Contradictions or what?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You are proof that one can change the way they see God as evil and come to see God as just and good.

And I am proof that one can change the way they see the biblegod as good and come to see the biblegod as unjust and evil.

I don't want to be contrary about everything, but I just couldn't pass this one up.

[culi26]

End Extract:

Culi26 - I have no idea why you feel sad for me. I was only trying to help you and I did not make that youtube video but whether the quality is high or low we should be grateful that guy took the time to make it. Now I didn't directly answer your question as I have not been over every detail of the book of Numbers yet but I just wanted to help you gain confidence in the numbers with the example from Chapter 2.

The old testament has been a serious stumbling block for me but I have realised I was just looking at it the wrong way. Obviously if you are finding contradictions they are either real or you are interpreting wrong. The question is to find out what the answer to that is. I used to think the God of the old testament was evil before I started trying to understand it differently using Christ as the key.

Does the cross represents Jesus or vice versa?

Firstly, drawing is something else and that cross means nothing! If one opens the arms takes the form of the cross, right? But, should this be a sign that Christianity is the truth? Absolutely not! Even an ape when open his arms takes a form of the cross. Can we call him a Christian??

If I were a Christian I would rather have a donkey around my neck than a cross!
Jesus(pbuh) certainly had much more fun riding the donkey than when he was on the cross!

I apologize if you feel offended, but this is not my purpose! All I'm trying to say is that the cross is a pagan symbol! There are enough things related to Christianity which have pagan backgrounds!

During the first two centuries of Christianity, the cross may have been rare in Christian iconography, as it depicts a purposely painful and gruesome method of public execution and Christians were reluctant to use it. The extensive adoption of the cross as Christian iconographic symbol arose from the 4th century.
Christianity because of lack of identity accepted the cross as a symbol! Just like Muslims did with the Star and Crescent!

The crescent was not a symbol used for Islam by Muhammad, as Islam is against appointing "Holy Symbols" (so that during the early centuries of Islam, Muslim authorities simply didn't want any geometric symbols to be used to symbolize Islam, in the way that the cross symbolizes Christianity, the menorah was a commonly-occurring symbol of Judaism, etc.).
But today almost every mosque has this symbol!

People are like this! Whenever they cannot identify themselves, they will accept one symbol as a identity! Then they will do their best to raise up their symbol!
Unfortunately there were wars: The CROSS VS CRESCENT! A lot of them were fighting for their symbol, not for God!

But, keep in mind, religion has nothing to do with symbols!

Once again, I apologize if you feel offended, but that wasn't my purpose!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The total for Levitesl (Numbers 3:39) was 22,000 and the total for the Israelites (Numbers 3:43) was 22,273 Num 3:50 Of the firstborn of the children of Israel took he the money; a thousand three hundred and threescore and five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary:
The total money collected is 1365 shekels and at 5 shekels per head = 273 The difference in numbers is correct and Israel out numbered Levi by 273..

David

That's some good sleuthing David! It makes sense that the shekel money matches the 273 Levite children. But I still see a problem. Indeed, I think there is an irreconcilable contradiction in these numbers.

The total number of males from a month old upward sums to 22,300:

Numbers 3:22 From Gershon- 7500 males from a month old and upward.
Numbers 3:28 From Kohath- 8600 males from a month old and upward.
Numbers 3:34 From Merari- 6200 males from a month old and upward.

SUM = 22,300

But Numbers 3:39 says "All the numbered men of the Levites ... every male from a month old and upward, were 22,000."

That's a difference of 300. The counts should have been identical. They were both counting male Levites from a month old and upward. Do you have an explanation for this?

The confusion gets deeper when we look at the first born amongst all Israel, excluding the Levites who were taken "instead of all the first born among the sons of Israel" -

Numbers 3:40 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Number every first-born male of the sons of Israel from a month old and upward, and make a list of their names. 41 "And you shall take the Levites for Me, I am the LORD, instead of all the first-born among the sons of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of all the first-born among the cattle of the sons of Israel." 42 So Moses numbered all the first-born among the sons of Israel, just as the LORD had commanded him; 43 and all the first-born males by the number of names from a month old and upward, for their numbered men were 22,273.

The number Israelites (22,273) is only three less than than the second count of the Levites (22,300). That seems like an odd coincidence. But in any case, the text confirms that the first count of the Levites was correct:

Numbers 3:46 "And for the ransom of the 273 of the first-born of the sons of Israel who are in excess beyond the Levites, 47 you shall take five shekels apiece, per head; you shall take them in terms of the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), 48 and give the money, the ransom of those who are in excess among them, to Aaron and to his sons." 49 So Moses took the ransom money from those who were in excess, beyond those ransomed by the Levites; 50 from the first-born of the sons of Israel he took the money in terms of the shekel of the sanctuary, 1,365.

Here the text says that there were 273 more Israelites than Levites. That means that there were only 22,000 Levites. But this directly contradicts the numbers listed which sum to 22,300.

So it looks like there is an irreconcilable contradiction here.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Is the work you presented above in your book? - I may need a copy downunder.

Yep. And it is reproduced on my site in the link I gave: Spoke 4: The Foursquare Camp in the Wilderness

I found this explanation on the cross in the wilderness:

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2006/631/print/

That's similar to the information I've seen elsewhere, and a lot of it is included in the book.

The old testament has been a serious stumbling block for me but I have realised I was just looking at it the wrong way. Obviously if you are finding contradictions they are either real or you are interpreting wrong. The question is to find out what the answer to that is. I used to think the God of the old testament was evil before I started trying to understand it differently using Christ as the key.

I know that some of the "contradictions" are just misunderstandings. Some appear to be scribal errors but could just as well be errors in the original, and others are just plain contradictions that were there in the originals. So I don't worry much about it because I know that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God. But then again, I know that the Bible has had a powerful influence over people's minds for thousands of years, and that much of it was copied into the Quran, and that there are patterns in the Bible that seem somehow supernatural, so what it all means is one big mystery to me!

And I'm fine with that!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Does the cross represents Jesus or vice versa?

NEITHER!

The cross does not represent Jesus, and Jesus does not represent the cross.

The cross represents that way that Christ died to save the world from sin.

How is it you don't know this? Allah told you this in the Gospel that He gave to His Son Jesus Christ:

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of Allah. 19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not Allah made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of Allah, the world through wisdom did not know Allah, it pleased Allah through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of Allah and the wisdom of Allah. 25 Because the foolishness of Allah is wiser than men, and the weakness of Allah is stronger than men.

Allah sure did have some cool stuff to say!

Quran 3:3 He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

Quran 3:84 Say: We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.

Quran 17:2 We gave unto Moses the Scripture, and We appointed it a guidance for the children of Israel, saying: Choose no guardian beside Me.

[luke1978]

This talks about the numbers in numbers:

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/Numbe...s_Lesson_2.htm

I'm going to come back to this thread tonight(Australian time) but just at a quick glance maybe one of you in a different timezone can see if this explains any contradictions you have found. I'm actually at work so don't have the time right now but this link seems fairly comprehensive if someone wants to check it out.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This talks about the numbers in numbers:

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/Numbe...s_Lesson_2.htm

I'm going to come back to this thread tonight(Australian time) but just at a quick glance maybe one of you in a different timezone can see if this explains any contradictions you have found. I'm actually at work so don't have the time right now but this link seems fairly comprehensive if someone wants to check it out.

The only clue I found on that page was this note:

The NJB is following the Septuagint translation which lists the census of the Kohathites as 8,300 as opposed to the Hebrew translation which records their numbers as 8,600 (JPS Torah Commentary; Numbers, page 20; The Jewish Study Bible, page 289). Since the total number for the clans given in verse 39 for both the Greek Septuagint translation and the Hebrew Masoretic text is 22,000, this number would seem to indicate that the Septuagint, which is an older translation than the Masoretic text, is in this case the more accurate translation. The total numbers of the Levite clans in the census in the Hebrew translation do not add up to 22,000 but add up to 22,300.

This is actually very enlightening. It suggests that the error may have been a mere scribal error. But on the other hand, it could have been an error in the original document that the writer of the LXX fixed. I doubt we'll ever know. In any case, we know that the Bible we have received from history is far from inerrant. And this should be kept in mind when studying anything in the book. There is no justification for taking it as authoritative. Each reader must judge for themselves the validity of each and every word. The Bible may be a great "magic mirror" for introspection or devotion to God, but it is not so good as a "guide" since we must interpret it for ourselves and sort out the truth from the error for ourselves. And that's great! Because that's how it should be. The fundamentalist position that says the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God is very unhealthy. It corrupts the hearts and minds of believers and makes them vulnerable to con-men preachers.

[David M]

And I am proof that one can change the way they see the biblegod as good and come to see the biblegod as unjust and evil.

I don't want to be contrary about everything, but I just couldn't pass this one up.

Hello Richard,
I did not want to mention you and Rose specifically, but I had you in mind. I am considering your conversion as a blip. Who knows, you might have another epiphany moment and realize that God is not the evil God you now see him as. Maybe what you are doing is God's way of testing my faith and others as I said the other day when God does not intervene. I have asked myself the question many times and it is the best explanation I can find. God is hands off letting man rule himself showing us that man is incapable of doing that which is good and right by enlarge. God intervenes when it suits His purpose either to punish and thereby teach a lesson to those observing or reading of later. We do not always see the reason why God does things until later and that is when the wisdom of God is shown to be far wiser than the wisdom of men. If we take this approach and keep looking for God's wisdom, it is better than jumping to the wrong conclusions without fully realizing all the facts.

The only clue I found on that page was this note:

The NJB is following the Septuagint translation which lists the census of the Kohathites as 8,300 as opposed to the Hebrew translation which records their numbers as 8,600 (JPS Torah Commentary; Numbers, page 20; The Jewish Study Bible, page 289). Since the total number for the clans given in verse 39 for both the Greek Septuagint translation and the Hebrew Masoretic text is 22,000, this number would seem to indicate that the Septuagint, which is an older translation than the Masoretic text, is in this case the more accurate translation. The total numbers of the Levite clans in the census in the Hebrew translation do not add up to 22,000 but add up to 22,300.

This is actually very enlightening. It suggests that the error may have been a mere scribal error. But on the other hand, it could have been an error in the original document that the writer of the LXX fixed. I doubt we'll ever know. In any case, we know that the Bible we have received from history is far from inerrant. And this should be kept in mind when studying anything in the book. There is no justification for taking it as authoritative. Each reader must judge for themselves the validity of each and every word. The Bible may be a great "magic mirror" for introspection or devotion to God, but it is not so good as a "guide" since we must interpret it for ourselves and sort out the truth from the error for ourselves. And that's great! Because that's how it should be. The fundamentalist position that says the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God is very unhealthy. It corrupts the hearts and minds of believers and makes them vulnerable to con-men preachers.

Thank you for your research. This is when all your studies can come into their own like the information you have put into the Bible Wheel. I guessed the error would have been in the 8,600 or the 7,500 because taking off 300 does not make such a significant change as taking 300 from 6,200 making 5,900. This error would be less likely because you have to change the 6 and the 2 to 5 and 9 and the actual error of the 300 is caused by changing just one digit; the 6 or the 5.

This goes to prove that errors introduced by the scribes are of human making and really are not that serious. It is more serious to get important doctrines wrong. I would look for solutions and in this case it has been found. Consider if you had not produced the evidence of the error, there will be those reading the earlier post and agreeing that this is another reason to refute the Bible as the word of God. I have faith to think that all the errors can be fixed if there is a will to do so. Because we do not have the original documents some errors might not be fixable.

The same can be said about paradoxes in the Bible. If there is a will to resolve the paradoxes, they can be explained. I find it tragic that you do not accept my alternative explanations that will fix some of the paradoxes. It is better to be honest and say; I know there are two ways of looking at this. Instead of keep pushing one interpretation, especially when you say you do not believe the Bible anymore, you should present the alternatives. If you do not believe the Bible, why are you partial to one interpretation? I think you are doing so subconciously to justify your position and make out it is not you, who is at fault. To continue to push only one explanation as in the case of "angels" in Jude 6 just goes to prove my point. It is both paradoxical and ironic that as you are so intelligent and learned you can make this mistake. It is as if you are finding it difficult to accept the truth, otherwise you will have to renounce the wrong ideas you are still hanging onto. Somehow those wrong ideas have to be replaced and that is my only wish and desire to see happen, as togther with all your knowledge, you would become a formidable proponent for the word of God just as the apostle Paul became after his conversion. As Jesus said to Saul (who was renamed Paul); "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" In other words, Paul knew what the truth was and was kicking against it and the revealing of Jesus to him was proverbially; "the last straw that broke the camels back". Paul knew His scriptures and knew they spoke of Jesus. The jews remain blind to this day to the fact that Jesus is revealed by type in the OT and their scriptures foretold of his coming. The majority of Jews were blind (for a number of reasons) to his presence with them and remains that way until this day. The Bible tells us that the veil will be lifted from their (spiritual) eyes when Jesus comes back as their Messiah to save them. This was what they were hoping for in the time of the Roman occupation and because Jesus was not their Messiah at that time, they rejected him.

I shall keep plugging away at this, hoping that these things will eventually be seen by those who have similar veils over their eyes, or like Paul, are refusing to accept the evidence they know to be true.

All the best,

David

[Rose]

Hello Richard,
I did not want to mention you and Rose specifically, but I had you in mind. I am considering your conversion as a blip. Who knows, you might have another epiphany moment and realize that God is not the evil God you now see him as. Maybe what you are doing is God's way of testing my faith and others as I said the other day when God does not intervene. I have asked myself the question many times and it is the best explanation I can find. God is hands off letting man rule himself showing us that man is incapable of doing that which is good and right by enlarge. God intervenes when it suits His purpose either to punish and thereby teach a lesson to those observing or reading of later. We do not always see the reason why God does things until later and that is when the wisdom of God is shown to be far wiser than the wisdom of men. If we take this approach and keep looking for God's wisdom, it is better than jumping to the wrong conclusions without fully realizing all the facts.


All the best,

David

Hello David,

I understand your hopefulness, but it's not like I woke up one morning and chose to reject the biblegod. My de-conversion was more like a blind-man receiving sight, whereas before because of my blindness to the real nature of the Bible I believed things based on what others told me. When I began to study for myself and see what the Bible really taught, my eyes were opened to the truth of what it contained.

Imagine if you were blind, and your whole life people told you that the view from where you lived was beautiful, there were snow-capped mountains in the distance with lush green forests. Then one day after having surgery on your eyes you could see, but to your shock and surprise there were no beautiful snow-capped mountains in the distance, or lush green forests...instead a parched dry land stretched out in all directions! Could you ever go back to believing in the beauty of the mountains and forests? Of course not. That is the way it is with me. My study of the Bible has shown me that its god is not a god of goodness, and love like I once believed, but rather he is a male-biased warrior god who denies women equal human rights, and commands their rape and murder! And that is only the beginning.

You say that God intervenes when it suits his purpose and we don't always know why, but don't you see that is the only explanation you can have! Otherwise, it looks like the biblegod is a capricious, arrogant, tyrant who uses humans as his pawns in a game where he keeps changing the rules. I hope you now understand why I could never go back to believing that the Bible is the word of god, it would be like believing in Santa Clause again...

Take care,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard,
I did not want to mention you and Rose specifically, but I had you in mind. I am considering your conversion as a blip. Who knows, you might have another epiphany moment and realize that God is not the evil God you now see him as. Maybe what you are doing is God's way of testing my faith and others as I said the other day when God does not intervene. I have asked myself the question many times and it is the best explanation I can find. God is hands off letting man rule himself showing us that man is incapable of doing that which is good and right by enlarge. God intervenes when it suits His purpose either to punish and thereby teach a lesson to those observing or reading of later. We do not always see the reason why God does things until later and that is when the wisdom of God is shown to be far wiser than the wisdom of men. If we take this approach and keep looking for God's wisdom, it is better than jumping to the wrong conclusions without fully realizing all the facts.

Hi David,

I too consider by deconversion a "blip" in the sense that my view is constantly evolving. I have swung to the "opposite extreme" after breaking free from many false ideas about the Bible. But I'm open to whatever truth may come. And according to your view, something like this was absolutely necessary for me to see the truth in Scripture anyway since my ideas have been infected with false, man-made doctrines. Be that as it may, the only thing I know is that I am still in motion - I don't know where my momentum will lead me though it is very difficult to imagine that I could ever again see any book as the "Word of God" in the simplistic sense common amongst Christians, Muslims, and Jews. And I never will be able to believe that we can resolve all the problems with facile logic and word games. My target is truth - BLAZING TRUTH - that needs no shifting and malleable words for justification. But neither can I deny that I have plenty of evidence that there is something "special" about the Bible. It is unique in many ways when compared to other religious texts. So where this all will lead is a mystery to me right now.

It is possible that my whole process of challenging Scripture in light of TRUTH (logic, facts, intuition, science, philosophy, the Works) may be precisely what God wants me to do since it is the only path to truth. It shocks and offends "true believers" but that may be what they need too, to help free them from the bondage of inherited interpretations. It certainly can't be a shock to God (if he exists).

As for God's lack of (or infrequent, or inconsistent) intervention in the lives of his people - that is the primary evidence that convinces me such a God doesn't really exist. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that most Christians will adamantly assert that God most definitely intervenes all the time in their lives until they are challenged at which point they will attempt to explain why God doesn't actually answer prayers. To me, this indicates that their belief about God answering prayers was just in their imagination - a delusion. And if something as fundamental as this was in their imagination, it seems very likely that their entire belief system is imaginary. This is why no amount of "explanation" will help - the problem is not with words, but in reality. I cannot trust something that has been conclusively proven, by thousands upon thousands of experiments, to be untrustworthy.

Thank you for your research. This is when all your studies can come into their own like the information you have put into the Bible Wheel. I guessed the error would have been in the 8,600 or the 7,500 because taking off 300 does not make such a significant change as taking 300 from 6,200 making 5,900. This error would be less likely because you have to change the 6 and the 2 to 5 and 9 and the actual error of the 300 is caused by changing just one digit; the 6 or the 5.

This goes to prove that errors introduced by the scribes are of human making and really are not that serious. It is more serious to get important doctrines wrong. I would look for solutions and in this case it has been found. Consider if you had not produced the evidence of the error, there will be those reading the earlier post and agreeing that this is another reason to refute the Bible as the word of God. I have faith to think that all the errors can be fixed if there is a will to do so. Because we do not have the original documents some errors might not be fixable.

I agree that this particular error is trivial an inconsequential, except as proof that the Bible is not inerrant. But I can't agree that there is any reason to assume that the Bible is the "Word of God." That has not been established by any evidence. Even if the Bible Wheel is fully valid, it only confirms the 66 book canon, and that God was intimately involved in its formation. It does not tell us that every word of the Bible is without error. Even when I was a Christian I would only say that the Bible Wheel proved the Bible was "God's Book" and "generally trustworthy" because I have always been very aware of the errors it contains. And there is one point of great importance here: It wouldn't matter if every letter of every word of the Bible were inspired directly by God because fallible men with limited understanding would still have to interpret it. This means that no human could ever have any real "certainty" that his own interpretation is "best." Sure, he might think he covered all the bases, but he could have made a mistake. And worse, people depend so heavily upon the opinions of other fallible men with limited understanding to produce the translation and the dictionaries they use, the whole enterprise is utterly hopeless in my estimation. Hopeless, that is, if you think the Bible was intended as a BOOK OF DOGMA. What if God had some other intention? What if it is supposed to function as a "seed" that is planted in the mind of believers, and that will then do some mysterious work of germination to give birth to a new soul? Or whatever ... there is no end to the possibilities (unless you buy into a dogma that puts an end to all possibilities).

The same can be said about paradoxes in the Bible. If there is a will to resolve the paradoxes, they can be explained.

This is exactly what every dogmatic religion believes. From my perspective, it is the essence of delusion because anyone can make up any "explanation" for anything they want to believe. There is no way to test the "explanations" so everyone just believes what they believe because its what they want to believe. If a Muslim believed this about the Quran, how would he be able to free himself from his delusion?

I find it tragic that you do not accept my alternative explanations that will fix some of the paradoxes. It is better to be honest and say; I know there are two ways of looking at this. Instead of keep pushing one interpretation, especially when you say you do not believe the Bible anymore, you should present the alternatives. If you do not believe the Bible, why are you partial to one interpretation? I think you are doing so subconciously to justify your position and make out it is not you, who is at fault. To continue to push only one explanation as in the case of "angels" in Jude 6 just goes to prove my point. It is both paradoxical and ironic that as you are so intelligent and learned you can make this mistake.

I have frequently acknowledged your alternative explanations as valid possibilities. I just don't think the evidence supports your conclusion that they are the best possibilities. Therefore, I continue to "push" the explanations that I think best fit the data. How can you fault me for that? Is it not exactly what you do? And indeed, have you not denied that my "alternative explanations" have any validity whatsoever? So if anyone is being biased and one sided, you might want to consider the possibility that it is you.

I think I can understand why you say I interpret the passages about angels to "subconsciously justify my position." You think I am using this to strengthen my rejection of the Bible. But that's not the case at all. True, if I were still a Christian I would try to disprove the evidence that shows Jude believed angles had sex with humans, but this issue never played any role in my deconversion at all. But now as a non-Christian, I can freely review all the evidence objectively without trying to protect any dogmas like "angels can't sin" or "angels can't have sex with humans." Now please understand me - I DO NOT BELIEVE that angels can have sex with humans, but I do think that Jude believed that as did many first century Christians as well as Christians throughout the ages.

It is as if you are finding it difficult to accept the truth, otherwise you will have to renounce the wrong ideas you are still hanging onto.

I cannot think of a single "wrong idea" that I would have to renounce if I were wrong about Peter's and Jude's beliefs about the angels. Please enlighten me about what "wrong beliefs" I would have to renounce.

Somehow those wrong ideas have to be replaced and that is my only wish and desire to see happen, as togther with all your knowledge, you would become a formidable proponent for the word of God just as the apostle Paul became after his conversion. As Jesus said to Saul (who was renamed Paul); "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" In other words, Paul knew what the truth was and was kicking against it and the revealing of Jesus to him was proverbially; "the last straw that broke the camels back". Paul knew His scriptures and knew they spoke of Jesus. The jews remain blind to this day to the fact that Jesus is revealed by type in the OT and their scriptures foretold of his coming. The majority of Jews were blind (for a number of reasons) to his presence with them and remains that way until this day. The Bible tells us that the veil will be lifted from their (spiritual) eyes when Jesus comes back as their Messiah to save them. This was what they were hoping for in the time of the Roman occupation and because Jesus was not their Messiah at that time, they rejected him.

I shall keep plugging away at this, hoping that these things will eventually be seen by those who have similar veils over their eyes, or like Paul, are refusing to accept the evidence they know to be true.

All the best,

David

I am extremely pleased to know that you will keep "plugging away." I think we both have a lot to learn, and many will have much to gain by our interaction.

Well, it's already 11:18 AM! I gotta go for my three mile hike with Rose. It's a beautiful sunny day, but it's already getting rather hot. We usually like to walk in the cool of the morning.

Talk more soon, my good friend,

Richard