of itself?

What's the deal with the angry God of the old testiment and the forgiving God of the new testiment? How can they possibly be the same figure?

Why are some people in the old testiment described as righteous, while in the new testiment nobody can become righteous unless they receive it by grace?

How can God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all be the same? How can Jesus be in the Father, the Father in Jesus, and both of them be one, all at the same time?

Why do the apostles tell wives to submit to their husbands, while Jesus told his disciples to submit to everyone (the one who wants to be great must make himself the least)?

These are the kinds of contradictions I am interested in studying: the kind that jeoparadize the integredy of the book as a whole.

[bananabrain]

The issue: Does the Bible contradict itself?

for judaism the problem can be framed in these terms:

1. it is self-evident that the plain text ("pshat") of the Torah or Tanakh appears to contradict itself.
2. whenever this happens in the pshat, an explanation must be sought in order to clarify the intent of the text.
3. it is *axiomatic* that the text itself is not corrupt and retains its integrity; it is our job to explain, clarify and interpret the text so that it can be implemented in our environment.
4. therefore when the text appears to contradict itself, we must consider this to have occurred in order to enable us to learn something that we could not have learned without a textual difficulty to resolve.
5. the whole of jewish law and the oral tradition is centred on this eternal attempt to understand G!D's Intent.
6. when the pshat of the text cannot be resolved through the hermeneutic methods established by tradition and precedent, more subtle methods are utilised relating to the deeper levels of remez (implied meaning), drash (metaphor) and sod (anagogical/symbolic language).

criticisms that we're therefore "twisting the text" or "trying to get it to say something that wasn't meant" lack any credibility from a jewish point of view when not based upon a thorough knowledge of the *whole system*, context, language and frame of reference. from my perspective, "new testament" polemic aimed at "the law", the pharisees and so on must be seen within this context; these criticisms could equally well be aimed at the critics. the point is that nobody can *truly* say with 100% certainty that they know the ultimate, objective truth - although they can of course believe that they know it.

with regard to resolving this problem:

What's the deal with the angry God of the old testiment and the forgiving God of the new testiment? How can they possibly be the same figure?

because they are different perspectives from different people. think of a mother - she is a loving mother to her children, a friend and figure of sexual attraction to her partner and, perhaps, in business, someone who is a tough negotiator and takes no prisoners. this isn't her problem - but it may well be difficult for someone else to understand. think of how problematic it can be to see our own parents as sexual beings, for a start! besides, the OT was written for jews and the NT for christians. as a jew, there isn't a problem there for me to resolve. it's a problem for christians because they don't generally understand what the OT is there for, who its audience is, how it works, and so on - even what it says, what with the language and oral tradition. the obvious answer is to seek to understand the "OT" from the point of view of its "target customer" as it were; in the same way, if i am to study the Qur'an, or the NT, or the sutras, i'd want to understand it in its own context. the NT is somewhat unique, however, in sometimes apparently requiring the OT to be something other than what its, er, consumer base consider it to be.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[I, Brian]

Also, with the issue of OT perceptions of God vs NT perceptions of God: it's certainly worth remembering the cultural circumstances of the two.

In OT Judaism, the Jews traditionally received major revelation through Moses while, as a people, crossing the harsh and dangerous deserts of Arabia for 40+ years. And when the Jews settled again as a people, with a distinct nation, they were essentially living on an anvil between larger more aggressive neighbours: the Egyptians, the Hittites, and the various empires to rise from Mesopotamia.

Therefore, from a simple anthropological viewpoint, if nothing else, the perception of God is often a mirror of those very harsh conditions - be obedient or perish as a people.

By the time of the New Testament, the world of Judea is an entirely different matter - there is effectively a form of "world peace" at hand under Roman occupation. Sure, it's a fairly heartless militaristic one, but it still ensures that there are no major incursions by foreign powers, civil uprisings are quickly put down, and there are particular improvements in social infrastruture that the Romans bring with them - communications, improved road systems, etc (think: Life of Brian!).

Of course, it's not all rosey - there's a great deal of factionalism and infighting: a lot is described by Josephus (he was even apparently based in Gallilee when fighting the Roman occupation); and something of these conditions can even be interpreted directly from the NT (for example, the Good Samaritan - I personally interpret this tale as Jesus shaming his audience with a parable about the enemies of the Jews treat Jews better than other Jews do).

Overall though, there's a very Roman sense of justice and punishment in the oulook towards God.

That's how I perceive the differences, for what it's worth.

[achnai]

I would not conclude that the differences could be summerized from an anthropological point of view.
Further, I disagree with bananabrain regarding the fact that the NT looses it's vitality faced with the diversity of jewish oral law.
According to christian interpreters there is complete harmony between the OT and the NT. Many occurences in the Torah are symboles or shadows for things to come, to be fully implemented in the NT.
The NT and the Talmud have a kind of similiar objective in helping to understand OT or the Tanach. There are many cases in which the Talmud simply interprets what is seemingly impossible to understand from the Pshat, and does that without Halchaic implications. these are the cases in which the objective of the Talmud and even the Midrash, is simply to solve literal or contigental difficulties.
The NT has the same role as a kind of elaborater on the prophecies as they are apparently being fulfilled.

[Susma Rio Sep]

It might be useful for some scholars to find out when believers in the Bible came to the attachment to an idea that the Bible should be without errors and without contradictions, otherwise it would be like Satan sitting with Jesus or Moses at the right hand of God.

Without intending any malice to any party, but from my own views of things, considering that God talks to man in human terms and in human fashions and with the limitations of man, then what is so horrible and abominable about errors and contradictions in the Bible?

Once you take it for granted that God is the author, then errors and contradictions are only so many typos in the hands of man.

What can we expect then from the Bible? The minimum needed essentially for the poor peasant and the poor factory worker to know and observe to get to heaven or to get on good terms with Jahweh.

How do we know the minimum? From the followers of the Bible who exercise an evenhanded approach to the formulations of essentials, like those people who put the the first Apostles' Creed for Christians.

Susma Rio Sep

[JJM]

My interpretation on why God seems to have a different face in the two testaments is because God has changed his agenda by the time of the second testament. During the first testament God wishes to change the entire human race his strategy is Scare the crap out of them start over and hope they do what you told them to. During the New Testament God has changed his approach. He has now decided to tell us everything forgive our sins and take the elect back to heaven rather than trying to purify the entire race. The Old Testament he tried to get humans to do what they should by having them fear him. In the new he is trying to get them to do what they should because of their love for him. However I think it is easy to see Gods mercy and love shine through in the Old Testament. But he had to as punish just as he does now so that people relies what they are doing is wrong.



As for the bible readings being considered perfect. I think that the message that these people received from God and the inspiration that God gave them was perfect but because these people may have written it wrong or have unconsciously let there own biases Influence what they write plus the constant translations and the fact that before the printing press everything had to be copied by hand and this could easily be screwed up what we read today may have some problems.



Lastly I still have the question of why God would speak out against punishing someone’s children for there actions and then do it himself. Would anyone like to field that fro me because I can’t seem to resolve that in my mind?

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by JJM

Lastly I still have the question of why God would speak out against punishing someone’s children for there actions and then do it himself. Would anyone like to field that fro me because I can’t seem to resolve that in my mind?

If we punish someone's children for their actions, we must first judge that person, and who among us is righteous enough to be such a judge as to pass such a sentence on another person? On a related subject...

Deuteronomy 28:58-59
'If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law... the LORD will send fearful plagues on you and you descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses.'

Ezekiel 18:14-17
'But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things... He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live.'

Is this a contradiction? In the first, God promised to bring a punishment on the children of sinful people, while in the second he promised to save repentant people, even if they have sinful parents. Isn't this a contradiction? Or can both of these things be true at the same time?

[barefootgal9]

Julien wrote:

I am troubled, however, with what I see as a general contradiction in scripture which I can only pose as a question: is God a God of love and compassion or is "he" a jealous, wrathful God?[/quote]

Julien, I heartukt recommend to you the book "A Guide to Understanding the Bible" by Harry Emerson Fosdick -- I do hope it is still in print. I found this book extremely helpful, as it traces the course of concepts over TIME -- and shows how people's ideas of God, Man, Sin, etc., were gradually brought forward to more sophisticated levels of thinking via the successive teachings of the major and minor prophets of the Bible.

I think you will find an answer to this supposed contradiction when you realize that the Bible spans several thousand years of human development. Initially, the people of God held very primitive concepts of divinity -- seeing "gods" as local deities, often residing in objects, and primarily concerned with warfare with competing tribes -- and their "wargods." These gods were wrathful and bloodthirsty -- which was about the limit of what these peoples could conceive in that time. It took some time, "faith-shattering" events like the diaspora , and a number of great teachers, to gradually bring this peoples understanding up to a level where they could grasp a God which was Spirit, omnipotent, all powerful and unconfined by a given geographical location.

Likewise he traces the idea of sacrifice -- which I find especially revealing -- from the belief that many litlle "gods" had to be propitiated by blood sacrifices -- to the neccessity of sacrificing one's first born -- to the introduction of the idea of substitional sacrifice (Abraham) -- to the ultimate substitutional sacrifice (Christ) -- which, as I understand it, meant symbolically that we can finally leave behind the primitive belief of blood sacrifice.

When cast in a chronological mode such as this, we see the early representations of YWHW as a wrathful God Who must be propitiated, and a jealous God Who must win His people away from all the gods of the other tribes and the icons and images they keep inventing for themselves -- because this was the starting belief of the people who first accepted Him. But over milennia we see the people become more sophisticated in their understanding, more capable of abstract thought, and with this greater capacity, a "greater" "larger" God is successively revealed -- A God of mercy, forgiveness, and finally, overwhelming love. Paralleling this gradual revelation of the nature of God we see a similar change in the idea of how human beings are to treat other human beings ... starting with severe laws which would brutally punish an individual for the "sins" of a tribe or a father, and a readiness to consider any people other than one's own tribe as an enemy -- to the more just "eye for an eye," and enlarging the idea of "our people" to anyone within one's nation -- ultimately, with the advent of the Christ, the introduction of the idea of all humankind under one God -- and every "neighbor" deserving of our mercy, forgiveness, peace, etc.

I think you'll find that discovering the Bible as a record of an unfolding historical process of God guiding humankind (starting with very barbaric by today's standards) towards a truer understanding of Him and our spiritual nature, such seeming contradictions as God wrathful vs God merciful will melt away in greater insights.

1 Corinthians 13

11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

[barefootgal9]

"Lastly I still have the question of why God would speak out against punishing someone’s children for there actions and then do it himself. Would anyone like to field that fro me because I can’t seem to resolve that in my mind?"[/quote]

Personally, I see God punishing extremely rarely -- if ever. Rather, God shows us the truths we need to do the right thing... and we decide "not now," or "but I want this other thing" or "I've got another agenda," and go right ahead and do the selfish, the brutal ... the "contrary to the will of God." So Hitler choses to eliminate a people and unleashes a cataclysm of horrifying proportions and consequences. God didn't punish all those millions of people, human will did it. Likewise we "regular folks" with our smaller sins, set up icky consequences for ourselves and those we share our lives with ... like me having my driving priviledges suspended for 2 months because I didn't keep up my car insurance payments. Lots of icky consequences because I tried to get away with being outside the law.

An old boss of mine used to say "The right way is the easy way." That's pretty profound.

Basically the story of Noah is giving us this same message. Take refuge in the Ark (His covenant) and you will be in safety (and our safety, our spiritual wellbeing IS His desire and will ) ... figure you know better than He what's good for you and go party ... well, you're now outside of the protection of the Ark and whatever happens to you, it's not His fault. He didn't want to see you "punished" -- that's why He gave the guidance in the first place.

[Nogodnomasters]

The punishment of children, owning and beating of slaves is not the moral problem I have with Christianity- it is the punishment of God. For those who failed to grasp belief in a world wide flood, a talking snake, and resurrecting corpses we face a life of eternal fire- not just an hour or so, but all eternity?

Isn't this just a wee bit overkill?

One could argue that if one loves God and is part of his inner circle, they don't face that kind of punishment. Of course this same argument could be used to make Hitler or Saddam look like a good guy too. I expect a little more justice, compassion and understanding from God than from a brutal dictator.

It would seem to me (and forgive me for thinking) that the concept of eternal hell is a man made concept to promote obiedence amongst the followers and to create converts to the faith. I am willing to give God more credit than his many followers.

In our society, God would be the "thought police" condemning people for what they think, not necessarily for what they do.

[barefootgal9]

Nogodnomasters--

I am in general agreement with you. I don't buy the eternally punishing god scenario. My own Faith would say these (hell, punishment, burning, torment) are all symbols of the condition of the soul suffering separation from God -- a separation created by the will of the soul -- turning away from Light and Good -- (and you don't "go" to "hell" ... you take it with you!) -- and by Grace and/orour own choice, this spiritual condition can be changed to joy and "reunion" by turning toward the Divine.

I have myself been in both conditions, and they're real enough without requiring any special geography!

What is called for, IMHO, is a little abstract thinking -- none too popular (perhaps even heretical?) in many circles these days!

[Nogodnomasters]

Barefoot,

I would say that we all have "our own cross to bear" but to claim it is caused by a separation from God is questionable. I have never been happier in my life then being an atheist. From my own expience happiness comes from within, not from one's relationship with an invisible entity.

I would agree we create our own personal "hells" and "heavens" within ourself. It would be naive of me to claim it came from elsewhere.

Now why is light so good? Isn't that just a symbol too?

[barefootgal9]

"Now why is light so good? Isn't that just a symbol too?"

Yup. But a workable term for an ineffible. so is "good."

I have been Christian, agnostic, TM, atheist, Baha'i and confused. (the latter when times have been rough and the whole idea of religion seems unreal.) It's all good -- if -- (again IMHO) one is seeking to shed superstitions, attachments and mean spiritedness, and aiming to acquire understanding, patience, love, "goodness" ... (Which is pretty much equivalent to the Baha'i concept "approaching God" -- ie, seeking to grow in Knowledge/Love).

For myself, the thought "Nothing out there" leads to darkness and despair. My joy in life has been from Baha'i (29 years, now). "Light" -- happy, good, goal-oriented, productive -- otherwise the navel-staring sucks me down sumthin awful. In the end, I've learned I can't prove "Nothing" with my head -- but following my joy works. BTW in Buddhism, "Nothing" (or perhaps "no-thing" is another term for "God."

I think perhaps too much western literalism may have given you spiritual indigestion. Have you explored the Hindu and Buddhist traditions? Forget literal... go abstract to the nines.

Or Baha'i which is kind of middling "walk the spiritual path with practical feet" ... and it presents the Divine Ineffible within as well as transcendent.

For example (inviting us to get shed of the "evil"/"damned forever" paradigm) what is your thinking on this verse:

"O Son of Being! With the hands of power I made thee and with the fingers of strength I created thee; and within thee have I placed the essence of My light. Be thou content with it and seek naught else, for My work is perfect and My command is binding..." (The Hidden Words/Arabic, Baha'u'llah)

(Nope. I still don't know for sure what that "light" is.) Meanwhile, tho, the idea is clear -- you start out perfect. Where will you take it from there?

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by barefootgal9

An old boss of mine used to say "The right way is the easy way." That's pretty profound.

Are you sure you got that right? IMO, taking responsibility for yourself and others is never easy.