cicerone imposter wrote:What I have posted is not asking a question. It seems to explain much of the bible in terms that can be understood by anybody that can read the English language. Whether you wish to challenge the post is entirely up to you.
It explains why I have difficulty with the bible god and it's beliefs. It's about me: I like simplicity in my life; ideas that contradict any issue continues to be a curiosity for its own sake.
It's not necessary for you to respond one way or the other.
ci,
I agree that straightforward simplicity is nice, but recognize that in this complicated world it is rarely found. To me at first blush the world seems flat. This is what I see when I go outside and look to the horizon. But with a little in-depth investigation, one sees that the world is really a sphere, depite what I see with my eyes and what seems to be, at first glance, the simplest solution.
Now I have to admit that some of the inconsistencies you pointed out were new to me, so I felt bound to test the Bible to resolve in my own mind the substance of the issue. Now explanations for many of the "inconsistencies" you pointed are complex and have been argued for centuries. Therefore, none of the info I'm about to give you is likely to create a "eureka" moment that suddenly makes the issue crystal clear.
But if you are really intent on discovering if the Bible is true or not, please give it more than a cursory review. I would challenge you to look a little deeper into each "inconsistency" and, after that investigation, see if you still feel they contradict.
Undoubtedly you will find some explanations quite hard to chew. For me it wasn't that all my questions were answered but that the preponderance of evidence pointed to the Bible's authenticity and it became harder to not believe than believe.
Now I'm going to do something I'll probably regret, respond to each of ci's "inconsistencies"...(I'm a newbie to this board, and these individual inconsistencies have probably been discussed countless times before, but hey, ci raised the issue :wink: )
I do not want to get into deep theological discussions of the points below...this is a starting point only and only meant to address ci's post. Only the last is my words, the rest I found doing quick google searches. Is this the only explanation? Of course not, but it certainly shows that the inconsistency can be explained. The Internet is full of resources to investigate further so further in-depth study (which I would highly recommend) is not difficult.
Is the Bible the Word of God?
"The rest" of the Corinthians reference refers to persons not in the general category of verse 10. Paul had been speaking of the typical married persons in the church, namely, those married to another believer. Now he dealt with mixed marriages between a believer and an unbeliever, as the following verses make clear. For these people he could not repeat a teaching of Jesus because He had not spoken on this subject. At least as far as Paul knew He had not. Nevertheless the risen Lord inspired Paul's instructions on this subject so they were every bit as authoritative as the teaching Jesus gave during His
earthly ministry.
The two different Genesis accounts of creation
Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ?'out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air'. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23-25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ?'formed' in Genesis 2:19 to mean ?'had formed' or ?'having formed'. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), ?'Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field
', the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.
The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just ?'another' account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God's perspective; it is ?'the big picture', an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man's perspective.
Genesis 2:4 says, ?'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens'. This marks a break with chapter 1. This phraseology next occurs in Genesis 5:1, where it reads ?'This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man'.
The two different paths to salvation
The differences between salvation by works or grace is easily found (one reference is
http://www.dtl.org/salvation/article/verses_works.htm). The Bible is not inconsistent
salvation is by grace.
Is anyone righteous?
So is the Bible telling us there were a few sinless people? Not at all. The NT folks are described as "righteous before God." This does NOT mean that they never sinned either (the word nowhere and in no way implies perfection!), but it does mean - as the next part clearly says - that they followed all the commandments. Now even if this is not an exaggeration for emphasis, if they followed the law, then they did what was required in the law to make them righteous before God - that is, they brought the appropriate sacrifices. By the OT covenant, that made them righteous before God.
As for the OT folks, we can start by using as a framework comments offered by James White in a letter in the #69 issue of the BE newsletter:
The Hebrew terms used in these passages do not mean sinlessness. Rather, the Hebrew word is tam, which refers to completeness, not sinless perfection. When applied to man, it would refer to a complete man with moral integrity (see: Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew lexicon for details).
Is a child's life precious in the eyes of the Biblegod?
What about when God ordered Joshua and his people to kill every man, woman and child in Canaan?13 What crime could be so great that entire populations of cities were designated for destruction? God told Moses that the nations that the Hebrew were replacing were wicked.14 How "wicked" were these people? The text tells us that they were burning their own sons and daughters in sacrifices to their gods.15 So we see that these people were not really innocent. For these reasons (and others16), God ordered the destruction of the peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed.
What about the children and other "innocents"? Surely God could have spared the children! People tend to assume that children are innocent, even if their parents are doing bad things. The assumption is unfounded. For example, Palestinian Muslim children are officially taught in grammar school to hate their Jewish neighbors.17 They are so well indoctrinated that some of them give up their lives in suicide bombings as children.18 Corruption literally does breed corruption, which is why God did not want the Hebrews tainted by the other corrupt cultures of the Middle East.
Is Jesus God?
The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to adequately explain it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are, therefore we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean it is not true or not based on the teachings of the Bible.
See more at
http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity.html
Is Jesus the only way to Heaven?
Yes
see
www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/testaments2.html, for a description of the two covenants, the one applied to old testament saints and the new applied to new, how the two covenants relate and how the salvation of Jesus applies to both.
Does the Biblegod want everyone to be saved?
I believe that you are asking about the doctrines of election and reprobation (God chooses some to be save and others to not be saved) This is a very controversial topic, not because the Bible is inconsistent, but because the Bible references can be interpreted differently by sincere seekers. If you want the details, however, see
http://www.freepres.org/pamphlet_details_print.asp?election
Does the Biblegod love everyone?
The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God's attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love. We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners. Who can deny that these mercies flow out of God's boundless love? Yet it is evident that they are showered even on unrepentant sinners.
I want to acknowledge, however, that explaining God's love toward the reprobate is not as simple as most modern evangelicals want to make it. Clearly there is a sense in which the psalmist's expression, "I hate the assembly of evildoers" (Ps. 26:5) is a reflection of the mind of God. "Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost hatred; they have become my enemies" (Ps. 139:21-22). Such hatred as the psalmist expressed is a virtue, and we have every reason to conclude that it is a hatred God Himself shares. After all, He did say, "I have hated Esau" (Mal. 1:3; Rom. 9:13). The context reveals God was speaking of a whole race of wicked people. So there is a true and real sense in which Scripture teaches that God hates the wicked.
So an important distinction must be made. God loves believers with a particular love. It is a family love, the ultimate love of an eternal Father for His children. It is the consummate love of a Bridegroom for His bride. It is an eternal love that guarantees their salvation from sin and its ghastly penalty. That special love is reserved for believers alone.
However, limiting this saving, everlasting love to His chosen ones does not render God's compassion, mercy, goodness, and love for the rest of mankind insincere or meaningless. When God invites sinners to repent and receive forgiveness (Isa. 1:18; Matt. 11:28-30), His pleading is from a sincere heart of genuine love. "?'As I live!' declares the Lord God, ?'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?'" (Ezek. 33:11). Clearly God does love even those who spurn His tender mercy, but it is a different quality of love, and different in degree from His love for His own.
Is Jesus a loving, tolerant person?
The person who is grounded in faith, has convictions, and speaks out to expose and reprove error (Col. 1: 23, I Cor. 15: 58, Eph. 5: 10, 11) is often charged with: "you have no tolerance! The charge presupposed we are to be unconditionally and without qualification tolerant. Our question this week focuses on Christ regarding his life and teaching. For those of us who believe Jesus is the promised Messiah, Jesus' attitude toward error and sin is very important.
Jesus was tolerant in matters morally and doctrinally indifferent. The Pharisees were very concerned and intolerant at Jesus' disciples plucking and eating corn ("wheat," dm) on the Sabbath. However, Jesus was tolerant (Matt. 12: 1-8). The Pharisees were also very intolerant regarding Jesus' disciples eating without "washing." Jesus, on the other hand, was tolerant (Mk. 7: 1-13).
Jesus was intolerant. The casual reader of the New Testament has observed many instances of Jesus being intolerant and outspoken. In the foregoing cases regarding the Sabbath and the washing of hands, Jesus was intolerant with those who bound their traditions (Matt. 12: 1-8, Mk. 7: 1-13). The most wonderful sermon ever delivered is the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7). This sermon actually is an expose of Phariseeism. Jesus expressed much intolerance and was very plain and outspoken (Matt. 5: 20, 27, 6: 1-8).
Was Jesus inconsistent? Beloved, upon closer examination one sees that when Jesus was tolerant, there was no sin involved, when Jesus was intolerant, sin was involved. Christians are to mimic Christ (I Pet. 2: 21). Hence, in matters not involving sin, the Christian is tolerant; but in matters involving a violation of God's laws, the Christian must be intolerant. God's word is also the standard to determine right and wrong - not emotions or what is politically correct (Gal. 2: 14).
How many gods are there?
The Bible is consistent in that there is only one true God, although there are numerous gods that people have created over the millennia (e.g. Apollo, Zeus, Baal, etc.) All the passages you quoted are consistent and reflect God speaking to and of people who wrongly held that other gods existed.
. I was just making a pun! You know, armour? Have to admit, at times in some of these threads it feels like one may be dodging bullets to say the least!