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

eman

Member
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.
icon7.gif
 

BlaznFattyz

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
0
Points
36
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

Member
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Bandit said:
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 $:D . 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

Well-Known Member
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.K.
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.K.
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.










 

InChristAlways

Well-Known Member
Messages
249
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Texas
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.[size=+2]

[/size]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
 

brucegdc

Moderator
Messages
436
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Germantown, MD
silverwolf said:
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

Member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Re: Prove that the Bible is full of contradictions-- I doublIn "The origine dare you!

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

Member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Re: Prove that the Bible is full of contradictions-- I doublIn "The origine dare you!

PHP:
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

לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
Messages
9,437
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Have you seen the little piggies crawling in the d
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

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

UNeyeR1
Moderator
Messages
23,202
Reaction score
2,671
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
god is dead :(

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


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

Member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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...
PHP:



<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

Member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
0
im sorry about the post people it wont let me put every thing down for some reason
 

mee

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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



 
Messages
527
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Morocco
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...:)
 
Top