NationStates Jolt Archive

ok in the bible and this is to all post bible contradictions you find and i will awnser as many as i can this will prove it does not contradict

cant find any?

Virgin and Mary.

accualy not a contradiction The virgin mary made pregnat through the holy ghost

accualy not a contradiction The virgin mary was concieved by the Holy Ghost

I don't know where to start to tell you where thats wrong.

accualy not a contradiction The virgin mary was concieved by the Holy Ghost
Yeah, but who concieved baby Jesus? And how did he get into there? Magic?

did you even read what i said the holy ghost entered the virgin mary making her pregnat which that is how Jesus came through God

did you even read what i said the holy ghost entered the virgin mary making her pregnat which that is how Jesus came through God
...

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.

Who was it Jacob or Heli?

Or how bout good old creation which was first
beasts or man?
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.

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.

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.

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.

(there are a LOT more here some good some not trying to get the best ones)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

ill b back but give me hard ones please give me verses and make them as hard as you can find heck use other places were youve heard contradictions ill dispell them all

I think the intention in this thread was intended to show that supposed contradictions WITHIN scripture are actually not contradictions. The virgin birth is a part of the faith and as a significant leap of faith seems contrary to those that don't believe in it. However, there is nothing in scripture that could be seen as contradicting this part of the faith, therefore it does not apply to this thread.

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.

im not even gonna awnser cause there easy but use that site and give me the best one you can find and ill beat it cya 4 now

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."

im not even gonna awnser cause there easy but use that site and give me the best one you can find and ill beat it cya 4 now
LOL how are we suposed to take you seriously we give you some and you just dismiss them as too easy

Way to avoid actualy having to answer

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.IS he was refering to the city babylon which was created by men who worshipped idols as the whole city was evil

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)

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."

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."
Thats one I like ... figured they would accuratly record the very last words of the only son of god ... might be important :p

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.


We'll throw more at you when you deign to answer some of the ones already profferred.

IS he was refering to the city babylon which was created by men who worshipped idols as the whole city was evil

And that explains the contradiction how?

Are sons to be punished for the sins of the fathers or not?

^ this one is simply because there were different writers of the four gospels who remember it differently so man messed that part up

^ this one is simply because there were different writers of the four gospels who remember it differently so man messed that part up
Which ones? (and even so they ARE contradictions and recording errors)

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.


We'll throw more at you when you deign to answer some of the ones already profferred.i said the word of GOD not the word of solomon

i said the word of GOD not the word of solomon
No you did not you said BIBLE contradictions

i said the word of GOD not the word of solomon

So some parts of the Bible are the word of GOD and some aren't.

Well, that will be a handy way to avoid contradictions.

So some parts of the Bible are the word of GOD and some aren't.

Well, that will be a handy way to avoid contradictions.
That leads to the question what part of the bible is not the word of god

No you did not you said BIBLE contradictionsGood you have pointed out mine now allow me to point yours did you know the bible has been translated over 2000 times?

^ this one is simply because there were different writers of the four gospels who remember it differently so man messed that part up

So, you admit the Bible is inaccurate.

If it got such a basic and fundamental thing as the last words of Jesus wrong, what else is wrong? How can we tell? Hmmm?

(So far you are not doing so well in defending the Bible. 0 for 2. Both times just admitted the contradiction. The "sins of the father" bit is still up in the air -- so maybe you haven't struck out yet.)

dude so far people have listen about 8 different contradictions... you have answered one... and not altogether adequately. Don't start threads claiming to do something which you can't

ok in the bible and this is to all post bible contradictions you find and i will awnser as many as i can this will prove it does not contradictcant find any?Note that these were four minutes apart. said the word of GOD not the word of solomonActually, no, you didn't. I seriously gotta ask, are you honestly being serious about this, or are you trying to be amusing and charmingly inept?

That leads to the question what part of the bible is not the word of godthe part that man wrote that gives wisdom but is not God inspired the proverbs are more for wisdom to young adults

So you admit there are contradictions in the bible? No matter where they are in the bible they're still contradictions. Well, thread closed then.

Good you have pointed out mine now allow me to point yours did you know the bible has been translated over 2000 times?
But not liniarly
So is there any true word of GOD ? at least any of the english versions?

And if so how do you believe any of the english bible

I think the intention in this thread was intended to show that supposed contradictions WITHIN scripture are actually not contradictions. The virgin birth is a part of the faith and as a significant leap of faith seems contrary to those that don't believe in it. However, there is nothing in scripture that could be seen as contradicting this part of the faith, therefore it does not apply to this thread.

You mean like where God says all along in the Old Testament that he is neither a man or son of man, and that there is no savior beside him? Nevermind the fact that God is supposed to be unchanging...and then the New Testament comes along and, completely ignoring this foundation that has been laid for the Jews for thousands of years, says that Jesus was God incarnate and suddenly they're obligated to accept this as Truth? Not to mention that the New Testament deliberately twisted the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy that said a child (which was obviously intended to mean his own child, as made clear in the next chapter) would be born of a young woman (who was not originally specified to be a virgin at all) as a sign to King Ahaz. A sign that wasn't to occur for more than 700 years wouldn't have been much of a sign to King Ahaz, would it?

you all must realize that the bible is translated from one language to the other, each one who translates it has different experiences and knowledges, some words while translated may have no meaning to us, but to another culture who speaks another language it has a much different meaning.

But not liniarly
So is there any true word of GOD ? at least any of the english versions?

And if so how do you believe any of the english bibleyeah there is one correct version oh and no i did not admit that i merely said that there are some books added that shouldnt of been and some that shouldve been added

yeah there is one correct version oh and no i did not admit that i merely said that there are some books added that shouldnt of been and some that shouldve been added
You are not making a whole lot of sense

So what do you accept as the word of god ? what version ... what language... or what parts of the bible?

You seem to be randomly assigning certian parts as the true word of god and others as not based on some arbitrary method you have not cared to share

If you want contradictions in the true word of god you have to first tell us what you believe to be such otherwise all you say is "that is not the real word of god"

Fine ill tell you the ones i believe are truly God inspired Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deutoronomy Job Isiah Ezekial Daniel Mathew Mark John Luke Acts Romans 1 and 2 Corinthians 1 Thesolonians Hebrews james and Revelation i believe those are truly inspired though i havnt read the rest

Good for you, then. Now--give your responses to the contradictions that have already been pointed out in those texts, or just go away and stop wasting everyone else's time!

Fine ill tell you the ones i believe are truly God inspired Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deutoronomy Job Isiah Ezekial Daniel Mathew Mark John Luke Acts Romans 1 and 2 Corinthians 1 Thesolonians Hebrews james and Revelation i believe those are truly inspired though i havnt read the rest

(emphasis added)

So why not respond to why the four gospels contradict each other if these are Gods words? If men screwed them up because of faulty memory, they aren't God's word--they are men's. If the contradict each other, does that mean God changes his mind on how it happened?

i have so deal with it

(emphasis added)

So why not respond to why the four gospels contradict each other if these are Gods words? If men screwed them up because of faulty memory, they aren't God's word--they are men's. If the contradict each other, does that mean God changes his mind on how it happened?no it means that man screwed up not God

no it means that man screwed up not God

Then the four Gospels are the words of man not of God.

The bible is completly obseen
when you think about it people who sin on a every day basis wrote it so no one can say for sure that its true or the facts in it are real

Fine ill tell you the ones i believe are truly God inspired Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deutoronomy Job Isiah Ezekial Daniel Mathew Mark John Luke Acts Romans 1 and 2 Corinthians 1 Thesolonians Hebrews james and Revelation i believe those are truly inspired though i havnt read the rest

A true devotee of the faith then?

A true devotee of the faith then?

Pretty much.

more devout then you two :rolleyes:

The truth is he gave himself an impossible task. The bible itself is a set of contradictions that lead to practically incoherent babble.

If the defense is the Bible cannot be blamed for the problems because parts of it were made by man, we can say we can dismiss all of the bible made by man, and since it was written by man to begin with, we can dismiss the bible.

I believe at one time the Bible was a true representation of God's words and wisdom, but has been tainted by the hand of man, corrupted beyond repair.

Mister Ffc2 beautifully points this out, by saying its man's fault that contradictions exist.

If one contradiction exists in the religion, but no solid evidence exists, then you are betraying yourself when you follow the religion that has lied to you once.

How about how Jesus Numerous times calls out to God. Why would he call out to himself? I don't get on my knees and put my hands to the heavens to forgive myself. If they are infact the same person, then Jesus has a really weird way of doing things.

Also, the post talking about Joseph's father that seems to be contradictory, look at those words and it implies that Jesus himself was Joseph's son. I do believe in the Virgin Mary, just not in the Bible because it slanders the people it says are their saviors.

Everytime I see Ffc2's posts, he claims he has adequetely discussed a religious arguement, when all he has said creates more loopholes. =\

more devout then you two :rolleyes:

Undoubtedly, as I don't believe in God or that your Bible is anything but fiction.

Nonetheless, I appear to have read more of your Holy Book than you have.

I like that quote from Proverbs. About counsiling of fools.

Fact is, many of you are fools, to've pursued this thread (I admit I am also a fool). Bad spellings, poor arguements, faulty logic...


The Bible has been translated and mistranslated (this last, possibly the former as well, often solely for political expedience), more than any other book in history. I don't much hold to dualistic paradigm, but sometimes one must simplify his stand.
To take the Bible at its word, "All scripture is inspired of God..." If so, there should be no translation errors, nor new editions compiled and adopted for nefarious purpose. KVJ can be proven such an edition, as can others.
"... suitable for (reproof and instruction)". Now, this is either truth or lie. If one small passage is proven incorrect, or requires a stretch of logic to ameliorate seeming self-contradiction, the above-quoted becomes a lie, negating the purported authority.
Think about what you say or (especially) write for a few days before expounding upon the mysteries of reality.

No, Pterodonia, not even close.

A true devotee of ignorant flaming, maybe, but this guy is being pugnatious from the get-go . . . something the Bible teaches against in I Timothy of any leader in the church. If this young lad had the spiritual maturity that he seems to think, he would not have opened such an argumentative and antagonistic thread.

I apologize for him, guys. Yes, he's one of ours, and no, our teachings to not support this.

Arrggghh! I just lost my response to several of the contradictions. I'll just give a blanket statement.

True, the New Testament is in fact a contradiction of the Old, its very nature is God making a new covenant with man. The Old Testament is meant as more of a background resource (in the Christian religion anyway) telling of the way God used to do things (when God was rather vengeful) as well as the story of God's chosen people. There are in fact, contradictions between the Old and New Testament because of the New Testament, but it is also clear that the New Testament trumps the Old whenever it does contradict it. The Old Testament COULD be looked to for current authority if a certain issue is not addressed or countered in the New Testament. The example of the variations among the Gospels...yes they are different in some aspects. This is because they are told by different PEOPLE (different people always have variations in the way they tell a story). This does not change the basis that Jesus was sent to die for the sins of mankind. Which parts are accurate and which parts are variations based on a person's point of view though? Well, there is no clear cut answer for the most part. Whether it was divine inspiration misinterpreted by imperfect men that cannot even truly fully comprehend God, variations of points of view, exceptions for certain cases, misinterpretation by the reader, mistranslations, or any other factors/combinations. But just because I can't be 100% certain on every single detail in the Bible does not mean that I dismiss everything in the Bible or matters of faith outright.

If this seems messed up or convoluted...it probably is. I'm not very good at actually expressing my views on just about anything. :D
Also keep in mind this is my humble opinion of the issue here. Personally I don't see the point of making such threads since nobody is going to be convinced of anything or their minds changed anyway. NS is a place for stubborn ***holes. :D

http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap5.asp

Don't know if this helps any of you.

Bill 3.1415926
And the Lord said unto Vader, "Lift not your manky toothbrush to Heaven, for it is displeasing in My sight, not to mention a bit gross, with the missing bristles and bits of old toothpaste caked onto the side. Stop being such a cheapskate, for My sake, and get one of those new ones with the bendy head and contoured grip, which I have provided for you in My infinite beneficence".

Kylie sqrt(log10(2)^ei)
And the Lord spake unto Vader, "Raise thy old and faithful toothbrush high to the Kingdom of Heaven, that I might judge the brushing of thy teeth and check for signs of gum disease and the bacteria which cause plaque, which is an affront to the gift of mastication - cease thine adolescent sniggering, Gabriel, I said *mastication* - that I hath bequeathed unto my blessed children. And thou shalt floss twice a day, yea, including those fiddly bits around the back, even when thou art late for thy labours, and rinse properly with mouthwash - but mindest thou that thou dost not swallow, for it is an abomination in the eyes of Me - and thou shalt be blessed with lovely shiny toothipegs, yea, and shalt thy children be blessed also, unto the seventh generation".

Ok...

1.) In the opening paragraphs of the Bible God is referred to first as Elohim, then as Yaweh. The first is genderless and plural - the second is masculine and singular. The first means "the Gods", the second is the partiarchical figure. See 3.)

2.) 17 And Naaman said, “If not, please let your servant at least be given two mules’ load of earth; for your servant will no more offer burnt offering nor will he sacrifice to other gods, but to the LORD. 18 In this matter may the LORD pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leans on my hand and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon your servant in this matter.” 19

Naaman required earth to worship the god of Israel on ground not his own. So the god of Israel cannot be a god with dominance over the world, at least that's the way I see it. Not a biblical contradiction but a religious one.

3.) The entire of the Genesis creation is basically two stories squashed into one. In Genesis 1 1-27 he creates heaven and earth, fruit, birds and animals, then humans, in that order. In Genesis 2 4-21 God creates plants, then man, then the birds and animals etc.

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

compared with

"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)

So does that deity tempt people or not? It say so, seeing as in Deuteronomy he claims he's everything.

5.) "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)

6.) Thou shalt not kill
Exod 20:13

Thus sayeth the LORD God of Israel, "Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour".
Exod 32:27

You can claim that it's ok if you have special permission, but it's still fairly nasty.

7.) Circumcision was a fertility rite, supposed to give women better orgasms and thus more likelihood of concieving. It is admitted that many parts of the bible, including the story of Ruth, make reference to the Babylonian deities also worshipped.

8.) More of the Babylonian thing, contradicting the "only god" malarkey...

The book of Genesis was written by a number of authors who assembled material from three traditions: "J", named for the Yahwist tradition who referred to God as Yahweh (translated "the Lord" in English)
"E", named for the Elohist tradition who referred to God as Elohim, which was derived from the name of the Canaanite God El (translated as "God" in English)
"P", named for the Priestly class who were primarily concerned with history, genealogies, etc.

The ancient Babylonians wrote a creation story in which the universe was created by a pantheon of Gods. The writers of the Hebrew Scriptures adopted this creation myth. They removed most of the Babylonian references to polytheism, leaving only a few traces of multiple Gods in: Gen. 1:1 which would be more correctly translated "In the beginning, the Gods created..."
Gen. 3:22 "...Behold, the man is become as one of us..."
Gen. 11:7 "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language..."

The creation myth adopted from the Babylonians contains a multi-step creation of the stars, sun, earth, seas, plants, and animals that vaguely resembles the findings of the Theory of Evolution, although the order is sometimes reversed.
In the original Babylonian myth, the Gods created the first people: a man and his wife Lilith. The Gods cast Lilith out of the garden because of a variety of transgressions. She retained her immortality and was believed to come awake only during the night and to feed on the blood of children and animals. She was perhaps the first vampire-like character. Eve was then created as the second wife. This ancient myth was adopted by the Jewish J tradition and inserted into Genesis, Chapter 1 circa 550 BCE. They stripped out the references to the first wife. Lilith is now only seen in Isaiah 34:14 where her name is variously translated "screech owl", "night monster" or "night hag".

The Chaldean Flood Tablets from the city of Ur in what is now Southern Iraq, describe how the Babylonian God Ea destroyed all of the men, women, children, babies and infants by a world-wide flood. A comparison of the story on these tablets with the Bible indicates that the writer(s) of the story of Noah clearly copied the earlier Babylonian text. There is some indication that the inspiration for the flood stories was a massive series of floods in Ur and surrounding areas circa 2800 BCE.

8.) Jesus was quite possibly an Essene, or at least strongly influenced by them. By 143 B.C.E., the Zadokites had become known definitely as the Sadducees; and the Chasidim, splitting into two parties, had become known as the Pharisees and the Essenes. The Essenes could be looked upon as "ultra-strict" Pharisees. The Sadducees became identified with the rich and successful; the Pharisees became the popular leaders; and the Essenes gradually evolved into an esoteric communion of celibate communists.

There is evidence which indicated that, about 70 B.C.E. or soon thereafter, an Essene prophet known as the Teacher of Righteousness had been put to death by the Jewish authorities because of doctrinal, ritualistic, and organizational heterodoxy; that, in due course, his followers declared that he was God himself, appearing as a man in Jerusalem, and that his death was an atoning sacrifice for the elect; that he arose from the grace and returned to heaven; and that he would send a representative in a few years who would be precisely the kind of Messiah that was proclaimed for Jesus by his followers. There is a strong indication that if Jesus was not at one time affiliated with the Essenes, that he was strongly influenced by them and their doctrines; yet at times we find Jesus' individuality and diversion from some of the Essene tenants. Many feel that Jesus was persuaded that he was himself the Messiah expected by the Essene Community, that he left it and preached the Gospel to the public; and that finally, in a revised concept of his own mission, re-enacted the role and the passion of the slain Teacher, and proclaimed that in his eschatological role he would appear as the last judge and the all-powerful Son of Man.



This lot were considered pagans by orthodox Jews and worshipped god as both male and female.

Jesus was an Essene Jew - the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that the ideas he taught had been part of the Essene tradition for 200 years when Jesus was alive. [Jews today do ritual immersions in water (John the Baptist was a Jew also), and believe in the Final Redemption when the Messiah comes, with the revival of the dead.] Jesus was not an innovator. Fifty years after his crucifixion by the Romans, Paul of Tarsus grafted on Pagan Mithraic ideas and began the Christianity we know today, which is so radically different than its mother religion, Judaism.


In fact,

A look at who wrote the Bible - not God. Hence it being riddled with contradictions. (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html)

Also, Jesus's persona as an amalgamation of several other deities:

Jesus' Persona (http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm)

Here's another one from Genesis:

According to what the Bible has told us, there are 4 people alive on the earth at this time: Adam, Eve, Abel, and Cain. Cain goes out, kills Abel, is branded by God, and then is rejected entrance to the homes of men and eventually settles in the Land of Nod where his descendants become $ETHNIC_GROUP. (don't know the exact lines though)

First of all, where did all the other people appear from? Nowhere does it say that God created all of them too. And where the heck is the land of Nod, and where does it say God created it and named it thus? Lands are named by men, not God. That means there were other people who named it Nod. Or Cain named it himself, but to have descendants he would need to have some kind of partner to create them.

Also, it says that Adam made Eve his wife and so on, but nowhere does it say that God created or sanctioned marriage.

you all must realize that the bible is translated from one language to the other, each one who translates it has different experiences and knowledges, some words while translated may have no meaning to us, but to another culture who speaks another language it has a much different meaning.I'm sorry, but no amount of translation and retranslation can render contradicting lines in different books. In all likelihood the contradictions occurred because the 70-odd authors who wrote the Bible lived some time apart or didn't read each others' works.

Much precious time is wasted trying to convince GodHaters He exists and you are using a document they believe is bogus. God told Paul to dust his feet and be done with someone who resists. Use the time God gave you more wisely, don't waste it on the GodHaters. You'll not debate anyone into believing his divinity. Move on. There are better uses for the Scripture.

Did my post not get through? Everyone seems to be avoiding the point that if the Bible contains any translation errors at all, if any edition was published for unGodly purpose, if any smallest passage is irreconsilible with other sources, one or both are wrong and a lie.

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 dont think this one is a contradiction. Look at the verses, they are right next to each other. If someone was writing this i think they would have known they contradicted themselves. I think this is a play on words if you look at it.

Maybe answer a fool at some minimum level to keep them from becoming wise in their own estimation, but stop answering them long before you get sucked into their web of foolishness.

Maybe another way of looking at it: In regards to how one answers. Answer with words and tone and body language that prevent the other from becoming brilliant in their own eyes, while at the same time not answering in a way that makes us as foolish as the other.

Also the book of proverbs is poetry and collected sayings, so you have to look at it as composed. I dont think this one is a contradiction.

did you even read what i said the holy ghost entered the virgin mary making her pregnat which that is how Jesus came through God
hasnt it been proven tht mary wasnt a virgin

hasnt it been proven tht mary wasnt a virgin

how could that be proven?

Here's another one from Genesis:

According to what the Bible has told us, there are 4 people alive on the earth at this time: Adam, Eve, Abel, and Cain. Cain goes out, kills Abel, is branded by God, and then is rejected entrance to the homes of men and eventually settles in the Land of Nod where his descendants become $ETHNIC_GROUP. (don't know the exact lines though)

First of all, where did all the other people appear from? Nowhere does it say that God created all of them too. And where the heck is the land of Nod, and where does it say God created it and named it thus? Lands are named by men, not God. That means there were other people who named it Nod. Or Cain named it himself, but to have descendants he would need to have some kind of partner to create them.

Also, it says that Adam made Eve his wife and so on, but nowhere does it say that God created or sanctioned marriage.

Speaking of Adam, "...and he begat sons and daughters." Genesis 5:4 (KJV)

And of Cain, "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived" Genesis 4:17 (KJV)

Well there's the "mystery wife" right there. One of Adam's daughters or so on. Stands to reason that God would not have allowed the problems with incest these days, mearly to cause the viability of mankind to increase. That and Adam lived to be 930, so it stands to reason that in almost 1,000 years he would have had more than just sons now doesn't it?

On marriage, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:24 (KJV)

Marrige is often referred to as uniting two into one. And sex between a married couple even more so.

edit addition: Also, the book of Genesis was written by God through Moses, so it stands to reason that Moses was using the names of places and cultures during his time, i.e. Cain's land was called Nod during the time of Moses, so he put Nod in so ppl would know where something is taking place.

how could that be proven?
dnt have a clue i fink i heard it sum where

On Mary's status, "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 1:19-20 (KJV)

In other words, Joseph was planning to not marry Mary because he feared that she had become pregnant outside of wedlock and thus not a virgin upon marriage, of which the punishment was under the Law of Moses was death by stoning, IIRC. Definantly death, though, but I'll double-check just to be sure.

But, with the angel reassuring him that Mary is still a virgin, and that the child has been placed there by the Holy Spirit, Joseph was married to Mary.

Further reassurance of Mary's virginity, "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" Luke 1:34 (KJV) In other words Mary was wondering how she could be pregnant since she is a virgin. Just three verses later, we see, "For with God nothing shall be impossible." Luke 1:37 (KJV)

Speaking of Adam, "...and he begat sons and daughters." Genesis 5:4 (KJV)

And of Cain, "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived" Genesis 4:17 (KJV)

Well there's the "mystery wife" right there. One of Adam's daughters or so on. Stands to reason that God would not have allowed the problems with incest these days, mearly to cause the viability of mankind to increase. That and Adam lived to be 930, so it stands to reason that in almost 1,000 years he would have had more than just sons now doesn't it?

On marriage, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:24 (KJV)

Marrige is often referred to as uniting two into one. And sex between a married couple even more so.Taking the events of the Bible to be happening six thousand years before it was written—about 5800 BCE—we can safely say:

1) Human life expectancy then was about 35. Someone living to 930 would be impossible. Nowadays the highest life expectancy in the world—80 in Japan—is still about eight hundred and something years short of Adam's life. And that 80 has been the result of millennia of increase; in 1700 it was 50, in the 1000s 40. How is it that the life expectancy has increased since Adam's time, yet is still many years short of his lifespan?

2) I assume that Adam's having all of these children with Eve? If so, there's a slight anatomical problem. Human ova die out in about 40 years. Therefore, all of these children would have to date from about 40 years, and yet in the Bible it says that Adam slept with his wife only twice in an 18-year period. (I know, I've translated the book from Hebrew into English.) Therefore, unless Cain had a twin sister that no-one is talking about, it's highly unlikely that he had a wife.

3) What about all the other homes of men from which he was refused entrance? Where did they come from?

4) About the Great Flood: There are some problems here. Noah lived in Mesopotamia, scholars believe nowadays. If the Great Flood occurred there and inundated the entire world, Noah and two of each Mesopotamian animal survived. However, creatures such as the ocelot, the woodchuck, and the polar bear were VERY uncommon in Mesopotamia at that time, and yet they survive to this day. Please explain that.

5) Ffc2, you have yet to explain the other seven or so contradictions in the Bible.

Taking the events of the Bible to be happening six thousand years before it was written—about 5800 BCE—we can safely say:

1) Human life expectancy then was about 35. Someone living to 930 would be impossible. Nowadays the highest life expectancy in the world—80 in Japan—is still about eight hundred and something years short of Adam's life. And that 80 has been the result of millennia of increase; in 1700 it was 50, in the 1000s 40. How is it that the life expectancy has increased since Adam's time, yet is still many years short of his lifespan?

2) I assume that Adam's having all of these children with Eve? If so, there's a slight anatomical problem. Human ova die out in about 40 years. Therefore, all of these children would have to date from about 40 years, and yet in the Bible it says that Adam slept with his wife only twice in an 18-year period. (I know, I've translated the book from Hebrew into English.) Therefore, unless Cain had a twin sister that no-one is talking about, it's highly unlikely that he had a wife.

3) What about all the other homes of men from which he was refused entrance? Where did they come from?

4) About the Great Flood: There are some problems here. Noah lived in Mesopotamia, scholars believe nowadays. If the Great Flood occurred there and inundated the entire world, Noah and two of each Mesopotamian animal survived. However, creatures such as the ocelot, the woodchuck, and the polar bear were VERY uncommon in Mesopotamia at that time, and yet they survive to this day. Please explain that.

5) Ffc2, you have yet to explain the other seven or so contradictions in the Bible.

"For with God nothing shall be impossible." Luke 1:37 (KJV)

God brought all the animals to Noah, God allowed Adam and Eve to be able to live longer and have longer procreation time in order to populate the Earth. Besides look at Sarah, Abraham's wife. She laughed that she would have a child when she was pushing 100, yet she still did. His name was Isaac. And I said that Cain more than likely DID marry his sister, which as I said would have been out of necessity.

Fine ill tell you the ones i believe are truly God inspired Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deutoronomy Job Isiah Ezekial Daniel Mathew Mark John Luke Acts Romans 1 and 2 Corinthians 1 Thesolonians Hebrews james and Revelation i believe those are truly inspired though i havnt read the rest
LOL you believe Levidicus was God inspired ... thats GREAT LOL better not have ever wore a tshirt sinner LOL (thanks I needed the good laugh)

i have so deal with it
No you havent ... if there are that many errors even recording errors YOU still take them as the word of god (you said so)
So god cant make as coherent story as well as a cheep romance novalist :p

Note to various people in this thread -

There is a button beneath the 'L' Key on your keyboard. It is called a period. Please put it at the end of each sentence. As well, please capitialise each sentence using the 'shift' key. Thank you.

Note to various people in this thread -

There is a button beneath the 'L' Key on your keyboard. It is called a period. Please put it at the end of each sentence. As well, please capitialise each sentence using the 'shift' key. Thank you.
This is a forum ... while I am all for composing yourself in an understandable mannor requiring exact punctuation is hardly nessisary to get thoughts across correctly

Note to various people in this thread -

There is a button beneath the 'L' Key on your keyboard. It is called a period. Please put it at the end of each sentence. As well, please capitialise each sentence using the 'shift' key. Thank you.

eh, minute details...

cant find any?
Sheesh.
I'm gonna ref you to Heikoku's "come n get me, pseudo-christians" thread.
Educate yourself there. Otherwise you're blowing used air.
*tsk tsk* :rolleyes:
I also ref you (hoping not for negative retribution) to Bottle's post of Horus. You want an argument, deal with Bottle or Grave_n_Idle. I might be fun too if my compie wasn't down, i'd quick ref my files for you. Most of the good posts are already there, though ... so check out the archives if you really want it.

LOL you believe Levidicus was God inspired ... thats GREAT LOL better not have ever wore a tshirt sinner LOL (thanks I needed the good laugh)

In that spirit, I create just a few references from "God-inspired books" (according to our good friend Ffc2)

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev. 15:19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

In that spirit, I create just a few references from "God-inspired books" (according to our good friend Ffc2)

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev. 15:19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

(lol good job ... though might want to quote the source I have a feeling I ran across that web page awhile ago lol)

Yeah, I found a couple of those, and I added some of my own...

Born and raised in a Christian house, so I know my Bible better than most actual Christians. It helps with the guys that come to your door every now and then.

Yeah, I found a couple of those, and I added some of my own...

Born and raised in a Christian house, so I know my Bible better than most actual Christians. It helps with the guys that come to your door every now and then.
Most of us do ... most agnostics/atheists you will find here were Catholic at some point

Taking the events of the Bible to be happening six thousand years before it was written—about 5800 BCE—we can safely say:

...
5) Ffc2, you have yet to explain the other seven or so contradictions in the Bible.

Well, the idea is that the lifespan was shortened a few generations after Noah. From a scientific standpoint, there are two major contributions to old age: one is the genetic errors in our genome. Now God wouldn't create men imperfectly, would he? After the fall from Eden, these errors creeped in over time, largely due to limited population. By the time the population was diverse enough, the age was down to... around fourty, I guess.
The other is errors in the combustion of O2. Every once in a while the mechanisms that burn O2 in the body make an error, releasing a free radical, O- and O3+, I think. But it's possible that in the past the human genome had better genes to build a mechanism that would break down O2 more efficiently, which would have been worn down the same way the rest of the genome has been. As far as Eve only being active for fourty years, well the female ova has thousands of eggs from birth for a reason. There's no reason to assume that in the past the cycle was longer with the lifespan.

Well, the idea is that the lifespan was shortened a few generations after Noah. From a scientific standpoint, there are two major contributions to old age: one is the genetic errors in our genome. Now God wouldn't create men imperfectly, would he? After the fall from Eden, these errors creeped in over time, largely due to limited population. By the time the population was diverse enough, the age was down to... around fourty, I guess.
The other is errors in the combustion of O2. Every once in a while the mechanisms that burn O2 in the body make an error, releasing a free radical, O- and O3+, I think. But it's possible that in the past the human genome had better genes to build a mechanism that would break down O2 more efficiently, which would have been worn down the same way the rest of the genome has been. As far as Eve only being active for fourty years, well the female ova has thousands of eggs from birth for a reason. There's no reason to assume that in the past the cycle was longer with the lifespan.

Limited to say the least ... and why would they "creep" in there slowly ... logic says starting from two humans by the third generation the genome would contain many errors ... by 4th or 5th would be more then enough to create a plethora of errors due to imbreading
rather then the large amount of time between creation and noah

Limited to say the least ... and why would they "creep" in there slowly ... logic says starting from two humans by the third generation the genome would contain many errors ... by 4th or 5th would be more then enough to create a plethora of errors due to imbreading
rather then the large amount of time between creation and noah

Like I said, men were created with a perfect genome. In a perfect genome, inbreeding wouldn't matter, because all inbreeding does is repeat the same flaws, since relatives are more likely to have the same genetic flaws. There probably weren't any flaws at all to begin with. By the preflood period, there were enough flaws that inbreeding would cause some problems, so after the flood when inbreeding was necessary, the flaws were multiplied. That's a more complete description, I think.

Well...I spose I probably should've read the whole thread but I just skimmed through it. My only two cents I'll give is this: I believe in God, I love God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit with all my heart. (By the way, the Holy Spirit gets kinda shafted doesn't He? He's not NEARLY as recognized...) HOWEVER...I do NOT believe IN Christianity. I believe organized religion has taken a good idea and made a terrible mistake by building a faith on it. The Bible is questionable. Does it change with the times? Were there translation errors? Since technically humans WROTE it, could they have made a mistake? I don't know, but I believe that some parts are indeed wrong. For example, "Slaves obey your masters." (Can't remember specifically where this is...srry.) And basically anything that goes against homosexuals. That's why the whole issue nowadays gets me so riled. Whether or not it still is today is irrelavant. The entire issue WAS based and for many, still IS based, on bigotry, hatred, and intolerance. Anyways, as I said, there's my two cents on religion, the Bible, God, and everythin else. Since this area is a favorite topic of mine but I dont follow the threads closely, anyone who wants can send me a telegram. :) I'd be happy to have an intelligent conversation about this...Sadly, no one seems to be willing as of yet...:(

Ok...

1.) In the opening paragraphs of the Bible God is referred to first as Elohim, then as Yaweh. The first is genderless and plural - the second is masculine and singular. The first means "the Gods", the second is the partiarchical figure. See 3.)

2.) 17 And Naaman said, “If not, please let your servant at least be given two mules’ load of earth; for your servant will no more offer burnt offering nor will he sacrifice to other gods, but to the LORD. 18 In this matter may the LORD pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leans on my hand and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon your servant in this matter.” 19

Naaman required earth to worship the god of Israel on ground not his own. So the god of Israel cannot be a god with dominance over the world, at least that's the way I see it. Not a biblical contradiction but a religious one.

3.) The entire of the Genesis creation is basically two stories squashed into one. In Genesis 1 1-27 he creates heaven and earth, fruit, birds and animals, then humans, in that order. In Genesis 2 4-21 God creates plants, then man, then the birds and animals etc.

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

compared with

"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)

So does that deity tempt people or not? It say so, seeing as in Deuteronomy he claims he's everything.

5.) "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)

6.) Thou shalt not kill
Exod 20:13

Thus sayeth the LORD God of Israel, "Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour".
Exod 32:27

You can claim that it's ok if you have special permission, but it's still fairly nasty.

7.) Circumcision was a fertility rite, supposed to give women better orgasms and thus more likelihood of concieving. It is admitted that many parts of the bible, including the story of Ruth, make reference to the Babylonian deities also worshipped.

8.) More of the Babylonian thing, contradicting the "only god" malarkey...





8.) Jesus was quite possibly an Essene, or at least strongly influenced by them.

This lot were considered pagans by orthodox Jews and worshipped god as both male and female.




In fact,

A look at who wrote the Bible - not God. Hence it being riddled with contradictions. (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html)

Also, Jesus's persona as an amalgamation of several other deities:

Jesus' Persona (http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm)

I agree with most of this, but it must be noted that Jesus was absolutely not an Essene, and he had some serious doctrinal disputes with them. Essenes, for instance, shunned sexuality entirely, because it made them ritually impure for their calling: warrior priests. Jesus was never against sex, just against adultery. Moreover, most accounts of Jesus describe him as having a strong aversion to violence (although there are two instances of questionable judgment; one with the moneylenders, the other with the fig tree), something Essenes would have had no problem with; remember, the fanatics who held off the Romans for two years at Masada were Essenes. Third, the Essenes were still strictly Jewish in their interpretation of Scripture, whereas Jesus was heavily influenced by Hellenistic thinking: Essenes wouldn't have known what the hell Jesus was talking about when he talks about the soul, for instance, because "soul" is a Greek concept that comes from Plato, not a Jewish one.

Like I said, men were created with a perfect genome. In a perfect genome, inbreeding wouldn't matter, because all inbreeding does is repeat the same flaws, since relatives are more likely to have the same genetic flaws. There probably weren't any flaws at all to begin with. By the preflood period, there were enough flaws that inbreeding would cause some problems, so after the flood when inbreeding was necessary, the flaws were multiplied. That's a more complete description, I think.

Please, please point to the Biblical passages about the "perfect genome"

That should be interesting.

And nice to know incest is A-OK with God.

Please, please point to the Biblical passages about the "perfect genome"

That should be interesting.

And nice to know incest is A-OK with God.

I wasn't saying any thing for certain. It's just a logical theory, or if you prefer, a hypothesis, which makes sense since God wouldn't create us imperfect in the first place, and the preflood folks lived almost a thousand years.

Like I said, men were created with a perfect genome. In a perfect genome, inbreeding wouldn't matter, because all inbreeding does is repeat the same flaws, since relatives are more likely to have the same genetic flaws. There probably weren't any flaws at all to begin with. By the preflood period, there were enough flaws that inbreeding would cause some problems, so after the flood when inbreeding was necessary, the flaws were multiplied. That's a more complete description, I think.

Nothing like pseudo-science! The human genome only contains 3% genes. The rest is junk, repeats, etc. If the genome was ever flawless, logic dictates that 100% would be used. Somehow I fail to believe that 97% of the human genome just became useless over the few thousand years the human race has existed.

And if there were no flaws to begin with, and all humans are from the same descent, where did the flaws come from?

Furthermore, if humans were all inbred from the same source, after this many generations all humans would have basically the same genome. Scientists do so with mice on a regular basis: They inbreed the creatures in so many generations that eventually there are no genetic differences.

Face it people, the Bible is a document that has been written by men. It has been (mis)translated in absurdum by men. Even the term "Virgin Mary" is inaccurate; the Hebrew word "ha-almah" originally used means "young woman", not "virgin".

There is no written word of God. Anywhere. Why would an omnipotent God channel his words through such mediocre and inadequate means?

Nothing like pseudo-science! The human genome only contains 3% genes. The rest is junk, repeats, etc. If the genome was ever flawless, logic dictates that 100% would be used. Somehow I fail to believe that 97% of the human genome just became useless over the few thousand years the human race has existed.

And if there were no flaws to begin with, and all humans are from the same descent, where did the flaws come from?

Furthermore, if humans were all inbred from the same source, after this many generations all humans would have basically the same genome. Scientists do so with mice on a regular basis: They inbreed the creatures in so many generations that eventually there are no genetic differences.

Face it people, the Bible is a document that has been written by men. It has been (mis)translated in absurdum by men. Even the term "Virgin Mary" is inaccurate; the Hebrew word "ha-almah" originally used means "young woman", not "virgin".

There is no written word of God. Anywhere. Why would an omnipotent God channel his words through such mediocre and inadequate means?

No, the genome would not have to be fully used to be perfect... it would just have to not have errors in it. since we don't use the stuff that we don't use, it can't possibly have errors in it.

The flaws came from mutations. Mutations happen all the time. You have hundreds or thousands of mutations in you that your parents didn't have. Not all of them are flaws.

Once again with the mutations. Also, chromosomes will sometimes exchange dna by mistake, forming a new chromosome. And even for the first few generations, there are a lot of ways to recombine 104 chromosomes into 26 pairs. and the level of inbreeding isn't constant, it's decreasing, since the distance between relations grows as more people come onto the earth.

The virgin Mary is a misconception. She was a virgin at least until the birth of Christ, but contrary to catholic dogma, the bible never says she stayed a virgin. For goodness sake, she was married. And despite what you pointed out with the translation, she told the angel she had "known not a man," so at that point she was still a virgin.

God communicates his Word through written words because he has to act through us and our faith to do anything on Earth.

EDIT: And I reiterate, my idea concerning the perfect genome is just that- an idea. A hypothesis that can explain the phenomenon mentioned earlier on this thread. I'm sure it can be argued, but you obviously don't know enough about genetics to argue it yourself.

I wasn't saying any thing for certain. It's just a logical theory, or if you prefer, a hypothesis, which makes sense since God wouldn't create us imperfect in the first place, and the preflood folks lived almost a thousand years.

Another hypothesis would be it is all just make-believe.

Hmm. Which hypothesis is more consistent with the available evidence?

I know if I concentrate it'll come to me.

Another hypothesis would be it is all just make-believe.

Hmm. Which hypothesis is more consistent with the available evidence?

I know if I concentrate it'll come to me.

Whatever, man. There aren't near enough forums to cover every angle. As far as I'm concerned, as long as there are no contradictions (and not just in the bible, but in the whole idea), it's possible. After that it's mostly about faith.

No, the genome would not have to be fully used to be perfect... it would just have to not have errors in it. since we don't use the stuff that we don't use, it can't possibly have errors in it.

The flaws came from mutations. Mutations happen all the time. You have hundreds or thousands of mutations in you that your parents didn't have. Not all of them are flaws.

Once again with the mutations. Also, chromosomes will sometimes exchange dna by mistake, forming a new chromosome. And even for the first few generations, there are a lot of ways to recombine 104 chromosomes into 26 pairs. and the level of inbreeding isn't constant, it's decreasing, since the distance between relations grows as more people come onto the earth.

The virgin Mary is a misconception. She was a virgin at least until the birth of Christ, but contrary to catholic dogma, the bible never says she stayed a virgin. For goodness sake, she was married. And despite what you pointed out with the translation, she told the angel she had "known not a man," so at that point she was still a virgin.

God communicates his Word through written words because he has to act through us and our faith to do anything on Earth.

EDIT: And I reiterate, my idea concerning the perfect genome is just that- an idea. A hypothesis that can explain the phenomenon mentioned earlier on this thread. I'm sure it can be argued, but you obviously don't know enough about genetics to argue it yourself.

Don't know enough about genetics? I've only studied and worked with genetics (alone) for about 1 year at my university. Furthermore, I have read two university-level textbooks about said subject. How much education do you have in the field, hm? Apparently not that much, as you mention 104 chromosomes. Where on earth did you get that number? There are 23 pairs of chromosomes. That makes 46. No more or less, as such genetic anomalies usually results in sterile or nonviable individuals.

The fact that most of the genome is unused makes it imperfect by default. To replicate the extra DNA costs time, space in the cells, and energy. Some junk DNA is even called "selfish DNA", existing only for the sake of existence in a parisitic manner. As for mutations, there is no possible way that mutations alone could result in the vast variances between humans in such a short time if all humans were stemmed from the same ancestor. And I love your statement "the level of inbreeding isn't constant, it's decreasing, since the distance between relations grows as more people come onto the earth." It makes it sound like new people are magically appearing from nowhere. If it was inbreeding from the start, it still is now.

As for the Bible: You dodge the fact that Mary was never referred to as "virgin Mary" in the original text. That she allegedly claims to had "known not a man" is not necessarily true. Recall that women who had relations outside of marriage in that day's society was subject to death by stoning.

And lastly, you again missed the point: God didn't nor has ever communicated with us through written word. It's all the work of men. And why would he have to act through us to do anything? I thought he was supposed to omnipotent?

Alot of the contradictions in the Gospels are due to the Synoptic Problem and Source Criticism

Source Criticism is the term we use to describe the fact that we do not know who wrote the Bible first, yet modern theory (based on historical evidence and years of detailed research) points to Mark as being the first Gospel writer (if anyone has ever read the 4 Source Hypothesis, then you may agree that it makes the most sense).

The Synoptic Problem is basically the question of "Why are the Gospels so different and contradictory of each other?"

A theory is offered, called the Four Source Hypothesis. This theory suggests that Mark wrote the Gospel, and then Luke and Matthew copied from him, also using an other source called "Q" which was a gathering of old documents.

Mark = First

Mark + Source "Q" = Luke & Matthew

This is such a simplistic way of showing it, but it still shows the theory.

Mark wrote the Gospel first, and then, also using Source "Q", Luke and MAtthew copied, adding their own interpretation to the stories. Also, like Chinese whispers, the stories may have changed slightly, or, certain points may have been exaggerated.

This would explain many of the Contradictions between each of the Gospels.

Oh, and as for the Gospel according to St. John...that is not included in the Synoptic Gospels because:

(a) We do not know which John wrote it (i.e. John the Bapitist, John the Barber, John Prescott?!)

and

(b) John's Gospel does not parrallel with the other three Gospels in term sof stories.

As for contradictions in other books of the Bible (remembering that the Bible is not a book, but a collection of books) Such as Genisis, well I haven't studied that area enough yet to come up with a conclusion.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share my knowledge with ya - I study Ethics and Religion and have been for fr a few years and still am. At the moment, I'm studying different methods of worship in different Demonations of the Christian Faith. So far I have been to Sunday services of the Roman Catholic, Protestant, Methodist and Evangelical churches. I still need to go to a Gospel, Presbyterian church, and it would be interesting to experience the worshipping methods of the Salvation Army and Quakers.

Anyway, keep on debating!

Ste

Don't know enough about genetics? I've only studied and worked with genetics (alone) for about 1 year at my university. Furthermore, I have read two university-level textbooks about said subject. How much education do you have in the field, hm? Apparently not that much, as you mention 104 chromosomes. Where on earth did you get that number? There are 23 pairs of chromosomes. That makes 46. No more or less, as such genetic anomalies usually results in sterile or nonviable individuals.

The fact that most of the genome is unused makes it imperfect by default. To replicate the extra DNA costs time, space in the cells, and energy. Some junk DNA is even called "selfish DNA", existing only for the sake of existence in a parisitic manner. As for mutations, there is no possible way that mutations alone could result in the vast variances between humans in such a short time if all humans were stemmed from the same ancestor. And I love your statement "the level of inbreeding isn't constant, it's decreasing, since the distance between relations grows as more people come onto the earth." It makes it sound like new people are magically appearing from nowhere. If it was inbreeding from the start, it still is now.

As for the Bible: You dodge the fact that Mary was never referred to as "virgin Mary" in the original text. That she allegedly claims to had "known not a man" is not necessarily true. Recall that women who had relations outside of marriage in that day's society was subject to death by stoning.

And lastly, you again missed the point: God didn't nor has ever communicated with us through written word. It's all the work of men. And why would he have to act through us to do anything? I thought he was supposed to omnipotent?

You're right about the chromosomes, I meant 23 pairs out of 92 (two people, so 46+46=92). I know about selfish DNA, but it doesn't have much bearing on the systems in the cells combusting O2, just on replication of DNA. I don't know how you can call it a flaw... I doubt this species could exist in a state similar to what it does now without it... Without it, every time DNA transcription errors occur resulting in the alteration of a single gene (i.e. one single strand of the molecule is shifted one to the right), wouldn't it most likely affect a lot more neighboring genes as well, increasing severly the chances of fatal mutations? Even so, it's not expressive, so outside of the slight expendature of energy in producing it, it doesn't contribute to the overal degrading of the organism.

As far as my statement about inbreeding decreasing, this of course would require frequent mutation and/or crossing over of chromosomes, but cousins are more different than siblings are less different than second cousins.

As far as the rate of mutation being insufficient, well maybe you're right. Maybe part of the whole falling from Eden, losing immortality bit entailed a little rewriting of DNA. The bible frequently says that sin is death, you know.

Sure, a woman in that age might be compelled to lie about that. I don't understand how you think this is proof of anything, though. You're depending on it being a lie in order to prove it's a lie?

As far as your statement about the whole bible being solely written by man, it doesn't do you any good just to say it. You give reasons, proof if you expect to pose an argument.

And God is limited because the Earth is the domain of Satan, and has been ever since Adam ate of the forbidden fruit. He's referred to as the "god of this world" 2Cor4:4, so God has no *legal* jurisdiction to operate beyond the willingness of the faithful. Sure, he could if he wanted, but it would go against the system he set up in the first place. God gave man dominion of the earth, and man turned it over to satan.

What you don't get is that death existed in the world long before humans existed. And what you don't get either is that there's no evidence whatsoever that humans of earlier ages lived as long as the bible states. It's rather the opposite. The bible is pretty inconsistent with the real world, especially stuff like Creation and Deluge stories from Genesis.

What you don't get is that death existed in the world long before humans existed. And what you don't get either is that there's no evidence whatsoever that humans of earlier ages lived as long as the bible states. It's rather the opposite. The bible is pretty inconsistent with the real world, especially stuff like Creation and Deluge stories from Genesis.
Sure, and all these animals have genetic flaws. They were made that way to sustain a natural order. I'm just saying that humans weren't made with genetic flaws that cause death. Now it does depend on how you define a genetic flaw, and technically you could consider excess selfish DNA to be a flaw, but it doesn't really have much effect on age.
Anyway, the era of such long life expectancy wasn't all that long (only about... I think it was 1500 years between the fall and the flood), so finding people at this pinnacle state, and somehow finding evidence that they were this way, is pretty unlikely.

As far as people being found before that, well I personally believe that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 a great deal of time passed, in which near humans could have lived that exhibited all the traits of genetically flawed people. (really it would be the time in which the whole world developed the way scientists have observed, eventually leading to such creatures before what ever destruction happened to make the world formless and void like in Genesis 1:2).

You're right about the chromosomes, I meant 23 pairs out of 92 (two people, so 46+46=92). I know about selfish DNA, but it doesn't have much bearing on the systems in the cells combusting O2, just on replication of DNA. I don't know how you can call it a flaw... I doubt this species could exist in a state similar to what it does now without it... Without it, every time DNA transcription errors occur resulting in the alteration of a single gene (i.e. one single strand of the molecule is shifted one to the right), wouldn't it most likely affect a lot more neighboring genes as well, increasing severly the chances of fatal mutations? Even so, it's not expressive, so outside of the slight expendature of energy in producing it, it doesn't contribute to the overal degrading of the organism.

As far as my statement about inbreeding decreasing, this of course would require frequent mutation and/or crossing over of chromosomes, but cousins are more different than siblings are less different than second cousins.

As far as the rate of mutation being insufficient, well maybe you're right. Maybe part of the whole falling from Eden, losing immortality bit entailed a little rewriting of DNA. The bible frequently says that sin is death, you know.

Sure, a woman in that age might be compelled to lie about that. I don't understand how you think this is proof of anything, though. You're depending on it being a lie in order to prove it's a lie?

As far as your statement about the whole bible being solely written by man, it doesn't do you any good just to say it. You give reasons, proof if you expect to pose an argument.

And God is limited because the Earth is the domain of Satan, and has been ever since Adam ate of the forbidden fruit. He's referred to as the "god of this world" 2Cor4:4, so God has no *legal* jurisdiction to operate beyond the willingness of the faithful. Sure, he could if he wanted, but it would go against the system he set up in the first place. God gave man dominion of the earth, and man turned it over to satan.

If you have a lot less DNA, that means less replication and less mutations. Still, you are correct in that humans wouldn't function in the same way without the extra DNA, but the fact that there's so much extra implies that it once did have a function that over millions of years have become obselete. That is, there was never any "perfect genome" to begin with.

As for your statement of inbreeding, I think you mixed up the causality a bit. The reason cousins are more different than siblings is because members of the family procreate with members from other families. That is, no inbreeding. The point still stands that all humans would be nigh identical today if they had a common ancestor a few thousand years ago.

You ask me to present proof for my statements? I would sooner be the one to demand proof; I'll sooner believe that a woman lied about previous relations than believe in virgin birth. Likewise, I'll sooner believe that the Bible was written by man (as we know it to have been; people wrote it, therefore, it is the work of man.) than it was the work of some divine force that for some reason hasn't been heard from since. It did not suddenly appear out of nowhere.

To summarize:
- The Bible was written by men, i.e. Luke, Paul, etc.
- The gospels contradict each other in varying places, partially due to time differences in the authors, as Silver-Wings pointed out.
- Therefore, at least some of the Bible is directly incorrect.
- Therefore, the Bible can not be relied on as the direct word of God.

I haven't even brought the translation issue into the summary, but that alone is enough to make the Bible useless. Even if it were the word of God once, it certainly isn't anymore.

Sure, and all these animals have genetic flaws. They were made that way to sustain a natural order. I'm just saying that humans weren't made with genetic flaws that cause death. Now it does depend on how you define a genetic flaw, and technically you could consider excess selfish DNA to be a flaw, but it doesn't really have much effect on age.
Anyway, the era of such long life expectancy wasn't all that long, so finding people at this pinnacle state, and somehow finding evidence that they were this age, is pretty unlikely.

As far as people being found before that, well I personally believe that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 a great deal of time passed, in which near humans could have lived that exhibited all the traits of genetically flawed people. (really it would be the time in which the whole world developed the way scientists have observed).

Well, as i said, your claims (i.e. that Genesis is to be taken literal) are not consistend with the world we see. The bible doesn't say anything about the ice ages, it doesn't explain the distribution of lifeforms by continents as we see them today.
If what you said was true, people of 10,000 should have been much healthier. That's simply not the case. Oh, and another agrument comes into my mind now. There should be some evidence of existence of the Nephilim (those giants mentioned in Genesis 1.6). That's not the case. Instead however there is evidence we evolved from Homo erectus. Humans were not "made", they evolved.

I have no bible, so I can't really check...

Taking Genesis literal? ROFL!!! Ow... you realize that the bible is NOT an eyewitness report? It's a book, written by humans for humans, it's like Uncle Tom's Hut, or maybe the latest Star Trek novel. It's surely not a science book or a history book, it's a collection of myths and legends. Every culture has myths concerning how the world was created.

Take Japan for example. In the Shinto legend Japan was created by the gods Izanagi and Izanami, who were husband and wife (and also brother and sister). They descended from heaven on a bridge called Ukibashi. Izanagi dipped his spear into the primordial ooze that was the Earth, and withdrew it. The drops that fell formed the island called Onokorojima, which became the home of the two gods.

A tad bit different to what's standing in the bible, no? If we take the bible literally, then we have to take this literally as well. 'Cause otherwise, well... otherwise it'd be just another display of typical western arrogance and hypocricy.

The bible is not the only collection of stories how the world was created, and it's surely not the one with the only right point of view. It's one of many.

The Bible is the word of the Lord and it cannot be contradicted. So if I were you i'd quit trying.

The Bible is the word of the Lord and it cannot be contradicted. So if I were you i'd quit trying.

Religious fanatic at the works...

In that spirit, I create just a few references from "God-inspired books" (according to our good friend Ffc2)

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev. 15:19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

No one else decided to take this so I believe I shall. Shall we dance?
You are not under the Mosaic law. The legal obligations have no hold on you. According to the Christian doctrine, sin is what damns humanity to Hell. When Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden they doomed the entire human race to be cursed with a sinful nature. This means that every human (except one) who has ever lived or ever will lived will at some point commit a sin. All sin is the same to God because no matter how small the sin even the smallest sin is enough to cut us off from God.

God's is perfect, holy, and just therefore He can neither tolerate sin or merely let it go. God is now faced with a delimna (sp?). How can He reconcile humanity to Himself? Because of God's nature sin demands punishment or a sacrifice of some kind. The first step is to let humanity understand the concept of sin. So along comes the Judaic or Mosaic Law. Romans 7:7 "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! For I would not have known what sin is except through the law."
The Jewish tradition and custom has a lot of laws and regulations dealing with everything from dietary restrictions to morality issues to how to cleanse your house from mold. In the Jewish faith some kind sacrifice (usually animal) was required to atone for whatever sins had been committed. Every sacrifice had to be perfect, without flaw or blemish. Every time a new sin was committed another animal was sacrificed.

Now, enter Jesus Christ. Christ is 100% man and 100% God simultaneously (it's one of the weirder concepts in Christianity). Christ never sinned during his lifetime but died by crucifiction. A perfect and sinless man has died. Because of God's justice (the same reason He cannot abide sin) this shedding of innocent blood justifies humanity. Romans 3:25-26 "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate His justice, because in his forebearance He had left sincs commited beforehand left unpunished- He did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."Christ became the perfect and ultimate sacrifice (in the Jewish tradition) and humanity now has a way to reconcile itself with God. (Romans 3:25)

Now humanity has a way of escape. Since God gave humanity freewill however, He will not force us to choose Christianity, we must accept it on our own. Sin is what has damned us and Christ's death provides a way of escape from that damnation if we choose to accept Christ's gift.

Romans 3:20: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."

Romans 3:31 "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."

Romans 5:20 "The law was added so that trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more."

Romans 6:1 "What shall we say then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace might increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?"


God's law made us concious of our sins and created a rigourous and legalistic method of atonement but the death of Christ replaced the Law as atonement. Christ's death also freed us from the legalistic regulations of the Jewish law. We no longer have to sacrifice animals as payment for sin, since Christ's death was the ultimate sacrifice. However, even though we are free from the legalistic regulations of the law, we are still bound by the moral regulations of the law. This is why, to some extent, Christians will quote verses from the Old Testament when discussing issues like homosexuality, murder, theft or abortion, but ignore verses that concern things like trimming beards, curing mold, or infectious skin diseases. It's not that we are picking and choosing which parts of the Bible we want to follow (though I'll be the first to admit that every Christian, including myself, is guilty of that at one time or another), it's that because of Christ's death the legal requirements of the Mosaic Law no longer have a hold on us.

I haven't even brought the translation issue into the summary, but that alone is enough to make the Bible useless. Even if it were the word of God once, it certainly isn't anymore.
Let's think about this. Why would God let his Word get polluted? That's one of His main avenue of communication with humanity. Don't you think He'd take precautions against letting it get tainted and polluted?

Good you have pointed out mine now allow me to point yours did you know the bible has been translated over 2000 times? Yes, because Christians have attempted to translate the Bible into every language we know of.

Let's think about this. Why would God let his Word get polluted? That's one of His main avenue of communication with humanity. Don't you think He'd take precautions against letting it get tainted and polluted?
would mistranslating the Word of God possibly fall under the "no taking the Lord's name in vain" rule?

The Bible is the word of the Lord and it cannot be contradicted. So if I were you i'd quit trying.

Try reading the rest of the tread.

If you have a lot less DNA, that means less replication and less mutations. Still, you are correct in that humans wouldn't function in the same way without the extra DNA, but the fact that there's so much extra implies that it once did have a function that over millions of years have become obselete. That is, there was never any "perfect genome" to begin with.

As for your statement of inbreeding, I think you mixed up the causality a bit. The reason cousins are more different than siblings is because members of the family procreate with members from other families. That is, no inbreeding. The point still stands that all humans would be nigh identical today if they had a common ancestor a few thousand years ago.

You ask me to present proof for my statements? I would sooner be the one to demand proof; I'll sooner believe that a woman lied about previous relations than believe in virgin birth. Likewise, I'll sooner believe that the Bible was written by man (as we know it to have been; people wrote it, therefore, it is the work of man.) than it was the work of some divine force that for some reason hasn't been heard from since. It did not suddenly appear out of nowhere.

To summarize:
- The Bible was written by men, i.e. Luke, Paul, etc.
- The gospels contradict each other in varying places, partially due to time differences in the authors, as Silver-Wings pointed out.
- Therefore, at least some of the Bible is directly incorrect.
- Therefore, the Bible can not be relied on as the direct word of God.

I haven't even brought the translation issue into the summary, but that alone is enough to make the Bible useless. Even if it were the word of God once, it certainly isn't anymore.

Alright, of course people wrote the bible, but the author is God. That's based on faith, I'll believe it until I see incontrovertable proof to the contrary, which you have failed to provide thus far. Just saying it's not true won't convince anyone.

And you're still trying to use the bible to disprove itself in a place that it does not contradict itself, since the bible never says she wasn't a virgin, but it does say she was righteous, and the fact is that a righteous woman in that era don't have pre-marital sex and lie about it. Therefore the bible maintains her statement to be true. So how does any of that disprove any of the bible?

As far as just choosing what to believe, well you came on this forum to argue, didn't you? or did you just expect people to accept your opinion? So believe what you believe, but if you're going to say it in an argument than for goodness sake, be ready to argue about it.

My point here hasn't been to offer incontrovertable evidence, so I'm not in a position where I have to show proof. I've been trying to present a hypothetically possible scenario, and you've been trying to convince me it's not possible. In that position, you're the one that needs to provide proof.

We don't know everything about dna, so it's still possible that the amount of extraneous DNA we have is *all* necessary to make us how we are.

On to inbreeding: if two people have eight children, two of them move east, and two of them move west, and two move north, and two move south, and each couple then has eight children, the next generation intermingles with the same generation from the other regions, then move off to other regions, and the process is repeated, then given an adequate amount of mutation and whatnot, different populations will form. In humans, the basic understanding that it's better to mate with less close family would substitute for spatial distribution to some extent. Populations will still spread out, however, and when large, localized populations form, if there are particular evolutionary stresses applied heavily to different populations, differences will form that produce uniqueness in the populations.

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)
Elijah was dead as this point. His body was destroyed and his soul was taken into heaven.

...
God's law made us concious of our sins and created a rigourous and legalistic method of atonement but the death of Christ replaced the Law as atonement. Christ's death also freed us from the legalistic regulations of the Jewish law. We no longer have to sacrifice animals as payment for sin, since Christ's death was the ultimate sacrifice. However, even though we are free from the legalistic regulations of the law, we are still bound by the moral regulations of the law. This is why, to some extent, Christians will quote verses from the Old Testament when discussing issues like homosexuality, murder, theft or abortion, but ignore verses that concern things like trimming beards, curing mold, or infectious skin diseases. It's not that we are picking and choosing which parts of the Bible we want to follow (though I'll be the first to admit that every Christian, including myself, is guilty of that at one time or another), it's that because of Christ's death the legal requirements of the Mosaic Law no longer have a hold on us.

Picking and choosing is exactly what you are doing. What you say may be true to some extent, except that it is impossible to say for certain which parts are Mosaic Law and which parts are "moral regulations". When something doesn't fit into today's world, it's dismissed as "Mosaic Law" and should be disregarded. The issue of homosexuality here is especially debated. According to some, it's moral regulation, even though it's surrounded by "Mosaic laws". Others say it's just another law, regarding pagan rituals involving homosexual intercourse.

You can call it what you wish, but it is still picking out the parts that suit you.

ok in the bible and this is to all post bible contradictions you find and i will awnser as many as i can this will prove it does not contradict
And as for you, I agree with the others. All you've done so far is double-talk and question-dodging. :headbang:

Thanks, Xenophobialand :) I'll happily admit to not being an expert, and I appreciate the enlightenment. I find it interesting that so many people who were once Catholics and thus read the Bible a great deal left the faith due to exposure to the contradictions. I personally clung on until I studied Judaism to some depth - it was an eye-opener.

I'd forgotten about the two-thread one

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).

All the fundamentalists froth at the mouth about homosexuality...do they ever threaten the mixed-thread infidels with burning in eternal fire? :) Look on the back of your label, find out if you're a sinner.

Well, as i said, your claims (i.e. that Genesis is to be taken literal) are not consistend with the world we see. The bible doesn't say anything about the ice ages, it doesn't explain the distribution of lifeforms by continents as we see them today.
If what you said was true, people of 10,000 should have been much healthier. That's simply not the case. Oh, and another agrument comes into my mind now. There should be some evidence of existence of the Nephilim (those giants mentioned in Genesis 1.6). That's not the case. Instead however there is evidence we evolved from Homo erectus. Humans were not "made", they evolved.

Did you read the last part I wrote? First of all, I haven't denied evolution on this thread. If the world evolved naturally from around the time the first life forms have formed to about the state that it was 6000 years ago, but at that point disaster struck (lucifer falling from heaven, is what I believe) and rendered the world formless and void, as is seen in Genesis 1:2, and God then goes through the Genesis account, bringing the Earth back to the state that it was at before, only now with a couple of intelligent humans with the capacity to comprehend his existance in the place of the prehumans (maybe Homo erectus or whatever, or maybe just dumb Homo sapiens), well in this scenario the discrepencies would be harder to see.

As for giants, a small population could likely have died out in some valley and have been lost in obscurity forever.

I know that whole idea really seems kind of crazy, but there's a thin line of possibility between biblical creation and evolution, and this idea pretty much intersects it.

Alright, of course people wrote the bible, but the author is God. That's based on faith, I'll believe it until I see incontrovertable proof to the contrary, which you have failed to provide thus far. Just saying it's not true won't convince anyone.

And you're still trying to use the bible to disprove itself in a place that it does not contradict itself, since the bible never says she wasn't a virgin, but it does say she was righteous, and the fact is that a righteous woman in that era don't have pre-marital sex and lie about it. Therefore the bible maintains her statement to be true. So how does any of that disprove any of the bible?

As far as just choosing what to believe, well you came on this forum to argue, didn't you? or did you just expect people to accept your opinion? So believe what you believe, but if you're going to say it in an argument than for goodness sake, be ready to argue about it.

My point here hasn't been to offer incontrovertable evidence, so I'm not in a position where I have to show proof. I've been trying to present a hypothetically possible scenario, and you've been trying to convince me it's not possible. In that position, you're the one that needs to provide proof.

We don't know everything about dna, so it's still possible that the amount of extraneous DNA we have is *all* necessary to make us how we are.

On to inbreeding: if two people have eight children, two of them move east, and two of them move west, and two move north, and two move south, and each couple then has eight children, the next generation intermingles with the same generation from the other regions, then move off to other regions, and the process is repeated, then given an adequate amount of mutation and whatnot, different populations will form. In humans, the basic understanding that it's better to mate with less close family would substitute for spatial distribution to some extent. Populations will still spread out, however, and when large, localized populations form, if there are particular stresses applied heavily to different populations, differences will form that produce uniqueness in the populations.

(Yes, I am here to argue; if everyone agreed it wouldn't be fun.)

How can the author be God, when it was written by man? Men wrote it, they are the authors. The fact that they couldn't even get their stories straight should be enough proof that there was no divine influence behind it. Tell me, if someone showed up today and claimed to be a new channel of God with a new gospel, would you follow his word? What would make that person more believable or unbelievable than any other?

Inbreeding: The problems with your scenario are that the gene pool would still be one and the same. There would still be no significant variations. And if they did procreate cross-regionally, that would only serve to even any possible diffences out into all the populations.

And for the rest of your post, you seem to be a little confused in how scientific method works. You produce a hypothesis, then you attempt to enforce that hypothesis. You don't throw something out and wait for someone else to disprove it. This is probably the main problem with "faith". People cling to their beliefs without any need of proof that it is true, and instead challenge others to prove it false. I could say that my eating chocolate causes a specific creature in the Andromeda Galaxy to sneeze. Since you can't disprove that, does that mean it is true?

Leviticus is part of the old law.
Forget about it.

Proving contradictions is challenging God.
Those that challenge God are punished.

Once you contradict it - saying it even makes any sense in the context - what would you do?

Claiming that the author of the bible is god only leads to one thing: the bible is the only true creation myth. And that... is a ridiculous claim.

How can one with a right, working mind claim something like that? Christianity isn't the only religion and the bible surely isn't the only creation myth on this planet. Some of the religious fanatics here should get that into their minds.

I challenge god any time, bring it on. Those that challenge god are punished? Great... so you have a vengeful, bloodthirsty dictator of a god? Hooray...

Picking and choosing is exactly what you are doing. What you say may be true to some extent, except that it is impossible to say for certain which parts are Mosaic Law and which parts are "moral regulations". When something doesn't fit into today's world, it's dismissed as "Mosaic Law" and should be disregarded. The issue of homosexuality here is especially debated. According to some, it's moral regulation, even though it's surrounded by "Mosaic laws". Others say it's just another law, regarding pagan rituals involving homosexual intercourse. You can call it what you wish, but it is still picking out the parts that suit you.

In the New Testament the apostle Paul (who was Jewish) along with several others spend a good deal of time explaining the Law and the Scriptures under Christianity and summed it up as such:
"The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery', 'Do not murder', 'Do no steal', 'Do no covet' and whatever other commands there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'. Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fufillment of the Law." - Romans 13:8-10
So concerning the Mosaic Law, there are two questions to consider when considering a regulation.
1)What does the Bible say elsewhere about keeping this regulation/commandment?
1) If I don't keep this regulation/commandment would I still be acting out of love for my God and those around me?

As for homosexuality, that is condemned in the New Testament as well. (Romans 1:24-27)

I generally stay to lurking, but had something for those more knowledgeable about the Hewbrew culture of the era in which Jesus supposedly lived. (This isn't an attempt to do anything but ask a question, as I sincerely am not knowledgeable enough about the topic.)

Okay, I thought that the Jewish culture was all about marriage. That if a man doesn't marry by a certain age, there was something wrong with him or something. So--why was Jesus' not being married not really (if at all) mentioned in the Bible?

That if a man doesn't marry by a certain age, there was something wrong with him or something.

That actually existed in many cultures.

That actually existed in many cultures.
Yes, but since this is a topic about the contradictions of the Bible and all, I was using the Jewish culture specfically.

I generally stay to lurking, but had something for those more knowledgeable about the Hewbrew culture of the era in which Jesus supposedly lived. (This isn't an attempt to do anything but ask a question, as I sincerely am not knowledgeable enough about the topic.)

Okay, I thought that the Jewish culture was all about marriage. That if a man doesn't marry by a certain age, there was something wrong with him or something. So--why was Jesus' not being married not really (if at all) mentioned in the Bible?
As far as I recall there was nothing wrong with bachelorhood in the Hebrew culture. However most people got married back then. Most people get married today too.
The question is, why would Jesus need to get married? How would a wife play into the role of Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice?
This is strictly me speaking, but I don't think Jesus would want to put his wife through watching him die. Putting his mother throught it was probably hard enough.

did you even read what i said the holy ghost entered the virgin mary making her pregnat which that is how Jesus came through God
It's not a contradiction per se, but it's a mistranslation... The Aramaic word for "young woman" was mistranslated into Greek for "virgin," hence all this stuff about a virgin birth...

Mm, dogma...

It's not a contradiction per se, but it's a mistranslation... The Aramaic word for "young woman" was mistranslated into Greek for "virgin," hence all this stuff about a virgin birth...

Mm, dogma...

By three seperate authors?

As far as I recall there was nothing wrong with bachelorhood in the Hebrew culture. However most people got married back then. Most people get married today too.
The question is, why would Jesus need to get married? How would a wife play into the role of Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice?
This is strictly me speaking, but I don't think Jesus would want to put his wife through watching him die. Putting his mother throught it was probably hard enough.


True, but I would think that the Jewish people, especially the ones who hated Christ, didn't believe in him, whatever else, would have used that against him. At least in the people's eyes. "Hey, that guy calls himself the Son of God, come to live as a man and absolve our sins--yet he doesn't marry!" Something like that. I'd think that they would have said something like, hey, he claims to be from the Father, yet isn't doing the same things the Jews did.

All of you are retarded. Why are you even asking dumb questions like these and saying their contradictions?

@ Ra hurfarfar :headbang:

Wow! You should really leave the scientific hypothesizing to people who actually know what they’re talking about. There is no such thing as the “perfect genome”, like you said the genome changes all the time. Would the perfect genome include genes for blue or brown eyes? Like you said mutations occur all the time during replication, which means one of your cells may have a certain mutation while others have not, in other words not a “perfect genome.”

For mutations to be passed on they have to occur in germ cells (sperm- and egg cells), specifically in the germ cells that give rise to the child. For the most part mutations are bad; they decrease the likelihood of the individual surviving to adulthood and reproducing. It would take significantly longer than a couple of thousand years for all the defective genes to accumulate in our genome.

As for free radicals, “errors in the combustion of O2” isn’t the only way they are created, there are other many reactions and they aren’t restricted to oxygen. For God to have eliminated free radicals he would have had to change chemistry, which I don’t believe he has.

By three seperate authors?
Eh?
I found this site, seems like a decent analysis to me.

(II) The Virgin Birth

Another alleged prophecy that was claimed in Matthew 1:22-23 to have been fulfilled by Jesus is based on Isaiah 7:14, which is said to predict a certain virgin birth. But there are many problems with that.

(1) The Hebrew word "almah" which is used in the Isaiah verse does not mean "virgin" but "young woman". It is correctly translated in the Tanakh, the Revised Standard Version, the Revised English Bible, and the New Jerusalem Bible, but is incorrectly translated by the King James Version, the New International Version, and the New American Bible. It is also incorrectly translated by Matthew, who probably relied upon the incorrect translation in the Septuagint. There is another Hebrew word, "bethulah", which definitely means "virgin". Since a virgin birth is such an extraordinary event, presumably Isaiah would have used that other word if indeed he really meant to say that the woman is a virgin.

(2) The sign mentioned in the Isaiah verse pertains to a specific woman, known to both speaker and listener (believed by many historians to be Isaiah's wife), who is already pregnant, not some unspecified woman who is to become pregnant. The correct translation (from the Tanakh) reads "Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son." It was a sign given to Ahaz, the king of Judah, in the eighth century B.C. regarding some events in what was then the immediate future. It had nothing to do with the Messiah or with events in the far distant future.

(3) Part of the sign to King Ahaz was that the child will be named "Immanuel". Since that name means "God with us", it was supposed to show Ahaz that God was on his side. But, despite Matthew's unreasonable claim that Jesus would be named "Immanuel" (Mt 1:23), Jesus was not named "Immanuel", but rather "Jesus" (as Matthew himself declared at 1:25).

(4) It seems unlikely that Isaiah would have meant to refer to a virgin birth, since that concept was totally foreign to the Israelites. Nowhere does it appear in Judaic theology or within the Judaic conceptual framework. If Isaiah had intended to introduce the idea, it would have been for the first time within the entire history of the Israelite people. Presumably he would in that case have used the clearer word "bethulah" instead of "almah", as mentioned above, and further, he would have said much more about such a remarkable event. The idea of a virgin birth was, however, a common notion among some other ancient groups, including the Greeks and Romans. Many famous people and mythical heroes were said, by one group or another, to have been born of a virgin. Among them were Julius Caesar, Augustus, Aristomenes, Alexander the Great, Plato, Cyrus, the elder Scipio, some of the Egyptian Pharaohs, the Buddha, Hermes, Mithra, Attis-Adonis, Hercules, Cybele, Demeter, Leo, and Vulcan. For this reason it seems likely that Matthew and the Greek translators of the Septuagint did not discover the virgin birth idea in Isaiah, but imposed it upon the text. It was out of sheer ignorance that it was made one of the five "fundamentals" of the Christian faith in the early Twentieth Century by those who came to be called "fundamentalists".
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html

It's not a contradiction per se, but it's a mistranslation... The Aramaic word for "young woman" was mistranslated into Greek for "virgin," hence all this stuff about a virgin birth...

Mm, dogma...
I believe the actual word is maiden, which can be either a young woman or a virgin, though in earlier times it almost exclusively described a virgin, hence the word maidenhead as a synonym for hymen.

True, but I would think that the Jewish people, especially the ones who hated Christ, didn't believe in him, whatever else, would have used that against him. At least in the people's eyes. "Hey, that guy calls himself the Son of God, come to live as a man and absolve our sins--yet he doesn't marry!" Something like that. I'd think that they would have said something like, hey, he claims to be from the Father, yet isn't doing the same things the Jews did.
Well claiming to be the Son of God was blasphemy enough back then, so compared to that everything else was small potatoes.

As for homosexuality, that is condemned in the New Testament as well. (Romans 1:24-27)

By the gods, not Romans again. The verses you name describe homosexual behavior that is a result of the influence of God himself. No where is the act of homosexuality condemned, and that goes for the rest of the NT as well.

Fine ill tell you the ones i believe are truly God inspired Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deutoronomy Job Isiah Ezekial Daniel Mathew Mark John Luke Acts Romans 1 and 2 Corinthians 1 Thesolonians Hebrews james and Revelation i believe those are truly inspired though i havnt read the rest

How can someone seriously set out to dismiss contradictions in the bible... when they have only read 21 of the bible books?

No, Pterodonia, not even close.

A true devotee of ignorant flaming, maybe, but this guy is being pugnatious from the get-go . . . something the Bible teaches against in I Timothy of any leader in the church. If this young lad had the spiritual maturity that he seems to think, he would not have opened such an argumentative and antagonistic thread.

I apologize for him, guys. Yes, he's one of ours, and no, our teachings to not support this.

Not one of yours, my friend.

Although - he may try to CLAIM the memebership to the same society, I don't perceive much common ground between this fellow (fellowess?) and the path you espouse.

:)

Sheesh.
I'm gonna ref you to Heikoku's "come n get me, pseudo-christians" thread.
Educate yourself there. Otherwise you're blowing used air.
*tsk tsk* :rolleyes:
I also ref you (hoping not for negative retribution) to Bottle's post of Horus. You want an argument, deal with Bottle or Grave_n_Idle. I might be fun too if my compie wasn't down, i'd quick ref my files for you. Most of the good posts are already there, though ... so check out the archives if you really want it.

Thanks for the mention. :)

Although, our erstwhile comerade UpwardThrust and the Forum Irregulars seem to be making mincemeat of this poor fellow, already. :)

Whatever, man. There aren't near enough forums to cover every angle. As far as I'm concerned, as long as there are no contradictions (and not just in the bible, but in the whole idea), it's possible. After that it's mostly about faith.

But there ARE contradictions...

By the gods, not Romans again. The verses you name describe homosexual behavior that is a result of the influence of God himself. No where is the act of homosexuality condemned, and that goes for the rest of the NT as well. I beg to differ and I will ;)
"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worship and created several things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for on another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and recieve in themselves the due penatly for their perversion." - Romans 2:24-27 That is not the influence of God, in the way you mean. This is humanity turning it's back on God and God, having given us freewill, letting them sin, even though it breaks His heart.

...in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity..." That seems fairly cut and dry to me.

Thanks for the mention. :)

Although, our erstwhile comerade UpwardThrust and the Forum Irregulars seem to be making mincemeat of this poor fellow, already. :)
:fluffle: :fluffle: Not as good as you could you hebrew reading white knight

How can someone seriously set out to dismiss contradictions in the bible... when they have only read 21 of the bible books?
How is that different from 80 + percent of thoes with "faith"

No one else decided to take this so I believe I shall. Shall we dance?
You are not under the Mosaic law.

Why?

Why?
What? Dancing or the Mosaic law?
Dancing: Because even though I have six left feet, it's rather interesting to dance.

Mosaic Law: Because Christ's crucifiction and resurrection released humanity from it.

What? Dancing or the Mosaic law?
Dancing: Because even though I have six left feet, it's rather interesting to dance.

Mosaic Law: Because Christ's crucifiction and resurrection released humanity from it.
Let me try to field this one ... it modified it not released it

:fluffle: :fluffle: Not as good as you could you hebrew reading white knight

Lol.

I think that's a first! I don't think anyone has ever levelled THAT at me before. :)

:fluffle:

Let me try to field this one ... it modified it not released it
You know, that's actually a much better way to phrase it. Thanks! :)

You know, that's actually a much better way to phrase it. Thanks! :)
Np but ye ol Gravy is the expert I am sure he will let us know if I myself am right :p

Women can't enter a chruch when they are menstrating as they are unclean-
If I have a bath can I go to mass on Sunday?

it says somewhere in the old testament its ok to sell your daughter...would my mother get a good price for me??

bible=propaganda=bunch of men thinking their god, stealing bits of other religions to write themselves a stroy. I've studied numerous religions for the past two years there are SO MANY similarities between Islam, Christianity and Judaism I wouldn't know where to start.

Women can't enter a chruch when they are menstrating as they are unclean-
If I have a bath can I go to mass on Sunday?

it says somewhere in the old testament its ok to sell your daughter...would my mother get a good price for me??

bible=propaganda=bunch of men thinking their god, stealing bits of other religions to write themselves a stroy. I've studied numerous religions for the past two years there are SO MANY similarities between Islam, Christianity and Judaism I wouldn't know where to start.
Well there should be all three are bassed off of Judaism :p

Np but ye ol Gravy is the expert I am sure he will let us know if I myself am right :p
Indeed. :)

One of the two points I was heading towards... Jesus only modified certain elements of Mosaic Law - he did not remove ALL of the Law.

The other point: There is a school of thought that the modified law ONLY applies to those who follow Jesus. Jews, for example, would still be held under Mosaic Law... as would the Gentile who did not accept Jesus as divine.

Women can't enter a chruch when they are menstrating as they are unclean-
If I have a bath can I go to mass on Sunday?

it says somewhere in the old testament its ok to sell your daughter...would my mother get a good price for me??

bible=propaganda=bunch of men thinking their god, stealing bits of other religions to write themselves a stroy. I've studied numerous religions for the past two years there are SO MANY similarities between Islam, Christianity and Judaism I wouldn't know where to start.
:) I'm sensing some pent-up frustrations here.
Could you clarify men "thinking their god"? Do you mean thinking up God or that men think they're God?

We've already covered the menstrating thing and the slavery thing.
As for borrowing from other religions, from a purely secular point of view (yes I can shift frames of reference if need be) other religions have borrowed from Christianity. Point being?

The other point: There is a school of thought that the modified law ONLY applies to those who follow Jesus. Jews, for example, would still be held under Mosaic Law... as would the Gentile who did not accept Jesus as divine.
I'm not familiar with this school of thought. But, in the interest of discussion, if Christ's death and resurrection covered the sins of all mankind wouldn't that mean that the Mosaic law was modified for everyone?

Women can't enter a chruch when they are menstrating as they are unclean-
If I have a bath can I go to mass on Sunday?

it says somewhere in the old testament its ok to sell your daughter...would my mother get a good price for me??

bible=propaganda=bunch of men thinking their god, stealing bits of other religions to write themselves a stroy. I've studied numerous religions for the past two years there are SO MANY similarities between Islam, Christianity and Judaism I wouldn't know where to start.

Well, among Islam, Christianity and Judaism... all three share the same roots, and Judaism is the base of the other two...

But, if you are really interested, you might want to look into Mesopotamian religions (those of Sumer, Akkad and Babylon)... which seem to be the inspiration for the Judaistic theology. Also - Egyptian religion seems to have heavily influenced the understanding of 'Satan' through Judaism into Christianity... and early Buddhism shows a likely origin for much of the New Testament material.

I'm not familiar with this school of thought. But, in the interest of discussion, if Christ's death and resurrection covered the sins of all mankind wouldn't that mean that the Mosaic law was modified for everyone?

First: Do you accept that Jesus was 'christos'?

Many don't... and there is no evidence to support such a conjecture, outside of one non-independantly-verifiable text.

Second: whether or not Jesus was the Anointed, he would ONLY have ability to counter the laws of 'god', if he were equal to 'god' himself... which was a heretical view for many of the first few years of the life of the church.

Third: Jesus only absolves the sins of those who believe on him, does he not?

First: Do you accept that Jesus was 'christos'?

Many don't... and there is no evidence to support such a conjecture, outside of one non-independantly-verifiable text.

Second: whether or not Jesus was the Anointed, he would ONLY have ability to counter the laws of 'god', if he were equal to 'god' himself... which was a heretical view for many of the first few years of the life of the church.

Third: Jesus only absolves the sins of those who believe on him, does he not?
First: Elaborate please? Accepting Jesus as the Christ is the basis of Christianity.

Second: There are two ways to go here.
1) You can believe that Jesus is an extention of God and is therefore God himself. This is the general idea of the Holy Trinity, one God with three variations, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father.
2) God is rewriting His own law. He sent Jesus to give us better access to Him.

Third: I see where you were going with that. I thought you were referring to alternate routes to salvation. My mistake.

First: Elaborate please? Accepting Jesus as the Christ is the basis of Christianity.

Second: There are two ways to go here.
1) You can believe that Jesus is an extention of God and is therefore God himself. This is the general idea of the Holy Trinity, one God with three variations, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father.
2) God is rewriting His own law. He sent Jesus to give us better access to Him.

Third: I see where you were going with that. I thought you were referring to alternate routes to salvation. My mistake.
But thats exactly it ... for thoes who dont believe jesus was not god therefore had no right to rewrite god's law

But thats exactly it ... for thoes who dont believe jesus was not god therefore had no right to rewrite god's law
Those who don't believe aren't very likely to believe the rest of the Bible now are they? :)
Somewhere we had a communication failure. If Jesus is an exstention (spelling?) of God then Jesus is God and therefore God is rewriting His own law. If Jesus was sent by God, then God set up all of this and rewrote His own laws. If Jesus wasn't sent by God, then Christianity is false.

That's what it really boils down to, whether or not you believe Jesus was the son of God and that he is the way to salvation. If you don't accept that, then not matter what anyone tells you parts of the Bible will seem fake, hoaxed, or just outright stupid.

I think the single greatest contradiction to almost any religion, regardless of what its OMG HOLY TEXT says, really has more to do with the actual purpose of spirituality rather than the message they're trying to convey. Christianity, for example, teaches us to abhor our penchant for self-interest, yet they claim it's within our self interest to read the Bible and do all this righteous stuff and go to heaven. So which is it? Is self interest good or is self interest bad?

Those who don't believe aren't very likely to believe the rest of the Bible now are they? :)
Well, not the new testament, but there's still the other large section.

Well, not the new testament, but there's still the other large section.
Some might call it the bigger section? :p

Man this is stupid. So the Bible has contradictions. So what? It was written by many different people over many years, so it's full of differing perspectives. Trying to point out theological and other contradictions accomplishes nothing.

Man this is stupid. So the Bible has contradictions. So what? It was written by many different people over many years, so it's full of differing perspectives. Trying to point out theological and other contradictions accomplishes nothing.
Hey the christian ASKED for contradictions so we gave it for him

And yes it does prove something if it is full of errors it cant be taken litteraly unless you think that god made mistakes

I think the single greatest contradiction to almost any religion, regardless of what its OMG HOLY TEXT says, really has more to do with the actual purpose of spirituality rather than the message they're trying to convey. Christianity, for example, teaches us to abhor our penchant for self-interest, yet they claim it's within our self interest to read the Bible and do all this righteous stuff and go to heaven. So which is it? Is self interest good or is self interest bad?
So is your issue with religion in general or just with Christianity. It's been my personal experience (as if there where any other kind) that most people who "don't like religion" really just object to Christianity.

Anyways, Christianity doesn't teach you to abhor self-interest entirely. Rather it teaches you to abhor the self-interest that causes harm to others and to embrace the behaviors that benefit yourself and the community as a whole. Jesus said: "So in everything do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

No one else decided to take this so I believe I shall. Shall we dance?

Now, enter Jesus Christ. Christ is 100% man and 100% God simultaneously (it's one of the weirder concepts in Christianity). Christ never sinned during his lifetime but died by crucifiction. A perfect and sinless man has died. Because of God's justice (the same reason He cannot abide sin) this shedding of innocent blood justifies humanity. Christ became the perfect and ultimate sacrifice (in the Jewish tradition) and humanity now has a way to reconcile itself with God. (Romans 3:25)

This unfortunately is a glaring misunderstanding of the principles involved. It may have already been covered here, and it CERTAINLY WAS in Heikoku's "come n get me, pseudo-christians" thread ...
There was no loss of life whatsoever.
God didn't at any point renounce all of god's powers. God didn't die. Humans didn't kill god. Unless that's what you are saying here. THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE CLINGING TO HERE.
It was a loaded, PURELY SYMOBLIC GESTURE ATTRIBUTED TO JESUS that he would actually be both god and man. If he was 100% both, nothing was lost since god didn't die and the deal was already crooked. So you are hanging the CRUX of your faith of things on a deliberate grift of the weak-spirited and gullible. You played yourself, as did everyone else that buys this bullsh*t without thinking it out. GOD DIDN'T GIVE ANYTHING UP. Think about it, if Jesus (HORUS) was resurrected then there wasn't anything at all important about *attemptedly* dying PUBLICLY in the first place EXCEPT TO FOOL THE MASSES.
Just f*cking sick that people keep perpetuating this bullsh*t ... AND WEAR GRAVEN IMAGES TO ACCENTUATE THE POINT OF THEIR FAITH VISIBLY!

Leviticus is part of the old law.
Forget about it.

Proving contradictions is challenging God.
Those that challenge God are punished.

Once you contradict it - saying it even makes any sense in the context - what would you do?
Since i highly doubt that ANYONE here has a direct one-on-one mutually communicative relationship with god, god doesn't actually receive any challenge. Uneven ground.
Besides this is the argument of the "WORD" of god AS PENNED BY MAN.
Chow some popcorn and enjoy!

This unfortunately is a glaring misunderstanding of the principles involved. It may have already been covered here, and it CERTAINLY WAS in Heikoku's "come n get me, pseudo-christians" thread ...
There was no loss of life whatsoever.
God didn't at any point renounce all of god's powers. God didn't die. Humans didn't kill god. Unless that's what you are saying here. THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE CLINGING TO HERE.
It was a loaded, PURELY SYMOBLIC GESTURE ATTRIBUTED TO JESUS that he would actually be both god and man. If he was 100% both, nothing was lost since god didn't die and the deal was already crooked. So you are hanging the CRUX of your faith of things on a deliberate grift of the weak-spirited and gullible. You played yourself, as did everyone else that buys this bullsh*t without thinking it out. GOD DIDN'T GIVE ANYTHING UP. Think about it, if Jesus (HORUS) was resurrected then there wasn't anything at all important about *attemptedly* dying PUBLICLY in the first place EXCEPT TO FOOL THE MASSES.
Just f*cking sick that people keep perpetuating this bullsh*t ... AND WEAR GRAVEN IMAGES TO ACCENTUATE THE POINT OF THEIR FAITH VISIBLY!

I'm not exactly sure what you're driving at here but here are my interpretations:
1) Christ wasn't crucified, never died, and was therefore never resurrected.
or
2) Christ was crucified and died but never resurrected.
or
3) Christ was crucified, but faked his own death and subsequent resurrection.

Can you clarify?

(To the OP) Just how did Judas die, by the way? List your citations.

So is your issue with religion in general or just with Christianity. It's been my personal experience (as if there where any other kind) that most people who "don't like religion" really just object to Christianity.

Anyways, Christianity doesn't teach you to abhor self-interest entirely. Rather it teaches you to abhor the self-interest that causes harm to others and to embrace the behaviors that benefit yourself and the community as a whole. Jesus said: "So in everything do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

You're half right in that first paragraph: I do tend to have some fairly massive beefs with Christianity, though it's hard not to these days with groups like the Dominionists.

But that's not to say I don't have a beef with religion in general also; I have almost no tolerance for the teachings of Buddhism, for example. The thing I do not like about religion is it essentially strips us of one of the things that makes us human: the ability to reason and deduce for ourselves. The most logical solution to a certain problems or a certain set of problems, for example, may not mesh with what the Bible says or what the Chruch thinks or what God wants you to do. Religion essentially forces the subject to think in terms inconsistent with how they're programmed as a human being. Our programming tells us to better our circumstances and secure a better life for ourselves, but religion wants to put a limit on that, which I don't think is right.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's right to fuck with or infringe on other people, but deep down inside most people would probably very much enjoy swimming in a giant pool of money, which religion almost invariably tells us is wrong. Why would God program us one way, then demand we live to a different standard and send us to hell if we didn't? Sounds pretty psycho to me.

Also, that verse you quoted is sort of vague, very ambiguous, and open to a lot of misinterpretation. What if you don't mind other people hurting or maiming you? What if you're a masochist? Would that make it OK to hurt people then?

You're half right in that first paragraph: I do tend to have some fairly massive beefs with Christianity, though it's hard not to these days with groups like the Dominionists.

But that's not to say I don't have a beef with religion in general also; I have almost no tolerance for the teachings of Buddhism, for example. The thing I do not like about religion is it essentially strips us of one of the things that makes us human: the ability to reason and deduce for ourselves. The most logical solution to a certain problems or a certain set of problems, for example, may not mesh with what the Bible says or what the Chruch thinks or what God wants you to do. Religion essentially forces the subject to think in terms inconsistent with how they're programmed as a human being. Our programming tells us to better our circumstances and secure a better life for ourselves, but religion wants to put a limit on that, which I don't think is right.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's right to fuck with or infringe on other people, but deep down inside most people would probably very much enjoy swimming in a giant pool of money, which religion almost invariably tells us is wrong. Why would God program us one way, then demand we live to a different standard and send us to hell if we didn't? Sounds pretty psycho to me.

Also, that verse you quoted is sort of vague, very ambiguous, and open to a lot of misinterpretation. What if you don't mind other people hurting or maiming you? What if you're a masochist? Would that make it OK to hurt people then?

First off, thank you for being much more sensible and making a bit more sense in this post. Your first one was a bit hard to understand. And now onto the rest of the post.

I can't speak for other religions such as Buddhism, Taosim, or voodoo so I can only speak from a Christian perspective.

First paragraph:
Considering a lot of humanity's self-interest has brought about wars, poverty, and some general nastiness, I don't think curbing self-interest would be that bad of an idea. I dare say more self-control would lead to a better environment, better economies, and a healthier population in general.

Second paragraph:
1) Again speaking from a Christian perspective, Christianity preaches that wealth becomes bad when it becomes the consuming passion in your life and you'll do anything to gain more. Wealth in and of itself isn't gad.
2) God didn't program us this way, all twisted and broken. God programmed us and gave us freewill. Adam and Eve have a fruit snack and *boom* our entire nature nature is changed from perfection to corruption.

Third paragraph:
Yeah, it's rather vague and open to misinterpretation. Romans 13:8-10 would be a better passage for what I'm trying to convey. Verse 10: "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

I beg to differ and I will ;)
That is not the influence of God, in the way you mean. This is humanity turning it's back on God and God, having given us freewill, letting them sin, even though it breaks His heart.

"...in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity..."

That seems fairly cut and dry to me.

How can that be cut and dry?! "Sexual impurity" could just as easily be interpreted as indiscriminate fornication, both hetero- and homosexual.

If anything is straightforward, it's this: "...men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Thus, homosexual sex was God's punishment on them (which indeed would be a punishment to men who are heterosexual ordinarily). This verse does not condemn homosexual sex or homosexuality at all. It merely says that God made heterosexual people engage in homosexual sex as a means of punishment; it says nothing about people who are homosexual by nature.

There are contradictions elsewhere in the Bible, but I want to say a word about contradictions in the Gospel. The Gospels are eyewitnesses' accounts, written long after a fact. Any historian (or police officer) can tell you that each eyewitness has different impressions, and that it's suspicious not when witnesses disagree but when they agree. The Church is right to present differing accounts of what they believe is the Truth.

'Sides, pointing at all of the Gospels' inadequacies and awkwardness goes against the idea of a great Church conspiracy to edit and manicure the Gospels; you can't have it both ways.

Ok, I don't know if this has been thrown out yet or not [not in the mood to read through 9 pages] so here goes, these aren't word perfect BTW:

1. "Judge lest ye be judged" + "Turn the other cheek"

- BUT -

2. "An eye for an eye"

I'm not trying to stir shit here BTW. This is the name of the game and I'd love to hear the counter-arguement.

First off, thank you for being much more sensible and making a bit more sense in this post. Your first one was a bit hard to understand. And now onto the rest of the post.

I can't speak for other religions such as Buddhism, Taosim, or voodoo so I can only speak from a Christian perspective.

First paragraph:
Considering a lot of humanity's self-interest has brought about wars, poverty, and some general nastiness, I don't think curbing self-interest would be that bad of an idea. I dare say more self-control would lead to a better environment, better economies, and a healthier population in general.

Self interest has also brought us the computers we're using right now, the phones we use, medicine, cars, glorious, glorious beer... and so on. I'm not arguing necessarily that one should strive for self glorification at the expense of other people; because when you get right down to it when you're hurting someone you're not being very rational in the first place. People who do bad things tend to have bad things happen to them; you can see this in many films and books and comics and pretty much any other story you can think of. The way I see it, self control is pretty much the cornerstone of any sane mind in the first place.

Second paragraph:
1) Again speaking from a Christian perspective, Christianity preaches that wealth becomes bad when it becomes the consuming passion in your life and you'll do anything to gain more. Wealth in and of itself isn't gad.

Agreed.

2) God didn't program us this way, all twisted and broken. God programmed us and gave us freewill. Adam and Eve have a fruit snack and *boom* our entire nature nature is changed from perfection to corruption.

I refuse to belive that my actions are in any way determined by those of my predecessors. I don't feel compelled to follow the professions of my senior relatives; I'll grant that the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree but this is something of a radical assumption to make. Next thing you know all Germans are still Nazis and the Mongols will conquer Asia again.

Bottom line; I didn't eat no goddamn fruit. Show me a talking snake and I'll beat it with a stick mmkay?

Third paragraph:
Yeah, it's rather vague and open to misinterpretation. Romans 13:8-10 would be a better passage for what I'm trying to convey. Verse 10: "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Its nothing personal, but bible quotations seldom impress me much, I'm generally more interested in discussing the philosophical foundations of religion. I can't see anyone would assume why the Bible hasn't been altered in some way by some guy out there who realizes one day during the middle ages that if he changes a few words around here and there, he can get people to live the way he wants. Maybe he doesn't believe in God, who knows. Maybe he goes to hell anyway, but the words are still there. Pick up any two editions of the manuscript and you will see changes.

[QUOTE=Melkor Unchained]



Bottom line; I didn't eat no goddamn fruit. Show me a talking snake and I'll beat it with a stick mmkay?


QUOTE]

I agree show me any snake and i'll beat it with a stick.

How can that be cut and dry?! "Sexual impurity" could just as easily be interpreted as indiscriminate fornication, both hetero- and homosexual.

If anything is straightforward, it's this: "...men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Thus, homosexual sex was God's punishment on them (which indeed would be a punishment to men who are heterosexual ordinarily). This verse does not condemn homosexual sex or homosexuality at all. It merely says that God made heterosexual people engage in homosexual sex as a means of punishment; it says nothing about people who are homosexual by nature.
We're viewing the verse through two completely different lenses, so I'm just going to say I respectfully disagree.

Ok, I don't know if this has been thrown out yet or not [not in the mood to read through 9 pages] so here goes, these aren't word perfect BTW:

1. "Judge lest ye be judged" + "Turn the other cheek"

- BUT -

2. "An eye for an eye"

I'm not trying to stir shit here BTW. This is the name of the game and I'd love to hear the counter-arguement.

"Judge not lest ye be judged." (Matthew 7:1).
"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to hi
The first set of verses are concern redressing personal wrongs. Here we are told to be patient with others. We are not perfect so we are called to be patient with others who are not perfect.
There are two places where "turn the other cheek" appears. The first is Matthew 5:39, the second is Luke 6:39. In both places Jesus is speaking about dealing with your enemies. If you are patient with them, treat them with love, and are willing to turn aside your own rights, then eventually your enemies will begin to look bad for picking on such a nice guy and may leave you alone.

"Eye for an eye" is found in Deuteronomy 19:21. This vers deals with the Jewish legal of the time, where patience could not always be afforded. People were to be punished according to their crimes. The punishment they recieved was to be equal to the harm that they had caused. This served as a deterrent to criminals, knowing that whatever they did would be inflicted back upon them if they were caught.

The Gospels are eyewitnesses' accounts, written long after a fact. Three of them are. Luke wasn't a disciple of Jesus. He researched the events after they happened and wrote about them for a man by the name of Theopolis as a kind of history report. Luke also wrote the book of Acts, but he was present for many of the events concerning the Apostle Paul.

Ok, I don't know if this has been thrown out yet or not [not in the mood to read through 9 pages] so here goes, these aren't word perfect BTW:

1. "Judge lest ye be judged" + "Turn the other cheek"

- BUT -

2. "An eye for an eye"

I'm not trying to stir shit here BTW. This is the name of the game and I'd love to hear the counter-arguement.
Though to be fair to understand "Turn the other cheek" correctly you would have to be in a civilization where hitting with your left hand was a BAD thing

[QUOTE=Melkor Unchained]



Bottom line; I didn't eat no goddamn fruit. Show me a talking snake and I'll beat it with a stick mmkay?


QUOTE]

I agree show me any snake and i'll beat it with a stick.

Yipes! Remind me not to stand next to Georty in the lavatory! Um...where did the original thread poster go? He said he would resolve everybody's contradictions, is he keeping up? I'm not trying to bag on the dude, but it was a farely audacious claim he made, and I'm not sure I'm seeing a lot of follow through...I could be wrong.

Three of them are. Luke wasn't a disciple of Jesus. He researched the events after they happened and wrote about them for a man by the name of Theopolis as a kind of history report. Luke also wrote the book of Acts, but he was present for many of the events concerning the Apostle Paul.

Well... probably not, actually. It's generally agreed by scholars that the Gospels were all written between 70 and 100AD, making it highly likely that they're all secondary sources (especially as average life expectancy at the time was less than 50 years).

Well... probably not, actually. It's generally agreed by scholars that the Gospels were all written between 70 and 100AD, making it highly likely that they're all secondary sources (especially as average life expectancy at the time was less than 50 years).

Thats not really accurate. Matthew and Mark are thought to be written between 50-70 A.D. Luke is believed to be written before 62 A.D. The only gospel thought of as a late date is John, sometime between 80-90 A.D. Those are the dates set by Biblical Scholars. Others do have thier opinions though.

As for the Bible: You dodge the fact that Mary was never referred to as "virgin Mary" in the original text. That she allegedly claims to had "known not a man" is not necessarily true. Recall that women who had relations outside of marriage in that day's society was subject to death by stoning.

And lastly, you again missed the point: God didn't nor has ever communicated with us through written word. It's all the work of men. And why would he have to act through us to do anything? I thought he was supposed to omnipotent?

Do you really think she would lie to an angel speaking for God Himself? She would have been found out in a heartbeat. Besides, we know that Mary wasn't a virgin after Jesus was born, because it is stated that some of the disciples were his brothers. One of the Jameses was, I know that off the top of my head, plus a few others.

Also, God HAS communicated to us directly through the written word. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Written by the Finger of God Himself.

Do you really think she would lie to an angel speaking for God Himself? She would have been found out in a heartbeat. Besides, we know that Mary wasn't a virgin after Jesus was born, because it is stated that some of the disciples were his brothers. One of the Jameses was, I know that off the top of my head, plus a few others.

Also, God HAS communicated to us directly through the written word. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Written by the Finger of God Himself.

Sure about that ... I was lead to believe that they were moses writing down what god said

Do you really think she would lie to an angel speaking for God Himself? She would have been found out in a heartbeat. Besides, we know that Mary wasn't a virgin after Jesus was born, because it is stated that some of the disciples were his brothers. One of the Jameses was, I know that off the top of my head, plus a few others.

Also, God HAS communicated to us directly through the written word. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Written by the Finger of God Himself.
Actually that's the artistic interpretation of the movie. If you want writing by the finger of God, check out Daniel, where God sends a message to the Babylonian king in a direct manner.

"And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God." Exodus 31:18 (KJV)

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest." Exodus 34:1 (KJV)

God wrote the Ten Commandments down, and Moses got pissed at the Hebrews when he came back and they were worshipping the golden calf, so Moses broke the tablets. God then made a new set. At the very least it was direct dictation, which is still most reputable, even disregarding the fact that it is God Almighty we're talking about here.

"And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God." Exodus 31:18 (KJV)

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest." Exodus 34:1 (KJV)

God wrote the Ten Commandments down, and Moses got pissed at the Hebrews when he came back and they were worshipping the golden calf, so Moses broke the tablets. God then made a new set. At the very least it was direct dictation, which is still most reputable, even disregarding the fact that it is God Almighty we're talking about here.
Cause we all know nothing ever gets lost in translation :p lol

the commandments:

And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God. Exodus 31:18

And the tables [were] the work of God, and the writing [was] the writing of God, graven upon the tables. Exodus 32:16

Moses threw down and broke the commandments on stone tablets from god and were then replaced by another pair:Exodus 32:19, Exodus 34:1

The were originally written in the finger of god...

EDIT: well Ghorunda, looks like you beat me to it...

We're viewing the verse through two completely different lenses, so I'm just going to say I respectfully disagree.


"Judge not lest ye be judged." (Matthew 7:1).
"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to hi
The first set of verses are concern redressing personal wrongs. Here we are told to be patient with others. We are not perfect so we are called to be patient with others who are not perfect.
There are two places where "turn the other cheek" appears. The first is Matthew 5:39, the second is Luke 6:39. In both places Jesus is speaking about dealing with your enemies. If you are patient with them, treat them with love, and are willing to turn aside your own rights, then eventually your enemies will begin to look bad for picking on such a nice guy and may leave you alone.

"Eye for an eye" is found in Deuteronomy 19:21. This vers deals with the Jewish legal of the time, where patience could not always be afforded. People were to be punished according to their crimes. The punishment they recieved was to be equal to the harm that they had caused. This served as a deterrent to criminals, knowing that whatever they did would be inflicted back upon them if they were caught.

Thanks for the explinations. I still don't understand how they aren't contradictory of each other though. We are told in one that if someone slaps us, we should 'turn the other cheek', be patient and not strike them back. Then in the next, we are told an eye for an eye, which transplanted into above situation would mean for you to punish the person by slapping them right back would it not? I do not understand, which teaching is the favoured one?

LOL how are we suposed to take you seriously we give you some and you just dismiss them as too easy

Way to avoid actualy having to answer


i agree with you man... this person has NO IDEA what they are talking about i say if you cannot answer them and dismiss them as too easy then what are you doing with this thread anyways?

Thanks for the explinations. I still don't understand how they aren't contradictory of each other though. We are told in one that if someone slaps us, we should 'turn the other cheek', be patient and not strike them back. Then in the next, we are told an eye for an eye, which transplanted into above situation would mean for you to punish the person by slapping them right back would it not? I do not understand, which teaching is the favoured one?
Again I would like to point out that to understand 'turn the other cheek' you have to remember that it was concidered degrading to hit with your left hand

So when someone got slapped and "turned" the other cheek there was no way that the person could slap them again without degrading themselfs by using their left hand

"And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God." Exodus 31:18 (KJV)

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest." Exodus 34:1 (KJV)

God wrote the Ten Commandments down, and Moses got pissed at the Hebrews when he came back and they were worshipping the golden calf, so Moses broke the tablets. God then made a new set. At the very least it was direct dictation, which is still most reputable, even disregarding the fact that it is God Almighty we're talking about here.
I stand corrected. My apologies.

Thanks for the explinations. I still don't understand how they aren't contradictory of each other though. We are told in one that if someone slaps us, we should 'turn the other cheek', be patient and not strike them back. Then in the next, we are told an eye for an eye, which transplanted into above situation would mean for you to punish the person by slapping them right back would it not? I do not understand, which teaching is the favoured one?

the thing that makes the two non contradictory is the fact that one is aimed toward people in general and the eye for an eye thing is aimed at the Justice System... and the Eye for an Eye is also used when talking about crimminals like say you go out and kill someone then the bible says the penalty of that is death for you... its basically like saying the wages of SIN is DEATH... if you sin you die not necessarily as a person but a part of your spirit dies everytime you sin...

Thanks for the explinations. I still don't understand how they aren't contradictory of each other though. We are told in one that if someone slaps us, we should 'turn the other cheek', be patient and not strike them back. Then in the next, we are told an eye for an eye, which transplanted into above situation would mean for you to punish the person by slapping them right back would it not? I do not understand, which teaching is the favoured one?
"Turn the other cheek" is when you, as an individual, are dealing one-on-one with a personal offence done to you such as public slander. Be the bigger person and let your actions speak for themselves.
"Eye for an eye" is when the community as a whole is dealing with a criminal offender such as a murder or a rapists where letting the guilty party get away would result in more of the same.

Again I would like to point out that to understand 'turn the other cheek' you have to remember that it was concidered degrading to hit with your left hand

So when someone got slapped and "turned" the other cheek there was no way that the person could slap them again without degrading themselfs by using their left hand

So how does that apply to any situation other than getting slapped in the face? For example, if someone kicks you in the groin? Or wrongs you in a non-physical way?

the thing that makes the two non contradictory is the fact that one is aimed toward people in general and the eye for an eye thing is aimed at the Justice System... and the Eye for an Eye is also used when talking about crimminals like say you go out and kill someone then the bible says the penalty of that is death for you... its basically like saying the wages of SIN is DEATH... if you sin you die not necessarily as a person but a part of your spirit dies everytime you sin...

"Turn the other cheek" is when you, as an individual, are dealing one-on-one with a personal offence done to you such as public slander. Be the bigger person and let your actions speak for themselves.
"Eye for an eye" is when the community as a whole is dealing with a criminal offender such as a murder or a rapists where letting the guilty party get away would result in more of the same.

Thanks, that makes sense that way I guess. Wow, a lot of people use these ones improperly then eh?

One thing I don't quite get though, are we supposed to treat people differently from the way the justice system is supposed to treat them when they have wronged us? Or is the point to let the justice system handle things instead of taking the law into our own hands?

So how does that apply to any situation other than getting slapped in the face? For example, if someone kicks you in the groin? Or wrongs you in a non-physical way?




It dosent ... well not beyond a sort of non violent protest making the other dishonor thenselfves sort of way
Thats my point people tend to misinterpret the quote

Instead of meaning "just take the abuse" it means more "embarase them without harming them" sort of thing ... but we dont have the same social construct now

Also the Eye for an Eye applies to the Law of Moses, which provided for the Hebrews while they were in the desert. The blood sacrifice of Jesus did away for the need of these laws. Note I am referring to the Law of Moses and not the all inclusive law, i.e. the Law of God as well. That Law still stands no matter what, of course.

"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13 (KJV)

That's referring to the old Law of Moses, and how the new covenant of Christ has made it unneeded.

Also the Eye for an Eye applies to the Law of Moses, which provided for the Hebrews while they were in the desert. The blood sacrifice of Jesus did away for the need of these laws. Note I am referring to the Law of Moses and not the all inclusive law, i.e. the Law of God as well. That Law still stands no matter what, of course.

"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13 (KJV)

That's referring to the old Law of Moses, and how the new covenant of Christ has made it unneeded.
Another good question why did god change rules and means to resurection mid stride

Did he relize he made a mistake with mosaic law ? and decide there was a better way (jesus)
Why did he not implement the jesus means of resurection earlier rather then accepting such things as sacrafice to apease god for sins?

One thing I don't quite get though, are we supposed to treat people differently from the way the justice system is supposed to treat them when they have wronged us? Or is the point to let the justice system handle things instead of taking the law into our own hands?

A little of both I think. We're not supposed to go flying off the handle when people wrong us, but at the same time a working justice system needs to be strict in order to keep a sense of order and justice.
Did that help at all?

Also the Eye for an Eye applies to the Law of Moses, which provided for the Hebrews while they were in the desert. The blood sacrifice of Jesus did away for the need of these laws. Note I am referring to the Law of Moses and not the all inclusive law, i.e. the Law of God as well. That Law still stands no matter what, of course.

"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13 (KJV)

That's referring to the old Law of Moses, and how the new covenant of Christ has made it unneeded.

Speaking of Jesus' sacrifice doing away with old laws, how much of the old testament, if any, should be taken into account for those who follow and believe in what was written in the new testament.

Another good question why did god change rules and means to resurection mid stride

Did he relize he made a mistake with mosaic law ? and decide there was a better way (jesus)
Why did he not implement the jesus means of resurection earlier rather then accepting such things as sacrafice to apease god for sins?

Mosaic law was put in in order to guide the Hebrews lives in preparation of the Messiah's coming. Also it would make the Hebrews realize how bad off they are. If God had sent Jesus say, during the time of Noah or something, the people may have been even more skeptical than they were even when Jesus DID come, seeing as they had not really seen anything wrong with their lives.

Mosaic law was put in in order to guide the Hebrews lives in preparation of the Messiah's coming. Also it would make the Hebrews realize how bad off they are. If God had sent Jesus say, during the time of Noah or something, the people may have been even more skeptical than they were even when Jesus DID come, seeing as they had not really seen anything wrong with their lives.
They had been living that way for a LONG time why did god not do it after just a generation or two when they came to this "realization"

And people still did not see anything wrong with the way they lived BECAUSE THEY WERE LIVING LIKE GOD TOLD THEM TO

If they were following mossaic law they were doing gods will ... so how could that be wrong god told them to live that way

Speaking of Jesus' sacrifice doing away with old laws, how much of the old testament, if any, should be taken into account for those who follow and believe in what was written in the new testament.

I suggest you read your Bible and pray to God if you want to be absolutley sure...

I suggest you read your Bible and pray to God if you want to be absolutley sure...
I did ... his sign came in the form of a pedophile priest :p ( :p sorry I am not going to get into that)
Reading the bible itself is what disillusioned me to Christianity and catholocism actualy

They had been living that way for a LONG time why did god not do it after just a generation or two when they came to this "realization"

And people still did not see anything wrong with the way they lived BECAUSE THEY WERE LIVING LIKE GOD TOLD THEM TO

If they were following mossaic law they were doing gods will ... so how could that be wrong god told them to live that way

Who said it was wrong? It was just no longer needed. Look at it this way:

The Hebrews make all those sacrifices, etc., and become so clingy to their system.

Christ comes, offering the real and only true salvation. The Hebrews have their old system engrained in their heads for so long that they will probably be unwilling to follow Christ. This is the test of devotion. For someone to give up that which they have known all their lives for a new system.

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Matthew 16:24 (KJV)

Also, it was a way of conditioning the Hebrews for Christ. Since He already came ad did His duty and such, what's the need of the conditioning now??

I did ... his sign came in the form of a pedophile priest :p ( :p sorry I am not going to get into that)
Reading the bible itself is what disillusioned me to Christianity and catholocism actualy

Catholocism is messed up. Good idea, bad in practice...kinda like the UN, heh.

Another good question why did god change rules and means to resurection mid stride

Did he relize he made a mistake with mosaic law ? and decide there was a better way (jesus)
Why did he not implement the jesus means of resurection earlier rather then accepting such things as sacrafice to apease god for sins?
I'm not God but I'll try and answer this as best I can.
God had to establish the law first so we'd know what sin was to begin with. However God waited until a civilization arouse that was advanced enough to keep historical records and provided proof that Jesus existed and (I know this is gonna bite me in the butt but what the heck) but not advanced enough to attribute everything to science. For example if Jesus was to come today we'd simply assume that he did everything using trickery or some sort of science that we simply didn't understand yet, because we're a cynical people.

Yeah ... that incedent (series of incidences) set me on the path to opening my eyes ... hell maybe it was some diety trying to show me that Christianty was flawed who knows

I'm not God but I'll try and answer this as best I can.
God had to establish the law first so we'd know what sin was to begin with. However God waited until a civilization arouse that was advanced enough to keep historical records and provided proof that Jesus existed and (I know this is gonna bite me in the butt but what the heck) but not advanced enough to attribute everything to science. For example if Jesus was to come today we'd simply assume that he did everything using trickery or some sort of science that we simply didn't understand yet, because we're a cynical people.
So god set up a civilization of sinners just so he can come save them?

Thats like lighting a girl you likes house on fire so you can run in and save her so she likes you :p not a good idea and probably sent a lot of people to hell that would have been saved if they had a jesus

I did ... his sign came in the form of a pedophile priest :p ( :p sorry I am not going to get into that)
I want to apologise on behalf of the church for that. Jesus was a protector of children and said "Woe to he who leads a little one astray. It would better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the sea." I doubt my words mean much but I want to let you know I truly am sorry for the actions of that priest.

Who said it was wrong? It was just no longer needed. Look at it this way:

The Hebrews make all those sacrifices, etc., and become so clingy to their system.

Christ comes, offering the real and only true salvation. The Hebrews have their old system engrained in their heads for so long that they will probably be unwilling to follow Christ. This is the test of devotion. For someone to give up that which they have known all their lives for a new system.

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Matthew 16:24 (KJV)

Also, it was a way of conditioning the Hebrews for Christ. Since He already came ad did His duty and such, what's the need of the conditioning now??



Catholocism is messed up. Good idea, bad in practice...kinda like the UN, heh.

So god purposly makes things harder for people and just switches things up? why that would only test thoes alive during the transition time
Just does not make sense

So god set up a civilization of sinners just so he can come save them?

Thats like lighting a girl you likes house on fire so you can run in and save her so she likes you :p not a good idea and probably sent a lot of people to hell that would have been saved if they had a jesus
That's the thing that trips most people up. God didn't create humans as sinners. The whole Adam and Eve thing, but we've been over that before.

I want to apologise on behalf of the church for that. Jesus was a protector of children and said "Woe to he who leads a little one astray. It would better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the sea." I doubt my words mean much I want to let you know I truly am sorry for the actions of that priest.
Its fine I have spent a long time trying to cope with it
He was a disturbed individual I can understand that
(though I will NEVER forgive the rest of the organization for the 9 years of hell they put me through after the fact)

That's the thing that trips most people up. God didn't create humans as sinners. The whole Adam and Eve thing, but we've been over that before.
No talking about mosaic law ... he gave them an flawed faith (mosaic laws) just so they could relize the truth when jesus came along

(though if you want to argue all knowing he would have to know what would happen so he DID create humans to make that choice)

Its fine I have spent a long time trying to cope with it
He was a disturbed individual I can understand that
(though I will NEVER forgive the rest of the organization for the 9 years of hell they put me through after the fact) Whatever said hell was, I'm going to apologize for that too. Christians need to learn to say sorry to non-Christians more often.

Whatever said hell was, I'm going to apologize for that too. Christians need to learn to say sorry to non-Christians more often.
Dont worry bout it not your fault that some bad people got into the wrong positions

I think I am more mad that this will probably prohibit me from having kids more then anything

No talking about mosaic law ... he gave them an flawed faith (mosaic laws) just so they could relize the truth when jesus came along

(though if you want to argue all knowing he would have to know what would happen so he DID create humans to make that choice)
Interesting perspective. My own personal theory is that God doesn't view time as we do. It says somewhere in the New Testament that "1000 years is a day to you and day is as 1000 years." I don't think God views time in the linear fashion that we do, which explains why Jesus's death could cover the sins of those who were dead before he arrived on the scene.
Aye freewill. That's a subject I've spent many hours pondering. It gives me headaches.

Interesting perspective. My own personal theory is that God doesn't view time as we do. It says somewhere in the New Testament that "1000 years is a day to you and day is as 1000 years." I don't think God views time in the linear fashion that we do, which explains why Jesus's death could cover the sins of those who were dead before he arrived on the scene.
Aye freewill. That's a subject I've spent many hours pondering. It gives me headaches.

Lol if you want to read a fucked up (but great) book about non liniar time (travel and perception) try the northworld trilliogy by drake :-D one hell of a cool trillogy

I suggest you read your Bible and pray to God if you want to be absolutley sure...
Are you serious? That was helpful and valuable to the conversation. Sorry.

^ this one is simply because there were different writers of the four gospels who remember it differently so man messed that part up
SO how do you know with part of the Bible is mixed up by man, or witch part is truely the word of God.
You cant just say that part of the Bible are true and others are not, because there is no way you can know what part was messed up. So you have to believe it all or none of it. Because it is either the word of god or it isnt.

SO how do you know with part of the Bible is mixed up by man, or witch part is truely the word of God.
You cant just say that part of the Bible are true and others are not, because there is no way you can know what part was messed up. So you have to believe it all or none of it. Because it is either the word of god or it isnt.

Plus God spoke to them through the Holy Spirit.

Plus God spoke to them through the Holy Spirit.
Are you even paying attention ... if it is god inspired why is the bible not compleatly consistant

Who says it has to be consistent? It's designed to make you think and examine your life.

Thanks for the mention. :)

Although, our erstwhile comerade UpwardThrust and the Forum Irregulars seem to be making mincemeat of this poor fellow, already. :)
My pleasure, always. You rock.
*bows*
Folks rehash and argue a lot, nearly ad nauseum, but there's enough meat here when people like yourself get in for a bite or two.

funny how no one ever gets cynical over the Koran...

I'm not exactly sure what you're driving at here but here are my interpretations:
1) Christ wasn't crucified, never died, and was therefore never resurrected.
or
2) Christ was crucified and died but never resurrected.
or
3) Christ was crucified, but faked his own death and subsequent resurrection.

Can you clarify?
Of course.
For Jesus to have also been God at the same time, being omnipotent and omniscient in nature (according to powers alloted by "faithful"), then God already had the power to not be killed. Omnipotent-all-powerful. In Jesus being that same entity, you are saying that GOD WAS MURDERED BY MAN. Even if it was with consent, you are saying that GOD was DEAD and therefore, by all practical understandings of that concept, NOT OMNIPOTENT.
Therefore, either God was killed by humans, allowing for a brief time for the universe to be DEVOID OF ITS CREATOR *supposedly* and continuing to function, until some other UNIVERSAL CLAUSE CONTRACTED that entity from the obligation of DEATH (see death or dead in a dictionary) and then allowing for the "RESURRECTION". There must, by definition, be a separation here in order to allow a continuity of this event. In one respect it's a bait-and-switch, a lie ... in another sense it was simply the acknowledgement that the two WERE SEPARATE ENTITIES, as evidenced by Jesus calling out "My lord, why hast thou forsaken me?"

More specifically to meaning #1, yes, in order for same said God and Jesus parable to be continuous ... it was a show, a bait-and-switch ... other than the obvious appearance of corporal consequence to a public crucifixion.
As for meaning #2, that's the conclusion a person could come to regarding the lack of continuity on the four "witness"es accounts of what happened at Jesus' tomb (the rolling back of the rock, who could touch him, et cetera).
As for meaning #3, that's the conclusion a person would have to come to if Jesus and God were the same guy.
To further elucidate, many people supposedly purporting faith in Christ hinge their integrity on this event, obviously not very well thought out. To the extent of brandishing graven images.
It'd be a tad different to reflect the living Jesus, times, tribulations, et cetera, but the thing with the golden crosses on people's necks and forced through cemetaries worldwide is too much for any self-respecting individual to ignore.

funny how no one ever gets cynical over the Koran...
There arent many muslims here. If they were prevalent then maybe we would. I think most people have about as much respect for the bible as the koran (which isnt much for me).

are there some contradictions in the bible? Yes. Does thye matter? No.

As long as the message behinbd the stories is the same, thats all that matters. The bible is human and divine. It has human mistakes and a divine message.
You alos have to take into account who the book of the bible was written for. Each of the four gospels was written for a certain group at the time so each gospel focuses more on certain things.

Thats one I like ... figured they would accuratly record the very last words of the only son of god ... might be important

Might not matter. Does it matter what his last words were or that he rose from the dead?

My pleasure, always. You rock.
*bows*
Folks rehash and argue a lot, nearly ad nauseum, but there's enough meat here when people like yourself get in for a bite or two.

Higher compliment I have never seen. :)

Thankyou. Nice to know I'm appreciated.

Of course.
For Jesus to have also been God at the same time, being omnipotent and omniscient in nature (according to powers alloted by "faithful"), then God already had the power to not be killed. Omnipotent-all-powerful. In Jesus being that same entity, you are saying that GOD WAS MURDERED BY MAN. Even if it was with consent, you are saying that GOD was DEAD and therefore, by all practical understandings of that concept, NOT OMNIPOTENT.
Therefore, either God was killed by humans, allowing for a brief time for the universe to be DEVOID OF ITS CREATOR *supposedly* and continuing to function, until some other UNIVERSAL CLAUSE CONTRACTED that entity from the obligation of DEATH (see death or dead in a dictionary) and then allowing for the "RESURRECTION". There must, by definition, be a separation here in order to allow a continuity of this event. In one respect it's a bait-and-switch, a lie ... in another sense it was simply the acknowledgement that the two WERE SEPARATE ENTITIES, as evidenced by Jesus calling out "My lord, why hast thou forsaken me?"

More specifically to meaning #1, yes, in order for same said God and Jesus parable to be continuous ... it was a show, a bait-and-switch ... other than the obvious appearance of corporal consequence to a public crucifixion.
As for meaning #2, that's the conclusion a person could come to regarding the lack of continuity on the four "witness"es accounts of what happened at Jesus' tomb (the rolling back of the rock, who could touch him, et cetera).
As for meaning #3, that's the conclusion a person would have to come to if Jesus and God were the same guy.
To further elucidate, many people supposedly purporting faith in Christ hinge their integrity on this event, obviously not very well thought out. To the extent of brandishing graven images.
It'd be a tad different to reflect the living Jesus, times, tribulations, et cetera, but the thing with the golden crosses on people's necks and forced through cemetaries worldwide is too much for any self-respecting individual to ignore.

The Trinity has always been difficult to define. When Christ died on the cross, His fully man aspect died, not His fully God spirit. When He asked "why have You forsaken Me?" it again is His fully man aspect speaking. And wouldn't it be kinda hard to fake your own death when you're up on a cross for 3 hours, obviously unable to move, witnesses all around, including Roman guards, plus getting stabbed with a spear that more than likely punctured a lung, if not more?

Oy, a constantly updated 200-post thread about RELIGION.

This is gonna be fun!

The Trinity has always been difficult to define. When Christ died on the cross, His fully man aspect died, not His fully God spirit. When He asked "why have You forsaken Me?" it again is His fully man aspect speaking. And wouldn't it be kinda hard to fake your own death when you're up on a cross for 3 hours, obviously unable to move, witnesses all around, including Roman guards, plus getting stabbed with a spear that more than likely punctured a lung, if not more?


You have a problem with the Jesus thing.

You know, clearly, that we are separated from God because of sin, and God cannot be associated with sin. Thus, He cannot be associated with us.

However, when Jesus Christ died, He was acting as a Sacrafice, and, for one instant, was loaded with every sin of every man on this planet earth, right when He died. Thus, God had to withdraw from His very own Son.
Because God was His very own Father, and because He was perfect, he was in full contact with God for the full thirty-some years of His life. That one moment of separation probably was, to Him, more painful than anything that any human could ever, ever, imagine, let alone experience.

God HAD to forsake Jesus, BECAUSE of His mission. But only for that one second.

Ha! I have now been upgraded from 'member' to 'sometimes deadly.' This is a moment for celebration, as almost all of my posts have been made in religious debates.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D
:cool: :cool: :cool:
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrra-cha-cha-cha-cha! CHA!

Man, I just LOVE Mozart! Symphonies 35, 36, and 37! Yeah!

You have a problem with the Jesus thing.

You know, clearly, that we are separated from God because of sin, and God cannot be associated with sin. Thus, He cannot be associated with us.

However, when Jesus Christ died, He was acting as a Sacrafice, and, for one instant, was loaded with every sin of every man on this planet earth, right when He died. Thus, God had to withdraw from His very own Son.
Because God was His very own Father, and because He was perfect, he was in full contact with God for the full thirty-some years of His life. That one moment of separation probably was, to Him, more painful than anything that any human could ever, ever, imagine, let alone experience.

God HAD to forsake Jesus, BECAUSE of His mission. But only for that one second.


yup :)

and to add to the part i bolded in your quote, every sin of every man to ever live on earth

You have a problem with the Jesus thing.

You know, clearly, that we are separated from God because of sin, and God cannot be associated with sin. Thus, He cannot be associated with us.

However, when Jesus Christ died, He was acting as a Sacrafice, and, for one instant, was loaded with every sin of every man on this planet earth, right when He died. Thus, God had to withdraw from His very own Son.
Because God was His very own Father, and because He was perfect, he was in full contact with God for the full thirty-some years of His life. That one moment of separation probably was, to Him, more painful than anything that any human could ever, ever, imagine, let alone experience.

God HAD to forsake Jesus, BECAUSE of His mission. But only for that one second.


Yet if god is the origin of everything he is also the origin of sin
So he is asociated with it

You have a problem with the Jesus thing.

You know, clearly, that we are separated from God because of sin, and God cannot be associated with sin. Thus, He cannot be associated with us.

However, when Jesus Christ died, He was acting as a Sacrafice, and, for one instant, was loaded with every sin of every man on this planet earth, right when He died. Thus, God had to withdraw from His very own Son.
Because God was His very own Father, and because He was perfect, he was in full contact with God for the full thirty-some years of His life. That one moment of separation probably was, to Him, more painful than anything that any human could ever, ever, imagine, let alone experience.

God HAD to forsake Jesus, BECAUSE of His mission. But only for that one second.

Doh! You're right man, thanks. (seriously)

the problem with these kinds of threads are that people who post contradictions probably don't believe in God, and therefore don't believe He can perform miracles, and therefore believe that anything not yet explained by science is a contradiction. they're too close-minded to even contemplate these things....IF THERE IS ANYONE OUT THERE WHO HAS A CONTRADICTION BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND, NOT BECAUSE THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE AND ARE DESPERATLY LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE NOT TO, PLEASE TELEGRAM ME

the problem with these kinds of threads are that people who post contradictions probably don't believe in God, and therefore don't believe He can perform miracles, and therefore believe that anything not yet explained by science is a contradiction. they're too close-minded to even contemplate these things....IF THERE IS ANYONE OUT THERE WHO HAS A CONTRADICTION BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND, NOT BECAUSE THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE AND ARE DESPERATLY LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE NOT TO, PLEASE TELEGRAM ME
No I posted litterary contradictions that are WITHIN the bible itself not with conflict to reality

They were never answered from page 1

the problem with these kinds of threads are that people who post contradictions probably don't believe in God, and therefore don't believe He can perform miracles, and therefore believe that anything not yet explained by science is a contradiction. they're too close-minded to even contemplate these things....IF THERE IS ANYONE OUT THERE WHO HAS A CONTRADICTION BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND, NOT BECAUSE THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE AND ARE DESPERATLY LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE NOT TO, PLEASE TELEGRAM ME

I used to be a christian. i didnt just up and leave. there were reasons. christianity is not as perfect as you might think.

How religious are most of you? Are you religious enough that you dont believe in science?

How religious are most of you? Are you religious enough that you dont believe in science?
While I don't believe in evolution, I'm suspicious of Christians who don't believe in science, because they cut themselves off from the wonders of God's creation. I believe God intended man to discover the world and harness the principles of nature to better himself and the rest of the world. The more I find out about science, the more I'm convinced that the universe is not an accident and that there is a grand design created by God for some ultimate purpose.
And please don't try and start evolution vs creationism debates with me. I'm not learned enough to argue competently, so it'd by like high-jumping against a midget.

How religious are most of you? Are you religious enough that you dont believe in science?

I believe in microevolution, i.e. species adapt and change over time, that we've seen in the present day and age. But the other stuff, like we came from monkeys and whatnot, takes just as much faith as the Bible to believe, and to be frank I've seen more evidence for Christianity than I have for that form of evolution. I mean scientists even rebuild entire skeletons from nothing more than a tooth. That's a pretty big assumption, especially when the representation, fur and all, looks like a proto-man, and then the tooth is found to have come from a pig. Case in point Nebraska Man.

I believe in microevolution, i.e. species adapt and change over time, that we've seen in the present day and age. But the other stuff, like we came from monkeys and whatnot, takes just as much faith as the Bible to believe, and to be frank I've seen more evidence for Christianity than I have for that form of evolution. I mean scientists even rebuild entire skeletons from nothing more than a tooth. That's a pretty big assumption, especially when the representation, fur and all, looks like a proto-man, and then the tooth is found to have come from a pig. Case in point Nebraska Man.

And which is why such evidence is not used. BTW, no scientist ever rebuilt an entire skeleton from the nebraska man tooth...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

Skulls are much better evidence, or at least for the portion from apes to humans.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

And so on. That site is annoyingly hard to navigate though, but it has some of the major points for the human-ape transition.

Plus God spoke to them through the Holy Spirit.

Someone can CLAIM to be 'inspired' by 'the Holy Spirit'... that doesn't make it true.

Someone can CLAIM to be 'inspired' by 'the Holy Spirit'... that doesn't make it true.
I was inspired by the holy spirit to make this post claiming to be inspired by the holy spirit

:p

I was inspired by the holy spirit to make this post claiming to be inspired by the holy spirit

:pI've got voices in my head (they say they're aliens, but they could be midgets for all I know) telling me to not go postal. Should I listen to them, or take the medication? What a dillemma...

:D

You have a problem with the Jesus thing.

You know, clearly, that we are separated from God because of sin, and God cannot be associated with sin. Thus, He cannot be associated with us.

However, when Jesus Christ died, He was acting as a Sacrafice, and, for one instant, was loaded with every sin of every man on this planet earth, right when He died. Thus, God had to withdraw from His very own Son.
Because God was His very own Father, and because He was perfect, he was in full contact with God for the full thirty-some years of His life. That one moment of separation probably was, to Him, more painful than anything that any human could ever, ever, imagine, let alone experience.

God HAD to forsake Jesus, BECAUSE of His mission. But only for that one second.

And, how exactly, did Jesus die for my sins?

You BELIEVE he did, perhaps... but it is illogical - how could he die for the 'sin' of 'e-mail spamming'?

Even if you accept that, for some weird reason, Jesus WAS able to 'vicariously' atone for all the sins to THAT date... which STILL makes no sense... there is still no way for him to have vicariously accepted all sins YET to be.

What you have is propoganda, I'm afraid.

I believe in microevolution, i.e. species adapt and change over time, that we've seen in the present day and age. But the other stuff, like we came from monkeys and whatnot, takes just as much faith as the Bible to believe, and to be frank I've seen more evidence for Christianity than I have for that form of evolution. I mean scientists even rebuild entire skeletons from nothing more than a tooth. That's a pretty big assumption, especially when the representation, fur and all, looks like a proto-man, and then the tooth is found to have come from a pig. Case in point Nebraska Man.

Curious.

You have made a claim there, that I believe you may find hard to support:

"I've seen more evidence for Christianity than I have for that form of evolution"... which evidence would that be? As far as I can tell, all your evidence must have come from one book, surely? No actual physical evidence, at all?

I was inspired by the holy spirit to make this post claiming to be inspired by the holy spirit

:p

Wow, that's SO ironic! I was inspired by the holy spirit, to make this post claiming NOT to be inspired by the holy spirit.

I was NOT inspired by the holy spirit to say this.

See?

the problem with these kinds of threads are that people who post contradictions probably don't believe in God, and therefore don't believe He can perform miracles, and therefore believe that anything not yet explained by science is a contradiction. they're too close-minded to even contemplate these things....IF THERE IS ANYONE OUT THERE WHO HAS A CONTRADICTION BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND, NOT BECAUSE THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE AND ARE DESPERATLY LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE NOT TO, PLEASE TELEGRAM ME

I laugh at you. Perhaps you're too close-minded to contemplate against these things? Hmm?

All you bible thumpers and atheists are doing nothing for your causes. Apathy is the best medicine for religious debates.


"I've seen more evidence for Christianity than I have for that form of evolution"... which evidence would that be? As far as I can tell, all your evidence must have come from one book, surely? No actual physical evidence, at all?

All I have to say to that is, thank you. I agree completely.

All I have to say to that is, thank you. I agree completely.

Thank you... you notice, however, that the post didn't get a response...

And, how exactly, did Jesus die for my sins?

You BELIEVE he did, perhaps... but it is illogical - how could he die for the 'sin' of 'e-mail spamming'?

Even if you accept that, for some weird reason, Jesus WAS able to 'vicariously' atone for all the sins to THAT date... which STILL makes no sense... there is still no way for him to have vicariously accepted all sins YET to be.

What you have is propoganda, I'm afraid.
Why do you find this so hard to believe? The Bible says (in 1 Peter I believe) "With God 1000 years is as a day and a day is as 1000 years." If God exists outside of time then Jesus can atone for all the sin of the world simultaneously.

Wow, that's SO ironic! I was inspired by the holy spirit, to make this post claiming NOT to be inspired by the holy spirit.

I was NOT inspired by the holy spirit to say this.

See?
Um this is the part where I am suposed to say "god works in mesterious ways" :p

Curious.

You have made a claim there, that I believe you may find hard to support:

"I've seen more evidence for Christianity than I have for that form of evolution"... which evidence would that be? As far as I can tell, all your evidence must have come from one book, surely? No actual physical evidence, at all?

The burial shroud of Christ, the body of Peter (it was actually found in Jerusalem, contrary to the Catholic stance of it being found in Rome), etc. The Bible is an eyewitness account more than the speculations and ideas of evolution are. John was there at the crucifixion, he just wrote his gospel in a 3rd person form. Whereas evolution, it's just people saying, "I think it happened this way." then some other dude says, "Oh yea, that must be right!" ...but where's the evidence guys?? Have you seen macroevolution? No. Hell Neanderthal Man was found to be just some guy with arthritis. Even Carbon 14 dating said that a living, breathing mussel had been dead for 7,000 years. A bit off, don't ya think? Read this: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp and then get back with me. I'm not asking you to believe it 100%, I'm just asking you to read it, that's all.

The burial shroud of Christ, the body of Peter (it was actually found in Jerusalem, contrary to the Catholic stance of it being found in Rome), etc. The Bible is an eyewitness account more than the speculations and ideas of evolution are. John was there at the crucifixion, he just wrote his gospel in a 3rd person form. Whereas evolution, it's just people saying, "I think it happened this way." then some other dude says, "Oh yea, that must be right!" ...but where's the evidence guys?? Have you seen macroevolution? No. Hell Neanderthal Man was found to be just some guy with arthritis. Even Carbon 14 dating said that a living, breathing mussel had been dead for 7,000 years. A bit off, don't ya think? Read this: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp and then get back with me. I'm not asking you to believe it 100%, I'm just asking you to read it, that's all.
At first I thought "This guy must be joking". Then I read the link to Jack Chick of all people. Now I know this is a joke.

John was written around 300 AD. That can't be the same John as the apostle.

The burial shroud of Christ, the body of Peter (it was actually found in Jerusalem, contrary to the Catholic stance of it being found in Rome), etc. The Bible is an eyewitness account more than the speculations and ideas of evolution are. John was there at the crucifixion, he just wrote his gospel in a 3rd person form. Whereas evolution, it's just people saying, "I think it happened this way." then some other dude says, "Oh yea, that must be right!" ...but where's the evidence guys?? Have you seen macroevolution? No. Hell Neanderthal Man was found to be just some guy with arthritis. Even Carbon 14 dating said that a living, breathing mussel had been dead for 7,000 years. A bit off, don't ya think? Read this: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp and then get back with me. I'm not asking you to believe it 100%, I'm just asking you to read it, that's all.
Are you being serious? this is so off that it has to be a joke (honestly?)

John was written around 300 AD. That can't be the same John as the apostle.

God simply allowed John to live a long life. The same John who wrote the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation was John the Apostle. But, since I seem to be unable to convince you guys, " And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Matthew 10:14 (KJV)

Why do you find this so hard to believe? The Bible says (in 1 Peter I believe) "With God 1000 years is as a day and a day is as 1000 years." If God exists outside of time then Jesus can atone for all the sin of the world simultaneously.

Perhaps... although what a day, or a thousand years have to do with it, I'm not so sure.

Since Jesus (if he existed) was neither crucified yesterday, nor a thousand years before, was he?

And, while God MAY exist outside of time (would have to, indeed), Jesus was supposed to be god incarnate - which means he would be limited by human chronology.

We KNOW this, because he lived each of his days chronologically, sequentially.

So - while 'god' could, theoretically pardon all sins, ever... Jesus could only atone for those committed before or during his coming.

Of course - it's all a nonsense anyway. If 'god' is not limited by chronology, then he wouldn't have to wait for Jesus to come... since the ACTUAL time at which Jesus arrived would be irrelevent to a deity that was outside of cause and effect.

Perhaps... although what a day, or a thousand years have to do with it, I'm not so sure.

Since Jesus (if he existed) was neither crucified yesterday, nor a thousand years before, was he?

And, while God MAY exist outside of time (would have to, indeed), Jesus was supposed to be god incarnate - which means he would be limited by human chronology.

We KNOW this, because he lived each of his days chronologically, sequentially.

So - while 'god' could, theoretically pardon all sins, ever... Jesus could only atone for those committed before or during his coming.

Of course - it's all a nonsense anyway. If 'god' is not limited by chronology, then he wouldn't have to wait for Jesus to come... since the ACTUAL time at which Jesus arrived would be irrelevent to a deity that was outside of cause and effect.

But Jesus is both fully God and fully man, so therefore your proposal doesn't hold water.

The burial shroud of Christ, the body of Peter (it was actually found in Jerusalem, contrary to the Catholic stance of it being found in Rome), etc. The Bible is an eyewitness account more than the speculations and ideas of evolution are. John was there at the crucifixion, he just wrote his gospel in a 3rd person form. Whereas evolution, it's just people saying, "I think it happened this way." then some other dude says, "Oh yea, that must be right!" ...but where's the evidence guys?? Have you seen macroevolution? No. Hell Neanderthal Man was found to be just some guy with arthritis. Even Carbon 14 dating said that a living, breathing mussel had been dead for 7,000 years. A bit off, don't ya think? Read this: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp and then get back with me. I'm not asking you to believe it 100%, I'm just asking you to read it, that's all.

How did you get so ill-informed?

I want sources to back up all your ridiculous claims.

The Turin Shroud has long been acknowledged as a hoax, and I don't knwo who told you there was a single 'Neanderthal Man' skeleton, or that 'he' was an arthritic man?

Carbon 14 dating has an acknowledged flaw with dating marine life... it's commonly known and accepted... it doesn't suffer the same fault on non-marine items.