|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#100789
12/03/06 17:21
12/03/06 17:21
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
Quote:
The contradictions are simply the result of textual evolution. The bible is not a single text, but a number of texts combined and convolved.
This is true but it was the same situation also for the Gospels
Some gnostic Gospels claim that the snake was the good guy
He was not trying to cheat the man, on the contrary he was trying to arise humanity from ignorance
Should this gnostic Gospel be considered as the first "illumist" document of history ?
The point is that in Nicea council all these gnostic gospels have been banned
Why did they not purge also the bible ?
Maybe because it was a so old and traditional document
They simply did not dare to touch it even though they realized there were some contracdictions
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: AlbertoT]
#100790
12/03/06 17:46
12/03/06 17:46
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,815
Finland
Inestical
Rabbit Developer
|
Rabbit Developer
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,815
Finland
|
Note also that bible was decided by vote. This means, that the editor(s), who then wrote the bible, did vote how to hide all the hints, so that they can lie about them and so, still giving straight hints, manipulate people.
If you'd read the koran and bible, you will see many, many similiarities.
To put this simple: there is arcitech who created all this. Then s/he made some people as keys to the truth of him/herself. People like Jesus. People who have seen the creator. Everything written in, happened, done are all part of Lords will. The books (new testament, old testamnet, koran) are books that include the thruth. Not forgetting monolith, or keychain, that is also part of the truth.
"Yesterday was once today's tomorrow."
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: Inestical]
#100791
12/03/06 23:40
12/03/06 23:40
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Aah, so simple psychology and a big bunch of errors suddenly becomes a big devine conspiracy, I get it.  The similarities are the most striking when it comes to the method of indoctrination they use, yes some or a lot of events may also appear in the Koran, but that's not relevant when it all comes down to just one thing anyway. (-> control & power) And nope, it's not the work of (one?) God in my opinion, I don't believe in a conspiracy by a God when there's zero evidence pointing towards the existence of even such a God, hence believing in a conspiracy led by it would be insane imho, a well ...  Cheers
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: Damocles]
#100792
12/04/06 02:20
12/04/06 02:20
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Some months ago someone posted here a thread about bible self-contradictions, and Dan Silverman did his best to explain them away.
You speak of it as if Dan Silverman's un-scholarly objections were the end all of any intelligent objections to supposed contradictions. Which I assure you isn't the case.
No offense to Dan, or in any case myself since I also tried, but he simply isn't qualified to refute such nonsense. Not that it takes much qualification, but it takes more than your average believer. The half-baked ideas of skeptics desperate to find any contradiction at all in the bible, actually do require some work to overcome if only because their crock is, on the surface, somewhat convincing to the uninformed (without exception this seems to include nearly every single atheist on the planet, though they make no attempt at humility on the subject as is showcased in what you said here).
Quote:
Just like a good novel the bible begins right with a mystery. Genesis 1 describes how the Gods created the world step by step in the following order:
Light -> Heaven -> Earth & Seas -> Plants -> Water Animals -> Land Animals -> Men & Women.
Right on the next page, there's a different creation story. It's only one God this time, who created the world in this order:
Earth & Heavens -> Man -> Plants -> Animals -> Woman
This argument is aged, but unlike a fine wine it only gets worse.
http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp
I wouldn't put my stock in skeptics who refuse to take themselves out of their own cultural context, and who instead read the bible more literally than even fundamentalist christians do.
Quote:
Is it possible that the editor of the bible didn't notice this apparent contradiction? Hardly.
You seem to have the right ideas, just the wrong conclusions. Did it ever occur to you that the reason they didn't notice the 'contradiction' is that, because in the right context it actually isn't a contradiction? No, instead they purposefully added the contradiction, hoping no one would notice a reversal of order and the number of creators. Right...that sounds reasonable.
Quote:
1. It's not one god but a pantheon that created the world. (This part was censored from your King James Bible, but the original text uses the word 'elohim' which is plural). This is not a Christian belief, as the Lord forbids to believe in other Gods.
It never occured to you to possibly examine what happens during the translation process?
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/monoelohim.html
Furthermore, I have a New King James Version sitting right in front of me, that isn't censored (according to your standards). Of course, the censorship charge only applies if the bible really refers to multiple gods as having participated in creation week. Which is probably doesn't, unless a conspiracy theory is more likely than examining the writings in the proper context. I would rather not ally myself with atheist conspiracy nonsense, but to each his own.
Quote:
2. The description of the heaven - a vault with water above it - was exactly the Babylonian world view, which in turn had roots in cuneiform writings of the Sumerians from 1500 years earlier. So we have an essential heathen creation story here.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/babgenesis.html
Quote:
3. The order of creation - from the simple to the complex, starting with light - mimics the Big Bang and Evolution Theory. In fact Darwin could have got his ideas from the bible. However, evolution is also seen as non-Christian by some, otherwise the US fundamentalists weren't so scared of it.
Its differences speak more loudly than its similarities. For instance, the fact that it only took a week to create everything.
Quote:
So we have to conclude: more than 2500 years ago someone smuggled a heathen, evolutionist text to the very beginning of the bible! He even led our attention to it by putting standing out contradictions next to it. The question is now: what did he want to tell us? Is Evil everywhere?
Or might there be another explanation?
There is another explanation. You're just plain wrong.
By the way, if you have any objections to what Tektonics has to say, feel free to e-mail them and be thoroughly embarrassed.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 12/04/06 02:31.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#100793
12/04/06 03:37
12/04/06 03:37
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
The tektonic guys are wrong by the way: Quote:
Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context.
While linguïstically they are right, this isn't completely 100% true. The order in which things have been written do infact still matter. Even in Hebrew it wouldn't make sense to say something like this: "God creates Adam, God had created Earth, God had created Light" and still assume 'light' has been created as first!! Because exactly this is the case in the original Hebrew text.
By the way, about that 'plural God' thing, the site doesn't quite refute anything, this still stands in my opinion;
Quote:
But the actual verb plural-form (which in Hebrew is the tiny vav -- "u" -- tacked on the end, as we add "s" in English to form the plural of nouns), although mostly missing, is a number of times to be found, and is undeniable proof of the plurality of ha-elohim.
Infact angel in Hebrew is mal'ach. The Bible refers to Mal'ach Yahweh, which is the only 'angel' referred to in the earlier biblical literature. Most even assume that with Malách Yahweh is infact simply God meant. So there goes the 'angels' argument in my opinion.
Cheers
Last edited by PHeMoX; 12/04/06 03:50.
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: PHeMoX]
#100794
12/04/06 04:04
12/04/06 04:04
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
While linguïstically they are right, this isn't completely 100% true. The order in which things have been written do infact still matter. Even in Hebrew it wouldn't make sense to say something like this: "God creates Adam, God had created Earth, God had created Light" and still assume 'light' has been created as first!! Because exactly this is the case in the original Hebrew text.
Its about perspective, in any case.
Besides, outside of linguistics, what other way is there to look at these accounts to consider them innaccurate?
Quote:
"God creates Adam, God had created Earth, God had created Light" and still assume 'light' has been created as first!!
You don't have to assume anything! The exact order is given in the first account. Besides that, if there is no earth, where do you put the man? And besides even that, the second account starts out by stating that the heavens and the earth have been created. It doesn't mention light because a detailed description of the account has already been entailed. At that point, its about mankind, and that is where the perspective comes from in a sense.
There are only two ways I can think of someone being confused by this:
1). They don't know of the other account of creation.
2). They're looking for ways to be confused by the text.
Quote:
By the way, about that 'plural God' thing, the site doesn't quite refute anything, this still stands in my opinion;
Like I said, e-mail tekton and see how it turns out. As for myself, I can't (at the moment) refute you. Not enough time.
Quote:
Infact angel in Hebrew is mal'ach. The Bible refers to Mal'ach Yahweh, which is the only 'angel' referred to in the earlier biblical literature. Most even assume that with Malách Yahweh is infact simply God meant. So there goes the 'angels' argument in my opinion.
If mal'ach means angel, how can it also refer to God? Because context determines meaning. So therefore, I would maybe examine the way you're looking at the text.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 12/04/06 04:09.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#100795
12/04/06 04:32
12/04/06 04:32
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Besides that, if there is no earth, where do you put the man?
Well, obviously you don't even need an earth for a man to exist. A God would be able to create in any order they'd wish anyway, right? 
Besides, some things would perhaps make some vague sense physically speaking even if in a different order such as 'created light -> created earth' OR 'created earth -> created light'. It's still a contradiction though if lateron or previously there has been a statement about it in a different order.
Quote:
You don't have to assume anything!
No, just follow blindly and you'll be fine.  Come on, you can't ignore socalled facts being in a different order. In this case it's a legit question. If something is said to you a second time, different then the first then you can think two things. 1.) Ow, what has been said previously was wrong. 2.) I think they've made an error, because I've read before ... etc. So again, it's legit.
Quote:
They're looking for ways to be confused by the text.
I don't need to look for them, they're all over the place, starting on the first page the text(s) begin.
Quote:
If mal'ach means angel, how can it also refer to God? Because context determines meaning. So therefore, I would maybe examine the way you're looking at the text.
While for the point I was trying to make it wasn't really about what it stands for, it was moreso about the fact that plurals had been used.
I came to the same conclusion as you just did; If mal'ach means angel, how can it also refer to God? That's confusing indeed, especially when Angels are not supposed to be Gods and Gods are not supposed to be Angels. I guess in this case we're both biased,
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery
[Re: PHeMoX]
#100796
12/04/06 14:58
12/04/06 14:58
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Before I post my own theory of the hidden purpose of the Genesis contradiction, some comments on the objections.
The first objection was that the numerous self-contradictions of the bible are easily explained by the fact that the bible was written by many authors. This might be true for most of the contradictions, but I do not think it applies here. While the two creation stories probably stem from different sources, they were at least put together to the book Genesis by one final editor. This editor had to be aware of the contradictions, but nevertheless decided for some reason to put both creations stories together, with the heathen one at the very beginning. It's easy to walk away thinking: "Ha, ha - those bible writers didn't even manage to get their own tales straight!" But in my opinion there's more to it.
The second objection was a link to a website that claimed that there is no contradiction. Well, the only arguments presented were a theory that the second creation story was not referring to all plants and animals, but only to a few that were created after Man as a sort of late add-on. The bible does not mention that they were an add-on, to the only reason for that theory is that otherwise we had a contradiction. Also some sentences of the second story were written in a different tempus, the plusquamperfect, which was claimed to shed some doubt on the order of creation.
However, the first creation story clearly refers to all plants and animals, and the second one introduced a different creation order not only in tempus but also in causality. Just the needs of the already created man caused the creation of the plants and animals. So the theories about the add-on animals and the meaning of the plusquamperfect are apparently nonsense. In fact the contradiction in the two Genesis stories is even more obvious in the original Hebraic text (where the number of involved gods also differs). You had to be a very fanatic believer not to see it. However the bible was not written for fanatic YECs that believe everything literally, but for educated, normal people with an open mind.
If the bible editor had not intended a contradiction, he could have easily described the creation in a clear and consistent way that doesn't require strange interpretation theories by apologists.
So now the question is: When we assume that the contradiction between the two creation stories was intentional and meant to be noticed by the brighter part of the target audience, what was the intention? I don't have much time at the moment, but will post my theory later.
|
|
|
|
