You're a contradiction Johnny!

Reply+130

(09/25/2012)[-]

It's probably been said already. But this "contradiction" has a lot more to do with the problems of translation. The Genesis reference uses a different word which means less "face of God" and more "was aware of the presence of God" when Jacob says it.
While the in John reference means directly seeing God.
So it's not a contradiction. There's a reason it was against the law to translate the bible for so long.

#120 to #27 - stimpiltan

Reply+46

(09/25/2012)[-]

the bible is like the american bill of rights.

its always misunderstood

obama is a ******

#406 to #120 - kilonoa

Reply0

(09/26/2012)[-]

I love your profile gif

#281 to #120 - eulogy**User deleted account**

-8

has deleted their comment [-]

#360 to #281 - lamarisagoodname

Reply+2

(09/25/2012)[-]

Out.

#198 to #27 - ismet

Reply+2

(09/25/2012)[-]

"God works in mysterious ways"

#427 to #198 - Vandeekree

Reply0

(09/26/2012)[-]

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of your post. Care to explain? It comes off as mocking but I'm not sure what it's aimed at exactly.

#60 to #27 - doctorhax

Reply+1

(09/25/2012)[-]

meh, everyone's view on it is just a different misinterpretation. no need to accept anyone's answer except for what it means to you

#126 to #27 - supermegasherman

Reply0

(09/25/2012)[-]

"lost in translation" you should write a book about that. you could make some serious money

#65 to #27 - anon id: c0c48e26

Reply0

(09/25/2012)[-]

The reason it was against the law to translate it was specifically so that laymen couldn't check what the priests were saying. They were entirely dependent on them as a portal to God and that suited the Church just fine - who needs free will anyway right?

#75 to #65 - Vandeekree

Reply+5

(09/25/2012)[-]

I'm not saying there weren't places where that happened. But believe it or not, some places made their laws based on morals and faith instead of greed.

#79 to #75 - thegreatmateusbear

Reply+4

(09/25/2012)[-]

That's an ideal I've been trying to instill in my kids for a while, and you are very correct, sir.

#154 - parradox

Reply+44

(09/25/2012)[-]

>be atheist
>my mom is really religious
>still best mom ever
>go to hotel for family vacation
>find bible in drawer
>say it's really stupid that hotels put this in drawers
>mom says its their religious right
>say that it was just written by some retarded guy who was high
> mom says "it was written by several retards gets your facts straight" then slaps me
>mfw i love my mom

#155 to #154 - boskoisbeast [OP]

Reply+15

(09/25/2012)[-]

Finally someone not arguing on my post, thanks for this comment that is funny xD

pic unrelated it's mitt romney with a tiny face

#163 to #155 - hanroyale

Reply+12

(09/25/2012)[-]

#168 to #163 - boskoisbeast [OP]

Reply0

(09/25/2012)[-]

thank you for this, thank you so much

#282 to #155 - revanthewin

Reply+4

(09/25/2012)[-]

#125 - erbos

Reply+33

(09/25/2012)[-]

This is the biggest contradiction ever

#261 - thatsmrnoob

Reply+32

(09/25/2012)[-]

**thatsmrnoob rolls 11**

#269 to #261 - boskoisbeast [OP]

Reply+6

(09/25/2012)[-]

#276 to #261 - guitaraddicttwo

Reply-6

(09/25/2012)[-]

**guitaraddicttwo rolls 180** that's nothing compared to THESE

#277 to #276 - guitaraddicttwo

Reply-5

(09/25/2012)[-]

lol jk guys

#310 to #277 - gritsreborn**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#313 to #310 - guitaraddicttwo

Reply-2

(09/25/2012)[-]

damn. I should've known not to roll 3.

#7 - stevestevestevetwo

Reply+25

(09/25/2012)[-]

Warning: **** storm below and it's the same exact **** in the **** storm as usual

#23 to #7 - thekame

Reply0

(09/25/2012)[-]

<mfw

#22 to #7 - dementedllama

Reply0

(09/25/2012)[-]

I knew it'd be there, but thanks for the warning.

#175 - boredomavenger

Reply+24

(09/25/2012)[-]

by the phrase "saw the face of God," would they be meaning that metaphorically or literally? It was taken out of context so it is hard to tell. For instance, some people after seeing something absolutely spectacular and breathtaking, would say that they saw within the spectacle the sheer face of God. Whereas the passage from John probably literally means that nobody has seen the actual face of God.

I'm an atheist but I still find it displeasing to bash a religion based on trivial things

#178 to #175 - spikethepony

Reply+1

(09/25/2012)[-]

Thank you, good sir. You and people like you are a continual testament to the fact that atheism isn't a stupidly intolerant belief (or lack thereof). Could you please teach this to my fellow theists? My fellow Catholics seem to be sort of getting the picture (the one's who aren't molesting children, that is), but we still have a long way to go.

#183 to #175 - Snookbone

Reply-4

(09/25/2012)[-]

When a contradiction or atrocity is described in a Holy text, so many believers jump straight on the "it's a metaphor" bandwagon.

The thing was written to be taken at face value, and the reason that people are starting to find these contradictions more often is better cross-referencing, more open minds, and the fact that society evolves constantly while the texts stay stuck in the time they were written, ergo forcing apologists for said texts to rationalise or divert attention away from the inherent flaws.

#187 to #183 - boredomavenger

Reply+3

(09/25/2012)[-]

did you completely miss the part where I said I was an atheist? And since when were metaphors part of a bandwagon? There are plenty of instances in modern literature where something would contradict itself if it weren't taken as a metaphor. And besides, I already said that the passage was taken completely out of context. The bible isn't so much a rule book as much as a guideline that you base your actions and morals around.

Instead of being such a cynic, why don't you try being tolerant and at peace with the world around you.

#194 to #187 - Snookbone

Reply-2

(09/25/2012)[-]

No, I didn't completely miss the atheism part at all. Atheists can correct other atheists right?

The Bible was written with the intention of being taken at face value. The contradictions show it is flawed from its foundations. "Metaphors" in the text are being applied by people who are attempting to justify their outdated texts' commands in an advanced society. The difference with literature is that the writer intends to create his metaphors. In the case of the Bible this is simply not true. The status of these metaphors has been applied later on by people who have been challenged about part of the text, and, having been backed into a corner, have to find a way to rationalise follwing he text rather than admit the fundamental failings of it.

#118 - SynysterBurns

Reply+21

(09/25/2012)[-]

Considering the bible, and Genesis in particular, is filled with metaphors, this isn't really a contradiction.

It'd kinda be like saying: "It's raining cats and dogs" and then some ****** is like: "It's impossible for that to happen Cats and dogs cant rain!!" It's not a contradiction if it's not meant literally. :-)

#121 to #118 - masterfluffydubs

Reply+10

(09/25/2012)[-]

Thank you for common sense, regardless of your religious beliefs.

This guy: 1

#228 to #121 - SynysterBurns

Reply+2

(09/25/2012)[-]

Thank you, good sir :-) Just saying what I believe to be true.

#12 - hebs

Reply+20

(09/25/2012)[-]

#394 - koalafication

Reply+17

(09/26/2012)[-]

I've personally never read the bible and don't really plan on reading it.
But if you're going to post bible quotes in a way which demeans the bible, post them in ******* context.

You can't take a single sentence out of legislation and apply it directly, there are inter-lapping sections and subsections that provide much-needed context for that one sentence. The same rule applies to most texts. Including the bible.

I guarantee you if you read all the applicable versus or chapters or whatever they're called in this bible those sentences would actually make sense.
I know for a fact that the bible describes a trinity, so those two sentences could mean completely different parts of the trinity.

**** happens all the time and it's a childish way of attempting to put down religious people.

#398 to #394 - boskoisbeast [OP]

Reply-4

(09/26/2012)[-]

This is a site for people trying to be funny. I'm not trying to put down religious people, I simply found this picture funny at first glance, so I posted it! I really don't need or want you're butthurt attitude seeing as how 395 people have said the same thing, maybe if you weren't high on your pedestal, you would of seen that before opening your ******* mouth.

#401 to #398 - koalafication

Reply+2

(09/26/2012)[-]

I reserve the right to be on a higher pedestal than somebody with boobs as their profile picture.

Also; the pictures are for people trying to be funny.
The comments are for people to comment on the picture.
Which I ******* did.
If you have a problem with people commenting on your pictures find a different website.

#396 to #394 - boskoisbeast [OP]

Reply-7

(09/26/2012)[-]

#50 - Rukioish

Reply+16

(09/25/2012)[-]

They were written by different people.