Forums | MacLife

Sassy wrote:

Sorry, I've been away evading a hurricane. Just got back.

Would you agree that 'god' is perfect? If so, anything perfect can only be so as judged by god's standards, not mankind's. Plato said that 'perfection' resides ONLY in heaven.

You don't think the gospels were 'radical' thinking? They reversed the conventional 'character' of 'god,' from vindictive, dangerous, jealous, revengeful, petty, dictatorial, mean-spirited, hateful, etc. to loving, forgiving, gentle, compassionate, caring, etc. That's a radical change in character; and very appealing to any person who has been taught that s/he is born in sin and will continue to sin without help from god.

As to the reference that the 'serpent' was Satan, if so, why didn't Jesus just say identify him as such? Makes identification simple and matter of fact to those to whom he preached. Why speak in riddles or innuendoes? I don't know 'what' the 'serpent' was. It was an entity of some kind that 'knew' much of god's plans. Eve wasn't afraid of it, nor did she argue with it. One might think she had been told about it. Maybe not. It's left to the reader to 'assume' too much. It isn't clear to the rational mind.

As for Eve herself, I can't see that god needed her at all to help Adam 'fill the earth.' God created Adam and everything else. Why not just 'clone' Adam? Why invent 'sex' at all?

What happened is that Adam 'loved' Eve more than god. That was a temptation! Adam chose to believe Eve. Thing is that they didn't die. The serpent told them the truth, unless 'death' is something more than we are told it is.

That's the trouble with the Bible. It speaks in riddles and it is left to the reader or the scholar, or the holy spirit to reveal its truth. So,  perhaps the 'truth' is individual to each believer. Or, maybe not.

That's my strong point: The Bible is inconsistent and by being so, it makes the character of god inconsistent, thus diluting god's divinity as well as all the attributes mankind assigns to him.

One can read Shakespeare and find as much to 'believe' as truth as in the Bible. Yet, Shakespeare is not attested as divine or written by god.

My opinion is that the Bible is a book of ancient stories that attempt to answer questions mankind has been asking since each individual's birth. Some stories may have been woven around historical events, but others certainly are fictional or allegorical. The antiquity alone is enough to challenge its divine validity.

Hope everything is well with you, glad you are okay.

I dont see how if God is perfect it proves the point you were making, because in the Bible, mankind is perfect as well as the creatures in heaven. Plato's philosophy was more about absolutism than perfection where the physical is less whole than the spiritual, where in the Bible there is a simple difference of a physical and spiritual realm yet both are perfect as what they are. And again, the Pentateuch was written well before Plato's existence, its hardly a copy.

If someone only looked for a judgmental vindictive God, I suppose one could be easily found in the OT, but that's hardly a complete picture of God as presented therein. This is the God who protected those serving him, who was loyal to those loving him, who comforted and calmed all those who had such a relationship with him, the God who had made miraculous displays of his power and greatness, the God who was a close enough friend with Abraham that this imperfect sinner could argue with God over whether it was possible for God as the person as Abraham knew him to destroy a city if there were as few as five just people living there, the God who saved out of the whole city of Jehricho a prostitute (Rahab) who became the great great grandmother of the Davidic dynasty of annointed kings in Isreal. Half the time Jesus' saying are simply repeating scripture already existing in the OT. So, yeah, maybe the gospels were radical to the Jewish religion at the time, preached and taught and twisted by interpretations of men, but the point is the gospels are entirely in harmony with the person of God in the rest of the Bible. Its sort of ridiculous to imagine God as a more simple mind than the complexity of thought capable with h is creations- if it can be difficult to pin down the thoughts of you or me with a strict tautology, how much more ridiculous is it to assume that God's nature could be, that he must exist as this one sort of emotional character instead of the God, the person that he is.

Jesus often spoke in riddles because it reached the hearts of his listeners. One of my favorite passages is after crowds had heard of this Jesus doing miracles and teaching and such, they went to see this guy speak, and Jesus tells them, in riddle, that they must drink human blood and eat human flesh to be saved- which freaked everybody out, and almost everyone leaves. So Jesus turns to the others and asks if they want to leave too, but they stay out of faith- even though they didnt understand what Jesus was saying either, they had faith that Jesus must have a good reason behind what he was saying, so they stayed, and then Jesus explained the riddle to them. Anyway, point is Jesus had his teaching methods, but thats really beside the point. He does clearly identify Satan as that serpent. But even further, John in Revelation calls Satan "the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan" if you need it spelled out. The Bible is a large text, you can pick and choose all sorts of strings from the overall story it weaves, but its hard to pretend you have the whole of knowledge about the Bible if you choose to do so. Its similar to what Bertrand Russell once said: "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."

Maybe you dont see why God wanted man male and female, but then, you were not the Creator, God was, and God wanted them to have sex and not be cloned. Maybe it had something to do with diversity and individuality in mankind- who knows? (God.) We dont know why Adam chose to eat the fruit- you assume its love for Eve, but Adam may have felt it was his right to eat from the tree, he may have envied the "liberated" Eve who chose subjective judgment from self instead of God's objective standards. The thing is they DID die (unless you think they are alive somewhere?). You assume "day" means one literal "day," but as I have argued with Res, the Hebrew word means more accurately "period of time" and is used throughout the Bible as referring to even thousands of years.

"Inconsistencies" can be a device to give motive to exploring the scriptures more deeply, to understand better what is really being said, developing a clearer concept of God to draw closer to Him or as a device to give excuse to ignore the rest of the Bible and perceive God as a meaningless or empty concept. Of course, such a "proof" of "rationality" makes one wonder why humanity finds meanings in Shakespeare at all, or poetry, or art, etc. Why arent we entertaining ourselves with math instead of art since "rational" minds need things spelled out clearly, and all these other expressions require us to look beneath the cursory surface of what they at first glance appear to reflect? Not a very rational explanation I think.

Last edited by StaticAge (2005-10-03 9:54 am)

That's my strong point: The Bible is inconsistent and by being so, it makes the character of god inconsistent, thus diluting god's divinity as well as all the attributes mankind assigns to him.

Those who claim that the Bible is inconsistent I have found usually haven't read and studied it enough to see that it is very consistent.  Anyone can pick a few verses out of context and make them appear to contradict each other.  However if you have read and studied enough and take them in context with knowledge of the original language and culture of the time you will find it is very consistent.

About Adam and Eve... They did die.  Not as we would think right away but they gave up their imortality when they disobeyed God.  He told them they could eat of any of the trees but that one.  The listened to Satan (the serpent) and his twisted version of what God had said and rather than trusting and obeying God they ate the fruit.  Thus sin came into the world.

One thing in considering the Bible.  It is not a scientific text.  It does have within it scientific concepts explained in a non-scientific way to non-scientific people.  i.e. Amos 5:8   It is the LORD who created the stars, the Pleiades and Orion. It is he who turns darkness into morning and day into night. It is he who draws up water from the oceans and pours it down as rain on the land. The LORD is his name! 

Transperation was not known at the time but is explained well.  BTW Amos was one of the minor prophets.  A shepherd with no training or education.

Prov. 1:5 - 6 Let those who are wise listen to these proverbs and become even wiser. And let those who understand receive guidance by exploring the depth of meaning in these proverbs, parables, wise sayings, and riddles.

We are to gain wisdom as understanding by figuring out the riddles and parables.  Nothing that comes easy is valued or remembered.  If you have to work for the understanding you will value it more.

The bible is a story.

GET OVER IT.

Phydeaux wrote:

Light Speed wrote:

The bible is a story.

GET OVER IT.

Your post is an opinion.

GET OVER IT.

Your tail is showing

sewing wrote:

Those who claim that the Bible is inconsistent, I have found, usually haven't read and studied it enough to see that it is very consistent.

Matthew 1:1-17 wrote:

1The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers.
Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram.
4Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon.
5Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse.
6Jesse was the father of David the king. David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah.
7Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa.
8Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah.
9Uzziah was the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah.
10Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah.
11Josiah became the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
12After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel.
13Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor.
14Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud.
15Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob.
16Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.

Luke 3:23-38 wrote:

23When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai,
26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, (AG)the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
28the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
32(AH)the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
34the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, (AI)the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah,
36the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, (AJ)the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
38the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Jesus' line of descent, then, goes like this...

Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Perez
Hezron
Ram

What's this? Looks like an inconsistency! Matthew says that Ram was Amminidab's father, but Luke claims that Ram was Amminidab's grandfather, Admin being his father! Anyway...

Admin(?)
Amminidab
Nahshon
Salmon
Boaz
Obed
Jesse
David

Uh-oh. Matthew says Solomon and Luke says Nathan. Let's just plow on ahead, shall we?

Matthew                                 Luke
Solomon                                        Nathan
Rehoboam                                     Mattatha
Abijah                                            Menna
Asa                                                Melea
Jehoshaphat                                 Jonam
Joram                                            Joseph
Uzziah                                           Judah
Jotham                                          Simeon
Ahaz                                             Matthat
Hezekiah                                       Jorim
Manasseh                                     Eliezer
Amon                                            Joshua
Josiah                                           Er
Jeconiah                                       Elmadam
Shealtiel                                       Cosam
Zerubbabel                                   Addi
Abihud                                          Melchi
Eliakim                                          Neri
Azor                                              Shealtiel
Zadok                                           Zerubbabel

At this point it should be obvious that there is another discrepancy in the number of generations as well.

Achim                                            Rhesa
Eliud                                              Joanan
Eleazar                                         Joda
Matthan                                        Josech
Jacob                                            Semein
Joseph                                          Mattathias
Jesus                                            Maath

What the hell? You'd think the last ones would match up, at least? Matthew's list is obviously depleted, but Luke's list goes on:

Naggai
Hesli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Eli
Joseph
Jesus

How many times will I have to read this stuff before I finally see how "consistent" the two genealogies of Jesus are?

Why do creationists care? I mean the creation is such a small part of the bible (even though it is two stories merged into one).

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

How many times will I have to read this stuff before I finally see how "consistent" the two genealogies of Jesus are?

Um, I believe one traces the genealogy through Mary's side, the other through his adoptive father, Joseph.

Last edited by StaticAge (2005-10-04 12:33 pm)

What's this? Looks like an inconsistency! Matthew says that Ram was Amminidab's father, but Luke claims that Ram was Amminidab's grandfather, Admin being his father! Anyway...

The geneologies of Jesus in the 2 different Gospels trace Christ back through both Mary and Joseph.  That accounts for the different names back to David.   The ancient Jews didn't count generations the way we do.  They would skip some in the counting.  It would be somewhat analogous to counting dynasties. 

Just be careful that you don't jump on inconsistencies without knowing their history.  This is an eastern culture in the way they thought, acted and recorded.  As in all things modern or ancient, get the context right.

The bible is a story.

GET OVER IT.

There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than the existence of Plato.  There are over 24,000 ancient manuscripts of the NT and only 6 or 7 of Plato.  Even the non-Christian recorders of history in the 1st. century record about HIm.

In the creationist area... The descriptions in Genesis are meant to describe not the events themselves in a scientific way but the motivation, orderliness and design of creation and how man messed it up.

And Santa said "Ho Ho Ho" and it was so.

Santa made everything yesterday.

Prove me wrong.

Well, if you base your faith on the Bible being 100% literal truth, one thing being demonstrably not literal truth means that other parts could also be fallible.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

Yeah...other parts like the book of Genesis, which is well-known to consist of two creation myths combined into one. And there are plenty of inconsistencies between them as well.

And you are sure that is the only way to read the acount is as "inconsistent" and two myths combined as one? Can you demonstrate this beyond a reasonable doubt? Are you sure that all exegetic scholars or theologians and whatever would also agree that the account is wholly and irreparably "inconsistent?"

You are right to point out that reading the text to be consistent is in the mind of the believer, if that is your aim, but likewise, your inconsistencies are only a product of an unbelieving mind, and since both are interpretations, neither holds a higher ground except in the eye of the beholder.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

They're not all ever going to agree on anything, but any preacher with a brain will tell you that the Bible has inconsistencies in it. You can't read the Book as much as they do and not notice it. I was first told that the Book of Revelations had nothing to do with the future and everything to do with 1st Century Christians by a Catholic Priest who was a military chaplain. Later on I did some research in college and decided for myself that he was probably right.

If you are willing to accept that God was goofy enough to create plant life and then create the sun, with photosynthesis just being a divine afterthought, you are perfectly welcome to believe that. There's no proof positive one way or the other, or this thread never would have made it past 30 pages!

Well, just some food for thought, when Einstein's theory of relativity is inconsistent with aspects of quantum mechanics, is that reason to write the whole thing off, or is it possible that these inconsistencies are due to a problem in perception? Are scientists who continue working and using those formulas although conscious of the inconsistencies present foolish or simply credulous? I mean, you are totally free to have your own take on it, I dont mean to impose my own thought on you and insist that you see things my way, but on the other hand, you seem to be implying that anyone who hasnt arrived at where you are is not thinking correctly, or is deluded or whatever, and I dont think that is necessarilly the case.

By the way, light was created on the first creative period, or day, plant life on the third, and when it says that the luminaries come to make a division of day and night on the fourth, keep in mind that many of the verbs used in the Hebrew language for the creation acount are often in the incomplete, including the phrase "and there came to be… [light,]" which is meant to indicate progressive action, which is also why some translations, like Watts, uses the phrasing "gradually light came into existence." To illustrate how the order actually can make logical sense, light gradually began to appear on the first "day," yet it wasnt until the fourth day that the sun, moon and stars could have been discerned from the standpoint of an earthly observer.

Last edited by StaticAge (2005-10-05 6:12 am)

NAG wrote:

How about we just cut to the chase and say you can't apply scientific thinking to religious philosophy because they are completely different.

Because to do so implies that the human mind is incapable of using logic outside science and that there is absolutely none present in religious thought. I'd say both are more alike than dissimilar because both are products of human thought.

Problems with theories are completely expected and are actually good because that tells you we are learning something. However in the religious world, conflict and differences seem to be something that is evil (if it doesn't lead to an all out war...especially when the differences are small). Trying to say, "but science does it too" to justify the events of a religious text is completely missing the point. You either believe the ideas behind the stories or you don't. Believing in whether the events took place exactly as told isn't something that is productive. It is like trying to calculate the exact time that the rapture will occur. It doesn't matter.

What I get from this is that you simply will ignore whatever logic might be present in any argument you dont care to look into, thus giving you the authority to generalize it all as something completely different (read "inferior") to your thinking. What does any of this have to do with what I was posting?

For crying out loud, it doesnt even have to be science, but thats only an example I'm using. I might have a copy of a book by Vonnegut on my desk, and everything inside that book might be fictious, but I can still discuss with someone whether or not it says "X" or "Y" logically by comparing statements made to what is written.

To me, what is entirely preposterous is this idea argued over and over as if anyone who doesnt agree with "X" must have no concept of logic, simply because you disagree with the subjective values derived from the person's logic. Now THATS illogical.

As I said before in this thread, dicrepencies and inconsistencies, will either give someone a reason to correct their perspective, or find excuse to abandon any further learning. You are trying to make the case that this method only has value in science but not religion, and that is simply not true.

Last edited by StaticAge (2005-10-05 10:03 am)