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

[InChristAlways]

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.......

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..........

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....................

Greeting E99. I suppose what you are suggeting to those who read the Bible that if they are in doubt to the meaning of passages to study the original language along with accurate translations.

This is one reason I find it difficult to be an "apologist" for the Bible, simply because of Translations and also those who do not read it as Inspired in the first place. How can jews, muslims and christians feel the OT is inspired unless they also have studied it in the Spirit and by the original language?

Fortunately my brother advised me to read the New Testament first then the OT and I believed that was one of the best advises given to me when I started reading it.

That may not be true for others, but the Christian NT fulfills the Hebrew OT and it actually made the Bible better to understand. For example this passage in Isaiah 65 where the new heaven and earth appears to be related to a "New Jerusalem", which is also mentioned in the NT by Paul in Galatian 4. Surely this has to be "symbolic" as the word for Create is also used in Genesis.

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; For behold, I create [#01254] Jerusalem [as] a rejoicing, And her people a joy.

The same words used here in Daniel is also used in revelation concerning the New Jerusalem [broad street/gold].

Daniel 9:25 and you shall know and you shall be intelligent/wise[#07919] from going forth of [a ] word to turn back/return [#07725] and to build up [#01129] Jerusalem until an annointed one [#04899], a prince/ruler [#05057], 7 7's, and 60 and 2 7's, she shall return and she is built broad place/square and sharp/gold/diligent and in distress/constraint of the times.

Thanks for bringing up the translations for us on the Genesis passage. Peace.
Steve

[silverwolf]

I am amazzed that they have not banned you, usually antichristian views are not tollarated, look at Eman, he is banned?

[brucegdc]

Originally Posted by silverwolf

I am amazzed that they have not banned you, usually antichristian views are not tollarated, look at Eman, he is banned?

I suggest you read the Code of Conduct (link at the top of each page) - that sets out the rules for the forum. All views are welcome here - but the rule is that this is a discussion, and attacking others is prohibited - whether those others are Christian, Muslim, Jew, Pagan, or Atheist....

... Bruce

[jes]

I'm sorry to say that you are mistaken in this "contradiction." Well actually I'm not sorry because it simply confirms my faith more but regardless of that this is not what the verses say. If you read the story you see that Josephs brothers threw him in a cistern and left him there. Judah upon seeing the Ishmaelites say to his brother "what is to be gained by killing our brother and concealing his blood? Rather let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, instead of doing away with ourselves. After all he is our brother” (Gn 37:26-27 NAB) while his brothers where returning to the cistern to pull him out some Midianites pulled him out of the cistern. and took him to Egypt. When Reuben Returns to sell Joseph and Joseph isn't there he is upset. SO you see if you read these verses you find that Joseph wasn't sold at all but rather rescued before he could be sold.


I'm new to this so forgive me! I cant help to respond to your argument to this contradiction .You are absolutely mistaken im sorry to tell you well actually im not sorry It just confirms my belief that some Christians are ignorant
I like to point out while the NAB may convince you that the midianites took Joseph that's not the case at all in the KJV it clearly shows the brothers saleing him to the ishmaelites .if anything the NAB shows the midianites saleing Joseph to the Ishmaelites.Even Joseph tells his brothers they sold him .The question does arise to me why did Reuben act surprised well the bible doesn't say if he was there when his brothers sold him

What exactly is your point anyway the contradiction still stands you still have 2 types of people saleing Joseph. I look forward to your response
KJV
25 And they sat down to eat a meal. Then they lifted their eyes and looked, and there was a company of Ishmaelites, coming from Gilead with their camels, bearing spices, balm, and myrrh, on their way to carry them down to Egypt. 26 So Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is there if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? 27 Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother and our flesh.” And his brothers listened. 28 Then Midianite traders passed by; so the brothers pulled Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. And they took Joseph to Egypt.

NAB
28Then some Midianite traders passed by, so they pulled him up and lifted Joseph out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver Thus they brought Joseph into Egypt.

[Sancho]

In "The origins of the bible, rethinking canon history" John W Miller gives a great deal of attention to the schisms between the Levite priests and Zadokite priests. The picture he arrives at is of the compilation of the Old Testament as a remarkable act of reconciling the two priesthoods. The book is not in front of me to quote from, but I did take a few notes. Miller says that while Moses put the Levites in charge of passing on his teachings, Aaron, who was actually Moses' brother-in-law and so a Kenite priest who was grounded in the traditions of his people who worshipped Yahweh at Sinai passed on his teachings to priests who became known as Zadokites. Martin Buber in his book on Moses also says a fair bit about the differences between the practices of Moses and Aaron.
David, says Miller, united his kingdom through putting both the Levites and Zadokites in charge. Then when David died the Levite priest Abiathar oppossed Solomon as David's successor. Solomon gave Abiathar the boot, exiling the Levites from the temple till a portion of the Levite history (believed to be a version of the book Deuteronomy) was found in the temple during Josiah's reign. The rest of the Levite history (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, I&II Samuel, I&II Kings) consists mostly of criticism of the policies of Israelite kings who were guided by Zadokite priests. Josiah took the Levites seriously, made efforts towards reconciliation, and so was praised by the Levites.

This is where many of the contradictions in the bible appear to have come from.

By the time of Ezra it does seem that genuine efforts were being made to reconcile the differences between these polarities.

[jes]

Originally Posted by Sancho

In "The origins of the bible, rethinking canon history" John W Miller gives a great deal of attention to the schisms between the Levite priests and Zadokite priests. The picture he arrives at is of the compilation of the Old Testament as a remarkable act of reconciling the two priesthoods. The book is not in front of me to quote from, but I did take a few notes. Miller says that while Moses put the Levites in charge of passing on his teachings, Aaron, who was actually Moses' brother-in-law and so a Kenite priest who was grounded in the traditions of his people who worshipped Yahweh at Sinai passed on his teachings to priests who became known as Zadokites. Martin Buber in his book on Moses also says a fair bit about the differences between the practices of Moses and Aaron.
David, says Miller, united his kingdom through putting both the Levites and Zadokites in charge. Then when David died the Levite priest Abiathar oppossed Solomon as David's successor. Solomon gave Abiathar the boot, exiling the Levites from the temple till a portion of the Levite history (believed to be a version of the book Deuteronomy) was found in the temple during Josiah's reign. The rest of the Levite history (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, I&II Samuel, I&II Kings) consists mostly of criticism of the policies of Israelite kings who were guided by Zadokite priests. Josiah took the Levites seriously, made efforts towards reconciliation, and so was praised by the Levites.

This is where many of the contradictions in the bible appear to have come from.

By the time of Ezra it does seem that genuine efforts were being made to reconcile the differences between these polarities.

Jes
I don't know if you are defending the bible or not .Either way your argument only proves that the bible has contradictions and therefore isn't perfect, or from a perfect God.

I have a question ? If it's important for the bible to be a divine message to man kind to warn them of a hell why didn't the god of the bible help man interpret a English translation with no errors so the sinner knows its divine.

what justification is there to send millions to hell because they didn't believe in a error riddled bible

[17th Angel]

god is dead

I think you do not even have to ask if the book is contradiction and oozing with errors(which it is) but just look at the world to know there is no god.... And if there was a god... He'd be one sick s.o.b that I would want no part off... I'd happily without heistation side with his "adversary".

--edit--
Oh god, if you reading this post... and I am totally wrong... Prove it.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Alex P

god is dead

I think you do not even have to ask if the book is contradiction and oozing with errors(which it is) but just look at the world to know there is no god.... And if there was a god... He'd be one sick s.o.b that I would want no part off... I'd happily without heistation side with his "adversary".

--edit--
Oh god, if you reading this post... and I am totally wrong... Prove it.

Are

there sound reasons for believing in God?

Ps. 19:1: “The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.”
Ps. 104:24: “How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions.”
Rom. 1:20: “His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made.”

[wil]

Originally Posted by Alex P

god is dead

Oh god, if you reading this post... and I am totally wrong... Prove it.

Originally Posted by mee

Ps. 19:1: “The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.”

Ps. 104:24: “How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions.”
Rom. 1:20: “His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made.”

Ah yes,

Now I am a believer...however I do not believe it is sound logic to say see here is proof. "G!d wrote the bible and in the bible that G!d wrote, G!d says G!d exists. And for those of you that are wondering it also says G!d says G!d wrote it so there. QED."

As usual though my understanding of G!d and that of mee's and many is different.

[jes]

Originally Posted by Marsh

Here's a topic that was raised in the "Can the Bible be taken literally" thread. One member said that we cannot take the Bible literally because it is full of contradictions. However, this member didn't give a single example to prove their point-- nor do most people who claim that the Bible is a contradictory book.

The issue: Does the Bible contradict itself?

I'm not one to impose rules on others, but for the purpose of this discussion I would like to propose that people post one of two kinds of responses: either a supported argument proving a contradiction, or a rebuttal of a stated argument.

And by all means, take the gloves off...

<DIV>I don't think you're asking for just a contradiction, but rather something that will convince you that the bible has them. That is hard to do with people that like to rationalize contradiction. I will present a clear contradiction then add my insight on why I believe it's one. It would've been helpful if you added what translation you preferred that contradiction to be in. I will stick with the KJV because it is the only bible to be claimed to have authoritative inspiration
First I like to add that I believe bible contradictions are brought up in the first place to argue that the bible is in fact not perfect/ infallible, and that is easy to prove, because scribble errors prove the bible has errors ....for example
21:20 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings. 40 when he died

<FONT face="Century Gothic">II Chronicles <SPAN style="mso-fareast-font-family: MS Mincho">22:1-2 <I>And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

[jes]

Originally Posted by Marsh

Here's a topic that was raised in the "Can the Bible be taken literally" thread. One member said that we cannot take the Bible literally because it is full of contradictions. However, this member didn't give a single example to prove their point-- nor do most people who claim that the Bible is a contradictory book.

The issue: Does the Bible contradict itself?

I'm not one to impose rules on others, but for the purpose of this discussion I would like to propose that people post one of two kinds of responses: either a supported argument proving a contradiction, or a rebuttal of a stated argument.

And by all means, take the gloves off...

<DIV>I don't think you're asking for just a contradiction, but rather something that will convince you that the bible has them. That is hard to do with people that like to rationalize contradiction. I will present a clear contradiction then add my insight on why I believe it's one. It would've been helpful if you added what translation you preferred that contradiction to be in. I will stick with the KJV because it is the only bible to be claimed to have authoritative inspiration
First I like to add that I believe bible contradictions are brought up in the first place to argue that the bible is in fact not perfect/ infallible, and that is easy to prove, because scribble errors prove the bible has errors ....for example
21:20 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings. 40 when he died

<FONT face="Century Gothic">II Chronicles <SPAN style="mso-fareast-font-family: MS Mincho">22:1-2 <I>And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

[jes]

im sorry about the post people it wont let me put every thing down for some reason

[mee]

Originally Posted by wil

Ah yes,

Now I am a believer...however I do not believe it is sound logic to say see here is proof. "G!d wrote the bible and in the bible that G!d wrote, G!d says G!d exists. And for those of you that are wondering it also says G!d says G!d wrote it so there. QED."

As usual though my understanding of G!d and that of mee's and many is different.

the creation is proof of Gods power.


It is because of God’s will that all things “existed and were created.” (Re 4:11)

and by the One who lives forever and ever, who created the heaven and the things in it and the earth and the things in it and the sea and the things in it, he swore: “There will be no delay any longer; revelation 10;6

[dailogue is the best]

Originally Posted by Marsh

The issue: Does the Bible contradict itself?

I'm not one to impose rules on others, but for the purpose of this discussion I would like to propose that people post one of two kinds of responses: either a supported argument proving a contradiction, or a rebuttal of a stated argument.

And by all means, take the gloves off...

Are you still ready, Marsh? If you are, tell me and let's start...