These So-Called "Contradictions" In The Bible.

[betsy]

9 hours ago, hot enough said:

This is a discussion forum, James. What are you doing?

Do you deny that religion is a form of brainwashing? Of the equal of American brainwashing?

Off-topic.  Create your own thread.

[hot enough]

7 hours ago, betsy said:

Off-topic.  Create your own thread.

The myriad contradictions in the bible are part and parcel of the brainwashing, Betsy. 

Give me a child until age 7 and I'll give you the man/woman/brainwashed individual. 

It works the same way as US propaganda and both are insidious.

[GostHacked]

On 7/20/2017 at 10:29 AM, betsy said:

The Word of God (Bible) - is the written message of God.

The Word (Jesus)  - is a title.    The Word of God (Jesus) -  Jesus embodies the total  message of God.

Then that message died with Christ and is no longer the true word anymore for humanity. We can eventually move past it.

[betsy]

2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Then that message died with Christ and is no longer the true word anymore for humanity. We can eventually move past it.

You say the True Word isn't true anymore, because it "died with Christ."  In other words, at some point you believed it to be the True Word, except that you've lost the faith.  You're another disgruntled, angry ex-Christian!

So, we can move past it?     So you finally admit you were once caught up in it?

 

Say again?

LOL!  "move past it....."   The irony......you're a big contradiction to yourself!

Gosthacked, you can't even bring yourself to get past threads that talk about Christianity.........never mind moving past the True Word.

Edited July 22, 2017 by betsy

[JamesHackerMP]

On 7/21/2017 at 9:00 PM, hot enough said:

Do you deny that religion is a form of brainwashing? Of the equal of American brainwashing?

Not sure why you mention "American" brainwashing.

I don't think religion is a form of brainwashing.  Obviously Betsy has a more conservative view than myself about the possible interpretation of the Bible.  But I don't think people who have religious beliefs are necessarily "brainwashed".  There have been incidents of it, yes.  (Jim Jones, etc.) But that doesn't mean every preacher, minister, priest, pope, imam, etc., is brainwashing their respective flocks.

Edited July 23, 2017 by JamesHackerMP

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Not sure why you mention "American" brainwashing.

Because it is the most effective brainwashing system the world has ever known. Deep evil disguised as kind and benevolent. 

Quote

I don't think religion is a form of brainwashing.  Obviously Betsy has a more conservative view than myself about the possible interpretation of the Bible.  But I don't think people who have religious beliefs are necessarily "brainwashed".  There have been incidents of it, yes.  (Jim Jones, etc.) But that doesn't mean every preacher, minister, priest, pope, imam, etc., is brainwashing their respective flocks.

That is all religion is is brainwashing. It is unsupportable lie after unsupportable lie. The depth to which people fall into the trap describes perfectly just how much brainwashing is involved. The droning chants, the little snippets of nonsense that you hear in perfect little verses. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Because it is the most effective brainwashing system the world has ever known. Deep evil disguised as kind and benevolent. 

That is all religion is is brainwashing. It is unsupportable lie after unsupportable lie. The depth to which people fall into the trap describes perfectly just how much brainwashing is involved. The droning chants, the little snippets of nonsense that you hear in perfect little verses. 

Good music though. 

Edited July 23, 2017 by bcsapper

[betsy]

6 hours ago, hot enough said:

Because it is the most effective brainwashing system the world has ever known. Deep evil disguised as kind and benevolent. 

That is all religion is is brainwashing. It is unsupportable lie after unsupportable lie. The depth to which people fall into the trap describes perfectly just how much brainwashing is involved. The droning chants, the little snippets of nonsense that you hear in perfect little verses. 

 

Brainwashed idiots?  Stop talking about conspiracy theorists like  9/11 truthers! This thread isn't for the brainwashed evil you talk about.

This thread isn't about terrorist Islamists.

 

Quote

 

It’s not particularly surprising that Tsarnaev would be drawn to a wide range of conspiracy theories, as research shows that people prone to believing one conspiracy theory will likely believe many — even if they’re completely contradictory.

 

On top of Jones and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, we have to add the one that seems to be the most important of all: The kind of anti-American conspiracy theories pushed by Islamists. For instance, the Washington Post reports that the brothers were apparently motivated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers there.

 

Indeed, conspiracy theories are hardly unique to the United States and often run rampant in the Muslim world, as Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy wrote in the New Republic, and seem to be especially strong among Islamists. A 2011 Pew poll of residents of Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, the Palestinian territories and Indonesia found that the vast majority refused to believe that Arabs executed the terrorist attack on 9/11. “There is no Muslim public in which even 30 percent accept that Arabs conducted the attack,” the study found.

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/25/tamerlan_tsarnaev_conspiracy_theorist/

 

And therefore, this thread is not about you, either! 

Go, get attention elsewhere.

 

The Boston marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev (another looney 9/11 truther) happened to be an adherent of religion (Islam)........but it still doesn't belong in this topic.Doh.

 

This thread is about contradictions in the Bible.

 

Edited July 23, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

So-called contradictions that's been responded to:

 

Metallicity (post #27, 79)

Dinosaurs in Noah's Ark/How animals fit in the ark (posts #36, 64, 65)

God making new stars and planets (post #78, 116)

Problem with order of creation (post #108)

Creation of the heavens and Genesis 1:14 (post #118)

Bats not Birds (post #158, 161)

Thou shalt nor murder (post #168)

Judas hanging/bursting (post #169)

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

Who incited David to number the fighting men of Israel? 

God?  2 Samuel 24:1

or Satan?  I Chronicles 21:1

 

It's not a contradiction.

 

Quote

 

For many Bible readers, the parallel accounts that describe David’s numbering of Israel (found in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21) pose a serious problem. “Why does 2 Samuel 24:1 state that God ‘moved’ David against Israel, while 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that it was Satan who ‘stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel’ ”? Can both passages be right, or is this a contradiction?

The Hebrew verb wayyaset, translated “moved” (NKJV) or “incited (NASV), is identical in both passages. God and Satan’s actions are described using the same word. The difference lies with the sense in which the word is used: Satan incited (or tempted—cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:5) David more directly, while God is spoken of as having incited David because He allowed such temptation to take place. The Hebrews often used active verbs to express “not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do” (Bullinger, 2898, p. 823, emp. in orig.). Throughout the Bible, God’s allowance of something to take place often is described by the sacred writers as having been done by the Lord.

 

Another instance where this idiomatic language can be found is in the book of Job. In fact, the situation regarding God and Satan inciting David to number Israel probably more closely parallels the first two chapters of Job than any other passage of Scripture.

Truly, similar to how Pharaoh hardened his heart because God gave him occasion to do such, and similar to how Job suffered because God allowed Satan to strike Job with calamity, God allowed Satan to incite David to sin (1 Chronicles 21:1).

 

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=784

 

 

Edited July 23, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

IN THAT NUMBERING ABOVE, HOW MANY FIGHTING MEN WERE FOUND IN ISRAEL AND JUDAH?

 

2 Samuel 24

⁹ Then Joab gave the sum of the number of the people to the king. And there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

 

1 Chron 21

⁵ And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.

 

No contradiction.

The keyword is "valiant."  The men numbered in 2 Samuel 24 were men with battle experience. 

The number given in 1 Chron 21 is the number of all men ready for battle.

 

 

Quote

 

Regarding Judah's number difference:

The solution seems to provided for us in the following verse, 1 Chronicles 21:6, which says, "But he did not number Levi and Benjamin among them, for the king’s command was abhorrent to Joab," (NASB).

Verse six states that the numbering process had not yet been completed since the tribes of Levi and Benjamin had not been numbered.

 

https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/joshua-esther/how-many-fighting-men-were-found-judah-and-israel

 

Thus, the count is lower.

Edited July 23, 2017 by betsy

[JamesHackerMP]

About how many "authors" do scholars think the bible had anyway? There's always going to be some inconsistencies when something is written by committee, no matter who the "chairman" is.

Also, there was some difference between one part of the Torah and another, cited by King Henry VIII as his excuse for divorcing Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn.  I think in Exodus it says you should marry your deceased brother's widow (an act of compassion at a time when women were barred from working outside the home) and in Leviticus that if you do that "you shall be childless".  sorry if I don't remember exactly where that was, though.

Edited July 23, 2017 by JamesHackerMP

[hot enough]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

Brainwashed idiots?  Stop talking about conspiracy theorists like  9/11 truthers! This thread isn't for the brainwashed evil you talk about.

This thread isn't about terrorist Islamists.

I agree, so why do you focus on it. I made a comparison to US brainwashing and the parallels to religious brainwashing. If you can't grasp that there is a strong parallel, there is little hope for you.

I know you can, but still you persist in both your US and religious delusions. 

[betsy]

3 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

About how many "authors" do scholars think the bible had anyway? There's always going to be some inconsistencies when something is written by committee, no matter who the "chairman" is.

Also, there was some difference between one part of the Torah and another, cited by King Henry VIII as his excuse for divorcing Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn.  I think in Exodus it says you should marry your deceased brother's widow (an act of compassion at a time when women were barred from working outside the home) and in Leviticus that if you do that "you shall be childless".  sorry if I don't remember exactly where that was, though.

According to this article, he used his knowledge of the Bible to get his way. I don't know much about Henry VIII.   It's an interesting read.

 

Quote

 

Leviticus 20:16

“If a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an impurity; he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.”

 

Henry argued that his marriage to Catherine had been against God’s law from the start despite the Pope’s blessing for it to go ahead in 1509. He was therefore living in sin and that the Pope had to annul his marriage so that he could rectify this.

As ‘Defender of the Faith’ – a title bestowed on Henry for his 1521 attack on the work of Martin Luther – Henry believed that such an annulment was almost a foregone conclusion. Whether Henry actually believed this is open to question especially as he was simply lusting after Anne Boleyn at the time, which clearly was not a sin in his mind despite his marriage.

Henry gave a masterful speech to the country’s nobles at Bridewell, London, in November 1528, explaining that Catherine was noble and virtuous and that in other circumstances he would marry he again. But because of what had happened he lived in “detestable and abominable adultery”. Edward Hall, who wrote about the speech, stated that it was made with great passion. However, Henry also knew how to address an audience so to what extent this was ‘acting’ will never be known.

 

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tudor-england/henrys-divorce-from-catherine/

 

[hot enough]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

This thread is about contradictions in the Bible.

I know that. And the comment that only deeply brainwashed individuals can make this pretense that their hopelessly naive, childish, wacky "science" remotely approaches real science is right on topic.

[hot enough]

10 minutes ago, betsy said:

According to this article, he used his knowledge of the Bible to get his way

That is you and every other christian since time immemorial. 

[betsy]

3 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

About how many "authors" do scholars think the bible had anyway? There's always going to be some inconsistencies when something is written by committee, no matter who the "chairman" is.

Also, there was some difference between one part of the Torah and another, cited by King Henry VIII as his excuse for divorcing Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn.  I think in Exodus it says you should marry your deceased brother's widow (an act of compassion at a time when women were barred from working outside the home) and in Leviticus that if you do that "you shall be childless".  sorry if I don't remember exactly where that was, though.

 

Deuteronomy 25

Marriage Duty of the Surviving Brother

⁵ “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. ⁶ And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. ⁷ But if the man does not want to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.’ ⁸ Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. But if he stands firm and says, ‘I do not want to take her,’ ⁹ then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house.’ ¹⁰ And his name shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal removed.’

 

Another interesting article about Catherine.

http://www.tudorhistory.org/aragon/

[hot enough]

16 minutes ago, betsy said:

But if he stands firm and says, ‘I do not want to take her,’ ⁹ then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house.’ ¹⁰ And his name shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal removed.’

Wow, how will he ever live it down, having a sandal removed. You guys don't really read this crap in church, do you? 

[GostHacked]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

So-called contradictions that's been responded to:

Stil one to go, and it's a big one. God says thou shalt not kill, yet God killed many INCLUDING his only begotten son. That does not sound like a loving God in my view.

[betsy]

1 minute ago, GostHacked said:

Stil one to go, and it's a big one. God says thou shalt not kill, yet God killed many INCLUDING his only begotten son. That does not sound like a loving God in my view.

 

post #168.

[GostHacked]

4 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

post #168.

It seems like you do not have a problem for one set of rules for you, while there is another set of rules for 'god'.  If he aint following his own rules, screw that, no sense in me abiding by any hypocritical notion he puts forth. Hence, the bible is junk.

It's the same with our government leaders. Some here don't seem to have a problem with a rule set for those who govern, and a different rule set for those who are governed. 

All this allows you to be hypocritical while the wording of the hypocracy reconciles in your brain as both being the same. It's the wording that betrays your notion of what is wright and what is wrong. You are being brainwashed/conditioned in thinking that you can accept one rule-set for you and another for God.

Now people in positions do get certain special treatment that comes with the position, but that still does not mean they can commit crimes anymore than I can. If God does not want to be held accountable for his horrific actions, then I cannot see a single reason I need to be accountable for anything I do.

[betsy]

2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

It seems like you do not have a problem for one set of rules for you, while there is another set of rules for 'god'.  If he aint following his own rules, screw that, no sense in me abiding by any hypocritical notion he puts forth. Hence, the bible is junk.

It's the same with our government leaders. Some here don't seem to have a problem with a rule set for those who govern, and a different rule set for those who are governed. 

All this allows you to be hypocritical while the wording of the hypocracy reconciles in your brain as both being the same. It's the wording that betrays your notion of what is wright and what is wrong. You are being brainwashed/conditioned in thinking that you can accept one rule-set for you and another for God.

Now people in positions do get certain special treatment that comes with the position, but that still does not mean they can commit crimes anymore than I can. If God does not want to be held accountable for his horrific actions, then I cannot see a single reason I need to be accountable for anything I do.

 

You can spout off your protest and indignation with all the bravado you can muster........but anyone who understands the concept of God would just be rolling his eyes and your words come out sounding pathetic.

  Because, in the end, it won't be you who's going to decide whether you're accountable or not.  You won't have any say about it.

Edited July 23, 2017 by betsy

[GostHacked]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

 

You can spout off your protest and indignation with all the bravado you can muster........but anyone who understands the concept of God would just be rolling his eyes and your words come out sounding pathetic.

  Because, in the end, it won't be you who's going to decide whether you're accountable or not.  You won't have any say about it.

OH I am accountable for my day to day actions by my peers and my family and from those who pay me to perform a certain job. You bet you are accountable day to day. Get that straightened out and you have no worries about the other thing.

It's not bravado, it's knowing that religious people ignore the inconsistencies to match their worldview which allow them to be complete hypocrites.

[betsy]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

OH I am accountable for my day to day actions by my peers and my family and from those who pay me to perform a certain job. You bet you are accountable day to day. Get that straightened out and you have no worries about the other thing.

It's not bravado, it's knowing that religious people ignore the inconsistencies to match their worldview which allow them to be complete hypocrites.

I was reacting to your delusional bravado here:

 

Quote

Gosthacked

If God does not want to be held accountable for his horrific actions, then I cannot see a single reason I need to be accountable for anything I do.

 

In the end - on JUDGEMENT DAY -  you're not going to be judging God....He'll be judging you!

The decision whether you need to be held accountable or not,  won't be up to you. 

Your rationale shows you don't get the concept of God - that, He's not bound by any rules!

 

 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2017 by betsy

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎22 at 3:08 PM, GostHacked said:

Then that message died with Christ and is no longer the true word anymore for humanity. We can eventually move past it.

You don't speak for Christians and in particular those Christians who use Christ as a symbol for the personification of behaviours they believe  will heal the world.

Christianity is a code of behaviour to heal the world at its basic essence. Christ in its most basic of symbols is a role model on how to behave. Its based on the Talmudic principles of Teekam Olam, healing the world by doing positive things. Its a universal code of behaviour most religions believe in.

In Christianity you do not move past trying to be positive-its a continuous mission of life. The same in Judaism. The only difference between the two is Christianity uses the simple of God through personification, the Christ figure, and Judaism leaves it as an abstract concept with no specific role model of a human only a vague reference to a Messiah returning.

Many Jews and Christians in the modern version of both religions believe we are all the Messiah or Jesus, i.e., each one of us was born to heal the world through examples of our positive actions and this mission did not stop or can not stop with just one human or Jesus and is a continuous exercise in all humans that we can choose to follow or turn away from.

Christianity is a constant striving to be Christian, you can't move past it anymore than you can move past being a Jew (which is also a code for civilized behaviour) or a HIndu or a Siekh or a Jain or a Muslim, etc.

In non religions with codes of behaviour like Taosim or Buddhism the exercise of perfecting one's actions is said to be in the moment and past and future are said to be illusions and the time line we call it in our material world is said to be an illusion. Each moment is infinite in consequence and possibility.

So your comment to move past it is a personal b Its based on your belief that someone else's belief has a shelf life and expires. WE. You use that word again. WE can eventually move past it. No in religion you speak only for yourself. You don't speak for WE, US any collective. You reflect your own beliefs. If you want to move past whatever it is you believe you think is no longer of value, that decision begins and ends with you, not me, not we, not us.

You constantly make references as if you think for others. You do not.

To Besty, I describe the Christ lesson as I call it, the pith and substance of Christianity's message to heal the world through positive, caring behaviour. something that we can not say began and can not say ends. I do not believe our minds have the capacity to define the beginning and end of anything and we only see glimpses of what we think is a time line-I personally think there is no beginning or ending-that such concepts are a paradox and are in fact not separate but one and the same.

I believe the so called reference to God in t he Bible as Alpha and Omega is a reference to energy being in essence something that when it is totally nothing is absolutely everything and vice versa-a concept that makes sense in studying physical energy movement but baffles humans in the sense of trying to understand where they come from and where they go.

I personally believe Adam and Eve are codes for the atom and explain how with every force is an opposite force the essence of physics-without one, the other can not exist.

 

[Rue]

14 hours ago, betsy said:

I was reacting to your delusional bravado here:

 

 

In the end - on JUDGEMENT DAY -  you're not going to be judging God....He'll be judging you!

The decision whether you need to be held accountable or not,  won't be up to you. 

Your rationale shows you don't get the concept of God - that, He's not bound by any rules!

 

 

 

 

In my beliefs, you Judge yourself long before you you "die". I have witnessed people doing just that. As their bodies prepare to break down their unresolved issues rise to the top like methane gas from the bottom of a marsh and they reach the surface and become exposed and have to be dealt with.

I have seen some people die happily or gently having resolved many of these issues and simply having a faith to let the others go and forgive themselves while others cling to them and refuse to let them go screaming to the next level after death.

How we let go of conflict is the key. When we learn to swim the first thing we do is to have faith in water to let us float. We have to confront and ignore all our senses that tell us fight the water and simply trust it.

Death I believe is like learning to float on water. One needs to let go and trust something larger to take place.

In our material world, we learn to hold on and not dispose of things or if we do dispose of them, its because we devalue them.

Its the price of living in a material world.

However that may not be healthy.  It may be we have to learn to let things go not because we believe they have no value but precisely because we believe they have great value.

I agree with the Taoists and Buddhists and mystic Christians and Jews or Hindus or Hains when they say the things of greatest value we must learn to let go of.

So your reference to a God judging people I moved on from. To me in Judaism that judegemental God is portrayed as very angry and ill tempered with the mistakes of humans.

I think that is a human projection on the qualities of "God". I see God not as a person, but as an abstract concept dealing with the movement of all energy on a constant basis of evolutionary and mutating movement and essence.

I don't see judgement-I do see energy that has to balance itself-I see it as a balancing act not a judgement.

Interestingly in some Christian and Jewish tales of the Judgement day-that Judgement exercise is seen as reviewing he Good and Bad of one's live (negative, positive energy) and seeing how the two add up. Some believe if the negative consquences of one' life outweigh the positive ones, an act of correction must then happen to assure a balance of the two.

Some believe you must keep living lives until you balance things out and then get to move on to a higher level of existence-others believe being reborn is a trap or a punishment for not having evolved properly.

I don't see any of that other than I think all energy is constantly balancing its negative and positive streams. I leave speculation about divine punishment and judgement for others.

I personally believe speculation about punishment, judgement, are human projections-things humans construct based on how they learned their life lessons.