Expert: Richard Aberdeen - 1/3/2011

Question
I used to wonder about God, so I studied the bible and wondered who wrote it..because some of the chapters were so confusing,eg:(For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever. (Jeremiah 3:12)
Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever. (Jeremiah 17:4)
If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. (John 5:31)
Jesus answered: Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid. (John 8:14)
And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. (Matthew 28:18)
the whole world is under control of the evil one. (1 John 5:19)
And Jesus said, For judgement I am come into this world. (John 9:39)
I came not to judge the world (John 12:47)
)" , I simply couldn't believe that God would sent down such a disorganized book(but my hunch is that the guy named peter wrote his heart out in the bible and filled it up with gibberish), but all I found was a bunch of unverified stories which confuses the readers. First I saw that there were over 9 versions of the bible, and each of them were different. It said that Jesus was God's son....but then I started thinking that if God is not a human, then how could he have kids. This guy was saying that look, jesus didn't have any father, so his dad must have been God himself! But when I told him that Adam and Eve didn't have any parents either. Does that make them god's children too? Well, all this was so confusing , that I started looking into some other religion to see what they had to say about God etc.Then Bible considers everyone to be sinners, and that God had to send his "son" to get rid of sins.This was strange that God would kill his innocent "son" in order to get rid of evil satan.! it sounded pretty cruel to me.Why would His "son" have to die for other peoples sins, or for satan, who makes people sin? Christianity also calls religious law a curse,and so that if someone follows religious laws ,they are in a curse.I saw this video, and was very interested in what it showed.It is about religious science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHiAGHFnzMU .I have also studied both testaments, here are some of the conflicting verses I found in The Old Testament:
1}(a)"And David took from him a thousand chariots and SEVEN HUNDRED horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen"..-II Samuel 8:4 (b)"And David took from him a thousand chariots and SEVEN THOUSAND horsemen,and twenty thousand footmen"..-I Chronicles 18:4..So the question is 700 or 7000? 2}(a)"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel,and he moved David against them to say,Go,number Israel and Judah".-II Samuel 24:1(b)"And SATAN stood up against Israel,and provoked David to number Israel."-I Chronicles 21:1.So, is the Lord of David then Satan?God forbid!3}(a) "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had NO CHILD until the day of her death"-II Samuel 6:23.(b)"But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah,whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth:and THE FIVE SONS of Michal the daughter of Saul,whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzilai the Meholathite."-II Samuel 21:8,So, did Michal have children or not..?,there are a lot more contradictions in the old testament , showing that it could not have been holy.in the Psalm, The Muslim holy city of Makka is mentioned(original word for makka was Baca,as it's referred to in the Quran,Prophet David mentions in his Psalms 84:6:"Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well, the rain also filleth the pool."The well here is a well known well of Zamzam,still present now,close to the Ka'bah.
can you explain these verses to me?I'm confused..
thanks

Answer
Part of what you say is due a confusion of King James English translation.  For example, the word translated "world" in King James English (and many other English translations) sometimes refers to humanity (literally "sea of man") in Greek, such as "for God so loved the "sea of man, which could and should be translated into modern English as "for God so loved the people".  God loving the people of the world is a lot different idea than refering to the world as an abstract whole, not that God doesn't love the rest of his creation, but it is not what is being referenced to in this instance.

Sometimes instead, what is translated into English as "world" in Greek refers to "world system" or "world system of evil", as in "love not the world, neither the things that are in the world" which in Greek is "kosmos"; world system".  There is a major difference in the maining in Greek that is translated as the same word "world" into English.  Another glaring example is in the opening sentences of John, which is translated in most English translations as "in the beginning was the Word".  This is not at all what the term means in Greek, which is correctly translated as "in the beginning was Logos".  Logos in Greek has a variety of meanings, but most likely in a common wisdom sense as probably intended in John, it means "universal and beyond view as opposed to human view" or, "that which is really true, rather than what human beings assume and believe to be true".

Terms like "judgment" and "judge" are also often misunderstood because of modern English as compared to ancient Aramic and Greek.  For example, to "judge" in Old King James English means different things: 1) It means to condemn, such as calling someone else inferior, for example.  and 2) It also means to discern, such as to judge correctly between good and evil or, to discern between a righteous leader and a corrupt leader.  Thus, when Jesus said to "judge not that you be not judged", it is correctly translated as not to condemn someone else so you yourself won't be condemned.  It also says in Romans that however we condemn someone else, we are admitting that we are the same, "for all have sinned".  And in other instances, Jesus uses what in English is translated as "judge" in terms of discernment, such as judging (discerning) between right and wrong, good and evil.

I am neither a Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew scholar, so like most people, I depend somewhat on other scholars who are.  Some words in Hebrew and especially in Aramaic have no correct Greek or English equivalent, which adds to some of the confusion in English translations of the Bible.  That said, I will attempt to answer your questions one by one below, although I make no claim of being infallible, nor do I claim to know everything about the Bible or anything else.  

YOU WROTE:
(For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever. (Jeremiah 3:12)
Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever. (Jeremiah 17:4)

RESPONSE:
It creates bias and is not being fair to any text, to take portions out of context and then lay them side by side; because of human language variations and limitations, anyone can find something wrong in any book of size by doing the same thing.  I often find this in various atheist forums, where atheists yank a line or two from one chapter or book of the Bible and set it next to another line in a different chapter or book and then claim they don't agree.  You can do the same thing with any long article in the Britannica and any book by Richard Dawkins or any other atheist and, it serves no purpose nor does it prove anything.  This is partly because human language itself is inadequate and often what is intended by similar wording in the English language (and in every language), is a different intention in different parts of the same article or book.  

According to both the Old and New Testaments, God is long on mercy and slow to wrath.  But also according to both, God will forgive some people and will not forgive others.  God in the New Testament provides a sacrifice for our sins in Jesus, thus God will forgive anybody if they ask Jesus to forgive them.  It also says in the New Testament that God will judge those who have not had the opportunity to ask Jesus for forgiveness, by their own hearts and actions as if they had known about Jesus.  Thus, it is correct in one context for God to say he will not hold our sins against us forever, while in another context if we don't want Jesus to forgive us, he will hold our sins against us forever.  Among those who have no knowlege of Jesus, only God can judge how they would have reacted had they known, because we "look on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart".

YOU WROTE:
If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. (John 5:31)
Jesus answered: Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid. (John 8:14)

RESPONSE:
Again, you are talking two lines that are not written side by side but are far apart in the book of John and laying them side by side, which as explained above is not a valid exercise.  

The first statement above is correct according to Old Testament law, which says that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, a testimony can be correborated, which is similar but more fair to the accused than many of our modern courts, where the testimony of only one accuser can result in conviction and even execution.  Jesus is pictured throughout the New Testament as being very reluctant to say himself that he is the Messiah, because he is trying to get others around him to believe and say that he is and thus, he is then validated under the law of Moses (for example, he asks Peter who he is and Peter says he is the Messiah).

Note that this is three chapters apart from the second half of what you quoted.

This is correct in the context of what Jesus is saying in chapter eight, because even if only one person believes or says something, it is true if their judgement is correct.  That is exactly what Jesus says in the context of chapter eight because he goes on to say, "for my judgment is true".  For example, if only one man in 3500 BC said the earth is spherical rather than flat, he would have still been correct, even if he was the only man who said so on living at that time.  Likewise, if only Jesus said something and nobody else had ever said it, he would still have been correct if what he said is true.  

This is also correct according to the Old Testament.  Jesus claimed in the same context to have been taught what he was saying by God and, God is the only one who can swear by his own self and be validated, because there is no one greater than God; in the Old Testament story of Abraham, God swears by himself "because there is none higher".  Again, this agrees with both ancient and modern legal systems, where the King and many modern dictators can often arbitrarily overrule any court and where today in the United States, the Supreme Court can overrule any lower court.  God is referred to in the Declaration of Indpendence as "Supreme Judge", meaning God is higher than human law or any other law and can overrule anything, but God himself cannot be overruled.

Again, Jesus is trying to get those around him to understand and say who he is, without saying directly himself that he is the Messiah.  The "work of God", according to Jesus in the same book of John, is that we believe in him who God sent.  This might seem like symantics or "gibberish", but there is signficant difference.  Anybody can say they are the messiah, including the actual Messiah.  But the "work of God" and purpose of the Bible, is so that WE will believe that Jesus is the Messiah, thus Jesus is portrayed throughout all four gospels as trying to enduce others to believe he is the Messiah, rather than saying so directly himself.  Even towards the very end, when pilate asks him directly if he is the Son of God, Jesus answers that he is "as you say".  God can't lie.  

YOU WROTE:
And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. (Matthew 28:18)

the whole world is under control of the evil one. (1 John 5:19)

RESPONSE:
These are both correct:  God has power over everthing but also, God has the power to grant power for a season to other beings and, to grant power forever if he chooses, as is stated concerning Jesus in Hebrews and elsewhere.  God allows wicked leaders to come to power from time to time and, God has granted power to Satan "for a season", while Jesus will rule forever and ever and thus, Jesus, who is God, has power over Satan, just as he has power over wicked leaders who rule from time to time in various nations.  Even though Satan is granted control over the world for a season, All power is given to Jesus, who has power over Satan.  Similar to, the supreme ruler of the Roman Empire often granted power to various rulers of territories, like King Herod, who had virtually absolute authority within his own jurisdiction, even though the supreme ruler of Rome had power of Herod.  

And Jesus said, For judgement I am come into this world. (John 9:39)
I came not to judge the world (John 12:47)

As explained above, words translated "judge" and "judgemen" in most English translations have more than one meaning in Aramaic and Greek.  It teaches very clearly in John and other parts of the New Testament, that "God did not send his son into the world to condemn the people, but that the people through him might be saved".

And it also teaches very clearly in John and elsewhere, that Jesus will judge the world through discernment and righteousness and, he will judge all people after they leave this world.

You seem to have a problem understanding that English often uses the same words for different meanings, such as "judge" sometimes means to condemn and other times, it means to discern between good and evil, while it also refers to a court judge or in God's case, the Supreme Judge.  All three of these meanings still apply to the word "judge" in English today.  

YOU WROTE:
I simply couldn't believe that God would sent down such a disorganized book(but my hunch is that the guy named peter wrote his heart out in the bible and filled it up with gibberish), but all I found was a bunch of unverified stories which confuses the readers. First I saw that there were over 9 versions of the bible, and each of them were different. It said that Jesus was God's son....but then I started thinking that if God is not a human, then how could he have kids. This guy was saying that look, jesus didn't have any father, so his dad must have been God himself! But when I told him that Adam and Eve didn't have any parents either. Does that make them god's children too?

RESPONSE:
The purpose of the Bible is so that we will believe in Jesus and understand the relationship between God and humanity.  It is not the purpose of the Bible, as Christians often promote, so that we will believe in the Bible.  The Bible can perphaps best be described as "visions of very great light".  Thus, each book is written from the perspective of the author writing the book and if you read the Bible carefully, you will note that each book that is written by a different author is coming from a different perspective of God, the "very great light".  It is not as if one person wrote the entire Bible but rather, the Bible is a collection of different perspectives from the viewpoint of different authors.  Only rarely in some portions does the Bible claim to be the "word of God".  Such as in the Old Testament, in some places it says "the word of the Lord" "came expressly".  Or in the New Testament, Jesus says what he taught was given to him by God and in the letters of Paul, sometimes it says they were "by command" and other times, "by permission", indicating some of the content of his letters was directly given to him by God, while some portions represent Paul's opinion.  

The fact that various modern translations of a collection of ancient texts contradict each other doesn't prove that the original works contradicted each other.  Virtually everything known to humanity prior to the invention of movable type and much after cheap printing was invented, is based on writings several hand-written translations deep, thus there is virtually nothing regarding history or historical works and probably nothing at all that exists in the 21st Century, that is translated 100% accurately.  So, to dismiss Jesus because of this well know historical fact isn't a valid conclusion, any more than to dismiss Plato, Aristotle, Confuscius, Buddha or anyone else is valid, just because some of their words are mistranslated.  The Bible is probably by far the most accurately preserved and translated ancient text known and as such, it is a far more reliable source than virtually anything else in history prior to mass printing.  

The reason Jesus is "God's only begotten son", is because Jesus is both God and a human being.  Jesus the human being was born from a virgin female mother, "conceived" by God's spirit and not by a human father, thus he is quite literally God's son.  The Son of God is also God himself, who existed prior to the universe.  God in the Bible is pictured as a great exotic "three-in-one" being, "in who we live and move and have our being", whose three-in-one nature can be clearly seen in creation.  Which it can as for example, our environment has three major visible parts; air, water, land.  Human beings and many other creatures also have three visible parts; head, torso and appendages.  Plants generally also have three visible parts, such as a tree has a trunk, branches and leaves/fruit.  The three-in-one nature of God is reflected all over the earth in creation and, it is not three separate and distinct parts but rather, it is as "three-in-one" integrated parts.  Such as, even though we separate air, water and land into three different parts in our minds and languages, they are all integrated together into one whole visible environment working together, just as our head, torso and appendages and the three visible parts of a tree are distinct and yet integrated and working together, thus "three-in-one".  

God the Son was incarnated into Jesus the man, thus in the New Testament there is a duality of God the Son living within Jesus the man, who was literally conceived by a human mother and God.  Thus, it is absolutely correct to call Jesus the "only begotten son of God" and it is correct to refer to him as "the man Messaiah Jesus", as Paul refers to him in one of his letters.  This is because Jesus is both God and man.  Jesus many times referred to himself as "son of man", because he was the son of a human mother, as well as the son of God.  This is why the virgin birth is an important thing, because it validates that Jesus is both God's son and also born of mankind.   

YOU WROTE:
Well, all this was so confusing , that I started looking into some other religion to see what they had to say about God etc.

RESPONSE:
Christianity has nothing in common with either Jesus or the Bible.  Christianity arose after 90 AD, after all of the authors of the Bible had passed on.  The same is true to a lesser degree in regards to Buddha, Confuscius and other so-called "founders" of the world's major religions.

God asks only that we believe in the name of his son Jesus.  God does not require that we believe the Bible is 100% accurate, nor does he require that we believe in Christianity.

YOU WROTE:
Then Bible considers everyone to be sinners, and that God had to send his "son" to get rid of sins.This was strange that God would kill his innocent "son" in order to get rid of evil satan.! it sounded pretty cruel to me.Why would His "son" have to die for other peoples sins, or for satan, who makes people sin? Christianity also calls religious law a curse,and so that if someone follows religious laws ,they are in a curse.I saw this video, and was very interested in what it showed.It is about religious science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHiAGHFnzMU .

RESPONSE:
If God did not punish sinners, then God would not be a valid or righteous judge, anymore than a human judge would keep his job if he let everyone who came before him off, no matter what they had done.  What kind of righteous God would just ignore the deeds of Hitler, Stalin and many other horrible people known to human history?  Is it fair for God to give them the same reward as Mother Teresa and Albert Schweitzer?  What kind of a God would that be?

On the other hand, we all have treated each other less than we wish ourselves to be treated on various occassions throughout our lives, thus we are all sinners.  If you watch children on a playground on any given school day, you can observe that children can often be very cruel to each other, ostracizing the "fat kid", "the ugly girl", "the skinny runt", etc.  The cruelty of human beings doesn't begin or end with the Hitlers and Stalins of this world but rather, Hitler and Stalin are a result of a long chain of human cruelty themselves, stretching back into their childhood and way back further for generation upon generation.  It is a well demonstrated fact of human science today that the "sins of the fathers" effect generations on down the line--any modern scientist who studies human behavoir will confirm that.  Every time we mistreat someone, we are adding to the pile of human oppression, because the way we are treated by other people very much effects who we are and what we become and pass along to both others in our lifetime and to future generations.

As Jesus taught and as it says in Romans and many other places, which agrees with the findings of Freud, Jung and modern science, all human beings have a significant problem withn our own beings.  Modern behaviorial science develops drugs that serve to "mask" the "seeting mass" underneath and alleviate the surface symptoms, but science has no cure for what ails the human race.  This is clearly seen today, where many historians estimate that more people died from war and other violence in the 20 Century than in all previous centuries combined.  

This is why we need a savior and why God allowed his son to die, to be a sacrifice for our sins.  I know from my own personal experience that Jesus has helped me significantly and changed my inward motivations significantly over the course of my life.  I used to not have any desire to help anybody other than myself and now much of my time is spent trying to help other people.  This was not at all the case concerning me before I became aware of the spirit of God working in me.

Anyone can receive help from God simply by asking Jesus to forgive them for being a sinner.  Other than that, I recommend reading the New Testament, which will help you understand what forgiveness better.  

Christianity only muddies up the waters and is not necessary at all and, neither are any other religions necessary to know the grace, mercy, love and peace of the true God.  All one needs to do is to ask Jesus to forgive them for being a sinner.  And I recommend following through after that by reading the New Testament, so you can learn how forgiveness applies in the reality of our daily lives.  

God is about helping people in the reality of our daily lives.  I have studied the major religions of the world and in my opinion, they are all a big waste of time.  Jesus is not a religion and religions only get in the way of knowing God's grace, mercy, love and peace.  Jesus is a friend of sinners and, if you don't believe you are a sinner, then try obeying the dictates of your own conscience perfectly correctly all of the time, which no human being can possibly do.

YOU WROTE:
I have also studied both testaments, here are some of the conflicting verses I found in The Old Testament:
1}(a)"And David took from him a thousand chariots and SEVEN HUNDRED horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen"..-II Samuel 8:4 (b)"And David took from him a thousand chariots and SEVEN THOUSAND horsemen,and twenty thousand footmen"..-I Chronicles 18:4..So the question is 700 or 7000?

RESPONSE:
The text is pretty clear to me.  In ancient societies of that time, armies typically had soldiers who rode in chariots, other soldiers who rode on horses and other soldiers who were on foot.  There is no reason to believe that these figures are not accurate, as it is typical of other well documented battles of that historical time.  In this case, the text says there were a thousand chariots, which may have had one or more riders in them, there were 700 soldiers on horseback and, there were 20,000 infrantry men on foot.  That is entirely believable for a Mesopotamian and Fertile Crescent battle of that historical timeframe.

YOU WROTE:
2}(a)"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel,and he moved David against them to say,Go,number Israel and Judah".-II Samuel 24:1(b)"And SATAN stood up against Israel,and provoked David to number Israel."-I Chronicles 21:1.

RESPONSE:
God is often portrayed in the Bible as allowing Satan to move people to specific actions. When God gets angry with a nation or with an individual, he is often said to allow Satan to give them a bad time.  As I explained above, God can grant power to Satan, yet God is still in control, thus when God became angry with Israel, he could David against them by allow Satan to agitate him.  As I explained above, this is even often true of human rulers.  Human rulers often grant power to other rulers who still remain subject to them, they often grant power to their generals to go to war for them and, they often use others to do things for them, such when a king wishes to execute someone, he often calls in an executioner rather than doing it himself.  There is no contradiction here at all.

YOU WROTE:
So, is the Lord of David then Satan?God forbid!3}(a) "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had NO CHILD until the day of her death"-II Samuel 6:23.(b)"But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah,whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth:and THE FIVE SONS of Michal the daughter of Saul,whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzilai the Meholathite."-II Samuel 21:8,So, did Michal have children or not..?,

RESPONSE:
It says very clearly, that the five sons of Michal were sons she brought up for "Adriel, the son of Barzilai".  In other words, Michal was barren and didn't give birth to any children, but she brought up five sons.  This was a common Hebrew practice and is also common throughout history, for barren women to raise children.  Many barren women in the United States today adopt children and raise them as their own, often not even telling the children.  

YOU WROTE:
there are a lot more contradictions in the old testament , showing that it could not have been holy.in the Psalm, The Muslim holy city of Makka is mentioned(original word for makka was Baca,as it's referred to in the Quran,Prophet David mentions in his Psalms 84:6:"Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well, the rain also filleth the pool."The well here is a well known well of Zamzam,still present now,close to the Ka'bah.

RESPONSE:
Islam borrowed much from the Old Testament and did not appear until long after both David and Jesus.  Thus, Islam has no relevance to validity of the Old Testament.  Islam itself admits to having borrowed from the Old Testament and, anything that Islam claims regarding David is clearly historically superceded by the authors of the Old Testament. (Muhammad 570-632 AD)

Thanks you for your inquiry.  Feel free to check out my books online, which attempt to separate a lot of Christian and other mythologies from the historical facts of Jesus, science and history: www.RichardAberdeen.com