Please explain this Bible discrepancy

[necrosmith]

I guess I'm just wondering why, if the Holy Spirit exists to interpret scripture for the Christian, why would any Christian have any problem understanding the Bible perfectly?

 

Further, why are there a thousand different sects of Christianity each with their own interpretations of the Bible?

 

I thought god supposedly was not an author of confusion?

 

Is it that man's fallibility is what's causing the problem?  If so, why is the Holy Spirit, an equal member of the all-powerful god head, unable to overcome this seemingly minor problem? 

 

I mean, what's interpretation of the book you supposedly wrote through divine inspiration compared to creation of the universe?

 

Further, if the Holy Spirit is unable to overcome this fallibility of man in order to interpret it correctly for each believer, how do we know he/she/it was able to overcome this fallibility originally to provide to us the "inerrant" word of god?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmm...Still waiting on an answer.

 

Wait, don't worry, I'll save everyone time and answer my own questions.

 

Answer:

 

Because it's all made-up bullshit.

[Ouroboros]

AHHHH! HELP US! THAT CHILD IS TERRORIZING US! WHAT EVER SHALL WE DO! ...EEEK! THROW ROCKS AT IT!!!

 

 

AAAAH! SCARY BABY .... RUUUUN!!!

 

...

 

 

GRAB ROCKS RUN BACK...THROW THEM...

 

phew baby killed, no more pooping pants during prayer...

[Ouroboros]

It would be so great if we could use old fashioned stoning as punishment for kids in school.

 

... Throwing rocks... killed... that'll teach him! He'll remember that lesson!... oh yeah... that's right, he's dead...

[Kryten]

What about the poor sucker who has to give up a cow to appease the primative tribal god yahweh? Does he get compensated? Maybe they give him one of the captured women for him to use as he sees fit.

Whoever thought up these laws were superstitious morons. But I see we still have plenty of brain-dead in the world today who actually DEFEND them and think those laws are good, just, and sensible.

[Guest aexapo]

There are many Christian denominations that do not accept the trinity doctrine, so which denomination should we believe?  There are tons of scripture to prove no trinity and only a handful that can be used in support of it.  Just another area within Christianity that cannot be agreed upon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My former faith, "Oneness Pentecostalism," didn't accept the Trinity -- and they may have made Christianity run for it's money, but the group is so mired in legalism and mysticism that they are considered cultic by most christian religions.

 

The interesting thing pointed out above -- which Christian doctrine is believable? During these culture wars, one would think that all of Christianity was this unified body, only divided by distance and nuance. That's baloney! Quite a few Christian religions, especially evangelical, fundamentalist ones, believe that many of the other denominations "have it all wrong," and could very well "burn in hell." In oneness Pentecostalism, many of these churches condemn other churches of the same faith to hell over sleeve length and whether or not the preacher condemns television or not (and I'm not exaggerating).

 

Check out the forums I used to moderate http://p212.ezboard.com/bexpentecostalforums to see some of the crap associated with that faith.

 

The fact is that "Christianity" can't be defined concisely -- it varies from religion to religion, synod to synod, church to church, person to person -- each varying by MANY degrees from the other -- each depending on their special pattern of "connect-the-dot" scriptures to make it all work for them. If Christianity were true, it would be simple, concise, and easy to understand -- and "apologetics" would be completely unnecessary as bigotry, genocide, sexism, and slavery would not have to be continually "explained away."

 

It's funny watching conservative Baptists arm-in-arm with Catholic priests at pro-life rallies -- each personally believing that the other will spend hell with the "abortion doctors."

[Ouroboros]

Totally agree.

 

If God wanted to save humanity, he should have made his message clear.

And not even "what do you need to do to get salvation", is clear or homogeneous between the denominations. Which is the most important point in the religion.

[spamandham]

Spamandham, pardon me... but I did read the verses, and researched many of their meanings in regards to the text from how they were interpreted. You must of missed my previous post my friend.

 

...

 

The city is defined as like a large terrorized camp, that is being gaurded. See below:

City

from (05782) a city (a place guarded by waking or a watch) in the widest sense (even of a mere encampment or post) 1.excitement, anguish of terror 2.city, town (a place of waking, guarded) city, town

 

He was belligerent, hostile, and combative in being contentious. See below:

rebellious

a. to be contentious, be rebellious, be refractory, be disobedient towards, be rebellious against (Qal) to be disobedient, be rebellious 1towards father 2towards God b.(Hiphil) to show rebelliousness, show disobedience, disobey

 

I didn't miss your prior post. Honestly, this is one of the worst apologetic responses I've ever heard. The context of 'city' in this case is the normal sense. How else do you explain that it has elders who sit in judgement, and priests, and even a gate? How else do you explain that when a dead body is found, the city must be purified? Is it simply referring to a group of people terrified by dead bodies? If the child is capable of terrorizing everyone, how can the mother and father reasonably be expected to be capable of subduing him in order to bring him to judgement?

 

The definition you gave for rebelious is pretty much the normal sense. There's nothing to indicate such a person is terrorizing people. Note that the text is very specific in identifying those who are disobedient to their parents, and even identifies typical disobedience as eating and drinking too much.

 

But no matter, you found a way to rationalize this in your own mind, regardless of how ad hoc and rediculous that rationalization is to an outsider. That is afterall, the real purpose of apologetics.

[duderonomy]

If the kid's a drunkard, who's giving the kid the booze? The parents? Then when he throws a jag or gets unruly, they run the poor little guy (or girl) down the the local authorities for some Godly capital punishment?

And if the child is already a drunkard, why the big hurry to get him 'stoned'?

 

Sorry, I guess not too funny. But since I've been here, I don't think I've participated in a thread as much as this one.

I know the perspective from both sides, I know the apologetics, I know the mindset, I know the etc etc...

 

But now I know the need for the smiley.

[thomas]

 

AAAAH! SCARY BABY .... RUUUUN!!!

 

...

GRAB ROCKS RUN BACK...THROW THEM...

 

phew baby killed, no more pooping pants during prayer...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No, no. Throwing stones is an old Jewish method. Christians have improved their pet way of deling with heretics.

 

You know, burn the heretics alive - because it is much better that a few heretics are burned, than allowing them to gather followers that all will be burned in hell.

 

Or maybe it can be said this way.

It is much better for Christians now and then to behave in an evil way, than allowing God to exercise his evil plans for eternity.

[Amanda]

Ok....Deut 21 says all of this.

 

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

Ok. Just from reading this whole, crazy thing, this is what I get out of it: if you find a dead body near your God-chosen city, and you don't know who (or what) killed them, get the elders of the city together to cut the head off a cow and wash their hands over the body as a symbolic gesture to say "We didn't do it, you didn't see us do it, you can't prove anything." Why the cow is needed, I don't know.  Repeat as needed for any other cities close by to prove their innocence.

 

When the chosen of God go to war and find ladies who get them happy in their pants, they can bring them home, cut off their hippie hair, cut their nails, wait a month, then be "married" after she's cried over her parents sufficiently.    If she's not happy, you can't sell her as if she were a slave, because you've already freed her by marrying her, so she can ramble off as she wants.

 

If he's a polyagamist with two wives, one he can't stand, and one he likes much more, the firstborn son of the wife he can't stand can't be treated poorly even if his mom's a bitch.    He still gets the privilege of being firstborn and gets double dibs on their father's riches.

 

Here's the fun one: if a son (presumably firstborn, but it doesn't specify) doesn't listen to his parents and rebels stubbornly against them (like, you know, a teenager is wont to do), his parents may lay hands on him and drag him to the city gates in front of everyone and tell the elders that the kid is a stubborn, rebellious brat who drinks too much and doesn't listen to them. Then the men of the city can stone him to death, so that the evil he's caused by being rebellious, drunk, and stubborn, will be "put away" from the city.

 

Then if some random guy commits a sin worthy of death (which is hysterical in context to what they've just told parents worldwide to do!), he's to be killed and hung on a tree, but not overnight, because he has to be buried right away to keep the earth from being defiled.

 

Deut 20 explains what Israel can do during war, which apparently includes sacking, mass murder, and burning of everything except the trees that bear fruit, though trees that are just plain ol' trees for wood can be destroyed with everything else.

 

Nothing about a city being under siege.

 

Nothing about the "rebellious son" commiting murder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you think Deuteronomy is really crazy, try your interpretation of this one...

 

1Co 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither * * can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

If you think Deuteronomy is really crazy, try your interpretation of this one...

 

1Co 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither * * can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

 

 

It means your interpretation of a God is flawed. Next one?

[thomas]

If you think Deuteronomy is really crazy, try your interpretation of this one...

 

1Co 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither * * can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Amanda.

 

Your reasoning can make you rich and famous. This story will show you an application of your thinking: The Emperors New Clothes .

 

It is really simple. Just make people believe, that there is something wrong with those who disagree with you. You know, if some do not see the extraordinary (spiritual) quality of your crap, then they can only be second class people.

 

Paul knew how to do it, the tailors (in the story) knew how to do it, George Bush knows how to do it, and you know how to do it.

 

Congratulations.

 

(I have already posted this link one time in this tread, but I hope it is okay, that I bring it)

[duderonomy]

Allright, Dammit!!

Who thinks I'm really crazy, and why are you not spelling my name right?

 

 

Maybe this thread has been done to death. I don't know.

But it started over a question of one simple verse/chapter in the Bible, and from all of the responses (including my own), it indicates to me, that there are no good answers to these contradictions in the Bible.

 

Thank you Christian(s) and ex-christians alike.

 

Like I said before, I've never participated in a thread here (or anywhere) this much. I sure learned a lot!

 

Duderonomy

[chefranden]

Spamandham, pardon me... but I did read the verses, and researched many of their meanings in regards to the text from how they were interpreted. You must of missed my previous post my friend. Thanks for calling me on this, but I think it is you who is mistaken... As I previously posted on THIS forum dear friend...

 

Saviourmachine, maybe this will clarify it more. Definitions from crosswalk.com...

 

The city is defined as like a large terrorized camp, that is being gaurded. See below:

City

from (05782) a city (a place guarded by waking or a watch) in the widest sense (even of a mere encampment or post) 1.excitement, anguish of terror 2.city, town (a place of waking, guarded) city, town

 

He was belligerent, hostile, and combative in being contentious. See below:

rebellious

a. to be contentious, be rebellious, be refractory, be disobedient towards, be rebellious against (Qal) to be disobedient, be rebellious 1towards father 2towards God b.(Hiphil) to show rebelliousness, show disobedience, disobey

 

I don't think money was an issue. Barter was probably predominant then any way.

 

 

Amanda, you do know that you need to understand the words from context don't you? That is you don't get make up a context based on the definition you like best. (And for the sake

of the Holy Calf stop using Strong's.) Example:

 

Fast: 1.  Acting, moving, or capable of acting or moving quickly; swift.

2.

      1. Accomplished in relatively little time: a fast visit.

      2. Acquired quickly with little effort and sometimes unscrupulously: made a fast buck scalping tickets.

3. Quick to understand or learn; mentally agile: a class for the faster students.

4. Indicating a time somewhat ahead of the actual time: The clock is fast.

5. Allowing rapid movement or action: a fast running track.

6. Designed for or compatible with a short exposure time: fast film.

7.

      1. Disposed to dissipation; wild: ran with a fast crowd.

      2. Flouting conventional moral standards; sexually promiscuous.

8. Resistant, as to destruction or fading: fast colors.

9. Firmly fixed or fastened: a fast grip.

  10. Fixed firmly in place; secure: shutters that are fast against the rain.

  11. Firm in loyalty: fast friends.

  12. Lasting; permanent: fast rules and regulations.

  13. Deep; sound: in a fast sleep.

 

Sam has been to several races this year. Sam noticed that Mel's race car was especially fast on the Douglas county track. Shall I conclude from the context that Mel's car was especially stuck on the Douglas county track just because I want to prove that Mel's car is slow?

[Sokudo Ningyou]

Amanda, you do know that you need to understand the words from context don't you? That is you don't get make up a context based on the definition you like best.  (And for the sake

of the Holy Calf stop using Strong's.) Example:

Sam has been to several races this year. Sam noticed that Mel's race car was especially fast on the Douglas county track.  Shall I conclude from the context that Mel's car was especially stuck on the Douglas county track just because I want to prove that Mel's car is slow?

 

 

Well, duh. Just as one can conclude a boy must be disobedient and rebellious by killing someone to justify his murder by stoning.

[duderonomy]

Good Christ A'Mighty!

I thought I got high!!

[Sokudo Ningyou]

Roman Red. Wacky weed.

[Kryten]

If you think Deuteronomy is really crazy, try your interpretation of this one...

 

1Co 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither * * can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Christianity was AIMED at the non-wealthy, the powerless, and the less-educated, so there were MANY scriptures included that made them feel good and make the smarter and more skeptical folks look bad. That's part of the draw of the religion. Target the masses. They pretty much had to anyway, since not many of those in authority or more wealthy/educated were falling for it anyway. Questioning was discouraged (-don't be a "doubting Thomas"), and critical thinking or human reasoning was ridiculed (as per the passage you quoted).

[pandora]

Good food for thought, too.

 

I asks myself that almost every day when it comes to issues like predestination, etc. "Why can't you just make it clear, God??!!"

 

Why must my brain always hurt?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It doesn't always HAVE to hurt....

 

I am assuming that "The Deconversion of TAP" didn't occur.

[GiantBear]

My reaction to "Nobody has seen God" and "So-and-so saw God" in the same Bible isn't that it has to be a contradiction.

 

In the Old Testament, God is seen in this-and-that form. He also changes his mind. He gets surprised. These things will be explained away by Christian apologetics as the pre-incarnate Christ. Christ is God. But always in some kind of finite, veiled form and without omniscience.

 

There is a way that "God can be seen" because of Christ.

There is another way that "God can never be seen" because God is infinite and etc.

If we were to see God in the second way, then our eyes (physical or spiritual) would need infinite power and that isn't going to happen.

 

In sum, I personally give the Bible a pass on this one.

[dr_funkenstein]

If you think Deuteronomy is really crazy, try your interpretation of this one...

 

1Co 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither * * can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah yes, the universal christian copout. If I can't make any sense, then I'll just tell them that there's no way they can get my logic since they don't have that special something that makes me different.

 

It's funny - this exact verse contributed heavily to my decision to leave christianity. The realisation that it's a manipulative technique to control people's minds ironically is what freed my mind.

[Amanda]

Amanda.

 

Your reasoning can make you rich and famous. This story will show you an application of your thinking:  The Emperors New Clothes . 

 

It is really simple. Just make people believe, that there is something wrong with those who disagree with you. You know, if some do not see the extraordinary (spiritual) quality of your crap, then they can only be second class people.

 

Paul knew how to do it, the tailors (in the story) knew how to do it, George Bush knows how to do it, and you know how to do it.

 

Congratulations. 

 

(I have already posted this link one time in this tread, but I  hope it is okay, that I bring it)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thomas, I never said that people who don't agree with me have something wrong with them. YOU are the one saying that here, not I. I'm glad that people don't agree with me... that's what makes life interesting. I'm the first to say that! When we all think alike, what will there be to discuss, why interrelate? Diversity is what its all about, isn't it?

[Amanda]

Christianity was AIMED at the non-wealthy, the powerless, and the less-educated, so there were MANY scriptures included that made them feel good and make the smarter and more skeptical folks look bad.  That's part of the draw of the religion.  Target the masses.  They pretty much had to anyway, since not many of those in authority or more wealthy/educated were falling for it anyway.  Questioning was discouraged (-don't be a "doubting Thomas"), and critical thinking or human reasoning was ridiculed (as per the passage you quoted).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now Kryten, with all due respect... and I do respect you... now tell me it is not easier to discern the Bible by its superficial literal interpretation than by digging down deep below the surface... really? The whole 'faith' must be built from doubt to convicted belief, 'faith'. How can one have a genuine conviction of a belief if they have not come from a place of doubt first? Anyway, one does not need to believe in the Bible as I. I appreciate your post, I know you. We have history that shows me who you are.

[Guest AscendoTuumDeus]

My reaction to "Nobody has seen God" and "So-and-so saw God" in the same Bible isn't that it has to be a contradiction.

 

In the Old Testament, God is seen in this-and-that form. He also changes his mind. He gets surprised. These things will be explained away by Christian apologetics as the pre-incarnate Christ. Christ is God. But always in some kind of finite, veiled form and without omniscience.

 

There is a way that "God can be seen" because of Christ.

There is another way that "God can never be seen" because God is infinite and etc.

If we were to see God in the second way, then our eyes (physical or spiritual) would need infinite power and that isn't going to happen.

 

In sum,  I personally give the Bible a pass on this one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So Christ is not omniscient. Thank you for finally pointing out what this whole argument is meant to prove. When you say 'Christ' is part of the trinity: one being; yet you say that Jesus is not omniscient (I'll assume that is who you were talking about since you used 'Christ') yet part of a single being; and he is omniscient, yet not omniscient... This could not possibly explain how an omniscient god could be surprised, seen; yet not seen, etc., since it would debunk the part about the holy trinity being omniscient. If you have found out that you can be all this stuff; yet none of it, please go and tell the nearest philosopher to explain how you came to this conclusion and violated the law of noncontradiction. Also, explain what you could possibly mean by eyes having infinite power... Eyes take in light (they are photoreceptive). To me, it is basically like saying a tissue has infinite capacity to tell time; it does not make since. What kind of power do the eyes need (I'm guessing I'm going to get spiritual power...)?

[Sokudo Ningyou]

Now Kryten, with all due respect... and I do respect you... now tell me it is not easier to discern the Bible by its superficial literal interpretation than by digging down deep below the surface... really? The whole 'faith' must be built from doubt to convicted belief, 'faith'. How can one have a genuine conviction of a belief if they have not come from a place of doubt first? Anyway, one does not need to believe in the Bible as I. I appreciate your post, I know you. We have history that shows me who you are.

 

 

And how does that take into account the thousands, if not millions, who are simply born by default into the religion? They would probably claim to have faith, even if they've barely read the Bible, and go to church once a month. Doubt did not give them faith. Being constantly around such fairy tales gave it to them, in a superficial manner.