Wow! All the contradictions have suddenly been explained!

Stellar, you aren't always the most helpful either. You post quite a few "nuh-uh, you prove it" one-liners, too.

Shh! Those kinds of comments are counterproductive!

Anyway, I'm trying to point out that he has visited this thread and has not explained any of the contradictions like he said he would...

The errors are in translations, and using different words for supposedly the same meaning. How many 'versions' of the Bible are there now, all using different words, and inch my inch changing the original meaning? Alot. The original texts were not allowed to have errors, I've explained that before.

Not all the contradictions are contradictions wtih a single word, but in the order of which it is written.



How can you trust any of them then?



Not allowed to have errors? You cant possibly blame all the contradictions on mistranslations! You'd think that after so many versions, if there was a mistranslation everyone knew about, the next version of the bible wouldnt repeat the mistake!

Actually no, the errors came from when they started getting translated to English. Prior to that it was one word (as I've said before) with no spaces punctuation nothing. If one letter got mispelt, or anything taken out of it (or added) it would be considered corrupt anmd not useable. Those rules went out the window when it got translated and turned into verses etc. Then the meaning of the words used got changed over time.

The original texts couldn't be corrupt because it was forbidden to use them. Now those rules are not paid attention to.

Yes but you see, Im not talking about the difference between words, I'm talking whole verses which change the order of things. And I'm also not saying that the originals were corrupted, I'm saying that I think there were contradictions within the originals from the start.

11. What did they give him to drink?
in matthew, Jesus is given vinegar mixed with gall. the word for vinegar in matthew, oxos, refers specifically to a mixture of sour wine and water. it was mixed with gall, chole, a general term for anything bitter.
in mark, Jesus is given wine mixed with myrrh. myrrh is a bitter substance.
12. How many women went to Jesus' tomb?
this is a good example of what Rihbany (have i posted about Rihbany here yet?) calls ma besay-il--it does not matter.
anyway, the passages do no exclude each other, none of them say that the people listed were the only ones. so how many went? at least 4, prehaps more.
12. What shape is the Earth?
A sphere, slightly bulged at the equator.
ancient hebrew does not have a word for sphere.

you have just confused me. what are you saying?

did a little more research into the meaning of peace, eirene in greek, in Romans. it is not used here as an antonym to war, but instead is used by Paul to mean "the tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation through Christ."
God not loving and peaceful? Peaceful in the sense not at war, probably not. Peaceful in the sense of personal contentment and tranquillity, probably true. (i say probably because I am not a theologian) Loving? Not in our modern, western sense of love as a mushy sentimentality of someone who never says anything mean and tries their absolute hardest not to offend anyone. But that is not how love was seen 2000 years ago. the ANE society was not the individual-centered one of today's western world, but much more group centered. the biblical love would put the group first. best parallel today would be tough love. an example: a school administrator expells some disruptive students so the rest of the students can learn better. now moving on.

KJV calles it a proverb, and that word could be rendered as poem.
and the passage after verse 4 contains a lot of parallelism typical of the psalms and other hebrew poetry and song. the parts of the bible are to be read as what they are. in this case, it is poetry. poetry does not express laws or doctrines.

If I had to pick one to be his final words, i would pick 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." John specifically focuses on things that were quietly said, asking for something to drink, saying it is finished, and asking John to take care of Mary. equate John's giving up of the spirit with the final loud cry.
well if you wont accept the simple explanation...
i dont really feel like sumarizing this. http://www.tektonics.org/uz/visiblegod.html
that should more than adequetly deal with your objections. if you still think you are right, email the author.
saying something is BS doesnt make it so.
i dont know. you could try finding and asking someone who works on translating the bible.
i really need to rethink this one. i have apparently misread the text somewhere.

ill look up some more stuff on this.

God is loving but you're not getting the point you're nit picking certain "incomplete scriptures"

You can be loving yet have hate towards someone who turns on you, uses your name in vein etc.

Such as People who judge (I.E> You're going to hell, You're a sinner for smoking!)

Meaning there is only one true judge. He talks about grinding their bones and gnashing their teeth for judging.

It talks about man who lies with man (Homosexual) Say's He will cast an incurable plague on them. (Because they go against what he say's).

Yet, Everyone has their own way of believing and translating the bible.

Hey as long as they read the bible that is great! Yet there is only 1 religion that is right "Say's in the bible" but I have no clue if I'm right or wrong. I just read the bible and follow it the best I can.

Anyone who puts me down it's their choice. I'm happy and I Love God and I love my life so what else is there?

I just wish people would have common sense and respect not to question God. Yet that is totally your decision. God bless everyone and Have a Happy & Safe Holiday!

I have another contradiction in the bible;

Obadiah 23:4

Someone went up the hill

Matthew 19:27

Someone came down the Hill

How can someone be going up and down as well?

Spot the sarcasm

the irony

It's common sense that causes me to do so.

PS. nice new avatar Hot

Ive got like 5 min so I'll start on the new batch.



...?



Alright, fine, they "forget to mention" some of the people that went. What else did they forget to mention?



It has a word for ball though! When Isaiah described a round object, he used the hebrew word for "Ball". When describing the Earth, he used the hebrew word for "circle". A circle is flat.



Im saying that your answer is not really an answer. It does not solve the contradiction.



Thats what I meant. It seems that the god does enjoy war. We all know what happens in war, dont we?



Are you sure the better example wouldnt be: A school administrator kills some students for wearing in order for the rest to stop. Now, moving on.



Im not using the KJV. Are you claiming its the KJV that is closest to the original?



As I said, even if it is a poem, its used to describe god and his actions.



I didnt ask you to pick one to be his final words. I told you to admit that the different versions of his final words cant all be right. Are you unwilling to accept even that?



Its not a simple explenation, you're using whatever explenation you can to justify it, as you have with the "they went there multiple times" argument. Sorry, the bible says that no one can see god. God in human form is still god.



Saying your explenation is right doesnt make it so either. Your explenation is such a desperate explenation as me saying god just appeared infront of me and told me you're wrong. Would you believe me?



So let me get this right, the ones translating the bible know what it really means, yet they are not writing the actual meaning in the bibles? Sounds like disinformation to me.



Incomplete scriptures? So, scriptures, parts of the word of god, have been edited by man and removed? Or has it been forgotten by god? Gee, by the number of "incomplete scriptures" it seems that 75% of the bible is incomplete!



We're not questioning god, we're analysing his character.

And therein lies the problem, how can you not question him when you don'tbelieve in him and you're being told that the very reson we eat sleep and breathe is down to him, and there is no evidence save a musty old book written by humans to suggest this is the case? Is that not blindingly, stunningly and incredibly obvious?

Its pointless to try and use bible contradictions to debunk christianity . If one simply assumes something is the truth no matter what ... then they will find an explanation for any contradiction . Observe :

Person a ( believer ) :

I believe in the book of nit - its infallible !

Person b ( skeptic ) :

But on page 3 it says all socks are black and on page 5 it says all socks are red . Its a contradiction and therefore cant be infallible .

Person a :

but the book of nit is the truth ! Obviously yourtranslation of what the text means is flawed . What it really means is all socks are part black and part red .


The logic used by person-a can be used to basically defend anything no matter how contradictory . All person-a has to do is claim they are reading "between the lines" or some other such thing .



As a former apologist I just thought I should share the secret to defending the bible so skeptics who havent already figured it out dont get as irritated .

they gave jesus sour wine mixed with myrrh. i was showing that the same thing is described using different words.
no. i am using the KJV because some lexicons and concordances for the KJV are in the public domain and are availiable on the internet. if there was a NIV or NASB lexicon online, i would use it. i have no idea what is closest to the original, just that what ever is, it is not in english.
unimportant details. if you could grasp what Rihbany is saying, the idea that the gospels began as oral tradition, and that the writers didnt have unlimited resources to buy ink and paper and wanted to include more important things, you would drop this little issue.
you are refering to Is. 22:18, "He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house." correct?
the word for ball there is duwr. it does no more to specifiy something shperical because Isaiah uses the same word here: Isa 29:3 And I will camp 02583 against thee round about (duwr), and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.
yeah i got that. where are you claiming there to be a point of contradiction?.
only if one assumes that he dies the instant after he says the final words in each account. but that wouldnt be the case.
no, it is used to describe what the isrealites wanted. God doesnt start talking until the next verse.
again, i dont know. i am not the one to ask. but i will say that the NIV and NASB, two of the more popular and more recent translations, are approaching being 20 years old. some of these small mistranslations may have only come into light recently.

I understand it, but this is exactly it, it proves that the whole thing is not infallible! Be it for whatever reason, you cant say it has an error in it and go around saying its infallible also.



It does no more to specify? Rephrase that please.

But either way, if he knew the planet was spherical, why not use the word ball instead of of the word circle? Again, you cant get out of this one without admitting he made a mistake.



When god first created animals then man, and he then said "It is not fair for man to be alone."



They cant be his "final words" if he says something after it, can they? Not only that, but in his final words it says he released his spirit right after it.



Even so, theres still contradictions that cant be blamed on "mistranslation"

it isnt an error. its one author including more details than the others.
none of them say it was ONLY these people. one author may be LESS correct than another, but none of them are wrong.
how about an example. a police detective is investigating a murder that in occured an office building late at night. the victim and the janitorial staff were the only people in the building an hour before the murder and the janitors have all been cleared as suspects. the only way into the building without setting of alarms is through the lobby. the detective interviews four janitors to ask if they saw anyone entering the building. the first answers that he saw the CEO of the company. the second answers that he saw the CEO, his secretary, and two others. the third says he saw the CEO and the guy that works in the mail room. the fourth says he saw the CEO, his secretary, and his driver.
Who should be considered a suspect?
Just the CEO? Just the CEO and the secretary? Or all four, the CEO, the secretary, the mail clerk, and the driver?
It does no more to specify or to say or to put forward the concept of a sphere because he uses the same word for ball to mean something other than a ball here: Isa 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about [duwr, thats the word for ball, is used for the text in bold], and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.
and then he created woman. is that what you are trying to say?
None of the writers say that the final words they record are the absolute final words of jesus. Nor do they give an indication of how long it was between when Jesus said them until he died.
then it would be a good idea to look at the culture it was written in, or maybe study some Greco-Roman rhetoric (for the NT). what we read and interpret in 21st century english may not have been the same as what the writers in the 1st century or earlier writing in greek, hebrew, or arimaic ment.

Yeah I agree and will repeat what I said earlier...



There's just no point in carrying on the debate Stellar, you're wasting valuable finger energy. They will never admit defeat on any point. It's quite pathetic really.

I think some of the points made by the Christians have been quite solid and valid. Others (not naming names ) have been less so. I don't think anyone comes to these boards and has their minds changed, but I appreciate solid effort in presenting a side. It beats the heck out of the "You're wrong and going to hell, stupid." mentality, which has thankfully been rare in this thread.

STELLAR: I WILL WORK ON THE CONTRADICTIONS. IT WILL TAKE ME A DAY OR SO BECAUSE I HAVE TO READ THE STORIES BEFORE AND AFTER EACH CHAPTER/VERSE MENTIONED AND CONCENTRATE ON A FEW THINGS.

I WILL BE BACK.


BEFORE I LEAVE, WHY DO YOU CONFUSE RELIGION WITH THE FORUM TOPIC OF SPIRITUALITY AND SKEPTICISM. AM I TO ASSUME THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN SPIRITUALITY AS WELL? JUST CURIOUS.

Yes, alright. I dont think thats the case but it could be. Either way, theres plenty more to argue about.



It honestly doesnt matter. Theres a word for ball, which is a round object, and theres a word for circle. He used the word ball on an occasion to describe a round object, showing that he knows what a ball is. He uses circle, however, to describe the Earth.



Thats another thing, but Im not getting into that yet. Right now, its clearly stated that in one account, animals are created and then man was created. In another, it sais animals were created after man, in order for man not to be 'bored'



Oh please. They say they're his final words... it says that after he says that, he dies. How many times did he die?



No matter how you put it, you cant say "Well, the different orders of creation is cuz you dont understand their culture."
Theres no culture involved, its either consistant, or inconsistant. Its up to the people to place an importance on those verses maybe, but it takes no culture to identify if an order is 1,4,2,3 or 1,2,3,4.

Stellar ....... Could you please list all of your sources on a separate post. Thanks

Excuse me, my mistake. I found your source

he did cite sources, 3 i think.

Do you know why? It's because I am sick and tired of going around in circles with you people. Nothing will ever get accomplished. You will continue to see whatever it is you want to see regardless of what I say. I have looked over each and every "contradiction" and have been able to easily dismiss most of them. A few of them I asked my father about, who is a very knowledgable man. Unfortunately, I made the promise of explination before I decided to leave the Spirituality forums mostly alone.

There really isn't any point to be arguing one way or another. I mean, Stellar, if I sat down with you and went through each and every contradiction and explained it to you, would you all of a sudden magically turn to God? I highly doubt it. Why would I waste my time arguing with someone who won't believe what I say regardless of how I say it?


I'm willing to explain the contradictions to people who already believe in the validity of the bible in order to help them strengthen their faith. But I'd be wating my time with you, wouldn't you agree?


Ladies and gents I think it is safe to say that squweekie and the rest of the religious nuts haven't got an argument against these contradictions and will never have one.
Don't be so set in that safety. I can explain every one of those so called contradictions in fairly easy terms. But what would I gain in doing so? If you aren't going to listen to me by this point, you never will. To most people of christian faith, that llist is laughable.


That is the nature of faith, you don't need proof, simply because you believe.

But why would we continue to believe if we recieved nothing at all for it? I have believed in many things in my life, but belief in Jesus Christ is the first one to have any fruition whatsoever.

Therefore it is useless to continue the debate with him a we are not dealing with a rational person.

Define rationality for me. Better yet, I'll define it for you:

Rational:

1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
4. Mathematics. Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.

1.) I think any of you who have read my posts will recognize my ability to reason.

2.) What is sanity, and what does having a sound mind mean? Here is the definition of sane: 1. Of sound mind; mentally healthy 2. Having or showing sound judgment; reasonable.

I have a perfectly sound mind, and I exhibit sound judgement. I have made many sound business descisions, and invested in some profitable ventures. This made me quite a bit of money. I have an active social life. I am an active member of my family, and my community. According to my doctor, I am a healthy man. According to my friends, I am a decent and good person.


Here is the definition of insanity:
1. Persistent mental disorder or derangement. No longer in scientific use.
2. Law.
1. Unsoundness of mind sufficient in the judgment of a civil court to render a person unfit to maintain a contractual or other legal relationship or to warrant commitment to a mental health facility.
2. In most criminal jurisdictions, a degree of mental malfunctioning sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the act committed.
3.
1. Extreme foolishness; folly.
2. Something that is extremely foolish.

Now, while I'm sure you would argue that I am extremely foolish for believing in God, an unbiased psychologist would argue against that, stating that my belief system is beneficial to my daily life, and has no detrimental effect on it. Infact, I read a study in the Vancouver sun saying that the average health os church goers is slightly better than that of non-church goers. I am a happy healthy person. The law has never deemed be dangerous to the public, or unstable.



Blind faith is not rational or logical by nature,

I don't have blind faith at all. I have faith in a God who is very real, and who I can see evidence in. Blind faith would refer to me believing in God just because someone told me to, or if someone told me It was a good thing to do. I have come to this decision of faith all on my own, and of my own devices. There was nothing blind about this progression whatsoever.

and we're just working ourselves up over nothing. He does not want to look at the contradicitons as it conflicts with his entire belief system,

Actually, none of those conflict with any part of my belief system. I have read them all, and didn't feel threatened by them. Infact, I have been able to explain them all. The process has actually strengthened my faith. and my beliefs. Thank you.


the foundations by which his life is run. To question that would be to question himself and his entire life.

It's only normal and healthy for me to question myself, my life, and my belief system. if I didn't, THAT would be blind faith. But I question it every day. And by the Grace of God my faith in stregthened.


He can't provide the goods... lets just leave him/them to it.



You you yell at a deaf child? Would you write a letter to a blind person? Of course not. It would be futile.

Neither would I waste time trying to explain something to a person who has already made up his mind.

Infact, the scriptures even talk about people like this, saying that "They have eyes, but do not see, and ears but do not hear".

You are one of these people.


It beats the heck out of the "You're wrong and going to hell, stupid." mentality, which has thankfully been rare in this thread.

It certainly does.

Yes, easy to dismiss?
Go ahead and try.



If you make sense, then I will believe that the contradiction was explained. If you go to far out lenghts and dont follow any logic at all, I'll believe you're gripping at straws in order to satisfy your own belief that there can never be anything wrong with the bible.




You mean, you're willing to explain the contradictions to those who already believe the bible is infallible?



Hah, trying to squeeze your way out of explaining the contradictions, arent you?




Now let me define sane for you:

sane

adj 1: mentally healthy; free from mental disorder; "appears to be completely sane" [ant: insane] 2: marked by sound judgment; "sane nuclear policy" [syn: reasonable]


Now, let me show some symptoms of mental disorder, maybe start with, hmm, schizophrenia?:

Hallucinations
Hallucinations are false perceptions, inaccuracies that affect our senses and cause us to hear, see, taste, touch or smell what others do not. In the acute phases of schizophrenia, patients are most likely to insist they are hearing voices that no one else can hear. Sometimes they hear noises, clicks or non-word sounds. On occasion, though more rarely, they are disturbed by seeing, smelling or feeling things that others do not. Descriptions of these perceptions differ. Sometimes they are experienced as very forceful and important thoughts. Frequently, however, they seem to come from outside the self and are heard as conversations between other people, or commands, or compliments (or insults) addressed to the person. Sometimes the voices are reassuring, at other times they are menacing. Often enough, the remarks heard are not addressed to the person but seem to be concerned with them in an unclear (but perhaps derogatory) way. Individuals who experience this describe it "like a tape playing in my head." The experience is so real that many patients are convinced someone has implanted a broadcasting device in their bodies. Or, alternatively, they come to believe in a supernatural explanation for the strange sensation. It is so real to the person that it cannot be dismissed as imagination.



Heres another one:


Psychotic people often have both paranoid and grandiose delusions at the same time. A majority will also have hallucinations, which are usually auditory (hearing voices that actually seem audible, like they are outside their bodies), usually telling them negative and derogatory things. They may even think the voices are God Himself or demons. This is highly unlikely, however, since the voices almost always go away once psychotic individuals are placed on a medication that corrects the DOPAMINE chemical imbalance in their brains.


http://health.family.org/questions/A0001232.html



No offence, but no. As far as your reasoning goes: "I talked to god. He told me the truth. Can you say the same about your belief."
"No, I dont believe in god."
"So hah! Im right, cuz god told me himself!"
"Umm, I dont believe in god, I think you're either lying or had a hallucination or something along those lines."
"No! I didnt! God told me it was him, and that you're thoughts are being put in your head by Lucifer."
"If Lucifer can decieve people, couldnt he decieve you?"
"No, cuz God told me it was him! Isnt it clear!?"



Still want to argue about sanity, or shall I give it a rest?



And, according to everyone else?



I wasnt gonna say that at all. I've got plenty more ammo to use.




Remind me once more, what is your evidence? Your conversation with god?



Then explain them to us, so we can see if your explainations follow a logical path, or if you're just looking for any way you can, as unreasonable and illogical as necessary, for you to have "peace of mind" in believing that the bible is infallible.




How do you know they're deaf if you dont talk to them and see?



You said you would. What are we supposed to think right now? That you actually got explenations, or is it more logical to assume that, since you said you would explain every contradiction presented, and you dont, then that means you dont have an explaination.



No, I think you're one of these people...

Excellent debate so far Im almost ready to reply to the original thread. Id like to thank the others who are in this debate constructively (on both sides of the discussion).
One thing before I begin my response to the original thread, If we could break our posts down into sizes of maximum a couple of screens it would be better. Even if you do 3 posts to get your point up it would just be easier to read them.
I look forward to responding to these contradictions but I am going to do it straight from the bible & I wont use any other material,sources or links. There are so many contradictions listed in the original 'sweeping' statement of the original thread that I will more than likely answer to 2 or 3 at a time
Also before I begin I'll just say that without looking at any yet I dont take lightly to OT vs NT contradictions for the fact that any if not all of these could be referred to as updates equally as they could be called contradictory, anyway I'll explain as we progress.
For now Xmas Blessings to all esp. the UM Family !!!!

Yes, easy to dismiss?
Go ahead and try.

I already have. And I suceeded.


If you make sense, then I will believe that the contradiction was explained.

We have completely opposite views of what sense is.


You mean, you're willing to explain the contradictions to those who already believe the bible is infallible?

No, that's not what I said. You are welcome to twist my words around if you wish, but it only adds to your confusion. Not mine.

Hah, trying to squeeze your way out of explaining the contradictions, arent you?

I have already explain every one of them actually. I believe I made that clear.



No offence, but no. As far as your reasoning goes: "I talked to god. He told me the truth.

It's common for people to react in this way. they believe the God came down in a physical form and we had a verbale conversation. *laughs* I WISH! God doesn't tend to work in this way unfortunately. The way i talk with God in unperciveable to you, because you reject him.

Thus, your arguments don't carry any weight to me.

e you?"
"No, cuz God told me it was him! Isnt it clear!?"



Still want to argue about sanity, or shall I give it a rest?


And, according to everyone else?



I wasnt gonna say that at all.

Lies. You'd have used it if I had given you the chance to.



Remind me once more, what is your evidence? Your conversation with god?

*laughs* Not at all. As I have stated before, much of my evidence cannot be percieved by you because you have closed your mind to it. A blind person will never see the hand infront of his face, no matter how real it is.




Then explain them to us, so we can see if your explainations follow a logical path, or if you're just looking for any way you can, as unreasonable and illogical as necessary, for you to have "peace of mind" in believing that the bible is infallible.

I never made the claim that the bible was infallable. GOD, however, IS infallable. The bible is the written words of Man, albeit inspired by God supposedly. But no matter how much God is in those words, man can still mess it up. This is why God tells us to take what we read and hear on Faith.


How do you know they're deaf if you dont talk to them and see?

If words fall to ears which do not hear, then they are deaf to them.

Besides...

What does that have to do with anything?



You said you would. What are we supposed to think right now?

You are welcome to think whatever you wish. Regardless of weather or not I explained to you these contradictions, it would not change your attitude towards God. And that is really the only reason for me to do so. I do not need to prove my faith or beliefs to another man. Only to God.


That you actually got explenations, or is it more logical to assume that, since you said you would explain every contradiction presented, and you dont, then that means you dont have an explaination.

I believe I have fully explained why I have not done so. Or did you miss that part? I'll tell you what, since you are so desperate for this, post to me your favorite contradiction, and I shal;l explain it to you. I really don't have the energy to debate each and every single point of your blitzkreig.


No, I think you're one of these people...

Nuh uh! Blah blah blah no you are blah blah blah no I'm not blah blah blah yes you are blah blah blah talking to a brick wall blah blah blah you're the wall blah blah blah no you are blah blah blah no im not blah blah blah yes you are blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

The root cause in all contradictions, science and biblical.... Humans.


Humans are failuble. and I had a huge post typed out, but my browser ate it.. so you lose, I'm not typing it out again.

Really? Where? Did a mod delete your post?



You just said you're unwilling to explain them to anyone who doesnt believe the bible... and believing in the bible would mean believing it is gods word, which would mean believing it is infallible, IYO, right?



You are trying to squeeze your way out without explaining any of them.



No no, I understand that you dont claim he came down in physical form, but its still the way you act.



Nope, actually I wasnt going to at all, I had other things on my mind.



Yes well, as I remember from our previous threads, it all came down to god, because god showed you that what you believed was the truth. Wasnt that it?



Good, so why dont you accept that theres contradictions in the bible? I dont care if you think its because man messed up what god wanted them to write, or if he made it up all together or whatever else.



You braught it up.



Arent you required to spread the word and explain the bible to us in order to save our souls and try to 'enlighten' us? Isnt that what a lot of christians say? That god told them to explain to everyone what "the truth" is? How come suddenly when we ask you to do it in one particular moment, you dont...



Will you agree to keep it within the confines of rationality and logic? No far out excuses?



You'll notice that I actually posted the contradictions, I went out of my way to find a list instead of simply say there are some. What did you come here and do?



I've been saying that for a long time, but some people seem to believe that since they believe that the bible is the "inspired word of god" it was not screwed up by humans.

This thread is like playing with a yo-yo... lol. Up and down.... up and down...

Ugh, you're making me want to rewrite that post that got nackard...

Ok the first one is a song of praise up against a prophecy, finding stuff like this is easy from the Bible and I consider calling this one a contradiction is like taking it out of context a bit too much

The wheels on the bus go round and round,
round and round
round and round
the wheels on the bus.......

Another post that is resurrected.

Jesus must have done it!

Now really, how many of these types of threads are there? I wish the starters of threads like these would get smart and just add on to the other ones, but judging by who starts them, it's not going to happen. Okay, back to the topic. All the contradictions you have are just verses. So, give me three examples of whole books in the bible that contradicts themselves, and say how they are conradicting, in full. Don't just say a little bit, like this verse goes against this one, I want it as a whole. Do that and maybe I'll start to see your point.

Is anyone going to try my challenge? If not, my point has been made.

You know, that is the dumbest thing that I have ever heard! Since the books were all written about the same subject (the particular religion) and since none of them are against that subject, it would be highly unlikely that whole books would be completely contradictory to each other . You forget that we are talking about the “inspired word of God” the supposedly inerrant knowledge given to mankind by the great god Yhwh! Any one contradiction of just two verses ends the idea that this is God’s inerrant word! Not one contradiction can exist, if it does, then it is just so much bronze age mythology, no more or no less! You attempt to hide the weakness of your “holy book” by setting up impossible straw men, but to no avail – a large number of contradictions (of which this 101 is just a small amount) exists in the Judeao-Christian scripture, showing it to be only a document written by man with no claim to truth!

speaking of strawmen, that one is fully involved.

And you have secular proof that it isn't?

Yes, and this is your opinion!

And by the way the "101" are not contradictory.

And that is your opinion - I read all your explanations and they just didn't hold water. the most were just your opinions with nothing to back them but more of your opinions.

Yes...my opinion and scripture. As well as reading comprehension and common sense.

If you fail to have these two abilities, then I can see why you would think they are contradictory.

Yes, and this was his point to begin with.

almal, you wordsmith you! work as a political spindoctor do you!

we must all be just too stupid to understand the bible i guess. isn't it supposed to be understood by everyone though? contradictions, contradictions, contradictions.

i get it though.... it truly is hard to comprehend the book when according to you, cud chewing refers to pooping it out and eating it again! (for example)

lol, who told you everyone could understand the Bible? the general idea yeah, but not the hows and whys of a lot of stuff in it. it is hard to understand because there are a rather large language gap, over 1900 years between you and it, and written in a nearly completely different culture from westerners.

not so much the language gap, but the knowledge gap! we know rabbits don't chew their cud these days, we know the earth was not globally flooded these days, we know the earth was not formed in 6 days these days,....

we actually understand the bible better now than ever. that is why it get filed in the fiction section nowdays!

I think the whole book is a contradiction in itself. God loves everyone but hates sinners. God forgives everything but there are sins that are unforgivable.

The part where it mentions this is basically just telling the Jews not to eat unclean animals.