Parts Of The Bible Discounted As Incorrect

[JohnTaylor1886]

<div class='quotemain'>

(Note: I equate adoration with worship because of the usage of the Latin verb adorare in Exodus 20:4 ("...non adorabis ea..." [Latin Vuglate Version)

That's where you went wrong. You need to brush up on your Latin.

Let's examine this from a Roman theologian's standpoint: We will begin by defining the English and Latin equivalents:

Worship = Latria

Veneration = Dulia (see also hyper-dulia)

All approved Catholic theologians will tell you that they do not worship the Theotokos, but they do venerate her. Veneration is reserved for Mary and the Saints. Be reminded that all prayer directed towards Mary or a Saint is done under the spirit of "dulia" or veneration, and not under the spirit of "latria" or worship.

Now the Theotokos is a unique person in the Church, and she is accorded a "higher" status than the Saints. Therefore, she is given greater form of veneration called "hyper-dulia". But notice that this is still not "worship" but veneration.

Also, something that I learned on my own, is that all veneration given to either the Theotokos or the Saints is actually not really going to them per se. Rather, Catholics and Orthodox are venerating the attributes of Christ which was present or is present in them. The Saints are but a reflection of Jesus Christ, therefore all praise directed to them is actually praise to God.

Hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding JT.

Fine, if you want to argue with the Vulgate Version, go right ahead. Here is the verse in question in its entirety.

Exodus 20:5--Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them, for I, the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation that hate me;"

Latin Vulgate--3rd Edition--Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft

Exodus 20:5--Non adorabis ea neque coles ego sum Dominus Deus tuus fortis zelotes visitans iniquitatem patrum in filiis in teritam et quartam generationem eorum qui oderunt me.

Also, in the book A Primer of Ecclesiatical Latin by John F. Collins and pulblished by Catholic University Press, 1985, pg. 446, under the English-Latin Vocabulary section, pg 446, we have:

"worship--adoro, adorare, adoravi, adoratus"

Also under The New College Latin and English Dictionary by John C. Traupmann, on page 7, under the entry "adoro, adorare", it says:

"to implore; entreat; to ask for; to adore, worship"

And under page 501 in Traupmann's, doing a reverse lookup, for the English word worship, it is given

"worship--venerari, adorare, colere"

"Adorare" and "colere" are the exact two verbs used in Exodus 20:5.

Also, American Heritage Dictionary, under the etymology for the word "adore", we read

"Middle English adoren, from Old French adorer, from Latin adorare, to pray to: ad- to + orare to speak, pray"

"Dulia" is not Latin, but Greek! Jason, you gave the terms as Latin! I suggest you refer to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 157, entry # 1398 under "douleuo". I would also look up the Greek to Galatians 4:8, where the phrase "edouleusate tois fusei me ousin theois" comes into play. Thayer's renders it "to worship....gods".

You made another blunder by using the word "latria". It also is not Latin, it is Greek. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pg. 372, entry #'s 2999 and 3000, under "latreia" and "latreuo". If you choose to look up the extended definitions, you can, but in short, the summary meaning is "to serve [for hire] or "to worship", "to give homage".

That's where you went wrong. You need to brush up on your Latin.

Let's examine this from a Roman theologian's standpoint: We will begin by defining the English and Latin equivalents:

Worship = Latria

Veneration = Dulia (see also hyper-dulia)

Jason, I would retract if I were you. You seem to have grossly obfuscated the Greek and Latin languages. And no, you can't just simply say you were wrong and have your point stand, because the Cathechism, as well as the Vulgate, being the official version of the Roman Catholic church, were both written in Latin not Greek. So much for brushing up...I don't define or equate words like one would make a shot in the dark. And if you were wrong on this point, what other points have been made in a similarly obfuscated manner? One verse for you:

"Triton touto erkhomai pros humas; epi stomatos duo marturon kai trion stathesetai pan hrema."

Or, if you prefer the Latin:

"Ecce tertio hoc venio ad vos in ore duorum vel trium testium stabit omen verbum."

Q.E.D.

[Dr T]

Hi JohnTaylor1886,

Were did they get the manuscripts to put them into Latin?

THanks

[Jason]

I did mistake JT. They are greek words. However, the Vulgate was translated from the Greek Septiguant, and the Greek words are the originals (as far as we have them). My training is in the Eastern Orthodox Church, who use greek words (horrible blunder, and I apologize) and those are the words by which they define veneration and worship.

Regardless of my failure to properly identify Latin and Greek words, the point still stands. The argument is still made by both Greek and Latin theologians. I am right, and you are wrong. Or at least, my interpretation is the one used by both churches, therefore I am right in describing how they see it.

And if I thought I needed more than one witness to prove that my theological understanding of this is greater than yours, I'd find a nice link. However, I know enough (minus the language Im explaining) to stand on my own.

[Guest Monica]

One good way to better understand the scriptures is to use a concordance. www.blueletter.org has the original greek and hebrew concordance with the definitions. This way you go from the original manuscript to english.

[dannuzz]

<div class='quotemain'>

by the way everyone im Dan :) , nice to meet you all . im 22

REALLLLY?

By the high level of your argumentation, Idda sworn that you were 23.

hmm 23 in october, :) that better bump me up some "levels"

[JohnTaylor1886]

I did mistake JT. They are greek words. However, the Vulgate was translated from the Greek Septiguant, and the Greek words are the originals (as far as we have them). My training is in the Eastern Orthodox Church, who use greek words (horrible blunder, and I apologize) and those are the words by which they define veneration and worship.

Regardless of my failure to properly identify Latin and Greek words, the point still stands. The argument is still made by both Greek and Latin theologians. I am right, and you are wrong. Or at least, my interpretation is the one used by both churches, therefore I am right in describing how they see it.

And if I thought I needed more than one witness to prove that my theological understanding of this is greater than yours, I'd find a nice link. However, I know enough (minus the language Im explaining) to stand on my own.

If you can't properly udentify Greek and Latin words, then you also cannot properly identify the sense in which they were used...so that whole argument is, at best, an argumentum ad lapidem. And just which theologians are you citing here? I also have supplied a goodly number of excerpts from the Roman Catholic Catechism to explain my point, so that also gets pulled across to our side.

Monica, I appreciate the reference. I use Strong's (very common), as well as Gesenius' works and Thayer's. If you want a very concise reference grammar of Greek, use Smyth's. Allen and Greenough have a very excellent Latin grammar.

[Jason]

If you can't properly udentify Greek and Latin words, then you also cannot properly identify the sense in which they were used...so that whole argument is, at best, an argumentum ad lapidem.

No, it's not a fallacy of any kind. Error to identify which language the word originates from, does not nulify either the meaning of the word, not my conclusion.

I am still right. But just to further advance my point (as if it were necessary):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm

And just which theologians are you citing here?

Everyone that contributed to the Catholic Encyclopedia, for starters.

I also have supplied a goodly number of excerpts from the Roman Catholic Catechism to explain my point, so that also gets pulled across to our side.

You've quoted it, but it does not prove you're right and Im wrong.

[JohnTaylor1886]

I am still right.

That seems to be the whole thesis behind your argument. That is most assuredly an argumentum ad lapidem Sorry, this is not a college debate. You don't get the benefit of implementation by affirmative fiat here.

First, you failed to address the passages that were taken straight from the Catechism, and not only that, you then choose to basically ignore the interpretation thereof by failure to offer up one of your own.

Second, you failed miserably in correctly identifying which language went with which concept. Like I said I can't trust your ability to identify language, and if that is the case, then obviously, your interpretation is invalid.

Third, the fact that you had mistaken the languages leads me to believe that you were absent-mindedly quoting an article...which I had found in Wikipedia under Virgin Mary.

Fourth, prayers are addressed to Mary. Among them are Ave Maria, and Salve Regina, both of which I have in a copy of St. Joseph's Daily Missal. You say that all praise directed to them is also directed to God. I hardly consider the saints or the Virgin Mary as an extension of God that needs prayer. You might, some others might, but I don't. And even under the pretense that what you say is true, nowhere in any scriptures, ancient or modern, is there a clause that permits oration to Mary or any of the Saints, or any icons mentioning such. I actually walked into a Catholic church (actaully, this building was where the diocese was housed) in Łódź, Poland and asked about the Assupmtion of Mary. I had asked the same questions in Kraków and in Sosnowiec. It turns out that all three said the same thing...it was nothing more than tradition. "Nie ma nic takiego w Biblii, tylko to jest tradycyjna." (It doesn't exist in the Bible, it is only traditional.)

So were the idolatries of Astarte (or Ishtar) as Baal.

[Jason]

First, you failed to address the passages that were taken straight from the Catechism, and not only that, you then choose to basically ignore the interpretation thereof by failure to offer up one of your own.

I see no problem with what I stated and what you posted. What am I supposed to address?

Second, you failed miserably in correctly identifying which language went with which concept. Like I said I can't trust your ability to identify language, and if that is the case, then obviously, your interpretation is invalid.

Ad hominem. You're still harping on my mistake, when I've admitted I made a mistake, and yet you just can't let it go. Why is that? And I provided an authoritative refute of what you think, with the New Advent link to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Yet you continue to ignore that. How convenient of you.

Third, the fact that you had mistaken the languages leads me to believe that you were absent-mindedly quoting an article...which I had found in Wikipedia under Virgin Mary.

I studied Roman Catholicism two years ago. That discussion let me into a discussion with a Priest and a highly respected Layman. Both gave me that information (and I was repeating it from memory). They may have said Greek, but I remembered it as being Latin.

The point remains that you've misinterpreted Catholic doctrine.

Fourth, prayers are addressed to Mary.

So what? Those prayers are intended to be "taken up" to Jesus/God. She's an intermediary. Big flipin deal.

I'll re-examine your quotes when you can examine mine. Until then, I see no reason to continue.

In fact, if you'd like to set up a new thread, and deal with each issue again, I'd be happy to. But your incessant attacks at my person will win you no converts here. Im as honest as they come. And Im willing to admit error (unlike many here).

And you need to ask Heather for permission to access the open forum, or you'll never be able to provide any real evidence for polygamy. You're excessively long quote had no references, and as such is nothing more than hearsay.

You say that all praise directed to them is also directed to God. I hardly consider the saints or the Virgin Mary as an extension of God that needs prayer. You might, some others might, but I don't.

Since when did your opinion matter?

And even under the pretense that what you say is true, nowhere in any scriptures, ancient or modern, is there a clause that permits oration to Mary or any of the Saints, or any icons mentioning such.

And your point is? Nowhere in any scriptures, ancient or modern, is there mention of a requirement to practice polygamy, undergo a Masonic temple endowment, or receive a priesthood named after Melchizedek.

What does that have to do with anything? Nothing. Just like you're opinions on the matter. The are meaningless.

I actually walked into a Catholic church (actaully, this building was where the diocese was housed) in Łódź, Poland and asked about the Assupmtion of Mary.

Let me bow down and stand all amazed at you're exposure to Catholicism.

Wow. You actually walked into a Catholic Church once? Amazing. You're way smarter than me.

I had asked the same questions in Kraków and in Sosnowiec. It turns out that all three said the same thing...it was nothing more than tradition. "Nie ma nic takiego w Biblii, tylko to jest tradycyjna." (It doesn't exist in the Bible, it is only traditional.)

Tradition holds as much weight as scripture. Just like "modern revelation" holds as much weight as scripture in Mormonism.

But, you probably know that from all your experiences with the Catholic church.

So were the idolatries of Astarte (or Ishtar) as Baal.

Careful there. Ashtarte is Ashera. Ashera is also El's wife. Thats your heavenly mother yer talkin' about there.

[Guest Monica]

All of the Bible is true. I dont see any errors in it.

[Jason]

All of the Bible is true. I dont see any errors in it.

Really? How about Genesis 19:30-38?

[BenRaines]

Jason, I read the verses and was wondering where the error was? Please share.

Ben Raines

[Jason]

Jason, I read the verses and was wondering where the error was? Please share.

Ben Raines

God never condemned the incest.

[BenRaines]

Was he supposed to? I find it hard to use todays morals to judge or justify actions taken over 3,000 years ago or even 150 years ago.

Ben Raines

[Jason]

Was he supposed to? I find it hard to use todays morals to judge or justify actions taken over 3,000 years ago or even 150 years ago.

Ben Raines

I thought you believed god was the same yesterday, today and forever?

[BenRaines]

I guess the confusion would be between what historically was written based on what was considered morally acceptable at the time and how we would judge it.

I do not know of any God ordained practice that we condemn from their time but perhaps in our time. If I recall Mosaic Law said to stone to death the adulterer. We don't do that anymore. Does it make the sin any less? No just the punishment given out by man. I believe that the Lord will judge it just the same.

Ben Raines

[prisonchaplain]

God never condemned the incest.

To review--the passage is Genesis 19:30-38. In it Lot's daughters get their dad drunk and then have sex with him, so they can get pregnant and have offspring.

Jason claims the Bible is in error because God does not specifically, at this instance, and in writing, condemn incest. To which I say, "Eh?" One of the aspects of the Bible I find compelling is the sins and "errors" of God's people, God's prophets, God's rulers. These books show us the warts and all. There is nothing in this passage to suggest that God approved of what was happening.

Ironically, my study Bible footnote says the following: Lot's daughters were guilty of the sin of incest and Lot the sin of drunkenness. It went on to suggest that they had all gotten a little too "in culture" with the wickedness of Soddom and Gomorrah.

[Jason]

If the Bible is "god's inspired holy infallable word" then why didn't god use that example of what not to do?

[JohnTaylor1886]

Jason, as usual, you conveniently ignore things in your haste to make a reply, dropping arguments here and there. Here is one example:

Wow. You actually walked into a Catholic Church once? Amazing. You're way smarter than me.

If I were a lawyer, I would actually object, for assuming facts not in evidence. You don't know how many times I have been to a Roman Catholic church, cathedral, rectory, or mission. I could also easily look at the quote that you have provided such as:

I studied Roman Catholicism two years ago. That discussion let me into a discussion with a Priest and a highly respected Layman.

You mean you had a discussion once? Or maybe twice? I won't to assume, but suffice it to say, that yor own logic would damage you at this point.

Second, don't whine to me about attacks on your person. In fact, wasn't it you that said that I needed to brush up on my Latin? Then I called you on it, because you couldn't distinguish between the two? What's worse, now you say that you weren't sure. Well, if you're not sure of what they said in one facet, then how can you be sure of what they said in another?

Third, I asked you which theologians you cited. "Everyone in the New Advent". Yes, I am familiar with the New Advent, and yes, I have used it on a goodly number of occasions. Big deal. Usually, if you are going to quote something, you give references, including name, page number, date, and publisher, if they are available. Besides, New Advent is about as official as Mormon Doctrine. New Advent is a good reference tool for Roman Catholicism, nothing more, nothing less. I won't go into how the Cathecism compares, but suffice it to say, it has a much higher standing. That was where the quotes came...and still no objections. Ah well, no objections, no problem.

Fourth, polygamy is not the issue we are dealing with. Technically, neither is the Virgin Mary, for that matter, since this thread deals with the Biblical errancy. Just for the record, yes, polygamy is an LDS issue. Whether or not the powers that be in Salt Lake choose to deal with or sweep it under the rug, that is their decision...and that is for another thread altogether. It doesn't make anyone less of a Latter-Day Saint if one chooses to follow that doctrine, because the mainstream (or Corporate) LDS church in Salt Lake City is not the end-all, be-all of Mormonism. I didn't really come here to propagate the doctrine of plural marriage, as there is a lot more to fundamentalism than that, and I am confident that you know that already. So, I'll just label this a red herring and let it swim back upstream. If you want to start a seperate thread that deals with that very issue and its basis, or lack thereof, proszę bardzo (go ahead).

Fifth, I know what you said and I know what I read. The Wikipedia article and the things you say are a very close parallel. Draw whatever conclusions you desire.

Sixth. Prayers that are directed to Heavenly Father are not said "Hail, Mary", or "Ave, Maria". Could it be that Mary was, in fact, deified? Now, this may be pure speculation, but I have reasons to think that the early Christian Church did just that.

The Roman Emperor was looked upon as a God, and that is common knowledge. However, Jason, for your amusement (yes, I am actually thinking that you may fnd this amusing, considering the history of the world after this), I am providing you with a letter from Pliny the Elder to Trajan and Trajan's response. This is from The Great Apostasy by James E. Talmage, pp.79-81 (Deseret Book, 1958 edition) (who cites another source, namely Milner.

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PLINY AND TRAJAN. The inquiry of the younger Pliny, governor of Pontus, addressed to Trajan, emperor of Rome, and the imperial reply thereto, are of such interest as to be worthy of reproduction in full. The version here given is that of Milner as appears in his "History of the Church of Christ," edition of 1810, Cent. II, ch. 1. "Pliny to Trajan, Emperor:"Health—It is my usual custom, Sir, to refer all things, of which I harbor any doubts, to you. For who can better direct my judgment in its hesitation, or instruct my understanding in its ignorance? I never had the fortune to be present at any examination of Christians, before I came into this province. I am therefore at a loss to determine what is the usual object either of inquiry or of punishment, and to what length either of them is to be carried. It has also been with me a question very problematical,—whether any distinction should be made between young and the old, the tender and the robust;—whether any room should be given for repentance, or the guilt of Christianity once incurred is not to be expiated by the most unequivocal retraction;—whether the name itself, abstracted from any flagitiousness of conduct, or the crimes connected with the name, be the object of punishment. In the meantime, this has been my method, with respect to those who were brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians: if they pleaded guilty, I interrogated them twice afresh with a menace of capital punishment. In case of obstinate perseverence I ordered them to be executed. For of this I had no doubt, whatever was the nature of their religion, that a sudden and obstinate inflexibility called for the vengeance of the magistrate. Some were infected with the same madness, whom, on account of their privilege of citizenship, I reserved to be sent to Rome, to be referred to your tribunal. In the course of this business, informations pouring in, as is usual when they are encouraged, more cases occurred. An anonymous libel was exhibited, with a catalogue of names of persons, who yet declared that they were not Christians then, nor ever had been; and they repeated after me an invocation of the gods and of your image, which, for this purpose, I had ordered to be brought with the images of the deities. They performed sacred rites with wine and frankincense, and execrated Christ,—none of which things I am told a real Christian can ever be compelled to do. On this account I dismissed them. Others named by an informer, first affirmed, and then denied the charge of Christianity; declaring that they had been Christians, but had ceased to be so some three years ago, others even longer, some even twenty years ago. All of them worshiped your image, and the statues of the gods, and also execrated Christ. And this was the account which they gave of the nature of the religion they had once professed, whether it deserves the name of crime or error,—namely—that they were accustomed on a stated day to meet before daylight, and to repeat among themselves a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath, with an obligation of not committing any wickedness;—but on the contrary, of abstaining from thefts, robberies, and adulteries;—also of not violating their promise or denying a pledge;—after which it was their custom to separate, and to meet again at a promiscuous harmless meal, from which last practice they however desisted, after the publication of my edict, in which, agreeably to your orders, I forbade any societies of that sort. On which account I judged it the more necessary to inquire, by torture, from two females, who were said to be deaconesses, what is the real truth. But nothing could I collect except a depraved and excessive superstition. Deferring, therefore, any farther investigation, I determined to consult you. For the number of culprits is so great as to call for serious consultation. Many persons are informed against of every age and of both sexes; and more still will be in the same situation. The contagion of the superstition hath spread not only through cities, but even villages and the country. Not that I think it impossible to check and correct it. The success of my endeavors hitherto forbids such desponding thoughts; for the temples, once almost desolate, began to be frequented, and the sacred solemnities, which had long been intermitted, are now attended afresh; and the sacrificial victims are now sold everywhere, which once could scarcely find a purchaser. Whence I conclude that many might be reclaimed were the hope of impunity, on repentance, absolutely confirmed."

The emperor's reply follows: "Trajan to Pliny:"You have done perfectly right, my dear Pliny, in the inquiry which you have made concerning Christians. For truly no one general rule can be laid down, which will apply to all cases. These people must not be sought after. If they are brought before you and convicted, let them be capitally punished, yet with this restriction that if any one renounce Christianity, and evidence his sincerity by supplicating our gods, however suspected he may be for the past, he shall obtain pardon for the future, on his repentance. But anonymous libels in no case ought to be attended to; for the precedent would be of the worst sort, and perfectly incongruous to the maxims of my government."

"Ave, Imperator..."

"Ave, Maria..."

Gee.....

Seventh, yes, I am quite aware that the thread was moved. I saw it this afternoon. That's fine.

Now, getting back to the topic of the thread before we derailed it (and yes, that is an inclusive "we")

No, the Bible is not infallible, it is not inerrant, and it is not the end-all, be-all of scripture. I'll divide this into two sections, personal beliefs and reasons for those beliefs, and you will see quotes and evidence in the second part.

Yes, the Bible is scripture. Look up the etymology of the word scripture, and that is what it literally is...writing. Do I believe the Bible is textually infallible? No! Absolutely not! It isn't even complete because there are so many references to other books, books that are not had in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or any other books that have been discovered to date.

Other scriptures have been discovered. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library, the Old and New Testament Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha...yes, I consider them all to be scripture in the literal sense. Now, as to whether all of them are true, some are and some aren't. Careful study can lead to which is true and which is not.

Now, why do I deny Biblical infallibility?

1. When people make reference to the Bible, it is largely ambiguous. With or without the Apocrypha? Which version? (KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, NKJV, Douay, Luther's Bible....which one?) And no, you cannot say that they are all the same, because the insertion or omission of a single word can change the meaning, so yes, each edition has its own slant and that slant may not be correct.

2. We do not have the original texts of the Bible to make such a statement (a.k.a Autographa). We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have the Nag Hammadi Library, we have other manuscripts and codices (such as the Codex Vaticanus) that can be studied. Try to find an original text from John, Luke, Moses, Malachi, or even Q (if you accept that hypothesis and if you actually believe that it is out there). I find it very two-faced when individuals demand to see the gold plates for the Book of Mormon, but yet, they can't provide any material evidence of manuscripts that come from the Bible. If material proof alone brought faith, I would become a Gnostic or an Essene (but don't ask me to becme a Docetist).

3. Take a collection of books and put them in order. Now, having no list, try and order them again after 50 years after everyone has been through your library several times. That's right....that is a hard task.

I will address the mistranslations of the Bible in a later post, as well as other points, hopefully within a few hours.

[boyando]

<div class='quotemain'>

Was he supposed to? I find it hard to use todays morals to judge or justify actions taken over 3,000 years ago or even 150 years ago.

Ben Raines

I thought you believed god was the same yesterday, today and forever?

To asume that, because God does not change, what he asks of us is static, is to say that the needs off this generation are the same as those in previos generations.

There may not have been a need to write down the comdenaton of this sin, because no generation would have excepted it. Or ther could have been other reasons not known to us.

Well just keep working on making our self's better and those around us, through love and long suffering.

[Jason]

JT.

You must have a lot more free time than I do. If you would like to see more indepth posts, with thoughtful replies, I'd be happy to go along. But don't expect more than one a day from me.

To asume that, because God does not change, what he asks of us is static, is to say that the needs off this generation are the same as those in previos generations.

There may not have been a need to write down the comdenaton of this sin, because no generation would have excepted it. Or ther could have been other reasons not known to us.

Well just keep working on making our self's better and those around us, through love and long suffering.

Look, I know what you're saying, but it goes against the omnisciences of your god to say so. If god is incapable of determining the needs of successive generations, and crafting laws that will apply to each, then what good does it do to write anything down? Throw out the "standard works" and live off continuous revelation.

[prisonchaplain]

If the Bible is "god's inspired holy infallable word" then why didn't god use that example of what not to do?

Two thoughts:

1. Does He have to? If so, you win, hands down. There are many examples of God's people, leaders, prophets, etc. doing wrong things, and God not immediately responding.

2. If you're attempting to show that the Bible is NOT "God's inspired, holy, infallible word," then merely offering editing suggestions will hardly prove convincing. B)

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

If the Bible is "god's inspired holy infallable word" then why didn't god use that example of what not to do?

Two thoughts:

1. Does He have to?

Only if the Bible is meant to be an all-inclusive guide to morality. Furthermore, since god just destroyed Sodom for it's immorality, and Lot's wife for having the audacity to turn around and look at the destruction, yet we then immediately following find Lot & kids engaging in "wicked" acts which were just as bad (and arguably more so than Lot's wife's actions), but to receive no punishment, shows god has a double standard.

Unless god approved of incest (which apparently he did from Adam to Lot). But why the sudden change of heart in Moses' day?

[prisonchaplain]

Only if the Bible is meant to be an all-inclusive guide to morality.

Well, He did so "no" to incest. The fact that there is an account of incest in which God does not immediately react is no indication that he approved of it, nor that a price was not paid for the unlawful activity. Likewise with Abraham's lying about his wife, and numerous other episodes of the like.

Furthermore, since god just destroyed Sodom for it's immorality, and Lot's wife for having the audacity to turn around and look at the destruction, yet we then immediately following find Lot & kids engaging in "wicked" acts which were just as bad (and arguably more so than Lot's wife's actions), but to receive no punishment, shows god has a double standard.

Your expectation that as the biblical narrative plays out, EVERY incidence of disobedience will have God's reaction and punishments spelled out is one that God chose not to meet. We are told that incest is wrong, and we can learn from the story of Lot about the dangers of getting to cozy with the sinful society that surrounds us. Skeptics may find inconsistency here, but I find a refreshing truthfulness. The stories don't have to have all loose ends neatly tied. God communicates his will, interacts with his people, and the best of his prophets falter, and the worst sinners sometimes find redemption.

If you don't believe the Bible is really God's story, then you might look at it from a literary standpoint. If you do believe it's words contain God's perscription for how we should live, then you'll look for lessons, teachings, examples to follow. I frankly don't understand the effort to look for inconsistencies, or other such efforts to disprove God's benevolent character.

Unless god approved of incest (which apparently he did from Adam to Lot). But why the sudden change of heart in Moses' day?

You know full well that God did prohibit incest. Why the change? My guess would be that the dangers of incest hightened as nature's corruption continued to degenerate. As the gene pool diversified, incest become an unnecessary danger, and thus was banned.

[JohnTaylor1886]

JT.

You must have a lot more free time than I do. If you would like to see more indepth posts, with thoughtful replies, I'd be happy to go along. But don't expect more than one a day from me.

I have a lot of free time because I do not sleep very much at night and I work in the afternoons, lol. Yes, I admit, I am one of those that does very well on 4-5 hours of sleep. Besides, I could think of much more to do with those 8 hours than just lie. I'll sleep well when I am dead, lol.

I promised that I would give examples of the Bible mistranslations and contradictions. Now, the teachings of the Bible I do not call into question. However, those that argue the standpoint of Biblical inerrancy go far beyond that, they argue that the Bible is also accurate as a text.

I have already stated that there are books to which the Bible refers, but are not present. There is a list of them in the LDS KJV of the Bible.

a. Book of the wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14)

b. Book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13, II Samuel 1:18) Some argue that the present book has been found, others say that it is not the same book. It can be found online. Judge for yourself.

c. Book of the acts of Solomon (I Kings 11:41)

d. Book of Samuel the seer (I Chronicles 29:29)

e. Book of Gad the seer (I Chronicles 29:29)

f. Book of Nathan the prophet (I Chronicles 29:29, II Chronicles 9:29)

g. Prophecy of Ahijah (II Chronicles 9:29)

h. Visions of Iddo the seer (II Chronicles 9:29, 12:15, 13:22)

i. Book of Shemaiah (II Chronicles 12:15)

j. Book of Jehu (II Chronicles 20:34)

k. Sayings of the seers (II Chronicles 33:19)

l. An earlier epistle to the Corinthians (earlier than I Corinthians) (I Corinthians 5:9)

m. A possible earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Ephesians 3:3)

n. An epistle to the church at Laodicea (Colossians 4:16)

o. Prophecies of Enoch that were known to Jude (Jude 1:14). There is some dispute that the Pseudepigraphal books of I and II Enoch fit this category.

15 books. Over half the size of the New Testament. Now, how could a perfectly infallible text have gaping references like text? Or is it that the bible was once an infallible text, but isn't now? The Biblical inerrancy camp would not concede to either of these points. The common argument is that we have all that we need for our salvation, but that is not our decision to make.

There are a few contradictions in the Bible. Acts 9:7 says that there was a voice but no man. And yet, the same story is recounted in Acts 22:9. Those same men saw a light, but heard no voice.

Others can be found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). What hour did the crucifixion take place?

Matthew 27:45--"Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour"

Mark 15:25--"And it was the third hour, and they crucified him"

Luke 23:44--"And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour"

John 19:13-14--"When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement , but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

We have two accounts that put darkness at the sixth hour, one that says he was crucified at the thrid hour, and John says that at the sixth hour, Pilate was still addressing the crowd with Christ present Also contradictory are the exact wording of the title written over the cross (Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, John 19:19) and the account of the two thieves crucified beside Christ (see Matthew 27:43-44 and Luke 23:39-43).

Matthew 27:9 points to a prophecy made by Jeremy the prophet. If Jeremy is the same as Jeremiah as most would claim, then that prophecy is not in that book. It is actually found in Zechariah 11:13. Either Matthew got it wrong, or there is a prophecy that is not located in the Bible.

Matthew 27:5 says that Judas [iscariot] hanged himself. However, Acts 1:18 says that is was a fall that killed him.

Oddly enough, in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, it seems that the large majority of the manuscripts leaves out John 5:4, as does the Vulgate version. Yet it is still there.

In II Kings 2:23-24, we read of two she-bears that came out of the woods and slew 42 children. Were they children? The Hebrew from verse 23 uses the word ne'arim, which means a young man, probably an adolescent. From verse 24, they are referred to as yeladim, which means a young boy, probably the age of a schoolkid. So, which was it? Looking at the verse strictly in the English text, one would think that God punishes little children with terrible punishments, but that is not the case, especially when one does not realize the full extent of one's sin. Personally, I take the point of view that it was a group of youths that were being a bit rowdy with Elisha, and they got torn apart. However, the text itself is very unclear.

I am also sure that many have taken issue with the actual translation of Elohim, meaning "Gods". Even with the Documentary Hypothesis, and seeing as how many say that they are monotheists, it makes me wonder. Why is the plural form used? Is Jesus also part of Elohim? I think so. But then, the dual form isn't used either. So where is the third or other elements? My answer may serve as Occam's razor on ths one we worship one God, but that does not negate the existence of many gods. If the Bible meant only one God, it sure has a funny way of expressing it.

I am sure some of these points are well-known, but it seems that Biblical inerrantists do not pay them much attnetion.