Quote from: Herman on Today at 07:56:57 PMLook kid, the contents of the bible don't mean much to most folks. myself included. But, it does look like they got the order wrong in that example. That would be a contradiction. I think so anyway.

 No its not "wrong", its just not the order WE would write it in.

 Its an ancient text, in an ancient language, from an ancient culture. So its not something you can pick up and read just as if its a modern day body of English lit. Its very different.

 This is why people get so confused by all the different translations. You really gotta have a grasp on what you are dealing with when it comes to any ancient text.

 It takes effort to really read and exegete any old literature, even lit written in old English 1000s of years ago. When it comes to the Bible....this was all ancient Hebrew.

 To them it was in perfect order. They even read left to right, and they had no vowels.  I have a Torah (the Old Testament) and its so pretty to look at....but good luck ever read it as a modern English speaker lol. I have relied heavily on lexicons and dictionaries and reading about the times. 

 Im faaaarrr from expert level, but i got what i was looking for out of it and i dont mind conversations about it when asked.

Quote from: Dove on Today at 07:25:47 PMWhat is the contradiction here?

 Im genuinely asking because im not sure where you see a contradiction with this?

 Chapter two in Genesis is a more detailed telling of events from chapter 1....its not like a continuation of the narrative.

 The books of the Bible can be tricky because the ancient Hebrews didnt express events the same way we do, so there is a a lot of jumping around.

 If we were writing it, we would have put chapter 1 and 2 together....where as the Hebrew writer wrote out the first chapter and then in chapter two went back into more depth on the creation of humans.

 Not sure if im typing this out properly. 

Look kid, the contents of the bible don't mean much to most folks. myself included. But, it does look like they got the order wrong in that example. That would be a contradiction. I think so anyway.

Quote from: Shen Li on Today at 05:48:31 PMFirst of all I just want to say, I don't care about anybody's religion. That is as long as they don't try to force it on society.

I started this thread because I was feeling feisty. I wanted to argue with white people.

There are literally dozens of contradictions in the bible. Fundamentalist Xtian apologists always try to explain it. They have to since they believe in the relatively new concept of inerrancy.

Right from the beginning in Genesis 1:1-2:3, it unfolds in a structured, ordered sequence over six days, culminating in the creation of humanity (male and female) together on the sixth day.

In Genesis 2:4-25, however, the narrative is more focused on human formation. Here, man (Adam) is created first from the dust of the ground, followed by vegetation, animals, and finally, a woman (Eve) as a helper.

I can give lots of examples, but if you believe in the North American fundamentalist idea of inerrancy/infallibility of the bible you will be forced to find an explanation.

 What is the contradiction here?

 Im genuinely asking because im not sure where you see a contradiction with this?

 Chapter two in Genesis is a more detailed telling of events from chapter 1....its not like a continuation of the narrative.

 The books of the Bible can be tricky because the ancient Hebrews didnt express events the same way we do, so there is a a lot of jumping around.

 If we were writing it, we would have put chapter 1 and 2 together....where as the Hebrew writer wrote out the first chapter and then in chapter two went back into more depth on the creation of humans.

 Not sure if im typing this out properly. 

Quote from: Dove on Today at 02:27:47 PMIts not different versions. Its different translations.

 Its an ancient text written in ancient languages from the perspectives of an ancient culture.

 The only legit contradiction is between two of the gospels. One says Judas hung himself and the other says he impaled himself.

 All the other things people view as contradictions have logic explainations or are more clarified by a deeper study of the text.

 Its a super heavy topic and one i dont usually have the mental or emotionally energy to discuss on forums. I come here to spew. I like mostly mindless and silly...shits and giggles posting.

 That doesnt mean im opposed to a discussion but i tend to lack the drive to get into arguements about it.

 When it comes down to it, if someone is put off or just rejects it, no amount of arguing about it is going to change their minds. Faith is a personal journey for each individual. Sometimes understanding the Bible takes more effort than a person wants to use on it. If they dont WANT to make that effort, no amount of arguing with them will change their minds.

 If anything it puts them off even more and agitates them.

First of all I just want to say, I don't care about anybody's religion. That is as long as they don't try to force it on society.

I started this thread because I was feeling feisty. I wanted to argue with white people.

There are literally dozens of contradictions in the bible. Fundamentalist Xtian apologists always try to explain it. They have to since they believe in the relatively new concept of inerrancy.

Right from the beginning in Genesis 1:1-2:3, it unfolds in a structured, ordered sequence over six days, culminating in the creation of humanity (male and female) together on the sixth day.

In Genesis 2:4-25, however, the narrative is more focused on human formation. Here, man (Adam) is created first from the dust of the ground, followed by vegetation, animals, and finally, a woman (Eve) as a helper.

I can give lots of examples, but if you believe in the North American fundamentalist idea of inerrancy/infallibility of the bible you will be forced to find an explanation.

 

Quote from: Thiel on Today at 02:38:22 PMThe very last sentence is so true.

 The Bible never fails to elicit strong feelings and opinions and i learned a long time ago that there is aways a deeper more personal reason for all of that.

Quote from: Dove on Today at 02:27:47 PMIts not different versions. Its different translations.

 Its an ancient text written in ancient languages from the perspectives of an ancient culture.

 The only legit contradiction is between two of the gospels. One says Judas hung himself and the other says he impaled himself.

 All the other things people view as contradictions have logic explainations or are more clarified by a deeper study of the text.

 Its a super heavy topic and one i dont usually have the mental or emotionally energy to discuss on forums. I come here to spew. I like mostly mindless and silly...shits and giggles posting.

 That doesnt mean im opposed to a discussion but i tend to lack the drive to get into arguements about it.

 When it comes down to it, if someone is put off or just rejects it, no amount of arguing about it is going to change their minds. Faith is a personal journey for each individual. Sometimes understanding the Bible takes more effort than a person wants to use on it. If they dont WANT to make that effort, no amount of arguing with them will change their minds.

 If anything it puts them off even more and agitates them.

The very last sentence is so true.

Quote from: JOE on August 21, 2025, 01:18:12 AMActually I think there are different versions of the Bible depending on what year and languages they were written in Shen Li Shen. Latin Greek Hebrew. And the contents in each aren't always the same. The Bible we read today probably isn't the same as the one(s) from 100 AD.

I think caskur caskur or Dove Dove know & can explain it to us.

 Its not different versions. Its different translations.

 Its an ancient text written in ancient languages from the perspectives of an ancient culture.

 The only legit contradiction is between two of the gospels. One says Judas hung himself and the other says he impaled himself.

 All the other things people view as contradictions have logic explainations or are more clarified by a deeper study of the text.

 Its a super heavy topic and one i dont usually have the mental or emotionally energy to discuss on forums. I come here to spew. I like mostly mindless and silly...shits and giggles posting.

 That doesnt mean im opposed to a discussion but i tend to lack the drive to get into arguements about it.

 When it comes down to it, if someone is put off or just rejects it, no amount of arguing about it is going to change their minds. Faith is a personal journey for each individual. Sometimes understanding the Bible takes more effort than a person wants to use on it. If they dont WANT to make that effort, no amount of arguing with them will change their minds.

 If anything it puts them off even more and agitates them.

Quote from: Renegade Quark on Today at 12:07:56 AMI will say that a admire your faith.

I am going to use that line on the next obnoxious atheist I meet.

Quote from: Shen Li on August 24, 2025, 11:46:52 PMUR are fucking right I am an atheist.

If you have a problem with that, I will sit on ur face.

I'm not sure whether that is a threat or promise.  As for the atheist thing is concerned, you do you. I will say that I admire your faith.

Quote from: Oliver the Second on August 25, 2025, 09:54:11 AMReligion is bullshit used to control weak minded people.

George Carlin was the world's funniest atheist.

Religion is bullshit used to control weak minded people.

Quote from: Renegade Quark on August 24, 2025, 11:39:29 PMatAre you an atheist, Shen Lee?

UR are fucking right I am an atheist.

If you have a problem with that, I will sit on ur face.

Are you an atheist, Shen Lee?

Certainly some interesting takes on the origins of Christian religion. But, Jo Jo and I are uncomfortable with the Apostle Paul's blatant homophobia.

Quote from: Shen Li on August 23, 2025, 03:37:54 PMNever mind the modern translations of the bible as you mentioned about the NW version. I am talking about the translation from the original Greek manuscripts to other languages.

And I'm telling you there is more than one "current version". I'll even go you one better, the original texts were in a hodgepodge of languages, Greek being only one of many. It isn't as though we can point to any one parent translation of works and claim them to be singularly representative of "the bible" in its entirety with all others being complete bunkum, not when there are so many divergent and actively competing editions of it. Not unless you plan on practicing the kinds of slavering elitism you and I give the average liberal for indulging in, though I would hasten to remind you that it isn't as if Liberals enjoy a monopoly on such behaviour.

The Romans of the fourth century (which your timely clarification of your original intent appears necessary, given that your intent wasn't immediately obvious to me) certainly practiced such elitism, but no matter; in my previous reply I indicated to you that a faithfulness and historically accuracy aside, the bible's worth can be judged in the success of the societies that arose from its teachings. We can both agree that the "Damasine List" of authoritative teachings does indeed form to which you refer and repudiate a relatively small part of the whole and was selected by the Council of Rome to apply to "The Christian Church" of the day with the intent on governing a sizeable what of the population at the time. It did enjoy some limited success in guiding its adherents on societally acceptable expressions and interactions, its contents, along with the societies it was initially designed to rule over, have long since flourished and perished through its many subsequent rewrites and "remasterings". Ancient Rome no longer exists, its people no longer exist, but for the time they did, they made a fist of it under the rubric of what you call "horseshit" today. They weren't the only ones mind you, nor were they the first to turn these tales into a working civilization.

There is the "worth" and in my mind there isn't a single person here that can disprove it, myself included.




I deliberately cast my net wide when it comes to biblical teachings because I seek to eschew such elitism and there are few of any flavour of the cloth that it doesn't invite claims of heresy and apostacy from. Being an avowed agnostic I am free to challenge their beliefs and enrich my own understanding of it all and make it work a little better for me. Simply pointing at it and calling it a pile of meadow muffins doesn't really advance the action any in my estimation, not when it was already long cold when it was sifted for corn and served up by Mario and Luigi a millennia and a half ago. Big fucken whoopie that it's a Readers Digest version of the original, it was proven to work and wasn't being shoveled by a bunch of gender dysphoric pooftersexuals that were openly advocating for the statutory rape of minors... or worse.

I can suspend any disbelief accuracy or lack thereof for as long as it inspires peoples better nature. And I commend similar from you, irrespective of where Ultimate Truth resides.