Why does the Bible get misinterpreted so often????

Is that your definition of God? You might be interested in posting it here. I suggest the terms you are using are insufficient.

See above. Persisting in straw men? Nothing in Genesis that does not allow for earth to be billions of years old. Which, interestingly, is not what the bible says. The word 'day' is used to represent a period of time. Not convinced? Show me where the seventh day is reported to have ended.Insert the word 'apparent'. What you consider bigotry is not the message written. However, some very fine fellows are wont to post beyond the limits of human intelligence.

Human intelligence is based on "reality, logic, and common sense."

cicerone imposter wrote:
Many people get offended, but the bible is the product of men - not god. God would not have made so many errors and omissions about.

neo wrote:
Persisting in straw men?

A: The 'Bible,' to the Jews, does not include the New Testament, which is seen to some as an opportunistic add-on. The Christian experience of religion is radically different than the Jewish, so inconsistencies seem inevitable when the two are bound together in one book. To begin to understand the Bible, learn Hebrew. To understand the New Testament, learn Greek.

Christianity exists in translation - and so much gets lost in translation. The Jewish religious experience is joyously human, celebrating and sanctifying all acts of life, including eating, excreting, and mating, while contemplating God and Torah in its original language. The Christian experience, because it is a translation, and because of Paulist and other Hellenistic add-ons, is more theoretical, with conditional joy, and strained, convoluted guilt and denial. It attempts to destroy the human part of us, most obviously in its suppression of sex, and notion of "Original Sin." By splitting God into three, and having a mutilated corpse as its central icon, Christianity becomes Anti-Messiah. (Messiah brings peace...not gore) By inventing a "Devil," God's power is subverted and challenged - inconceivable in a non-pagan, one God system.

cicerone imposter wrote:
a) the age of this planet,

neo wrote:
Nothing in Genesis that does not allow for earth to be billions of years old.

A: Thus the Biblical chronology is about a million times shorter than the evolutionary chronology. A million-fold mistake is no small matter, and Biblical scholars surely need to give primary attention to resolving this tremendous discrepancy right at the very foundation of our entire Biblical cosmology. This is not a peripheral issue that can be dismissed with some exegetical twist, but is central to the very integrity of scriptural theology

cicerone imposter wrote:
a) the age of this planet,

neo wrote:
Nothing in Genesis that does not allow for earth to be billions of years old.

cicerone imposter wrote:
b) how creation was a six day, 24 hour event,

neio wrote:
Which, interestingly, is not what the bible says. The word 'day' is used to represent a period of time. Not convinced? Show me where the seventh day is reported to have ended.


A: THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".


His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

neo will have to argue with the catholic church to defend his POV>

Don't imagine arguing with The Vatican would give Neo much pause.

cicerone imposter wrote:
c) so many contradictions from one verse to another, and

neo wrote:
Insert the word 'apparent'.


A: Contradictions
The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ' father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:
1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?

4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

These are outright contradictons even though you may wish them to be "apparent" contradictions. But, hey, we understand where you're coming from: Brain-washed by your "faith."

Here's a good list on contradictions in the bible:

Contradictions
God good to all, or just a few?
War or Peace?
Who is the father of Joseph?
Who was at the Empty Tomb?
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
Which first--beasts or man?
The number of beasts in the ark
How many stalls and horsemen?
Is it folly to be wise or not?
Human vs. ghostly impregnation
The sins of the father
The bat is not a bird
Rabbits do not chew their cud
Insects do NOT have four feet
Snails do not melt
Fowl from waters or ground
Odd genetic engineering
The shape of the earth
Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt
Earth supported?
Heaven supported too
The hydrological cycle
Order of creation
Moses' personality
Righteous live?
Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?
Jesus' last words
Years of famine
Moved David to anger?
The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
God be seen?
CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD
Tempts?
Judas died how?
Ascend to heaven
What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
How many time did the cock crow?
Who killed Saul
How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount
Does every man sin?
Who bought potter's field?
Who prophesied the potter's field?
Who bears guilt?
Do you answer a fool?
How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
Marriage?
Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
How many apostles were in office between the resurection and ascention?
Judging
Good deeds
For or against?
Whom did they see at the tomb?
God change?
Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)
Who's sepulchers?
Strong drink?
When second coming?
Solomon's overseers
The mother of Abijah
When did Baasha die?
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
Who was Josiah's successor?
The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah
What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?
What did they give him to drink?
How long was Jesus in the tomb?

I think you need "because they see" instead of "who see" to make that logical.
Maybe they were attacked for schism.By going off in different directions they helped disorganise the religious camp,neutralise it and pave the way for irreligious legislation.

c.i. gives me the impression that he does allow the possibility of a Creator.He is quoting high Roman sources and the last I heard was that the official position is that there was a Creator.

It seems to me that most (if not all) of your problems with the methods people use to explain away apparent contradictions assume an objective view of the Bible, and assume that your particular understanding of the Bible matches that objective view.

I

cicerone imposter wrote:
d) teaches gender and homophobic bigotry/discrimination and approves slavery.

neo wrote:
What you consider bigotry is not the message written.

But in the second creation story, (Genesis 2:7) God formed only a man: "...the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Realizing that he needed a helper (Genesis 2:18), God marched all of the animals past Adam (Genesis 2:19-20) looking for a suitable animal. Finding none suitable, God created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. The term "helper" has historically been interpreted as implying an inferior role for Eve, although some modern interpreters believe that the word can mean a companion of equal status. "...the Hebrew word translated "helper" is used twenty-one times in the Old Testament: twenty of these cases refer to help from a superior."

In Genesis 2:27, Adam later asserts his authority over Eve by naming her: "...she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." In ancient times, one was believed to have authority over a person or thing by naming it.

Genesis 3:16: Adam's role is to be Eve's master. The King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and Revised Standard Version (RSV) use the term "rule" to describe Adam's role over Eve: "...thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." The Living Bible uses the term "master". The Modern Language Bible uses "dominate". By implication, all of their descendents are would have the same power imbalance between spouses.

A man could marry (literally "become the master of the woman") as often as he desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.

Genesis 16:2 : Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar: "Sarai said unto Abram...I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her." Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner's command.

Genesis 19:8: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, and asked that he bring his two guests out so that the men can "know" them. This is frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although other interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped instead: He is recorded as saying: "I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot is still regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of the city. Allowing one's daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low status of the young women.

Genesis 21:10: A man could simultaneously keep numerous concubines. These were sexual partners of an even lower status than a wife was. As implied in this verse she could be dismissed when no longer needed: Sarah is recorded as saying: "...Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac."

Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; David: many; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.

In Exodus 1:15-16, the Pharaoh ordered the midwives to kill all Jewish boys at birth, because of the threat that they might pose to the kingdom. "And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live." The girls, being considered less important, were not seen as a threat; they were allowed to live.

Exodus 20 & 21: This is perhaps the most misogynistic pair of chapters in the Bible. A number of verses describe a woman as the property of her father. At marriage, her ownership was transferred to her new husband: Exodus 20:17 lists the last of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." It is important to realize that a manservent and a maidservant were male and female slaves. They were not a hired butler and maid. The tenth commandment forbids coveting your neighbor's house, wife, male slave female slave, animals or anything else that the neighbor owns. The wife is clearly regarded as equivalent to a piece of property.

Exodus 21:2-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing....If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." A slaveowner was permitted to give a woman to his male slave as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction. After serving six years, he would leave, but his wife and children would remain slaves of the slaveowner. Again, there is no indication that the woman was consulted on this arrangement,

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." A father could sell his daughter as a slave. Even though a male slave is automatically given his freedom after 6 years, a female slave remained a slave forever.
Exodus 22:16-17: The first seventeen verses of Exodus 22 deal with restitution in case of stealing, or damage to, a person's property. Verses 16 and 17 deal with the case of a man who seduces a virgin. This was viewed as a property offense against the woman's father. The woman was expected to marry the seducer. If her father refused to transfer ownership of his daughter to the seducer, the latter was required to required to pay money to her father. The money would be in compensation for the damage to the father's property - his daughter. It would be difficult for a non-virgin to marry.

Exodus 21:22-25 describes a situation in which two men are fighting and one hits a pregnant woman. If the woman has a miscarriage because of the blow, the man is punished as the husband decides and must pay a fine for their act - not to the woman, but to her husband, presumably because he has been deprived of a child. The woman had no involvement. Exodus 21:22: "...he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
Exodus 23:17 states that only men are required to take part in the feasts of unleavened bread, of harvest and of ingathering: "Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD."
Leviticus: This book deals mainly with the duties of the priesthood, the Levites. Women were not allowed to become priests.
Leviticus 12:1-5 Quotes God as stating that a woman who has given birth to a boy is ritually unclean for 7 days. If the baby is a girl, the mother is unclean for 14 days. "If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days...But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks..." It would appear that the act of having a baby is a highly polluting act. To give birth to a girl is twice as polluting as is giving birth to a boy.
In Leviticus 18:20 adultery was defined as a man having sexual intercourse with his neighbor's wife. "Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her." Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Deuteronomy 22:23 extends this prohibition to a man sleeping with a woman who is engaged to be married. If a man has an affair with an unmarried woman, the act is not considered adultery. Married men were free to visit prostitutes. A man who committed adultery did not commit a wrongful act against his own wife, but rather against his male neighbor.
Leviticus 27:6 A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver."
Numbers 3:15 shows that a census counted only male infants over the age of one month, boys and men. "Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them." Females were not considered worthy of being included.
Numbers 5:11-31 describes a lengthy magical ritual that women were forced to perform if their husbands suspected them of having had an affair. A priest prepared a potion composed of holy water mixed with sweepings from the floor of the tabernacle. He proclaimed a curse over the potion and required the woman to drink it. If she were guilty, she would suffer greatly: her abdomen would swell and her thighs waste away. There is no similar magical test for husbands suspecting of having an affair with another woman.
In Numbers 27:8-11, Moses describes the rules of inheritance that God has stated. If a man dies, his son inherits the estate; his daughter gets nothing. Only if there is no son, will his daughter inherit. If there are no children, then the estate is given to the man's brothers; his sister(s) get nothing. If he had no brother, the estate goes to his nearest male relative. "...If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family...."
Numbers 30 describes that a vow taken by a man is binding. But a vow taken by a woman can be nullified by her father, if she is still living in her family of origin, or by her husband, if she is married.
Deuteronomy 21:10-13 describes how a soldier can force a woman captive to marry him without regard for her wishes. "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife."
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 requires that a woman be a virgin when she is married. If she has had sexual relations while single in her father's house, then she would be stoned to death. There were no similar virginity requirements for men. "If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid....if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you."
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a virgin woman who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings are towards the rapist. "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife...."
Deuteronomy 24:1 describes the procedure for obtaining a divorce. This can only be initiated by the husband, not by the wife: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house."
Deuteronomy 25:5-10: states that if a woman is widowed, she would be required to marry her former brother-in-law. This was called a "levirate" marriage. Their first-born son will later be considered to be the son of the deceased husband. The man could refuse to marry her. Women were not given a choice in the matter. " If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her."
Deuteronomy 25:11: If two men are fighting, and the wife of one of them grabs the other man's testicles, her hand is to be chopped off. There is no penalty if a male relative were to grab the other man. "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets. Then thou shalt cut off her hand..."
Judges 19:16-30 describes an event similar to Genesis 19. Some men in the city wanted to "know" a visiting Levite. The owner of the house offered his virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine so that the men could rape them. Verse 24 states: "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing." The man sent his own concubine outside to the gang, who proceeded to serially rape her. She died of the attacks. The man only learned of her death when he was leaving the house in the morning and stumbled across her body. The woman was clearly considered expendable and of little value.
2 Chronicles 36:23 mentions the Second Temple which was constructed after some Jews returned from exile in Babylon. It was rebuilt by Herod late in the 1st century BCE. One of its features was women's court, considered the least sacred area. Next was the court of the Israelites (reserved for males), then the court of the Priests, and finally the Temple itself. The courts were laid out in this order to separate the women as far as possible from the Temple.

Cicerone Imposter,

I do not know why you insist on only quoting verses out of the Old Testament. You do not seem to understand the concept of the New Covenant with God in the New Testament.

The verses you quote are common verses most non-believers quote. You pick out of the Old Testament what you believe proves your point. When it is explained to you, you ignore it.

Do you realize how much you are misinterpreting the Bible yourself?

MA,

Do you realize how silly that sounds? We have 1 book which is supposed to give us the only 'official' details of what God is, and we're only allowed to acknowledge parts of it?



And you pick out of the New Testament what you choose to believe and ignore the rest of the book. At least he's picking references from your spiritual literature, not deliberately ignoring portions that don't jive with what he wants to believe.




Pot, meet kettle.

Questioner,

I never said to ignore the Old Testament. I have never said that. But, the old laws were done away with when Christ came to the earth. We no longer are subject to the punishment of the old laws.

And yes, I knew that last statement was pot/kettle. In your opinion I misinterpret and in my opinion Cicerone Imposter is misinterpreting it.

I ignore nothing of the Bible. It is all God-breathed and God-inspired.

Fair enough. Question for you then:

If the bible is God-breathed and God-Inspired, why do you believe that the old laws are to be ignored? Can you point me to some verses in the bible that tell us to do so? I've found 'new covenant' mentioned numerous times in the NT, but can't seem to find any example of where anyone outlines what that is.

Questioner,

Start with this.

"The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to make the Israelites know how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments for example), some of them were to show them how to worship God (the sacrificial system), some of them were to simply make the Israelites different from other nations (the food and clothing rules). None of the Old Testament law applies to us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15)."

It goes on in this link.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html

Sorry to have removed part of your post, but so many words...

The bible does not split God into three. Where did you get that idea?

The NT does not introduce the concept of devil. Nor does it demean human sexuality within the marriage bond.

CI, you may not realize this, but you and me and timber could bring down the house.

Interesting passages. They mention dissolving of the law, but fail utterly to mention what law, and which portions. Also they didn't make mention of who mandated the law was no longer in effect.