Prove that the Bible is full of contradictions-- I double dare you!

[eman]

You got to be kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!! the Bible is full of crap and contradictions,let me use the words of the so called good book the Bible:
Genesis 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eatest therof THOU SHALT SURELY DIE.

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that
adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.


(how could Adam live to the ripe old age of 930 years )


I guess what he ment to say was thou shalt surley die after 930 years.

[InChristAlways]

Originally Posted by eman

You got to be kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!! the Bible is full of crap and contradictions,let me use the words of the so called good book the Bible:
Genesis 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eatest therof THOU SHALT SURELY DIE.

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that
adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.


(how could Adam live to the ripe old age of 930 years )


I guess what he ment to say was thou shalt surley die after 930 years.

He eventually died didn't he?

Genesis 2:17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou shalt die.'

[I, Brian]

Thanks for the post, and welcome to CR, eman - but if you don't tone your attitude you'll likely find your posts removed and your account banned.

We expect civility here - please try to ensure any following posts try to keep with that.

[wil]

aw comeon Brian....the title of the thread was bound to elicit the response eventually....

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Thanks for the post, and welcome to CR, eman - but if you don't tone your attitude you'll likely find your posts removed and your account banned.

We expect civility here - please try to ensure any following posts try to keep with that.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by wil

aw comeon Brian....the title of the thread was bound to elicit the response eventually....

I know, but better to keep the discussing as a dicussion, rather than a simple series of condemnations of one view or another.

[eman]

Originally Posted by eman

You got to be kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!! the Bible is full of crap and contradictions,let me use the words of the so called good book the Bible:
Genesis 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof THOU SHALT SURELY DIE.

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that
adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.


(how could Adam live to the ripe old age of 930 years )


I guess what he ment to say was thou shalt surley die after 930 years.

I am sorry for the Tude, You said he eventually died. Well let me get it right this time Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. - again sorry for the attitude.

[eman]

Matthew 4:1
Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Contradiction:


James 2:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

Spirit=God. God is saying he cannot tempt any one but: "Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil."

The Spirit is trying to put Jesus in to a position to be tempted, and yet clearly states : neither tempteth he any man.

King James Version.

[eman]

Hitler wrote a book to and we all know that it is a bad book, but even so there must be some positive things in the book : keep your self in good physical condition, keep faith in God (Hitler was a christian) but the book is a bad book not because he was a christian but how he seperated him self and the Germanic people from the rest of the world. Well the Bible does that in spades and makes Hitler look like a Boyscout. There is more rape,punishment,genocide and just horrible treatment of the childeren of God from God himself. If you dare (not you personally) read more then what you learn in sunday school, like all the other stuff you will never here in sunday school you would be appauled. I like to be objective and look at all that is in the Bible.

As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing.-Chester Dolan.

p.s. sorry about my other post I am not trying to anger anyone.

[InChristAlways]

Originally Posted by eman You got to be kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!! the Bible is full of c*** and contradictions,let me use the words of the so called good book the Bible:..............I like to be objective and look at all that is in the Bible.

Hi eman. Does that include looking at the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation? You say the Bible is full of C*** and contradictions but yet you say you want to be "objective" about it

For example, what do you think would be different from the old heaven and earth/Jerusalem and new heaven and earth/New Jerusalem in the below passages from the Bible.

I may not full understand or comprehend them, but I believe in what God wrote here.
Any thoughts or views on this? Thanks.
Steve

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning of God's preparing [#01254] the heavens and the earth--..... 31 Then God saw everything that He had made [#06213], and indeed [it was] very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Isaiah 65:17 " For behold, I create [#01254] new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. 18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create [#01254]; For behold, I create [#01254] Jerusalem [as] a rejoicing, And her people a joy.

Revelation 21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by eman

Matthew 4:1
Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Contradiction:


James 2:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

Spirit=God. God is saying he cannot tempt any one but: "Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil."

The Spirit is trying to put Jesus in to a position to be tempted, and yet clearly states : neither tempteth he any man.

King James Version.

first of all, god the father in heaven cannot be tempted for he is holy and where evil cannot be. however, when god sent his spirit to mary, gods son was born on earth to live like we do, to be tempted like are, and to die like we do for a very important reason-- he is the messiah. he was born half of gods spirit which made him king of kings and perfect (free from sin) and the other half human which allowed him to sympathize with us, to walk and talk among us, to allow eyewitnesses of his works to be written and proclaimed, and to be the high priest for us; to teach us and to die for our sins as the ultimate sacrifice where no more is needed, just asking him for forgiveness, since he paid the price for all of us, and to be resurrected back to glory with the father--all being gods plan which the prophets had foretold.

[eman]

I never said god could be tempted.

I quoted the bible.
James 2:13
let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of god, for god cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

(he is saying he cannot be tempted by evil and he will not temp any man,yet he is clearly trying to temp jesus in Matthew 4:1)

the contradiction:

Matthew 4:1
Then was jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

(So if jesus was sent to live like us and be tempted like us then got cannot temp him either)

enjoying this site and thank you for your time.

[BlaznFattyz]

because god is holy and good, he cannot tempt with evil as it is nonexistant within his being. however, he may allow satan to try to tempt his children even his son to prove a point, that satan may have worldly possesions and these things that pass away but the souls of his children belong to god forever.

[eman]

[QUOTE=Bandit]hey revmark and welcome to the boards at CR

i have seen that book but i would not pay a nickel for it and i would not even debate there claims if i was paid a million dollars, well maybe for 2 million $ . it does not follow the story and order of events at all. They pick and choose what contradicts without filling in the blanks with other scripture. SAB has also not done there homework in the original greek and hebrew.

May Adam eat from any tree?Adam may eat from every tree. There is one tree from which Adam may not eat.

I hardly consider things like this a contradiction. If someone else wants to then more power to them.
One nice thing about it, it keeps the believers on there toes[/QUOTE


You say that that site "does not follow the story and order of the events" What bible do you read? I am useing KJV, The bible if read from the first page to the last page OUT OF ORDER in places thats one of the reasons no one can agree on any thing. A good example of this is again " the Bible itself"

The book of Genesis has two different versions of creation, that make no sense, one says annimals were created first and the other says that they were created second? The bible is not a clearly written book, you would think that if there is a god that promesis to punish you on earth and punish you even after you die unless you comply with the bible, you would think he would want us to understand the bible instead of makeing it out of order and full of nonesensical Verses like :

Genesis 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Genesis 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

to say that site does not follow the story and order of events, well I would like someone to put these two verses in some kind of context or order that make sense to anyone!!!!


Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of gook and evil,thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years and he died.

( I guess what god ment to say was if you eat from that tree you will surely have childeren and die at a ripe old age of 930 years.)

My point is if you (I do not mean you personally) are to defend the bible sometimes you do it out of order of events so turnabout is fair play.

I guess we are all looking for truth, none of us have the answer. I think its all about the search.

[E99]

Hi e-man

Your quote:
You say that that site "does not follow the story and order of the events" What bible do you read? I am useing KJV, The bible if read from the first page to the last page OUT OF ORDER in places thats one of the reasons no one can agree on any thing. A good example of this is again " the Bible itself"



As Bandit implies, and some of the previous posts state, the main reason that the so called contradictions come about, is that the various anti-biblical websites nitpick on the translated version, They extrapolate, disregarding deliberately, or through ignorance, the context given by the original languages.


The atheists aim is to attempt to disprove Gods existance, and a main starting point is to belittle the scriptures by the easiest means that they can find. In most cases, the assumed contradictions are based on the English translation. For example, taking the English translation from the Hebrew in the OT does not always give us the full sense of what was naturally taken as the clear understanding by the ancient Hebrews, because the scholars that do the translating can only put across to us a fairly good 'perception' about the writings, but they cannot give the definate literal concept that the Hebrews had. We get the main sense of it all though. Pulling out contradictions from the readily available translations of the bible can be likened to picking holes in a fairly accurate film about Jesus, instead of from the actual written accounts about him.


IMHO, bibles should be plastered with footnotes for the more controversial and important translated texts, thus giving the reasonings regarding the original words, and especially so the grammar that gives a greater understanding of the meaning. However, if the scriptures are God inspired writings as I believe, and many other Christians believe through their faith and understanding, then God has made certain that the concept of his truths after translation will hit us anyway..... if we do as he asks ..."take in accurate knowledge of God and his son." John 17:3. Therefore some take it as belief that the word of the bible is pure, and inerrant because it is from God.


Furthermore, atheists will nitpick about trivialities on obvious minor transcribal anomalies that do not actually disrupt the context of the passages in the scriptures, which is the important factor. The context and the theme of the bible has never been damaged to its detriment. Another tactic is that they fail to put in the surrounding verses that give context to the one verse that they promote as contradictional.

[E99]

Hi e-man. To follow on from my previous post.

Your quote:
The book of Genesis has two different versions of creation, that make no sense, one says annimals were created first and the other says that they were created second?



No, sorry, it doesn't, espescially if you look at the original Hebrew language and read into the actual wording. Take a deep breath and please analyse the following.......



Genesis 2:4 "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."



Is this actually the start of a contradictional and different rendering of the first creation account ? A second account ? No, The first account is a definate creation account. The second is not wholey a creation account, but a historical resume'. Its specific...to Adam.



The Hebrew word rendered history at Genesis 2:4 is 'toledot'. Its meaning is the same as found later on in Genesis where it describes the 'generations of '.....lineage. The connotation of this word implies a historical succession of events.
Genesis 2:4 onwards is not a repetititon of a different creation account, but a specific historical account from a different angle, a short step back in time looking at the first man and regarding the uncultivated earth and cultivated land, formation of creatures for him to name, and the preparation of Eden. On these points it recaps on parts of the first creation. For a start the so called second creation account does not have any mention of creation of light, luminaries, sea creatures etc. Its entire concept is different and is intended to be so.

The false idea that there are two creations is based mainly on these scriptures:

First occurence:
Gen. 1:24-5 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 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."

Straight forward ... All creatures before man.

Second occurence:

Gen. 2:18-20 "And the 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 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."


This seems to imply that God had formed the creatures after man, and hence a second obscure creation account.

There are two reasonings given to answer the supposed contradiction......


Should the verb highlighted be rendered in the past tense as 'Formed' ?....The Hebrew verb 'Yatsar' (to form) has more than often been rendered in the past tense as 'formed.' in most bibles. This seems to say that the animals had been formed after Adam, but in relation to the context of the verse and of the obvious creation of other animals before man, found in Genesis 1:24,25......The true sense of utilising 'yatsar' in Genesis 2 :18-20 is to apply this verb as 'had formed' (every beast etc.) It is giving a record of God bringing the animals he had already formed to Adam so that they can be named, and not a rehash of the first creation account.
Yatsar,'to form,' can by the rules of Hebrew to English translation, be transliterated in the pluperfect form 'had formed', so it can grammatically and rightfully reads as.......

"Now God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air."

The second analysis of the verb 'yatsar' is that the past tense 'formed' is used logically, in that it is saying that God prior to making a 'helper' for Adam, would first bring the animals to Adam to name. ...God, without disturbing the animals that he had already created living outside of Eden, with his omnipotent abilities, formed the animals as special direct creations for Adam to name there and then. So the verb ' formed' in this context is sensible, and the Genesis creation account here is proven to be theologically sound, and grammatically correct.


Both reasonings are logical, for the sea creatures are not mentioned at all and show that the second account is not referring to the creation of all animals as mentioned in the true creation account in Genesis 1, but only to the animals that could be put before Adam. This shows that it is indeed an account referring to a historical view specifically surrounding Adam, Eden, and naming the animals etc.

Both ideas dispel any notion of a second creation account.


Your quote:
The bible is not a clearly written book, you would think that if there is a god that promesis to punish you on earth and punish you even after you die unless you comply with the bible, you would think he would want us to understand the bible instead of makeing it out of order and full of nonesensical Verses like :

Genesis 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Genesis 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.




I thinketh... Ye have got grate difficulty with a bible that uses oldy worldy Englifh.

Actually its not Genesis, but Exodus.

It is clearer to read it so that we can understand it......

Exodus 21:15 And one who strikes his father and his mother is to be put to death without fail.

Exodus 21:17 And one who calls down evil upon his father and his mother is to be put to death without fail.

I'm not certain what your beef is with these verses, but if its because you wonder why God would have an Israelite put to death for disobedience, only to go to a hell to be punished further, then I see your point, because the bible does not actually teach that there is a hell. This is a translational, and subsequent theological error. eg. the Hebrew word for hell is sheol, and the Greek word is hades. Neither mean a fiery place of torment. Each means a grave. What do the scriptures actually say about death ?...
Ecclesiastes 9:5 "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten." And does God really torture ?...God is love. Don't only dwell on the assumed negative, check out the other positive attributes about God in the scriptures also, and see what he is really about. He does not wantonly punish, or hand over punishment to Satan to meter out blatant torture. He has laid down laws for our own benefit. The laws of the OT however, were specifically for the nation of Israel.
Laws based on the OT laws..... Love for one another was made to be more profound in the NT on fulfilment of the old covenant, opened up to all of us on the coming of Christ.
Similarly the laws of the road are for our own benefit (exempting speed cameras !) We don't like some of the rules, but chaos would ensue if we each individually made up our own rules on the road, and chaos is what will be the final outcome of our society, as we gradually make up our own rules without considering Gods laws.

The understanding about God won't come by only looking at sites that give a bias anti-God view. God doesn't hand us everything on a silver plate. True the bible is not initially clear, this is deliberate. It becomes clearer when you take in the "accurate knowledge" He tests our faith by making us work at everything, finding out things. We are not a brain in a jar to be waited upon and simply given the knowledge by God. He created us with a working body and inquisitive mind, and attributes to go out and seek, find, experience and learn, and he expects us to make use of what he gave us.

Your quote:
to say that site does not follow the story and order of events, well I would like someone to put these two verses in some kind of context or order that make sense to anyone!!!!


Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of gook and evil,thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years and he died.

( I guess what god ment to say was if you eat from that tree you will surely have childeren and die at a ripe old age of 930 years.)



We need to get an understanding of the word "Day"........"In the day" of Adam is figurative. Day can mean 24 hours, but it also means a period of time.......I assume that you mean that Adam should have died on the solar 24 hour day that he ate the 'forbidden' fruit, because the English translation seems to imply this. Day is translated from the the Hebrew word 'Yohm,' (ium) It is well recognised amongst scholars of Hebrew that 'Yohm' (day) refers to an unspecified period of time, but if the context of the surrounding scriptures and chapters etc. allows it, it can mean a 24 hour period. Our word day does not always mean a straight 24 hours either. Eg......"In the day of your Father." Day....A period of time.

Heres one scriptural meaning of day referring to a time period relating to a person....

Luke 17:26."Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of man" ( Period of time.)
Figurative sense:

Zephaniah 1:7..2 "Keep silence before the Sovereign Lord Jehovah; for the day of Jehovah is near, for Jehovah has prepared a sacrifice; he has sanctified his invited ones". (Future 'day'.....Period of time)

And the one that is relevant to the flexible meaning of 'Day' in Genesis....

Genesis 2:4 "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven".


"In the day" of the history in which Jehovah God made the heavens and the earth. This 'day' is firstly pointing to the time before a 24 hour day even existed, in Genesis 1:1 before light shone through to make the recognised 24 hour day in Genesis 1:3-5. See how day can refer to a period of time. Secondly it is also showing that one day refers to a number of days, or time periods, again showing how the scriptures state that 'the day' (yohm) is flexible and can refer to any length of time.

Now please apply this concept of the Hebrew 'yohm'...day to " In the day that Adam eats"...its not a solar 24 hour day. It is better to render it as 'in the time of' that he eats. Adam was made perfect and was intended to live for eternity. It is showing that it was the beginning of the death of Adam on the actual day that he ate, and sinned, but the 'day' mentioned ..Yohm (time period) stretches on further....930 years in this case.