NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering if anyone could explain these verses to me, because it just seems a little contradicting.

2)Bear ye one another's burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ.
3) For if a man think himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
4) But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
5)for ever man shall bear his own burdens

So verse 2 says we should bear other people's burdens, but then verse 5 says we should bear our own burdens. Which is it?

So verse 2 says we should bear other people's burdens, but then verse 5 says we should bear our own burdens. Which is it?

Paul was drunk.

Paul was drunk.


what a dick :p

So verse 2 says we should bear other people's burdens, but then verse 5 says we should bear our own burdens. Which is it?
Why in the world are the two mutally exclusive?

I was wondering if anyone could explain these verses to me, because it just seems a little contradicting.

So verse 2 says we should bear other people's burdens, but then verse 5 says we should bear our own burdens. Which is it?

Both. We bear own burdens but also help others to bear them, just as they help us to bear ours.

Think of it like those who truly believe that one should give to charity, but also that those who are in need of charity should be self-sufficient. We help others who are unable to take care of themselves (or bear their burdens), but we should do all we can to be self-sufficient (or bear our own burdens).

Theres countless little contradictions in the bible all over that no one likes to talk about.

For instance, one of the most important Commandments says "Thou shalt not kill"...and yet, how often are we commanded to take such action in the bible?

Hundreds.

Even against your wife if she should get raped, or cheat on you, according to Leviticus.

Rubbish..all of it.

Why in the world are the two mutally exclusive?


Ok, its like me saying...You should cook me dinner, but then going off and saying i should cook myself dinner. It just sounds contradicting to me..Saying for someone else to do something, then saying that we should do it ourself.. Maybe it just sounds wierd in the KJV?

Both. We bear own burdens but also help others to bear them, just as they help us to bear ours.

Think of it like those who truly believe that one should give to charity, but also that those who are in need of charity should be self-sufficient. We help others who are unable to take care of themselves (or bear their burdens), but we should do all we can to be self-sufficient (or bear our own burdens).


Yeah that makes sense.

Ok, its like me saying...You should cook me dinner, but then going off and saying i should cook myself dinner. It just sounds contradicting to me..Saying for someone else to do something, then saying that we should do it ourself.. Maybe it just sounds wierd in the KJV?
But if you did that then you would have two dinners. That's even better. :)

.
For instance, one of the most important Commandments says "Thou shalt not kill"...


No it isn't kill, it's murder which means Killing outside of the law.


and yet, how often are we commanded to take such action in the bible?


Errr, a few times maybe in the old testament.


Hundreds.


:rolleyes:


Even against your wife if she should get raped

No, you don't kill your wife if she gets raped.


or cheat on you, according to Leviticus.


Yes, however that is not a contradiction. It is killing within the law, so it isn't murder.

I was wondering if anyone could explain these verses to me, because it just seems a little contradicting.



So verse 2 says we should bear other people's burdens, but then verse 5 says we should bear our own burdens. Which is it?

read it again...

To make it easier, let me remove the verse numbers and include the first verse.

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.

basicially, help those who are bogged down with problems, but becareful that you do not end up bogged down yourself. while helping others, you should also take care not to take all the burden of sin, for each person has to carry that burden themselves. but there are times when that burden is too much.

so as Christ died for our sins and took our burden upon himself, we should help others with their burdens. however we, as humans, cannot and should not relieve them of all of their troubles, but only such to the point where they themselves are not bogged down.

in other words, if you borrowed heavily from several financial institutions, I would help you with say, grocery shopping, or finding you a second job or assist in similar ways, not pay all your debts off for you which would become a burden on me while you get out of that debt.

Ok, its like me saying...You should cook me dinner, but then going off and saying i should cook myself dinner. It just sounds contradicting to me..Saying for someone else to do something, then saying that we should do it ourself.. Maybe it just sounds wierd in the KJV?
There are better ones

KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.


or maybe


ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

No it isn't kill, it's murder which means Killing outside of the law.



Errr, a few times maybe in the old testament.



:rolleyes:



No, you don't kill your wife if she gets raped.



Yes, however that is not a contradiction. It is killing within the law, so it isn't murder.


It doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill, unless they break a rule", it says "Thou shalt not kill". God needs to make up his fuckin mind.

There are better ones KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.


or maybe ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

That might just be because you aren't reading the rest of the verses around those?

It doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill, unless they break a rule", it says "Thou shalt not kill". God needs to make up his fuckin mind.


Thats why Jesus came, because the Law wasn't working out. So he was like, fawk the law! Or something:p

It doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill, unless they break a rule", it says "Thou shalt not kill". God needs to make up his fuckin mind.
I believe it depends on your translation of the bible. more translations has it as "Murder" while few others have it as "Kill"

It doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill, unless they break a rule", it says "Thou shalt not kill". God needs to make up his fuckin mind.

No, it says "Thou shall not murder"

Murder is different to kill, because it means unlawful killing.

There are better ones


or maybe

Let's not forget, ladies and gentleman, that exact wording of the Bible is written and translated (transcribed, in some cases) by man, and is therefore subject to human error. Many are quick to point out "discrepancies" in the Bible, and I suppose they do exist. But do these alter the underlying message of God's word? The Bible is considered the word of God, but we must remember that there are none of us in this world, now or in the past (save one) who are or have been perfect, and I can think of no author or translator who has written anything without error. Also, we must consider that the Bible is a collection of works by many men, and often exact interpretations of history (such as precise numbers of chariots) are subject to differences in availability of materials or working knowledge of a language.

No it isn't kill, it's murder which means Killing outside of the law.

I dont see a difference between killing , nor murder....this commandment does not make a distinction.



Errr, a few times maybe in the old testament.

Try a whole lot more than that, my friend.







No, you don't kill your wife if she gets raped.

Leviticus 20;10.
If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

Thats just about adultery...do you want to see more...?

Heres one from Lev 19:20.


20
2 "If a man has carnal relations with a female slave who has already been living with another man but has not yet been redeemed or given her freedom, they shall be punished but not put to death, because she is not free.

Now most texts replaced "punished" with "scourged".

Guess what the punishment is for when she IS free?
Wether or not it was consentual....

I dont see a difference between killing , nor murder....this commandment does not make a distinction.


Omg, can't you read. The definition of murder, is killing outside of the law. Therefor because the commandment uses the word murder, it means you should not kill outside of the law


Leviticus 20;10.
If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

Thats just about adultery...do you want to see more...?


Where is anything to do with rape in that? Where is the contradiction from the 10 commandments in that?

Remember, those laws originally written by jewish lawmakers (not god) were not suppost to be completely consistant, unlike modern law in these days. It was a guide, the spirit of the law not the word of the law should be obeyed. Therefore if any sort of sex was non consential then obviously they would not have stoned that woman.


Heres one from Lev 19:20.


20
2 "If a man has carnal relations with a female slave who has already been living with another man but has not yet been redeemed or given her freedom, they shall be punished but not put to death, because she is not free.

Now most texts replaced "punished" with "scourged".

Guess what the punishment is for when she IS free?
Wether or not it was consentual....

Again, where is the contradiction?

Where is anything to do with rape in that? Where is the contradiction from the 10 commandments in that?

I think the verses most people have a problem with are:

(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

and

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.


The first is a problem because it assumes that if no one heard the woman cry out, the sex was consentual. The second should be obvious. A man rapes a woman and, as punishment, he has to marry her? Great, now she's married to a rapist for the rest of her life.

Remember, those laws originally written by jewish lawmakers (not god)

You just contradicted the Bible yourself there. The OT claims that all of these laws came from God to Moses. Of course, I agree with you - the OT laws were written by men who thought they were following God. Like all of us, they were bound to get some of it (maybe even a great deal of it) wrong.

It was a guide, the spirit of the law not the word of the law should be obeyed.

I don't get that impression from the history. In fact, it seems that it was exactly the opposite - and it was strict adherence to the letter of the law that Christ seemed to want to do away with.

Omg, can't you read. The definition of murder, is killing outside of the law. Therefor because the commandment uses the word murder, it means you should not kill outside of the law

OMG..you cant read, I told you, I do not see a distinction between to the two.
Killing is killing.



Where is anything to do with rape in that? Where is the contradiction from the 10 commandments in that?

Remember, those laws originally written by jewish lawmakers (not god) were not suppost to be completely consistant, unlike modern law in these days. It was a guide, the spirit of the law not the word of the law should be obeyed. Therefore if any sort of sex was non consential then obviously they would not have stoned that woman.

Indeed sir, they would have.

Rape, you see...can bring forth fruit of that union..and any potential child would have been seen as an abomination.
Further, the woman herself would have been seen as "sullied" or "befouled".
They were usually killed.

Further still, you point out that such laws were made by "Jewish Lawmakers", and yet..many times over in Leviticus, the line .."I am THE LORD, YOUR GOD" appears after many of its directives.
This was meant to be taken as the laws of God...not men.

Therefore if any sort of sex was non consential then obviously they would not have stoned that woman

I think you really havent read Leviticus, and do know know of what youre talking about.
Just about ANY kind of sex NOT between a married man, and his wife usually called for the death of BOTH participants, mosty especially involving rape, or incest.


Again, where is the contradiction?[/QUOTE]

You just contradicted the Bible yourself there. The OT claims that all of these laws came from God to Moses. Of course, I agree with you - the OT laws were written by men who thought they were following God. Like all of us, they were bound to get some of it (maybe even a great deal of it) wrong.


The 10 commandments were from God to Moses, but it doesn't mention weather the rest of the commandments were from God.


I don't get that impression from the history. In fact, it seems that it was exactly the opposite - and it was strict adherence to the letter of the law that Christ seemed to want to do away with.

Thats true, the Pharisees were very, if not too strict with their laws. But that is not what the original law makers intentions were, and that is what Jesus challenged the Lawmakers with. He also challenged the very laws themselves. If Jesus is God, and God made those laws, why would he challenge them again?

The 10 commandments were from God to Moses, but it doesn't mention weather the rest of the commandments were from God.

Yes, it does, actually. Throughout Deuteronomy and Leviticus, entire chapters will start off by mentioning that this is from the law handed down to Moses.

Deuteronomy 1:
hese are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan—in the wilderness, on the plain opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Di-zahab. 2(By the way of Mount Seir it takes eleven days to reach Kadesh-barnea from Horeb.) 3In the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month, Moses spoke to the Israelites just as the Lord had commanded him to speak to them. 4This was after he had defeated King Sihon of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, and King Og of Bashan, who reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei. 5Beyond the Jordan in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to expound this law as follows:

Or Deut. 10:
12 So now, O Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you? Only to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13and to keep the commandments of the Lord your God and his decrees that I am commanding you today, for your own well-being.

What follows are many more laws said to have been decreed by Moses in the name of the Lord, including many of the ones under discussion.

Leviticus 1 is even more obvious:

The Lord summoned Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying: 2Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: When any of you bring an offering of livestock to the Lord, you shall bring your offering from the herd or from the flock.

In fact, quite a few books in Leviticus start with "The Lord spoke to Moses saying...." and contain various laws about a subject.


Thats true, the Pharisees were very, if not too strict with their laws. But that is not what the original law makers intentions were, and that is what Jesus challenged the Lawmakers with.

The OT laws seem pretty clear that they are to be followed absolutley. I think it's a bit hard to say, "That isn't what the writers intended," when we aren't even really sure who made those laws. The claim is that they all came from Moses, but that seems unlikely. More likely is the idea that they came from the priesthood, over quite a span of time. Most likely, some thought they should be followed to the letter and some not so much - just like religions of today.

He also challenged the very laws themselves. If Jesus is God, and God made those laws, why would he challenge them again?

I never said God made those laws. In fact, I would pointedly state that I don't think God made those laws. The fact remains, however, that the Bible claims that each and every one of them comes from God.

Snipity snip.


Ah well... The old testement is a load of screwed up peice of bullshit at times. However, the contradiction from the 10 commandments to those other commandments remain non existant.


I never said God made those laws. In fact, I would pointedly state that I don't think God made those laws. The fact remains, however, that the Bible claims that each and every one of them comes from God.

Hmm, i guess it depends on what interpretation you have.

Hmm, i guess it depends on what interpretation you have.

Do you have another way to interpret, "God told Moses to say 'X'"? There are many things that are open to interpretation, but I don't think that many people would say that a valid interpretation of that statement would be that Moses just made it up or that God didn't tell Moses to say it. That might be what various people believe, especially when we consider the fact that anything that came out of the priesthood was considered to come from God, but the statement itself is pretty point-blank.

Do you have another way to interpret, "God told Moses to say 'X'"? There are many things that are open to interpretation, but I don't think that many people would say that a valid interpretation of that statement would be that Moses just made it up or that God didn't tell Moses to say it. That might be what various people believe, especially when we consider the fact that anything that came out of the priesthood was considered to come from God, but the statement itself is pretty point-blank.

No, i meant what sort of Bible you are using.

No, i meant what sort of Bible you are using.

Ah, so you are talking about translation issues, rather than interpretation ones.

Do you have a particular translation that does not include such statements?

No, i meant what sort of Bible you are using.

I believe he's using the NIV which is awful.

Indeed sir, they would have.

Rape, you see...can bring forth fruit of that union..and any potential child would have been seen as an abomination.
Further, the woman herself would have been seen as "sullied" or "befouled".
They were usually killed.

If i recall the text correctly, the woman wouldn't be killed if she was raped in an open field or wilderness area (ie. a place where it would have been unlikely that anyone could have heard her if she was calling for help).

I believe he's using the NIV which is awful.

Actually, I prefer the NRSV - specifically the Oxford annotated version. It is not only translated directly to English from the oldest texts available, but also includes footnotes on disputed translations.

(and it's "she")

Yes, however that is not a contradiction. It is killing within the law, so it isn't murder.
So in Christianity you can kill your wife if she cheats on you? Oh yeah, Christianity is WAY better than Islam:rolleyes: