Ancient texts through a different lens.

[unsafe]

The example that was recently pointed out to me was in teh two creation stories to try and resolve the question of whether humanity was created before or after the animals (Genesis 2:19)

GordW ---with your background as a Minister of God --it baffles me that you believe there are contradictions in the Bible ---for every contradiction people come up with there is an explanation and study will show that God does not Contradict Himself ---

Instead of Criticizing God and His word ---who apparently called you to represent Him ----do some research -----

Read all for your self --I just posted this section =====

Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2?​

Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2? | GotQuestions.org

Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2? Are there contradictions between Genesis chapters 1 and 2?

www.gotquestions.org

Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins.​

The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event.​

They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. ​

Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest); ​

Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.​

​

There are no contradictions in Scripture --all so called contradictions that people say are in Scripture can be explained and clarified with a little honest research ------

People want to find contradictions to discredit God and His word --who is Jesus by the way ----The Word became Flesh ----and dwelt among us -----

 

[unsafe]

There is a whole list that this person gives here --for so called contradictions ----that are then explained -----read all for yourserlves​

Answering Biblical Contradictions​

Bible Contradictions Explained

Is the Bible filled with contradictions? Many times skeptics will present a list of so-call contradictions such as whether God repents, the time of Jesus' death, and when Peter denied him. Here, Lenny responds to several objecions and shows why the approach of these skeptics fails.

www.comereason.org

Hi there! I love this site!
I was looking to answer some questions on another site where people were asking about religion and stuff. This person supplied a list of so-called "contradictions" in the Bible that someone listed. I told them not to take things out of context but Id like details. Can you help answer them?

Thank you for writing.
Many times you will see some detractor bring out a list of so-called contradictions such as these. There are many online and some are quite long. All go to great lengths to try and prove that the Bible is filled with errors.

However, if one is looking at these passages objectively, you will find it is the list maker who is being dishonest in his approach.

That's because they have chosen to ignore the context in which the statement.
The critic has taken only a simplistic approach to the statements made and ignored the larger context in which they are given. They therefore seem like a contradiction but this is really not so.

 

[Mystic]

THat is an interesting way of reading it... THough I seem to recall that the team behind the NIV tried to make choices to hide the contradictions in the text.

First, the translation 'had created:" is not a mistranslation; so there is no need to allege a contradiction here.
Second, this translation implies only that the animals were created prior to the act of naming them, not necessarily prior to the creation of Adam and Eve.
So no grounds for criticizing the NIV translators.

 

[KayTheCurler]

The way we approach ancient texts reveals a fascinating dichotomy between religious and secular interpretation, particularly evident in biblical studies versus other ancient literature.

The New Testament, for instance, contains numerous documented contradictions, from divergent genealogies of Jesus to conflicting accounts of Judas's death, yet these inconsistencies are often addressed differently than those found in secular texts.

When examining religious texts, believers frequently employ complex theological justifications to reconcile contradictions, maintaining beliefs in literal truth despite evidence suggesting human authorship and oral tradition influences. This phenomenon demonstrates how religious conviction can lead to elaborate interpretative frameworks that are not applied to other ancient works.

In contrast, secular ancient texts like Aesop's Fables or The Arabian Nights are approached with greater interpretative flexibility. These works are readily appreciated as valuable cultural and historical artifacts that combine fantasy elements with moral teachings, without requiring literal belief in their contents. Their fantastic elements are understood as vehicles for conveying deeper truths rather than facts that requiring defense or justification.

This disparity in interpretative approaches raises important questions about how we engage with ancient texts. When religious works are confined to frameworks of literal interpretation, their potential value as cultural and literary artifacts becomes diminished. The evidence suggests that many biblical inconsistencies can be better understood through the lens of oral tradition evolution, similar to how stories naturally change as they pass through multiple re-telling's, rather than through complex theological explanations.

A more nuanced approach to religious texts, one that mirrors how we engage with secular ancient literature, would potentially enrich our understanding of these works. This would allow for deeper appreciation of their moral and philosophical messages, at the same time acknowledging their human origins and historical context. Such an approach need not diminish their spiritual significance but could instead offer new paths for meaningful engagement with these important cultural documents.

The differing treatment of religious and secular ancient texts highlights human psychology and belief systems. While secular works are freely analyzed for their literary and cultural value, religious texts often remain bound by literal interpretation, limiting their potential as historical and literary artifacts. A literary approach to the Bible would foster deeper engagement with its themes, whilst reducing cognitive dissonance.
By examining these different approaches, we gain insight into how cultural and religious frameworks shape our understanding of ancient writings, and how alternative interpretative strategies enhance our appreciation of all ancient texts.

Do you in this group think this is a better way to understand each other going forward.

Very well said. Itis something I have pondered over the years. You are more academic in your understanding but make it easy for others to understand your message. Thanks.

 

[Mystic]

So let us look at what the Bible itself says about biblical inspiration:

"16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17)."

Notice that there is no claim here about scientific or historical inspiration. What is divinely inspired is the treatment of matters of faith

 

[paradox3]

So let us look at what the Bible itself says about biblical inspiration:

"16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17)."

Notice that there is no claim here about scientific or historical inspiration. What is divinely inspired is the treatment of matters of faith

What would the writer have meant by scripture, do you suppose? The Torah? The Tanakh?

 

[Mystic]

What would the writer have meant by scripture, do you suppose? The Torah? The Tanakh?

The Hebrew Bible, our OT. Our NT never quotes the Apocrypha found in the Septuagint; so it is doubtful that the Septuagint is intended.

 

[Jaebius]

The example that was recently pointed out to me was in teh two creation stories to try and resolve the question of whether humanity was created before or after the animals (Genesis 2:19) . The translation choice (not necessarily a mistranslation but a choice as I origninally said) affects the verb tense. NIV says "Now the Lord God had formed" implying that the creatures had already been created, NRSV reads "So the Lord God formed" which suggests that they had not yet been created but were then created as a part of the finding a partner for adam as named in verse 18. Same video had other examples but I can't remember what they were off the top of my head.

The JPS translation of the Tanakh, the Jerusalem Bible, the KJV, and the Good News all agree with the NRSV.

The two English language Bibles I use...

"The LORD God took soil from the ground and he made all the animals and birds. He brought them to the man..." - EASY

"So the LORD God formed from the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky. He brought them to the man..." - NLT

So they agree with the NRSV

 

[unsafe]

What would the writer have meant by scripture, do you suppose? The Torah? The Tanakh?

Strong's Lexicon
graphé: Scripture, writing

HELPS Word-studies
1124 graphḗ – properly, writing. 1124 (graphḗ) is used 51 times in the NT – always of holy Scripture, i.e. the inspired, inerrant writings of the Bible (the 66 books of Scripture, 39 in Hebrew, 27 in Greek).

Usage: In the New Testament, "graphé" primarily refers to the sacred writings of the Old Testament, regarded as divinely inspired and authoritative. It is used to denote the collection of books that constitute the Hebrew Bible, which were considered the Word of God by early Christians. The term underscores the belief in the divine origin and enduring authority of these texts.

Cultural and Historical Background: In the Jewish tradition, the Scriptures were central to religious life, serving as the foundation for teaching, worship, and moral guidance.

By the time of the New Testament, the term "graphé" was well-established to refer to these sacred texts. The early Christian community, rooted in Jewish tradition, adopted this term to affirm the continuity and fulfillment of the Old Testament in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. The reverence for Scripture as God's revealed word was a cornerstone of both Jewish and early Christian faith.

 

[unsafe]

People need to take the blindfold off their eyes and see the Scripture with the Right LENS --

 

[GordW]

What would the writer have meant by scripture, do you suppose? The Torah? The Tanakh?

PRobably some combination of books from Hebrew Scripture (that canon had not yet been closed), possibly some other Hebrew writings that would not make it into the canon and possibly (those less likely) some early Christian writings that had already started to circulate

 

[unsafe]

Why do people interpret religious and secular texts so differently?
How does strong religious belief shape the way contradictions in sacred texts are handled?

Question 1---- Why do people interpret religious and secular texts so differently?

because there are 2 views -----one spiritual --one non Spiritual ----the non spiritual view will interpret the text differently than the Spiritual view ----as the one Spiritual gets the interpretation from the Holy Spirit ----the non Spiritual gets the interpretation from their own human way of thinking -- ----


Question 2 ------How does strong religious belief shape the way contradictions in sacred texts are handled?

All Religions are Man Made so their Strong Man Made Religious Beliefs don't try to shape the way contradictions are handled in scared text cause they don't have the ability to see the the whole Forest for the trees that block their view so all they see is the contradiction ---the god of this world blinds the minds of the strong Man Made Religions ---and clutters the forest with forefront trees so the contradiction stands out -----

It it not by Religious Beliefs that contradictions are handled in Scripture -----it is by the understanding that is given by the Holy Spirit that there are no contradictions in the scared text to begin with -----Reading the Chapter in Context and having wisdom along with understanding deals rightly and takes the confusion away -----

This word Con--Text tells the story ---Take the Text out of Context and what are you left with ----A ---CON ---

Con dictionary meaning
involving dishonesty and trickery;
deceitful:swindled by a con artist.

 

[chansen]

Question 1---- Why do people interpret religious and secular texts so differently?

because there are 2 views -----one spiritual --one non Spiritual ----the non spiritual view will interpret the text differently than the Spiritual view ----as the one Spiritual gets the interpretation from the Holy Spirit ----the non Spiritual gets the interpretation from their own human way of thinking -- ----

That's called "logic". I should introduce you two some time.

Question 2 ------How does strong religious belief shape the way contradictions in sacred texts are handled?

All Religions are Man Made so their Strong Man Made Religious Beliefs don't try to shape the way contradictions are handled in scared text cause they don't have the ability to see the the whole Forest for the trees that block their view so all they see is the contradiction ---the god of this world blinds the minds of the strong Man Made Religions ---and clutters the forest with forefront trees so the contradiction stands out -----

It it not by Religious Beliefs that contradictions are handled in Scripture -----it is by the understanding that is given by the Holy Spirit that there are no contradictions in the scared text to begin with -----Reading the Chapter in Context and having wisdom along with understanding deals rightly and takes the confusion away -----

This word Con--Text tells the story ---Take the Text out of Context and what are you left with ----A ---CON ---

Con dictionary meaning
involving dishonesty and trickery;
deceitful:swindled by a con artist.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting the etymology of "context" is "con" and "text"?

I looked it up, and the etymology is pretty cool. It's basically "con" (with/together) and "text" (weave). So context is basically "weave together", which makes perfect sense in...um...context.

Yeah, I get that you're going for some sort of folksy wisdom there, but it's neither folksy nor wisdom.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Unsafe.

Your first reply is assuming the religious view is automatically right and the non-religious view is automatically wrong. But really, how we understand things depends on lots of stuff like how we grew up, what we learned in school, and what we personally believe. Even people who believe in the same religion often disagree about what their holy books mean. If the Holy Spirit was guiding everyone to the right answer, wouldn't all religious people agree?
However, history shows they don't.

Your second reply is saying that when things seem to contradict each other in religious texts, it must be because we just don't understand them properly.
However, even religious scholars admit that parts of the bible say contradictory things. Sometimes they can figure out why this happens by studying the context, however, even religious scholars can't explain why some parts disagree with each other. So the question remains. "How does strong religious belief shape the way contradictions in sacred texts are handled? Hopefully not as badly as you.

 

[unsafe]

If the Holy Spirit was guiding everyone to the right answer, wouldn't all religious people agree?
However, history shows they don't.

NO All Religions are Man made ----and most are unbelievers like yourself ----the Holy Spirit indwells only those who have received Jesus and without the Holy spirit in you you are away from God -----Jesus is the bridge to getting to the Father and having the Holy Spirit"s direction ---without Jesus you cannot approach God and be heard ---and that is according to scripture -

The Holy Spirit's job is to guide only believers to the Truth behind the words of the Scripture ---this is called the Rhema word ----you see the Logos is just the written word and any unbeliever who can read can read the written word but not understand the truth of the Scripture ---the Rhema word is the Spoken word behind the Logos word and only then can you get the true Spiritual message -----comes only through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and you have to ask through Prayer for the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to you ----

Example
Mark 10:25 ----
New International Version
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

how do unbelievers view this and make human sense of it -----

how do believers view this and get the Spiritual sense of it

Question
So what is your take on this scripture -----as an unbeliever ------

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Unsafe.

What you imagine the Holy Spirit is saying to you through this rhema word is purely subjective, your own interpretation. I have no take on what scripture means to a Christian; it could mean anything.

For non-Christians (not just non-believers), the Bible holds no more authority than any other sacred text. Just as Christians dismiss the Quran or Bhagavad Gita, non-Christians are not obligated to see the Bible as divine. As you've stated. It’s a human-made document, shaped by agendas, not an infallible guide. Its scriptures contradict, which only weakens its credibility.

Using scripture to prove itself is circular reasoning. If the Bible were true, it would stand up to scrutiny through reason and evidence, not just faith. Quoting scripture to a skeptic is like using a Harry Potter book to prove magic, it assumes belief where there is none.

If Christians reject the Quran as proof of Islam, they should understand why non-Christians dismiss biblical arguments. The only real use for scripture in debate is to highlight inconsistencies or problematic teachings, not because it holds authority.

At the end of the day, the claim of the Bible’s divine authority falls apart under scrutiny. All believers make the same assertions about their texts, yet they contradict each other. The Bible, is full of contradictions, translation errors, and differing canons, is no different. It relies entirely on faith, not proof, so there’s nothing more to say.

 

[paradox3]

I see the bible as a faith story of a people. It contains some historical detail and a great deal of mythology. But it's still my faith story and I find engaging with it to be extremely valuable.

Very nice post @Pavlos Maros

 

[Luce NDs]

So let us look at what the Bible itself says about biblical inspiration:

"16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17)."

Notice that there is no claim here about scientific or historical inspiration. What is divinely inspired is the treatment of matters of faith

How about all the other material that was rite ... wrote?

 

[Luce NDs]

Unsafe.

What you imagine the Holy Spirit is saying to you through this rhema word is purely subjective, your own interpretation. I have no take on what scripture means to a Christian; it could mean anything.

For non-Christians (not just non-believers), the Bible holds no more authority than any other sacred text. Just as Christians dismiss the Quran or Bhagavad Gita, non-Christians are not obligated to see the Bible as divine. As you've stated. It’s a human-made document, shaped by agendas, not an infallible guide. Its scriptures contradict, which only weakens its credibility.

Using scripture to prove itself is circular reasoning. If the Bible were true, it would stand up to scrutiny through reason and evidence, not just faith. Quoting scripture to a skeptic is like using a Harry Potter book to prove magic, it assumes belief where there is none.

If Christians reject the Quran as proof of Islam, they should understand why non-Christians dismiss biblical arguments. The only real use for scripture in debate is to highlight inconsistencies or problematic teachings, not because it holds authority.

At the end of the day, the claim of the Bible’s divine authority falls apart under scrutiny. All believers make the same assertions about their texts, yet they contradict each other. The Bible, is full of contradictions, translation errors, and differing canons, is no different. It relies entirely on faith, not proof, so there’s nothing more to say.

Thus the expansive nature of story and folly ... and a place where mistakes can reside? Pithy ...

First of all give nothing to the other ... as an alternate translation! Yet-I 1st case, remember the CIA is an agent out of perspective of the person that despises intelligence ... knowledge is out there and emotions will sink when all alone ... 2 handed effort? Open to transnational wealth applicants?

The po' can take off thus dung flies ... and ducks ... Don 've auld ... and he doesn't know ...

 

[Luce NDs]

I see the bible as a faith story of a people. It contains some historical detail and a great deal of mythology. But it's still my faith story and I find engaging with it to be extremely valuable.

Very nice post @Pavlos Maros

Can one bifurcate or separate history and myth ... doubt ful as a + ... or doobie plus an enigma ... unresolved paradox? The past being one time the future another and a problem in psyche ... no gathering at present as we look our opposite ova ...

Which viper strikes first? Caduceus ... it is a sign of a vicious cut ... slice of virtue?