The Bible and its flaws

[Bartman]

Even though I'm no longer a christian and I have found a diferent spiritual path, I still respect the bible and its teachings,my christian background is and will always be a part of my spiritual journey and for that I am thankfull.
For me the bible is a compilation of stories, about a certain region and its peoples that holds divine truths, these truths have much value to all mankind, the bible should be used by christians as a tool to help guide them on their spiritual journey but it should not be used as "THE" tool, spiritual truths are truly found within ourselves,if we listen openly and honestly the divine (whatever that may be too the individual) WILL speak too us.
I feel that some christians use the bible as"THE" tool and only tool as the result of a teaching that the bible is infalible and that every word is the true word of god himself.In my christian life I wanted to know for sure if it was as I believed that the bible was a valuable tool with flaws, which only meant that I had to put more personal effort into finding answers, or was the bible totally without flaw as many believed.
One of the errors (actually 3 regarding the same thing) that I found surprised me as it had been right in front of me for years and I had never registered it until I was looking,the errors are in the stories of the ressurection of jesus, now I'm not talking about "if" he was ressurected but simply pointing out the errors regarding the ressurection.
matthew 28:1-4
1.now after the sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, mary magdalene and the other mary came to see the tomb.
2. and behold there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it.
3. his countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.
4. and the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.
mark 16:1-5
1. now when the sabbath was past, mary magdelane, mary the mother of james, and salome both bought spices, that they might anoint him.
2. very early in the morning, on the firstday of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.
3. and they said among themselves,"who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?"
4. but when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away- for it was very large.
5. and entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
luke 24:1-4
1.now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning,they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.
2. but they found the stone rolled away from the tomb.
3. then they went in and did not find the body of the lord jesus.
4. and it happened, as they were greatly perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.

as you can clearly see you have 3 different accounts of the same event,in one,the earth shakes, an angel descends and rolls back the stone, in another, the stone is already rolled away and there is a young boy in the tomb, and in yet another, the stone is rolled away and TWO men appear in the tomb.
since there can only be one "truth" then at least 2 of the accounts have to be inacurate.if the bible were the literal,unerrring word of god, then all 3 accounts would be the same, but their not, because 3 different people are writing THEIR version of the same event.all through the bible people are telling you THEIR version of who god is and how THEY think god wants YOU to act.
you owe it too the god that you've chosen to follow to search through mans agenda and discover what gods agenda for you and only you is.
Bartman

[rimrock]

Like I said before you ask some good questions.

The three accounts actually do say the same thing as it were :crazy::whazzup:

I am glad you are willing to think about these things instead of turning a blind eye to them. That’s a wise thing to do.

[Bartman]

The three accounts actually do say the same thing as it were :crazy::whazzup:

.


rimrock, they all say the same thing regarding jesus being in the tomb, but it's 3 very different accounts of how that was discovered. how can it be said that they all say the same thing, when in 2 of the accounts the women encounter 1 person, and in anoter they encounter 2. no matter how you cut it, thats not saying the same thing. :shrug:

[rimrock]

True I guess I said it poorly my mistake, sorry about that.

What I meant was they don’t contradict each other but yes they don’t say the same thing word for word.

I’ll give you an example of what I mean regarding the Gospel accounts not contradicting. Let’s say Rimrock and Bartman are sitting together at a table. There are two accounts written about us. One says there were two people at the table, rimrock and Bartman. The other account says Bartman was sitting at the table. That’s not a contradiction; both statements are true. The presence of two people does not preclude the presence of the singular tense. It would be a contradiction if the first account said there was the two of us and the second said ONLY Bartman alone was sitting at the table.

This is the same situation with the angels. There were actually two angels there. One account mentions them both the other account just focuses on one of them. Just because it focus on the one doesn’t preclude the fact both were there.

So the question could be since it’s not a contradiction why not make it simple and have the Gospel accounts match up word for word? If every account in the Gospels matched up word for word then they would lose all credibility wouldn’t they. This would be a clear case of collusion. It would show the accounts were fabricated. Hardly eyewitness testimony! The fact the Gospels speak of the same events but without contradiction and without collusion demonstrates they are authentic to the events, to what really happened.

[craigcw]

Why do you assume that the Bible was accurately translated? Also, the only reliable witnesses, the two women told their stories. Did the authors take direct testimony or did they hear it 2nd..3rd hand?...years later maybe?
Another thing is... Why does it matter? the accounts are told because of the miracle...don't get caught up in the semantics of inaccurate translations...Christ rose from the grave and that is the message.

[BJS]

If the accounts ain't right. Then why believe the message at all :shrug:

If ya can show the details are wrong its all wrong IMO. :smash: How could anyone say anything is right, which part is right which wrong. Hardly infallable. A little bit wrong means "the message" is wrong to or at least it could be.

Answers I would say gotta be important unless I should just burry my head in the sand and ignore it :shrug: I struggle with christians and the just gotta believe. Why? A little proof in the puddin' would be nice ya know. I'm liken the reads here lately.

:cheers:

[happybrew]

Rimrock's reply is correct. None of the accounts contradict each other. They each focus on different details. Each Gospel was written for a different audience, and each focuses on different details. The fact that two gospels mention an angel, and another account mentions two is of no great importance.

I'm surprised you didn't mention John's Gospel, which does in fact contradict another Gospel, in that it states Mary went while it was dark, while Mark states that the sun had already risen. Do you honestly believe that this is of great importance? These were written down years after the fact. In essentials, the Gospels agree. It is entirely understandable that there might be differences in minor details.

I find this on a personal level when my wife and I share family stories. Don't you find differences in details between what your wife might say about a family story and what you might say about a family story, some details even contradicting each other? My wife and I encounter this. Does that mean a particular family story never took place?

It seems you are eager to point out what you perceive to be absurdities and contradictions in what the Bible says and Christians believe. Let me ask you this, then:

Do you apply the same standard to your pagan texts? Have you established that there is no contradiction, nothing absurd, nothing contrary to reason in Asatru? Are there multiple writers each in agreement on essential points to confirm the veracity of the accounts? Is there compelling reason to believe on a historical level that the accounts are true? Or do you only apply that standard to Christian texts?

happybrew

[Dullhook]

The Bible has been under incessant attack for 2000 years, but it has never been proven wrong. Being written by many different men (many who never new each other) over a 1500 year period it's amazing in it's continuity and consistency. It's doubtful the later writers had access to every portion of the Scripture that had previously written.

I love the Bible because the Son of God is revealed within it's pages. Jesus loved the Scriptures so much that He quoted them often and prayed, " Your word is the truth."

This is good enough for me! :flowered:

[Bartman]

OK, so if two accounts just happenned to leave out one of the angels, you've still got one account where they witness the angel decsend and roll away the stone and in the other two the stone is already rolled away and they incounter, is it one or is it two "angels" inside. a story that has inconsistencys can not be considered infalible.

[Afishinado]

Thats what i find truely amazing. After 2000 years it just wont go away. You look at all the great writers and books out there and this one still stands, still gets debated, still gets talked about and will be talked forever. I think its because when you read the WORD your not just reading a story but your having an experiecne with GOD. There is simply nothing more powerful. In regards to the different accounts, i have always looked at it like this. Imagine you and 3 friends were standing at each of the four corners of an intersection and witness a traffic accident in the intersection. Each would have a slightly different account of what happened based on their vantage point. I belive the accounts and their differences are that simple different accounts of the same thing.

[rdbnz84]

Do yu really believe Noah was 500 years old when he fathered his first child. Genesis 5:32

Why was it OK for God to destroy the sinful city of Sodom but not OK to destroy Lots's daughters when they had sex with him. Genesis 19:30-36

Do you really believe anyone who works on a religious day of rest should be killed. Exodus 31:15

Do you beleive in slavery. Why do the apostles Peter and Paul encourage slave to be obediant. Ephesians6-5-7

Do you beleive children should be put to death for the sins of their fathers. Samuel 2:2-4

Why would God reward Abraham and Lot with earthly riches if Jesus said that wealth is a one way ticket to hell.

[FastActionRodTip]

'Blessed are those who have not seen, yet still believe'

We're not meant to understand it all. IMHO, it's all true or all false. It either is the Word of God, or it isn't. I don't believe I can go wrong trying to live my life according to Jesus' teachings. If in the end I'm wrong, then what have I lost? If I'm right, and there is a Heaven, then Glory Glory Hallelujah!!!!!!!

I spent alot of time asking these types of questions and realized I'd never know the answers. Came to a point where I asked myself "Do I want to spend the rest of my life (and we never know how long that is) trying to disprove or discredit the Bible?"

We all need to hang our hat on something, put a stake in the ground, so I figured the Bible is the best thing I ever read in my life. I am so freakin' far from living a complete Godly life, and I am in no way certain that if I died today I'd go to Heaven. But I ain't about to stop trying.

[rimrock]

Absolutely! There can be no contradiction if the Bible is going to be considered infallible. On a personal note this was the single most important element to me or else I would have never believed. Christians ALWAYS said to me, “The Bible says…” and I always responded so what? Because it infallible they would reply. I came back, how do you know? The all too common reply was, You just got to believe have faith. Well, why should I believe?, I’d say. They’d respond, Because it’s infallible. :passout: [ :hoboy: it can be painful somethings :laugh:].

So, what’s the deal with the third angel who rolled back the stone and how does it not contradict? First off happybrew touch on a very important understanding – the accounts were written in different styles to different audiences. What I mean is Matthew was written to a Jewish audience and their way of understanding. To the Jew working out the ordered details of time isn’t a big deal, whereas to us Westerners we are very time focused. Matthew throughout his Gospel records events but not necessarily in the order they happened. He jumps around quite a bit and to a Jew no big deal, but to us it really confuses things. Now if you read Luke you see a very ordered style of presenting the Gospel that’s because Luke wrote to a mostly Gentile audience. Even in Acts which Luke also penned again you see a very ordered laid out sequence of events. Luke’s style is much easier for the Westerner to understand, but so is Matthew if you know the Jewish mindset.

Wow, that was long :rolleyes: but it’s very important. Matthew doesn’t tell you about the period of time between verse 1 and verse 2. He continues on as if these events happened within minutes of each other, but they didn’t. That’s our normal perception because that’s how WE think of time and accounts, but what happened in verses 2-4 actually happened before verse 1. Again time is handled much different in a Jewish mindset; I don’t know why it just is. :shrug: The angel who rolled away the stone and scared off the soldiers occurred before dawn before the women reached the tomb sometime during the night. We know this because when the women reached the tomb the stone “was already moved away” before they got there they never saw the “third” angel. And also by the soldiers account themselves which reached Pilate deals with them leaving their post during the night. The conversation of verse 5 wasn’t with the angel who moved the stone but rather with the two angels. If Matthew had recorded verses 2-4 first, then verse 1 and then pickup again at verse 5 – our Gentile minds would get it, but the Jewish audience at the time always understood it.

For example re-order below for us Gentiles:


2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."



This is the difficulty with the Bible – it was written to a different culture in different literary styles. If a person interprets the Bible as ONE book as it were you will make mistakes; it’s really 66 separate books per se not one. :wink: The books have differing styles and differing audiences. Again it’s not a contradiction all four Gospel accounts compliment one another. You just need to know how to read Matthew like you’re in a Jewish culture because that’s who Matthew was written to. :cheers:

[Bartman]

Wow, that was long :rolleyes: but it’s very important. Matthew doesn’t tell you about the period of time between verse 1 and verse 2. He continues on as if these events happened within minutes of each other, but they didn’t. That’s our normal perception because that’s how WE think of time and accounts, but what happened in verses 2-4 actually happened before verse 1. Again time is handled much different in a Jewish mindset; I don’t know why it just is. :shrug: The angel who rolled away the stone and scared off the soldiers occurred before dawn before the women reached the tomb sometime during the night. We know this because when the women reached the tomb the stone “was already moved away” before they got there they never saw the “third” angel. And also by the soldiers account themselves which reached Pilate deals with them leaving their post during the night. The conversation of verse 5 wasn’t with the angel who moved the stone but rather with the two angels. If Matthew had recorded verses 2-4 first, then verse 1 and then pickup again at verse 5 – our Gentile minds would get it, but the Jewish audience at the time always understood it.





rimrock, if your explanation doesnt prove that the bible WAS written by the hand of man, and therefore subject to his desires,beliefs,agendas and interpretation of events, then I dont know what will.
Bartman

[rimrock]

0

[Bartman]

rimrock,as usual your perspective is very informative and understandable, the folks who attend your lessons are very blessed.good on you!!

[D-tangle]

Hello, RD. I'm kinda new here. You got some good questions.

RD: Do yu really believe Noah was 500 years old when he fathered his first child. Genesis 5:32
D-Tangle: Sure. The harder question would be "Do you believe people really lived that long"? It seems they did live that long, so why not be able to father children also?

Why was it OK for God to destroy the sinful city of Sodom but not OK to destroy Lots's daughters when they had sex with him. Genesis 19:30-36
D-tangle: He is God and there was a need for Lot's daughters to live and bring forth two races of people before they came to judgment for their sins. Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities, had lived out their measure of grace and had filled-up their cups for judgment. We have all sinned and should die immediately,but for the grace of God some stay to repent and be saved. Where would we all be if God judged us according to our sin right now?

RD:Do you really believe anyone who works on a religious day of rest should be killed. Exodus 31:15
D-tangle: Under Old Testament law as a Jew in the Promised Land, it was against the Law, so 'yes'. Did all lawbreakers come to a stoning? No. Again God's grace allowed some to live and the lesson from God was not "kill the sinner" but marvel in the fact that any should live before a Holy God. That was the purpose of the sacrificial lamb-God paid the price through someone elses blood that the lawbreaker may live.

RD: Do you beleive in slavery. Why do the apostles Peter and Paul encourage slave to be obediant. Ephesians6-5-7
D-tangle: I don't believe in slavery, but I believe it exists and slaves live better lives generally if they obey their masters willingly rather than disobey. If I had two slaves, I would treat the one who made me happy with particular care. All the Apostles are saying is that slaves who are Christians should obey their masters rather than foment dissention. Paul tells them elsewhere to procure their freedom if offered and available lawfully.

RD:Do you beleive children should be put to death for the sins of their fathers. Samuel 2:2-4
D-tangle: In the sight of a Holy God, I would be put to death for not obeying His command to do so if I was a Jew living in the Promised Land and living under the priviledges of his Law. No one lives in this fashion today since the Promised Land is no longer where God has shown Himself in a distinct OT Law where the Chekinah Glory dwells. I am glad to live under God's grace in Jesus, His Son. Different promise, different Law.

RD: Why would God reward Abraham and Lot with earthly riches if Jesus said that wealth is a one way ticket to hell.
D-tangle: Good question. God gives material blessings to whomever He wishes, so wealth must not be the vehicle in which God judges and condemns. The OT Law points to God's blessing as being wealthy and having many children, whereas the NT says being content outside of such material blessing is what counts knowing that God blesses through His Son giving eternal life. The Promised Land is the only place that such blessing, health, etc. was ever promised to those who obeyed God and it was all in His grace, not man's goodness that actually materialized such blessings.

You have excellent questions and have undoubtedly thought carefully through them. I know that I have shallow responses, but hope that God will use such as these to bless you today.