|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| ||||||||||||||||
Date: 12/16/2002 4:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 4614
I bought a Jesus bobblehead yesterday :D  |
Date: 12/16/2002 4:56:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 34814
Hey Sundace :) how is my pimpster>?  |
Date: 12/16/2002 6:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 53052
that is one of the magor reasons i'm not in a bible based religion  |
Date: 12/16/2002 7:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 42539
Good debate , it really speaks for itself  |
Date: 12/16/2002 11:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 55967
I have bookmarked this, since I've been looking for a single, compiled list of all or most of the Bible contradictions I've heard or read over the years. Good job Kitten, and thanks! Well, I'm not as versed in the Bible as, say, FirstBorn or Tom, so I'll wait to hear what they have to say, but I want to bring up a few things first. One of the reasons, I beleive, for a lot of contradictions, is that we, a culture entirely removed and at a great distance from the Biblical culture, are trying to understand a huge chunk of material written by men that are different enough if they lived today, let alone also being from thousands of years ago. A lot of these contradictions may have made sense to their minds if understood in certain ways that we don't see. Others can be dismissed more easily by our own logical minds. I'll pick one---"you shall not steal." Jesus tells his followers to go grab the donkey. Well, before anyone is at the town, Jesus seems to already know where the donkey is. How? Perhaps it was place there by the owner himself. Perhaps the owner and Jesus already had the thing arranged, and Jesus was just telling his men to go get it. Sound plausible? When the owner asks about it, he might not recognize the men as followers of Jesus, so they have to say that line. See? There are other ones, but I don't feel like writing a book here. I'll wait to see what happens. Good post! ~GypsyHawk~  |
|
Date: 12/16/2002 11:53:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 34814
Hey Gypsy..I am not here to debate. I'm gonna let the Bible people debate it. I'm not a Bible fan. I just thought everyone might like this. Nice to see u gypsy :) |
Date: 12/17/2002 8:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
What the Bible tells us is that God is Our Creator and He Alone has a Plan to insure everlasting life. Each individual has to ascertain for oneself what that plan entails FOR THEM. Every person has a unique value in His Plan and it is not the same for everyone. The Commandments are a guideline to live by. Without knowing if they came from the Bible, wouldn't you all agree that they are a reasonable (for the most part when taken as a whole except for the "worship" rules) rules to live by? So this argument is, if these are the rules to live by why are some instructed to break them? The answer is GOD'S WILL. If God needs certain circumstances to come about in fulfillment of His Plan, then whomever He deigns to be His Servant in that part of His Plan will be so instructed and they WILL KNOW from whence that instruction came. Furthermore, differences in translating and interpretation amongs theologians have brought about a lot of confusion. Why does God allow that? For those who are confused and do not care to calrify, but rather wish to amplify confusion, I agree the Bible is not for you as that is the difference between being in the light and living in darkness. The Bible encompasses thousands of years, differing ways of life than today, and a clear differentiation between the period of time prior to Jesus' arrival on earth and after. Does faith alone get you everlasting life? I believe there are two different saving plans. One deals with those who believe (both the living and the dead) and are taken up in what is commonly termed the "rapture", while those of us left behind at that time will need to not only have faith but bring about good works for our salvation. "If God is omniscient and omnipotent" then why did such and such happen? Putting human standards (such as the idea of "perfection" which, to me, means doing the Will of God which I have already addressed above does not necessarily fall under the umbrage of "good" to us humans), will lead to such arguments. God is OMNIPRESENT which means He knows what needs to go on at any given "time" in order to bring about His Plan. What I mostly hear from people who are anti-Bible saying is that they just simply do not like His Plan. And He gave you all free will to have that opinion. God Bless.  |
Date: 12/17/2002 9:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 35031
This post does present a great number of scriptures that at first glance really seem to argue against the Bible as a positive force. Proverbs 2:1-5 shows that true knowledge of God could not be found at a quick glance. God allows confusion because only those who really have the right heart condition will search for him and dig deeper to understand. ONe good example of this is Jesus comment to the crowd at JOhn 6:56-59 that only those who fed on his flesh would be in union with him. Verse 60 shows that the crowd was shocked by this comment and many left according to verse 66. Jesus didn't stop them because they didn't care enough to stick around for understanding. Later it would be understood when he passed the wine and bread of the "last supper". Each one of the seeming discrepancies are not that at all and I'd like to address each one of them. First of all the command "Thou shalt not kill". The wars that the nation of Israel fought were not of their own choice. In each case God directed exactly where they were to go and what they were to do. These were God's wars as he showed by actally doing most of the destroying in almost every case. The "war" of Gideon against the Midianites for example. God narrowed his "army" down to 300 men and told them only to take a clay pot, a torch and a horn into "battle" with them. God confused the armies and they actually killed their own comrads. In Jericho, the walls of the city actully fell (which archaeology has verified by the way.)When fighting the Kings that had risen up against the Gibeonites, the Bible says that God himself sent hailstones that killed more than those who died by the sword. The Bible also tells us, as God told Abraham that God waited over 400 years for the badness of the Canaanites to reach a point deserving of destruction, as was the case in Sodom and Gomorrah. Individual Israelites were forbidden to kill and even accidental murderers had to flee to a "city of refuge" where their case was tried and only those found innocent were allowed to stay under the protection of the city. The next of kin would be there to slay the ones found guilty. This was how the law was set up until the coming of the Messiah who fulfilled the law and "nailed it to the tree" with him. Thus no longer was "eye for an eye" nor even the atonement sacrifices practiced.  |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 9:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 35031
Because God is all powerful, he could contol choices of individuals that act against him. Because he has allowed these things to exist, many times the Bible speaks of God doing it. However the Bible tells us that God himself cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18) He has allowed Satan and other opposers to act without restraint for a reason that the Bible explains by presenting the conflict and accusations brought against God by Satan. Genesis 3 and Job 1&2. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 9:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 35031
As far as the point about stealing. In the first place for many generations the Egyptians had made slaves of the Israelites. Everything that they took from the Egyptians were justified because of how they had oppressed them got many unpaid hours of labor out of the Israelites. They were taking what was owed them. Even though the Bible says they stripped the Egyptians, after years of slavery, it probably wasn't compensation. As far as Jesus and the colt, He didn't KEEP it. The man was a follower of JEsus and when he was told that the Lord needed it gave no objection. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 9:43:00 AM
From Authorid: 35031
At Romans 7:6&7 Paul says that we have been delivered from the law. As I mentioned earlier, the old law covenant with it's requirement of keeping sabbath was blotted out according to Colossians 2:14. HOwever, the Bible speaks of Christ's millenial reigh as a 1,000 year sabbath and calls him Lord of the Sabbath. So any reference to Christians is in reference to our obedience to him. So, no we are not under the old sabbath law, the Bible is not contradicting itself here either. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 9:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 35031
As far as graven images are concerned. The Bible forbids the use of them. The construction of the ark of the covenant had representation of cherubs on it, but the Israelites did not WORSHIP it, nor were they instructed to. They were not even allowed to touch it, only the priests could under penalty of death. It was a mere representation of the covenant God had made with the Israelites. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 9:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 35031
Works are indeed a part of true worship. ONly those DOING the will of God will get everlasting life according to John 17:3. Jesus instructed his disciples to preach the good news of the Kingdom at Matthew 28:19&20. These works do not measure up to everlasting life. There is no way any amount of works could buy us what God has given freely to those who love him and are motivated to show their love for him through the demonstration of thier love, works. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 9:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 35031
Of course our good works and conduct are a fine example and an attraction to non believers however praise of MEN should not be our MOTIVE in doing good works. This is what JEsus meant. The Pharisees were in a habit of blowing a horn ahead of themselves in order to impress men. That was their heart motivation, personal praise. True Christians are motivated to do good works so GOD will be praised by their works, not them personally. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 10:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 35031
As far as slavery concerned. When the Israelites fought against enemies of God, he at times allowed them to take the little ones and virgins as slaves. They were however under strict laws that governed their treatment of these slaves. That slavery in Israel was nothing like slavery we have known in our generations is attested to in the fact that many times Israelites would sell THEMSELVES into slavery to pay off debts. By the time of the early Christians, the law of the land permitted the owning of slaves, but again the owner of a slave was under obligation not to ill-treat them. Jesus reference to calling no man "Master" is referring to religious titles as can clearly be seen by considering the context of that chapter. At Matthew 23:9 he forbid the calling of anyone "Father" as a religious title also. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 10:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 35031
As far as God changing his mind, he does not. He does listen to the appeals of his true servants, however. At Exodus 32:14 although the english translation says that God "repented" actually when you read the account, God listens to MOses appeal in behalf of the people and holds back from the destruction most of them deserve. At Genesis 6 God was only expressing the regret he felt from the actions of those he created. If you closely read the account, you find that angelic sons of God had used their power to materialize in order to have forbidden relations with the daughters of men. This rebellion produced a hybrid race of giants that were completely violent thus making it necessary for God to bring about the flood. God had made everything good but they had misused their free choice to rebel against God. He felt the same regret any parent feels when their children oppose go against laws set up for their protection. I don't know why they reference 2 Kings 20:1-7 as it is simply an account of how God lovingly extended Hezekiah's life by 15 years in answer to his heartfelt appeal and as a reward for his faithfulness. The scriptures in Numbers are the same account of the rebellion and just destruction of Korah and the others who rebelled against Moses. Again, I can't think why they referred to those accouts. The account of Abraham is also testimony to God's great love for his servants. God patiently listens to his voice and rather than simply disregarding his lack of knowledge, patiently explains that from 50 to 10 there are not that many righteous in the city. God brings no righteous ones to destruction. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 10:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 35031
Are we punished for our parents sins? No. But Adam could not pass on perfection when he no longer possessed it. That is why God lovingly provided us with a ransom. A perfect man who would buy us back out of the slavery to sin our human parents sold us into. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 35031
The word translated "evil" is translated calamity in many translations. When you consider what was being spoken of as "evil" in Jeremiah you will know that God was going to bring about the destruction of his own people as a punishment of their sins. Moses many years before had warned them of this result of their disobedience and they had agreed to this as payment of trangression in the terms of their covenant with God. This was indeed an unpleasant situation but a necessary punishment as Hebrews says, no punishment is pleasant. The destruction did produce a good affect on the Isrealites as discipline does when heeded. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:07:00 AM
From Authorid: 35031
As far as swearing, there would be no need to swear but only keep our word in all things. That is what JEsus is saying. Let your yes mean yes, your no, no. Keep your word. Anything else is from the wicked one. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
God not being a God of confusion means everything has a plan and a purpose. Denominations and sects are from man, not God. Theologians and translators DO actually agree on most issues, certainly on the big ones or essential doctrines. The Bible is interesting in that it can be as simple as you want or as deep as you want. What is hard about John 3:16 I ask? +“The problem is not with human limitations, as some claim. The problem is the bible itself. People who are free of theological bias notice that the bible contains hundreds of discrepancies. Should it surprise us when such a literary and moral mish-mash, taken seriously, causes so much discord? Here is a brief sampling of biblical contradictions.”+ This statement was made from someone who doesn’t know any better, nor have they tried to better themselves. What bothers me is that Christianity has been attacked forever, yet always replied with answers. Most of these contradictions here have been answered by me personally already. And yet here we are rehashing them, again. The problem is that no one is willing to seek out an understanding to their questions. Now lovekitten, if you truly seek answers, good for you! I hope these answers don’t fall on deaf ears, but if history teaches us anything….I will break up my posts as this is going to be long.  |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
The 10 commandments were set up for a society and must be viewed that way. Thou shall not kill is speaking of murder, not war or capital punishment. The same of not stealing, that is stealing from one’s neighbor within society, spoils of war are not covered under this. Lying, same thing here. And remember about God having a plan for everything? This lying spirit helped that. And for the record as this one verse, “I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." sheds no light on what is actually happening. These are the prophets of Baal and are against God to begin with, they speak lies already through their own freewill, with or without a lying spirit. God gave them what is known as reprobated or depraved mind, since they wished to oppose God, God locked them into their ways. You should hear what a Calvinist would tell you about all this, it’d probably turn your hair white. Sabbaths. Sabbaths were set up for the Israelites during the age of Israel in the Old Testament. They were done away with in the New Testament. Isaiah 1:13 is speaking of the sabbaths held by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, not the Israelites, these are pagans sabbaths. Graven images. In short, idols to false gods. The cherubims described and the descriptions from 1 Kings are fro the worship of God, not false gods. The cherubims are on the Ark of the Covenant. Are we SAVED through works? No is the answer. But you are to bear good fruits or works. Not for to be SAVED though. James is the most commonly quoted book about works. The thing is though, James speaks of doing works, but not for salvation. Being good to others IS important, but that alone won’t get you into heaven. Should good works be seen? Two different things are being spoken of here, can’t compare apples and oranges though I know everyone wants to when dealing with Bible. Matthew 6:1-4. Did anyone else notice this is four verse covered in two broken sentences??? Hmm, what’s missing; is someone pulling the wool over your eyes? What is being spoken here, if you read it in its entirety is that do not do good works to boost your ego, or to boast about it, or to bring yourself into a good view. Just do them, regardless of who sees you. Doing good works solely because you hope for recognition is the wrong motivation. You should do them out of the kindness of your heart. That is what the Pharisses are doing in Matthew 23, good works for public recognition. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Should we own slaves? First note the quoting of slaves from predominately Old Testament sources and note the mixing of the word slave and servant. A servant is not a slave, two different things here, ah the old apples and oranges again. Also note, Isaiah 58:6 is speaking of FASTING, not slavery. Love misused scriptures. Slavery was a fact of life then and also still now unfortunately. I find it sad that people misquote the Bible to justify something such as slavery. This is a great reason why it is important to know what the Bible says. Look at Ephesians 6:5-9 “Slaves obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. And masters, treat your slave in the SAME WAY. Do NOT threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven and there is NO favoritism with Him.” Does God change his mind? When God says that He does not change, He is speaking about His nature and character. But this does not mean that He cannot change how He works with people throughout history, remember, everything has a plan and prupose. When we see God changing His mind, we are seeing it from a human perspective. Since God knows all things from all eternity, He as always known the ultimate plan that He would carry out; even the plan to "change His mind." As we can see in Jonah's account of Nineveh. They repented and God relented from the destruction that was to come upon the inhabitants. Of course, God knew this would happen and instituted the warning to them in order to bring about their repentance. A sidenote, Nineveh was destroyed in a later generation, just as God said it would be. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Are we punished for our parents' sins? Exodus 20:5 is, of course, among the ten commandments. The Ten Commandments are arranged in covenant form. The Suzerain-Vassal treaty pattern of the ancient near east is followed in the Ten Commandments. This arrangement included an introduction of who was making the covenant (Exodus 20:2), what the covenant maker had done (20:2), laws (20:3-17), rewards (20:6,12), and punishments (20:5,7). Covenantally, when a father misleads his family, the effects of that misleading are often felt for generations. This is because the father is being covenantally unfaithful and God has stipulated that there are punishments to breaking the covenant with God. That is the case with these verses that deal with the sins visited upon the children. If a father rejects the covenant of God and takes his family into sin and rejects God, the children will suffer the consequences, often for several generations. Whether or not this is fair is not the issue. Sin is in the world consequences of sin effected many generations. On the other hand, Deuteronomy 24:16 is dealing with legal matters as the context 24:6-19 shows. Ezekiel 18:20 is merely recounting the Law of the Pentateuch. Therefore, the context of second set of verses is dealing with the legality aspect within the Jewish court system. The previous set of verses deal with God visiting upon the descendents of the rebellious the consequences of the rebellious fathers' sins. As a further note on this issue, there is a concept in the Bible called Federal Headship. This means that the male, the father, represents the family. We see this in the garden of Adam and Eve. She was the first one to eat of the fruit; she was the first one to sin. However, the Bible states that sin entered the world through Adam (Rom. 5), not Eve. This is because Adam was the Federal Head of all mankind. Furthermore we see in the Hebrews 7:7-10 the following: "But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. 9And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him." In the verses in Hebrews we see that Levi, who was a descendant of Abraham, paid tithes to Melchizedek while still in the loins, "seed," of his father Abraham, even though Levi was not yet alive. In other words, Abraham, the father, represented his descendants. As Abraham paid tithes, so also did Levi. Therefore, we can see the concept of Federal Headship represented in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. We can conclude that God will visit the inequities of the fathers upon the descendents because the fathers have failed to be covenantally faithful. Yet, we see in the other verses a declaration of legality in dealing with people. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Is God good or evil? To answer the question we must first look at how the word for evil "rah" is used in the Bible, examine the context of the Isaiah 45:7 passage, and look at other passages on the same subject. First of all, the Hebrew word for evil "rah" is used in many different ways in the Bible. In the KJV Bible, it occurs 663 times. 431 times it is translated as "evil." The other 232 times it is translated as "wicked", "bad", "hurt", "harm", "ill", "sorrow", "mischief", "displeased", "adversity", "affliction", "trouble", "calamity", "grievous", "misery", and "trouble." So we can see that the word does not require that it be translated as "evil." This is why different Bibles translate this verse differently. It is translated as "calamity" by the NASB and NKJV; "disaster" by the NIV; and "woe" by the RSV; Second, the context of the verse is speaking of natural phenomena. "I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; 6That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, 7The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these." (Isaiah 45:5-7). Notice that the context of the verse is dealing with who God is, that it is God who speaks of natural phenomena (sun, light, dark), and it is God who is able to cause "well-being" as well as "calamity." Contextually, this verse is dealing with natural disasters, and human comfort issues. It is not speaking of moral evil; rather, it is dealing with calamity, distress, etc. This is consistent with other scriptures. For example, "And the Lord said to him, "Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?" (Exodus 4:11). "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6). From the above two verses we can see that the Lord is involved in calamity and problems in the earthly realm. Exodus 4:11 is speaking of human frailty and Amos 3:6 is speaking of woes in a city. It is not a moral evil that God brings, but calamity and distress upon people. Of course, this raises other questions of why God would do such a thing, which I won't cover here. But, we can trust that whatever God does is just and is used for teaching, guiding, and disciplining His people. Third, there are other verses that clearly show that God is pure and that He cannot approve of evil. “The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He," (Deut. 32:4). "Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst not look on wickedness with favor," (Hab. 1:13). We can see that the Bible teaches that God is pure and does not approve of evil, that the word "rah" (evil) in Hebrew can mean many things, and that contextually, the verse is speaking calamity and distress. Therefore, God does not create evil in the moral sense, but in the sense of disaster, of calamity. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:23:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Does God tempt people? According to the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, the word "test" (NASB), "tempt" (KJV) is nacah. It means "1) to test, try, 2) to attempt, assay, try, 3) to test, try, prove, tempt." This is why the KJV translated it as "tempt" and NASB, NIV, NewKJV, ESV, and RSV translate it as "test." Therefore, it was a test that God offered to Abraham, not a temptation to sin. Is God peaceable? As we have already seen, anyone can take verses out of context and compare them to other verses out of context and get a "contradiction." But, context is sacrificed in this manner and along with it, truth is lost. In Isaiah 2:4, God is giving a prophet announcement of a future time when He will be the one who settles disputes and there will be no more war. In Romans 15:33, it is simply said that God is a God of peace. He is. Yet we have the verses that show God's judgmental side. In Exodus 15:3 we see God as a warrior. But the context is the destruction of the Egyptian Army. As we all know, Egypt had enslaved the Israelite nation and God simply became their warrior and delivered them. In Joel 3:9-10 we see a prophetic statement as the book of Joel clearly is prophetic in nature. In other words, there will come a time when it is required to fight. There is no contradiction for God to be both the Lord who battles unrighteousness and also loves peace. This is just as true with people, who are really peaceful by nature, but will fight when the time requires it. I find it odd that the people that love freedom and peace are often very much against the ones that fight for freedom and peace. Was Jesus peaceable? Matthew 10:34 is yet another verse taken out of context. Christ is speaking of the divisions that will happen between believers and non believers, sadly there often isn’t peace between the two. USM tragically has proofs of this. Luke 22:36 is speaking of getting swords for DEFENSIVE purposes, not offensive purposes. It’s ok to defend one’s self. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Was Jesus trustworthy? In John 5:31, the context is Jesus speaking about how He depends upon the Father and how He is seeking the will of the Father. John 5:30-32 says, "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 31"If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true. 32"There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the testimony which He bears of Me is true." The word "alone" is not in the Greek but is included in the NASB translation, though not the NIV, the KJV. Contextually, Jesus is not speaking as one alone, but as one dependent on the Father and that His judgments are true because He does the will of the Father. Jesus is reflecting on the Old Testament law that didn't allow the testimony of one person to condemn another to death. Two witnesses were needed to establish the fact: "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established," (Deut. 19:15). and Matthew 8:16 says, ". . . in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." See also 2 Cor. 13:1; Heb. 10:28. In John 8:14, Jesus says, "IF" (kan, in the Greek) I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true. But He was speaking of being the light of the word, v. 12, and the Pharisees accused Him of bearing witness of Himself. Jesus was simply telling the truth that if He did, it would be true. Shall we call people names? First let it be know, that Matthew 5:22 is grossly missing sentences. In its original form it contains 50 words, here only the LAST 9 are used. This would be like giving you directions to my house and only saying, “…and the last turn is a right turn into the driveway.” Did you understand how to get to my house? When Jesus said in Matthew 5:22 that you should not call anyone a fool, contextually, He was speaking of those who were unrighteously angry. That is why Jesus mentions anger in this verse. There is a righteous anger which is not sinful (Eph. 4:26 - "Be angry and do not sin . . ." ) as well as unrighteous anger that is sinful (James 1:20 - "for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God."). When God is angry with someone, He is always righteous in His anger. Jesus, being God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9;), can righteously be angry with people and pronounce upon them the foolishness of their deeds which He did (Matt. 23:17). Also, undoubtedly, Jesus knew Psalm 14:1 which says, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God . . ." Jesus didn't forget the well known verse and God is not wrong for calling someone a fool, especially when it is true. So, we see that the condemnation by Jesus in regards to calling someone a fool is in the context of doing it out of unrighteous anger which does not fit the later citations of Jesus labeling the hypocritical Pharisees as fools. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Has anyone seen God? Not God the father, only God the son. This has been answered several times already at USM. How many Gods are there? This is one “contradiction” that the original author answers within his own text, and then tries to eliminate that answer, WITH the answer. These examples ARE proof of the Trinity and even the author agrees, though he apparently forgets what scriptures he has listed. +I John 5:7 "And there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."+ There you go. But it’s also worth note, that Genesis 1:26 doesn’t hold up as a argument when viewed in Hebrew. We see it as the word “us” in English, but it comes from the Hebrew word Elohim, which is a word that constructed singularly, but has a plural meaning. The Trinity is that, three are one. Are we all sinners? Yes. Job and Noah were sinners as well. No argument was presented here, being righteous is not absence of sin. Job had to repent as well. We all have sin through Adam. How old was Ahaziah. The correct age of Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem is 22. 2 Kings 8:17 tells us that Ahaziah's father Joram ben Ahab was thirty-two when he became king and he died eight years later, at the age of forty. Therefore, Ahaziah could not have been forty-two at the time of his father's death at age forty." The discrepency in ages is due to a copyist error. We can see that the difference in ages is 20 years. The system of number notation used by the Jews at the time of Ezra consisted of horizontal hooks that represented decades. 4 lines and one hook would equal the number 14 where 4 lines and 2 hooks would be 24. If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of a scroll, then the dates would be off by ten years or a factor of ten. The fact that this is a copyist error does not invalidate the inspiration or authority of Scripture. Remember, God inspired the ORIGINALS. They were without error. The copies have problems. The copies are copies of inspired documents and, unfortunately, some copyist errors did creep into the manuscripts. However, they do not affect any of the doctrinal areas and are typically found in a person’s age or when groups of something are numbered. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
How many animals on the ark? This command came in piecemeal, a little at a time. Genesis 6:19-20 simply instructs Noah to preserve two of every kind. Genesis 7:2-3 is additional information where seven of the clean animals were to be taken and two of every other kind. The reason for this is that the extra animals were for sacrifice. "Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar," (Gen. 8:20). Were women and men created equal? Yes, God does not play favoritism. Oh wait, are you asking HOW men and women were created? One from the earth, one from a rib, but they are still equal in the eyes of God.  Were trees created before humans? Or the jist is, is there a contradiction in creation? There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
 Did Michal have children? Saul had two daughters: Merab and Michal. 1 Samuel 14:49, says "Now the sons of Saul were Jonathan, and Ishui, and Melchishua: and the names of his two daughters were these; the name of the firstborn Merab, and the name of the younger Michal." Since 2 Samuel 6:23 states that Michal had no children, we can conclude that this is a copyist error that should have read Merab. "Many scholars substitute Merab for Michal in 2 Sam. 21:8, regarding it as an ancient scribal error, saying that after her death her sons were hanged to atone for Saul’s slaughter of the Gibeonites, a breaking of Israel’s covenant."1 How many stalls did Solomon have? There are two possible explanations for this discrepancy. 1) a copyist error. 2) the difference is due to time; that is, one account is at the beginning of Solomon's reign (1 Kings 4:26), and the other at the end (2 Chron. 9:25). In general it can be said that the books of Chronicles furnish approximate numerical estimates in the form of round numbers, frequently designed, as has been remarked, to express the magnitude of the occasion. Some estimates in Chronicles which appear to be particularly inflated can be corrected or scaled down by reference to the books of Samuel and Kings...However, it is not always the case that the figures in Chronicles exceed their counterparts in Samuel and Kings."1 The correct answer is probably 4,000 since 40,000 seems extraordinarily large. Furthermore, it seems likely that a single "10's" place was copied incorrectly accounting for the discrepancy. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Does God live in light? God lives everywhere. I fail to see a contradiction here at all as none poses any type of exclusive case. On top of that, some verses are merely symbolic. Does God accept human sacrifice? Nope. It is ok to give up one’s life for God, but not to sacrifice a human as the pagans did. In the story of Isaac and Abraham, Isaac is NOT sacrificed, this is a test of faithfulness. Exodus 22:29 is to give tithes to God, not to kill your sons as a human sacrifice to God. Judges 11:30-39 This is the tragic story of a man named Jephthah. HE makes a promise to God and keeps it. Unfortunately he has to kill his daughter to keep it, but it is she that demands her father keeps it and is willing killed. This is about oaths and keeping them, not sacrifice. II Samuel 21:8-14 Let me sum this story. There is a famine in the land, David asks God why, God says because Saul had the Gibeonites put to death, David ask the Gibeonites what can be done to rectify the situation, the Gibeonites, NOT God, ask that 7 of Saul’s descendents be killed. This so called “sacrifice” was for the Gibeonites, not God. And finally Christ is God himself who was sacrificed on our behalf. Who was Joseph's father? Jacob. Let me explain. Two different genealogies stemming from two different people. One is the genealogy of Mary, one is of Joseph. Luke is for Mary’s side, Matthew is Joseph’s. The easiest way to tell is the different people listed in the genealogies, which these people that bring up these “contradictions” won’t mention. Women in the ancient middle east, and still today in some cases, fall under their husband. Their husband is the representative of the family, wives included. This is true when we look over the genealogies again, the only time women are mentioned in genealogies it is when there husband is listed first , and this is only on Joseph’s genealogy, not on Mary’s. Her’s contains only males. The reason is, Joseph’s line fulfills the legality, Mary’s fulfill the prophecies, both are needed. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Did Paul's men hear a voice? "Literally, that clause in 22:9 may be translated, “They did not hear the sound.” The NIV correctly translates the verse, because the verb “to hear” with the genitive case may mean “to hear a sound” and with the accusative case “to hear with understanding.” The genitive case is employed in 9:7, and the accusative is used in 22:9. So the travelers with Saul heard the sound (9:7) but did not understand what Christ said (22:9)." (Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.) Thus in Acts 9:7, “hearing the voice,” the noun “voice” is in the partitive genitive case [i.e., hearing (something) of], whereas in 22:9, “they heard not the voice,” the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear). “The former denotes the sensational perception, the latter (the accusative case) the thing perceived” (Cremer). Vine, W. E., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell) 1981. There’s a breakdown of it for all you linguisit buffs. Is God omnipotent? In Jeremiah 32:27 God is speaking about His might and sovereignty. God can do anything He wants to do. In Judges 1:19, the Lord was indeed with Judah, but the fact that Judah could not drive out the inhabitants of the Land does not mean that God couldn't do it. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Well there you go. I do ask now LoveKitten that you copy and paste these answers and reply to all on the e-mail you received. If you wish to champion truth and defeat ignorance. Also, everyone please refer others to this that may have questions over “contradictions”. I see these exact same ones appearing time and time again. Trust me, they will appear on USM again. Take care everyone. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:39:00 AM
From Authorid: 35031
As for the Genesis account of the creation of man. Obviously trees and vegetation was created first and the reference to God planting a garden does not mention at what point the garden was created but only that there is where he placed the man. Certainly the garden was created before the man but only mentioned first when the placement of the man was mentioned. The accounts in chapter 1 are referred to in more detail in chapter 2 but not given chronalogically. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:47:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 34814
Suede...And everyone who replied thanks for your time. I am not here to reply to all the e-mails..What I call messages Suede. I am letting the Bible debate itself. I said in my post that I don't have a personal debate..That I will let the Bible people debate among themselves. There are like tons more of these I know of. The only reason I posted this is because it was in my e-mail and I found it a great topic. No matter what you say to me it would be useless. I believe the bible is for control and also everyone translates it differently. My main problem how do we know what God really said? If everyone has their own translations. Out of all the people who have tried to teach me about the Bible. My father is the only one who can tell me something that makes a little sense. He use to be a Sunday school teacher. He is not longer in the faith. But he does give some interesting points and has answered things other people can't. I still think the Bible is an interesting novel to read if you can translate it and understand what the novel says. This post is not to tick any of you off. Alot of people think about this stuff and wanna know. I am sure FB will have her say if she ever gets here LOL Where are you lady? P.S Suede yes this will pop up time to time on USM. This is the main problem with the Bible. People are curious! Why I posted it. Thankyou and have a nice day! |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:50:00 AM
From Authorid: 35031
That Saul's older daughter Mereb was married to Adriel and bore him 5 sons and Michal was married to David testify of itself that the children were not Michal's. However, Isaac Leeser's Bible translation speaks of the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she had brought up for Adriel" and the footnote refers to the fact that the children were Mereb's. The Targum's read: "The five sons of Merab (which Michal, Saul's daughter, brought up). No contradiction here either. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 35031
Man's law is obeyed unless it contradicts the greater law of God. Thus the government cannot grant a person the right to kill. That the apostles took this seriously is indicated by the often occurance of their being jailed and imprisoned for disobeying man's law forbidding them to preach which Jesus had commanded that they do. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 1:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 53500
LoveKitten. I think your reply to me sums it up best. +"No matter what you say to me it would be useless. I believe the bible is for control and also everyone translates it differently. My main problem how do we know what God really said?"+ This is to acknowledge ignorance towards something, that doesn't bother you? There was no real salvation doctrine being looked at here, just basic "word" problems. Yet, you won't even bother to look over them. Also, I find your control angle to be a very weak defense. What is this control thing, and what truly bugs you? Is it the Bible, or say the Catholic Chruch? I'm not "controled". Also, with Interlinear Bibles, the whole translation arguement is moot and not valid. Again, a lazy, poor excuse. I'm amazed that people will reject something on the grounds of being dogmatic or fundamentalistic, only to turn around and adopted a different dogmatic, fundamentalistic belief system. I think your father being a ex believer sheds a lot of light on you. I see now why you are not a Christian. The sad thing is, you seem to take your father's word without actually finding out what he is saying is actually true or not. I hope you can find out things independently and I hope you take advantage of people like myself or Firstborn or Tom and get answers to questions you may have. I wish you well as you grow up, and hope you can open your mind towards Christianity, even if it's just a bit. Closed mindedness is terrible. Take care, |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 2:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
And to add to Suede's comments I will just say, of course you have a problem with control issues! God is in CONTROL . . . He makes everything happen. And to have the need to fight that is to have issues with being controlled. God Bless. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 6:10:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 34814
Suede I was raised Christian..I know what it is all about sweet pea. Also Suede my father who once preached the Bible and worshipped God LOL He no longer believes that way. Some people wise up to the invisible man in the sky theory. I have no weak defense. I didn't write the Bible and I don't believe in it. I have heard it all just about, and nothing changes my mind. Suede I never talk to Tom and I enjoy First Born as a USM friend..I must have some what of an open mind to be replying to you. I must have some what of an open mind to post something like this. I never posted this to debate with you guys read my post..I let the Bible speak for itself..By they way just because I am not a Christian doesn't mean I am not grown up. Suede don't get annoyed cause I am not easily braind washed. |
Date: 12/17/2002 6:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
HowdY!! Been busy. But it looks like suede and tom covered it all for me. When looking into the things of the bible, one cant just take one verse and use it against another. For instance If my children when they were little was throwing rocks at each other, so I step out the door and say, the next one that throws a rock is going to get a butt whooping. But then years go by, a different time place and action, my kid is outside letting another child keep throwing rocks at him/her but does nothing, then I say to the child, go over their and defend yourself. So if I put both of those sentence side by side would they NOT look like a contridction? I"m sure they would. So one cant just take a verse here one there and pit it against the other, as it all involves places, events , times, ect ect. The bible is easy to understand IF one will just start reading it from the begining to end, instead of jumping around and saying what the HEY???? this dont go with that, what can this mean? Its like if you start reading a novel and start in the middle, where does that get you except CONFUSED??  |
Date: 12/17/2002 7:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 51979
Most of these contradictions are just taken out of context to non-believers. I don't feel debating this, only saying that to a non-believer yes, it would probably be confusing.  |
Date: 12/17/2002 8:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 61763
The Contradictions and also the answers shows God to be a hypocrite.  |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 8:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 61763
You're right Suede, closed mindedness is a terrible thing. Maybe you could open yours to see that some who doesn't accept the bible, does so because they have opened their mind to it but its not right for them. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 8:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Saiyaman and you should know right? I mean last time they showed you about these so called contridictioins they wiped the floor with your thoughts. |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 8:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 61763
Gee, did they Firstborn? Try opening your eyes next time. Some of them weren't answered, and so far it was just claims that people existed when dinosaurs were around. No ones showed me anything to back it up. |
Date: 12/17/2002 9:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
LoveKitten, Doesn't Firstborn just make you want some of that good Christian "Love"? *wink* Everytime she enters the site; doesn't it make you see how "blind" you are? Ahhhhhh.....yes; what a splendid example she sets for her "Lord". Gives ya shivers, don't it? *wink*  |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:45:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 34814
FB use to really annoy me kinda like Suede does LOL Somehow I really enjoy FB now even if we disagree. I was talking to a friend today about this. Kinda like the Rock throwing you are talking about reminds me of the Bible. One person is inspired to write this and that. The other is inspired to write another thing. SO on and so on. All being witness to different things and everyone telling a different story. I just can't take all the translating. Everyone is gonna translate the Bible different no matter what! So who is to say who is right? Not Blind here..Just not willing to believe in something that has so many corks. I have excepted Jesus as my Lord and Savoir like 12 or 14 times. I know it was alot and non of them did I feel!! Sorry guys I was open all those times and really tried. DOn't call me close minded when I have in the past given it chances. I am at very very happy on my path now. FB nice to see ya! |
|
Date: 12/17/2002 11:53:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 34814
Authorid: 61763 Thanks for the replies...There is nothing to back up any of this but a ton of Contradictions. I wouldn't want to be of a God who is a hypocite. He is all mighty and all controlling. He makes a list of 10 things you shouldn't do. If you are bad while you are here on planet earth there is a special place for you down in Hell with Satan and Santa where you can burn with the marshmallows. BUT HE LOVES YOU! My Eyes are wide open!!! My friend bought this book and it has hundreds of Contradictions and I know why now I never felt it! |
|
Date: 12/18/2002 1:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 55967
Good to see you, too, Love Kitten. So far, the debate seems lopsides, eh? You got tons of response for those defending the Bible, but really nothing from the atheists. I guess they are relying on the fact that you laid out the contradictions, and consider themselves the winners until all contradictions stated are put to rest. It IS interesting, though. Good things said so far. ~GypsyHawk~ |
|
Date: 12/18/2002 1:39:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 34814
Hey Gypsy it isn't about winning and losing. It is just the Bible debates itself..Thats what I was trying to show here. When my friend lends me this book I will list alot more. This is something that is talked about alot. I am sure people like to read this...Hugs Gypsy~ |
|
Date: 12/18/2002 6:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
Saiyman< My mind is open, I'm completely aware that people don't accept the Bible. That's not a problem. What is a problem, is people being conciously ignorant by saying things such as, it doesn't matter what you say, I won't believe. This is not open mindedness, you have to see that. Do I care if someone doesn't believe in the Bible, nope. BUT, be a non believer for a valid reason, these "contradictions" or translation excuses are weak, but extremely common. NO ONE questions translations of say the Oddessey by Homer. No one questions translations of the Dhammapada. Only the Bible is dismissed because of "translations". Think about it for a second. When was the last you dismissed a book because of translation? I'll bet you never have. But when it comes to the Bible...yea, translation issues all the sudden. Oh well, take care, |
|
Date: 12/18/2002 9:12:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
Nice to see you also LK. I guess instead of looking at different translations of the bible, one could always go to one of the main sources that was written on scrolls and is on line, and that is the dead sea scrolls. Oh and did I hear a mouse *foo foo* on here, eweeeeeeeee stinky! LOL *wink, wink* |
|
Date: 12/18/2002 2:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 51979
Why must people always says things they have heard by the masses? If someone might look into it, the bible, they may actually see that it isn't just a bunch of rules, and you don't go to hell if you disobey them. Christians disobey some of them all the time. Close minded people go both ways guys, if ANYONE decided to believe ANYTHING they are AUTOMATICALLY close minded to you USMers. PLEASE, I mean if I believe in God and choose not to believe in anything else I am close minded. If I choose to be anything else and not any other single thing, than I am close minded. It gets really anoying, it's like people copy and past other poeples replies from other posts. |
|
Date: 12/18/2002 11:51:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 34814
FB I believe you don't have to go to a book or anyone. The true source is our creator. I can talk directly to the creator. Thanks for the replies FB.. |
|
Date: 12/19/2002 1:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 55967
Actually Suede, no one questions the contradictions of the Oddessey---unless you are an English major in college. Then you do. And there are questions. I think the reason it's not questioned by anyone else is simply because one, it's not as interesting, and two, the Oddessey does not have material in it that one needs to know in order to avoid everlasting fire in hell, like the Bible is supposed to have. That would make people in some circles want to understand it, I think. As for the Dhammapada, I don't have the foggiest idea what the heck that is. ~GypsyHawk~ |
|
Date: 12/19/2002 3:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 40089
LOL the Bible doesnt debate itself , it's the ignorrant ( or unlearned ) and the peebrained (man) that confuses the bible , because one doesnt understand it and goes spouting off about mans theories and always ( THINK ) their right is hularious in it's self * wink * I love to read these post as I really get a laugh from some of the backwoods (Kentucky hillbilly ) ,they really need to study , a little knowledge is Dangerous in their hands as is you pay close attention you'll see . GOD BLESS  |
|
Date: 12/19/2002 6:00:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
Now, Steelbird, don't forget the Arkansas hillbillies; they're the real "EX-SPURTS", eh? *wink* |
|
Date: 12/19/2002 7:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 53500
GypsyHawk. I was just trying to make a point about translations. Every one whose not a Christian, regardless of what they are, questions "translation" or wishes to know if what we have is the correct Bible or not. I mentioned the Oddessy because it is well know. It too has been translated, and there's only around 430 copies of it from it's time period. But it's never questioned. We are ok that we have the correct Oddessy, and ok with its translation. Yet the Bible is questioned despite over 23,000 copies of the NT alone from its time period! It's a double standard. Granted the Bible deals with wieghty issues, but as far as translation arguements go, they are biased and to the point of absurd. The Dhammapada is sort of a Buddhist Bible. Not really a Bible, but more of a collection of wise sayings, sort of like the Book of Proverbs and Psalms in the Bible. Again, never questioned. Take care, |
|
Date: 12/19/2002 9:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 40089
To The Thinker sorry but I dont know any Arkansas Hillbilles LOL , *wink* GOD BLESS |
Date: 12/19/2002 11:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
Thank Love Kitten. That was a good post, if only to rile up the bible thumpers. I hardly think all that wholesale slaughter in the bible can be compared to giving kids a 'butt whooping' do you? LOL. Moses sounds like a real psycho. "Come on Saul, let's give them ol Amalekites a butt whooping!"  |
|
Date: 12/19/2002 12:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
oops! My bad; Steelbird. That was supposed to be: ALA-BAM-EEE! Not much difference; 'cept I think ALABAMA takes the real prize for dem babble ex-purts. *wink* Utah, 2nd place? :) |
|
Date: 12/19/2002 4:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Naw honey, Missouri ranks First place for back woods. I can tell by the accent. |
|
Date: 12/19/2002 4:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
.Isnt that right Virginia Cathrine? |
|
Date: 12/19/2002 5:46:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 34814
Moses need some serious Prozac and Valium! Koolade LOL |
|
Date: 12/20/2002 1:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 40089
LOL nah not your (bad) THINKER that seems to be your Norm being wrong that is * wink * but you keep studying and have Faith an you will get it right . GOD BLESS |
Date: 12/22/2002 7:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 12600
okay, okay...let's see...Evangelizer and Suede...you guys are reading the same bible, right??? Wait a minute...I bet Suede is reading the NKJV or the KJV or the NIV and I bet Evangelizer is reading the good ole NWT...So, tell me guys...in EACH of your bibles, what does John 1:1 translate???? Oh, and what does it mean to each of you?? 'Nuff said!!!!!!!  |
|
Date: 12/22/2002 7:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 12600
Oh yes, and shall both of you give us the SCRIPTURAL reasons why we should or should not believe in the Trinity. Oh, and could you each give biblical references as to what happens to our souls?? Or do we even have souls?? Is there a hell? Oh, and how does "the end of this system of things" play out? Are Christians raptured? Are all Christians going to heaven? Is the earth going to be destroyed? When will Jesus begin his reign? Could you both pleeaase give us your scriptural insight on these plaguing questions??? Inquiring minds want to know what the ALMIGHTY really says in that book!! Could you guys enlighten us? Oh and don't forget to give us the chapt and verses that support your claims;-) |
|
Date: 12/22/2002 10:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Wow, Teep, them's a lot of questions! I believe I can answer them all, but I know I wouldn't be able to quote scripture for you although I do believe everything I know about your questions is in the Bible. Do you want me to go ahead and answer without scriptual reference? God Bless. |
|
Date: 12/26/2002 4:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 12600
Hi Deb. Thank you for your reply. The reason I directed those questions at Suede and Evangelizer was to prove a point. They both are reading the bible and using the same book to support two entirely different belief systems. The doctrines they each believe are completely different yet are somehow coming from the same source. |
Date: 12/28/2002 6:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 51173
DANG!!! LoveKitten, can you break this up a bit? I'm afraid your e-mail friend is pulling an ol'debating tactic of presenting more questions than the opponent has time to answer; then he can say "You didn't answer THIS point here, so I win!!" Its a cheap shot tactic, but I am SOOOOOOOO IMPRESSED that Suede took a swing at this that I'm jealous! (I've been busy dealing with my daughter lately that I've only been able to pass the site on break at work, until today.) Bottom line is that these "contradictions" have already been answered, most as early as 1900 years ago by the early Church Fathers, whose lives were on the line if their answers were incorrect. (And often being right didn't help.) Let me try and answer the first one on your e-mail friend's list to show you why this list is bogus. Continued next post.  |
|
Date: 12/28/2002 8:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 51173
******PAUL SAID, "God is not the author of confusion," (I Corinthians 14:33), yet never has a book produced more confusion than the bible! There are hundreds of denominations and sects, all using the "inspired Scriptures" to prove their conflicting doctrines.******* Which simply means that, like every other book on Earth, men often try to read INTO the text what they want it to mean, instead of trying to read OUT OF the text what the author says it means. It is something we are ALL guilty of. I concider myself a faithful person generally, and some around here think that I'm pretty smart about the Bible. But no matter how right I might be in general about things Biblical I GUARENTEE YOU on some point of doctrine or some interpretation of a given passage of scripture I am dead wrong. That has NOTHING to do with the correctness of the text but my understanding of it.And this is very easy to understand by virtue of your friends next point......************ Why do trained theologians differ? Why do educated translators disagree over Greek and Hebrew meanings?******* Take out a cookbook. Turn to any recipe that needs salt and define "a pinch" for me? How much is a pinch? How you define how much a pinch is different than I would; chances are my fingers are much larger than yours. I bring a diferent criteria to the mixing bowl than you do. Likewise with Biblical scholars; each one brings their own experience and education to the Book, and yes, sometimes they bring their own agenda to the Book as well. But most do try to limit their own personal input into their translation work to just that which they think is relivant. But that must also match up with the author's original intent and meaning. My favorite example is the word most often translated "faith" in the NT; "pistis". It's literal meaning is "forensic proof", but can also mean "trust" and "belief" as well. Thus sometimes, by looking at the context of the passage it is easy to find the correct meaning (Hebrews 11:1: "Now FAITH (trust) is the substance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen.") sometimes it isn't (Hebrews 10:22: "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of FAITH (proof, trust, belief), having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." --- ANY definition would work here.) It is up to the translator to then work out what he or she thinks is the best meaning using everything they bring to the table. ..........************* Why all the confusion? Shouldn't a document that was "divinely inspired" by an omniscient and omnipotent deity be as clear as possible?****** Who says it isn't clear? Could it just be US not understanding it because we don't want to conform to the changes it asks us to make? Richard Carrier, the head of The Secular Web once opined that if God really wanted us to believe he would have written "Jesus is Lord" in capital letters on the surface of the Moon, visible from Earth. And if He did, everyone of us knows there would be some people who would say its was just a natural phenominon and a coincidence. Some people don't want to believe. That's fine!! Heck, the Bible says "Choose ye this day whom you will serve, God or man." But most skeptics aren't satisfied with simply choosing not to believe; they must be ASSURED that they are right in their choice by justifying their choice, rather than simply doing that which God (if He exists) has given them the right to do. They want to live without God but be sure that they are exempt from the consequences of their choice if they are wrong. So they come up with lists of "contradictions" that simply show they didn't read the Bible in the first place, much less make careful study to help insure you did read the text right. It is my fervent prayer that skeptics simply learn to live with the choice they have made, and stop boring me with huge lists of "contradictions' that have already been answered for almost 2000 years. In any case, Love Kitten, I do hope your holiday was as wonderful as mine was. Thank you for letting me rant a little, too. Much peace to you, dear, Tom |
|
Date: 1/6/2003 12:56:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 34814
Break it off for you LMAO Give me a break. |
|
Date: 1/6/2003 8:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
I read "up" not "off", and giving us all a break is what Tom asked of you. As Christians having a belief questioned, Tom shows infinite patience in answering these types of posts, and IMHO, these and any other "unbelievablity" aspects of our faith have been answered over and over at this site, yet they keep coming. I for one, find Tom's efforts, and others who take the time to continually address these concerns, enormously commendable. God Bless. |
Date: 5/10/2005 3:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 12118
Very interesting. The facts debate themselves.  |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
Other Cool Sites:
demo.aheasy.com
demo.strangemysteries.com
demo.morningmystery.com
demo.business-finance-and-money.com
demo.poetryandlove.com
demo.free-web-encyclopedia.com
demo.nodpods.com
demo.jesus-god-angels.com
demo.starlightmysteries.com
demo.easyrlty.com
Awesome Free Web Graphics
Favorite Grapic Quotes
Greetings in Glittery Text
Your name in Glittery Text
www.thehomebusinessindex.com
www.diet-food-weightloss-health.com
www.investingandinvestments.com
www.cancerinformationworld.com
www.datinglovematchmaking.com
www.creditinformationworld.com
www.insurancelinksdirect.com
www.ilovemysteries.com
www.casinopokergambleing.com
