Yet another silly question - Bible Contradictions?

babyvaio

Just ran into the suspicious list of Biblical contradictions. It's not a surprise since the original texts are lost and there have been so many translations until now that portions of the text probably lost its original meaning, however it's still a surprise that there are so many (just on this page - there might be more). Of course, lots of them can be explained by simply applying another explanation which would make sense. But not necessarily that at the end is the truth.

At the end a question arises - how do you know what is suppose to be the truth if there are so many contradictory statements?

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#INDEX

MooseJam

babyvaio wrote:

how do you know what is suppose to be the truth if there are so many contradictory statements?

thats easy babyvaio, the truth if followed logically leads to you and me, no need to argue the point

babyvaio

MooseJam wrote:

thats easy babyvaio, the truth if followed logically leads to you and me, no need to argue the point

It's not about arguing, it's just about really knowing what is the truth. Like you asked in your thread (Another silly question) for example: how do you know what really happens when the death comes? I mean, everybody would like to know that, but yet if you have different explanations from the same source (the contradicting explanations), how will you really know what is the truth?

We could say it's logical for many things in this life, but we can't say anything about the afterlife, 'cos that's purely based on the belief, however if there's more that one story on that and they differ, they logic can't help you here - we have no real experience what happens in the afterlife from the moment a human being dies.

Wibbs

babyvaio wrote:

Just ran into the suspicious list of Biblical contradictions. It's not a surprise since the original texts are lost and there have been so many translations until now that portions of the text probably lost its original meaning,

You can say that about every religious text from every faith out there to a lesser or greater extent. In Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc very very few if any "original" texts survive(BTW you can say the same about most of the canon of ancient classics in literature too).

But not necessarily that at the end is the truth.

Nature of spirituality in many ways. So long as you keep looking for the truth(as it applies to the individual) then that's ok.

At the end a question arises - how do you know what is suppose to be the truth if there are so many contradictory statements?

That's were individual faith and what appeals to you the most jumps in I would say.

how do you know what really happens when the death comes?

As you say noone does. That's part of it's charm. The undiscovered country an all that.

18AD

babyvaio wrote:

but yet if you have different explanations from the same source (the contradicting explanations), how will you really know what is the truth?

Even if a source didn't contradict itself, would than mean it's true? How about different texts which claim to be true. Can you really trust other peoples word?

Of course you can always choose the one that fits closest to your life experiences, but again does that verify it, as someone else has had different life experiences and chooses something different.

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

You can say that about every religious text from every faith out there to a lesser or greater extent. In Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc very very few if any "original" texts survive(BTW you can say the same about most of the canon of ancient classics in literature too).
Nature of spirituality in many ways. So long as you keep looking for the truth(as it applies to the individual) then that's ok.
That's were individual faith and what appeals to you the most jumps in I would say.

As you say noone does. That's part of it's charm. The undiscovered country an all that.

The Qur'an has never changed since written down for the very first time. It's still the very same till the last harf (a letter/char in Arabic). There's even a referential verse in the Qur'an claiming that God will protect it from human alterations. It is so still almost 15 centuries after.

But the point was not that, but for example if somebody wants to follow the laws from the Bible, and yet if there are duplicate/different/contradicting meanings, they don't know how to follow these rules, cos they are ambiguous.

Let's say there's a principle of faith on the table - for example: angels always obey the Lord, they do not sin. Fact. However, satan, also called fallen angel disobeyed the Lord. Now, either angels also sin and are not always obedient or satan wasn't angel at all, but a different creature, with his own free will and a choice. So he made a choice.

Looking from a different angle, I don't think he was an angel at all. If that was the case, then how many disobedient angel are there?

The problem appears finally when a principle of faith is ambiguous - for example there cannot be that satan is an angel and not an angel at the same time. So if some one claims and believes that he was an angel and let's say he wasn't, then ones belief is in question and consequentially one is commiting a sin agains the Lord by saying a lie against His creatures. And vice-versa.

So these basic principles of the belief should be truthful facts and not ambiguities as some of them are.

Wibbs

babyvaio wrote:

The Qur'an has never changed since written down for the very first time. It's still the very same till the last harf (a letter/char in Arabic). There's even a referential verse in the Qur'an claiming that God will protect it from human alterations. It is so still almost 15 centuries after.

I can equally link to sites/historical research that would disagree on it's early written history and not just Christian ones either, but that's not the point when dicussing such religious topics. That's what you believe and that's fine. Even if you take the idea that it hasn't changed we can find any number of even more ancient texts that come down to us unchanged. Does that make them correct just because of that? In the end it's your faith that decides and as I've said that's cool too. It's just the throwing stones in glass houses that can happen from all sides in debates like this that I don't particularly relish. It smacks of point scoring rather than an attempt at mutual understanding.

But the point was not that, but for example if somebody wants to follow the laws from the Bible, and yet if there are duplicate/different/contradicting meanings, they don't know how to follow these rules, cos they are ambiguous.

That charge can be laid at the feet of any religion. That's why the faithful of all kinds have debated interpretation/authenticity of their text(Hadeeth would be an example from your point of view where there is much healthy debate even with interpretation of the Quran).

Let's say there's a principle of faith on the table - for example: angels always obey the Lord, they do not sin. Fact. However, satan, also called fallen angel disobeyed the Lord. Now, either angels also sin and are not always obedient or satan wasn't angel at all, but a different creature, with his own free will and a choice. So he made a choice.

Again all religions have to contend with the difficult notion that God created evil. AFAIR in Islam (and Judaism, though he figures much less in their texts when compared to Christianity or later Islam) Satan was a Jinn(evil spirit) who disobeyed God which either suggests free will and choice or God made him that way "out of the box" as it where. It could also just be a question of language so that in Christianity "angels" mean all non human spirits whereas in Judaism and Islam there is a clear division. That's what I've read on it anyway but it's really one for the experts out there.

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

Again all religions have to contend with the difficult notion that God created evil. AFAIR in Islam (and Judaism, though he figures much less in their texts when compared to Christianity or later Islam) Satan was a Jinn(evil spirit) who disobeyed God which either suggests free will and choice or God made him that way "out of the box" as it where. It could also just be a question of language so that in Christianity "angels" mean all non human spirits whereas in Judaism and Islam there is a clear division. That's what I've read on it anyway but it's really one for the experts out there.

I know you could find out something that would disagree with what I said - the net is just an endless space. (btw don't argue about this now pls, be a good boy )
But the focus was on the Bible and Christian point of view only (since it's under Christianity section).
Where do you get information about angels for example? If you take all the knowledge about them from the Bible solely, then it becomes weird - satan was either an angel, but then what about others, are they disobedient too? I believe not. His nature suggests that he wasn't an angel - otherwise he would have rebelled against God, but this has to be backed up using the Bible or disproved.

L31mr0d

Wibbs wrote:

Again all religions have to contend with the difficult notion that God created evil...

I'm not going to chime in on this discussion. But I remember hearing a good illustration explaning evil and why God would create it. In short, it said if you walk out of a room, and turn off the light, you are not simultaneously turning on dark, as darkness only exists as a lack of light, you remove all light and you've created dark. The same is true for good and bad. God created good. But when you remove good from someone, you are not creating bad, bad is just another way of saying a lack of good. Giving us free will allows us to choose how much good we actually practice, someone who chooses to not be good at all is then bad, they are turning off the proverbial light and are now in darkness.

Wibbs

babyvaio wrote:

I know you could find out something that would disagree with what I said - the net is just an endless space. (btw don't argue about this now pls, be a good boy )

Yes Miss.:D

The image that we have of Satan as a distinct person/angel/jinn/being is hard to find in the bible, especially the whole horned demon bit which is largely a nod against an aspect of nature in pagan beliefs. In the early bible and Torah it's more often described not as a specific being but as an opposing adversarial force(Satan means adversary) sometimes even human. In the story of Job he even acts with the prosecution side against Job(which proves all lawyers are in the grip of evil ).

The new testament brings more flesh to the concept, he is the Devil(diabolos in greek means adversary so the continuation is there) evil one, the tempter and even makes an appearance tempting Jesus etc He even appears to ask permission of God to act as well http://bible.cc/luke/22-31.htm

The book of revelations fleshes out the story even more and in the Quran the character develops further

More here;

http://demons.monstrous.com/the_bible.htm


BTW L31mr0d the anology of the lack of good being equal to evil is all very well, but surely God made everything including the lack of things? Good anology though in fairness.

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

Yes Miss.:D

Never was, never will be... :cool:

Wibbs

Ooops apologies. Got that impression from a post from someone else.

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

Ooops apologies. Got that impression from a post from someone else.

No worries, BTW my beard is too long ot be mistaken for a woman. :rolleyes: