Contradictions in the Scriptures

[bob2010]

The western world is an individualistic, guilt driven society. The environment the Bible was written in, and most of the world today, is an group oriented, honor-shame society. The things that motivate people to conform to society's expectations are very different between the two cultures. The feeling of guilt you get when you do something wrong motivates us, while the desire to be honored and to avoid being shamed motivated the people in the Bible. Most of the social values in the ANE are based in one's group or in the honor-shame system, while for our society, most of them are based on one's self or guilt. this can make quite a large difference. A couple of examples: If i were to tell you that you needed to be more humble, you would take that to mean that you need to stop bragging about or to play down some ability or possession of yours. On the otherhand, when Paul tells the Philippians to imitate Christ's humility, he was telling them to not put themselves in a higher social standing then they actually are. An extreme example: a farmer claiming to be the emperor's right hand man. A more distinct difference can be seen in some of the laws in OT that today we see as rather brutal. There is one law that says a rape victim must marry her rapist. To us, living in countires with welfare and social security to take care of people like this, it seems horrible. However, in the ANE culture, this was a way of ensuring that the victim would be cared for for the rest of her life.

As for the language gap, if you have studied a foreign language you will have come across some words that dont have nice one word translations or carry some connotation that is difficult to express briefly. I'll use Gal 6:2 & 5, one of those supposed contradictions as an example. the word for burden used in 6:2 is baros. the word for burden in 6:5 is phortion. baros carries with it the connotation of something heavy. it is the root word for barus, which is the adjective heavy. phortion doesnt carry this connotation. it is used in Matt 11:30 as follows: For my yoke [is] easy, and my burden (phortion) is light.
and in Matt 23:4: For they bind heavy(barus) burdens(phortion) and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers.
note the use of the adjective barus in Matt 23:4
It could probably be worded a bit better in english, but if the time was taken to make the meaning every word absolutely clear to the english speaker, you would probably need a fork lift to carry around your Bible.


wow, that was long.

[Phix]

I agree with this. My earlier point was that translation was the source of confusion, even from initial interpretation. When one is inspired, he has a vision in his mind. I believe this vision to be based on aspects of the grand design or God. It is the job of the artist to interpret this idea or inspired vision into a tangible thing through his understanding of reality. This is the process of invention. I say this to show that all inventions are an interpretation of an inspired vision. The original scriptures are also inspired interpretations. I am suggesting that although the scriptures are inspired by God, through the man's interpretation, there are likely errors contained within the original text before any translation. Then of course more is lost in translation, as you have pointed out. The idea of lamguage is to communicate pictures from one mind to the mind of another. Because of the things that I have just described I believe that it is highly possible that the Bible is not the divine word of God and shold be checked with reality to verify it's authenticity. The word of God is truth and it is written on reality itself. This is why many say that experience is the best teacher. Unfortunately, we cannot experience the past in real time and so, must rely on histotical accounts but through an advanced understanding of cause and effect, I believe that we may be able to verify good portions of history. What do you think?

[bob2010]

I think you have got a faulty view of inspiration.


id love to continue this, but im leaving town for the weekend.

[Phix]

I think you have got a faulty view of inspiration.

That may be a possibility. I don't believe in magic though and for that reason, maybe my view of inspiration seems unusual to you but , look again. It may not be as faulty as one might think upon closer inspection.

[August]

This is not my assumption. With topics of this nature one needs to be extremely relaxed and focused, otherwise, they may miss a crucial point.

Whatever. You don't know me, so don't make any assumptions.

Sensation is the beginning of perception, the mental image is the end of perception.

How do you know when you are having a sensation, how do you turn that into perception, and how does that become a mental image? An example would be really helpful here.

No, but it is the most reliable. The other influence is text or narrative.

Can you please clarify this a bit more? How do we form beliefs? Is belief the same as knowledge? And how do you seperate text or narrative from sensation and subsequent perception?

Both cohesiveness and consistency are attributes of truth. If something is true, it will be consistent with something else that is true because of the cohesiveness of reality as a single whole.

Ok, but you still did not answer my question. Since we are all humans, with different experiences, who determines the cohesiveness and consistency? How do you know when something is consistent? I agree that there is only one reality, and that it constitutes the objective truth. How can we ever know the whole reality, so as to determine whether something is true or not? It seems to be an argument of infinite regression.

It's all about the underlying order and the grand scheme of things.

What is the underlying order? What is the "grand scheme of things"?

If someone suggest that a certain event has taken place, the cause of this event must be consistent with reality.

How can you know whether the cause is consistent with reality or not?

Some people believe in magic which says that certain things can occur outside of reality or cause and effect. Since reality is a production of G.O.D. or Grand Organizing Design, magic suggest that one can operate outside of God's authority. This is an impossibility because all things in existence have come to be as a direct result of God's authority or will or intent etc. Nothing operates outside of reality. Cause and effect [ God's will ] is the action that produces reality. We study cause and effect through trial and error. Scientist call this experimentation, which is essentially seeking counsel from reality or God.

Hmmm. Something here to make me think. I sort of agree and disagree here. I agree with the part that says that all reality is caused by God. Maybe it's a misunderstanding on my side again, but I am somewhat confused by the rest of your paragraph. For clarity sake, I want to list your statements:
1. All things in existence are caused by God's will, authority and intent.
2. Nothing operates outside of reality.
3. God's will causes reality (the effect).
4. We study cause and effect (reality) through trial and error (experimentation).

Before we carry on, does the above list correctly summarize your position? Also, in the last sentence, do I understand correctly that your position is that God equals reality? For the sake of moving things forward, if that is indeed your position, don't agree. Something cannot cause itself. So while I agree that God's will causes reality in the sense of what we can observe, I disagree that He does not operate outside reality. He causes reality to happen, as you said, but then I get somewhat lost in your argument. If God is reality, then He cannot cause reality to be. He has to be on a plane or dimension outside of reality, as we perceive it.

[Phix]

Hmmm. Something here to make me think. I sort of agree and disagree here. I agree with the part that says that all reality is caused by God. Maybe it's a misunderstanding on my side again, but I am somewhat confused by the rest of your paragraph. For clarity sake, I want to list your statements:
1. All things in existence are caused by God's will, authority and intent.
2. Nothing operates outside of reality.
3. God's will causes reality (the effect).
4. We study cause and effect (reality) through trial and error (experimentation).

• 1. Correct

• 2. Correct

• 3. Possibly incorrect. To clarify, God's will is cause and effect and defines truth. The total production of cause and effect, God's will, is Reality or the Holy Spirit. Holy meaning complete or pefected. Spirit meaning influence. God's influence is truth.

• 4. Correct.

Code: Select all

I understand correctly that your position is that God equals reality? For the sake of moving things forward, if that is indeed your position, don't agree. 

No, this is not my position. God is the Grand Organizing Design. This grand design produces reality or sets the coordinates for what reality will be. God is the true matrix. Reality comes out from God. Essentially, God's is the instruction on a Blueprint. The actual blueprint is reality which allows us to read or come to know the plan for how things are intended to go. The universe is the raw materials for us to use. Our inventions are our interpretations of the design recorded on the blueprint. our improvement on our inventions is our evolution toward perfection or a more perfected state.

[August]

3. Possibly incorrect. To clarify, God's will is cause and effect and defines truth. The total production of cause and effect, God's will, is Reality or the Holy Spirit. Holy meaning complete or pefected. Spirit meaning influence. God's influence is truth.

I don't disagree with this, necessarily, it resembles predestination of sorts.

God is the Grand Organizing Design. This grand design produces reality or sets the coordinates for what reality will be. God is the true matrix. Reality comes out from God. Essentially, God's is the instruction on a Blueprint.

Your position can easily be interpreted as a deist position. I'm not sure you mean that though. You also seem, to me at least, to be putting boundaries around God, and around us. There is a very real real-time interaction between God and His creation, which I don't see fully accommodated in your proposition. Do you see that interaction as reality too, or is it a one sided action from the Holy Spirit?

The actual blueprint is reality which allows us to read or come to know the plan for how things are intended to go. The universe is the raw materials for us to use. Our inventions are our interpretations of the design recorded on the blueprint. our improvement on our inventions is our evolution toward perfection or a more perfected state.

It then still brings us back to the question as to how we know what the blueprint is, and how we know it's true. How do you define "perfected state"?

[Phix]

I don't disagree with this, necessarily, it resembles predestination of sorts.

Yes sort of but I do make room for freewill.

• Freewill or volition is the process of choosing. Once the choice is made and acted upon, cause and effect determines the outcome.
  • I do not deny the involvement of the creator but the concept does not view God as a He I believe this is the first mistake of man in his interpretation of God. If the premise is wrong, nothing from it can be right.

    There is a very real real-time interaction between God and His creation, which I don't see fully accommodated in your proposition. Do you see that interaction as reality too, or is it a one sided action from the Holy Spirit?

    Maybe you are referring to the consequences that result from cause and effect. This can be viewed as interaction with God. This is how we ultimately develop our morality and learn discipline.

    It then still brings us back to the question as to how we know what the blueprint is, and how we know it's true. How do you define "perfected state"?

    Through creativity and critical thinking.
    • First we explore and examine our environment. By studying basic nature { Reality } we come to understand how things work.
    • Next we attempt to recreate the effects we have observed by simulating the cause from what we learned.
    • If we have learned incorrectly the results or consequences wont match. This is a mistake.
    • We must now examine the mistakes, comparing them to reality in order to solve the problem.
    • Once the problem is solved the results will match signifying a right answer. This is how we discover what is consistent with reality. Experience or experiment. Everything that we have or know has come about through this process. Each time we get the right answer we move closer and closer to perfection. Don't get me wrong. We are nowhere near perfect but this is the direction we need to move in.

[Phix]

Your position can easily be interpreted as a deist position.

You know what August; before you made this ststement, I knew nothing of Deism. Thanx to you, I went and did some research. Surprisingly, much of what they believe, I also believe. I may very well be a Deist but I didn't even know it. Thank you August, you just help clarify things for me. I was beginning to think that I was some sort of an alien or anomaly to the matrix like Neo. I am very glad that I have had this discussion with you, wherever you may be. I don't know what your faith is but just know that by doing this, you have done a very good deed. I am greatful.

[August]

Surprisingly, much of what they believe, I also believe. I may very well be a Deist but I didn't even know it.

Shoot, talk about misplaced thanks, I was hoping you would turn out to be a theist.

I don't know what your faith is but just know that by doing this, you have done a very good deed.

Grrrr, it would only be a good deed if you accept Christ as your personal Saviour.

So as a deist, you believe that there was a creator or creators who now pretty much is a disinterested spectator watching all of this now?

Where I was going before with the whole argument, is that we can never know what truth or even reality is if we don't have some objective measure of that. The only keeper of that objectiveness is God, and we have some of that knowledge from birth, given to us by God so that we can recognize His existence. That enables us to see past our own preferences and preconceptions, and establishes the absolutes that form the basis of human morality, and the ability to interpret what we observe through sensation and perception. Without that innate "pre-knowledge", we cannot logically know anything, because everything cannot be reduced to empiricism.

[Phix]

Code: Select all

Shoot, talk about misplaced thanks, I was hoping you would turn out to be a theist. 

I do believe in the teachings of Jesus but I am skeptical of the things that people say about him. I don't trust the people who speak on his behalf.

Grrrr, it would only be a good deed if you accept Christ as your personal Saviour.

Christ and Jesus are not the same thing. Jesus died on the cross but Christ is in you, and me etc. I believe that man free of the motivation to commit sin has attained a pure human state. A level of consciousness called christ.
Jesus reached this and serves as an example to us all. I developed a model for a book I am writing that looks like this _

• Knowledge

• Understanding

• Enlightenment

• Wisdom

• Christ

I list these as the levels of awareness in the direction of righteousness. If one moves in the opposite direction toward wickedness it is _

• Mystery

• confusion

• Oblivion

• Folly

• Rebellion / Anti-Christ

This is consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

So as a deist, you believe that there was a creator or creators who now pretty much is a disinterested spectator watching all of this now?

That is not an accurate assesment. Here, check for yourself. Go to _

• http://www.deism.org/frames.htm

Tell me what you think.

Where I was going before with the whole argument, is that we can never know what truth or even reality is if we don't have some objective measure of that. The only keeper of that objectiveness is God, and we have some of that knowledge from birth, given to us by God so that we can recognize His existence. That enables us to see past our own preferences and preconceptions, and establishes the absolutes that form the basis of human morality, and the ability to interpret what we observe through sensation and perception. Without that innate "pre-knowledge", we cannot logically know anything, because everything cannot be reduced to empiricism.

I do not disagree. The only problem is our concept of God, that's all. I think you missed my post before this one, I sent you two back-to-back. Do this. Write down what I said about God-Design / Holy Spirit-Reality / Creation-Universe. Then review what I just said about Christ. It is consistent with the teachings of Jesus in the Bible and Deism. Please, check it out. We can solve this thing man, I know we can!

[August]

I do believe in the teachings of Jesus but I am skeptical of the things that people say about him. I don't trust the people who speak on his behalf.

People like me? Why would you believe in His teachings, any more than you would in the teachings of say, Joseph Smith?

Christ and Jesus are not the same thing.

Sorry, I disagree. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Following on, I agree that we have a part of God in us, but that is the Holy Spirit, the 3rd party of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is the manifestation of God in us.

I believe that man free of the motivation to commit sin has attained a pure human state. A level of consciousness called christ.
Jesus reached this and serves as an example to us all.

Guess I'm going to have to read the book. No human can ever reach that, since we are born into an imperfect world. Jesus could only attain that because he was both God and man.

I developed a model for a book I am writing that looks like this _....

What is the purpose of the book? Maybe you can explain how you arrived at those levels. How do you get knowledge in the first place, and by what mechanism do you move to the next level? Also, are you saying that man can become Christ? I know that we are to aspire to like Him, but we can never be Him, that would mean that we become God.

This is consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

Can you cross-refrence that to some sources please?

That is not an accurate assesment. Here, check for yourself. Go to http://www.deism.org/frames.htm

The website is that of a so-called 'free-thinker'. Whoever wrote the the content of what website has no idea what theism is about, and quite typically attacks faith. I won't get into a whole argument here, but that website espouses a different faith system. Look here:

"Main Entry: de·ism
Pronunciation: 'dE-"i-z&m, 'dA-
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe"
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and I would regard that as a more objective source as to the deifinition.

Also, from that website:
"Self-Reliance Instead of Co-Dependency. Theists usually turn to their god for strength and comfort. Feelings of dependence are fostered among the believers. By contrast, Deists believe that God has already given humanity all it needs. The rest is up to us. Self-reliance and self-confidence is emphasized and fostered by Deism." Seems to confirm what I say about a disinterested god.

I do not disagree. The only problem is our concept of God, that's all.

Mmmm, but your deist friends seem to disagree.

I think you missed my post before this one, I sent you two back-to-back.

No, I actually didn't, which is why I wrote the paragraph.

It is consistent with the teachings of Jesus in the Bible and Deism.

Yes, you may be consistent with the deists from what I quickly read, but you have to show that it's consistent with Jesus's teachings. Their position is false though. If they rely solely on reason, as they so proudly proclaim, how can they prove the existence of reason? How do they know what they are observing is real? And how do they understand what they are seeing? If all they have is their own individual reason, how does that reflect knowledge of reality, since all they have is an internal image of what they sensed? Reason alone does not allow us to have knowledge.

Please, check it out. We can solve this thing man, I know we can!

Solve what thing? Interesting conversation, thanks.

[Phix]

People like me? Why would you believe in His teachings, any more than you would in the teachings of say, Joseph Smith?

Anything that Jesus taught, I can test. I have reached a conclusion consistent with what ge describes. If what Joseph Smith speaks truthfully then he is credible. I wont believe just because someone claims to be honest; they must be tested.

Sorry, I disagree. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Following on, I agree that we have a part of God in us, but that is the Holy Spirit, the 3rd party of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is the manifestation of God in us.

No, we are all God's children, both sons and daughters. Jesus was our brother. You may know the location of the scripture where Jesus says "There will be others who will come and do greater works than these." Speaking of his own works. Jesus was also illiterate, which would not be possible if he were actually God. Jesus was led by the Holy Spirit {Pure Reality} through Christ; making him not only the son of God but the SUN of God, acting as a shining example of God's will. This is the goal of mankind. The Holy Spirit is not in us, Christ is in us. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus also says of the kingdom of Heaven "It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it." I quote that to show that it is our job, through obedience to God, through Christ, being led by the Holy Spirit to bring about the Kingdom.

Guess I'm going to have to read the book. No human can ever reach that, since we are born into an imperfect world. Jesus could only attain that because he was both God and man.

See, this is the problem. You don't know what we can do; that's what you were told. If you believe it then you wont even try. Then the world becomes the trash can that we all live in today. I am sick of it and I want to clean it up. The first thing that must be done is destroy all lies and misinterpretations, wether they be found in christianity or deism or science or any place else. The falsehood has got to go. That is step # 1.

What is the purpose of the book? Maybe you can explain how you arrived at those levels. How do you get knowledge in the first place, and by what mechanism do you move to the next level? Also, are you saying that man can become Christ? I know that we are to aspire to like Him, but we can never be Him, that would mean that we become God.

Yes I will explain the levels to you. I will create a seperate topic for that and start fresh. I will call it The Book There are many things to discuss wgich will come up. I am saying that man already is christ but he just doesn't realize it. Through the development of character this will be revealed. This does not make us God, this makes us completely devoted to God. The only way that you can truly know God is through Christ. You have heard this before, but you misunderstood it. I am telling you, I am living it. I practice what I preach.

Can you cross-refrence that to some sources please?

Here is a excerpt from the book _

Jesus was not God and he did not believe himself to be. He could not read nor write and did not actually pen any of the scripture contained in the Bible. He was a man with highly elevated conscious awareness. He was directed by the Holy Spirit. Holy meaning the whole, complete, and perfected spirit of truth. This made him a shining example of God or the Grand Design. More than just the light of truth eminated from him, in his brightness he had become the Sun of God, removing darkness from the lives of all who would follow him. I am God's son and you are God's son but it should be the objective of all men to become the Sun of God and bring the light of truth to all.John 12 / 44 - 46Then Jesus cried out, " When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. "

[August]

I think we have reached a point of irreconcilable differences here.

Anything that Jesus taught, I can test.

How?

No, we are all God's children, both sons and daughters. Jesus was our brother. You may know.....

This is all very nice storytelling, but has no basis in Scripture. You seem to want to selectively quote whatever suits you. The Gospel of Thomas is not part of the accepted canon of the Bible, by the way. There is no Scriptural mention of Jesus being equated to the sun.

See, this is the problem. You don't know what we can do; that's what you were told. If you believe it then you wont even try. Then the world becomes the trash can that we all live in today. I am sick of it and I want to clean it up. The first thing that must be done is destroy all lies and misinterpretations, wether they be found in christianity or deism or science or any place else. The falsehood has got to go. That is step # 1.

This is very noble, but I'm afraid also misguided. By what authority, and through what logical process do you arrive at your conclusions above? Can you describe it step-by-step?

I am saying that man already is christ but he just doesn't realize it. Through the development of character this will be revealed. This does not make us God

Oh my word.

You have heard this before, but you misunderstood it. I am telling you, I am living it. I practice what I preach.

And how do you know that I'm misunderstanding, and not you? You can tell me all you like, it does not make it true.

Jesus was not God and he did not believe himself to be. He could not read nor write

Yes He did. See the thread elsewhere on this exact topic. And how do you know He could not read or write? It very clearly states in Luke where Jesus got up to read in the synagogue. (4:16)

Your assumptions are all over the place, and logically and Scripturally inconsistent. If you choose to use Scripture as the logical basis for your position, you cannot choose to be selective. All of it comprises the revelation of God, not just the parts that you wish. It has been tested and examined for consistency and truth over the last 2000 years, and still it stands as a whole.

I see no point in going any further. There is nothing that you have provided that establishes any logical basis for your arguments. We can have a friendly conversation all day long, but I have no personal interest in further pursuing your theories.

Anyhow, it was interesting while it lasted, and good luck on your journey.

[Phix]

I an very sorry that you feel that way. Good luck to you.