Material_Miser_Joe Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 The Bible's X-Files will contain a number of Bible contradictions, a few of which are not particularly common, like this one... "21. So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind. 22. And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. 23. And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." (Luke 14:21-23) Vs. "17. Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. 18. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 19. Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, 20. Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; 21. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God." (Lev 21:17-21) The contradiction is a principle contradiction in that it is not cut-and-dry, but reflects a principle change in God's esteem of the unfortunate "blemished" ones in His presence. Granted, the theists will have many replies to this... "One passage is teaching the holiness of God and other his accceptance...The passage in Leviticus represented the Law's keeping man away from fellowship with God and Jesus brings man back to him...One is an Old Testament doctrine and the other is a message by way of parable, etc." But these miss the real point of the contradiction -- God's attitude change towards the blemished. Think about it, if the text in Leviticus had read something to the affect of... "Speak unto Aaron, saying, 'Welcome the blemished and the blind and the lame...because I am a God who regards the lowly.'", the Christians would be holding this up as proof-positive that Jesus and Jehovah are the same God. It would be quoted and regularly used to bolster the claim of the Bible's unity, much like believers try to use so-called OT "prophecies" and apply them to Christ. But no passage in the OT affirms such, so this text in Lev. is given a lowly ranking with theists today as a mere OT regulation, teaching how "holy" God is to command the blemished to keep away from Him. God was too holy, but now Jesus has a different attitude. He welcomes all, he heals the sick, and adopts such an openly humanitarian position. If such a historical figure existed, no wonder the Jews rejected him! The god of the Jews was a heartless God, one that did not take kindly to imperfection! If it was as theists say, and God is, in the Lev passage, teaching holiness, why did Jehovah have to include the handicapped? Could he not have maintained his holiness and pure prowess by simply commanding pure sacrifices, dietary laws, and otherwise strict prohibitions, while having a special place for the "blemished" people like Jesus would later do in the NT? If the Bible is one unified work, guided and written by one unified God, I would think so. And if all men are condemned under the law and "not good enough" for God, then why did Jehovah need to go that extra step by forbidding those with blemishes from ministering before him? There was simply no need for this...unless, of course, the God of the OT purposely considered the blemished as a stain on his white carpet! So I think it is safe to conclude that the God of the OT felt very differently about the blemished than does the one of the New. Not only did he have impassible laws which keep men away from perfect holiness, as the believers suggest, but he has a thing against those "lesser" peoples of the handicapped persuasion. They are just not worthy of him, even though, sadly, HE CREATED THEM! "And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?" (Exodus 4:11) So to me, this is a problem for the believers to work out. They can't lump it in as a "law vs. grace" passage, or a "holiness principle". This is a clear case of God wanting only the finest to go before him, and he is telling us in Lev. that he considers people with blemishes unworthy of this role! The God of the NT made no distinction, but welcomed all. God wants your presence now, blemished people! God played a little strict rules game back in the days of Moses when you weren't allowed in the club, but Jesus, God's righthand man, has decided to play another game, a more inclusive game, one where even flawed folks won't feel descriminated against or left out! I thought the God of the Bible didn't have a changing nature (Mal 3:6)? This, to me, is a stern sign that the God of the OT has nothing to do with the God of the NT. The NT is a hijacking of the Old, just like Islam's recognition of Jesus as a prophet. Jesus appears humanitarian in Luke 14 and in a few other places in the NT, but the problem is reconciling this with the Old Testament. The only way to solve this problem would be to have both passages expressing the same thoughts, and this is not the case, so a real contradiction of a principle and moral nature exists. Freethinkers have no problem recognizing this because we realize that Yahweh was a vengeful, tribal war god, and Jesus a repackaged heathen myth, but to a Bible believer who esteems the Bible as a unified book, reflecting the will of a three-in-one god(s), this is a serious problem. (JH) Thoughts? Comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Material_Miser_Joe Posted January 17, 2006 Author Share Posted January 17, 2006 I noticed those scriptures too and it troubled me and I can see your point but what about the rest of Leviticus 21 where it says..."23 I am the LORD who makes them holy." Doesn't that null the contradiction? To me it is saying, they don't have to worry about coming to my sanctuary because I can make them holy regardless of their defects. Or am I misunderstanding the verse? IMO you are misunderstanding the verse. Look at the whole verse... "Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them." (Vs. 23) "Sanctify them" is modifying "sanctuaries" and the different translations bear this out, even very modern ones... "But he should not come near the curtain or the altar, because he has something wrong with him, and so he may not sin against My holy places. For I am the Lord Who makes them holy.' '' (New Life Version) It was the presence of the Lord himself that filled the temple and exalted it... "34. Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. 35. And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle." (Exodus 40:34-35) (JH) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 The basic Christian argument that God demanded perfection in the OT, but not the NT is itself flawed. In the OT God's FAVORITE MEN (and all other men) were allowed to (-even encouraged to) have more than one wife, own concubines (=sex slaves), and sleep with handmaidens. How is THAT more strict or more perfect than the NT attitude, where Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon would ALL be condemed for even thinking about the other women they had in the OT. God sure became a prude in a big hurry. That pretty much wipes out the "God required holiness" and even the "God never changes" arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 The basic Christian argument that God demanded perfection in the OT, but not the NT is itself flawed. In the OT God's FAVORITE MEN (and all other men) were allowed to (-even encouraged to) have more than one wife, own concubines (=sex slaves), and sleep with handmaidens. How is THAT more strict or more perfect than the NT attitude, where Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon would ALL be condemed for even thinking about the other women they had in the OT. God sure became a prude in a big hurry. That pretty much wipes out the "God required holiness" and even the "God never changes" arguments. Excellent points as always Kryten. It's interesting how I missed such an obvious point. Somehow the obvious never seems to escape you my dark friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joyous1 Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 I can be a bit slow at times, but I don't really see the contradiction. The parable you are quoting begins with the king inviting the healthy wealthy folks to his son's wedding, but they snubbed him so he tells his servants to gather together the poor and crippled instead. In the old testament God is inviting only the whole, healthy, wealthy folks to attend his altar. But these folks have not responded to His invitation, so He sends His son to earth with a new testament that includes the lowly. The part about this parable that always got to me was what happened at wedding feast when one of the poor peasants showed up dressed like a poor peasant. "Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' " Yikes, He loves me, He loves me not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 I can be a bit slow at times, but I don't really see the contradiction. The parable you are quoting begins with the king inviting the healthy wealthy folks to his son's wedding, but they snubbed him so he tells his servants to gather together the poor and crippled instead. In the old testament God is inviting only the whole, healthy, wealthy folks to attend his altar. But these folks have not responded to His invitation, so He sends His son to earth with a new testament that includes the lowly. . . . But that IS the contradiction. According to the bible, the God of the OT is not the same as the God of the NT. OT God created the healthy, the beautiful, the flawless-- as well as the handicapped, the poor, the ugly, and the rest of the non-chosen on the planet. He only allowed the best of his people to have eternal life, and everyone else could go to hell. How many people lived and died with ZERO chance to "be saved" before the NT was formed?? Nearly all of them. Then along comes the NT, where a new God decides to invite everyone who will listen. That's two different plans from two different gods. Wouldn't an omniscient god been able to pick the best plan in the first place? Seems that God had to change and grow with society. More evidence that He was created in man's image... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Material_Miser_Joe Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 I can be a bit slow at times, but I don't really see the contradiction. Picture it this way with a little countermodel... You are a father, a strict, military, religious, Bible-believing, father, who raises his kids with an iron fist and wants them to be the epidome of a soder, "shaped up" family. The father says, "No drugs or alcohol! That's escapism. We deal with our problems and find happiness in sober thinking in this family." Your kids, on the other hand, are total goons, kids who like to smoke weed, get drunk, park the car in the front yard...the whole works. One day you come home to find the kids in one of their hedonistic drinking and drug benges. You don't say a word, don't send anyone home to stop the party, but allow the music to blare out and the riff-raff to continue. After they are done, the kids are surprised at your reaction when you draw them close and say, "Hi kids. Did you have fun with your friends? I hope so. Next time just tell me you are having a party and I'll plan to be away for longer." I don't have to tell you how this is a blatant contradiction even though it involved no direct, "The ball is blue" vs. "The ball is red," outrightly stated contradiction of facts. The father's reaction contradicted absolutely everything he stood for, just like the God of the OT, the savior of the New. The difference in principle was what created the contradiction in both cases: God determined he didn't want any noticeably "flawed" people in his presence. Jesus, not only in this parable, but in many other places invited and sought to heal the weak and sick and lame. Now God has a different view of things regarding, among many things, his esteem of the "flawed." Just like our devout, military father, this god morally and principly contradicts himself. (JH) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts