This list was compiled by Danny Adams <[email protected]>.
He writes:
Notice here that man and woman are created at the same time. Now in the next passages, still in Genesis, the fowl-man order is reversed. In 2:7 He creates man first, and then creates the fowl in 2:19 afterwards.
Apparently He didn't know how his own creation would turn out, because later He changes his mind:
I Timothy 6:16--Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto...
Of course there are a lot of discrepancies between the OT and the NT. The thick darkness obviously refers to Sheol, the original Jewish belief, whereas the unapproachable light is more Christian belief-oriented. At least that's my guess; anyone else is welcome to throw in another idea.
II Peter 3:10--...The earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Luke 3:31--Jesus is a descendant of David's son Nathan.
Ephesians 4:26--Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath.
Maybe I'm interpreting this wrong, but is anger in itself considered a sin or not?
Luke 13:24-25--...For many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able...
In the KJV this seems to refer to salvation vs. the gates of Heaven.
However, and this is the quote I've been looking for so long now, James 2:24 states...and sorry for the caps, but this has bugged me for a long, long time: "YE SEE HOW THAT BY WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFIED, AND NOT BY FAITH ONLY."
In Acts 9:7, we are told in the account of the vision that "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." And yet, unless there was a second group of people with him, Paul contradicts this account in the very same book, chapter 22 verse 9, when he tells us: "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." As far as I can tell this can't be two separate visions, for Paul says they are both on the road to Damascus, and recounts the same words from the vision in chapter 22 as he does chapter 9.
Eye for an eye notwithstanding, 19:18 tell us to bear no grudges and take no revenge.
19:19 forbids the inbreeding of cattle, mixing of seeds in a field, and forbids anyone to make clothing out of a mix of linen and wool.
19:27 forbids certain grooming practices.
20:9 says that anyone cursing his parents will be put to death.
20:10 gives the same punishment for adultery.
The chapter goes on to give capital punishment to anyone sleeping with other various animals, family members, and people of the same sex.
20:18 says a man should be exiled for sleeping with a woman during her period.
20:27 instructs us, despite what God said about not commiting murder, that anyone with "familiar spirits" or wizards should be killed. Elsewhere we're told "suffer not a witch to live," which I suppose makes them the exception to that Commandment.
There are other rules, such as the one forbidding a woman to wear a man's clothing, but I've already listed more than enough. As with many other chapters in the Old Testament, they were written as God's voice (often punctuated with "I am the Lord thy God"), much as Jesus did in the NT. Does this mean God changed His mind about the rules that they spoke metaphorically, or that Jesus spoke metaphorically in the same way as did his Hebrew forebearers? (I know this is probably going to come off as sounding obnoxious, but it really isn't meant to be.) My biggest question is: How can we know for certain one way or the other? It seems to be all a matter of interpretation; taking things in a broader concept, Jesus did tell us in effect that he didn't come to start a new religion, but to give new revelations, so either He is changing those rules, or not denying that they were the word of God/Elohim, or both.
Reading the Revised Standard, it seems that one "the" was added into 9:27 as a mistranslation. The new translations, regarded thus far as the most accurate to date, read "And it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this judgement." Not THE judgement, only judgement, which is what reincarnationists believe happens to you after you die. Then carrying us to 9:28, some scholars and allegorical interpretists argue that the "once offered" doesn't mean numerically, but something that happened in the past and can happen again. Of course this doesn't make a flawless argument for reincarnation, but it seems to take the wind out of the sails of using the verse against it.
Some quotations referring to this:
Mark 4:11--"To you who has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand."
Mark 4:33-34--"With many such parables he spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it (referring to the masses here), he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything." (So what then, if everything recorded as being spoken by Jesus to the masses was allegorical, does this imply?)
I Corinthians is slightly different in modern versions of the text than King James. In the updated standards, I Corinthians 3:1-4 reads: "I, brethren, could not address ypou as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ. I fed you with milk not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men? For when one says, 'I belong to Paul,' and another, 'I belong to Apollos,' are you not merely men?"
Finally, aside, from the missing years, apparently Jesus did a great deal we don't know about. In John 21:25 we are told: "There were also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them written, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen."
Some argue that Elijah returned, but if we didn't die then he would have to return as a full-grown man, and we are told several times throughout the Gospels (Matthew 11:11 and others) that he was born of woman. In Luke is an account of the prophecy of his birth, with the (metaphorical) overtones to his mother that he would go with the spirit and power of Elijah.
In Matthew 17:10-13 and Mark 9:9-13, we are told, "Elijah does come, and he is to restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not know him...(talks about the beheading)...So also the Son of Man will suffer at their hands."
OK--once again we are told that John is Elijah, metaphorically or otherwise. Another question: What does Jesus mean when he says that Elijah/John will "restore all things"? Isn't that in effect what Jesus came to do?
The modern versions of Luke 1:13-17 about John possessing the spirit and power of Elijah, say that he would not be possessed with it, but are translated to read, "possessed BY the spirit and power of Elias (or Elijah)". Is this a metaphor harkening back to John representing Eliah, or to be taken literally that the spirit of Elias went into the body of John?
| (Religion Page) | (Believe) | (Proof) | (KVJ Bible) |
| Questions Collected by Danny Adams | |||
| www.wwco.com | This page updated 15-July-96 by Wls |