contradictions in the bible

Originally posted by kirksey957
I went to see this old guy the other day. A really nice guy and he was talking about various TV programs that have raised all kinds of questions about Jesus and the scriptures. He said that really didn't like those programs because "it's all in the Bible." Then he went on to say that they get you to question the language of the Bible which he didn't ap ...[text shortened]... ou sure?"

Keep preaching, Stephen. You've got a long road to hoe as they say.

A significant number of people in Zambia believe that King James wrote the Bible.

Originally posted by vistesd
Ah! Thanks. A bit like the divine sparks of the or ein sof (light of the infinite) in kabbalah, perhaps.

sort of like an improving inperfect multiplexing

Originally posted by vistesd
(1) Jesus did not say anyone must be born again; he said born from above. The second-birth question came from Nicodemus, whom Jesus implied did not understand (and it seems the confusion continues). Jesus said one must be born of water and pneuma (spirit, breath, wind); he also indicated that in this he was talking about “earthly” things, not heav st let you deal with the dilemma however you wish—after all, I was not the one who posed it...

Here is what my KJB says.

Jesus answered and said to him, Verily, verily, I say to you, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said to him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mothers womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say to you, Except a man be born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. Marvel not that I say that you must be born again. The wind blows where it lists, and you hear the sound thereof, but cannot tell from where it comes or where it goes, so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered and said to him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said to him, Are you a master of Israel, and know not these things? Verily, verily, I say to you, we speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen, and you receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and you believe not, how will you believe, if I tell you heavenly things? And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up. That whosever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest their deeds should be reproved. But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

So you are saying that the original Greek does not say "born again" but says "born from above". You are also saying that everyone is born from above and Christ is merely talking of a physical birth and not a spiritual birth? If this is so why did Christ say that, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh but that which is born of the spirit is spirit"? Is there not a distinction between the two births, hence, born again or from above verses a mere physical birth? Also, how do you interpret Christ saying that whosever believes in him should never perish but have everlasting life? What is your interpretation of perishing and of everlasting life?

Sorry for continuing to talk past you in my previous posts, however, the reason I brought up this scripture was to show that I do not think there a contradiction between the notion of men who recieve condemnation and the existence of a loving God. Christ makes the distinction that God does not condemn man, rather, man condemns himself by rejecting the Son of God. Christ compared this rejection of God to men loving darkness rather than light or sinfulness verses righteousness. In fact, God sent his Son into the world because of his agape love for man. You might say that God is not the one being punitive here, rather, man is punishing himself because he loves those things which are apart from God such as righteousness, life and love. Unfortunatly, to love darkness is to embrace those elements that are inherently punitive in nature. Therefore, God must honer the free will he gave them and give them those things that they love more than he.

I hope this makes some more sense to you. If not, feel free to ignore my ramblings. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
What is your interpretation of perishing and of everlasting life?

And what is yours? Christians tell me I will go to hell, now you are saying I will perish. I can't reconcile the two as far as my understanding of the common English usage goes.
As for everlasting life, clearly it is not the biological definition but whenever I ask on this forum what the soul is (the bit of 'me' that lives forever) I get a few vague responses from some people and dead silence from the rest except for lucifershammer who had a quite detailed concept even though I personally found it to be a rather illogical concept.
However nobody has yet been able to convince me that it is actually to my advantage to get my soul to heaven anymore than it would be to my advantage to have my dead body placed in some place of honour. It seems to have more sentimental value than anything else.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And what is yours? Christians tell me I will go to hell, now you are saying I will perish. I can't reconcile the two as far as my understanding of the common English usage goes.
As for everlasting life, clearly it is not the biological definition but whenever I ask on this forum what the soul is (the bit of 'me' that lives forever) I get a few vague resp ...[text shortened]... y placed in some place of honour. It seems to have more sentimental value than anything else.

It has always been my understanding that we are a triune being with body, soul and spirit. So the soul for me is what goes on in the mind in terms of emotions, intellect, etc. The spirit, however, is that part of you that is not measurable or detectable that continues on when your body dies. I have heard of many out of body experiences when someone has died or is close to death that lead me to believe that this is the case. Science would say that this experience is nothing more than a "soulish" experience in which the brain is constructing the illusion of out of body experiences. However, this does not explain people who have left their body and are able to travel to another room, for example, and witness conversations they should have had no prior knowledge of after dying or being close to death. I think the most interesting experience that I heard about was from a blind man who had been blind since birth. After having his near death experience he returned and said that he also had an out of body expereinece in which he could see for the first time. He even descibed in detail his surroundings and explained what it was like to see for the first time. For me, such experiences occured devoid of the soul/body and were only spiritual in nature. I realize that people often use the words soul/spirit interchangably and refer to the soul as eternal so it gets confusing. However, the way that I am descrbing what a soul is if we are to be given a new body some day after we die and are resurrected then perhaps our soul will be reconstructed and will be eternal. In the mean time, however, the soul and body sleep until they are ressurected. Christ also referred to the dead as those that "sleep" rather than those who cease to be. Granted, they laughed him to scorn.........that is, until he raised them from their "sleep". No one laughed at him after that.

Biblically speaking there are two ressurections. There is a resurrection for those who have been "born again" spiritually and one for those who died withouth their spritiaul man being awakened. Both will be resurrected occording to their respective spiritual conditions.

Originally posted by whodey
Here is what my KJB says.

Jesus answered and said to him, Verily, verily, I say to you, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said to him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mothers womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say to you, Except a man be born of water and
I hope this makes some more sense to you. If not, feel free to ignore my ramblings. 😛

NRS John 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be astonished that I said to you, 'You must be born from above.' 8 The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." 9 Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?" 10 Jesus answered him, "Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things? 11 "Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen; yet you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. 17 "Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. 20 For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. 21 But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God."

_________________________________

John 3:3 Jesus answered: In all truth I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above. (New Jerusalem Bible)

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, 'Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;' (Young’s Literal Translation)

The Greek word anothen means from above, from on high—ano being an adverb of place, indicating, up, upwards or above; euphemistically it is been rendered “from the beginning”—but that is to make a spatial term temporal. We all use euphemisms—how many meanings can the phrase “stand tall” have? If you get a new one into print often enough, it will start to be included in dictionaries.

According to my Liddell-Scott lexicon, the only place is has been translated as “again” is by NT translators; this is probably why people argue that it can be translated as “again.”

______________________________

I am not going to argue fine points of exegesis with you until you indicate you have at least read the article I cited—then I might be willing to continue the conversation on the “God fails At Salvation” thread, where I have outlined “what I am saying” in some detail through the posts (including such concepts as “perishing” and “everlasting” ).

Nor am I going to do the work of exegesis, while you simply lob back at me scriptural quotes...

I am not angry.

About 15 years ago I heard a lecture by someone that I knew personally, who had just earned her Masters degree in theology from Harvard. She exegeted a particular text (it doesn’t matter which one) in such a way that was clear and cogent—and, if not the “right” reading, nevertheless a correct reading—and one that I had never heard. I realized that I had been reading the Biblical texts strictly through the theological spectacles that I had been taught to wear. I determined to start studying the texts afresh...

I couldn’t do it! Oh, I would carefully read a few verses and look some things up and ponder them—but pretty soon I found that I had simply read several pages, having out of conditioning and habit, simply put the old spectacles back on. It was a humbling exercise.

Now, I start with what is called “a close reading” of a given text, paying attention to the original language, checking alternative translations, looking at scholarly commentaries—and then slowly work outward from there. I look at context—and sometimes start again with the immediate context. Then I might look at anything that I have on textual criticism or historical or literary criticism, or whatever. My skills are such that it takes me work and time.

________________________________

So—if you tell your beloved not to jump off the roof, and she decides to anyway, do you just shrug and say, “Well, she’s condemning herself”? Suppose you have the power to “save” her? If you are God, do you simply shrug when the line of death is crossed? More appropriate is the mental illness example that I gave, to which you responded not at all. You seem thoroughly committed to reading into scripture through the theological spectacles that you have been given or acquired. It’s possible that we all do that to some extent—and that includes those people who want to insist on an eternal “hell,” and those who want to have the comfort of knowing that anyone who does not abide by the “rules of right belief” will not be rewarded (as Kirksey pointed out, this is akin to the “elder son” syndrome), and those who do not want what they’ve been taught to believe to be challenged... I only say this, because those of us who read it differently are also often accused of “wanting our own way” with scripture...for our own comfort, etc.
____________________________

Here is one hint (last one): In the opening verses of this Gospel, it says—

>> John 1:3 All things were begotten (Greek: egeneto) through him (i.e., the logos, which is also ho theos), and without him not one thing was begotten. What has been begotten (gegonen) 4 in him was life (Greek: zoe, physical life), and the life was the light of all people.

“Life” and “light” are both in the nominative case, meaning identification, or that they are synonymous (just as are logos and ho theos in verse one).


>> 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend/perceive (Greek: katelaben) it.

>> 14 And the logos was born/begotten (egeneto) flesh (sarx) and lived among us, and we have seen his radiance, the radiance as of a father's unique (Greek: monogene; it does not mean “only-begotten” or “exclusive” ) son, full of grace and truth.

Can you begin to see the parallels? When Jesus speaks of himself as the “son of man”—and other Christological formulae—he is referring to the logos become sarx in himself, which is the pre-existing “son of the father” in Trinitarian symbolism. We are all begotten of this logos—and hence also have the power to become “sons”—if we put our faith (confidence, trust) and effort into it. Jesus is not pointing to his material existence as a man—i.e., his sarx—but to the logos that is incarnate. Jesus (Christologically speaking) is unique because of his perfect manifestation, realization, actualization of that.

Originally posted by whodey
It has always been my understanding that we are a triune being with body, soul and spirit. So the soul for me is what goes on in the mind in terms of emotions, intellect, etc. The spirit, however, is that part of you that is not measurable or detectable that continues on when your body dies.

So, which of the three embodies your consciousness? Where are you memories stored? Your intellect?
If you can have an out of body experience then it implies both consciousness and memory is not tied to the body.
Now suppose you go mad or loose all your memory in old age, then has your soul or spirit also gone mad and lost memories?
When you get to heaven will you be a continuation of your consciousness from point of death or some new consciousness?
What is in my spirit that I would want it to get to heaven?

Originally posted by vistesd
NRS John 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born [b]from above." 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without ...[text shortened]... que because of his perfect manifestation, realization, actualization of that.[/b]

Words however, can get in your way: Just let it come to you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, which of the three embodies your consciousness? Where are you memories stored? Your intellect?
If you can have an out of body experience then it implies both consciousness and memory is not tied to the body.
Now suppose you go mad or loose all your memory in old age, then has your soul or spirit also gone mad and lost memories?
When you get to heav ...[text shortened]... of death or some new consciousness?
What is in my spirit that I would want it to get to heaven?

I view the "soul" as the intermediary between the material world and the spiritual world. I would say that the soul/mind communicates our consciousness from our spiritual being to the material world. However, this communication can be impeded via mental/physical problems. There may be a disconnect in commuincating between the spirutal man to the physical world or from the physical world to the spiritual man as a result of a myriad of mental/physical disorders. You are right in that the spirit can and does have consciousness without the aid of the mind/body, however, there is no communication of such consciousness without the mind/body to the material world.

I would say that we will be a continuation of our consciousness from when we die physically and are resurrected. Any other continuation would mean that you would cease to exist. As far as memories go, however, perhaps some memories did not get communicated from our body to our mind and/or from our mind to our spirit man for whatever reason or physical disorder. Just because your mind/body may loose the capacity to commuicate such memories in the material world in no way means that they are lost via your spiritual being for the rest of eternity.

Originally posted by whodey
I view the "soul" as the intermediary between the material world and the spiritual world. I would say that the soul/mind communicates our consciousness from our spiritual being to the material world. However, this communication can be impeded via mental/physical problems. There may be a disconnect in commuincating between the spirutal man to the physical w ...[text shortened]... al world in no way means that they are lost via your spiritual being for the rest of eternity.

So if you go mad in old age your spirit / soul are not mad? Does that mean that the person we know as you is not actually you but merely your body?
If you brain is manipulated by physical means (hormones, electricity etc) does your soul/spirit remain largely unaffected?