Home > The Bible Summary & Study Guide > The Bible Group > Discussion Board

Lancelot invokes scripture (Exodus 34:7) to prove that Jessica must be so damned for her father's sins. Jessica invokes 1 Corinthians 7:14 to prove she will not. Ezekiel 18:20 appears to say just the opposite of Exodus 34:7. It seems that not only the devil can cite scripture to his own purposes (1.3.94); anyone can.

The scripture, when taken out of context, is like statistics.  Anyone can make it mean what he or she wants it to.  However, when studied in context, the meanings are more clear.  There are some contradictions, too.  The New Testament contradicts many of the Old Testament's statements because much of what was followed before the birth of Jesus since His death was a sacrifice to save all humanity.  With His sacrifice, many of the things in the Old Testament were rendered obsolete and unnecessary.

In reply to #2:

This answer looks at the Bible from the NT to OT perspective. But if one considers the Bible to be an authentic historical account and the NT is interpreted in light of the OT, it eliminates many so-called contradictions. This approach does not show the OT to be obsolete at all, and certainly not unnecessary in any case.

For example, how does one make sense of the cross unless the fallen nature of man as given in Genesis is assumed?

I believe that individual writers of the books of the Bible may contradict one another on some points. For instance, there are two creation stories in the book of Genesis. Does that mean both need to be thrown out as unreliable? No. The Old Testament was passed on by oral teaching for many generations before it was put into writing. Once the texts were written, it is believed that priests edited some of the details.

In reply to #4:

In my studies, I have found that the idea of two creation stories results from misinterpretation. I believe that Gen 1 and 2 are compatible with each other and tell one story of creation. Very broadly, Gen 1 is an outline of each element of creation. In other words, the components of creation were identified with man being the crown jewel of creation, made in the image of God.

Gen 2 gives the day of rest, or sabboth, and the generations, or time sequence, of the components of creation in the six days. Rather than a separate account of creation, Gen 2 gives the time sequence of these elements.This is supported by verse 2:4 where God is now referred to as LORD God for the first time and creation becomes singular, i.e., the DAY that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

We find in Gen 2:4-9 that man was created before there were plants or herbs or trees in the earth, for there was no water to make them grow yet, and there were no beasts of the field either. So it is evident here that man was created before there was any other life upon the earth; then God planted His garden!

We are thereby introduced to a new time reference used throughout scripture, i.e., the DAY of the LORD, in this case referring to the period of days of creation. In other words, it gives us the detail of the order of creation.

Anyway, this is the gist of my interpretation of creation.

In reply to #5: Don't misinterpret the question I'm going to ask as criticism. I'm really curious. Did you study the Hebrew/Aramaic text or the English translations? I just wonder whether you'd arrive at the same interpretation from either version.

The Bible contains lots of basic, human contradictions. There are many examples but one I like is the 'chewing the cud' mistake. 

(Lev. 11:5-6) - "‘Likewise, the rock badger, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; 6 the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you."

In this passage, as usual, rules are being made about what God says you can and can't do. The author says you must not eat rabbits because rabbits chew the cud (i.e. they regurgitate the contents of their stomach to chew it a second time). Rabbits don't chew the cud. Rabbits eat their own fecal pellets (ew...). This is a simple contradiction of fact and it proves that a law supposedly directed by The Almighty was actually invented by error-prone man.

There are many many other simple mistakes in The Bible.

I like this one too... The city of Ai, it was destroyed forever... sort of.

Here we see that Joshua has completely destroyed a city and left a heap of dead rubble 'for ever'. But, later in the Bible's story... 

Ai is still there and full of life. How can this be? A direct contradiction.

(and let's not get into the holiness of launching 'scorched earth' destruction on an entire city because they have displeased you in some way.)

With regards to textual interpretation, throughout history, including the present day, the Bible has been selectively cited to justify a variety of actions. It is possible to make the Bible appear to say almost anything you want. Historically, The Bible has been used to justify activity as diverse as

1. Universal Love
2. Denying women the vote
3. Giving women the vote
4. The Crusades
5. The abolition of The Crusades
6. Slavery 
7. The abolition of slavery
8. the attempted genocide of The Jews
9. Good treatment of the Jews
10. and (most regularly) War.

The thing is not so much 'interpretation' as 'selection'. Imagine, you have something you want to do, let's say you wish to 'prove' that Homosexuality makes God angry and that Homosexuals may not serve God, so you quote the strict parts in The Old Testament and you use those texts to 'prove' your argument, while at the same time, you conveniently ignore all of Jesus's statements which say, "Love Everyone", "Don't judge people", "Worry about your own sins, not other peoples", etc.

By selectively quoting the Bible you can make God appear to be anything from all-loving to a destructive, angry killing machine.

In reply to #9: It is not just the OT that prohibits homosexuality. The apostle Paul also calls speaks against it in the book of Romans. Also, your statement about Jesus' telling us to "Love Everyone", "Don't judge people" is false. What Jesus said was for us not to judge anyone unless we were ready to be judged as well (Matthew 7:12). You've also misinterpreted what he meant by "worry about your own sins, not other peoples." You make it sound as if he was telling us to selfishly think only of ourselves. He was being confronted by people who were pointing out the bad deeds of everyone around them. Jesus responded by telling them to look inside themselves before pointing fingers at other people (good advice for us to follow, hmmm?). Everything about Jesus was selfless, and he used the parables of the prodigal son and the good Samaritan to point out the very fact that we must "worry about" other people no matter how badly they've behaved.

You are correct that the picture of the OT God is full of fire and brimstone. But you have to remember that the OT is the story of the creation of a people, of a nation. Many biblical archaeologists, while finding that the biblical timeline does not precisely fit the geological record, tell us that the Hebrew people were a conglomeration of Semitic people. The only difference between Hebrews and Canaanites was religion. In order to keep the Hebrews holy, and therefore set them apart as the people of God, strong measures were needed.

The writers of the OT don't moralize on what happened; they simply give us the details. It is up to us how we choose to respond to God. I choose to see God as a strict parent who loves me deeply but who knows what is best for me. And this parent even allows me to ask questions and rail against what I think might be too harsh. Yet God loves me, and that is enough.