Bible Contradictions!

[heavycola]

^^^ that's funny

[Truman]

Sorry I haven't replied in a while, for I was occupied during the last two weeks. It is explained on the "Evolutionary Contradictions" thread about why I haven't replied in such a long period. Let us continue...

Truman this thread is pointless.

Many people believe the bible contradicts itself. You do not. The former will point to the same passages discussed here as proof; you will give them a different reading.

I ask that you show me a different answer to these that I answered. You won't. Why? Because your thinking has dragged you away from rationality which points to there being Bible contradictions indeed. I have answered, I believe, 78 acclaimed contradictions and no one has answered them back except to give more and ignore my answers (showing their norrow-mindedness not to read what refutes them) and your answer, saying that everything I said is up to interpretation. You offer claims, but no premise on which to back the claims. If you say there is different interpretation that can be put on my answers, please show them. If not, leave.

Fundamental xtianity is extremely dogmatic. It's like the creation/evolution debate: your belief - which has nothing to do with science or reason - forces you to shoehorn your observations of the natural world into a paradigm into which they don't really fit.

I've shown many evidences against your belief and you have not answered one. Answer them or else I'll continue to laugh. Answer them or else consider yourself a slanderer. You've got nothing that can refute my posts. Instead, you continue with your empty insults which continue to amuse me. You can insult me all you want but it'll never get you anywhere. Sorry.

Nobody has offered a defense of creationism - because one does not exist - only attacks on small facets of evolutionary theory.

I've already given proof through polonuim halos and others. You just refuse to look because of your dogmatic thinking on the evolution side. Again, I ask you to please try thinking outside the box.

As for "attacks on small facets of evolutionary theory," I've addressed and refuted the theories of the big bang, big bang-redshift theory, big bang-radiation, vestigals, and would love to discuss more topics concerning evolutionary theory. I'd love to discuss mutations, the Grand Canyon, whale evolution, Archaeopteryx, and many others.

Similarly, your avowal that the bible is perfect colours every discussion you have, instead of your objective readings informing your belief (this is how science works).

So far you haven't attempted to answer one answer that I gave to any acclaimed contradictions. The Bible doesn't go against science at all, and yet you claim it does. Who's right? Well, you haven't posted one thing which disproves the Bible.

My "readings" (I think you mean "research" Mr. Spock) have turned me toward Christianity, rather than your way. I used to believe like you. I believed the big bang, ape men, dinosaurs living millions of years ago, and even the "comet theory" that supposedly killed them off. My research has led me against evolution theory, sometimes the phrase is offered, "He has too much brains to be a skeptic." Trust me, Cola, the more you know, the more you turn away from evolution. My solution for you-- Get Smart.

Of course you don't believe the bible contains contradictions - your faith doesn not allow any other possibility. This is dogma.

You've failed to mention how you've come to the conclusion that there are contradictions in the Bible. It's like you're the sheep who follows anyone: "The Bible has contradictions!" I ask, "Why do you say that?" You say, "Because I heard there are!" No no no no, this isn't how logic works, you see. You learn first about what you're talking about (like actually producing a contradiction instead of just claiming blindly), and then you post the contradiction.

But of course, they'd rather ridicule their opponent with such statements as "You're so stupid, don't you know almost all scholars believe there are contradictions in the Bible?" Now first of all, majority opinion doesn't prove a thing. You can even get some scholars to say the moon is made of green cheese. I could get some people to say that, sure. Secondly, most scholars actually believe the opposite, and that the Bible is a very useful historical document. Have you seen "The Exodus Decoded" on the History channel? That channel is well-known for producing scholars, professors, and other experts to comment on whatever subject they discuss, and here we have almost every expert on this special supporting Exodus, saying that it is not a myth, (I quote) "This is history."

However, the atheist will still try to hold his belief with supposed "experts" or even real experts that support their idea. This is what Pilate is doing.

But (and Pilate, pay close attention), this does not mean they are the only people who are experts. Many others say it was around 50 A.D. (which I'll support with sources in a moment). But the atheist will turn around and say (like you have said), "There are contradictions in the Bible, but your faith will prevent you from thinking so. Therefore this is dogma." (This is kind of like what you said.) For one thing, my faith is completely irrelevant to this topic. This topic is for me to answer Bible contradictions and I have lived up to my pledge, I will respond to any 15 at a time. There's just one problem, people have stopped posting (or won't post) because there is nothing to post. There are no contradictions! Then you'll say, "Well there are, but you're so stupid you can't figure that out." Yeah well, as I said before I answered 78 so far and I impatiently await my next set.

By the way, let me give you a little lesson about "dogma."

Why did Robert Gentry lose his job? Was it perhaps the publishers realize the articles supported creation? (The details behind him are mentioned in the "Evolutionary Contradictions" thread.)

Why did Roger DeHart lose his job? He was a science teacher at Burlington-Edison High School, just to get you informed. Well, he was forbidden to pass out articles from updated science journals, which informed the students about errors in the textbooks which beforehand, supported evolution theory. He did it anyway and was fired. He never mentioned one thing about the Bible or creation; just lies in the books, and he was fired for pointing them out. Is this not prejudice and dogma that pushes the school to do this? He dared go against errors because if he did, the kids just might doubt evolution...and they sure don't want that.

Biology teacher, Kevin Haley from Oregon Community College: Fired for exposing errors in the textbooks.

William Dembski from Baylor University in Waco, Texas: Fired for advocating "intelligent design."

Forrest Mims was a science writer for 20 years, who published articles in mainstream science magazines like National Geographic, Science Digest, The American Journal of Physics, and 60 other magazines and newspapers. He was denied a job for Scientific American because he was a creationist. Why?

Biology instructor from the Faribault School District, Rod LaVake, was reassigned just because he doubted Darwin's theory.

I can list at least 10 more if I wanted to, but I think you get the idea. Is it not prejudice, discrimination, and dogma that these people do this by? No one must ever question evolution because if you do, you'll be fired. It's pretty much like the Soviet Union 20 years ago. You question evolution and you'll end up in virtual Siberia: you'll lose your job and your status. You'll be ridiculed just for questioning it! "EVOLUTION IS A FACT!" Yeah? Guess what, God doesn't believe in atheists either.

This is dogma.

I believe the bible isn't perfect and can form my own conclusions. Your dogmatic assumptions are never going to convince me otherwise. Arguing with you on this is pointless.

Yeah, and you claim your teachings are not dogmatic? Yeah, and I'm Whoopi Goldberg.

This is the way with all atheistical evolutionists, where they believe in like-thinkers and scientists that support their own ideas and their agenda, but never look to the other side to see what's really there. I heard of one story where there was an evolution scientist at a dig site with a camera man so he can report what he sees. The archeologists are urging him to see they've found some dinosaur footprints next to man-made ones (I'm not sure that was it, but this is from my vague memory of the story). The problem is, the scientist refuses to look and keeps his head in the camera saying, "I've seen nothing here that disproves evolution." He never looked.

This is what you are doing when you refuse to read my contradiction answers. You're blind from anything disproving your faith because you refuse to see the obvious. You keep on claiming, "It's all up to interpretation! None of it can really be answered!" Well then prove it! Answer me! Please; I don't care how; shoot the gun, don't just aim. Try that and maybe, somehow, you might just knick the end of my 20-foot-long coat.

Even someone like you can try to sound intelligent on the internet.

I do not understand what you are saying. Let us continue this internet debate because I am knowledgable about the subject and everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant

You'd like to think that's what I mean, wouldn't you? There's no question I'm quite knowledgeable about this subject (and many other subject for that matter). The question is, do I consider others to be idiots because I conclude myself to be smart about the subject I debate? This is false. I have neither said, nor have ever even implied that people who disagree with me are dumb. I've been a skeptic, so don't say I've been raised to believe Christianity to be without error, because I have not.

I understand perfectly what you are saying and I asked reasonable question that you provide sources, (which you have). However, this is the only time on this thread where you have ever supplied sources for your beliefs. I, however, have supplied sources for most of my arguments and have sources to give if anyone asks me about the ones I haven't provided for, so that excludes me from being one who hasn't.

There are others who are smarter than me. This is obviously true. There are many subjects I never get too much into when I don't really know the real facts about. I know my limits. I've read and analyzed everything I post in a topic I post frequently in, like this one and the "Evolutionary Contradictions" thread. The problem with you is you state all kinds of things you believe because you heard about them somewhere from someone you like because he believes the same as you. In other words, you believe like-scholars or scientists instead of ones who have studied the Bible as well as the scholars you have given as examples, who also know the Bible and accept it, rather than reject it.

I am not trying to sound intelligent. I am intelligent, as you can see. Stating that I'm just showing off is a big lie. I'm engaging in this because I choose to; I'm not gaining anything from this discussion. You'll say, "Recognition." Everyone already knows me apparently, or else you wouldn't make such general comments about me wherever or whenever I post in the forum. I could be out actually living my life whenever I have free time from work, but I don't. Instead, I come here and write (and occasionally play a game or two ). I don't do it because I'm trying to show off, nor do I write because I have nothing else to do (as you might bring up). Maybe you should consider me the "Ann Coulter" of Conquer Club. I may not be as witty as her, but I can sure get mean about something when I'm in a rush of explaining it. However, I write and debate because I choose to, and nothing you can possibly say can change that concept from being so.

Here are my sources (I bet my sources are more credible than yours).

http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0195154622
http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/Ehrman1.html
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Funk/funk.html
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Crossan/crossan.html
http://www.religion.utoronto.ca/English/John-W.html
http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Jesus-Mediterranean-Jewish-Peasant/dp/0060616296
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Polebridge/Title/5Gospels/5gospels.html

Bart Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University.

Prof. Ehrman completed his M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees at Princeton Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude. Since then he has published extensively in the fields of New Testament and Early Christianity, having written or edited nineteen books, numerous articles, and dozens of book reviews. Among his most recent books are a college-level textbook on the New Testament, two anthologies of early Christian writings, a study of the historical Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet (Oxford Univesity Press), and a Greek-English Edition of the Apostolic Fathers for the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press).

Prof. Ehrman has served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature, and editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press). He currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools and Studies (E. J. Brill) and on several other editorial boards for monographs in the field.

Winner of numerous university awards and grants, Prof. Ehrman is the recipient of the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.

First of all, saying you've got a PhD or other degree does not prove you're knowledgeable on anything. You can easily go to Harvard and come out with a PhD or an MS or whatever and still not have a good education. Yuo can come out of Yale with a dull brain about a lot of things. For instance, the evolution of the horse is on display there, when it's been proven wrong over 50 years ago. The fact of the matter is that if you study a subject, you can be considered an expert. Getting a degree on anything does not mean you should be considered smarter than the other on whatever subject you got your degree in.

Now, there are others who have degrees simply because they know a lot about something. The scholars you listed can be considered "experts," and Mr. Ehrman is knowledgeable on this subject by means of his position in society and what he has done. But all I'm saying is, you can have all the degrees in the world and still be wrong. Who was Aristotle? Taught big rocks fall faster than little rocks. Who was Ernst Haeckle who lied to an entire college? Who was Charles Darwin who was a college drop-out? Majority opinion doesn't prove anything, and it isn't even the majority who says this is when Mark was written.

Now here's the juicy part. Listen closely readers, because this is where Pilate gets slippery and out of my way. This tactic he uses is called Elephant Hurling. It's very simple and here's how it works. You get a whole bunch of statements and information and throw it in the face of the opponent (which I've seen many of you do often), and then proclaim he's lost if or when he doesn't reply. This is faulty, however. Elephant hurling doesn't prove anything, but it sure proves one thing: you like swamping your opponent.

Another argument Pilate uses is called (by the rules of logic) Faulty Appeal to Authority. This is a controversial subject, and saying that one scholar says this and that doesn't mean it's the only view out there. It is obvious it was written before the destruction of the temple if you read Mark 13:1-2. I can easily list a whole bunch of repudable scholars who are also experts who believe the opposite of Mr. Ehrman. Here are just 5:

D. James Kennedy; Degrees: A.B., M.Div., M.Th., D.D., D. Sac.Let., PhD., Litt.D., D.Sac.Theol., D. Humane Let.: http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5936&abbr=cs_

Michael J. Bumbulis; Degrees: PhD., B.S., M.S.: http://www.bw.edu/academics/bio/faculty/bumbulis/

J. R. Porter; has no degrees but is a (and I quote from the link I give) "...Professor Emeritus of Theology at the University of Exeter and a former Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. He served for twenty years as a member of the General Synod of the Church of England." http://www.dbponline.co.uk/book_preview.asp?b_id=39

John C. Hagee; Degrees: B.S., ThM.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee

Jeff Cate; Degrees: PhD., M.Div. (in Biblical studies), B.A.,: http://www.calbaptist.edu/jcate/

These repudable scholars who have studied in their fields well and have also studied this subject say that Mark was indeed written before 70 A.D. I say it again: what you have done is a faulty appeal to authority. This is a cnotroversial subject and many scholars disagree with what other scholars have to say. Just because you give a few links that show people who believe the same as you doesn't prove a thing, likewise with me. This is a controversial subject, and we should not rely on the opinions of people who think like us when backing ourselves up, unless the claim is supported by evidence on the other's part.

Truman is the name of a user of a popular online game based on Hasbro's Risk. He came to conquerclub in 2006, after six years of posting on various internet forums.

Prof. Truman did not complete any university degrees but is considered very knowledgable about Christianity. Why? Because he said he is. He has published nothing, written or edited nothing. Among his most recent works is a conquerclub thread in which he proclaimed Catholics to not be Christians. He hasn't received any awards but won an argument against two anonymous evolutions on a christian internet board.

Ridiculing me will get you nowhere. As I stated before, Darwin, who popularized evolution teaching, was never a scientist; he was a college dropout. He spent most of his time in bars with his friends. He had 2 years of medical school and failed. The public schools we have today teach Darwin was a great scientist. He was actually a racist, sexist, chauvinist, and performed incest with his first cousin, which produced a line of deformed and metally ill children. What a nut!

Why do they portray him as a great man, I don't know. But this is a classic analogy of what you do when you say I don't have a degree, so therefore I can't be considered an expert. This is a faulty assumtion, however. I can perfectly well be an expert and not have a degree because I studied the subject for years! I might even get a degree yet when I go to college, but claiming I don't have a degree, or I never won anything doesn't prove I'm a dumb idiot.

W. F. Libby invented carbon dating and won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of it, because so many scientists thought it might prove evolution. Turns out, though, that

"Radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying."(1)

Scientists concluded in the lab that the total time it would take for earth's atmosphere to reach equilibrium (for carbon 14 to stop forming faster than decaying) is about 30,000 years. This is the reason for most of the dates carbon dating gives to be very strange. Here's something I dug up that you might be a bit interested in if you're open-minded enough to see it:

"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it."(2)

Anyway, if radiocarbon is forming faster than it is decaying, this proves the earth to be less than 30,000 years of age. And right there is where your evolution falls apart. See how easy it is to debunk? And yet, Libby won the Nobel Prize for his discovery. How bad did it turn out for evolutionists? Pretty terrible. How successful was he? Very. And yet, his prize-winning discovery is torn down. He had many degrees. He should be considered smart, right? Well, why did he ignore the equilibrium problem? Hmm? Think about it. You don't have to win anything or get a few degrees to be considered an expert. Why do you think they get the degrees? They study. They learn. They look at the facts. This is how experts are made, and I'm one of them. You aren't, but would rather believe people like yourself. I follow the facts, not fairy tales.

And saying that "So many people believe there are contradictions" doesn't hold up one second. To prove your premise, you must give evidence. I've asked for contradictions and I've shown them all to be misconceptions, out-of-context statements, or just plain lies. If the Bible contains contradictions, SHOW SOME! Saying that other people think so is irrelevant.

(1) R. E. Taylor et al., American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1; 1985, pp. 136-140

(2) T. Save-Soderbergh and I. U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics respectively, University of Uppsala, Sweden), "C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology", Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York, 1970, p. 35

[ksslemp]

I don't think there are any contradictions, the bible is an assemblage of works put together by men. Christians would say: Inspired by God. When they put it together, they were careful to eliminate any contradictions. The only thing that some might call contradictions are differences in the Old Testament and New Testament. Example:(Eye 4 Eye/V./Turn other cheek)

I am personally an Agnostic, which means i don't know if God exists.
Hoping to figure it out before i pass away

One thing i do know for certain is: You may someday know that there is a God, but you will never know that there isn't!

[jay_a2j]

There are 2 things I know for certain in this life.


1. There is a God

2. I'm not Him.

[Jolly Roger]

I've shown many evidences against your belief and you have not answered one. Answer them or else I'll continue to laugh. Answer them or else consider yourself a slanderer. You've got nothing that can refute my posts. Instead, you continue with your empty insults which continue to amuse me. You can insult me all you want but it'll never get you anywhere.

I will review your responses for you Truman. However, for the record, I don't think it matters whether or not it's contradictory. The Bible can be without contradiction and still not be true. Similarly, evolution can be filled with contradictions without making creationism any more true.

God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

Jeremiah refers to God punishing those who stand against Him in wickedness. In the Psalms, King David talks about how the Lord is good to all men who obey and seek Him. He is righteous when He destroys, for whenever He does destroy anyone in the Bible, He does it out of righeousness. He put the Israelites into bondage because they turned their backs on Him. He even implies in two scriptures before that God is merciful and good to all who obey Him:

Psalms doesn't say God is good to all who obey and seek him - you said that. Without your addition to the text, this remains contradictory. Psalms also does not say that god is good to all (except those who stand against him). The Bible does say we should love our enemy in which case god is setting a very poor example.
I have a feeling you're going to accuse me of speaking in absolutes - please remember that I am not the one speaking in absolutes, Psalms is. If you've got a problem with absolutes, take it up with whoever wrote this passage.

War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

God is characterized by both. So was Ronald Reagan. So what?

This is fine. We can go to war anytime we like so long as we "believe" god is okay with it, right?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Jacob was Joseph's true father. Heli was Joseph's father-in-law: Mary's dad. Umm, duh?

Duh? Where does it say Heli is Mary's father in the text? If you're going to rant about other people making unsubstantiated claims, you'd better be prepared to apply the same rules to your own arguments (and be sure to avoid a faulty appeal to authority while you're at it). Shall we also assume then that Heli was the son-in-law of Matthat who was the son-in-law of Levi and so on? Shall we assume that all Biblical genealogies refer to the in-law relationship or does this interpretation only apply when it suits your purposes? You say the Bible has no contradictions no matter how people twist it. I say it only has no contradictions when people do twist it.

Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

God directly formed animals out of the ground for Adam to name them. This doesn't mean he created them after Adam. It was just saving time so they didn't have to call all of the animals. How simple is that to understand?

Where does it say that god likes to save time? All of the power in the universe at his disposal and he's looking for ways to be more efficient? The fact of the matter is that the first set of passages shows the beasts made before man while the second set shows the beasts were made after man. Your "response" does nothing to address the contradiction.

The number of beasts in the ark

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Refers to the animals going into the ark two by two, not only two of each kind.

How can the clean beasts go two by two, male and female, when Noah's supposed to take seven of each?

How many stalls and horsemen?

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.

Read the verses carefully and you will see that there is no contradiction. They had chariot teams with ten horses and ten men per chariot in case you got a flat tire! If he had "four thousand stalls for horses and chariots" he would need fourty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots.

You should read the verses carefully. The second verse says that he had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, not four thousand stalls for just chariots. If the horses fit in the stalls with the chariots, the additional forty thousand stalls are unnecessary.

The sins of the father
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.

If taken into context, Deuteronomy 24:16 says that God establishes a number of laws by which the people would be judged and kept. In 24:16, He acknowledges that an individual is personally responsible for what they do. If a man commits murder, his son is not to be put to death for the deed, neither, if the son has committed adultery should the father be executed. The Bible says, "...every man shall be put to death for his own sin." In Isaiah 14, this is not speaking of a son being executed for the sins of his father. If taken into context, this is to be a prophecy concerning the coming destruction upon a nation. Because the nation had evil leadership of their king, God pronounced destruction upon the Babylonian people. And guess what? In about 540 B.C., Babylon was overthrown by the Medes. The city was left in ruins, it stayed in ruins, and we found it in ruins.

Still contradictory. Putting all the children in a city to death because of the sins of all the fathers in that city hardly qualifies as everyone being put to death for their own sins.

Who makes people deaf and blind?

God:
Exodus 4:11. Who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Foul spirits:
Mark 9: 17, 25. And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit. Jesus ... rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.

Easy pickings.

Moses wanted to exclude himself from God's plan of removing the Jews from Egyptian bondage. He said he was "slow of speech and slow of tongue." (Exodus 4:10). When God asked Moses who makes the dumb, deaf, seeing, and blond--er, blind people, He declares he is the Lord and Creator of everything. Him making all deaf people deaf, or all blind people blind is not His point. Some people become blind or deaf accidentally, or in Mark, a demon possessed someone to become that way. What is my point? My point is that we don't own the right to exclude ourselves from anything God wants us to do based on the mere reason of "disability." God is God. He can remedy that.

No contradiction.

Wrong. The only way that this is not a contradiction is if God puts the foul spirits in people to make them deaf, dumb, etc. Moses' motives are irrelevant to the discussion.

Is death final?

Yes:
Job 20:7. Yet he shall perish for ever like his own dung.
Isaiah 26:14. They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased they shall not rise.

No:
Luke 14:14. Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.
1 Corinthians 15:16. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised.

No, death isn't final.

In Job the text talks about what will happen to the wicked, saying that he will perish forever. The wicked are resurrected, but to a resurrection of condemnation.

In Isaiah, read the text before and after it! It's a song by the people of Judah, praising the Lord for deliverance from their enemies. They weren't saying that their enemies wouldn't rise up again in the resurrection. This wasn't the point of the song. Please read the contradiction before posting it.

I don't see much of a contradiction here to begin with.

When was Jesus born?

Before 4 BCE:
Matthew 2:1. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king.
(Herod the Great died in 4 BCE.)

After 6 CE:
Luke 2:1. And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
(Quirinius became governer of Syria in 6 CE, ten years after king Herod's death.)

The only census that was taken outside the Bible near this time under Quirinius (a.k.a. "Cyrenius" in the Greek) is the one referred to by the historian Josephus, which says took place in 6 A.D.

But Luke 2:2 says that the census taken at about the time Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. This means that there was a later census, which was most likely the one referred to by Josephus, which Luke would have also certainly known about when writing the gospel.

According to a Latin inscription discovered in 1764, there is good reason to believe that Quirinius was in a position of command twice over the province of Syria, which included Israel as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading the military against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been "military governor," not your ordinary governor.

During this time there was definitely a taxing. Therefore, it is very possible that an associated census had the details which may have been common knowledge in Luke's time, but are lost to modern history records of today.

So it's possible this is a contradiction and it's possible that it's not - I can live with that.

Did Jesus know everything?

Yes:
Colossians 2:2-3. Of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

No:
Mark 13:32. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Jesus only knows everything earthly and relevent to this life and the everything between Himself and God the Father. He doesn't know what only God the Father knows. All the knowledge and wisdom that could be gained by humans is what Jesus knew. Everything the Father told Jesus is what He told everyone else.

No contradiction.

Great. Where can I sign up for "raising people from the dead" classes? I had no idea the knowledge required to do this was available to the common man. The passage from Colossians provides for no restrictions on Jesus' knowledge and wisdom - only your interpretation does. This isn't much of a contradiction to begin with; however, if you regard it as a contradiction, you've failed utterly to disprove it.

Who brought evil on Job?

Satan:
Job 2:7. So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

God:
Job 42:11. Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread

with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him.

Notice how it says in 2:7, "So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD..." This obviously shows how Satan, no matter how powerful he may be, is still under God's control. God allowed Satan to bring evil upon Job to test himso he would trust the Lord in all things. In return, since he never cursed God or anything, he received everything doubled except for his children, since his other children were alive with God in Heaven.

Plus, 42:11 speaks of what Job and his family comforted him from. They had no idea Satan was the one who did it. However, God allowed it. There's no contradiction.

Agreed.

Should we try to please others?

Yes:
1 Corinthians 10:33. Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

No:
Galatians 1:10. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Paul is trying to be everything to everyone to win them to Jesus, but it doesn't include agreeing with the truth. 1 Corinthians and Galatians were letters.

Yeah - they're letters FROM THE BIBLE which you have been telling us is without fault. If you are saying Paul is lying, I am inclined to wonder what else he lies about and perhaps we should also consider how many other Biblcial authors are just making statements willy-nilly in the hope of winning converts. Isn't there some commandment against lying?

Does righteousness come from following the Law?

Yes:
Luke 1:6. They [Zacharias and Elisabeth] were both righteous before God walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

No:
Galatians 2:21. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Luke never implies that Zacharias and Elisabeth were righteous because they obeyed they commandments. It just says they walked in righteousness and obeyed the commandments. A better way to say the passage would be, "They were both righteous before God. And because they were both righteous they walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

Agreed. But Luke 1:6 does contradict these:

Isaiah 41:26
Who hath declared from the beginning, that we may know? and beforetime, that we may say, He is righteous? yea, there is none that sheweth, yea, there is none that declareth, yea, there is none that heareth your words.

Isaiah 64:6
We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.

Romans 3:10
There is none righteous, no, not one.

Can God be seen?

Yes:
Genesis 32:30. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Numbers 14:14. For they have heard that thou Lord art among this people, that thou Lord art seen face to face.

No:
Exodus 33:20. There shall no man see me, and live.
John 1:18. No man hath seen God at any time.

No man can see the Lord as He is. One scripture of yours states that He

Quote:
"...alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen."

--I Timothy 6:16


When we read of someone in the Bible seeing the Lord, they have not seen Him in this unapproachable form.

For there to be a contradiction, you need to produce a passage which states that someone has approached the Lord's "...unapproachable light..." We find several times in Scripture the Lord appearing in various forms, such as -- a burning bush (Exodus 3; not given but still relevant); with the appearance of a man (Ezekiel 1:26; same as the burning bush); as the Angel of the Lord (Numbers 22:27; Judges 6:22); and through a cloud and pillar of fire (Numbers 14:14; like the one you gave).

The only time it seems that a man came close to seeing the Lord in His unapproachable form is Moses in Exodus 33. The face to face meeting with the Lord in verse 11 is not with His "unapproachable light", for in verses 20-23, the Lord tells Moses he cannot see His face. Moses could not see while the glory of the Lord passed by.

Genesis says Jacob saw god face to face; John says no man has seen god at any time. There is nothing here about unapproachable light. This is still a contradiction.

This is based on the assumption that the Catholics are Christians, when this is false.

And you said you were smart...

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

These are not contradictions, but variations in writing of the gospel. Each of the verses do not say that the others were not there, but just mentions certain people coming to the tomb. The Bible writers do this many times, where they leave out a few things, and later mention them in scripture. But these scriptures do not contradict in any way. They just mention things not said before. So, it is obvious that Mark 16:1 is the scripture that shows the most people coming then. Maybe there were even more people who came. But it does not contradict.

Agreed.

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Refers to Jesus being the Son of God. He is one with God because He is God in the flesh. The Father is greater than the Son in authority, but they are equal in nature -- both are deity.

These passages say nothing about nature and authority - you do

Is it folly to be wise or not?
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Refers to man who has worldly wisdom of man, and not God. It is good to be wise in the Lord, not in worldly knowledge. For instance, you could have a great amout of porn knowledge. Does God like this? I think you get it.

You confuse wisdom with knowledge. Neither passage makes any sort of distinction between different types of wisdom - you do. You're rewriting the Bible yet again.

The bat is not a bird
LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

The Bible, when referring to "fowls" actually means "flying animals" in the Hebrew. Also, the word "bat" in the Hebrew is translated from the Hebrew "tinshemeth." Scholars are uncertain that this even means "bat," so it could have referred to another species of bird, possibly the swan."

In Deuteronomy this also means "every kosher bird" which translates yet again as "flying animal."

Translation problems, huh? Are you sure you're not arguing against Biblical validity? Is there is that much room for error with respect to this single word, imagine the possibilities in the entire text!

Rabbits do not chew their cud
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
'Gerah', the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated 'chew the cud' in the KJV is more exactly 'bring up the cud'. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

You're assuming that the Bible is talking about modern coneys and hares when it is not. The coney is actually, in Hebrew, is called "Shafan" in Hebrew. Shafan, translated back into English is called Hyrax syriacus or Procavia capens syriaca. The hyrax is a small mammal, around 20 inches long, living in the Negev mountains. It has short feet, covered with elastic, a flexible tail-less body, and pads. It nests in the clefts of rocks (Psalms 104:1, and lives in small groups (Proverbs 30:26). Since it has a maw like a ruminant, it is considered to "bring up its cud." On the speaking of the hare, in the Hebrew, this word is called Arneveth, which, translated into English, is the angora rabbit, whose wool is prized. It could be considered to "bring up its cud" since it regurgitates its food in the early morning hours and then eats it again. Once again, the Bible is not wrong.

So why doesn't the Bible say hyrax? You are saying that the English translation is incorrect (i.e., it's not contradictory, it's just wrong).

Insects do NOT have four feet
LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

The Hebrew is translated as "Ezrath Kohanim on Sifra" Or, 'that walks like a quadruped.' Insects have six legs, but members of the grasshopper family use four for walking and two for hopping.

I'll have to take your word on this one. Next time I see a grasshopper, I'll be sure and check how many legs it uses to walk.

Snails do not melt
PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

Naturally, anyone would know that a snail does indeed melt when salt is sprinkled onto it. But if we look into the Hebrew, the word "melt" is "tememc," which, translated back into English means "dissolutes its substances." Where do you think the slime comes from?

Do they melt or does the water just leave their body? Do I melt when I sweat?

Fowl from waters or ground?
GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Once again, Genesis 2:9 is referring to when God made each animal out of the ground for Adam to name them. 2:9 does not refer to the creation model

You have not addressed the contradiction. Water or land?

Odd genetic engineering
GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

There is nowhere in scripture whether the use of the rods was commanded by God or if it was Jacob's own idea.

The key to the flocks coming forth ringstraked, speckled, and grisled was not the rods placed before the cattle, but the fact that "...God hath taken away the cattle..." of Laban and given them to Jacob. Whether God told Jacob to place the rods before the cattle or not doesn't matter. If he was commanded to do so, it was his obedience to God's word that brought forth his prosperity. If God tells you to do something, do it. Don't ask questions, just do it!

There is no contradiction here, just the small matter of goats giving birth to cows. What's the problem?

The shape of the earth
ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Astromical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.

Refers to Satan showing the kingdoms of the world to Jesus through spiritual ways. Satan is beyond the realm of men. He wasn't literally showing all the kingdoms to Jesus physically. What's your point here?

What's your point here? There is nothing in this passage to indicate that anything was done through "spiritual ways". Also, if "spiritual ways" were truly employed, why go up a mountain? Are spiritual ways not possible in someone's basement? Do you require good reception like a cellphone?

Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt
GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

You are extremely dense if you can't figure out that snakes do indeed eat dust. Have you considered that there is an organ in the roof of a snake’s mouth called "Jacobson's organ"? This helps the snake to smell in addition to its nose. Its darting, forked tongue samples bits of dust by picking them up on the points of the fork, which it then presents to its matching pair of sensory organs inside its mouth. Once it has "smelt" them in this way, the tongue must be cleaned so the process can be repeated immediately. Think it a while and you'll eventually get it.

Agreed.

Earth supported?
JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Heaven supported too
JOB 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

Metaphores.

Metaphors for what? I think some kind of comparison is required. The pillars are compared to...what? I think this is the heart of what cola has been complaining about. You feel very confident saying these things are metaphors but why should you be the one to judge where symbols are employed in the bible and where they aren't? Perhaps all Biblical discussion on homosexuality is merely symbolic; perhaps the ark was a symbol; perhaps Eden was just a symbol (for evolution). Did these things actually exist? Did they happen? I guess it all depends on how you interpret it.

Order of creation
Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
Note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim", which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods". In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good".
The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:
Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

1. Yes, God created the sky, Earth, and light on the first day.

2. You seem confused about how there was water in the sky. See the first post on my topic called, "Before the Flood" to understand a bit better.

3. Correct.

4. Right again.

5. Correct again! Wow, you're really good at this.

6. Where does it say humans? It says man. And no, God did not create them both at the same time.

7. Correct.

8. On creating light before the sun and stars, let us look closer at this scripture. God said, "And let there be light" and there was light. When you read factual books about sound and its miracles it can produce, you will see that this is indeed possible. It has been proven in the lab that if you heat sound in a condensed area underwater, it will produce a small sphere of light which can illuminate, heat, and energize the area, or room which it is in. The earth was a sphere of water, so there's no problem at all with this. Now, it says that God said, "Let there be light." But even before it says this, it says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." He moved toward the earth and said "Let there be light." This huge reaction of massive sound must have produced an acceptable source of light, heat, and energy for the plants to have survived until the time when He created the sun, moon, and stars. These were literal days, not "periods of time" as some skeptics claim.

But of course, God is God, and doesn't need these sources of nature to make something happen. I'm just saying that it has been proven that this can be proved rationally without only blind faith to believe on. But if there is an evolutionist talking to me, then he would ask such a question as "Where did god come from?" and I don't know. Evolutionists believe that there was a Big Bang that created the universe from a piece of dirt that spun 'round and 'round until BOOM: Big Bang. Now, I would ask that certain evolutionist, "Now then where did the dirt come from?" and he doesn't know as well. Now we have two declarations. There was either

In the beginning God...

or

In the beginning Dirt...

Which one sounds more logical to you? Think about it.

9. You are also wrong on "Elohim" being plural when it is not. It is a singular-plural. I once answered an acclaimed contradiction that said,

Quote:
"Thou shalt not revile the gods.

--Exodus 22:28"


I said:

Quote:
"The supposed scripture on 'gods' is not speaking of 'gods' at all! The scripture says,

'Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.'

The Hebrew word for 'gods' in this passage is a singular plural for 'God' or 'Elohim.' It could also mean 'the judges,' and not be speaking of God at all. But either way, it does not mean 'gods' literally."


10. You are going by what the Gap Theory teaches. This is clearly not true and very unscriptural. Why do you use it? Where is it in scripture?

11. On Genesis 2, this isn't referring back and doing a recap of the exact order of creation. It isn't talking about the creation here.

So when it say "gods" we can't take it literally but when it says "days", we should take it literally. I'd love to know who's making all of these decisions. It does not appear to be god. As far as I can tell, it is you, Truman.
In the beginning God and In the beginning Dirt both sound equally logical.
On the matter of the contradiction, you reply simply that Genesis 2 isn't talking about creation. Well then what is it talking about, oh great one?

Moses' personality
Num.12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

Num.31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."

This was God's command to Moses. They were in the middle of a war. You take much of these scriptures out of context. Moses was wroth at the generals. Moses killed only the women who had sex and were therefore a bad example for the people of Israel because they might teach Israel's children to do the sins of adultery, fornication, etc., and teach them sex in the wrong way. They were evil people. Moses killed the male children because they were a threat to the nation and might rise up and demolish the people. All the women children were kept alive to be children of the Israelites and learn not to be in sin like the people they had just destroyed in the war.

You presuppose that scripture is evil, when it is you who are the one who takes it out of context. I am very ashamed of you.

You have got to be kidding. If the Bible, as you suggest, defends the killing of babies because they might one day be a threat, then I guess that closes the abortion debate. Who knows what kind of monsters those fetuses might become!
If you're okay with killing live infants, perhaps you're the one who ought to be ashamed. Ah yes, and killing women who set a bad example sexually. What could possibly be wrong with that, Truman?

Righteous live?
Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Pslams refers to David talking about the righteous in the end.

David is not talking in Isaiah and it refers to the wicked who condemn the righteous at the present time.

Fine

That's all I have in me for now. Will try to address more later.

[Backglass]

[reverend_kyle]

found that on myspace posted it on mine.. alot of people sent me mean messages about it.

[hitandrun]

Having been brought up in a Christian household, I advise all those who wish to argue against the faith: Don't bother.
You will never change their minds or get them to see the light!
Blind faith is essential to the organised religion, you can't break it I've been trying for 15 years!
No matter how many untruths and nonsense we drag up from the bible, they've always got an answer (albeit a lame one!) because they don't have the ability to question it.

Sorry, my piece is now said.
May I bless you all.

[Backglass]

Blind faith is essential to the organised religion, you can't break it I've been trying for 15 years!
No matter how many untruths and nonsense we drag up from the bible, they've always got an answer (albeit a lame one!) because they don't have the ability to question it.

Agree 1000%.

[jay_a2j]

found that on myspace posted it on mine.. alot of people sent me mean messages about it.

and well deserved I might add.

[vtmarik]

and well deserved I might add.

It's about as stupid as this:



Why can't I stick a sticker in a Bible that says "This isn't based on any science at all, it's a religious text and should be reserved for discussions on theology and philosophy only."

'An open mind...' Funny how that actually means 'Reject this secular theory and embrace God before its too late'

[heavycola]

found that on myspace posted it on mine.. alot of people sent me mean messages about it.

and well deserved I might add.

Why can;t we put you lot on an island and cast you adrift, sailing towards the sunset and singing Kumbiya to each other? Then the rest of us could get on with sinning and defiling ourselves in peace.