Alleged Contradictions in the Bible

If god really is omnipotent, he cannot be confined by the Bible's limited definition. Likewise, if the Bible is the only true, precise, and complete description of god, and how one reaches god... then that would also mean that god does not exist... because by that very definition, you strip god of "his" omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, and make god into nothing more than a shylock.

But the Bible describes God as being omnipotent, omniscient and onmipresent. If it describes him as being that way anyway, how is it stripping him of these things?

 

And from what source have you collected your concepts of the religion of Hindu? A book? Teachings passed on through generations?

I ask partly because I am one of those Christians who admittedly know much less about other religions than I would like. I have learned much of the athiests' views on the JC, but little about your own beliefs Darth_SnowDog.

 

Bow down to the wisdom of SnowDog. That long post was one of the best I've ever seen.

Convenient. Not only are you attempting to sell me a placebo, you're telling me to believe in god based not only on self-fulfilling prophecies and placebos, but also on the basis of what is known in psychological circles as a self-perpetuating delusion.

Anyway, I will try to carry on my own thread of discussion (Epistles) later but I really don't have the time right now. Please forgive me.

 

DarthPhelps: There are volumes upon volumes of sources that encompass Hinduism... both scriptural and historical reference.

Of the scriptures, the oldest would be the four Vedas... these are like the "old testament" of Hinduism. Not much of what they prescribe is still strictly observed today, as they are probably over 5000 years old... Since that time, the greatest influence on "modern" Hinduism (when I say "modern" I mean the past 3000 years) is the epic poem Mahabharata. It tells the story of the origins of the Hindus... how we supposedly came into being. Whether literal or not, it doesn't matter to most Brahmanic Hindus... many sects take it as a literal truth, but the Brahmanical central view doesn't. It is more of a statement about who we are and why we are here... and such statements, in my belief, can be interpreted many ways... but the essential morals of the story are usually indisputable. It doesn't matter who said what on which mountain... but no one could argue against, for example, the idea that apathy is a vice, not a virtue.

Out of the eighteenth chapter of the Mahabharata comes the Bhagavad Gita. This is perhaps the most significant subtext of Hindu belief. It is about duty, conquering one's doubt, humanity, and above all things... the path of action.

Then there are the Upanishads, the Puranas, the Sutras... all Hindu scriptures.

For a better understanding of the history of Hinduism and the six systems of philosophy that emerged from it... the best reference is "Indian Philosophy" by Radhakrishnan and Moore.

For an overview of Hinduism, as well as several other world religions... one of the best references is "The World's Religions" by Huston Smith.

I could give you particulars to certain questions you may have... but of course they will be from my point of view. The most important thing to note about Hinduism is that "salvation" (if there is such a thing), or rather what we call "nirvana", cannot be achieved through any means other than action... and the action most instrumental in achieving complete detachment from the self (atman) and unity with all things/truth/the universe (brahman) is through detachment from all things material.

 

I've found that if you really dig in and study every "contradiction" in the Bible that there's always a logical explanation for it, and then it doesn't turn out to be a contradiction at all.

 

I find that to be a truth in almost all religions.

 

"I've found that if you really dig in and study every "contradiction" in the Bible that there's always a logical explanation for it, and then it doesn't turn out to be a contradiction at all."

i just dropped my ten foot pole.

 

Here are the Contradictions:

1. Old Testement

2. The New Testement

3. The King James Version of the Bible. I didn't know King James had a direct phone line to God.


Okay if the Bible is the word of God then why the hell are their 3 versions?

Man has altered it's pages to fit those in powers agenda of controling people.

If there was a Bible it was made a long, long, long time ago when it was still in it's pure and Word of God form, yet man decided to alter it. So there in lies the Contradictions of the Bible.

With me I will believe the oldest one, because it's probably most likely the most truthful to what God said. Any others are completely edited and altered by mankind to fit their own needs.

 

King James is a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek, not some new version.

 

The history of the king james version is pretty shady. That's another topic. If anyone wants to see apparent contradictions, the age of reason is a good start.

age o' reaon

 

Ah Mr. Thomas Paine. Hey the Age of Reason is a good read, but it does leave out a lot of stuff.

Plus he was a Deist and they don't believe in miracles rather science and such.

But he really told it like it was when it came to all religions. Not just Christianity. He called Christianity cruel and very violent.


Another good read for anyone interested would be a friend of TP. Elizabeth Katy Stanton and her piece called The Womans Bible. She really bashes the hell out of the Bible, and that it makes women subservient to men and all that. Check her out if your going to read the Age of Reason.

Then again Philosophy and Religion don't mix very well and you will end up an Atheist in the end.

 

darn it, i really can spell reason. Relly i can.

 

Jedi_Master_Beefcake

I'll try to answer your points as best I can.


Here are the Contradictions:

1. Old Testement

2. The New Testement

3. The King James Version of the Bible. I didn't know King James had a direct phone line to God.

Ok, the Old Testament and New Testament do not contradict each other. Some people see a contradiction in God's character between the OT and Nt, but that's already been answered in this thread (on the first couple of pages if you want to take a look).

The Old Testament prophesies that there will be a New Testament (in Jeremiah 31), and there are many prophesies about the Messiah which are fulfilled in Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

If there are any particular instances in which you feel the OT and NT contradict, please feel free to post them here.

As to the King James Bible - it's not a seperate Bible or a seperate version. All it is is a translation of the Old Testament and New Testament into English. It first came out in 1611, so some of the language now appears to be very old. No translation will ever be perfect, but the King James is a pretty solid translation. So it's not a seperate Bible, but a translation of the Hebrew and Greek into English.


Man has altered it's pages to fit those in powers agenda of controling people.

I have to say that there's no proof this ever happened. The Old Testament has been verified many times. The Dead Sea scrolls for example, which were found in the 1940s, were manuscripts 1000 year older that what we had prior to that. Over that 1000 years, nothing in the Old Testament had changed.

The New Testament has the most early manuscripts of any ancient work. These date back to when Christianity was still an outlawed, illegal religion. There was no political power in it back then. People would have nothing to gain by changing it. And, like the Old Testament, the earliest versions that we have, read the same as the ones found hundreds of years later. (This has also been discussed in more detail on this thread)


With me I will believe the oldest one, because it's probably most likely the most truthful to what God said.

Fine. Believe the Old Testament. But make sure you believe in the bit that says there'll be a New Testament, and also believe the prophesies about Jesus.

Jesus in his day said to the Jewish leaders "If you believed Moses, you would believe me for he wrote about me."

 

Then again Philosophy and Religion don't mix very well and you will end up an Atheist in the end.

Try telling that to Hindus, Buddhists and Taoists... among others.

Fine. Believe the Old Testament. But make sure you believe in the bit that says there'll be a New Testament, and also believe the prophesies about Jesus.

Jesus in his day said to the Jewish leaders "If you believed Moses, you would believe me for he wrote about me."

Hmmm... what was that I was saying earlier about self-perpetuating delusions? Because a written source says that what it says is true... it must be true, right? They prophesied about a New Testament... and then it was written... How amazing! That and the founding of Israel as being any indication of the Judeo-Christian exclusivity with god are just a couple of examples of what are more commonly referred to as self-fulfilling prophecies. They know this is what the prophecy says... so the Jews, wherever they happen to land... be it the middle east or Manhattan, decide to call their place what was written in the prophecy... "Hey, the prophecy said Israel, so this must be Israel!"

Oh, they predicted there'd be a new testament in a few years (or whenever)... "Alright, monks, let's get crackin' with that New Testament!"

As for the rest... well... if the people are fallible enough to create three versions of God's work, each with different interpretations, and yet still many different denominations interpreting each of these three books from different points of view (I thought the universality of the Bible was inarguable?)... No... no one could have possibly exaggerated the stories that could very well have been transmitted orally for several generations before they even appeared in the Dead Sea Scrolls... no, that's just impossible!*

Of course none of this filibustering still answers the question that was asked:

Precisely why are there three versions of the Bible... considering god's infallibility, omnipotence and the Bible's alleged accuracy and exclusivity with God?

* P.S.: How do we even know the Dead Sea Scrolls are legitimate given the fact that most fundamentalists have argued against the accuracy of archaeological study and carbon dating methods? If the date of the Dead Sea Scrolls can be accurately determined by science... then the world isn't 6000 years old, and half the presumptions in the Bible about creation, and the implied lack of evolution, are all false... It's either that, or if carbon dating and scientific methods which could legitimize the Dead Sea Scrolls are not accurate, then the Bible's origins (the scrolls) are not as genuine as they appear to be.

Oh, wait... let me guess... carbon dating is accurate only up to 6000 years...right? It's funny how defending the literality of the Bible requires circular logic at every turn.

 

Hmmm... what was that I was saying earlier about self-perpetuating delusions? Because a written source says that what it says is true... it must be true, right?

My comment was in reference to JMB saying that if he was to believe one he would believe the first. I then commented that if you accept the Old Testament, it naturally takes you to the New Testament anyway.


As for the rest... well... if the people are fallible enough to create three versions of God's work,

Three different versions? That's news to me.


each with different interpretations, and yet still many different denominations interpreting each of these three books from different points of view

You mentioned earlier that different Hindus interpret the Hindu scriptures in different ways, depending on whether they see them literally or not.


It's either that, or if carbon dating and scientific methods which could legitimize the Dead Sea Scrolls are not accurate, then the Bible's origins (the scrolls) are not as genuine as they appear to be.

Dating scrolls and manuscripts is a completely different process to dating fossils.

To be honest, although you raise some good points, they would probably be suited better to different threads. I started this thread so that people could bring up different things within the Bible that they felt contradict each other, not to talk about how reliable the Bible is.

But if there's any particular cases of internal contradictions that you know you, please feel free to post them here.

 

You mentioned earlier that different Hindus interpret the Hindu scriptures in different ways, depending on whether they see them literally or not.

Precisely. So?


Three different versions? That's news to me.

KJV, NT and OT... I didn't say to what degree each were similar... that's for you guys to debate. But in debating the inconsistencies... I'm debating the inconsistency of the Bible with the omnipotency of God. I didn't realize that challenging that aspect of consistency was something off-limits here... although I'd be curious as to why it would be off limits... (perhaps because it challenges the status quo more than you like?).

Dating scrolls and manuscripts is a completely different process to dating fossils.

Though I give you points for attempting to debate semantics to cleverly sidestep having to discuss the actual issue, you're incorrect. 14C radiocarbon dating is used for paper and parchment as well as fossilized matter.

Any material composed of carbon (especially organic derivatives such as parchment and fossils) may be dated using the C14 radiocarbon dating methodology, which includes the more recent development of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry.


Source: Carbon 14 Dating

 

KJV, NT and OT... I didn't say to what degree each were similar... that's for you guys to debate.

Really don't follow you. As I explained to JMB, KJV is a translation into English - not a different Bible. And there are no contradictions between the OT and NT.


But in debating the inconsistencies... I'm debating the inconsistency of the Bible with the omnipotency of God.

You still haven't explained how. If the Bible describes God as omnipotent anyway, why is that a contradiction?


I didn't realize that challenging that aspect of consistency was something off-limits here... although I'd be curious as to why it would be off limits... (perhaps because it challenges the status quo more than you like?).

Just trying to keep on topic in this thread. Status Quo doesn't bother me. I've been a Christian for 7 years and have been challenged pretty consistently on all aspects of my faith. I wouldn't have started this thread in the first place if I was scared of getting my boat rocked.


Though I give you points for attempting to debate semantics to cleverly sidestep having to discuss the actual issue, you're incorrect.

I really wasn't trying to sidestep anything, merely keeping to the topic of this thread. I never said that C14 wasn't used. Carbon dating is only one of the many tests carried out for dating manuscripts. The type of paper/parchment/whatever that was used, the type of ink etc - all these combined help to date the manuscripts. And the dating of them has never been disputed by secular or Christian experts.

 

The Bible claims that god is omnipotent and yet confines the definition of god to being capable of being represented only by the Bible's words, and only through the manifestation of Jesus, and no others.

That is perhaps the single largest contradiction in the Bible... the paradox between God's omnipotence and the Bible's severely stunted definition of God's being, persona and purpose.

The Bible does not truly define God to be omnipotent and omniscient, and omnipresent because it does not acknowledge any of the other paths to God... such as Hinduism which exemplifies god as being truly omnipotent, manifesting itself in many forms in many places and many times. This is a concept so alien to the language and context of the Bible.

It makes no sense whatsoever to say by any stretch of the imagination that on the one hand god is omnipotent yet, in the presence of all these other faiths which also claim divine origin, the Bible and Jesus are the only true way.

Well, if God is omnipotent, why do those other paths exist with as much evidence (if not more) to their validity as the Bible has to its own?

1. Would an omnipotent God have even allowed them to come into being? No.

2. Would an omnipresent god only manifest himself to one people and not all who claim to have heard/seen him? No.

3. Would an omniscient God care what rituals you choose to worship him with, when he knows what you're really thinking anyway? No.

If the opposite were true, and the Bible was correct in its assumptions about God, then god would neither be omnipotent, omniscient nor omnipresent... and the Bible would therefore be either a paradox, exaggeration/misrepresentation of the truth, a lie, or simply a work of fiction... concocted by men who cleverly created within the Bible itself a self-perpetuating schema that prevents the "true believer" from actually discovering the truth... which itself is another paradox.

In this sense, the Bible acknowledges God as little more than a shylock, a Vegas-style magician or trickster, and a deviant little egomaniac who put us on this planet for his whimsical amusement, abuse and self-worship.

Of course, this doesn't mean I don't regard the Bible as a very well-written epic story. It's magnificent in many ways... but I wouldn't take any of it literally, nor do I think one has to take it literally to be a true Christian. And so one shouldn't... because then you're putting your Bible above your Jesus and your God. If you blindly accept what's written in a book without wanting to question, scrutinize and search out the underlying truth for yourself... you're only doing a disservice to your own spirituality and faith.

But that's just my view... I don't believe that there's only one "right" way to anything. The beauty of being an agnostic is that no religion can take advantage of you.

As for the carbon dating thing... I believe your statement was:

Dating scrolls and manuscripts is a completely different process to dating fossils.

I was merely pointing out that statement is incorrect... because there is no component of that sentence that holds true. It is not a completely different process... even if there are multiple elements (parchment, ink, spit, Moses' boogers...) that they date, the process of dating those elements is one and the same. Therefore, the statement is incorrect.

 

Anyone who thinks the bible is absolutely literal really should read A Canticle for Leibowitz.

 

This is an interesting audio file on the history of the KJV being created and all the goofy stuff that was happening. At the very least it should make you wonder if it's just a "straightforward translation of the texts". This is from a universalist site, btw.

It's the fourth option on the web page. I think its only for RealPlayer though.



KJV