QuakerInfo.com Forum

[cerewa]

Dan posts, regarding the Bible: "It is either all truth or it is not."

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/day.html :


Gen.2:17
"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen.3:6

Gen.5:5
"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."



Deuteronomy

21:15
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

21:16
Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:

21:17
But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.


Right. If we say it is all truth, we have to acknowlege that it's not the sort of truth that you take at face value. We don't go along with the part that says men can have two wives, and we don't think it's a huge deal that the bible gives two different names for the father of Joseph. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/joseph.html)

Right?
_________________
Visit my website: "On Happiness- economics, morality, politics, religion, art, education, psychology..."
http://onhappiness.crimsonblog.com

[Themis]

Dear Friend Cerewa,

Greetings in the Love of Christ!

I want to assure thee that Holy Scripture is true as Early Friends firmly believed and as God through my Teacher Christ Jesus taught me directly.

Gen.2:17 and Gen. 5:5 is not a contradiction. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God they died spiritually (separation from God) latter on they died bodily. The teaching of the 2 deaths (spiritual and bodily) is clear throughout Scripture.

In the Old Testament (the beginning) men could have more that one wives, but it was never in the will of God. God allowed it for a while for His reasons.

I don't understand what's is thy problem if the Bible gives two different names for the father of Joseph. my mother has two names (Christine, Sandra). I realize that the names in Scripture are given for more spiritual reasons sometimes so I am being over simplistic.

Anyway. God Bless!

Thy Brother and Friend,
Themis
_________________
Christ is our Lord, Saviour, and Friend. He is EVERYTHING!

[Dan]

Friend,

I do not see where the contradiction is?

It is good to see thee thinking and asking questions. God is big enough to handle all our questions.

I again believe the Bible is either true or not; what may appear as contradictions is failure upon us to see all the scripture in light of what it says.

For thirty years I have been told the Bible is full of contradictions, however whenever I have said name one, no one has ever answered so I am glad to see thee come with these questions.

I believe Themis has well answered. Through Adam's sin spiritual death came and with that Adam brought a death sentence upon himself physically ; the Word says, "It is appointed to man once to die and after that the judgment." Adam was made to live forever but as a result of sin he couldn't.

The question of the lineage of Christ is simple. THe one account is the lineage of Joseph, the other the lineage of Mary. Of course the Jews believe one is Jewish if he is born of a jewish mother. Christ was Jewish, human, and inherited the throne of his father David through Mary His mother. Joseph was not is father, God was.

Thy friend seeking truth,
Dan

[cerewa]

look at the two accounts of the lineage of Jesus that are cited. they name joseph's father, joseph's father's father... father's father's father...

and yet consistently come up with different names.

themis's explanation of it being "spiritual truth" ("I realize that the names in Scripture are given for more spiritual reasons sometimes so I am being over simplistic.") rings true to me,

but your idea that it could be referring to mary's lineage when it clearly states that it isn't...

Matthew 1:16 ... Luke 3:23
you can look them up at http://biblegateway.org if you don't trust the skepticsannotatedbible.com source.
_________________
Visit my website: "On Happiness- economics, morality, politics, religion, art, education, psychology..."
http://onhappiness.crimsonblog.com

[orPowers]

I think the point about "literal" reading of the Bible in the Genesis passage is answered. We don't read it literally. We also don't read the references to God visiting Moses on His way to find out whether the things He has heard about Sodom and Gomorrah are true or not. I think the point here is that literal reading is limited. Maybe the question is why do some base doctrines on literal readings, and yet allow other passages to be read figuratively? In our day, one of the largest questions is whether evolution is specifically contradicted by the Bible, based on literal readings of the Genesis account, and yet even within that account, there are passages that are read as figurative such as the one about literal "death" cited. Something to think about.
_________________
Romans 8:38-39

my blog: http://mild-side.blogspot.com/

[Shay]

[sorianofan]

Genesis is bvery interesting, it even faithfully records long lost Clan names under the patriarch. However, it is NOT a history or science book. It is a religious book and it should be read in that fashion.
_________________
Cats rule and that is the truth.

[avalon]

I find that most people who are described as literalist don't read the whole bible literally, instead they see the bible as being error-free.
Those who take such a view might be interested in Jer. 8:8.

avalon

[QChaplain]

[Stella]

chaplain wrote:
(I had some parishioners who read the Bible backwards...by that, i mean that they started with Jesus, and worked their way to Moses. So they ended up keeping Sabbath (on Saturday) and eating Kosher, among other practices, and worse, deciding that others were not as spiritual as they were because of their particular practices.)

and so many have nd will follow those people right into looptie-loo land instead of following the light and though thinking they are righteous it may be more self-righteous. I know it threw me for a big loop. hey, what did I know? I was young.
_________________
May we always focus on the Inner Light and
"Abide in Love"

[orPowers]

OOps, I see I wrote that God visited Moses on the way to Sodom, rather than Abraham. That's embarassing. I'm sure any interested just read it as a brain spasm, and thank you for that.
_________________
Romans 8:38-39

my blog: http://mild-side.blogspot.com/

[oneputt]

Those who say the Bible is without error then have to explain whether the things supposedly done by God's command were really ordered by God.Did God command the Jews to commit genocide on entire cities,killing every man,woman,and child?Did God command the Jews to kidnap women and then rape them by forcibly taking them as wives?Is it OK for me to own a slave since the NT Christians were allowed to keep slaves?

[orPowers]

Oneput notes: "This passage alone shows that the writer is simply writing from his own limited knowledge instead of inspiration,at least in this instance.I'm sure God would be aware of the earth's rotation and would have informed the writer of this faux pas if He had been dictating to him."

This brings up the question of what "inspiration" means, and it seems obvious to me that the current "evengelical" ideas concerning dictation or verbal inspiration can't stand up to investigation. I have always seen "inspiration" as impelling the writer to explain his perception of what God is about. The subject may require a separate thread, but it is appropriate to note in an investigation of Biblical contradictions and/or literal versus metaphorical reading.
_________________
Romans 8:38-39

my blog: http://mild-side.blogspot.com/

[CelticNorth]

I am one who believes that the Bible is true for those who beleive in it, and that an equal truth exists for those who beleive in the Koran, the writings of Budda, and any other major/minor religion. Perhaps at the end of the day, the only thing that is important is how we treat our fellow man, no matter what his/her religious orientation. It occured to me long ago that nearly everyone who holds a religious belief holds that belief based upon where they were born, what religion their parents were, and in what era they lived. And again, at the end of the day, maybe all that matters is how we reconcile that knowledge within ourselves in an honest manner.

[aspirit]

McGuffy
I believe that is key, "How we reconcile that knowledge with in ourselves in an hones manner" I guess that would then translate to, how do we treat each other in light of our knowledge?

Aspirit