NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm tired of hearing so many people saying that there are so many contradictions in the bible without even mentioning a single one!

I am a Follower of Christ and I challenge all those who say there are contradictions in the bible to mention at least one...

Friend, there are many, give us a topic. And there are many of Christ's followers who do acknowledge without shame that the Bible has many contradictions, I am one of them.

Better yet, why don't YOU go to google.com or Wikipedia, and look it up yourself? You might grow a little bit with the knowledge you have gained.

16 And Cain moved from near Eden, to the east, to the land of Nod.
17 And Cain had a sexual union with his wife who gave birth to a son, Enoch, and Cain was building a city so he called it Enoch also.
Where did she come from? So far, Earth's human population = 5.

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 my Father is greater than I.


Which is it?

Where did she come from? So far, Earth's human population = 5.

Women are often ignored in the Bible, not much of a surprise that her birth wasn't mentioned.

Where did she come from? So far, Earth's human population = 5.

It never said God didn't create more people.

Pi=3

Moses wrote Deut.

Deut 34:5 So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab according to the word of the Lord and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Bethpeor; but no man knows the place of his burial to this day......


Moses wrote about his own death?

It never said God didn't create more people.

If we're to assume that's the case, what else can we assume that was omitted?

Link Here. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm) There are many, so have fun.

PS: Sorry, I'm not going to respond if anyone replies to me. I've got to get to bed early so I can go play mini-golf with my Dad and his insta-family in the morning.

Moses wrote Deut.

Deut 34:5 So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab according to the word of the Lord and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Bethpeor; but no man knows the place of his burial to this day......


Moses wrote about his own death?

I asked my father, a priest in the Anglican Church, that same question. He said that bible scholars believe someone else completed the writings for him.

It never said God didn't create more people.

What about the evidence in favor of evolution? Should it be dismissed or questioned? I find it hard to read the Genesis creation story as anything other than allegory.

What were Jesus's last words on the cross?

What were Jesus's last words on the cross?

"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

That's according to Luke. Now check out John and Matthew:

Matthew 27:46
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?

John 19:30
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

I asked my father, a priest in the Anglican Church, that same question. He said that bible scholars believe someone else completed the writings for him.

Scholars have decided that the Pentateuch had four authors - they call them J, E, P, and D based on how they address the name of God and other factors. Here's an outline, if you don't know about it already

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

It's something to consider. For me, Moses' not having written the Pentateuch doesn't detract from his greatness as a prophet or any of that.

What were Jesus's last words on the cross?

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

That's according to Luke. Now check out John and Matthew:

Matthew 27:46
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?

John 19:30
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

In Matthew and Mark they never mention his LAST words. And the version in John means fundamentally the same thing.

In Matthew and Mark they never mention his LAST words. And the version in John means fundamentally the same thing.

Um, I didn;t mention Mark. Luke and John are nowhere near the same. Otherwise they would have used the same words.

Why does the bible say pi=3?

Apostles: sandles and staff or no sandles sans staff?

Mat 12:30 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather scatters.

Mark 9:40 For he that is not against us is for us.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Thank you for showing the contradiction by giving a completely different answer than the OP.

That always seemed to me like he didn't understand why he was dieing... He's supposed to be God...

Pi=3

and it is. 3.14285714... rounded to the nearest whole number is "3"

Um, I didn;t mention Mark. Luke and John are nowhere near the same. Otherwise they would have used the same words.


Mark has the same last words of Christ on the cross.

I meant the last words were fundamentally the same, not the entire book!


Why does the bible say pi=3?


Can you give a verse?


Apostles: sandles and staff or no sandles sans staff?


Huh?

and it is. 3.14285714... rounded to the nearest whole number is "3"

So, it's an "approximation" when exact numbers are given?

10 cubits across and 30 around?

Can you give a verse?


"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

Google is your friend, BTW, it comes up in the first couple links.

Mark has the same last words of Christ on the cross.

I meant the last words were fundamentally the same, not the entire book!

No, they're not the same at all.



Can you give a verse?

1 Kings 7:23
And he made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and the height thereof was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.




Huh?

Did Jesus tell his apostles to go barefoot and without a staff?

Here's another, what time of day was Jesus crucified?

Gen 6: 19 And of every living thing of all flaesh, you shall bring two of everysort into the ark to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female........two of every sort shall come into you to keep them alive.



Gen 7:2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that arenot clean, the male and his mate; and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive upon the face of all the earth.

So, it's an "approximation" when exact numbers are given?

10 cubits across and 30 around?

remember how precise measuring tools were back then.

and then add the numerous of Translations the Bible underwent...

you going to complain about .142857?

and you are giving large round numbers... 10 and 30. now if it said 4.56283 Cubits across and 30.37862 Cubits around... then I would agree with you.

Here's another, what time of day was Jesus crucified?

I would guess around lunch or dinner, since you don't really have vinegar in any breakfast foods.

Here's another, what time of day was Jesus crucified?without looking it up...

I would guess morning.

why? Crucifixtion is a slow, torturous death. doing it in the evening would most likely have someone rescuing them under cover of darkness. thus doing in the morining then letting them hang in the hot sun makes it harder for those people to be rescued.

in the event that the guards cannot stay to watch, the legs are then broken to insure death.

remember how precise measuring tools were back then.

and then add the numerous of Translations the Bible underwent...

you going to complain about .142857?

and you are giving large round numbers... 10 and 30. now if it said 9.56283 Cubits across and 30.37862 Cubits around... then I would agree with you.

When they had more accurate measurements dating to the 19th century BC and the Bible is supposed to be "inerrant", yes.

Gen 6: 19 And of every living thing of all flaesh, you shall bring two of everysort into the ark to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female........two of every sort shall come into you to keep them alive.



Gen 7:2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that arenot clean, the male and his mate; and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive upon the face of all the earth.

That is not contradiction that is changed instruction.

without looking it up...

I would guess morning.

why? Crucifixtion is a slow, torturous death. doing it in the evening would most likely have someone rescuing them under cover of darkness. thus doing in the morining then letting them hang in the hot sun makes it harder for those people to be rescued.

in the event that the guards cannot stay to watch, the legs are then broken to insure death.

When in the morning? 3rd hour or 6th?

That is not contradiction that is changed instruction.

So gods' first instructions were incorrect?

So gods' first instructions were incorrect?

No, he gave new instructions.

Well there are alot of different bibles out there. Alot of sects of christianity, such as calvinists, lutherans, catholics, episcoplians, mormons etc. Many people could have just been reading a different bible to, they could have been reading a weird bible from some dumbass protestant. I am not religious in any way. Yet I still like to read the bible. I read the old and new testament. It's quite stunning how you can interpret things in the latin old testament to the english version. Anyways, if your religion brings out the peace in you, I support it in every way. I don't care if you're a mormon or fuckin hindu. As long as you're a good person you don't need to be shoving shit down people's throats.

Here's another:

Did everything die during the flood except what was on the Ark?

No, he gave new instructions.

The the first instructions were imperfect?

When in the morning? 3rd hour or 6th?

They had to parade Jesus through Jerusalem, obviously, so I'm guessing late morning? The locals weren't going to wake up that early to watch the condemned march. Not to mention those Roman soldiers, probably wanted to sleep in a bit. Hey, if you were stuck in a backwater place like Judaea, so far from Rome, you'd be ornery too.

That is not contradiction that is changed instruction.

God woke up a couple days later and said S---, I forgot he's going to need to eat and sacrifice a few, better up the numbers???

So gods' first instructions were incorrect?

Nah, but between 6:19 and 7:2 the critters "went forth and multiplied"

They had to parade Jesus through Jerusalem, obviously, so I'm guessing late morning? The locals weren't going to wake up that early to watch the condemned march. Not to mention those Roman soldiers, probably wanted to sleep in a bit. Hey, if you were stuck in a backwater place like Judaea, so far from Rome, you'd be ornery too.

You didn't answer the question. 3rd hour or 6th hour?

That is not contradiction that is changed instruction.

Or perhaps an addition.

Here's another:

Did everything die during the flood except what was on the Ark?

Everything in the world did, yes. Except for the things that could live underwater...

My favourite contradiction is in the first two chapters of the Bible: the infamous two contradictory creation accounts. In Genesis 1 God creates man on the sixth day, but Genesis 2 says there is no man and thus God has to create him. Some Christians will claim that Genesis 2 is really the same story told from another perspective, but it starts as if it was a continuation of Genesis 1:

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he made...


Then God goes on to create man. It's pretty obvious from any rational reading of these words that Genesis 2 is a continuation of Genesis 1. I'd be willing to admit though that it takes a miracle of stupidity for the author of this to write about the creation of man and then forget about it a couple of paragraphs later. Thus the Bible is so stupidly contradictory that it must be divinely inspired.

Here's another:

Did everything die during the flood except what was on the Ark?

Apparently olive trees can live under water for 40 days.

Everything in the world did, yes. Except for the things that could live underwater...

So where did the sons of Anak come from in Numbers 13? That's post flood BTW.

God woke up a couple days later and said S---, I forgot he's going to need to eat and sacrifice a few, better up the numbers???

He ate the additional animals.

Apparently olive trees can live under water for 40 days.

and salt and fresh-water fish can share.

The whole world can mean the whole KNOWN world at the time.

The Middle east could have been all that was flooden. Living olive trees still alive and fresh water and salt water creatures apart.

Jesus susspossely died within 3 hours of being cruified. So, I would have to say he was nailed and raise during mid-day to early evening.

One thing you must remember about the Bible, is that it's a work of several men, over millenia, and after awhile a group of people decide to compile it into a book, so yea of course it's going to sound alittle strange.

You didn't answer the question. 3rd hour or 6th hour?

Oh man. Okay. I'll say, uh, 8th?

The whole world can mean the whole KNOWN world at the time.

The Middle east could have been all that was flooden. Living olive trees still alive and fresh water and salt water creatures apart.

So the bible, which states the entire world was flooded, wasn't accurate? The bible states that it is the "truth". The "truth" must be very subjective.

The Bible was written by Man, so of course it's going to have faults, and so on.

Jesus susspossely died within 3 hours of being cruified. So, I would have to say he was nailed and raise during mid-day to early evening.

One thing you must remember about the Bible, is that it's a work of several men, over millenia, and after awhile a group of people decide to compile it into a book, so yea of course it's going to sound alittle strange.

But it's supposed to be "divinely inspired". How can something like that be mistranslated, innacurate, and contradictory?

Oh man. Okay. I'll say, uh, 8th?

And another number is added. :)

When in the morning? 3rd hour or 6th?
well, some books [translations] only mention that darkness covered the land from the 6th hour to the 9th, and near the 9th hour is where Jesus breathed his last.

One can Speculate that the cross was raised from the 6th hour, or that the actuall... err... nail pounding started at the 6th hour. it never really said.

The whole world can mean the whole KNOWN world at the time.

The Middle east could have been all that was flooden. Living olive trees still alive and fresh water and salt water creatures apart.

And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Genesis 7:23

So the bible, which states the entire world was flooded, wasn't accurate? The bible states that it is the "truth". The "truth" must be very subjective.

Look at the meanings in the original Hebrew.

well, some books [translations] only mention that darkness covered the land from the 6th hour to the 9th, and near the 9th hour is where Jesus breathed his last.

One can Speculate that the cross was raised from the 6th hour, or that the actuall... err... nail pounding started at the 6th hour. it never really said.


Mark 15:25
And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

John 19:14-16
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified.

without looking it up...

I would guess morning.

why? Crucifixtion is a slow, torturous death. doing it in the evening would most likely have someone rescuing them under cover of darkness. thus doing in the morining then letting them hang in the hot sun makes it harder for those people to be rescued.

in the event that the guards cannot stay to watch, the legs are then broken to insure death.

Actually the better question is "What day did he die?" The answer is Wednesday. If you read carefully you will note that the next day was a "Special Sabbath" NOT the weekly Sabbath. In order to get to Friday, people say he did nothing a couple days. Not Likely. With Wednesday It would fall the preparation day for the feast of unleaven bread, rather apropriate. The trial took place overnight Tues PM- Wed AM, he went to the cross at sunrise. The Bible tells what he did Mon and Tues to tick the leaders off. There were actually two feasts that week and the weekly Sabbath. He died on the Feast of Unleaven Bread and arose on the Feast of First Fruits. Also note that the women prepared spices. If he died on Friday and Saturday was the weekly Sabbath and they got to the grave Sun. morning there was no time to buy and prepare spices. They obviously bought and prepared them on Friday. (Thur was a feast) and delivered them as soon as they could. But tradition rules.

Why did he die so fast? He was out of time. He needed to be buried before sundown. He told the Pharisees that the ONLY sign was if he spent 3 days and 3 nights in the grave. Hence buried on Wed sundown and arose Sat sundown. By Sunday he was gone and so were the guards.

Here's the whole thing, so it is more clear that it meant everywhere on Earth.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

But it's supposed to be "divinely inspired". How can something like that be mistranslated, innacurate, and contradictory?

Because people like to add their own twist. It's like a holy game of telephone.

Look at the meanings in the original Hebrew.

Why don't you show them? I've shown a contradiction. You've made up a response.

Are you saying the majority of translations of the Bible are innacurate?

You don't have to go past the first two chapters of Genises to find contradictions, never mind the Gospels.

Mark 15:25
And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

John 19:14-16
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified.

and the contridiction is where... exactly?

21A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. 22They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means The Place of the Skull). 23Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. 24And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.
25It was the third hour when they crucified him. 26The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS. 27They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left.[a] 29Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30come down from the cross and save yourself!"

31In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! 32Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

The Death of Jesus
[B]33At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"[c]

and the contridiction is where... exactly?

Um, 3 and 6 are not the same number. Which is it? was he crucified "at the third hour" or "after the sixth"?

Edit: Your post doesn't asnwer the different number in John.

http://www.chick.com/tractimages66101/1051/1051_12.gif

Jack Chick is scary.

And another number is added. :)

ahgaghgahlahl!!!!! I'm not a Christian, and I'm just taking wild guesses. Hell, according to my religion, God saved Jesus from the cross just before the Romans hammered the nails in.

ahgaghgahlahl!!!!! I'm not a Christian, and I'm just taking wild guesses. Hell, according to my religion, God saved Jesus from the cross just before the Romans hammered the nails in.

And this religion is?

http://www.chick.com/tractimages66101/1051/1051_12.gif

Jack Chick is scary.

LOL I love how he drew the black kid. Kinda reminds me of those racist protyals of blacks in cartoons back in the old days.

And this religion is?

Islam. Believes in Jesus as a prophet (one of the "big three" with Moses and Mohammed) but not as son of God, and not as having died on the cross. Think the way Elijah went up, body and all. That's the Islamic view.

But this thread is about the Bible, so I'm not harping on this particular view.

I do not see how the first two chapters of genisis contradict.

It just restates what it said before.

I do not see how the first two chapters of genisis contradict.

It just restates what it said before.

Reread what has already been posted. First it says God made Adam during the first week, the second says he made him after he rested.

Reread what has already been posted. First it says God made Adam during the first week, the second says he made him after he rested.

It says "When the Lord made the earth and the heavens..." not after the Lord made the earth and the heavens.

1 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their array were completed.

2 Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.

3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work he had done in creation.

4 Such is the story of the heavens and the earth at their creation. At the time when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--

5 while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil,

6 but a stream was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the ground--

7 the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.

8 Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed.

No contradiction.

Really please, don't take the Bible literally. Jesus's teachings were great, and if you actually look at what he said, you can be a truely good person. I love reading about religion, especially eastern religion, like the Dhammapada and Bhagavad Gita, but don't take what is written as historical proof. It is a story with a moral, and oral tradition.

No contradiction.

:rolleyes: You're purposefully ignoring it.

26 Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground."

27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."

29 God also said: "See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;

30 and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food." And so it happened.

31 God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed--the sixth day.

Um, 3 and 6 are not the same number. Which is it? was he crucified "at the third hour" or "after the sixth"?

Edit: Your post doesn't asnwer the different number in John.

answer me this then. The Opening Ceremony for the Olympics occurs, it is a 5 hour program. when is the Olympics officially open. at the start of the Ceremony, at the end, or when the announcer proclaims the Olympics open in the middle of the cremony? ask alot of people and you will get different answers.

who's to say that one account has the crucifixtion at when the nails were pounded into his flesh. (which could account for the three hour difference, since they were doing 3 people and raising the crosses by rope and hand.) or when the third and last cross was raised and fixed into their up right positions?

while I will admit there are contridictions and that some of them can be attributed to translations or politics getting involved, nitpicking over numbers make it sound like you wanted someone standing there with a stopwatch.

*Click*
[stopwatch ticking]
...
*Click*
nope... That's wrong, it's only 71 hours, 12 minutes and 53.04 seconds... that's not 3 days! get your @$$ back in that tomb for another 47 minutes and 6.96 seconds!

*Gets a Laser Scope*
sorry, but your Ark is actually .004 cubits larger than specs say... gotta demolish it and start over...

:D

what was that commercial... where they show Noah gathering the animals and he slaps his neck... looks at his palm and looks at an open jar labeled "Mosquitos" sighs and heads back out...

No contradiction.

How absurd! How can "God created man on the sixth day, rested on the seventh, then realizing there was no man, created man" not be a contradiction?

How absurd! How can "God created man on the sixth day, rested on the seventh, then realizing there was no man, created man" not be a contradiction?

Look at the context of the passage. It is not saying that it occured after the first week, the passage describes what happened on the sixth day in more detail.

you have yet to address mine about how jesus can be both god, and less than god, at the same time.

Look at the context of the passage. It is not saying that it occured after the first week, the passage describes what happened on the sixth day in more detail.

evolution people

I believe in God and evolution. Is there a problem? No. My really atheist friend jokes that I'm a dumbass; the very very religious people I know say I don't have enough faith. SCREW THEM. I say. I believe what I like, and it's consistent.

Who went to Jesus' tomb?

Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Mark 16:1-2 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

What did Mary Magdalene (and company, depending on the source) do after going to Jesus' tomb?

Matthew 28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Luke 24:9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

John 20:18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the LORD, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

Matthew 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Luke 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

John 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

It's all a bit strange.

edit: And yes, I'm terribly bored.

edit #2: This is all from an email a friend sent me several months ago, recapping an argument she'd had with someone on another message board.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”
7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;
15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”
21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”
23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.
31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Genesis Chapter 2
1 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.
2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.4 This is the history[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;
6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being
Foot note: a Genesis 2:4 Hebrew toledoth, literally generations
no contradiction.

-snip-

I concede. You are correct; I saw where I was wrong, however, that doesn't change that it didn't actually happen, it just isn't contradictory.

you have yet to address mine about how jesus can be both god, and less than god, at the same time.

Can you state your contradiction again. please?

Genesis Chapter 2

Foot note: a Genesis 2:4 Hebrew toledoth, literally generations
no contradiction.

sorry to break in again, but that's consistent with the Quranic "seven eons" measurement for creation! Nice fit. If "generation" is meant to be an incredibly long span of time in Hebrew, I guess.

Who went to Jesus' tomb?

Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Mark 16:1-2 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.Mary Magdalene, Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and other women. They all agree on one thing tho. it was the women, not the Diciples that went to the grave.

What did Mary Magdalene (and company, depending on the source) do after going to Jesus' tomb?

Matthew 28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Luke 24:9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

John 20:18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the LORD, and that he had spoken these things unto her.they left the tomb hurridly.

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

Matthew 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Luke 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

John 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

It's all a bit strange.Angels were there.

Remember, each book was written by a different person. if you examine the same news story by 4 different news sources with this same detail, you will have similar differences in the minor details.

sorry to break in again, but that's consistent with the Quranic "seven eons" measurement for creation! Nice fit. If "generation" is meant to be an incredibly long span of time in Hebrew, I guess.

Linky (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=50) New King James Version. not my idea.

but to prove your point, it's not mentioned in the New International Version.

again tho. where's the contridiction in the 6th / 7th day?

Mary Magdalene, Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and other women. They all agree on one thing tho. it was the women, not the Diciples that went to the grave.

they left the tomb hurridly.

Angels were there.

Remember, each book was written by a different person. if you examine the same news story by 4 different news sources with this same detail, you will have similar differences in the minor details.

I agree that they agree on the major things that happened. All I was saying is that the Bible isn't the perfect, infallible thing that some claim. Quite often I hear people claim that the Bible is the word of God, when at most it's the word of people who have been inspired by God. Certainly not to be taken as literal truth in every case.

I concede. You are correct; I saw where I was wrong, however, that doesn't change that it didn't actually happen, it just isn't contradictory.

who's to say it didn't happen...

nothing in the Bible doesn't say that evolution isn't how God works. The timing could be literary licence... but that doesn't mean God didn't create the world...

he could've used his version of a crockpot. Put all the ingredients in and let it stew while he designs other planets. ;)

Does any of this really matter that much? I think the real issue is people believing in it literally, not necessarily the contradictions in it.

People believing in it literally have set science back hundreds of years. The church has killed more than a few scientists over the years, and is still trying to subvert new findings.

I agree that they agree on the major things that happened. All I was saying is that the Bible isn't the perfect, infallible thing that some claim. Quite often I hear people claim that the Bible is the word of God, when at most it's the word of people who have been inspired by God. Certainly not to be taken as literal truth in every case.

While I never claimed that... (and I have argued against those with that idea.) to nitpick some minor details is really... well, petty. In my opinion, it drags eveyone arguing down to the same level.

At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)

Who came?- Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1) vs. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10)

Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2)

Whom did they see at the tomb?- The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12)

Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? -Outside (Matt. 28.2) vs. inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12).

Were they standing or sitting? - Standing (Luke 24:4) vs. sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12).

Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14).

Furthermore, these verses:John 1:18
"No man hath seen God at any time;..."

Exod. 33:11
"And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

John 6:46
"Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is ofGod, he hath seen the Father."

1John 4:12
"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Directly contridict these verses:

Gen. 32:30
"And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

Exod. 33:11
"And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

Num. 14:14
"...that thou LORD art seen face to face,..."

Job 42:5
"I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."

Deut. 34:10
"And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,..."

Deut. 5:4
"The LORD talked with you face to face...."

Not to mention that these verses:Num. 23:19
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."

1Sam. 15:29
"And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent."

Contradict these:Jonah 3:10
"And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

1Sam.15:11
"It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king...."

Exod. 32:14
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Psalms.42:10
"... for I repent me of the evil that I have done unto you."

Gen. 6:6
"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

1Sam. 15:35
"...and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel."

And here are a few more for you to ponder:David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;

Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign;

Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:8), 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:8), 3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);

There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;

There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs of the officers that bare the rule over the people;

Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;

Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);

Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);

Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);

Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000 (1 Kings 7:26), 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:5) baths;

The workers on the Temple had 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16), 3,600 (2 Chron. 2:18) overseers;

The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth forever;

If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true (John 8:14), is not true (John 5:31);

Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 35:24);

Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:28) days;

Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh (2 Kings 25:8), tenth (Jer. 52:12) day of the fifth month.

Does any of this really matter that much? I think the real issue is people believing in it literally, not necessarily the contradictions in it.

Believing in it literally has set science back hundreds of years. Religious Extemists have killed more than a few scientists over the years, and is still trying to subvert new findings.

:cool:

Quoted and altered for truth. ;)

Linky (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=50) New King James Version. not my idea.

but to prove your point, it's not mentioned in the New International Version.

again tho. where's the contridiction in the 6th / 7th day?

No, I agree with you. I'm much more inclined towards a "seven eons" rather than a "seven days" creation. It makes much much more sense, with regard to the knowledge we have about the universe etc.

:cool:

Quoted and altered for truth. ;)

YES. Thanks for the much needed fix.

[list]

Exod. 32:14
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.



WHAT? That's not in the bible!

*flips through pages*

It is "Then the Lord RELENTED and did not bring his people the disaster he had threatened."

:cool:

Quoted and altered for truth. ;)

I'll accept that change. I really did mean "the church" as a general term, though, mostly meaning the catholic church. They were extremists, yes, and not representation of Jesus's teachings, regardless of whether he was the son of God.

While I never claimed that... (and I have argued against those with that idea.) to nitpick some minor details is really... well, petty. In my opinion, it drags eveyone arguing down to the same level.

I never said you did. However, there are those who view the Bible in a legalistic sense and try to interpret specific phrases and words to fit their views, and I use things like that to show them that the Bible can't be taken literally to such an extent. I find that this sort of person doesn't care much about the general message, but use the Bible as an excuse for some sort of decidely un-Christian behavior.

:cool:

Quoted and altered for truth. ;)
LOL
Interesting though, that if not for religion there would be no religious extremists.
So the fact of the matter remains that it is religion that creates the extremists who you have chosen for your scapegoat.

LOL
Interesting though, that if not for religion there would be no religious extremists.
So the fact of the matter remains that it is religion that creates the extremists who you have chosen for your scapegoat.

There are extremists that aren't religious... Religion has done a lot of harm, but it is not the only cause of extremism. The people who were extreme in one view would be extreme in another.

WHAT? That's not in the bible!

It is "Then the Lord RELENTED and did not bring his people the disaster he had threatened."
I disagree.

Exo 32:14
(ASV)
And Jehovah repented of the evil which he said he would do unto his people.

(Bishops)
And the Lorde refrayned hym selfe from the euill whiche he sayd he would do vnto his people.

(CEV)
So even though the LORD had threatened to destroy the people, he changed his mind and let them live.

(Darby)
And Jehovah repented of the evil that he had said he would do to his people.


(DRB) nd the Lord was appeased from doing the evil which he had spoken against his people.

(Geneva)
Then the Lord changed his minde fro the euil, which he threatned to do vnto his people.

(GNB)
So the LORD changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

(GW)
So the LORD reconsidered his threat to destroy his people.

(JPS)
And the LORD repented of the evil which He said He would do unto His people.

(KJV)
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

(KJVA)
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

(KJVR)
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

(MKJV)
And Jehovah repented as to the evil which He spoke of doing to His people.

(RV)
And the LORD repented of the evil which he said he would do unto his people.

(Webster)
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people.

(YLT)
and Jehovah repenteth of the evil which He hath spoken of doing to His people.

LOL
Interesting though, that if not for religion there would be no religious extremists.
So the fact of the matter remains that it is religion that creates the extremists who you have chosen for your scapegoat.

buh

I could just as well say "if it weren't for ideas about social justice as political action, there would be no Bolsheviks." That's bad reasoning. Why blame the good mainstream movement for the fringe crazies?

There are extremists that aren't religious... Religion has done a lot of harm, but it is not the only cause of extremism. The people who were extreme in one view would be extreme in another.
I agree.
However, the person I quoted was attempting to push the 'blame' off religion and onto religious extremists.
This is all well and good.
Except for the fact that without religion he would not have the religious extremists to use as his scapegoat.

Repent in this case means "turn away from" not confess unto a sin.

I'll accept that change. I really did mean "the church" as a general term, though, mostly meaning the catholic church. They were extremists, yes, and not representation of Jesus's teachings, regardless of whether he was the son of God.well, with Religious Exteremists, you also include the Muslim fanatics that insists that insurance is against God. ;)

I never said you did. However, there are those who view the Bible in a legalistic sense and try to interpret specific phrases and words to fit their views, and I use things like that to show them that the Bible can't be taken literally to such an extent. I find that this sort of person doesn't care much about the general message, but use the Bible as an excuse for some sort of decidely un-Christian behavior.I've maintained that people will find their hearts desire in the Bible. you wanna look for reasons to hate, you'll find it in there. You want to find reasons to forgive and accept people for who they are, you'll find that in there also. that's what makes Phelps group believe they are in the right.

LOL
Interesting though, that if not for religion there would be no religious extremists.
So the fact of the matter remains that it is religion that creates the extremists who you have chosen for your scapegoat.well, you can look at it that way... but then you HAVE TO INCLUDE...
Without tools, there would be no weapons.
Without medicine, there would be no Biological weapons.
Without Chemistry, there would be no Chemical Warfare.
Without Knowledge, there would be no Ignorance. (this is a deep one... think about it. ;) )
And without People, there would be no Senseless Violence, Racisim, Greed, Oppression... etc.

buh

I could just as well say "if it weren't for ideas about social justice as political action, there would be no Bolsheviks." That's bad reasoning. Why blame the good mainstream movement for the fringe crazies?

No it isn't.
At least not as bad as attempting to claim that everything you dislike about that particular religion was done by the 'extremists'.

I would say that it is rather likening to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
You are merely claiming that no true follower of the religion would do that, it is the extremists.

I agree.
However, the person I quoted was attempting to push the 'blame' off religion and onto religious extremists.
This is all well and good.
Except for the fact that without religion he would not have the religious extremists to use as his scapegoat.
and you're attempting to Push the blame for everything on to Religion.

see my post above. ;)

Repent in this case means "turn away from" not confess unto a sin.

John Gills Exposition of the Entire Bible:
He did not do what he threatened to do, and seemed to have in his thoughts and designs, but did what Moses desired he would, Exo_32:12 not that any of God's thoughts or the determinations of his mind are alterable;

I agree.
However, the person I quoted was attempting to push the 'blame' off religion and onto religious extremists.
This is all well and good.
Except for the fact that without religion he would not have the religious extremists to use as his scapegoat.

But, see, I don't think the blame should go on religion in it's entirity. Being white isn't the cause for stuff the KKK does. Being American isn't the cause of the Abu Ghraib prison mess. Being Athiest isn't the cause of the problems the USSR had.

You can't push blame on groups based on what certain people did.

No it isn't.
At least not as bad as attempting to claim that everything you dislike about that particular religion was done by the 'extremists'.

I would say that it is rather likening to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
You are merely claiming that no true follower of the religion would do that, it is the extremists.

Strictly speaking, yes. From my own perspective, I can say that every Muslim who has 1) forced someone to convert by the sword, 2) oppressed people of other faiths or 3) killed innocent people is not in fact Muslim, but a sinner in the eyes of God, who sees all people in the world as equal. After all, the definition of Muslim in Arabic is one who submits to the will of God, and God doesn't will oppression and injustice. I could say the same for the teachings of Jesus, which were just and should be a standard for everyone, even the non-religious.

Which is it?

you want me to answer this?

and you're attempting to Push the blame for everything on to Religion.

see my post above. ;)
No I am not.
I was merely pointing out the fact that without religion there would be no religious extremists.
Does this mean that religion should be banned?
I do not think so.

But to make the claim that anything viewed as a negativity concerning religion is because of extremists is merely closing ones eyes to the realities of the world.


Yes there are contradictions in the Bible.
Does this negate the whole of the Bible?
I don't think it does, however there are many who do preach an "all or nothing" attitude towards religion.

But, see, I don't think the blame should go on religion in it's entirity. Being white isn't the cause for stuff the KKK does. Being American isn't the cause of the Abu Ghraib prison mess. Being Athiest isn't the cause of the problems the USSR had.

You can't push blame on groups based on what certain people did.
I agree.
However you cannot put the blame for everything you do not like on extremists either.
And that is my whole point.

No I am not.
I was merely pointing out the fact that without religion there would be no religious extremists.and my post I referenced to points to the same facts as your views.
Does this mean that religion should be banned?
I do not think so.Honestly, I never though you suggested that. Sorry if you got that idea.

But to make the claim that anything viewed as a negativity concerning religion is because of extremists is merely closing ones eyes to the realities of the world.and a blanket blame on religion is sterotyping and generalization.


Yes there are contradictions in the Bible.
Does this negate the whole of the Bible?
I don't think it does, however there are many who do preach an "all or nothing" attitude towards religion.No arguments there.

Strictly speaking, yes. From my own perspective, I can say that every Muslim who has 1) forced someone to convert by the sword, 2) oppressed people of other faiths or 3) killed innocent people is not in fact Muslim, but a sinner in the eyes of God, who sees all people in the world as equal. After all, the definition of Muslim in Arabic is one who submits to the will of God, and God doesn't will oppression and injustice. I could say the same for the teachings of Jesus, which were just and should be a standard for everyone, even the non-religious.

If those Muslims are not Muslims then they are not Muslim extremists then.

If those Muslims are not Muslims then they are not Muslim extremists then.

Okay, good point. I personally wouldn't call them Muslims at all, but the media labels them as such, and they consider themselves the only true Muslims (what a lot of bullshit) so there you go.

and who are the ones giving Religion a bad name? the original post was the Church, which due to the subject of this thread, points to Christians. however, Not all churches nor Christians are the ones pulling science down.

Just like Not all churches produce Religious Fanatics.
The same ones giving their religion a good name.
Those who claim to be doing things because of their religion.

Okay, good point. I personally wouldn't call them Muslims at all, but the media labels them as such, and they consider themselves the only true Muslims (what a lot of bullshit) so there you go.


Mind what people do, not only what they say, for actions can betray a lie.

Just because someone claims to be Muslim/Christian/etc...
this claim alone does not make them Muslim/Christian/etc.

If those Muslims are not Muslims then they are not Muslim extremists then.

if they call themselves Muslims... :rolleyes:

So, if we follow your logic, then at the same time, all those who do things not fitting into one's view of the religion they claim to be apart of, isn't part of that religion. thus religion isn't to blame. ;)

The same ones giving their religion a good name.
Those who claim to be doing things because of their religion.

sorry, re worded my original post. :p

if they call themselves Muslims... :rolleyes:

So, if we follow your logic, then at the same time, all those who do things not fitting into one's view of the religion they claim to be apart of, isn't part of that religion. thus religion isn't to blame. ;)
Actually, this was never my claim.
However it does bring up a very good point.

What makes a Muslim a Muslim?
What makes a Christian a Christian?

Is it merely the claim to be following a certain book?

and my post I referenced to points to the same facts as your views.
Really?
I do not recall telling my views.
I do recall saying that one cannot merely shuffle the blame onto extremists.
The points you referenced merely furthered my point.

Honestly, I never though you suggested that. Sorry if you got that idea.
I didn't.
However I can see where others might, thus this statement by me.

and a blanket blame on religion is sterotyping and generalization.
and shuffling the blame to extremists isn't?

Mind what people do, not only what they say, for actions can betray a lie.

Just because someone claims to be Muslim/Christian/etc...
this claim alone does not make them Muslim/Christian/etc.

Very true. It's the essence of true religion: actions speak louder than words.

Very true. It's the essence of true religion: actions speak louder than words.
Many people assume I am a Christian because of the way I treat others.
They are usually extremely surprised that I am not a Christian because I disagree with a few things the Bible has to say.

Many people assume I am a Christian because of the way I treat others.
They are usually extremely surprised that I am not a Christian because I disagree with a few things the Bible has to say.

In that case, I can say that you're a better Christian by doing what God wants than some who consider themselves Christians. The essence of Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) is charity and kindness. Why more people don't recognize this in America, or the Middle East, or Israel, escapes me. Oh well, God is the final judge of us all, etc.

Actually, this was never my claim.
However it does bring up a very good point.

What makes a Muslim a Muslim?
What makes a Christian a Christian?

Is it merely the claim to be following a certain book?

dunno. I don't judge them. that is for God to do.

I do wonder if those martyers are really being serviced by 47 virgins. :D

dunno. I don't judge them. that is for God to do.

I do wonder if those martyers are really being serviced by 47 virgins. :D

More like 47 dudes with flaming sticks, or something. Why do I get the feeling that these "martyrs" were just frustrated horny 20-somethings who were taken in by the fundamentalist 70 virgins bullshit that isn't even in the Quran? Sad.

If those Muslims are not Muslims then they are not Muslim extremists then.

That's why I don't call Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberson and their followers Christian. They are much closer to the Pharisees that Jesus critisized the most. Remember the people at the time considered the Pharisees the most religious people also. Everyone except God.

Matt 7:22 On that day many will say to me, "Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?" And then will I declare to them, "I never knew you! depart from me, you evil doers."

But as it relates to this web---

Matt 12:25 ....Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.....

So how does God's kingdom stand when he admits that many of it's leaders are divided from real Christianity?

dunno. I don't judge them. that is for God to do.

I do wonder if those martyers are really being serviced by 47 virgins. :D
I think that was rasins actually. I remember a news article that said it was a mistranslation and it was 47 rasins.

SAB's list is here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html
and another here: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html

One of the most well known ones is how Judas died:

Matthew 27:3-8
'Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.'

Here, Judas regrets his actions and returns the money he took to rat on Jesus to the temple, and kills himself. The chief priests use the returned money to buy a field, which becomes known as the 'field of blood' because the money was given to Judas to betray Jesus.

Acts 1:18-19
'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. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.'

Here in Acts he keeps the money, does not regret his actions, and dies an accidental [if not ridiculously violent] death. The field belonged to Judas, and became known as the 'field of blood' because of the violent manner of Judas' death.

Here's some reasoning as to why:

In Matthew where Jesus is depicted as a Davidic king (Matt 1:1; 2:2), Judas's end is depicted as that appropriate for the betrayer of a king. In 2 Sam 17:1-23, for example, Ahithopel betrays David; and when his advice is not followed by the rebels, he hangs himself. Hanging oneself is an appropriate death for one who betrays a king.

According to Luke-Acts where Jesus is understood as the Righteous One (Luke 23:47; Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14), Judas's treachery is understood as twofold. On the one hand, he is the persecutor and betrayer of the Righteous One. Hence he dies from a fall to the ground. As, for example, Wis 4: 16-19 says, those who have contributed to the death of the righteous man will die themselves "because he [God] will dash them speechless to the ground." On the other hand, Judas is seen as having made false accusations against Jesus. Hence, his insides spill out, as Josephus, War 11.3-4 §§ 447-53, has shown is appropriate for such a villain. In Acts 1:18-19, therefore, Judas's end shows how Luke-Acts views his crime. It is making false accusations against the Righteous One.

~ Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts: A literary and theological commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (New York: Crossroads, 1997)

Also, will a copying error do as well?

[b]2 Chronicles 36:22-23
'Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.'

Ezra 1:1-3

'Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the LORD God of Israel, (he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem.'

It rather seems someone was copying the Bible and tacked the first three verses of Ezra onto the end of 2 Chronicles by mistake. Not only that, but they didn't even finish the final sentence, ending 'let him go up.'

You know, whenever I see a mod's name as the last poster in a thread, I always go into it, even if I'm not interested in the topic, just to see if I missed out on seeing a flame war. That's kind of sad, isn't it?

Genesis

There is, however, a different contradiction that most certainly does exist in Genesis, regarding the order the animals were made in:

Genesis 1:25-27

'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. 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. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.'

Right, easy enough, God creates animals, then creates man and woman together and gives them dominion over all animals he just created. Wait...

Genesis 2:18-20

'And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 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. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.'

Now, aside from the essential silliness of God not knowing that the best 'help meet' for a human man might just be a human woman until the human man has rejected every other species in existence , this describes the exact opposite: God creates man, sees he's lonely, and so creates animals to make 'an help meet' for him. After [i]that he creates woman. Also note that God here creates the 'fowl of the air' after man, when in Genesis 1 God creates the fowls of the air on the fifth day [Gen 1:20] and man on the sixth [Gen 1:26].

This is the major difference in the two creation accounts.

snip
You know, I once tried writing a poem (because that's what I do--write poems) that dealt with how Adam and Eve first discovered kissing in concert with sex, as opposed to what an Adam might have learned about sex from the animal kingdom.

It wasn't a very good poem.

Strictly speaking, yes. From my own perspective, I can say that every Muslim who has 1) forced someone to convert by the sword, 2) oppressed people of other faiths or 3) killed innocent people is not in fact Muslim, but a sinner in the eyes of God, who sees all people in the world as equal. After all, the definition of Muslim in Arabic is one who submits to the will of God, and God doesn't will oppression and injustice. I could say the same for the teachings of Jesus, which were just and should be a standard for everyone, even the non-religious.

An example of whats wrong with christianity. However, I salute you for being reasonable by saying "should" instead of the "you will" as an extremist would.

I do not see how anything anyone has posted here thus far contradict.
Because I'm ignoring it!
It hurts my sensibilities and causes cognitive dissonance to face these things!
lalalalalalala! I can't hear or see you!
edited for accuracy.

I think that was rasins actually. I remember a news article that said it was a mistranslation and it was 47 rasins.

:headbang: Great... thanks... Now I got "I've Heard It on the Grapevine" being sung by those blasted rasins stuck in my head! :headbang:

There is, however, a different contradiction that most certainly does exist in Genesis, regarding the order the animals were made in:

Genesis 1:25-27

'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. 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. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.'

Right, easy enough, God creates animals, then creates man and woman together and gives them dominion over all animals he just created. Wait...

Genesis 2:18-20

'And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 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. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.'

Now, aside from the essential silliness of God not knowing that the best 'help meet' for a human man might just be a human woman until the human man has rejected every other species in existence , this describes the exact opposite: God creates man, sees he's lonely, and so creates animals to make 'an help meet' for him. After [i]that he creates woman. Also note that God here creates the 'fowl of the air' after man, when in Genesis 1 God creates the fowls of the air on the fifth day [Gen 1:20] and man on the sixth [Gen 1:26].

This is the major difference in the two creation accounts.
ok, let's break it down...

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
note: Had Formed... PAST TENSE. so it can be looked at that they were already created and thus the lord brought the animals to Adam for the naming.


then Lets look at the last part of Verse 20 But for Adam [g] no suitable helper was found.

so ADAM found no suitable helper... NOT GOD, but Adam. now this is speculation on my part, however, it does seem consistant with how God does things.

God could've created Woman right on the onset. but didn't... why? if he had, would not Adam then be the lord and the woman his servant? that's possibly one thing that could've happened. (the fact that most Muslim and some Religious Extremists also view women and being subservant to man does make it seem possible.)

so God shows him all the animals, birds, fishes, etc... and in turn, shows ADAM that there is non that can serve as a Helper... not servant, helper. then he creates woman.

no where, untill the casting out of the Garden, does it ever indicate that Eve was anything less than Adam.

now, your Sheep comment...
your sheep comment reminded me of a Play by mail game a friend of mine was doing. Each person started with a small group of people and a map of the area they were at. so like Civilization, they had to build their own towns and make the necessary discoveries...

one player gave a very discriptive narritive of what he wanted his people to do.

like... tools, they would create several bits for their hand powered tools... and this would include (with illustrations) the Stone Bit, the Wood Bit, and the Naughty Bit.

another had one man running to his friend who was... standing behind a Ruminant.
"Hey John, We've found another use for sheep... WOOL!"

You know, I once tried writing a poem (because that's what I do--write poems) that dealt with how Adam and Eve first discovered kissing in concert with sex, as opposed to what an Adam might have learned about sex from the animal kingdom.

It wasn't a very good poem.
sounds interesting... if you want, you can TG it to me. :D

You know, whenever I see a mod's name as the last poster in a thread, I always go into it, even if I'm not interested in the topic, just to see if I missed out on seeing a flame war. That's kind of sad, isn't it?
kinda like a train wreak... you don't want to see the carnage... but you just can't help but look... and look... and look...

note: Had Formed... PAST TENSE. so it can be looked at that they were already created and thus the lord brought the animals to Adam for the naming.

Well, if we're getting into which version of the Bible we need to use to find contraditions or refuting one Bible's contradictions with another, we're opening up a whole other can of napalm.

Moses wrote Deut.

Deut 34:5 So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab according to the word of the Lord and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Bethpeor; but no man knows the place of his burial to this day......


Moses wrote about his own death?

This is only assuming Moses wrote the Pentateuch in its entirety, which of course is difficult to conceive of a man writing of his own death. Clearly, the possibility of someone else finishing what Moses started is not out of the realm of reality.

sounds interesting... if you want, you can TG it to me. :D

Don't think I have it anymore--probably the victim of a couple of moves and computer changes.

I remember that one of my friends (a fairly devout catholic) had been really hacking me off lately. Plus he kept on objecting to the fact that I'm spiritual, but don't believe in God, Jesus, Allah, whichever one you like. So I went to google to find contradictions in the bible.

Next day I handed him several sheets of the things.

Over 36 A4 pages. (There was more but I was tired and the printer ran out of paper.)

Here are a few:

http://www.islamway.com/english/images/library/contradictions.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Well, if we're getting into which version of the Bible we need to use to find contraditions or refuting one Bible's contradictions with another, we're opening up a whole other can of napalm.which one are you using?
Edited: Nevermind. the fact that each different Version is different, goes back to my post #82. while I will admit there are contridictions and that some of them can be attributed to translations or politics getting involved, nitpicking over numbers make it sound like you wanted someone standing there with a stopwatch.

so this contradiction might be a result of "Lost in Translation" which is possible.

Don't think I have it anymore--probably the victim of a couple of moves and computer changes.

:( too bad...

which one are you using?

KJV. Which some of the less sane inerrantists [such as Jack Chick] claim is the only real Bible anyway, despite that it contains the aforementioned 2 Chronicles / Ezra copying error.

so this contradiction might be a result of "Lost in Translation" which is possible.

It might also be because of Tuscan Whole Milk (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00032G1S0), much like the Gulf War and the death of Steve Irwin.

dunno. I don't judge them. that is for God to do.

I do wonder if those martyers are really being serviced by 47 virgins. :D
I thought it was 47 Virginians?

if they call themselves Muslims... :rolleyes:

So, if we follow your logic, then at the same time, all those who do things not fitting into one's view of the religion they claim to be apart of, isn't part of that religion. thus religion isn't to blame. ;)


Not at all. If someone claims to be a member of a group that does not want to claim him, then does something based on what he believes to be the ideology of that group, the IDEOLOGY is still the cause of what is done.

It may be that the extremist's interpretation is a bad one, but the reason he even has one is because of religion. So religion is to blame.

KJV. Which some of the less sane inerrantists [such as Jack Chick] claim is the only real Bible anyway, despite that it contains the aforementioned 2 Chronicles / Ezra copying error.Nice. I tend to cross reference between various versions... Including NKJV. the KJV does contain alot of errors, due to the fact that those translating for it didn't have access to alot of the original scriptures, but the translations are closer to the orignal.

Schnurbart!

A lot of these contradictions have been acredited to copy errors, mistranslations and such...

My question is, how does that not make them contradictions? An error is still an error, no matter what causes it. If the bible is, as the OP seems to suggest, NOT laden with errors, how is it that every single version IS laden with errors of one sort or another? If divinely inspired, at what point did God wash her hands of the whole thing and say "Well, I tried, you screwed it up, live with it."?

I suppose the real question here is, can anyone point to a version that is accurate? That does not have these errors, and by comparison to which we can see what the errors are? And if not, if no such version exists, then how can the claim that there are no contradictions be supported in light of the mounds of evidence to the contrary?

Why does the bible say pi=3?

Apostles: sandles and staff or no sandles sans staff?

maybe the Isrealites weren't great mathmeticians.

And the apostles only wore sandles, staffs had been out of fashion for centuries.

Not at all. If someone claims to be a member of a group that does not want to claim him, then does something based on what he believes to be the ideology of that group, the IDEOLOGY is still the cause of what is done.

It may be that the extremist's interpretation is a bad one, but the reason he even has one is because of religion. So religion is to blame.

and you are also painting everything with one brush. so, like Mestemia, you also believe that...

Tools are to be blamed for Weapons.
Medicine is to be blamed for Biological Weapons.
Science is to be blamed for Chemical Warfare.
Knowledge is to be blamed for Ignorance.

A lot of these contradictions have been acredited to copy errors, mistranslations and such...

My question is, how does that not make them contradictions? An error is still an error, no matter what causes it. If the bible is, as the OP seems to suggest, NOT laden with errors, how is it that every single version IS laden with errors of one sort or another? If divinely inspired, at what point did God wash her hands of the whole thing and say "Well, I tried, you screwed it up, live with it."?

I suppose the real question here is, can anyone point to a version that is accurate? That does not have these errors, and by comparison to which we can see what the errors are? And if not, if no such version exists, then how can the claim that there are no contradictions be supported in light of the mounds of evidence to the contrary?
while I don't agree with the OP on the Bible being FLAWLESS, I do disagree on some of the nitpicking that goes on to prove the bible to be filled with Flaws and errors.

as for a true version? simple. the Dead Sea Scrolls. Unfortunatly, not everyone can read it. and thus needs to rely on... yep... Translations. ;)

Nice. I tend to cross reference between various versions... Including NKJV. the KJV does contain alot of errors, due to the fact that those translating for it didn't have access to alot of the original scriptures, but the translations are closer to the orignal.

Ah, found it:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp

Switch your brain to neutral, there's nothing for it there. And still, things like Mark and John having entirely different accounts of what Jesus did after his baptism [Mark says he immediately went into the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights, John that he visited John the Baptist again the next day, chose some disciples and then went to a wedding where he turned water into wine] and the totally different accounts of Judas' death are harder to write off.

As is the 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18 discrepancy, where one says David slew 700 chariots and the other 7,000, which is probably due to Samuel itself being full of textual problems.

The OP asked for contradictions within the text, after all. The doctrine of inerrance is a terrible way to try to read the Bible, since it largely involves mutilating plain text to whatever meaning make it 'harmonious' regardless of whether or not that meaning actually makes the slightest bit of sense, and / or abusing alternate word forms without paying attention to context. It's a form of circular logic; inerrancy is assumed, so any error or contradiction must not be no matter how torturous, forced and nonsensical the 'harmonisation' ends up being.

I also find it hilarious that Word's spellcheck suggests 'ignorance' as the correct spelling for 'inerrancy.'

while I don't agree with the OP on the Bible being FLAWLESS, I do disagree on some of the nitpicking that goes on to prove the bible to be filled with Flaws and errors.

as for a true version? simple. the Dead Sea Scrolls. Unfortunatly, not everyone can read it. and thus needs to rely on... yep... Translations. ;)

My understanding is that the Dead Sea Scrolls are both incomplete, and also (at least in part) translations of earlier documents.

My point was that there is no "one true version" or everybody would be using it. But some folks swear that the KJV is it, others insist that it is not and point to their own favorite... and would argue with you that their particular translation is the true version, which, of course, none of them are. Heck, the Mormons think THEIR version is correct, and a great deal of it was not mistranslated, but flat out rewritten.

Yes, there is a lot of nitpicking, I agree. But if you hold something up as the epitome of something, it needs to be able to withstand a great deal of nitpicking. In many cases, the bible can't stand up to the claims made about it.

If it were generally considered to be a piece of literature with some good (and some not so good) ideas in it, and not held up as "the rules by which everyone MUST live", the world would be a better place.

Ah, found it:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp

Switch your brain to neutral, there's nothing for it here. And still, things like Mark and John having entirely different accounts of what Jesus did after his baptism [Mark says he immediately went into the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights, John that he visited John the Baptist again the next day, chose some disciples and then went to a wedding where he turned water into wine] and the totally different accounts of Judas' death are harder to write off.

As is the 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18 discrepancy, where one says David slew 700 chariots and the other 7,000, which is probably due to Samuel itself being full of textual problems.

The OP asked for contradictions within the text, after all. The doctrine of inerrance is a terrible way to try to read the Bible, since it largely involves mutilating plain text to whatever meaning make it 'harmonious' regardless of whether of not that meaning actually makes the slightest bit of sense, and / or abusing alternate word forms without paying attention to context. It's a form of circular logic; inerrancy is assumed, so any error or contradiction must not be no matter how torturous, forced and nonsensical the 'harmonisation' ends up being.

I also find it hilarious that Word's spellcheck suggests 'ignorance' as the correct spelling for 'inerrancy.'and again, I never claimed the bible (the translated works, including the KJV) to be error free. I prove what I can, but I also accept that there are "errors" in the Bible.

I was saying Nice, because I too was Raised with the KJV. while the KJV has errors in it, it's still closer to the original.

BibleStudy.org (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html)

Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV.

The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV errors, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are much, much worse!

and you are also painting everything with one brush. so, like Mestemia, you also believe that...

Tools are to be blamed for Weapons.
Medicine is to be blamed for Biological Weapons.
Science is to be blamed for Chemical Warfare.
Knowledge is to be blamed for Ignorance.


Well, no, personally I don't believe any of that, I was merely pointing out where your theory (well, it wasn't yours so much as the poster you were responding to) went awry.

Religion, like any of the other things you posit, is only bad when used for bad purposes. Ultimately, the blame rests in the people who use it. Whether those people are members of a religious group or simply consider themselves to be, in the end, each person is responsible for his own actions, no matter what prompts those actions.

In the case of Muslim extremists (who the other poster said were NOT Muslim, and you then replied that meant that religion was not the cause of their actions), no matter what others think of them, religion WAS the reason they acted as they did, but the responsibility for those actions rests in the individuals, not the ideology.

I think we are agreeing here.

My understanding is that the Dead Sea Scrolls are both incomplete, and also (at least in part) translations of earlier documents.

My point was that there is no "one true version" or everybody would be using it. But some folks swear that the KJV is it, others insist that it is not and point to their own favorite... and would argue with you that their particular translation is the true version, which, of course, none of them are. Heck, the Mormons think THEIR version is correct, and a great deal of it was not mistranslated, but flat out rewritten.

Yes, there is a lot of nitpicking, I agree. But if you hold something up as the epitome of something, it needs to be able to withstand a great deal of nitpicking. In many cases, the bible can't stand up to the claims made about it.

If it were generally considered to be a piece of literature with some good (and some not so good) ideas in it, and not held up as "the rules by which everyone MUST live", the world would be a better place.name any "Epitome" that is without errors, and also, without "Updating" for how can an something be an "Epitome" if it's consistantly changing?

and again, I never claimed the bible (the translated works, including the KJV) to be error free. I prove what I can, but I also accept that there are "errors" in the Bible.

Ya. Apparently, the problems in Samuel are actually in the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves, not just in the translations. It's possible to rationalise a lot of the errors in the Bible as being simple nitpicking. The matter of Pi=3, for example, isn't a technically a contradiction because there's nowhere the Bible says Pi is anything else. Also, it can only be called an error if, as 7-day creationism tends to do, you set up a false dilemma where the scripture is either absolutely accurate or absolutely useless.

The major contradictions are generally regarding hearsay: for example, neither Matthew nor Luke claim to have witnessed the death of Judas or what he did in the Temple, so it's likely they just heard and recorded the story which they thought best suited his crime. If you take the Bible as being in part an account of stories surrounding various figures documented by people with views on those stories, that makes sense; just look at all the modern theories that could be recorded about the death of JFK.

The trouble is the inerrantist wants more, he wants complete accuracy because he believes God wouldn't allow two Bible-writers to hear different stories about the same event or have different opinions about it; that would supposedly undermine the 'truth' of the accounts. This is judging the Bible by standards of absolute accuracy: it's not enough that both accounts existed to be reported, the inerrantist says both must also be factual, and gets to work vandalising the obvious meaning of the scripture to fit his agenda, usually by trying to compress the two accounts into one.

It's the dishonest approach of treating the Bible as a collection of facts rather than a collection of stories that results in the all-or-nothing approach that calls minor errors disproof of the entire message, and inerrantists are as guilty of using it as anyone who's ever done the old Pi=3 routine.

Well, no, personally I don't believe any of that, I was merely pointing out where your theory (well, it wasn't yours so much as the poster you were responding to) went awry.

Religion, like any of the other things you posit, is only bad when used for bad purposes. Ultimately, the blame rests in the people who use it. Whether those people are members of a religious group or simply consider themselves to be, in the end, each person is responsible for his own actions, no matter what prompts those actions.

In the case of Muslim extremists (who the other poster said were NOT Muslim, and you then replied that meant that religion was not the cause of their actions), no matter what others think of them, religion WAS the reason they acted as they did, but the responsibility for those actions rests in the individuals, not the ideology.

I think we are agreeing here.I agree with the bolded areas.

the history of this argument thread is that this was posted.
Does any of this really matter that much? I think the real issue is people believing in it literally, not necessarily the contradictions in it.

People believing in it literally have set science back hundreds of years. The church has killed more than a few scientists over the years, and is still trying to subvert new findings.

I altered the work Church to read Religious Extremists. after all, this is a christian focused thread. thus the line altered is pointing to Just Christians.

then Mestema posted...
LOL
Interesting though, that if not for religion there would be no religious extremists.
So the fact of the matter remains that it is religion that creates the extremists who you have chosen for your scapegoat.thus shifting the blame from those who use religion for destructive things, to mean all religion. disreguarding alot of good was also done in the name of religion.

and he follows up with
I agree.
However, the person I quoted was attempting to push the 'blame' off religion and onto religious extremists.
This is all well and good.
Except for the fact that without religion he would not have the religious extremists to use as his scapegoat.

to which I replied with this.
well, you can look at it that way... but then you HAVE TO INCLUDE...
Without tools, there would be no weapons.
Without medicine, there would be no Biological weapons.
Without Chemistry, there would be no Chemical Warfare.
Without Knowledge, there would be no Ignorance. (this is a deep one... think about it. )
And without People, there would be no Senseless Violence, Racisim, Greed, Oppression... etc.

If those Muslims are not Muslims then they are not Muslim extremists then.now here he's trying to Nitpick and play with definitions. They call themselves Muslims, they take their acts to the extreme (Convert or Die!) So they are "Muslim Extremists."

Now, the reason why I don't agree with using Religion as a basis for all the world's problems is because there is alot of groups doing good because of their Religious beliefs. it's just that almost all of them don't get the "Air time" that those who do evil in God's Name get. so to blame Religion is to belittle their work. something that shouldn't be done.

Ya. Apparently, the problems in Samuel are actually in the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves, not just in the translations. It's possible to rationalise a lot of the errors in the Bible as being simple nitpicking. The matter of Pi=3, for example, isn't a technically a contradiction because there's nowhere the Bible says Pi is anything else. Also, it can only be called an error if, as 7-day creationism tends to do, you set up a false dilemma where the scripture is either absolutely accurate or absolutely useless.

The major contradictions are generally regarding hearsay: for example, neither Matthew nor Luke claim to have witnessed the death of Judas or what he did in the Temple, so it's likely they just heard and recorded the story which they thought best suited his crime. If you take the Bible as being in part an account of stories surrounding various figures documented by people with views on those stories, that makes sense; just look at all the modern theories that could be recorded about the death of JFK.

The trouble is the inerrantist wants more, he wants complete accuracy because he believes God wouldn't allow two Bible-writers to hear different stories about the same event or have different opinions about it; that would supposedly undermine the 'truth' of the accounts. This is judging the Bible by standards of absolute accuracy: it's not enough that both accounts existed to be reported, the inerrantist says both must also be factual, and gets to work vandalising the obvious meaning of the scripture to fit his agenda, usually by trying to compress the two accounts into one.

It's the dishonest approach of treating the Bible as a collection of facts rather than a collection of stories that results in the all-or-nothing approach that calls minor errors disproof of the entire message, and inerrantists are as guilty of using it as anyone who's ever done the old Pi=3 routine.agreed totally. while some percieved contridictions are nitpicking or misreading. (those I try to correct.) the rest can be because the Bible was written by many minds, many accounts and many hands. thus there will be contridicitons and errors.

That's why I hold Bible literalist in the same boat as Extremists. and now I'll add inerrantist, since I didn't think there were any out there like that...

Bottom line is, the bible is NOT the literal word of god. Using that fact, it's possible god had NOTHING to do with the creation of said bible, considering that if he were to inspire someone to write something, you'd think he would make damn sure he got it right, and make sure it stayed that way through translation.

But that didn't happen, so it's obviously a fallable piece of man's attempts to control his fellow man by talking bullshit he knows nothing about in the face of unanswerable questions such as "where did we come from" and "why are we here". Some just can't accept the phrase "I don't know".

As a Christian all these contradictions used to bug the hell out of me. However i've come up with a solution that satisfies me: The Bible is not the literal word of God, nor is it a history. The Bible is a set of stories that we should attempt to guide our lives with.

With that said, I believe in Jesus Christ as the "literal" savior. However his disciples were human and prone to error. Now regarding all the mistakes (Even "The Lords Prayer" varies between the books for God's sake:confused: ) The disciples weren't writing as they went. This was probably all written after Jesus died (probably some time after), and their memories were a little fuzzy. If this was all some hoax perpetrated by someone for some reason, I would think they'd do a better job of it. I know i could.

And to all you Christians who think the Bible is the literal truth, YOU ARE IN DENIAL!!! Thank you and goodnight.