Conquer Club

Bible Contradictions!

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Do you believe that the Bible contains contradictory material, or any absurdities?

 
Total votes : 0

Postby jay_a2j on Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:43 am

vtmarik wrote:Who cares if the Bible contradicts itself? It's not proof of no god, it's just proof of bad editing and conflicting testimony. When you've got 12+ authors, stories are going to vary widely.

What people should be exploring is the utter repulsiveness of some of the lessons in the Bible. All of the nastier side of the old days, how women aren't allowed to have authority over men, or how two men who sleep together are destined for hell. These are the repulsive parts.

More here.

And for the faithful, if you truly are totally convinced of your beliefs than you should be able to watch this video without fear of being converted. If you find yourself being converted by the video for God's sake don't freak out! Remember, God loves you and God gave you free will so that you would use it. Even if the Bible is bunk, that only proves that the Bible is bunk. God doesn't live in a book. Keep looking, keep considering, talk to people, you may find that your true path is ready for you to walk on now. And so ends my lesson in metaphysics. Good day.




ROFL!!!! Vtmarik, do you believe EVERYTHING you see online?


We are not supposed to work on the Sabbath... the Pharasies even wanted to stone Jesus because he healed on the Sabbath. Just because people do things that God says NOT to do does NOT make it "repulsive". What's repulsive was that video. The complete ignorance of the narrarator was repulsive.



TRUMAN! Please view the video in vtmariks post and tell me what you think.



Hey marik, I bet if you look hard enuff you can find a site that gives reasons why we should worship Satan. :wink:
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby vtmarik on Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:22 am

I don't believe it, I just like it. It's good to see some alternative theories on what is and is not acceptable in the modern world.

Now, when you say Satan, do you mean the anthropomorphic satan (The big red guy) or the conceptualization of Satan (which comes from the Hebrew Shaitan meaning "He who opposes" or "The rebel")?
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby Pilate on Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:18 am

jay_a2j wrote:
vtmarik wrote:Who cares if the Bible contradicts itself? It's not proof of no god, it's just proof of bad editing and conflicting testimony. When you've got 12+ authors, stories are going to vary widely.

What people should be exploring is the utter repulsiveness of some of the lessons in the Bible. All of the nastier side of the old days, how women aren't allowed to have authority over men, or how two men who sleep together are destined for hell. These are the repulsive parts.


We are not supposed to work on the Sabbath... the Pharasies even wanted to stone Jesus because he healed on the Sabbath. Just because people do things that God says NOT to do does NOT make it "repulsive". /quote]

Jay, read what he actually says before you respond.
:roll:
User avatar
Colonel Pilate
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:21 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby jay_a2j on Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:56 am

vtmarik wrote:I don't believe it, I just like it. It's good to see some alternative theories on what is and is not acceptable in the modern world.

Now, when you say Satan, do you mean the anthropomorphic satan (The big red guy) or the conceptualization of Satan (which comes from the Hebrew Shaitan meaning "He who opposes" or "The rebel")?



I mean the "Father of lies", "the one who seeks to devour", "the one who comes as an angel of light to deceive many".
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby Boxcutta on Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:00 am

jay_a2j wrote:ROFL!!!! Vtmarik, do you believe EVERYTHING you see online?


ROFL!!!! jay_aj2, do you believe EVERYTHING you read in a 1700 year old book?
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Boxcutta
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:14 pm
Location: Channel 7

Postby jay_a2j on Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:05 am

Boxcutta wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:ROFL!!!! Vtmarik, do you believe EVERYTHING you see online?


ROFL!!!! jay_aj2, do you believe EVERYTHING you read in a 1700 year old book?



Why yes, I do. As everyone should. Its been proven time and time again to be accurate without flaw.
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby vtmarik on Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:15 pm

jay_a2j wrote:I mean the "Father of lies", "the one who seeks to devour", "the one who comes as an angel of light to deceive many".


Again, I ask you, do you think satan is an actual being, or just a set of opposing concepts?
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby jay_a2j on Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:31 pm

vtmarik wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:I mean the "Father of lies", "the one who seeks to devour", "the one who comes as an angel of light to deceive many".


Again, I ask you, do you think satan is an actual being, or just a set of opposing concepts?



Satan is real. Was known as Lucifer an angel before he was kicked out of Heaven.
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby vtmarik on Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:08 pm

jay_a2j wrote:Satan is real. Was known as Lucifer an angel before he was kicked out of Heaven.


Satan isn't real. Satan is a derivation of the Hebrew word "Shaitan" which basically means Opposition. When the Christians split off from Judaism in 66AD, they took Shaitan and equated him with the lord of the underworld, Samael. Shaitan's role in heaven, according to jewish texts, was as the prosecutor in Heaven. His purpose was to confront the sinner with his sins and to act as a balance for God's unending love. He was basically the cosmic bouncer who kept the unworthy out of paradise.

Lucifer, was a construction of Christian moralism created in order to show that opposing God is wrong and will get you sent to hell. He's the grand object lesson that says "Obey God or Burn Forever."

Control mechanisms such as these are the main reason that I am not a Christian. I don't dispute the existence of God, I dispute the Christian teachings about God. To quote a song by Franz Ferdinand:

So I'm sorry if I ever resisted
I never had a doubt you ever existed
I only have a problem when people insist on
Taking their hate and placing it on your name


I don't put much faith in the Bible as a manual for God's love because there is just as much human influence on that book as Divine inspiration.
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby Backglass on Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:21 pm

thephule77 wrote:The Bible may not be 100% true, everything passed by word of mounth gets changed a little, things are lost in translation. BUT THE BIBLE DOES NOT CONTRADICT IT'S SELF! This holy book is hundreds or thousands of years old! Millions of people follow it, if there were any contradictions they would have been changed, saying that when it was translated to english they messed up.


[Dives in!]

OK. So I am to believe the bible word for word because:

1 - It is thousands of years old
2 - It has been changed little by little for thousands of years
3 - Any contradictions have (or will be) changed to eliminate them

And...it is not 100% true. Gotcha.

In that case I choose to only believe the parts about killing the non-believers.
Image
The Pro-Tip®, SkyDaddy® and Image are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Backglass
 
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: New York

Postby thephule77 on Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:02 am

Backglass, I'm not tryin to convert anyone right now, I'm just tryin to prove that aren't any contradictions in the Bible. I f I were trying to convert people I'd be in another thread[/quote]
User avatar
Private thephule77
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Earth

Postby heavycola on Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:33 am

Jay i don't care about the abortion issue. This is the point i wanted you to answer:

heavycola wrote:Famines, disease, hurricanes - an all-loving god ("for god so loved the world" etc) lets us know that the tribulation may or may not be on its way soon by killing millions of people in incredibly nasty ways. I think the thing that gets atheists most is how fundamentalist christians can get around these massive contradictions - and i think an all-loving god who uses ebola, Katrina, bird flu, HIV and the famines in Africa as convenient roadsigns is a massive fucking contradiction - with sophistry and self-delusion.


How is what i mentioned not a contradiction?
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Postby Truman on Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:12 am

How, in God's name by the way, can you be so dim as to never set one eyeball on my post that answered your statement thoroughly?
User avatar
Private Truman
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 9:33 am
Location: Texas, U.S.A.

Postby heavycola on Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:50 am

Truman wrote:How, in God's name by the way, can you be so dim as to never set one eyeball on my post that answered your statement thoroughly?


because:

a) that would have involved actually reading your convoluted, self-important, kill-me-now bilge
b) the val kilmer thing is a little weird
c) it is now policy to ignore anything you write over 30 words in length.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Postby Zuzzio on Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:21 pm

i got a contradiction sort of. there is no mention of purgatory in the bible but the caatholic church says that you go there
User avatar
Cook Zuzzio
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:37 pm
Location: New Jersey

more contradictions

Postby Zuzzio on Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:41 pm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ood_to_all

if any of you religouse physcos believe that the bible is complete and utter truth and that there is no way that it could be wrong or contradict it self go to this site. and then go kill yourself cuse if you beleive everything in the bible happend exactly the way it did then you deserve to die because you refuse to listen to common sense

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

[/i][/b]
User avatar
Cook Zuzzio
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:37 pm
Location: New Jersey

Postby Truman on Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:18 pm

Zuzzio wrote:i got a contradiction sort of. there is no mention of purgatory in the bible but the caatholic church says that you go there


This is based on the assumption that the Catholics are Christians, when this is false.
User avatar
Private Truman
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 9:33 am
Location: Texas, U.S.A.

Postby Truman on Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 pm

Zuzzio wrote:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#good_to_all

if any of you religouse physcos believe that the bible is complete and utter truth and that there is no way that it could be wrong or contradict it self go to this site. and then go kill yourself cuse if you beleive everything in the bible happend exactly the way it did then you deserve to die because you refuse to listen to common sense

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

[/i][/b]


Wonderful! I answered every contradiction listed. Contradictions are in bold, answers are in regular type. Would you like to read it? 8)

Part 1:

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:

"And men shall speak of the might of thy terrible acts: and I will declare thy greatness.

They shall abundantly utter the memory of thy great goodness, and shall sing of thy righteousness."

--Psalms 145:6-7


This scripture refers to "goodness" as being "righteousness."

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?

Who is the father of Joseph?
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. You don't know much scripture, do you buddy?

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

Human vs. ghostly impregnation
ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.


Yes. Before they came together and had sex, Joseph found that Mary was pregnant with Jesus. God had put the child in Mary's womb, because if the child had a father from sex, it would be born with sin. Acts talks of Jesus being the son of David through the line of David. Mary was a daughter of David, and therefore, Jesus was in the family line. Joseph was also of the family of David. But Jesus was not born through natural purposes of the mother and father, but God made it possible that Jesus was born without sin. There is no contradiction here.

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.

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."

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 104:18), 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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

The hydrological cycle
ECC 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
JOB 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
Storehouses are not part of the cycle


More metaphores. God has power over everything. What's your point?

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,

"Thou shalt not revile the gods.

--Exodus 22:28"


I said:

"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.

How orderly were things created?
#1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days".
#2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)


1. See #8 on my previous post.

2. Who said God "fixed up things as He went"? Where in scripture does it say this? Also, where does it say God forgot anything? Hm? God wanted Adam to choose who he wanted for a mate. Adam did have free will. So finally when Adam didn't want any of the animals as his mate (Genesis 2:20), and he wanted a mate in the likeness of himself, God made the woman for Adam (Genesis 2:21-25). How unclear is this to you?

How satisfied with creation was he?
#1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.
#2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)


1. Who said God labored?

2. No, God never "fixed" the creation as He went. Who said the first man and woman were "primordial"? It was Adam and Eve who sinned, not God. God just gave them free will, just as He gave you free will to turn your back on Him. God never "forgot" anything as you seem to presume.

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.

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.

Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."


Judas was a three time loser. As a weak, greedy man, he determines to join the disciples, hoping to make it big in Jesus' kingdom. When this vision falls apart, he decides to steal from the communal purse and finally betray Christ for a paltry sum. Even this act leaves him feeling empty and guilty. His final decisive move was to commit suicide by hanging himself.

Even in this final act he fails! Perhaps the rope held long enough to kill him before breaking. Perhaps as he jumped the noose gave way immediately. Falling from a great height, Judas' mangled body is splattered down below.

Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?
Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."
Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."


Jesus was an itinerant preacher who no doubt gave this message many times as He traveled about. Paul was not a Christian at the time Jesus preached. Later, however, he specifically reference Christ's message and then draws a distinction where he augments it (I Corinthians 7:12).

Jesus' last words
Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."


You fail to understand that a gospel writer choosing not to record a given detail mentioned in another gospel is not necessarily a contradiction. If each gospel covered the exact same details, there would be no purpose to having four gospels!

Years of famine
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;


Now first of all, from this scripture, all the way to David's choices of punishment for his sin before the Lord were:

1. Three years of famine

2. Three months to be destroyed before his enemies

3. Three days of pestilence in the land

In I Chronicles 21, these three choices are given to David. Notice, that the next two choices are parallel in II Samuel 24, but the first choice is different, both in the number of years mentioned and in the way the punishment is worded. The Lord there does not invite David to chose 3 years of famine, but rather asks,

"...shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?"


In 2 Samuel 21:1, it says,

"Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David inquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites."


Three years of famine had already occurred. Add to this the current year (the time which passed from II Samuel 21:1 to II Samuel 24:13), and then the three years of famine as recorded in 1 Chronicles 21:11, and you have seven years of famine.

There is no contradiction; sorry.

Moved David to anger?
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.


God does not tempt any to do evil, but does permit Satan to tempt man. At times, when the Lord permits temptation to come upon an individual, He is described as doing what He has permitted to occur.

On account of the Lord's anger against Israel, He permitted Satan to tempt David, and Satan prevailed against him.

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary (PBUH) is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus(PBUH). The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.


1. The two different genealogies of Jesus come from each of the parents: Joseph and Mary.

2. The writers of the New Testament describe Joseph as being the earthly father, but not the father who made Mary pregnant to have Him. Joseph was of the seed of David. He married Mary and they became the earthly parents of Jesus, but not the spiritual parents. Is there something wrong with this here? There is no contradiction.

3. Well, let's see. Maybe because they're all right? (Muslims, however, do not know the real Jesus.) Jesus never had a physical father, only an earthly one in name. Plus, Joseph had to be Mary's husband, otherwise everyone would think Mary got pregnant before she married, and that is very bad. Mary was also of the line of David, so we have no contradiction here.

Jesus was born of the line of David (Mary). He had an earthly father, but only in name, not physically.

God be seen?
Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)


No man can see the Lord as He is. One scripture of yours states that He
"...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); with the appearance of a man (Ezekiel 1:26); as the Angel of the Lord (Numbers 22:27; Judges 6:22); and through a cloud and pillar of fire (Numbers 14:14).

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.

CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9)
"God is love." (1 John 4:16)


What happens if someone says to you, "I hate you! You are so bad and mean!" Does this account for your every action? God is both. He is sore at sinners and kind for righteous. What's your point?

Tempts?
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)


You take the two scriptures out of context. In James 1:13-15, it is apparent that the context deals with being tempted to sin. No man is tempted to sin by God,

"...for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man..."

--James 1:13


This is the work of the tempter.

The text in Genesis 22, from the King James Version, does say that the Lord tempted Abraham, which, in other translations, means to "prove," "test," or "try." God wanted Abraham to learn through his trial. However, the Lord does not tempt Abraham "with evil". If you can show me one scripture where the Lord tempted someone with evil, then you've got a contradiction, my friend.

Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)


Didn't we just go over this? Are you that desperate to find a contradiction?

Ascend to heaven
"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13)


Again, you take the scriptures out of context. In John 3, Jesus is talking with Nicodemus. After speaking with Nicodemus about the need to be born again, Jesus said,

"Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

--John 3:9-13


Of course there had been a few times before Christ where men had entered heaven and returned. The only one who has come from heaven, and is able to speak authoritatively regarding the heavenly things is the Lord (Jesus). These scriptures do not say no one has ever ascended to heaven, but that none are liked the Lord, who has come down from heaven to reveal heavenly things to us.

What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
Before the cock crow - Matthew 26:34
Before the cock crow twice - Mark 14:30


I can't see the contradiction. If I were to predict, "Zuzzio will die before 'I' the church clock chimes." Then suddenly, a driver loses control, running his car over Zuzzio, killing him just before the clock chimes twice. Did my prediction fail just because it chimed TWICE? Certainly not. In fact, some might make the case that I was psychic!

How many times did the cock crow?
MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.
LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.
JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.


It probably crowed more than twice (if it was anything like a typical rooster). These scriptures may not record the second one, but they certainly don't preclude it. Just because these certain gospels don't mention the second crowing of the cock doesn't mean it didn't crow again!

Who killed Saul
SA1 31:4 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
SA1 31:5 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.
SA1 31:6 So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.
SA2 1:15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.


If you would read the Bible, you might understand. The record of Saul's death in I Samuel is the inspired writer's account of Saul's death. This is the actual way in which Saul died, taking his own life by falling onto a sword.

II Samuel is the Amalekite's account of what happened. Quite simply, the Amalekite lied, thinking he might bring honour upon himself by killing the enemy of David. However, the man's falsehood cost him his own life, as David did not delight in the death of Saul.

So far as the Amalekite's story being similar in some respects to the actual event, perhaps he was nearby and witnessed it, or it may be that upon coming to the spot, he perceived what had taken place. Regardless, he twisted the truth, eventually to his own destruction.

How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount
MAT 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
MAT 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
MAT 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
MAT 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
MAT 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

LUK 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
LUK 6:21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
LUK 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
LUK 6:23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.


This is a fool's error you have made. Just as I said before,

"Jesus was an itinerant preacher who no doubt gave this message many times as He traveled about."


These two scriptures were probably different occasions which Jesus spoke. All the gospels have some extra in them that the others did or did not have. This doesn't mean they contradict.

Does every man sin?
KI1 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

CH2 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;
PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?
ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.


In I John 3:6 it says,

"...whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him not known Him."


Those who are born again do not sin. This doesn't mean that people who are born again never sin again, but that it isn't part of their lifestyle. The same is with I John 3:9.

Who bought potter's field
ACT 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
ACT 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

MAT 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
MAT 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
MAT 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.


In Acts, Luke indicates that Judas purchased the field, while Matthew reveals that the chief priests bought the field. This is only difference in perspective, not contradiction.

The chief priests conducted the transaction for the field. However, it was neither with their money, nor would they have claimed the money. In Matthew 27:6, the evil nature of this money is talked about. They would not allow it to be included in the treasury, and certainly did not take possession of it for themselves. It had to be disposed of somehow. Thus, they purchased the field with it. Was it their field? No, for it was not their money that purchased the field. Remember, the priests did not want the money. The field was purchased by means of Judas, thus it was Judas' field. There is no contradiction here.

Who prophesied the potter's field?
Matthew 27:9-10 (mentions Jeremy but no such verse in Jeremiah) is in Zechariah 11:12-13


Matthew regards this prophesy to Jeremiah when it seems much like the credit should go to Zechariah.

"And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD."

--Zechariah 11:12-13


Matthew didn't make any mistake. He simply quoted from two prophets but only mentioned Jeremiah. Matthew mentions the purchase of a field, but however, Zechariah does not. This is where Jeremiah comes in. Jeremiah 18:2-12, 19:1-13, and 32:6-9 speak of potters as well as the purchase of a field. There is no mess-up.
User avatar
Private Truman
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 9:33 am
Location: Texas, U.S.A.

Postby Truman on Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:30 pm

Part 2:

Who bears guilt?
GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.


You are taking the scripture out of context, again. In Galatians 6:1-2, the apostle Paul teaches that Christians ought to look out for one another; that our love is to drive us to help one another to overcome the tricks of Satan.

Though we are commanded to aid one another, the apostle acknowledges that we will stand before the Lord alone. Thus, each one is to "...examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone..." When it comes to our judgment before the Lord (cf. v 7-9; Romans 2:6; 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:10), we will not stand with another, but alone.

Do you answer a fool?
PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.


I have no doubt you have probably heard of a 'catch 22'. To act in one way brings an unwanted result, to act in another fashion brings a different unwanted result. Dealing with a fool is a 'catch 22'. If you answer him, it may happen that others will equate you with the fool. If you don't answer him, then he will probably consider himself wise from what he has said, for he has silenced you.

And almost the exact same kind of thing is occurring here. Guess who the fool is. :wink:

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

SA2 21:8 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 Barzillai the Meholathite:


Before being returned to David, Michal gave birth to five sons to Adriel, the son of Brazillai (II Samuel 21:8).

However, on account of her conduct, it appears that the Lord made her unable to bear children. The writer's comment in II Samuel 6:23 would seem specific to her barren nature before David, as the same writer shortly thereafter mentions the five sons bore to Adriel.

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.


Where's the contradiction? Isn't it possible that at the age of eight, Jehoiachin was exalted by his father to reign along side him for the remaining years of his life (10 years), and upon the death of his father, in II Kings 24:5, at the age of eighteen, Jehoiachin began to reign alone. It appears that he "apprenticed" under his father, learning his father's evil ways, and then repeating them according to later scripture.

Marriage?
Proverbs 18:22
1 Corinthians 7 (whole book. See 1,2,27,39,40)


The Bible constantly talks about marriage as a good thing, even from the very beginning of creation. Paul, who wrote the words under consideration by the question in 1 Corinthians, certainly did not think it wrong to have a wife. In the same letter, he asks,

"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

--I Corinthians 9:5


If it were wrong or bad to have a wife, he would definately not speak of his right to have one.

The words in I Corinthians 7 must be understood in their historical context. He says,

"I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be."

--I Corinthians 7:26


There were circumstances that faced the church at the time of Paul's writings, which dictated the attitude of his words concerning marriage.

In I Corinthians 7:32, Paul speaks as he does that the saints might "...be without care." And again, he says,

"And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction."

--I Corinthians 7:35


He understood that a person who was married had to try to please his spouse (I Corinthians 7:32-34), which could be a distraction to serving the Lord.

However, Paul commands elsewhere,

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord."

--Ephesians 5:22


"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it..."

--Ephesians 5:25


Paul was never against marriage.

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.


Refers to Paul hearing the voice, but not knowing what it said. Simple logic.

Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
MAR 1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
JOH 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
(various trapsing)


You have assumed that the account of Jesus' baptism in John is in the present tense, as it is in Mark, when it is not.

1. John 1:19 sets the context. The things which are present are John the baptist's testimony explaining who he is (John 1:19-25), and of the One who is among them who is greater than he (John 1:26-27).

2. John 1:28 describes the location where this conversation happened, and where John was baptizing.

3. In John 1:29, on "...the next day...", John sees Jesus and expressly says that He is "...the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." John says He is the One that he was speaking about on the previous day, from John 1:30.

4. In John 1:31-33, John tells how Jesus was revealed to him (and to Israel). It was by His baptism. Notice, John's words don't inevitably imply that Jesus had been baptized on that particular day. He makes no mention of when he had baptized Him at all.

5. In John 1:34, having seen, John testifies that Jesus "...is the Son of God."

6. In John 1:35-36, on "...the next day...", John again points to Jesus, directing his own disciples to the Lord.

You are deriving a contradiction by inferring something in which the scripture doesn't.

Since John 1:35 talks about John seeing Jesus the day after he spoke of baptizing him, and further in the context Jesus is going to a wedding in Cana, and not the wilderness, it should be understood that John is speaking of Jesus' baptism at least 40 days after the fact.

I might see a guy, and point out to someone, "That woman is a Christian! I baptized her into Christ!" Does this necessarily imply that she was baptized that same day? Of course not! Neither do John's words reveal anything about the time of Jesus' baptism.

How many apostles were in office between the resurection and ascention?
1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)
Matthew 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)
Acts 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)
MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.


There were eleven men who filled the position of apostles between the time of Jesus resurrection and ascension.

The event Paul refers to in I Corinthians 15:5, is either that which is recorded in John 20:19 (at which there were only 10 present) or John 20:26 (which only 11 were at).

Is Paul wrong when he speaks of the "twelve" apostles? The use of the word "twelve" took on more meaning with these chosen disciples of the Lord than simply a number. Any reference to the "twelve" would automatically be understood as the apostles of Christ. Whether all were present or not, the use of the term is not out of line. Jesus, speaking to these men said,

"...Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

--Matthew 19:28


Jesus knew that one was a betrayer, and that one of those present would not sit on a throne, and yet He referred to "twelve." Why? The reference to the "twelve" was more than an counting of heads, it was in reference to the seat of authority which would be given to the apostles, as judges over the twelve tribes of Israel (spiritually).

Judging
1 Cor 3:15 " The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)
1 Cor 4:5 " Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."


First of all, I think you mean I Corinthians 2:15, not 3. But, I still really don't see where the contradiction is. "Judges" or "judged" in most translations is rendered as meaning, "discerned." Paul emphasizes difference between the spiritual man, and the natural man.

The natural man can't know the things of God because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man is able to discern all things revealed by God.

The words "...he himself is rightly judged by no one", would seem that the apostle is saying that the natural man cannot understand the spiritual man. Those who have lived and served before the Lord for any length of time, and dealt often with those outside Christ know this to be true.

When I Corinthians 4:5 is put into its context, Paul mentions his stewardship before the Lord, and about the judgment of the Corinthians, a human court, or even himself on his stewardship. He warns the Corinthians against making severe judgments, which is especially needed in consideration to emotion and character. He identifies the Lord as being the judge upon whom we wait, who will compose the final judgment.

Good deeds
Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)


You are confusing two separate issues. In Matthew 5:16, Jesus encourages his followers to live a good life so that their works will draw people's attention to God. However, Christians are not to blow a trumpet before themselves to draw attention to their "goodness" (Matthew 6:3-4).

One scripture deals with making sure you do good deeds, another deals with how you do them.

For or against?
MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
(default is against)

MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
(default is for)
LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
(default is for)


There is no in-between; it is black and white; you are a child of God, or a child of Satan; bound for heaven, or bound for hell.

If you consider yourself indifferent or undecided towards the perfect Son of God who died for you, then you are against Him. You can change from one camp to the other, but you can not hide in-between the two.

Whom did they see at the tomb?
MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

God change?
malachi 3:6
james 1:17
1 samuel 15:29
jonah 3:10
genesis 6:6


1. Are you saying that Luke's reference to men is contradictory to the "angels," simply because he describes them having white, but yet, in another passage, shining garments? Please. The fact that they are "in shining garments" should indicate that these men were angels, just as if they were in white garments. The reference that they are "men" does not contradict, but only describes them in a different way.

The same writing occurs in Genesis 19:1, when "...two angels..." came to Lot in Sodom. However, when the men of the city came to Lot's house, they asked, "Where are the men who came to you tonight?" (19:5). There are all kinds of scriptures that do this, simply because the angel has probably appeared in a form that men can understand: a man.

The fact that Matthew mentions only one angel, while both Luke and John mention two, is completely foolish to say to be a contradiction, when Matthew probably just never included that detail. It isn't a contradiction, just something left out. There were probably two angels. It's also possible that Mary saw one angel, and then afterward, two. So what? As I said before, what's the purpose for all four gospels if they are all written exactly alike? It is folly to say this is necessary.

2. About God "changing," God never changes. He only changes as we change, but this doesn't mean He changes His mind either. He would have known about our actions already, and being prepared to do He would when that time came, in our realm of time. God is not in time either. We're the ones stuck in time.

Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)
MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

zechariah 11:11-13
(nothing in Jeremiah remotely like)


It looks like it references the quote in Ezekiel. Back then, the priests read the scriptures on scrolls; there was no Bible. Many of the books of the Bible today were compiled into one book, like the first five books of the Bible now being the Torah then. The Psalms were actually three separate sections in the scrolls. Possibly, this example applied with the three books of Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Ezekiel. Thus, were compiled together at that time and called "Jeremy." There is no contradiction.

Who's sepulchers
acts 7:16
genesis 23:17,18


Even if a contradiction could be shown here, it would prove nothing against inspiration, for Stephen was not one of the inspired writers. Luke only records what Stephen said. But of course, there is no contradiction here.

The two Scriptures do not refer to the same thing. The sepulchre mentioned in Genesis was in Hebron. The one mentioned by Stephen was in Sychem. This makes it clear that Abraham bought two sepulchres. If you look at the account of the one at Hebron, he purchased the field surrounding the sepulchre; but, in the case of the one at Sychem, no mention is made of the buying of the surrounding field. These are obviously two different fields.

Just to make things interesting, the other "contradiction" is that Genesis 33:19 states that Jacob bought the sepulchre at Sychem. But no such thing is stated in Genesis 33:19. Genesis 33:19 simply states that Jacob bought the field in the area of Sychem; and, since the bones of Joseph were buried in this field, it probably was in this field that Abraham's second sepulchre stood. This also appears from the fact that Abraham’s second sepulchre and the field purchased by Jacob formerly belonged to the same owners. So in this last case we simply have Abraham buying a sepulchre, while later Jacob buys the field in which the sepulchre stood.

Strong drink?
proverbs 31:6,7
john 2:11-11


Wait, what contradiction is there to point out? Read the scripture you are posting. I have heard of this "contradiction" before however, so this is your lucky day. I think the scripture you are referring to isn't John 2:11-11 (11-11??), but is really Timothy 5:23.

Poverbs says it is indeed bad to dring wine since it intoxicates, but in Timothy, Paul refers to medical reasons, since it mentions "...use a little..." and "...for...your frequent infirmities."

When second coming?
MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
1 thessalonians 4:15-18


The word "generations" does not necessarily mean the normal twelve years we view a generation as being. There are all kinds of scripture that have "generation" meaning twelve, or five, or a hundred, or a thousand years. The generation Jesus is referring to is the generation of Christ. We have been in that generation for about 2000 years. There is no contradiction.

Solomon's overseers
550 in I Kings 9:23
250 in II Chron 8:10


Refers to what standards of office the writer was referring to.

The mother of Abijah:
Maachah the daughter of Absalom 2 Chron 9:20

Michaiah the daughter of Uriel 2 Chron 13:2


I don't know if Maachah and Michaiah were two people or the same person, but Absalom and Uriel were married. So, where's the contradiction?

When did Baasha die?
26th year of the reign of Asa I Kings 16:6-8

36th year of the reign of Asa I 2 Chron 16:1


Baasha died in the 26th year of king Asa's reign in Judah, just as the writer of 1 Kings tells us.

The reference to the 36th year in II Chronicles 16:1 means the 36th year since the division of the two kingdoms, which fell during the reign of Asa. Rehoboam reigned 17 years, Abijah reigned 3 years, and at the occurrence of this conflict, Asa had reigned 16 years. Baasha would die 10 years after this event.

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
22 in 2 Kings 8:26

42 in 2 Chron 22:2


Look again at the context. II Kings 8:17 says about Joram (also called Jehoram),

"Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem."


That would make him 40 then, right? Then it says about him,

"In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign."

--2 Kings 8:25


Ahaziah was made king when his father reigned, at the age of 22, acccording to II Chronicles 22:2, but after his father's death he was finally confirmed king when he was forty-two years old. The father died when 44, since it was his twelfth year. Ahaziah probably started reigning since the father was sick during the last two years of his life according to II Chronicles, and since Ahaziah was already named king at 22. Simple.

Who was Josiah's successor?
Jehoahaz - 2 Chron 36:1
Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11


Ahaziah had many nicknames, including Jehoahaz and Shallum. These two names refer to the same person.

The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah.

I have no idea which scriptures you are referring to, so I will pass this off until you can give me the "contradiction."

What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?
scarlet - Matthew 27:28

purple John 19:2


Does this matter at all? The soldiers grabbed a bright robe that was nearby. Maybe the actual color was somewhere in between (crimson). Maybe the garment gave off hues of both red and purple. (Red and dark black-blue of the night make a purple color.) Who would be dumb enough to care anyway? There is no contradiction here. Also, all through the Bible, and if you study other ancient writings, the color "red" or "scarlet" is used for any object that contains red in it.

What did they give him to drink?
vinegar - Matthew 27:34

wine with myrrh - Mark 15:23


I think it's vinegar and gall it speaks of in Matthew 27:34.

No, this doesn't contradict. Myrrh is an extremely bitter and sour herb, and therefore, Mark 15:23 can be translated as "sour wine." Sour wine is vinegar.

How long was Jesus in the tomb?
Depends where you look; Matthew 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", and Mark 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again". As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days", but the post-Resurrection narratives have "on the third day".


Take a look at these scriptures: "...until the third day..." (Matthew 27:64)"...in three days..." (Matthew 26:61; 27:40)"...on the third day..." (Matthew 16:21; 17:23)"...three days later..." (Mark 9:31; 10:34)"...after three days..." (Matthew 27:63)"...three days and three nights..." (Matthew 12:40)

These all refer to the resurrection of Christ, yet some of them seem to contradict. But if you look more closely, the emphasis used on the phrases is not the literal number of hours which had passed, but the number of days of which a portion was included in the whole amount.

Jesus was put into the tomb before the Sabbath day, He remained in the tomb on the Sabbath, and then, on the first day of the week, He was gone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lilwdlnddude wrote:You are very knowledgeable


I know, and thank you! :)

Zuzzio wrote:...you deserve to die because you refuse to listen to common sense


No sir. You are mistaken, sir. You can go to Hell, sir.

There are no contradictions in the Bible. I'm sorry that many uninformed ignorant bigots think so, because ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever. I'm afraid Zuzzio has the second problem.

Anyway, please continue posting. Oh, and yeah. I know. I'm good. :wink:
User avatar
Private Truman
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 9:33 am
Location: Texas, U.S.A.

Postby Truman on Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:34 pm

Maybe I should send Jim Merit my answers, or even email Infidels.com, perhaps. Because when you search "Bible Contradictions" on a search engine, you always get the link to the Infidels website, and many other websites that copy and paste his contradictions onto their websites. Think of the humiliation I could cause... :wink:
User avatar
Private Truman
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 9:33 am
Location: Texas, U.S.A.

Postby vtmarik on Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:16 am

How about this contradiction:

What prayers will be answered?

* If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. [Matthew 21:21]

* If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. [John 14:14]

* Ask, and it will be given you. [Matthew 7:7]

* Nothing will be impossible to you. [Matthew 17:20]

* Believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. [Mark 11:24]

Versus

1 John 5:14
This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to His will, he hears us.


Is it "Anything in my name" or "anything according to His will"?
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby Pilate on Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:25 pm

Forget biblical interpretation. Apologists will always be ready with some excuse no matter how obvious the contradiction. It's ridiculous how apologists cry "free will" when it comes to evil and suffering in the world, but at the same time believe that man makes no mistakes when it comes to the bible. You can't have it both ways no matter how hard you try.

Even if you ignore biblical interpretation, you can easily find contradictions when it comes to cold hard facts. For instance, Matthew chapter 1 and luke chapter 3 lists the genealogy of Jesus. If you compare the two, you'll find that not only do the two authors get names wrong, but that Matthew missed an entire generation. Hard to say there is no contradiction there. You'll also see that the two authors COMPLETELY (and I do mean completely) diverge after King David. There can be no hope for the one who refuses to see this contradiction.

In bold are discrepancies between the two

Matthew
.2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 1.3 and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of

Ram (Contrast with Luke 3:32 where he says ARNI is the son of Hezron, NOT Ram, Luke also says that ADMIN is Arni's son)

, 1.4 and Ram the father of Ammin'adab (Luke says ADMIN is Ammin'adab's father. Note the extra generation. Oh, there is NO CONTRADICTION HERE),

and Ammin'adab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, 1.5 and Salmon the father of Bo'az by Rahab, and Bo'az the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, 1.6 and Jesse the father of David the king.

And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uri'ah Luke 3:13 goes a different route and lists the genealogy through Nathan,

1.7 and Solomon the father of Rehobo'am, and Rehobo'am the father of Abi'jah, and Abi'jah the father of Asa, 1.8 and Asa the father of Jehosh'aphat, and Jehosh'aphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzzi'ah, 1.9 and Uzzi'ah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezeki'ah, 1.10 and Hezeki'ah the father of Manas'seh, and Manas'seh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josi'ah, 1.11 and Josi'ah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. 1.12 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoni'ah was the father of She-al'ti-el, and She-al'ti-el the father of Zerub'babel, 1.13 and Zerub'babel the father of Abi'ud, and Abi'ud the father of Eli'akim, and Eli'akim the father of Azor, 1.14 and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eli'ud, 1.15 and Eli'ud the father of Elea'zar, and Elea'zar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 1.16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. 1.17 This entire section is different from Luke's description

http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-4g.htm
see also Holy Bible King James Version
User avatar
Colonel Pilate
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:21 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby Truman on Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:54 pm

A dense outlook on something can lead to a dense comment, and that's exactly what Pilate has just done. Pilate, I explained the geneology in my long two-part post, but since you're so close-minded and refuse to look into anything against your religion, you humiliate yourself by even posting abuot the geneology. :roll:

As for your contradiction, Vtmarik, it's pretty simple, actually. It's both. If you ask in His name according to His will, you will receive whatever you ask. How is this a contradiction; am I not seeing it somehow? It's a given, and anyone with eyes can see it. I really can't understand why you don't. :roll:
User avatar
Private Truman
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 9:33 am
Location: Texas, U.S.A.

Postby Pilate on Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:48 pm

Truman wrote:A dense outlook on something can lead to a dense comment, and that's exactly what Pilate has just done. Pilate, I explained the geneology in my long two-part post, but since you're so close-minded and refuse to look into anything against your religion, you humiliate yourself by even posting abuot the geneology. :roll:

As for your contradiction, Vtmarik, it's pretty simple, actually. It's both. If you ask in His name according to His will, you will receive whatever you ask. How is this a contradiction; am I not seeing it somehow? It's a given, and anyone with eyes can see it. I really can't understand why you don't. :roll:


Actually, the thread asks for contradictions. I provided one. There may be an explanation for the contradiction, but that does not negate its existense. The genealogy contradiction SHOULD prove that the bible is NOT 100% FACTUALLY CORRECT. Most intelligent people recognize that the Bible has a lot to offer, but that you should not take it literally word for word. Unfortunately, you are not one of those people. Then again, I don't expect much from a person whose views are extreme even to fundamentalists.

Truman, Heavycola explained in his multiple short posts that no one reads your pompous holier than thou posts. Since you are so stubborn and hypocritical, you humiliate yourself by bringing up the same point over and over again. Grow up child. Don't make threads asking for contradictions, and then act like a complete dick when people oblige. If I remember correctly, you had your panties in a wad b/c people ignored you at first. :roll:
User avatar
Colonel Pilate
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:21 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

questions

Postby Zuzzio on Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:32 pm

thanks for expalining then but some of the explantaions were a bit of a strecth and before you accuse me of not knowinf scriptures please answer this question if Jesus is supposed to be of the line of david and joseph is of the line of david and mary isn't then how is jesus the christ if joseph had no part in the birth of christ?
User avatar
Cook Zuzzio
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:37 pm
Location: New Jersey

PreviousNext

Return to Out, out, brief candle!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee