Peter Kirby

The flip side is:

If they agree, it's independent confirmation.

If they disagree, it doesn't matter because you would accuse them of copying each other if they were too similar.

Therefore the Bible "wins" or whatever.

best,
Peter Kirby

Madkins007

Peter- yeah, that is EXACTLY what I mean. To me (and perhaps just to me), comparing the books and letters when each was (as far as we know) written for a specific purpose and/or target audience seems to me to be... silly.

Inspiration is a double edged sword. If God 'directs' the program too much, He is overriding free will- something He seems to value (if only His own definition of it). On the other hand, He has ample proof that left to our own devices, we come up with some of the ODDEST things!

Doctor X

Amos:

More time engaged in reading the texts and the posts and less time fantasizing meaning will result in less useless responses.

Madkins007:

Welcome to the forums.

Pick up your toga in the back. . . .

Actually, no. The "Rebel" part of the myth is much, much, much later. Stn as an obstacle then a figure that carried out death--similar to the "Destroyer" in Exodus--is much earlier. The reason this is a contradiction is because the Chronicler does not want YHWH to be the agent of evil. Granted, he does not do a great job with "fixing" the Deuteronomistic Historian's version--why blame a bunch of innocent slobs for David's "sin?"

A good source on the history of Satan remains the very readable, The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth, Neil Forsythe, Princeton University Press.

Now:

I would be careful to render such ipse dixit with regards to Q without evidence. That Mt and Lk wander into passages that match in different contexts remains strong evidence. However, if you wish to launch into an "anti-Q" you should start a thread or, better yet, submit a paper to the peer reviewed literature. It is a bit like me claiming "Einstein sucks!" For some reason, physicists want more evidence.

Now what you miss in your discussion is what the correspondence means. That Mt and Lk date the birth by connecting it to two different events--about ten years appart--suggests that they did not know of one another's story--that they change Mk in different ways is another reason.

This does cause one to question the reliability. Various theories exist regarding the JFK assassination, but most seem to agree it happened in Dallas. . . .

As a history text book? No, not really. However, it was not designed to be that at all. It does succeed in preserving a history of religious thought and, significantly, debate.

Now:

So am I.

except that it was not written by Paul. It is a 2nd Century letter.

The appeal to "inspiration" is an apology to explain the contradictions and "nasty bits."

--J.D.

Madkins007

Doctor X- thank you for the welcome. I enjoy spirited discussion like what I see here, and I LOVE the fact that most of the people here actually seem to know of what they speak- refreshing (even if occasionally embarrassing to discover that what I thought was so sometimes ain't!)

I did not mean to belittle 'Q', but it does, in fact, so far remain theory (and indeed, 'theoretical' would have been a better description of what I was looking for.) Its presence would not change my beliefs one way or the other (unless there is something really shocking in it).

I get the feeling we agree that the more popular concept of 'inspiration' is not really a good desciption of how the Bible came about. I obviously DO believe in the Bible, but primarily as a record of God's interaction with man (well, with a rather small group of people) than as a history text, science book, etc. that seems to have been written for the common folk.

Looking forward to some fun discussions with everyone here!

Peter Kirby

Only if there is something shocking in Matthew or Luke.

best,
Peter Kirby

Madkins007

LOL- But there IS that intriguing possibility that Q had some really juicy bits that were cut out to preserve the story (classic conspiracy thinking!)

On that idea, anyone here ever read Christopher Moore's book "LAMB: The Gospel of Biff, Jesus' Childhood Friend" Parts of it had me ROLF'ing! The very image of Jesus (called Joshua) walking around saying 'jeez' all the time was funny enough, but some of the other passages (Lazarus' ressurection, walking on water, etc.) are hilarious!

Prophetessofrage

QUOTE]Originally posted by GPLindsey
I'm slugging my way through my first comprehensive read of the Bible in years, and I'm most of the way through the Old Testament. Many contradictions, outrages, useless detail, etc., large and small, have jumped out, but so far the clear winner to me as the biggest contradiction is contained in the following passages (NIV):

2 Samuel 24, vs. 1: "Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, 'Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.'"

1 Chronicles 21, vs. 1: "SATAN ROSE up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel." As far as I recall, this is in fact the first reference to Satan in the Bible.

The contradiction? The verses that follow in these respective chapters detail the exact same series of events, culminating in God sending a plague that killed 70,000 people, so enraged was he that David had succumbed to being incited and had taken a census.

What bigger contradiction can there be to have the Bible say that GOD took some action in one verse, and then credit the same action to SATAN later on? Aren't God and Satan, by definition, the exact opposites? The only possible (irrational) rationale for these verses is that the Lord incited David through the agency of Satan. Such an explanation makes a mockery of the function of language and simply supports the atheist criticism that Satan is just God's underling.

Can anyone beat this contradiction? What's the best one out there? [/QUOTE]

Here's a off the cuff reply: Maybe it's a typo... No just kidding.

Okay, here's what the writer is inferring. The matter of David and God is a spiritual matter. So when the Bible is referring to David's actions whether they are good or bad, it is referring to them in regard to his 'spiritual relationship with his God.' As so, David at the time of the census is inferred to be out of spiritulal alignment with God, as so, he (David) puts himself in spiritual danger to Satan the enemy who awaits to do harm to David who is outside the will of God. This has got to be the acceptable answer that validates and clears up the seemingly contradictions in as much as elsewhere in Scripture David is described 'a man after God's own heart.' So showing a Divine relationship that David as leader has with God.

Also, all of this is being told in context of not only David and his spiritual relationship with God, but Isis,RA-EL or Israel's spiritual relationship with God. As so, the nation and its leader David put themselves in spiritual harm with the result being, 70,000 dead. In all fairness to the Bible, there is a definitive passage that clears up all the seemingly contradictions when it says, "the letter killeth, the Spirit giveth life" (2 Cor. 3:6). That statement alone tells us we are dealing with 'Spiritual' truth that simply touch on the historical, scientific, educational, etc. facts being taught in the Bible amidst the spiritual relationship of the Creator with his children. Ere go, a spiritual person can clearly see what the Bible is saying whereas one coming at the Bible from a none spiritual place misses the whole message.

One must read and interpret Scripture from this perspective or it won't make any sense. Even this truth is repeatedly stated in the Bible. (Rom. 7:14;8:6;1 Cor. 15:44-46; Col. 1:9; 1 Peter 2:5;
etc.). In fact, 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 states:"Now we have received, not the Spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For "Who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ."

In light of this written truth, it is wrong to misjudge the Bible without considering the evidence it presents for its own accuracy. In other words, if the contents of the Bible proclaims its validity can be found through understanding the 'sprituality' therein, why do you 'agnostics/athiests' dismiss the spiritual perspective and condemn the Bible in light of the evidence it gives to answer your inquiries? That alone is where the 'illogic' exist.... I mean think about that. The Bible out and out says, 'I'm a spiritual book that needs to be spiritual discerned or the contents will seem 'contradictory' and 'illogical.' Then out pop you agnos and athiests who purposely discard the Bible's 'spiritual' defense and denounce it as 'inaccurate,' and full of 'contradictions' when in reality by so doing, you 'infidels' if you will, are found to be 'inaccurate' and full of contradictions from jump street. Really, really think about that truth and examine yourselves as to why you keep.....:banghead: and ignoring the glaring, valid answer to your inquiry.

Doctor X

Madkins007:

As too often repeat here, a mentor of mine once asked, "do you have faith because of scripture or inspite of it?" In other words, if someone ties their belief system to the hope that the texts are "true" will find the foundation very soft indeed, like Dairy Queen on a hot midsummer's forenoon.

Or as I have asked some, if I could prove that it is "all" a forgery--British Museum demonstrates that Codex Sinaticus was actually written in 1987 on "Official Dukes of Hazard Stationary"--would they act differently. Would they start raping, killing, talking with their mouth full of food?

"Believers" are quick to demand what basis an atheist has for morality. It works both ways . . . if the text is not so "certain" how certain is the morality that appeals to it?

Unfortunately, one did indicate he may, very well, see no further reason to behave ethically. I find that unfortunate.

As for the theory of Q, I find it rather convincing; however, there are some scholars and a poster here who argue against it. I find their "solutions" cause more problems than Q. One of the problems with Q is, of course, determining "what" is Q.

As for good fiction, Gore Vidal's Live! From Golgotha is a very good portrayal of the Paul versus Jerusalem fights.

Prophetessofrage:

The problem is that in the original Deuteronomistic version, YHWH makes David commit "evil" and punishes him--actually a whole lot of people who probably had better things to do.

The concept of gods doing evil is not as disturbing "back then" as we find it now. Once, human sacrifice was required of YHWH. Indeed, one Isaiah passage "explains" the practice by having YHWH confess he made the people do the evil practice so that he could punish them for it!

Consider the Greek gods in Homer--Hera seduces Zeus and, literally, makes the earth move for him to gain his permission to squish Troy because she did not get the golden apple. YHWH purposefully "hardens the heart" of the Pharoh so he can squish him.

These are stories. Indeed, perhaps one of the funniest things about Exodus and on is that even after YHWH squishes the Egyptian and anyone else that pisses him off, the Israelites "murmur" and wonder about should they build a calf? Were they paying attention?

Later, the idea of a "just" god demands a different explanation for evil. The Chronicler writes in the second Temple period and has every desire to show the "history" in a positive light. Thus, it is no longer YHWH but another figure who "gets the blame."

Of course, one can wonder why YHWH let Satan do it, but that is another philosophical argument which the Chronicler did not care about, apparently.

The Chronicler did not expect to be in the same book as the texts he rewrote! A problem arises when one tries to "reconcile" different texts. It is a bit like finding Adam Smith and Karl Marx in the same library and "assume" they have the same view!

Your appeal to the spirit is, then, an apology. It is almost an argumentum ad ignorantum--you assume it all makes sense and it all fits and we just have not looked at it.

--J.D.

Prophetessofrage

Oh well gee doc, I can't apologize for being so secure with my humanity that I feel no need to spout off a lot of high 'pollutin'' terms to glory in my ed-U-ma-cation such as you wise cats do. However, I will do my best to give the 'simple' but accurate answer to all this jargon you just spouted towards me.

YOU STATED THUS:Prophetessofrage:

"The problem is that in the original Deuteronomistic version, YHWH makes David commit "evil" and punishes him--actually a whole lot of people who probably had better things to do.

The concept of gods doing evil is not as disturbing "back then" as we find it now. Once, human sacrifice was required of YHWH. Indeed, one Isaiah passage "explains" the practice by having YHWH confess he made the people do the evil practice so that he could punish them for it!

Consider the Greek gods in Homer--Hera seduces Zeus and, literally, makes the earth move for him to gain his permission to squish Troy because she did not get the golden apple. YHWH purposefully "hardens the heart" of the Pharoh so he can squish him."
--------------

REPLY:Listen maybe the problem with the infidel is a 'hearing' problem. I already explained that which you are reitierating. What part of 'The Bible's profession of being written from a 'SPIRITUAL PERSPECTIVE' don't you understand?
Whether one believes in the accuracy of Scripture or not, there are 2 key words that the Bible self-defines itself as key to understanding the message it is trying to get across. Now pay close attention like I did. Those two key words are as follows, 'RELATIONSHIP AND SPIRITUAL.' The book practically self defines itself as a book that is about a relationship and covenant between the ancient Israel and their God. It is described as a 'FATHER/MOTHER AND CHILD RELATIONSHIP. If that's how it describes itself, who are you to judge it other than what it is proclaiming itself to be, huh? Are you Elohim come down to earth to declare you were there and it didn't happen in the manner the Bible describes it?

At any rate, since the books of the Bible present themselves as a 'spiritual' then in order to accurately examine the Bible you must see it from the spiritual perspective of which it was written lest you end up doing as it proclaims, 'seeing the Bible as full of contradictions and illogic and that's just dumb.

After all, the Bible also says 'it rained 40 days and 40 nights', well now today, scholars have learned that that's just a 'phrase' used by the males of the region to describe for a 'very, very, very, long time.' Now does that make the Bible inaccurate because so-called religous leaders taught for centuries that that meant a literaL 40 days and 40 nights? No! Indeed, that just shows 'we the people' of this era did not understand the 'culture' and so mis-interpreted Scripture much like you all are purposely mis-interpreting Scripture by not lending validity to the Bible's claim of being a 'spiritual' book dealing with a God and humanity relationship. As so, much would be distorted in your heads with regard to the 'phrasing' of certain terminology.

By the way, the fact that diferent writers phrased the same events differently does not automatically show inaccuracy, rather it shows 'God working amidst fallible humanity.' You infidels are hardhearted and refuse to hear truth, or deal with truth the way truth presented itself. Now, I already know much about the missing and distorted Scriptures and all that, but the fact of the matter is, when one examines Scripture according to the spiritual way Scripture presents the 'God and humanity' relationship the inaccuracies, and contradictions are cleared up. Now, all the answers to all the matters in the Bible aren't made clear but the 'spiritual/relationship' dynamic does make sense and does clear up many of the seemingly contradictions. That is a fact, deal with it!

--------------
QUOTE:"These are stories. Indeed, perhaps one of the funniest things about Exodus and on is that even after YHWH squishes the Egyptian and anyone else that pisses him off, the Israelites "murmur" and wonder about should they build a calf? Were they paying attention?"
--------------
MY REPLY:Well actually Doc, that's not so funny a point after all. The reality is, that we all do that. We can have great miracles happen in our life greatly rejoice at the time, but the next time something awkward happens, we complain, murmur, question God's existence instead of thinking on how good God has been in the past. So I can easily see selfish, Israel murmuring and complaining. They did that from day one and all throughout their history. In fact, the book of Judges tells that story over and over. The people sinned, God allowed them to of their own freewill to partake of their driven ruthless sinful desires, they do, the enemy conquers them, they cry to God, He sends a deliver who rescues them. They return to worshipping God, goodness returns, until they turn their hearts again, and the cycle is repeated. (Judges),
--------------

YOUR QUOTE:"Later, the idea of a "just" god demands a different explanation for evil. The Chronicler writes in the second Temple period and has every desire to show the "history" in a positive light. Thus, it is no longer YHWH but another figure who "gets the blame."

Of course, one can wonder why YHWH let Satan do it, but that is another philosophical argument which the Chronicler did not care about, apparently.

The Chronicler did not expect to be in the same book as the texts he rewrote! A problem arises when one tries to "reconcile" different texts. It is a bit like finding Adam Smith and Karl Marx in the same library and "assume" they have the same view!

Your appeal to the spirit is, then, an apology. It is almost an argumentum ad ignorantum--you assume it all makes sense and it all fits and we just have not looked at it."
--------------
MY REPLY: So now you're the spokeman for the 'chronicler'? You know what his expectations were even though you don't believe his comments? Speaking of 'ignorant-ranting.'

For the record, it's not 'MY APPEAL TO THE SPIRIT,' It's the "Bible's declaration' to anyone who wants to understand it. I'm just the messenger, and you do know what they say about the messenger? 'Don't shoot the messenger, because you don't like the 'truthful' message.'

Amos

Well I don't like the message either but I like the messenger! I'd say 'go you girl' and please do come back.