There are just so many reasons to believe the Bible that I can't even think of a good place to begin, but I suppose I will just have to jump right in.
1) Unity of Scriptures: The Bible was written over a period of 1,500 years by authors from a vast variety of backgrounds, yet it has the unity of one theme and does not contradict itself. Take a look at some of these facts:
~The Bible was written over a 1,500 year period
~The Bible was written by forty different authors who came from very diverse backgrounds. Moses was an intelligent man, educated in Egypt; Luke was a doctor; David was a shepard and later King of Israel; Matthew was a tax collector; Peter was a humble fisherman; Paul was a man known for killing Christians before he was transformed by God.
~The Bible was composed on three of the seven continents: Asia, Europe, and Africa. Moses wrote from the desert of Sinai; Paul wrote his letters from a cell in Rome; Daniel wrote while in exile in Babylon; David wrote the Psalms while hiding in a mountain in Israel.
When we put all these factors together, it is incredible that despite the number of authors, places, and amount of time it took to compose the Bible, it follows one united theme. God is a reedeemer who wants to save and love His people if they will only call upon His name. It seems logical to conclude what the Bible says about the amazing unity of the Scriptures: ""No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (Second Peter 1:21).
Let this set for awhile and really think about how incredible it is that the Bible is so bound in unity despite all the controversial issues it brings forth. More to come later; this is a lot to swallow.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
What about the date of the last supper? If I recall correctly John and (?)Matthew give different dates for the last supper.
Further more, can you provide me with any evidence that Moses existed? Can you provide me with evidence that the writers did not have copies of what was already written in front of them?
Can you provide me with any evidence that the bible wasn't edited later to try and reduce the number of contradictions?
What about the contradictions between the bible and what we see in the real world?
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
John and Matthew give the same date for the Last Supper. They are not specific dates in the Bible, but they both occur on the Passover, which is also refferrd to as the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Matthew 26: 17 "On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread..."
John 13:1 "It was just before the Passover Feast"
Bekka Joy
Um, those dates are not the same. The first day of Passover and the day before Passover are not the same.
It is on the same day because the Passover Feast is on the same day as The Feast of Unleavened Bread. John just happened to be more specific by saying that The Last Supper occured right before the meal.
Bekka Joy
Actually the Passover Feast happens before the Feast of Unleavened Bread. There is your contradiction. The Passover is not on the same day as the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
I stand corrected; however, I looked up a Jewish site that describes both events as being a part of the same festival and following one another in immediate succession.
"Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are held in immediate sequence. These are distinctly different holidays falling on different days; however, due to their closeness they are usually treated as one festival. (The scriptures seem to teach that these are two names for the same festival. See Exodus 13:3-8.)
(http://biblicalholidays.com/unleavened_bread.htm)
Exodus 13:6-7 "For seven days eat bread made without yeast and on the seventh day hold a festival to the Lord. Eat unleavened bread during those seven days."
Bekka Joy
Also, if I am not mistaken, the Passover Feast falls on the last day of the seven day ceremony. Therefore, there would have been no contradiction because the verse simply says, "It was just before the Passover Feast"; this means that it could have fallen on any of those seven days, especially due to the close link of all the seven days in a Jewish person's mind. (See above comment with info from a Jewish holiday site).
Bekka Joy
No, the passover feast is the first day of the holiday.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Then it would make more sense that way because one of the gospel writers was simply being more specific about the time of the last supper. He never indicates that it was on another day, just simply that it was before the Passover meal, which you said falls on the first day.
Sorry you all; I am not as familiar with Jewish customs. I should have researched a little bit more.
Bekka Joy
I got so confused when reading this. I've never heard of it called the Festival of Unleavened Bread. At any rate, the seder is held on the first night (or the first two nights outside of Israel). The last day (or two days outside of Israel) are similar, but I don't think they're called a seder, because I'm almost certain they don't have the same rituals on that night. Might be a large meal, because most holidays are either feasts or fasts, but I don't think it holds as much importance.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
My best friend is a Modern Orthodox. There is a greater significance to the last two days than the middle days, but nothing official. If you are talking passover feast, it's the first day. I think that the first two days being Sedersbecame a tradition during the Medieval period, when the Jews were more scattered across Europe.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
My boyfriend is modern Orthodox, but I only get exposed to this stuff once a year, and he's kinda been gone since Wednesday night, so it's a bit difficult to ask him :-)
And the reason there's two days instead of just one was because those outside of Israel weren't sure which day was actually the start of the holiday, so they celebrated it for two just to be sure they didn't do work on those days. So yeah, it was probably during the medieval period :-D
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
I knew that about the calculation of the day. That's why I ruled the Roman Era out, seeing as most Jews were still concentrated in the Israel area.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Here is a quote by a man who has done extensive research on the existance of Moses: " In the more scientific and historical schools of study, even without the above literalism, the Biblical account of Moses is sufficient as the basis for both a legal system and faith system." (Rabbi Barry Dov Lerner).
There is absolute proof of the Dead Sea Scrolls being found (spring of 1947-1956) and they are attributed to Moses, the author. Because these scrolls were not discovered until modern day, it is pretty amazing that every Old Testement prophecy came true with the writings of the New Testement, which were written in a different location by different authors.
Bekka Joy
Where is this absolute proof that Moses wrote them? I've watched shows with my dad, who is a Christian and they Christians don't say the Moses wrote them, but a tribe of Israelis who live in the mountainous regions.
Not all OT prophecy has come true. Not all the prophecies about Jesus have come true either. Besides with Jesus, who was a learned man, he could easily manipulate the population to believe that he fullfills those prophecies, since only the rabbi's really studied the Talmuh, and not the common folks.
Jesus obviously did not "manipulate" the people well enough since He was crucified on the cross. In fact, most people rejected Him and failed to recognize Him as the One the Old Testement talked about. However, His followers knew Him to be the Messiah and they would later die for His name. If it were all a hoax, don't you think they would have given up when death came calling? No, they stood firm because they knew Christ was the One True God.
Bekka Joy
Can you please share with me which of the Old Testement prophecies have not come to pass?
Bekka Joy
The messiah ruling over the earth, the building of the temple, everyone believing in God. Gee, sounds like the Antichrist of the NT. Sounds like the same people. Could the messiah be the antichrist, i believe possibly. But I put no faith in holy books.
Are you saying that you believe in the Antichrist then? Because if so, then that's a start. The antichrist is talked about in the Bible, so then you must believe some of it to be true.
Bekka Joy
No, you said to show you proof. I looked in the Bible and found you proof of prophesies not come to pass. I do not believe in the Anti-christ, I was just saying that if Jesus was supposedly supposed to do all these things like the antichrist described in the Bible, then Jesus could theartically*spelling* could have been the antichrist.
But i'll stress that I do not believe in the antichrist at all. You missread it.
...is considered one of the great classical "law-givers" by most moder scholars (myself included). However, I am unaware of any credible evidence that would indicated that Moses was the author of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Scrolls have been dated (though carbon-dating and analysis of the dialects) to roughly the 1st or 2nd century B.C.E., which is of course well over a thousand years after the time period usually attributed to Moses' life.
Also, can you provide us with even ONE clearly specific "prophecy" of that can be objectively demonstrated to have be "fulfilled" in the manner you suggest?
percviale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I can give you much more than one. In fact, I will write a post about it just for you.
Bekka Joy
Are you also aware that carbon dating has been proved to be an inaccurate way of dating things that are inorganic, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls? The only thing that can be used to carbon date are those things which were once living, meaning they once had carbon in them. As far as the dialects, Hebrew and Aramaic were the languages of the Hebrew people during the time of Moses. The origninal manuscripts are in what languages? You guessed it...Hebrew and Aramaic.
Bekka Joy
Are you aware that carbon dating is inaccurate after 5000 years? There is still a thousand years or so unti the carbon dating could be questioned.
Another thing when the carbon dating says the DSS was written, the langues of the Hebrew people were, Greek, Roman, Hebrew and Aramaic. Guess what they were written in? Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
Carbon dating cannot accuratly be used to determine the age of inorganic substances. Here is an article on that very issue. Check it out:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
Bekka Joy
The majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written on papyrus, which of course is made from plant material (i.e. once living). And a fair amount of them were written on gevil a specially prepared type of animal hide (also once living). This gives us a collection of useable carbon-based materials for use in the dating process. Of course, our dating of the Scrolls is not based just on the carbon-14 left in them.
There are a number of specific dialects found on the Scrolls that are forms of Biblical Hebrew (actually, 3 sub-dialects...the archiaic dialect dates from the 10th Century B.C.E. to the 6th Century B.C.E., the classical dialect that was in use during the bulk of the 6th century B.C.E., and the late dialect from the 6th Century to the 4th Century B.C.E.). Most of the scrolls, however, are written in Qumran Hebrew (also known as "Dead Sea Scroll" Hebrew, in use from the 3rd to the 1st Century B.C.E.). There is also some Aramaic and Koine Greek on the Scrolls, though these respresent a minor portion of the scripts. I'm not sure about the dating of the Aramaic, but Koine was only in use in Greece from about 300 B.C.E. to 300 C.E., so its presence doesn't actually help your case at all.
Languages change over time, and it is possible to date with a fair amount of accuracy when a document was written by examining the nuances of the languages that is used. Both the carbon-dating and the dialect analysis points to roughly the same time period.
Only one of the Dead Sea Scrolls is inorganic, i.e. The Cooper Scroll, but the language on it is actually Mishnaic Hebrew, which dates the Scroll I believe from between 70 to 200 C.E., making this Scroll one of the youngest in the collection.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Your research is impressive. I commend you on your efforts, and I hope you find encouragement in the fact that you are causing me to examine more deeply the reasons for why I find my faith to be true.
Bekka Joy
...since I fall into the category of a "soft" atheist. The only way that we will ever be able to answer the "ultimate" question of religion vs. non-religion is either for the religious folks to actually prove that "god" exists, or for the atheists to explore every square micron of the universe to confirm that "he" isn't in any of them. Neither is likely to happen very soon. In the meantime, the best hope we have of arriving at the most likely answer is to rigorously examine all of the information that we do have, and see where it leads us.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I think we just stumbled upon a notion that we can agree on. Every facet of truth should be examined because our faith in what we believe needs to be practical. But I really do believe the Bible when it says, "For it is by grace that you have been saved through FAITH, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works; lest anyone should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
Bekka Joy
You do know that other things besides things that were once living have carbon in them, right? Pretty sure napalm is organic. Diamonds are organic.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
If you take a look at the geography of Israel, communication during biblical times would have been extremely dificult. I am pretty sure that over a period of 1500 years (amount of time it took to compose the Bible) that people would not have been able to cover up such a hoax.
Bekka Joy
Just because the terrain of Israel is difficult, it doesn't mean people didn't travel. Besides if your discussing the OT, well the OT was written all over what is known as Mesopatamia, and not in Israel. And they were written by people who lived close together. And the NT, was written by people who lived near eachother and together. No one had to really travel at all.
The people who wrote the New Testement lived apart from those who composed the Old Testement, so it is pretty amazing that the Old Testement predicts everything that occured in the New Testement.
Bekka Joy
The OT does not predict everything that happens in the NT. And once again, Jesus was a rabbi, he studied the OT and could have made himself look like the stuff in the NT. Jesus was a sociopath as I have said.
I am fairly certain that He would not have been able to determine where he was going to be born (prophecy), being taken to Egypt to escape King Herod as a tiny child (also prophecy), the fact that he was going to be conceived by a virgin (also prophecy), and so many more things that he would never have been able to control. Why, He would have had to have been God in order to do all those things!
Bekka Joy
Many babies were born in Jerusalem when Jesus was. They had to escape Herod also. The whole virgin thing is a stretch to say the least. But once again your baseing your facts on scripture. Which has been found to not be entirely true, because in the major gap. I mean, coudln't this supposed "virgin", not been a virgin, but decided to go to Jerusalem when Joseph had to do the census because of the old prophesies she had learned? So that Mary was actually trying to make a name for herself and Jesus.
If I recall, there is some confusion about the birthplace of Jesus. After all, he is Jesus of Nazereth, not Bethlehem.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
The original Hebrew (Old Testement) and Greek (New Testement) copies have all been found and rerecorded; you can't contradict an original work.
Bekka Joy
There are various fragments that are considered to be very close to some of the original texts, but it is flatly false to say that we have any of the "original" texts. It is essentially undisputed that the Torah (for example) had a fixed text in the 4th or 5th Century B.C.E., and the oldest fragments that we have of that date from somewhere between the 1st Century C.E. and the 3rd Century B.C.E. The oldest complete text of the Hebrew Bible is I believe the Leningrad Codex, which dates to 1008 C.E. I was also of the impression that the oldest version of the bible to actually contain fragments of both the old and new testaments was the Codex Sinaiticus, which dated to the 4th Century C.E., and even in it only a few portions of the Septuagint are still legible.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Personally I trust and believe in the Bible. My faith in God has brought me a long way. I know some things that happened back then are unbelievable but can anyone prove that what was said did not occur? Yes, the Bible was rewritten several times and maybe some things were lost in the translation but I don't think that it is totally off.
I will have to look into some of your questions more thourogholy, but I can answer your last one. God said that we are all sinners; I can't think of a single person who is perfect. God said that because of sin, there would would inevitably be suffering. You don't have to look too far in our world to see the evidence of this. God said that the sun would rise and the sun would set; so far, so good. God said that many would be persecuted for His name because Jesus was also persecuted; I know many who have died for Him or been tortured in His name. God said that many would come proclaiming different "truths"; how many different forms of religion are there? To me, the Bible has been pretty consistent, considering out old its words are. I can't think of many books that can claim so many truths to ring clear today.
Bekka Joy
First off, you have no actual evidence that "god" said anything at all. This is the same old "begging the question" fallacy that constantly pollutes this kind of discussion. Men wrote the books of the bible. Men claimed that "god" wrote the bible, but claims of this sort are common to virtually all religions, and I don't see any rational reason to give christianity's claims any more credit than anyone else's in this regard.
But, seriously...the sun rising? That's pretty easy to predict, don't you think? Its been rising and setting every day since long before the first human walked the earth, any it doesn't take any maaaaagical pooooowers to "predict" that it will do so again tomorrow morning. In fact, I predict that it will do this that, and exactly 7:23am Eastern Standard Time. As for "suffering," buddhism teaches that suffering is an illusion (and we have just as much reason to believe their religious crap as yours), and it certainly isn't "inevitable" in any case. I know quite a few people that don't seem to be suffering all that much, don't you?
Oh, and the old messianic prophecies of the old testament never mention Jesus by name. In fact, there were numerous "messiahs" that popped up from time to time in history to claim that title. Apollonius of Tyana is a good example of this.
Were you aware that most of the "prophecies" of the bible are actually lifted from an older religion, known as Mithraism. The mythological Mithra was said to have 12 disciples, rose from the dead after 12 days in a tomb, was called a "lamb" and the "messiah," was resurrected on the holiday we know today as "Easter," and his birthday was December 25th.
The fact is that the "prophecies" of the old testament are in no way unique, and aren't specific enough to be compelling predictions in any case.
"God said that the sun would rise and the sun would set..." Are you serious? Sheesh...
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Question, why were some books left out of the Bible? Furthermore why do Roman Catholics Christians have a larger canon than Protestant Christian? Do some rules not apply to the other party even though they are all under the branch of Christianity? How many books were lost/ or destroyed in that time frame or considered inappropriate to include? I mean it's all entirely possible that these things could have happen.
Also, if we are to believe that the Bible is in fact true and without error, and is the word of God why reject what the Bible has to say on topics such as genocide, slavery, women, homosexuals and religious intolerance. Obviously you don't condone these tings right, but yet we should follow the Bible, since it's the word of God...or are you just suggesting we pick and choose what we find acceptable...I mean it's in the Bible, or do you care to elaborate? :
"True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers." Bishop J.S. Spong "Q&A on The Parliament of the World's Religions," :-)
-----------------------------------------------------
"You're asking me to *read*?! I'm not even in class...and just to think I had to put on pants for this."
~npsm18
Best video evar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD8qubsp39M
...or "why the concept of biblical unity is a sham."
The first fallacy that leaps out of your blog is that the books of the bible represent some kind of unity, because all of the authors contained in wrote essentially the same thing. This is a fallacy, because the books of the bible were not written in unity at all.
The bible as it exists to day is a collection of cannonized writings. In the early days of the christian church, there were a LOT of new books being written about this growing religious movements, and its beliefs. And, a LOT of what was written doesn't jive very well with what the bible looks like today. So, the church's leaders began to sift and sort through the volumes of new writings, and began to pick and choose among them, giving their blessings to some and rejecting others. The process took a long while, but eventually Pope Innocent I declared the cannon settled in the 4th Century.
It is very easy to create a work that seems to have unity, when you pick and choose from a larger body of work only those texts which align with the message that you want to convey. This is the main reason that the claim of "biblical unity" is a sham. It seems very disingenuous to arbitrarily discard all of the contradictory material that was written, and then to claim that what is left was written in "unity."
Of course, even with cannonization there is a rather significant lack of unity that your example ignores, that being of course that there are vast differences between the various versions of the bible as it exists in the cannons of the different sects of christiantiy.
The typical protestant bible contains 66 books, while the catholic version has 73 and the Greek orthodox usually count 78. The Ethopian bible has the most, I think at 81. That's at least 15 whole books worth of contradition that can be found without even cracking a cover.
But, there is even a better way to dispel the illusion of biblical unity that you present. The simple fact is that this statement...
...it [the bible] has the unity of one theme and does not contradict itself.
...is plainly false. I mean, I don't really know what bible you've been reading, but both the literal and the thematic contradictions contained in the modern bible are grotequely apparent to anyone who has actually studied the text as a whole.
Here are just a few of the literal contradictions found in the modern bible...
And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. (1 Kings 4:26)
And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 9:25)
Only in bible-math does 40,000 = 4,000.
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:16)
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli (Luke 3:23)
I guess Joseph had two daddies...
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:25-26)
In this version of the creations story, "god" made the animals first, then man.
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. (Genesis 2:18-19)
But in this version, "god" makes man first, and then the animals.
For a book that is supposedly perfect, the bible says a lot of contradictory things. There are also a lot of factual errors in the bible. For example, Leviticus 6:11 says that rabbits chew their cud, which of course they don't. Leviticus 11:19 and Deuteronomy 14:18 refer to the bat as a kind of bird, and Genesis 3:14 says that snakes eat dust. It is easy to see why a primitive person might think that these things are true, but today we know that they are not.
There are also numerous thematic contraditions in the various biblical accounts. For example
The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. (Psalms 92:12)
The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come. (Isaiah 57:1)
Sometimes the themes of the bible seem almost schizophrenic.
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. (Genesis 22:1)
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: (James 1:13)
Either "god" tempts men, or "he" does not. If one of these verses is true, then the other is false.
And, here's a great one, with a contradiction that is both literal and a thematic...
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. (Proverbs 26:4)
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. (Proverbs 26:5)
The best part is that these two verses are literally right next to each other.
The bottom line is simple. Anyone who says that "the bible" is infallible, perfect, or without any internal contradition has obviously never actually read the bible, and certainly never actually studied the material in a serious fashion. It is a claim that is utterly without merit, and it speaks to the hypocrisy of modern christians that they tend (as you have) to pick and choose among the messages of the bible, and ignore the rest in the hopes that no one will notice your inconsistencies.
percivale
-------------------------
"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything." ~ Robert A. Heinlein
"And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. (1 Kings 4:26)
And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 9:25)"
I use the New International Version for my personal Bible study and both in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles, my Bible says that there were only 4,000 stalls and 12,000 horsemen. However, there is a footnote at the bottom that says in the Hebrew, this would have been 40,000. This is simply a language difference, not a discrepency.
Bekka Joy
6. And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
forty thousand stalls of horses In Chron. II 9:25 it says four thousand [stalls of horses whereas here forty thousand are mentioned]. Our Sages explained there were forty thousand stalls and in each there were four thousand partitions, or there were four thousand stalls and in each there were forty thousand partitions.
Translated directly from Hebrew.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
Ok then; so that is not contradictory to itself. They are then still talking about the same number of stalls, one just being more specific as to the number of divisions in the stalls.
Bekka Joy
The literal text of the two biblical passages contradict each other. In order to arrive at the "stalls versus partitions" information, you have to turn to a non-biblical source for explanation. The text itself does not provide us with the difference between "stalls" and "partitions." And, even if you were able to resolve this one contradiction, that still leaves quite a few from my previous list unanswered. We only need ONE literal or thematic contradition to completely destroy your original claim, and we still have plenty of those from which to choose in debunking the myth of biblical "unity."
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
You don't need a nonbiblical text to arrive at the conclusion that this verse is not contradictory, simply a knowledge of the original Hebrew in which the Old Testement was written.
Bekka Joy
The commentary I gave is a Rashi commentary. The direct and literal translation is contradictory. The Rashi commentary is an outside text.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
Yes, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it was drawn from the original Hebrew, which is the language of the Old Testement. Perhaps without knowing it, you defended the Word of God. In my Bible, it also provided the literal Hebrew in the footnote section since I am not fluent in this beautiful language. I hope to take Hebrew classes next semester though.
Bekka Joy
...that the footnotes in your bible are editorial. They are there because the bible itself is flawed. You said that the bible does not contain any contradictions. That is a false statement. Because it is true that the bible does contain contradictions, later theologians and translators have had to correct what was originally written, and that of course contradicts your other point, which was that the original authors of the various books of the bible were influenced by some divine power to produce works that were completely consistent with each other.
You've lost this one, dearie. Its time to admit your error and rethink your position.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Just because translators explain the original meaning of the Hebrew does not mean that the Bible contradicts itself.
Bekka Joy
If the "bible" didn't contradict itself, then the translators wouldn't need to clarify the original text in order to resolve the contradiction. You made a very specific claim about the "unity" of the bible, and noted especially how you thought that it was amazing how amazing it was that some many different authors on so many different continents could write books that were completely consistent with one another. That is quite obviously false.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Yes, it was drawn from the original Hebrew, but it is still just an interpretation. Just because a Jewish man that is fluent in the old Hebrew tongue says it's one way doesn't mean that it is. I can give you an alternative explanation to what that same Jewish man says regarding the story of Dinah later in Genesis. It's still looking at the original Hebrew.
And you do realize that I believe in God, right? I'm not a Christian, though.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
"Genesis 3:14 says that snakes eat dust"
In this verse, God is referring to the curse that he placed on the snake. In Israel, there is a lot of dust and the snakes would now have to crawl on their bellies. If you are crawling on your belly in the middle of Israel, you are going to be swallowing a lot of dust.
Bekka Joy
In the original Hebrew found in Genesis 3:14, the word for "eat" is 'akal.
'akal (aw-kal')
to eat -- at all, burn up, consume, devour(-er, up), dine, eat(-er, up), feed (with), food, freely, in...wise(-deed, plenty), (lay) meat, quite.
There is no reasonable way to interpret this verse so that it would mean that the snake is accidentally getting dust in its mouth.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
It is perfectly logical if you look at the context surrounding the verse.
Bekka Joy
You seem to be trying to imply that the "temptations" that "god" puts before his followers aren't temptations at all, because you feel that "god" really doesn't want you to give into them. If I offer you an apple in the hopes that you will take it and eat, I am "tempting" you with the apple. If I offer you an apple, but hope that you won't take it, I am still "tempting" you to take the apple from my hand.
The contradiction in these themes is plain to any honest and intelligent reader. You don't seem to be unintelligent.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
It still remains that there is a difference between a temptation and a test of faith. If you examine the stories, you will find the difference.
Another point to be considered is that the Hebrew language only consists of approx. 80,000 words, so they often had to use the same word for multiple meanings. In this case, the context is where you will discover your meaning.
Bekka Joy
...and you keep forgetting that only one of these passages was originally written in Hebrew. If the intent of the original Hebrew author was what you suggest, I think that he would have used the word bachan instead of nacah.
bachan baw-khan'
a primitive root; to test (especially metals); generally and figuratively, to investigate:--examine, prove, tempt, try (trial).
In any case, I don't see any great difference in the context. Both passages refer to man being "tempted" to do evil. In both cases, that is exactly what is happening. The only difference seems to be that (according to you) "god" doesn't actually want you to give in to the temptation...yet "he" is still temping you.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. (Genesis 22:1)
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: (James 1:13)
Be careful with the translation with "tempt" in Genesis 22:1. The Hebrew suggests here that God is testing Abraham's faith to see if he would be willing to give up his only son Isaac; he is not tempting Abraham with evil like the verse in James 1:13 suggests.
Bekka Joy
I think you are applying a very liberal translation to the original meaning of the words used in these two verses.
The word for "tempt" used in Genesis 22:1 transliterates from the original Hebrew as nacah.
nacah (naw-saw')
to test; by implication, to attempt -- adventure, assay, prove, tempt, try.
The language in James 1:13 is Greek, however, and the word translated as "tempt" in the original transliterates as peirazo.
peirazo pi-rad'-zo:
to test (objectively), i.e. endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline -- assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt(-er), try.
These words carry almost identical meaninga, and when examined in context both uses of the term refer to similar actions. If you encourage someone to do something that is "evil," you are "tempting" them, regardless of whether or not you actually hope that they will succumb to the suggestion.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Again if you look within the context of the story with Abraham, it makes perfect sense that God was testing Abraham's faithfulness. God wanted to be certain that Abraham would trust God to provide the promise He had made to him; that he would have as many decendants as the stars in the sky. If you look at all the many years Abraham had to wait for a son and the faith it took