do you mean inconsistencies in the Bible or in Christiandom? true, most of religion in general has a bad track record. but if you mean inconsistancies in the Bible itself, i would like to know a few examples of what you mean.
sorry, i should have been more clear on the whole "adam and eve" part of my earlier post. eve ate of the forbidden fruit because the Devil told her that the fruit would make her like God. so i would say that all evil originated with the desire for power. eve wanted the power to make up the rules for herself.
There are inconsistencies in both. I could go into a lot of the problems with the Bible, but here is a website that has done it for me,
www.skepticsannotatedbible.comYou know, i was reading more into the Absurdities section of this website, and now i'm not so sure if this site's worth taking seriously, man.
This is an obvious mistranslation into English of what the firmament really was. The firmament was believed to be the line that separated the planets from the outer layers of the fixed stars. The planets moved, on spheres, but the fixed stars did not. The firmament simply separates them, that's all.
None of the Jewish scholars who transcribed the stories were aware of photosynthesis, and the word has changed meaning since it was originally created. "Photo" means light, and "synthesis" means combination i believe, in Greek. So the new word has a different meaning from its root words.
This is an empty criticism, i think, and i'm not sure what it's supposed to mean anyways.
As i indicated in another post i made here some time back, a large wooden vessel or ship was recently uncovered in the Himalayan mountains, of impressive dimensions, believed to be of pre-Copper age construction. The archaelogists date it back to some 7000 years ago. There was an entire series about this on the Discovery Channel a few years ago. So i would not put it past Noah to design large ships, hehehe.
No kidding. Could the bible be describing meteorloogic processes, perhaps?
Now they're being as absurd as those they label absurd. What's the point here?
The bible is mentioning believed geneologies of the Hebrew clans. So what? Paul, the ascribed author of Timothy, felt that the Jewish covenant was dead and gone, because of his belief in the new covenant with the Christ. Why wouldn't Paul tell us not to read the old testament?
Here's another english mistranslation. The Hebrews did not ascribe to the Gregorian medieval calendar, duh.
They used a lunar calendar, which goes by the phases of the moon. So many mistranslations into the English language that these scholars are labelling absurdities, tsk tsk. Perhaps these guys should learn to read Hellenistic Greek and read what the New Testament really says.
;D
I don't know. Perhaps you should tell us.
Anyway, after going through some of this "scholarly" website, i don't know if i'd give it any credit now.
To me, this whole website seems like a hollow empty criticism of a work that dates back two thousand years at least, maybe more, and that has been translated and re-translated until the words no longer mean what they originally were meant to mean.
I mean, look at what language it is now. A lot of people can't even read Old English stories like Beowulf in it original form, for example, and understand what it says. (including myself. I can't read Old English.) The biblical stories date back much farther than that. Why are they going on a purely King James Version of the bible?
Why not translate from older texts? Because a lot of Greek and Latin words incorporated into the English language do not mean what they originally meant.
The latin "Sciencias" for example. It originally meant 'knowledge' in Latin. But now, it has become Science in the English language, meaning an applied body of learning.
"Theasarus" is latin for "Treasure." Now, in english, it means a reference of words in one book, with similar meanings.
"Acidus" means "Sour" in latin. Now, the term acidic really is appplied to corrosive compounds.
"Pathos" means "change" in Greek. But now, in english, is has become "corruption" when applied to pathological research, for example. They look for evidence of corruption on human bodies.
"Creatura" is latin for "Servant". In English, it has become an animal or organism that exists on earth.
"Cultura" is latin for "farming", as in cultivation of crops. Now, in English, it means a shared body of customs and related ideas in an area or region of people.
And "revolucionibus" is an excellent example of my point. It is latin for "circular motion." But now, we attribute the term 'revolution' to mean bringing about some great societal change.
Now, some Latin and Greek words have not changed meaning, true. But that just confuses the biblical interpretations even more, in my opinion.
My point? Well, i'm not denigrading complete biblical criticism here. I think it is right and proper to question what the bible says, and why it says it. But let's try to translate accurately, and analize what the biblical authors were really trying to say. So we cannot understand the true bible in any vernacular; we have to understand both the content and the context that it was written in.
They used a lunar calendar, which goes by the phases of the moon. So many mistranslations into the English language that these scholars are labelling absurdities, tsk tsk. Perhaps these guys should learn to read Hellenistic Greek and read what the New Testament really says.