Why does the bible tend to contradict itself?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why does the bible tend to contradict itself?

The bible was written by men, uninspired by a deity that doesn’t exist as perceived by theists.

Consequently, the bible is imbued with man’s faults, failings, and incompetence – being inconsistent among them.

 

[Clyde 154]

The unicorn was that name for the rhino with a single horn. Specifically a species that is now extinct

View attachment 578807


The Hebrew word for bird is actually owph which means “fowl/winged creature.”1 The word owph simply means “to fly” or “has a wing.” So, the word includes birds, bats, and even flying insects. The alleged problem appears due to translation of owph as bird. Birds are included in the word owph, but owph is not limited to birds. This shows that translators aren't always perfect when handling the inerrant Word of God.

The translation does not have to be perfectly "verbatim" in order to receive the truth being delivered. The scriptures are self interpretating.....when allowed. As Matthew states, "....You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." -- Matthew 23:24 Why worry about a single word when the meaning is self defined by the surrounding text? Sometimes there are no direct "verbatim" translations from Hebrew into English......thus, the use of the universal language of the day. Koine Greek. There is no loss of truth if the subject is kept in its contextual integrity.

Its a most easy thing to read and comprehend the meaning of a "single" term by the content, context and subject matter that surrounds the word in question. You have countless translations of scripture because there are countless languages that require translation. God is not the author of confusion. Take for instance the passages of scripture in question.

Lev. 11:13-19. Read the entire passage.......IN CONTEXT and SUBJECT MATTER. The subject matter is self defined in the passage and it is inclusive of Birds, and Insects.....not just Birds. Thus the correct word to use is that which defines all types of flying creatures as defined within the text itself. The first verse begins, "You may eat any clean bird.....and it defines what is clean as being in contrast to the unclean that are listed, ".........eagle, vulture, and buzzard......its not the type of bird as in predator or scavenger (its all about the blood they prey upon as being unclean)......its explained in the next verse (20), "you may not eat of anything which dies by itself......." Thus its inclusive of all flying creature to include inscets .(Verse 19) Since these creature feed upon the flesh of the dead with the BLOOD still in the creatures they feed upon, you may not feed upon their flesh. Insects often fed upon the blood of other creatures, and bats fed upon the insects......yada, yada, yada........

If you are to eat meat, its meat you Kill yourself and drain the blood thereof before consuming it. "You may not eat with the blood (still in it......" Lev. 19:26

Why all the inference on BLOOD? "The life of the flesh is found in the Blood......" -- Lev. 17:11 If you partake of the Blood, you partake of the diseases that are found within the blood. God was prohibiting the spread of disease even before mankind comprehended the concept of how diseases are spread. Thus the very reason that SWINE was expressly forbidden......unclean pork (that is not preparded or cooked properly) still today is subject to the spread of diseases as is any under cooked foul such as chicken or turkey....etc.

Why no ban on fish? Fish are "cold blooded"........the only water creatures that are forbidden to eat are those that also happen to prey upon warm blooded creatures as well or water creatures that are warm blooded themselves.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Now let me ask you: are you doing this nonsense on your own, or have you actually found some non-denominational sect that supports this nonsense somewhere?

Now let's deal with this. I will START with the rude way you started your, "WHAT ABOUT..." post.

We both know your insincere heart. You're really not interested in learning. You've accepted the paganized christianity you were giving by the Great Whore and her Protestant Daughters.

You really don't deserve a response from me because of your rudeness, but I will answer because there are OTHERS who may be HONESTLY seeking the Truth. You're not one of them.

Acts 10: Peter lived with, and walked with Jesus for over 3 YEARS. Acts 10 is a decade after Christ's death. The apostles obeyed the LAW concerning unclean "food," as seen in his response to the Lord. Neither Jesus, nor the disciples considered pig, rabbit, alligator or dogs and cats food fit for human beings. THEY obeyed the commandment that you call a burden.

Peter didn't understand the vision UNTIL he met with the Gentile Cornelius. Only THEN did the vision make sense.

Peter himself explains what the vision meant and it WASNT "go have some ham."

Within THIS context, Peter himself reveals what the vision meant. To those assembled in Cornelius' house, he said, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any MAN common or unclean" (verse 28).

The vision of unclean animals was only an illustration God used to help Peter understand that salvation was open to those previously held at arm's length (the "unclean" gentile)

I Corinthians 8 is about offering FOOD to idols, not what animals are fit for food. For a teacher you sure don't seem to take the time to read the context. You really should be embarrassed

Now I will ignore any further "what about" posts from you and any personal insult posts. You're not interested right now in developing your understanding of the Scriptures. You're comfortable with the god you created in your own mind.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The unicorn was that name for the rhino with a single horn. Specifically a species that is now extinct

What a ridiculous lie.

 

[Batcat]

One reason I won't use the KJV is because it's such a flawed and imprecise translation.

One example is the KJV translates the 6th Commandment as “Thou shalt not kill.” Obviously there is a lot of killing in the Bible.
Modern translations often use “murder’ in place of “kill.”

 

[Likkmee]

Those laws are still required for any follower of Israel's God

Well. Same one is ours. Yeshua came and explained modernism...of that time

 

[Carl in Michigan]

One example is the KJV translates the 6th Commandment as “Thou shalt not kill.” Obviously there is a lot of killing in the Bible.
Modern translations often use “murder’ in place of “kill.”

Jesus Himself quoted the commandment as, "You shall do no murder." Hardly a contradiction

 

[SweetSue92]

Now let's deal with this. I will START with the rude way you started your, "WHAT ABOUT..." post.

We both know your insincere heart. You're really not interested in learning. You've accepted the paganized christianity you were giving by the Great Whore and her Protestant Daughters.

You really don't deserve a response from me because of your rudeness, but I will answer because there are OTHERS who may be HONESTLY seeking the Truth. You're not one of them.

Acts 10: Peter lived with, and walked with Jesus for over 3 YEARS. Acts 10 is a decade after Christ's death. The apostles obeyed the LAW concerning unclean "food," as seen in his response to the Lord. Neither Jesus, nor the disciples considered pig, rabbit, alligator or dogs and cats food fit for human beings. THEY obeyed the commandment that you call a burden.

Peter didn't understand the vision UNTIL he met with the Gentile Cornelius. Only THEN did the vision make sense.

Peter himself explains what the vision meant and it WASNT "go have some ham."

Within THIS context, Peter himself reveals what the vision meant. To those assembled in Cornelius' house, he said, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any MAN common or unclean" (verse 28).

The vision of unclean animals was only an illustration God used to help Peter understand that salvation was open to those previously held at arm's length (the "unclean" gentile)

I Corinthians 8 is about offering FOOD to idols, not what animals are fit for food. For a teacher you sure don't seem to take the time to read the context. You really should be embarrassed

Now I will ignore any further "what about" posts from you and any personal insult posts. You're not interested right now in developing your understanding of the Scriptures. You're comfortable with the god you created in your own mind.

Food and man. You preach heresy. Are you in a church that does this, or is it just you?

Answer?

 

[Clyde 154]

Now let's deal with this. I will START with the rude way you started your, "WHAT ABOUT..." post.

We both know your insincere heart. You're really not interested in learning. You've accepted the paganized christianity you were giving by the Great Whore and her Protestant Daughters.

You really don't deserve a response from me because of your rudeness, but I will answer because there are OTHERS who may be HONESTLY seeking the Truth. You're not one of them.

Acts 10: Peter lived with, and walked with Jesus for over 3 YEARS. Acts 10 is a decade after Christ's death. The apostles obeyed the LAW concerning unclean "food," as seen in his response to the Lord. Neither Jesus, nor the disciples considered pig, rabbit, alligator or dogs and cats food fit for human beings. THEY obeyed the commandment that you call a burden.

Peter didn't understand the vision UNTIL he met with the Gentile Cornelius. Only THEN did the vision make sense.

Peter himself explains what the vision meant and it WASNT "go have some ham."

Within THIS context, Peter himself reveals what the vision meant. To those assembled in Cornelius' house, he said, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any MAN common or unclean" (verse 28).

The vision of unclean animals was only an illustration God used to help Peter understand that salvation was open to those previously held at arm's length (the "unclean" gentile)

I Corinthians 8 is about offering FOOD to idols, not what animals are fit for food. For a teacher you sure don't seem to take the time to read the context. You really should be embarrassed

Now I will ignore any further "what about" posts from you and any personal insult posts. You're not interested right now in developing your understanding of the Scriptures. You're comfortable with the god you created in your own mind.

The problem with your personal interpretation is the fact that other Apostle's of Christ address the subject of eating meat and why it should be eaten with thanksgiving to God. Indeed there was "confusion" on the subject and that's exactly why Paul, Barnabus and the elders of the "Jerusalem church of Christ" and the other Apostles convened to discuss the issue of how some were teaching without inspiration of the Spirit of God that even the gentiles must follow some of the OLD LAW. (Acts 15)

Upon convening, Peter recounted the conversion of the Gentile Cornelius (Acts 15:6-11). Paul and Barnabus both testified to the miracles that God had worked among the Gentiles (Act 15:12). And James, the Lord's brother, testified that the Old Testament prophesied that the Gentiles would be allowed into the church. Its clear that the meeting was to discuss was not to vote on church policy but rather to discuss the Holy Spirit's position on the subject.

The council concluded that God had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles, apart from following any adherence to the Law of Moses, as the council stated, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us; to lay no greater burden than the necessary things; that you abstain from eating things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled and from sexual immorality." -- Acts 15:29.

As addressed formally, still today, it is not wise to eat either pork nor foul that has not been properly prepared or cooked sufficient enough to destroy the disease carrying bacteria that is common to these creatures. But, just as the Christ states, when proper thanksgiving is presented to honor God, there is nothing unclean as it goes out of the body.........i.e., passes through the body. "Do you not understand that whatever enters the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated.

Just as Paul explained in (1 Cor. 8:1-13). Thus, the ban on meat is only for the weak willed while others who know the truth can eat thereof, as long as thanksgiving is observed.

 

[BreezeWood]

Now let's deal with this. I will START with the rude way you started your, "WHAT ABOUT..." post.

We both know your insincere heart. You're really not interested in learning. You've accepted the paganized christianity you were giving by the Great Whore and her Protestant Daughters.

You really don't deserve a response from me because of your rudeness, but I will answer because there are OTHERS who may be HONESTLY seeking the Truth. You're not one of them.

Acts 10: Peter lived with, and walked with Jesus for over 3 YEARS. Acts 10 is a decade after Christ's death. The apostles obeyed the LAW concerning unclean "food," as seen in his response to the Lord. Neither Jesus, nor the disciples considered pig, rabbit, alligator or dogs and cats food fit for human beings. THEY obeyed the commandment that you call a burden.

Peter didn't understand the vision UNTIL he met with the Gentile Cornelius. Only THEN did the vision make sense.

Peter himself explains what the vision meant and it WASNT "go have some ham."

Within THIS context, Peter himself reveals what the vision meant. To those assembled in Cornelius' house, he said, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any MAN common or unclean" (verse 28).

The vision of unclean animals was only an illustration God used to help Peter understand that salvation was open to those previously held at arm's length (the "unclean" gentile)

I Corinthians 8 is about offering FOOD to idols, not what animals are fit for food. For a teacher you sure don't seem to take the time to read the context. You really should be embarrassed

Now I will ignore any further "what about" posts from you and any personal insult posts. You're not interested right now in developing your understanding of the Scriptures. You're comfortable with the god you created in your own mind.

You're comfortable with the god you created in your own mind.

what about if there was no paper available - to write a book ... would yours be an empty mind.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One example is the KJV translates the 6th Commandment as “Thou shalt not kill.” Obviously there is a lot of killing in the Bible.
Modern translations often use “murder’ in place of “kill.”

You are correct.

 

[DudleySmith]

Misquoting Jesus: Does Bart Ehrman Prove the New Testament is Corrupt?

www.godandscience.org

Misquoting Jesus: Does Bart Ehrman Prove the New Testament is Corrupt?​

Nah, not even close.

 

[surada]

Misquoting Jesus: Does Bart Ehrman Prove the New Testament is Corrupt?

www.godandscience.org

Misquoting Jesus: Does Bart Ehrman Prove the New Testament is Corrupt?​

Nah, not even close.

Dr. Bart Ehrman claims that the New Testament has been altered by scribes and religious leaders to reflect their own brand of religious belief. However, a critique of Dr. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, shows that he grossly exaggerates New Testament textual differences and fails to cite textual critics who disagree with his undocumented claims about possible changes. Contrary to Dr. Ehrman's assertions, it is clear that the New Testament canon was already accepted by the Church by the early second century, and textual comparison shows that no major doctrinal statements were changed or added after that time.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

what about if there was no paper available - to write a book ... would yours be an empty mind.

Are you off your meds today?

 

[Batcat]

Jesus Himself quoted the commandment as, "You shall do no murder." Hardly a contradiction

That’s why I called it a “mistranslation.”

I did read one article where the writer argued that “kill“ and “murder“ were synonymous terms when the KJV of the Bible came out.

That’s another reason why the KJV of the Bible can be hard to understand or misleading. The meaning of some words have changed since 1611.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

That’s why I called it a “mistranslation.”

I did read one article where the writer argued that “kill“ and “murder“ were synonymous terms when the KJV of the Bible came out.

That’s another reason why the KJV of the Bible can be hard to understand or misleading. The meaning of some words have changed since 1611.

Murder IS killing but not all killing is murder. You're really reaching. And if you were honest you would understand the context. Since you find God COMMANDS killing many times in the OT. You're not this stupid. Or are you?

 

[Clyde 154]

"Merry Christmas", "Happy Holidays", ............may God bless all the households associated with this board and find your loved ones happy and secure when the "New Year" arrives. Thanks for all the great discussions and personal insights, especially on the topic of one's personal faith. One is never to old to learn and attempt to walk a mile in another's Moccasins.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That’s why I called it a “mistranslation.”

I did read one article where the writer argued that “kill“ and “murder“ were synonymous terms when the KJV of the Bible came out.

That’s another reason why the KJV of the Bible can be hard to understand or misleading. The meaning of some words have changed since 1611.

I always get the distinct impression that the translators King James had working on his version weren't making a lot of effort to understand the cultural and linguistic nuances of the Jews, Biblical or otherwise.

 

[surada]

I always get the distinct impression that the translators King James had working on his version weren't making a lot of effort to understand the cultural and linguistic nuances of the Jews, Biblical or otherwise.

Didn't you know the difference between killing in self defense and murder?

 

[BreezeWood]

Didn't you know the difference between killing in self defense and murder?

did you not know - the 10 commandments do not exist - because moses (destroyed) them ... so what exactly are you referring to.

you must be a rittenhouse fan, are you packing.


* try replacing the life taken by your own hands ... such is irredeemable - has much to do with the subject and sinlessness.