jump to last post 1-50 of 77 discussions (332 posts)

If the Bible is the truth then why are there so many contradictions?

  1. Hokey profile image61
    Hokeyposted 6 years ago

    example:   God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many       years of famine?

        * Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
        * Three (I Chronicles 21:12)

    1. Paper Wolf profile image59
      Paper Wolfposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The Hebrew language text 2 Samuel reads "seven" years of famine.
      1 Chronicles probably a better preserved text.

      Contradictions would more aptly describe two opposites. Yes or no?

      1. Hokey profile image61
        Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Contradictions=  a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions

    2. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      umm, which "Old Testament" are you reading  hokey?

      both say: three years of famine, three months running or three days of plague. So where is the Seven?

      1. Hokey profile image61
        Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You mean there is more than One? We are in more trouble than I thought!!!!    hmm    Maybe I need 6 foil hats!!!!   yikes

    3. davidwpa profile image60
      davidwpaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The way I see it, the Bible is a collection of books of various subjects and disciplines including correspondence, history, poetry and allegories that was crafted by the Church to advance the cause of Christianity in the early days of the Roman Catholic Church.

      While people look at the book as a whole item today, one has to remember it is a COLLECTION of books and not one single cohesive volume.  In addition those books were authored by several different people many of whom may have been inspired to write them.

      As far as contradictions go, stop thumping the Bible and discrediting it as a whole because someone's age isn't right in it.  We can't get facts correct on things that happened a hundred years ago so cut them some slack.  If you don't believe me try looking at any two encyclopedias and see how their so-called facts stack up to each other.

      History is one of the most subjective compiled writings that exists.  History is written usually by the winners and people with agendas.  For example, read US History about the Alamo, then read a Mexican account of the Alamo.  Kids are taught that Davy Crockett died fighting while the Mexicans say he was found cowering and executed after the battle. The Americans talk about a Revolution, the English look at us as rebellious children.

      On the subject of divine inspiration, I believe the Bible is the writings of men who were inspired by something or someone.  No one writes without an inspiration.  It's rich in metaphor, allegory and literary devices just like any other literature. 

      Also, you all read an English translation of a book that has been translated from ancient Hebrew and Greek and from what I know, there is NOT a literal translation between the languages.

      No two people will describe events the same way just like no two writers will describe the same event identically.  We don't hold modern writers to that ideal, why are you doing it with people who were a lot simpler and just as inspired as all of us.

      Why do you write?  and who inspires you? and how do you know your facts are always right?  See the problem.

      That doesn't negate the spirit of the book in my humble opinion.  The spirit of the book is to provide us with a compass for living a moral life emulating God and to teach us why to live that way and what happened before both good and bad.

      1. 60
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Notice how abysmal the bible's track record as a moral compass has been over the centuries?

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Deleted

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What i meant to say was, but nicely this time. the context is thousands of years. The bible is the basis for today's judicial system, which actually set morals as we know it.

            In the olden days, you can push pretty virginal girls off a clif, disembowel your friend, eat the brains of live animals to pacify forces of nature  and nobody would care.

            1. Hokey profile image61
              Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The same is done today. Only now it's       s, pipe      ,             er, automatic weapons, etc.......  sad

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                oh, come to think of it...yeah. nothing's changed.

        2. gordhann profile image60
          gordhannposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Davidwpa~you are a very intelligent, and it seems, God fearing man. I can understand from a strictly academic view how many find conflict and fault within the pages of the Bible, and while finding fault miss the entire message. I encourage all of the commenters here to look at the Bible with a different perspective. It really is a life giving book. Thank you David for one of the best spins on this great, most read, most inspiring, and life changing book I've ever (literally) read. Keep studying and keep writing!

      2. The Learner profile image60
        The Learnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        In the court system in the current age, witnesses are a major part of the outcome of a trial.  If there are several eye witnesses in a case, their testimonies are very important.  If all of the witnesses have identicial main themes and identical details, they would be suspected of collaboration (like in the Watergate Scandal).  If however, all of the eye witnesses have the same main themes and only the details are different, their testimonies would be accepted as valid.

        Different details from different writers seem like "contradictions" because they're written from different perspectives.  The main ideas are identical, but the details are different.  This enforces the truth of the writing, it doesn't take away from it.

        I and II Kings and I and II Chronicles are accounts of the history of Israel.  One is written from the perspective of the Northern Kingdom and the other from the Southern Kingdom.

        The writers of the gospels have the same situation.

        1. gordhann profile image60
          gordhannposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The Learner~I must say a very appropriate title for one who has studied well before speaking. The Bible itself tells us to, "Study to show thyself approved...," not read or listen to someone else, then make an uninformed decision.

      3. aware profile image69
        awareposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        its fiction

        1. FranyaBlue profile image79
          FranyaBlueposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think that even our everyday fiction books have as many contradictions as the bible does.

          1. earnestshub profile image89
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If they did they would be laughed off the shelf and the author would be cleaning toilets. smile

      4. Jerami profile image79
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It is my understanding that Ezra restored much of the ancient writings. He dictated this knowledge. I do not have any idea as to what books had to be restored and what ones did not. This may be the cause for some to the contradictions ????
            Sounds good to me.

      5. tantrum profile image61
        tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sure the bible have some thruths hidden deep inside.
        the bible has contradictions, because life is contradictory in itself.
        and Man the more ! lol

        1. Hokey profile image61
          Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Good Morning tantrum!  smile

          1. tantrum profile image61
            tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            hi there ! smile

            1. Hokey profile image61
              Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I like you pic.  How are you today?

              1. tantrum profile image61
                tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I'm Great !!! Having a wonderful life. and wonderful news as well.
                Can't ask for more big_smile

                1. Hokey profile image61
                  Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Whats the good news? I wanna share!!!   big_smile

                  1. tantrum profile image61
                    tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    If you're so curious, I'll e-mail them to you
                    lol

                    1. Hokey profile image61
                      Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      YES!!!!   I wanna know!!!   smile

                      Don't forget the       pics of you with them. Ya know? Cahe always needs icing!!   lol

      6. manlypoetryman profile image68
        manlypoetrymanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hokey: My best explanation is: Perhaps there is a balance to many of the contradictions. Would you be willing to say that some parts of the Bible are wise? Then, perhaps there are two sets of extremes to help guide the follower. Anyways...something to consider. Peace...Out!
        http://thebigredapple.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/karate-kid.jpg

        "Must find balance first"

    4. theirishobserver. profile image60
      theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

      And then they rained down on Hokey - Irish 3:7: verse 6 smile

      1. Hokey profile image61
        Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Irish my brother!!!  Namaste!!!!  big_smile

    5. theirishobserver. profile image60
      theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

      And then she cometh upon Hokey 3:7 verse 8 smile

    6. Hokey profile image61
      Hokeyposted 6 years ago

      How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?

          * Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
          * Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)

      1. Onusonus profile image88
        Onusonusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sombody obviously left out the "One" I'll just penn that one in.smile

    7. Pandoras Box profile image83
      Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago

      Here come the twisted, nonsensical, desperate and deluded apologetics..

      1. Hokey profile image61
        Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The funny thing is that I am not trying to start trouble. I am curious how this can be explained.

        1. 0
          Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          King James Minister #1 was in a political fight for power with King James Minister #2 in the translation department, so they both went off and did it their own way.

          They're still not talking to each other . . .

    8. Hokey profile image61
      Hokeyposted 6 years ago

      In what year of King Asa's reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?

          * Twenty-sixth year  (I Kings 15:33 - 16:8)
          * Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1)

    9. theirishobserver. profile image60
      theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

      And then Hokey came down off the mount 2:6 Verse 8 smile

    10. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

      The bible in it's entirety is the word of God.  Individual verses of it are not. Is a slice of pie the same as a pie?  Surely not.  God is so great that even a book filled with lies, contradictions, and hatred can be formed into the ultimate, loving truth.

      Thanks for asking.

      Have a blessed day motherf***er

      1. Pandoras Box profile image83
        Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        So none of it can be trusted, it would seem.

        You know, if you subscribe to the 'blame the errors on man' theory.

        Maybe man wrote the verses against homosexuality, how about that?

    11. Shadesbreath profile image89
      Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago

      The question is flawed, because "truth" is relative.  Don't confuse facts with truth.

      That is why Christians can believe in it.  Technical details, like ages or the weight in grams of Jesus' left shoe, do not matter so much as the point he's making, or perhaps more accurately, from the point being extracted from the words that are being attributed to him, whether accurate or not.

      1. Pandoras Box profile image83
        Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The bible either is inspired and infallible, or it is not. Can't have it both ways.

        1. Shadesbreath profile image89
          Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That is a false binary.  You are imposing an either / or that completely rules out the nature of both reason and reality.  You suggest that something cannot be inspired and yet flawed, those two are not mutually exclusive.  Furthermore, you are imposing rules on how a divine being can operate and assuming that you have the capacity with a mortal mind to fathom how that divine being puts his/her/its plan in place.  What makes you so special that you get to decide that it has to be infallible by your definition or it is rendered moot for all the world?

          I don't mean that last to sound snippy; it's not.  I'm simply saying, it requires tremendous hubris to presume to define with such absolutism how the universe or a deity or even a potential deity must function.

          1. Pandoras Box profile image83
            Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe you misunderstood what I said. I said the bible either is infallible, or it is not. It either is inpired or it is not.

            I did not say that something inspired could not be flawed.

            1. Shadesbreath profile image89
              Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Fair enough.  I stand corrected.  Then what I should have said is that you have created two false binaries.  I stand by the rest. 

              Who gets to be the final arbiter on whether or not it passes muster as infallible?  Who get's to set what "infallible" means.  Does infallible mean every single micro-fact must be historically verifiable by X number of sources?  Or can its infallibility be tied to its moral potency?  What if it's both?  Do you get to be the final arbiter of all that?

              Same for "inspired."  What is inspired and how does one decide whether something is inspired or not?  It seems ludicrous to want to argue that a holy text, from any religion, is not inspired, but I'll play along long enough to ask the same questions I did above.  Who get's to define the terms by which humanity can count itself finally informed on the truth of the Bible's inspiration or having been inspired?

              1. Pandoras Box profile image83
                Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah sure, the bible is inspired except for any parts which are hopelessly proven wrong, and then it's man's fault. But any doctrinal flaws or contradictions will be twisted and distorted to force a moral inspiration that promotes the favored viewpoint of the church or believer at hand.

                So historically or scientifically the bible may be less than infallible and inspired -if you're not too fundamental about it all, but morally it's infallibly inspired since morality is relative and noone can ever prove you're wrong.

                Therefore, your imaginary god exists. wink

                1. Shadesbreath profile image89
                  Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Good, then we agree it's more complicated than simply being either/or.  I knew we could find common ground. 

                  I admit to chuckling when I saw you've decided to rejoin the two terms again ("infallibly inspired"), it's hard to keep up with the vicissitudes of your conviction.

                  And for the record, I am not fundamentalist at all. Quite the opposite.  I wouldn't call myself an Atheist, however, as that requires as much faith and unfounded certainty as does devotion.  I'm more a believer of reasonable discourse and an approach to discovery through thoughtful inquiry.  Hence my pointing out your false binaries.  Even though I bet we agree ontologically on God as described by most Christians, I think its important to present arguments genuinely, without fallacious claims that give the fundamentalists easy opportunities to refute points and thus create the illusion of battles won.

                  1. Pandoras Box profile image83
                    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree that it is more twisted.



                    It's not my conviction. The book is infallibly inspired when it comes to morality and doctrine. The rest of it is as well except for the parts which can be proven wrong. Of course, this doesn't quite apply to many christians, the fly by's as I call them, who only necessarily believe the parts about them being saved and going to heaven.



                    I disagree, but am used to the argument. There is no certainty or faith involved for me in a god or lack thereof, there is merely a lack of belief in one.



                    You're a pedant.



                    You have a point, of course. I usually just fall back on telling them they're full of crap.

                    Seriously I get a headache when I look at these philosophical arguments. I walked away from the ancient philosophers with the feeling that they were highly overrated. In order to follow the later philosophers you have to have a good knowledge of the teachings of ones who came before them. Having never acheived that, I can't understand them either.

                    From what I read of Plato and Socrates the theories were that everything pointed to god. I thought their arguments lame.

                    Of course, this is a sign of impatience on my part, and even a violation of my own philosophy, being that most of the people or ideas which are revered have some kernels of truth within them. Take what you can use, leave the rest.

                    1. Shadesbreath profile image89
                      Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      Calling god "imaginary," along with the assertive diction in your responses suggests conviction more than it suggests a simple lack of belief.  People fight for things they believe in, not things they don't.  "Lack of belief" carries a passive connotation to my ear, where "God is imaginary" carries a clear belief in the non-existence of a deity.

                      How am I a pedant?

                      And I wouldn't hold your disinterest in philosophy as a course of reading against you.  It can be pretty dry, that's a fact, and sometimes meandering and odd.  It's fun if you have the patience for it, albeit, often, useless.  But then, most of us have stuff we do/enjoy that ultimately is of little use.

                      And I agree with your final statement, "take what you can use, and leave the rest."  That's good advice.

                  2. Marisa Wright profile image92
                    Marisa Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Shade,I would call your description of yourself, the perfect description of an atheist.  Personally, I don't know a single atheist who is absolutely certain that God doesn't exist.  They are merely certain no evidence currently exists to suggest otherwise.  All of them would change their view if irrefutable evidence was offered.  They often don't sound like that because, when faced with a closed-minded fundamentalist, they become so frustrated and angry.

                    1. Shadesbreath profile image89
                      Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      I'd call what you are describing as being agnostic.  Agnosticism does not deny the existence of God, it just finds it hard to believe without proof; agnostics are open to proof either way.  They are without conviction (aka without Faith).  Atheist definition - Princeton University

                      Atheism actually denies the existence of God, as in, they don't believe it.  They have "faith" that there is NO God - an opposite faith to religion (far more opposite than Satan worship etc.) They may say, "Show me proof and I will believe," but that is not out of open-minded search for understanding, as if they aren't sure; it is more of a dare, based in their belief there is no way you can do it. Princeton again

                      Christians would probably tell you, "If you can prove that there is no God, I will stop believing," too.  You just have no way of proving that either.  Proving a negative is impossible, which is possibly why religion continues today.

                      Many people label themselves Atheist incorrectly.  I find that happens a lot, and it may be why you know atheists who are open minded.  They are agnostics and don't realize it, or they like the rebellious feel of be called an atheist.

              2. 0
                philip carey 61posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I see the Bible as a record of man's search for God, and for himself. Faith has no beef with reason, other than to point out that the assumption that reason is the final arbiter of truth is itself an assumption, usually defended on the basis of it's own assumption--that reason should have the final say. It's perfectly circular thinking--not unlike faith. So, in the end, maybe people simply DECIDE what is true (subjectivity merges with objectivity in some ineffable way). The decision of what is true, IS the reality for that person. Maybe there is no objective truth, maybe we define reality, and in that sense are Sons and Daughters of God in a very real way.

                1. Pandoras Box profile image83
                  Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Or maybe there is no god and believers are just nuts!

                  1. Valerie F profile image59
                    Valerie Fposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I know of many psychiatrists who would disagree with your blanket assessment.

                    That being said, even a work of complete fiction can be inspired. Even a work of complete fiction can present a truth that is more important than any mere presentation of facts and findings. (For instance, did Jesus directly observe a good Samaritan helping a mugging victim, or did he make the story up completely to illustrate a point? Was Jesus a liar or "wrong" to tell a story about something that may not have really happened?)

                    Also, even of books and passages of books intended to serve as historical records, the presence of contradictions is in and of itself does not invalidate them. Rather, the lack of contradiction between one person's records and another's, or one witness' account and another's, proves that collusion was involved.

                    Frederic Chopin was born 200 years ago. There are some contradictions regarding his birthdate and the correct spelling of his name. Does that mean Chopin didn't exist and fans of his piano works are all nuts?

                    1. Pandoras Box profile image83
                      Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      200 years ago yesterday, or in the last couple of weeks at any rate. Of course, noone would claim that a god personally wrote the birth record.

                  2. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    underneath all that is hope.

                    1. Pandoras Box profile image83
                      Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      lol

      2. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Since when did "truth" become relative. hmm

        1. Shadesbreath profile image89
          Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Read Plato, then read Aristotle.  Then you'll see.

          1. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Read both. And found Plato to be a fool and Aristotle happens to have better understanding than Plato.

            However, Plato never finished his learning from Socrates. Thus, making him a fool. His ideology was false compared to Aristotle.

            When reality was defined by Humans, it set the standard as how we see things, and the forms in which we see are part of an objective reality. There is no individual perspective on reality, simply for the fact that we wouldn't able to grow or expand as a race of human beings. Reality exists outside/above an individual's perception. Reality exists free from individual thoughts, desires, will, or wishes.

            On a side note, the difference between Plato and Aristotle- Plato was a mystic philosopher with incomplete training. Aristotle was an accomplished science professor and philosopher.

            Plato claimed all humans being must be made to answer to a higher authority, simply because their root core was evil in nature.

            Aristotle claimed all human beings were good in nature and must be allowed to use their free will as they see fit.

            But, Thank you for the suggestion.

            1. Shadesbreath profile image89
              Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              First, calling Plato a fool is not only unnecessary, it's reckless in an intellectual debate given that he is still being studied, published, read and taught thousands of years after he stopped teaching.  Humility is a cornerstone to good philosophical conversation, at least for lay people like you and me.

              Second, given that you recognize the nature of his forms, then you understand the nature of instantiated properties.  Any conceivable property can exist, which include true, false, and partly true, because more than one condition can apply.

              Third, as you said, Plato believed in higher authority.   He was an idealist.  Aristotle was a pragmatist, or realist if you prefer.  So, given that your original question to me was "since when did 'truth' become relative?" and that you appear to be at least partly familiar with both of their works, I'm struggling to see how you were unable to fathom the answer to your question prior to asking it, or, at the very least, as you were typing up your reply.  It seems you agree with me, but aren't seeing it, or wanting to be seen to agree.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I have no love for Plato. I think he's full of cop outs. Lots of holes in his philosophy.

                1. Shadesbreath profile image89
                  Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  There are no philosophies without holes. If there were, we would have the answers everyone here is looking for.  That's sort of the point.

                  And, as I said before, they're still teaching Plato to this day. Do you think they will be teaching your philosophical writings in pretty much every university there is two or three thousand years from now?

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    He's not my favorite. I like Socrates more. Just a preference.

        2. 0
          lyricsingrayposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          took the words right out of my mouth big_smile big_smile big_smile

          now give them back lol

    12. 60
      (Q)posted 6 years ago

      In a belief system where the supernatural violates the physical laws of the universe all the time, there can be no contradictions.

    13. Hokey profile image61
      Hokeyposted 6 years ago

      Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?

      (a) Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26)

      (b) Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5)

    14. 0
      sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago

      C'mon Hokey it's a word search! You just don't know the rules thats all!big_smile

      1. Hokey profile image61
        Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol lol lol lol

    15. Paper Wolf profile image59
      Paper Wolfposted 6 years ago

      All Scripture has three applications - doctrinal, historical and inspirational. We must see the whole before becoming too immersed in its parts. No candid and intelligent student of the Bible will deny that it contains numerous "discrepancies," that it's statements, taken at "face value," not infrequently conflict with or contradict one another, may safely be presumed. This fact has been more or less recognized by Christian scholars in all ages. An important preliminary question relates to the Origin of Discrepancies. To what causes are they to be referred? From what sources do they arise?

      1. Hokey profile image61
        Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That's an easy one. It's a man made book.

        1. earnestshub profile image89
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly! smile

          1. karobi profile image72
            karobiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly what? ok which other book apart from the Bible talk extensively about human as the Bible? Is only when people view the Bible from their natural eye that they lost focus of the facts about the Bible. Thanks

            1. thisisoli profile image66
              thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Have you ever been to the non-fiction section of a library?

              1. karobi profile image72
                karobiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                to do what feed myself with lies or what?

    16. Jerami profile image79
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago

      I am not sure how many of the diffrent scriptures that Ezra was commissioned to write or re write in an attempt to        re-educate the Hebrews that returned to Jerusalem of their past.
        This might explain some of the contradictions.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        well Ezra is one thing, the Septuagint Bible is another, plus before that, it was babylonian.  I mean it is very very old. tht might explain some of the contradictions.

        Hebrew is a mathematical language, 1 is spirit/strength, 2 is house/in, 3 is camel/journey. the values of each phonetic sound communicates an order of appearance. like 123456789. 1=oxpower, 2 containment, 3 travelling/speed.

        So imagine what happened when a language so rich in conceptual meaning per letter got translated to Greek.

    17. Jerami profile image79
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago

      Wifes turn on the computer...  gotta go.

    18. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago

      Have to go with Shades on this one - Plato has recently been rediscovered by science. He (and Goethe) were heavily used by the Chaos Theorists, who were looking for holistic explanations, rather than reductionism. Biologists and ecologists also seek a lot of influence from their work - reducing things down to their constituent parts does not explain dynamic systems very well.

      Even with a science background, I have never written off Plato - he was incorrect in many things, but so was Aristotle. Every time I pick up a lump of olive wood and my carving tools, or I sit down to write, I look to Plato's idealism and insubstantial properties, rather than Aristotle's empiricism.

      Calling him a fool is a little uncalled for smile

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        OH are we talking about plato's medicinal lie. he is the reason why republicans exist.

    19. Hokey profile image61
      Hokeyposted 6 years ago

      How many were the children of Azgad?

      (a) One thousand two hundred and twenty-two (Ezra 2:12)

      (b) Two thousand three hundred and twenty-two (Nehemiah 7:17)

    20. Hokey profile image61
      Hokeyposted 6 years ago

      Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

      (a) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)

      (b) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

      1. EFPotter profile image60
        EFPotterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This is probably the most substantial discrepancy you've noted. I hope people pick up on it and reply with something more than "because it just is."

        The way I tend to view it is that the Bible was supposed to be God's word. But, like everything, humans fouled it up. This makes it an unreliable source to me. In a book with clearly contradicting pieces, what do you do? Whatever benefits you. It's human nature to find the wiggle room.

        Is this disrespectful to God? No. Does this mean the Bible wasn't inspired? No. The fallibility is with people, as it always has been and always will be. There can't be anyone who claims people don't make mistakes, screw up, and get things terribly terribly wrong on a regular basis. How could we preserve the Word of God? I certainly don't know, and certainly don't think we could. That's one of the very points people have tried lobbing at you: "Well, you're human. You can't understand." We're all human. None of us can understand. Not even the apostles, or those inspired. Because they were still human, with biases and flawed minds, when they wrote.

    21. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

      the contradictions come by human error or revision.
      the best way to understand it is to read it in its original text.

      1. EFPotter profile image60
        EFPotterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Which version is that? Is it one that we still have a record of? I doubt it's one we can just pick up at Borders.

        1. earnestshub profile image89
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Twenty one travels with his time machine, no worries he will bring you one back, he is such a gentleman! smile

          1. EFPotter profile image60
            EFPotterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Time machines are pretty sweet. I'm jealous.

        2. 0
          Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Talmud is not easy to study, nor the elements within.
          Hebrews have studied for thousands of years the texts and are still awe inspired by them. Since Mosaic covenant was introduced some 5,770.5 years ago, the challenge has been to relate something expressive into something scripted. Not an easy task at all. Yet, theists have fallen overthemselves to say 'this is the truth'.

          Ironically, Buddhism, Christianity, Hindi and a host of other beliefs/religions stem from Talmud and Y`shua teachings including, believe it or not, atheism, politics and even some sciences.

          contradictions come from false interpretations and the need to know. I have argued this point much, receiving expected responses of har-har etc. I don't mind it at all, without challenge, no one would have humility or wisdom.

          It all goes back to this: "did 'God' really say..."
          Questioning.

          Here is a creation so awesome that all of the universe marveled. A creation who know it all, had infinite ability. So much, that it was served by creations made before and after.

          Yet, this creation deemed itself unworthy or too good to be what it was. That creation -humanity. As soon as humanity accepting this question, it fell into this spiral of consciousness and is still stuck there today. Some with 'bibles' tucked under arm, some with statues of steel & glass, wood and marble. Some with selfish, egocentric bubble wrapped banter and some with oceans of tears.

          When humanity realizes it was made to be much more than it thinks, when it finally concedes itself and accepts what it was designed to be, then all this Need To Know will end, this sin will end and Grace will be restored to every single one.

          1. Hokey profile image61
            Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Buddhism came from the Talmud? Are you serious? Buddhism came along side Hinduism. They both teach the Dharma. Evidence from both Buddhist and Hindu scriptures show that the two traditions were in dialogue with one another from a very early date. The Buddha is mentioned in several of the Puranas that are believed to have been composed after his birth. Certain Buddhist teachings appear to have been formulated in response to ideas presented in the early Upanishads – in some cases concurring with them, and in other cases criticizing or re-interpreting them.

            The Bhagavad Gita is a post-Buddhist text, and some scholars believe it was composed as part of the Hindu reaction to Buddhism. Prominent Indian scholars see the Bhagavad Gita as rather the product of intellectual currents then prevalent in India that pre-dated the emergence of Buddhism.

            In later years, there is significant evidence that both Buddhism and Hinduism were supported by Indian rulers, regardless of the rulers own religious identity. Buddhist kings continued to revere Hindu deities and teachers, and many Buddhist temples were built under the patronage of Hindu rulers.

            1. 0
              Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              what most consider "India" today was a large portion of Persia and under many years of Babylonian beliefs. The Hebrews lived quite a long time under Babylonian rule, where a major portion of Talmud was scripted. much of Kabbalah teaching was absorbed into Hindi philosophy.

              ex: Sefirot - Chakra, nearly identical.
              and many more examples.

              Some Asian disciplines are said to stem from Japheth son Madai or Ma`had`ah -father of the Indie/Medes people, who is very noted in Persian history...

              ...add to it, Anshan, etc.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, there is evidence of this in the book Jews, Aryans and Brahmins.

                Brahims were said to have come from the root ABRAHAMins.
                even the OM writing in sanskrit has the same elements as the alef, which stands for OX, the seminal force of creation

                Hence cows are sacred to the Hindus. archeological evidence say that they were also the Aryans...(i'm repeating my hub here) hence the nazi broken cross. its buddhist in origin.

    22. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago

      Me too! I may go and put on my special foil hat then make one! smile

    23. Hokey profile image61
      Hokeyposted 6 years ago

      Wait for me! I have a foil hat too!!!   big_smile

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Gimme me 14 chickens first! smile

        1. Hokey profile image61
          Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Only have 13!  How about a pidgeon?  big_smile

          1. earnestshub profile image89
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            OK, anything is better than the hyenas! Back to making the foil hats! smile

    24. Hokey profile image61
      Hokeyposted 6 years ago

      Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?

      (a)  Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)

      (b)  No(John 1:19-21)

      1. karobi profile image72
        karobiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hokey there is no contradiction in the two scriptures that you have just quoted. the first one was Jesus talking about John the Baptist and the prophecy about the coming of Elijah of which the pharisees and the jews were not even aware that the Elijah that they were waiting for is already with them in the person of John the baptist. While the second quot was from John the baptist himself, when they asked who he was? He answered that he is the voice in the wilderness preparing the way. There is no way he is to know  and tell them that he is a Elijah. So I don't see any contradiction in those scriptures. I stand to be corrected

    25. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago

      Hey Hokey, how many you have? lol

      1. Hokey profile image61
        Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ok I now have 4!!  Had two but just made two more!! I thought I might need extras!  big_smile

    26. insearchof truth profile image86
      insearchof truthposted 6 years ago

      When looking for a recipe for English muffins, one does not pick up a book on the history of the monarchy and wonder why they can't find it.

      Without faith and revelation it has only historical value much like the works of Josephus who recorded the existence of Jesus independently of Christian followers.

      In order to answer the question you are either searching for history or searching for truth about God so you need to either;

      * Start learning about the methodology in interpreting ancient historical writings and broaden your search to other ancient texts which also record the same historical time period; or

      * Ask God your question.

      Or you could do both.

      By the way your knowledge is impressive.  I feel sorry for anyone of faith who trys to pick you in a discussion.

      1. Hokey profile image61
        Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I really appreciate your answer. I completely agree with you and your way of understanding. I do not have a problem with what others believe for I am Buddhist and this works for me. My question is asked of those who purport the bible to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I am just pointing out some discrepancies and hoping to see some different interpretations and perspectives. A little kidding around on the side is just meant to be fun. Not harm. In my way of understanding this is what we are taught.:


        Believe nothing on the faith of traditions,
        even though they have been held in honor
        for many generations and in diverse places.
        Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it.
        Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past.
        Do not believe what you yourself have imagined,
        persuading yourself that a God inspires you.
        Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests.
        After examination, believe what you yourself have tested
        and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.


        Buddha


        Thank you for your good answer.  Namaste

        1. Valerie F profile image59
          Valerie Fposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I believe this is one of the Buddha's most important quotes.

          Now don't assume that just because someone is a Christian, he or she hasn't taken the Buddha's advice regarding untested belief.

          1. The Learner profile image60
            The Learnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I agree.

        2. ceciliabeltran profile image86
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          yeah, they didn't botch that one up. the western version just totally got muddled.

    27. thisisoli profile image66
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago

      Meh even the majority of christians admit there are contradictions in the bible.  They still believe, which of course highlights the underlying problem.

      1. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And, what would you say is the underlying problem? Just curious. smile

        1. thisisoli profile image66
          thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Human nature.

          1. 60
            (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Nope. Indoctrination was the problem, not human nature.

            1. Pandoras Box profile image83
              Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              This is what is interesting to me. I don't want to hijack Hokey's serious thread about the biblical inconsistencies, so I'll be brief.

              There is something in human nature which allows masses of people to be indoctrinated into all sorts of varying foolish belief systems. If I continued I wouldn't be brief, so I'll stop here.

              1. Onusonus profile image88
                Onusonusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                There are also some belief systems that are dead on target.smile

                1. 60
                  (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Such as... ?

                  1. The Learner profile image60
                    The Learnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm not sure that "belief system" or "religion" are always the most appropriate titles to be given to those which are so called.  What if it's more than just a system of beliefs...what if it's more than just a set of rituals and regulations by which we are close to God?

                    1. 60
                      (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      If one can demonstrate such, I'd be willing to listen.

                2. Pandoras Box profile image83
                  Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course your's is the one true religion, honey. I understand.

              2. The Learner profile image60
                The Learnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Everyone is looking for Truth.  Sometimes people believe in religions because there are glimpses of Truth in them, even if a lot of the other elements of the religion are far from Truth.

                When humans came to be, we were in relationship to God.  Since we've been separated from Him, we're always trying to find a way back (even though most people don't know that).  Some people try religions.  Other people try work or wealth.  Still other people try drugs, relationships, or sex.

                We're all trying to find meaning in life.

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  tomato and orange.

              3. 60
                (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Since the indoctrination begins in early childhood, one is raised to accept the beliefs of the religion without any critical thought allowed. The person grows up believing the doctrine as they would grow up believing the sun will rise the next day.

                It is a system contrived for the propagation of religious ideals that goes against human nature.

                1. Pandoras Box profile image83
                  Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, I understand many are raised in it, and I understand that many go looking later in life when they want to teach their own kids or feel better about their failed lives. I understand that the society we live in has created a pro-religious atmosphere, and alot of people obviously still aren't very smart.

                  It's when they cling in the face of all reason that I don't get. I could say it's pride or fear or selfishness, but that doesn't really seem to satisfy the question.

                  I guess it's that the critical part of their brain starts to rot, I don't know.

                  1. The Learner profile image60
                    The Learnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Or perhaps it's faith...or hope.

                    Both of which seem quite contrary to reason at times.

                  2. 60
                    (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Sure it does. The very definition of indoctrination states that the person accepts the beliefs, uncritically. It is this acceptance of ideals without critical thought that will continue to hinder the person their whole lives. You can see that in believers who believe their religions doctrines, hence you'll find the same people believe in all sorts of things from ghosts and goblins to alien visitations.

                    These people have never gained the ability to think critically, if even having gained the ability to think at all. They simply believe whatever they see and hear, especially if it fits in with a magical kingdom.

                    1. The Learner profile image60
                      The Learnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      Perhaps this is true.  But I would not agree that every person who grows up in a religious tradition has been indoctrinated to a point of not being able to think critically.

                      I am a Christian.  I have very critically come to this decision.  I am a very reasonable person.  I am enrolled in a graduate program and am in the process of having multiple articles published.  I have asked questions like "where would God exist if He was before the creation of the universe?"  or "Why should I accept the Bible as true if it was written by humans over the span of thousands of years?"  I have placed reason in front of my faith many times.  Yet, I have found Christianity to be true.

                      My personal experience as trumped reason.  I have literally seen miracles happen.  I have personally felt the presence of God.  I have myself experienced life-change that cannot be explained by psychologists or counselors, and have witnessed the same sort of life-change in others.  I have experienced Christianity to be true, in spite of logic saying that it can't be.

                      Perhaps your claims that all religion is based on indoctrination (in opposition to reason) comes from a fear to experience it for yourself.

              4. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Pandora, it's called memetics.

                1. Pandoras Box profile image83
                  Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you.

            2. Pandoras Box profile image83
              Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well let me add one more thought. Originally, I'd agree with what Q says. People weren't that smart and just followed the leader. But we shouldn't be that gullible anymore.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                memetics

    28. insearchof truth profile image86
      insearchof truthposted 6 years ago

      Wow, that is an awesome quote from Buddha.  I like it very much, as people do tend to just follow different faith traditions, like lambs to the slaughter.

    29. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago

      Light goes on. Light goes off! Light goes on. Light goes off! Light goes on. Light goes off! Light goes on. Light goes off!
      where were we?

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        hey this is actually funny! LOL!

        1. earnestshub profile image89
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I am sooooo relieved! smile
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvU-DislkI
          oops! wrong paste! What the hell, it is funnier than Days of our lives! lol

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            he he he I love it.

            1. earnestshub profile image89
              earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Full credit to that religionist terror onusonus for digging that one up! smile He is one of my arch enemies here! Otherwise a nice bloke! lol

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, really. I wonder who that is. Arch enemies are like the shadow best friend in a way because they always fall for it and get angry, like a good friend always laugh at your jokes.

    30. 0
      hamstersmessiahposted 6 years ago

      if jesus was the son of god he was not the seed of joseph and therefore did not come from the line of david as prophesied therefore the entire christian myth rests on a proposition that is incompatible with the old testament prophecy of the messiah. either jesus was the son of god and was not the prophesied o.t. messiah or he was the son of joseph and born of man but in the line of david and could fulfill prophecy but not claim the godhead as the new testament claims.  this contradiction puts the entire prophetic proposition into question for me and collapses the cult of jesus into a perpetration of faith based on inconsistent principles.  the only reparation that i see is schism with the prophetic books of the o.t. on the entire messianic prophecy.  plain and simple fact is that jesus could not be son of god and joseph at the same time and don't go saying, "with god all things are possible" because this fundamental contradiction has not been explicitly treated in any of the books of the n.t. by the source authors.

      1. insearchof truth profile image86
        insearchof truthposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I have pondered this, but not the ramifications which you make startling clear.   Anyone got any (helpful) answers?

      2. Valerie F profile image59
        Valerie Fposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Or maybe one of the geneaologies was of Mary. Note that nowhere did it say she wasn't also of David's line.

        1. 0
          hamstersmessiahposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          law of primogentiure precludes matrilineal descent.  he could not inherit the throne of david if he was not in a patrilineal descent group.  inventing geneologies to retrofit inconsistencies in the text is just another patchwork attempt to gloss over the fact that the bible is a deeply flawed manual for constructing a consistent belief system.

          1. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Joseph & Mary were both descendants of David.
            Mary was thru Nathan, Joseph thru Eleazar.

            Y`shua had birthright thru Mary, inheritance thru Joseph.

            1. 0
              hamstersmessiahposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              that doesn't explain the fact that jesus was not joseph's true son and not in the patrilineal descent group.  remember we are dealing with a patriarchy that relied on laws of primogeniture and matrilineal descent is insufficient to grant jesus title heir to the throne of david.  jesus did not have birthright through mary as this has no precedent in hebraic law when their are male heirs available.  you can retrofit your facts and construct false histories if you want, but you are fooling yourself if you do not see the inconsistency of the proposition of jesus' being son of god AND son of joseph/heir to david's throne..

              1. 0
                Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Joseph, son of Jacob...son of Jechoniah. This bloodline would not receive birthright to the throne because of a curse of covenant. But still received inheritance.
                Mary, daughter of Heli,...Joanna. This is the bloodline of birthright under covenant.

                Both Joseph & Mary came after the split [ Shelomith / Rhesa ]
                Both registered at the census as descendants of the house of David.

                Joseph's bloodline doesn't matter. Even if it did, without 'immaculate' conception, Y`shua still would have qualified.

                "Tell the Isra`el; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."

                So, exactly how is that inconsistent? And why does it matter.


                people are funny.

                1. insearchof truth profile image86
                  insearchof truthposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you for that, that was awesome.  I have to wonder hamster, when there are so many old testament prophesies which were fulfilled in Jesus whether you have a technical issue or a faith issue.  You smashed it twentyone!

                2. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  well, we can't explain them to have the mindset to learn it you know. i mean they have been brainwashed not to question.

                  But i agree, people can be funny.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Well - you are certainly funny sweetie pie.

                    Why the anger though? Does it really upset you so much that there are those of us who refuse the easy peasy lemon squeezy answers that you accept so readily. ?

                    Why is that?

                    1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      well i'm not upset at anybody, I'm just offering what i know from the information I've gathered. It's you who's getting upset by me. I'm just responding to your banter with equal banter.

                      And I didn't "accept" these answers.  I researched them. I was fascinated with these things since the age of 12.

                      I don't "believe", I find out and then I form a summary of that in my head and take the gist. Offer me new information and that will be included in the pool of ideas in my head, as part of the elements to be considered.

                      You shouldn't take me seriously. I'm just a writer using this forum to procrastinate.

              2. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "son of god" is a term used in those days that refer to sorcery. It was actually a deregatory term that was interpreted the wrong way because the greeks paradigm was this: HEROES are sons of god.  But it is not this way with the Semites. Sons of god are magicians and are looked down upon the way we look down on psychics today.

                What Jesus said that reinforced this  is misconception is: I am in the father and the father is in me.

                But it really means:  " The "I" is in the Father and the Father is in the I. "

                The word "I" also means Self (and also action and worship)  so the message is

                "The Self is in (more precisely housed in) the Father  (Avinu) and the Father is (housed in) the Self. 

                Avinu Malkeinu refers to our Father KIng.  It means, the Reign of our Source. It is speaking about the reign of our Source  as within our capability.

                What that is really saying is this:
                "The Act comes from the Source and the Source comes from the Act"

                Which means you act according to what reigns within you and what reigns within you is how you act.

                good advice, no?

                1. tantrum profile image61
                  tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I love these fairy tales !!




                  lol lol lol

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    yeah me too. That's exactly how I view them.

    31. Hokey profile image61
      Hokeyposted 6 years ago

      Would Jesus inherit Davids throne?

          * Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)
          * No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1: I 1, I Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon Davids throne (Jeremiah 36:30)

      1. karobi profile image72
        karobiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hokey Jechonias and Jeconiah are they same please verify before you post thing to the public.

    32. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago

      Presuppositions?

      If you have them, then you believe in nothing to begin with. So, what's your point? Do you know the word you're even using?

      I had to look it up, to be sure I understood. And, by definition, you are supposing or assuming something to be true?

      You claim to talk from the position that "GOD" exists. And, your position is no different than any theologian or other religious people.

      You based your faith on an assumption. Faith is unquestioned belief in something. However, a "belief" is to be true/truth or factual evident. As you admit, you don't form your belief properly, simply because you based your faith on a false understanding of how to form a belief.

      It's obvious, that you were NEVER told how to form a belief? The most basic understanding. Apparently, you are a prime example of an "indoctrinated" child of religion.

      I only say all of this, because you were looking for a conversation and claim to be open to learning. The question is are you being truthful or baiting? Only time will tell.

    33. Greek One profile image80
      Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

      If a salad is a type of food, why are there so many vegetables in it?

      Lack of contradictions does not mean something true.

      The inability for us to explain 'contradictions' does not make something false

      1. Marisa Wright profile image92
        Marisa Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Greek One, these contradictions would be fine, if all Christians really did focus on the "big picture" of what the Bible says, and followed the spirit rather than the letter of its teachings.

        But many fundamentalist Christians say "the Bible is literally true" and pick individual verses or phrases to support their views and condemn others.  Those people can't have it both ways - they have to explain the contradictions, or accept that not every word can be taken literally.

        Personally, I view the Bible as written by human beings, and that even if they were inspired by God, or God was "talking through" them, we have to remember they were only people.  And most of it has been through multiple transcriptions and translations to get to the state we see it in.  Think of Chinese Whispers and ask yourself how accurate the detail is  likely to be.

        1. Greek One profile image80
          Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I can't speak for fundamentalists, not being one myself...

          but i think that the question of whether the Bible should be viewed as being 'literally' true, is a different one than whether of not it's various parts (regardless of whether they are actual historical fact or symbolic) come from God

    34. Hokey profile image61
      Hokeyposted 6 years ago

      Was baby Jesus life threatened in Jerusalem?

          * Yes, so Joseph fled with him to Egypt and stayed there until Herod died (Matthew 2:13 23)
          * No. The family fled nowhere. They calmly presented the child at the Jerusalem temple according to the Jewish customs and returned to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40)

      1. Valerie F profile image59
        Valerie Fposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The Baby Jesus' life was threatened in Bethlehem. Also, it may have been a while before Herod got the word, as according to the Gospel, he ordered baby boys up to the age of 2 murdered.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          hey you know this is a reference to moses. these are all Jewish symbology to communicate something that I wouldn't bother telling the people here.

    35. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago

      I think the bible is a poor excuse of psychological control.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        HI marine, nice to see you again. the bible is not the problem, its the people who use it for psychological control.

    36. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago

      Think of what is written in these tomes, and what was the motivation for writing them.
      Control.Plain and simple. The contradictions in the bible
      (hundreds of them, same for the quoran) are result of liars crossing themselves up. Whenever the argument gets pathetic, the god voice gets more threatening, nobody comes to such crazed beliefs in sky fairies without indoctrination, even if they can't think or are mad as a whistling kettle, nobody buys this unless they have been indoctrinated. Nobody. smile

    37. Hokey profile image61
      Hokeyposted 6 years ago

      When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?

      (a) After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)

      (b)  Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)

    38. waynet profile image46
      waynetposted 6 years ago

      Well the bible must be going into labour with...too many contractions!

      1. 0
        lyricsingrayposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        LMFAO
        LMFAO
        LMFAO
        LMFAO
        LMFAO
        LMFAO
        LMFAO

    39. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

      wayne, the bible has nothing to do with Y`shua or Elohim.
      it's laughable because so many think it does.

      "but brother, the bible says..."

      I wonder what the thousands of Hebrew historians, scribes, law makers would say if they could see this now.

      too funny.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        i know right lol

    40. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago

      Does this mean the end of the 2000 year old search for the sky fairy? smile

      The next episode will be along shortly! I can't wait! lol

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Deleted

        1. earnestshub profile image89
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I do the same on all the hubs where I find untruths, myths and stuff that ain't stuff! smile
          Truth is it's own reward. smile

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Oh you're on a mission. good luck maybe i'll visit yours. see what's going on.

            1. earnestshub profile image89
              earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              On a mission is right. It's the teacher in me, I love it. smile

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                bocca verite, put your hand in there and if you are not speaking the truth it will be cut off sort of archetype. right?

                1. earnestshub profile image89
                  earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  A bit harsh! The truth when stated succinctly can appear harsh or abrupt I guess. smile Especially since the sub-conscious recognises the true situation, causes doubt, so back to the book for more indoctrination. An endless circle of trying to convince others to convince self. smile

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    mirrors. we are talking to ourselves.

          2. Valerie F profile image59
            Valerie Fposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Earnest, in some respects you are no different than some of the very "religionists" you so deride. You have a mission. You have some lock on the truth that people who disagree with you lack. And some people think that the message you spread, that God doesn't exist and that everything some people hold most sacred is petty or psychotic, is a lie.

            1. earnestshub profile image89
              earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Not that simple Valerie. Religion has no truth anyway, but when I make statements about any of the subjects I have an understanding of, I am open to change. Religion is permanently stuck.

              1. Valerie F profile image59
                Valerie Fposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You can't say that about all religion and expect it to be true or right.

                1. earnestshub profile image89
                  earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You could be correct Valerie. How many religions are there? smile
                  I think it is more than 3,000. I may try to find out.
                  I need to research many things today. I am tired and can't seem to remember a few things I am writing about cars, and have to check with good ole google for some of it. sad

            2. ceciliabeltran profile image86
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It's all good. religion evolved as we did. it's going to evolve if we do. It's organic just like everything else.It is what we make it.

              1. earnestshub profile image89
                earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Not doing well in some quarters. The Taliban still live on a flat planet, many religionists live on a six million year old planet and we have old world nonsense such as talking in tongues. A way to go yet I reckon! smile

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree but its what they make out of what was handed to them you know. My view is religion is not spirituality and politics is not government. The Taliban is a political movement that uses religion to rally angered citizens for their political end--control. Like money, religion can be used for good or evil. They are nuetral things that we color with the shade of our own thoughts.

    41. Don Simkovich profile image59
      Don Simkovichposted 6 years ago

      I prefer asking, "If people think I'm God then why am I so disorganized?"

    42. ceciliabeltran profile image86
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

      How will something make sense when you are reading Hebrew grammar in  greek interpretation retranslated to hebrew by non-hebrew natives then to latin then translated to english some few hundred years ago in the context of life atleast 3000 years ago read today.

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Nice! Almost poetic. smile

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          thanks, another forum, another universe right? hahaha! seems we're friends here.

          1. earnestshub profile image89
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That's all good! smile

    43. ceciliabeltran profile image86
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

      Truth is, the experience of the bible by those who find meaning in them has nothing to do with the bible.

      Like anything, it is what you use it for that determines you, not it.

      The bible is a product of history, the inspiration it gives the product of the mind that was inspired by it.

      You can be inspired by Star Wars and Avatar if the inspiration is already ready to come to your awareness. You can stare at the bible in all its permutations, if your mind is uninspired it will see nothing. The truth is within the seeker. Everything else is a mirror.

    44. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago

      And to some, absolutely absurd.

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, absolutely absurd covers it well! smile

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          absolutism is absurd too, you know. relativism is more humane.

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            zzzzzzz... got bored with my own comment.

          2. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I love the way people bring up all these different types of "ism"s whenever looking at something.

            Does everything have to have a label? Cannot a form of thought exist, that doesn't have a name or label?

            Last time I checked it was called human consciousness, free will thought. Hmmm......? hmm

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              hence, the idea that my own comment was boring. this is all just jibber jabbar of an insomniac waiting for chamomile tea to get hot.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                besides cannot an ism exist as a form of thought too, it is afterall 1 am and we are actually not disagreeing. I love the bible, I read it in various languages, i tinker around with it, its wonderful literature and excellent mythology. it's a vehicle for human consciousness to grow or not. Its so embedded in our memes we are talking about it at 2am in the morning, adding isms to it.

                I don't take it literally though, don't dismiss it either. It's highly fascinating from a mythological point of view and when I mean myth, I don't mean a lie, I mean a metaphor.

                As Joseph Campbell states in his book Thou art that: "Gd is the ultimate archetype of man."

    45. serenitysheir profile image59
      serenitysheirposted 6 years ago

      I dont know why there are so many contradictions but i think i would like to add some more if no one minds

      1. If satan hates god so much why does satan, ruler of hell, punish us for taking god's name in vain.

      2. If being prideful is a sin why is god allowed to sin and not us is he not perfect? I mean is making people worship you a act of pride? and pride is of the 7 deadly sins right?

      3. The bible says thou shall not kill. . . then why does it also say you should stone people to death. Is stoning someone to death not killing? and why does he kill people. The great flood? Egypt? Sodom and Gomorrah?

      4. Why, if god knows every thing, would he create people just to punish them in hell.

      if you want you can answer these questions that would be great i mean these are the things that stuck out when i was forced to go to church when i was littler

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        1.satan was never in the bible in this context
        2.because the thoughts of gd in the bible is a symbolic passage of the consciousness of the man in that particular story. also, there are many names of Gd used in the bible in Hebrew but the translators in other languaged generalized these names losing altogether their symbolic significance.
        Example: GEN 1, name of Gd Elohim. GEN 2, YHVH Elohim Exodus: Adonai and in Leviticus they use Hashem. These names mean so many things.  In Hebrew, letters not only describe sounds but also meaning much like Egyptian Hieroglyphs do. Each idea has a mathematical number communicating its heirarchy. So the different names communicate Gd as a specific force that He appears in. Ofcourse all this is lost in modern Christianity but early Christians seemed to have been aware of this with their rich mythology.
        3. Because the bible was not made by one person, it was a compilation of atleast 4 nameless authors, one of whom is a woman. and then at the time of the reduction around 500 BCE, a scribe named Ezra made it into one book as well as changing Hebrew into what it is today that erased its relationship to the Egyptian concepts. The Gospels are written by different authors at different times some 80 years after the events, some of them were not even present during that time but are followers of the church of say, mark, matthew or john.

        4.The esoteric tradition explains this in vivid detail -- it sounds like psychotherapy more than religion. Well Freud was a Jew, so you can do the math where psychotherapy came from. It was Carl Jung who said that the Jews are the masters of the consciousness.

        Hell itself is a word that comes from the pictographic equivalent of Shin which is the ancestor of the word Sin. It means fire. Shin is represented by teeth.Shin means to eat, destroy or fire, all three communicate a kind of fuel that changes form.

        So hell is a concept that was born out of that. (It's not an actual place. )That if you sin you will be consumed by it. Nothing contradictory about that,it actually makes sense if you know the symbolic meaning. It is a caution more than a punishment. It just got twisted around. IN other words, if the symbols are taken into account and the bible is viewed as literature, what its saying is this : we make our own hell. or better yet and more completely, we (subconsciously) make our own hell in order to transform.

        Once again, several men (and women) wrote the bible at different times according to their understanding of an oral tradition that spans thousands of years before it was written down.

        Because of rivalries between religious camps, many clues that connect the religions of the world to each other were downplayed by its leaders. Religious groups are primarily businesses and the beginning and actually to some extent even today. People got to live, ya know.

        The product is spiritual service. So if you take it too seriously, only you lose. There are many gems to be found in the bible but only if you regard them as you would the greek myths--or particularly if you actually read it yourself with the mindset that these stories are teaching you something more than telling historical facts.

        There are historical references, but they are just the environment of the authors that wrote them....the way it is written is to instruct, it did come from a set of book called Torah which literally means "Instructions". It's not "Truth" (that word is Emet), it's INSTRUCTIONS.

        Lastly "forced to go to church" is not the bible's fault but your parents. Many
        atheists who have a beef against even the notion of Gd is suffering from PSTD from misguided parenting. I am sorry your parents did this to you. I hope force you to go to church is all they did. I hate it when parents use the bible to scare their children into behaving. It produces all sorts of psychological problems!

        Try Buddhism and yoga. you'll probably get the essence of the bible faster through these venues. The important thing is to have something that helps you cope with everyday stresses and rise above it. You don't have to go at it alone, there are tools out there. Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, Moses and the Upanishads gave us these tools so that we won't have to go through life feeling helpless, bitter and lost.

        Hope this helps...

        1. Jewels profile image81
          Jewelsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Wonderful insights and knowledge you have. the bible does have gems, just like the Upanishads and references you mention.  If applied to ones own life and own transformation it makes allot of sense.  But as so many people are pulled out to some external meaning outside their own experience, this is where the difficulty is in interpretation.  And this is where the contradictions come into play.

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks Jewels! and really it's just another one of those things in life that are present which you can and choose not to use to increase the quality of your life and others.

    46. Hokey profile image61
      Hokeyposted 6 years ago

      Moses and Aaron converted all the available water into       (Exodus 7:20-21)
          * The magicians did the same (Exodus 7:22). This is impossible, since there would have been no water left to convert into      .

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        well water has many dimensions in jewish literature. so once again, the confusion stems from the translations.

        1. Hokey profile image61
          Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Um.... NO!! The story is very simple. Moses performed a trick and the magicians copied it. Water is water here. Nothing else.

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            water is mayim, right? shamayim is sky. they share the same root. mayim represents consciousness, chaos, sea, blood because it contains the pictograph MEM, two of them in between action word YUD...meaning water acting water, water acting fluid, consciousness acting conscious.  The Torah is a piece of literature. and like any piece of literature, to understand it, you have to understand the context.

            1. Hokey profile image61
              Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I grew up in Church. Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Vacation Bible School in the summer. This story was always taught the same way. Heard from many teachers, Ministers, etc.......

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                yeah me too, until i asked a nun why Gd always say "Let us"...that was the beginning of me getting a clue, that yeah...maybe this outfit is not the best way to get information. Fortunately my parents were very supportive of my interests and provided the books I asked for. They gave me around the equivalent of 50 dollars a month for a book of my choice and we had book reviews over sunday breakfast. My dad will tell his own stories from a historical point of view. But i was lucky my parents were not like their parents.

    47. Hokey profile image61
      Hokeyposted 6 years ago

      How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

          * Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
          * Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)

    48. Hokey profile image61
      Hokeyposted 6 years ago

      Love yourself and be awake -
      today, tomorrow, always.
      First establish yourself in the way,
      then teach others,
      and so defeat sorrow.
      To straighten the crooked
      you must first do a harder thing -
      straighten yourself.
      You are the only master. Who else?
      Subdue yourself,
      and discover your master.

      1. tantrum profile image61
        tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I have discovered myself long ago !!!

        1. Hokey profile image61
          Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Subdue me my Godde$s!! I prefer furry handcuffs!  lol

          1. tantrum profile image61
            tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Go to the line as everyone else ! mad

            lol

            1. Hokey profile image61
              Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes Godde$s tantrum!!   sad

              1. tantrum profile image61
                tantrumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Ha ha !!

    49. Hokey profile image61
      Hokeyposted 6 years ago

      Where are all the christians?    hmm

      I really expected explanations.



      How many were the children of Bethel and Ai?

          * Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:28)
          * One hundred and twenty-three (Nehemiah 7:32)

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well I don't think they like the environment here. Not enough satanists.

        1. Hokey profile image61
          Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That is just too funny!!!   lol

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            LOL!

    50. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

      Cecelia, many thanks on the forum reply.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image86
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for adding sense!

    51. 0
      moonphlowerposted 6 years ago

      OMG!  I just read this WHOLE thing...my head hurts now!  lol

    52. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 6 years ago
      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You got it right again. smile

     
    working