Amalgamut
Jun 7 2005, 01:01 AM
QUOTE(hyperactive @ Jun 6 2005, 06:52 PM)
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,....
[right][snapback]659825[/snapback][/right]
We still arent sure if there was a flood or not. And the earth was not formed in 6 days. The days don't mean earth days (I thought we had this convo a plethora of times now). And don't think that I mean the days mean "1000" years either. But I do not think they were 24 hour days.
hyperactive
Jun 7 2005, 01:01 AM
QUOTE(Amalgamut @ Jun 6 2005, 04:59 PM)
QUOTE(hyperactive @ Jun 6 2005, 04:27 PM)
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)
[right][snapback]659630[/snapback][/right]
The part where it mentions this is basically just telling the Jews not to eat unclean animals.
[right][snapback]659835[/snapback][/right]
that does not dismiss the error.
if i tell you to not to eat arsenic because the sky is purple, i am still in error about the sky being purple even if you should not eat arsenic.
error is error... and i know of one big book of errors! or perhaps it is just a book of lies?
Mr. Fahrenheit
Jun 7 2005, 01:04 AM
Hyperactive, no need for the perhaps there
Amalgamut
Jun 7 2005, 01:07 AM
QUOTE(hyperactive @ Jun 6 2005, 07:01 PM)
that does not dismiss the error.
if i tell you to not to eat arsenic because the sky is purple, i am still in error about the sky being purple even if you should not eat arsenic.
error is error... and i know of one big book of errors! or perhaps it is just a book of lies?
[right][snapback]659843[/snapback][/right]
So if this were an error it would make the whole book an error?
hyperactive
Jun 7 2005, 01:17 AM
QUOTE(Amalgamut @ Jun 6 2005, 05:07 PM)
QUOTE(hyperactive @ Jun 6 2005, 07:01 PM)
that does not dismiss the error.
if i tell you to not to eat arsenic because the sky is purple, i am still in error about the sky being purple even if you should not eat arsenic.
error is error... and i know of one big book of errors! or perhaps it is just a book of lies?
[right][snapback]659843[/snapback][/right]
So if this were an error it would make the whole book an error?
[right][snapback]659852[/snapback][/right]
binary/dualistic thought will be the downfall of us all.....
P4P3R T1G3R2
Jun 7 2005, 01:29 AM
QUOTE(UniversalParadox @ Jun 7 2005, 12:59 AM)
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.
[right][snapback]659834[/snapback][/right]
LOL...
Who said God hates sinners? That's being dishonest about God, actually God loves the sinner but hates the sin. Actually all sins are forgivable, Jesus died for everyone, not just the small sins.
hyperactive
Jun 7 2005, 01:59 AM
this god.. he does not love the way you think he loves.
or is it
love, it does not mean what you think it means.
P4P3R T1G3R2
Jun 7 2005, 02:14 AM
QUOTE(hyperactive @ Jun 7 2005, 01:59 AM)
this god.. he does not love the way you think he loves.
or is it
love, it does not mean what you think it means.
[right][snapback]659928[/snapback][/right]
ok...sure buddy.....
hyperactive
Jun 7 2005, 02:24 AM
QUOTE(P4P3R T1G3R2 @ Jun 6 2005, 06:14 PM)
QUOTE(hyperactive @ Jun 7 2005, 01:59 AM)
this god.. he does not love the way you think he loves.
or is it
love, it does not mean what you think it means.
[right][snapback]659928[/snapback][/right]
ok...sure buddy.....
[right][snapback]659935[/snapback][/right]
what do you think the rats thought as the pied piper led them to their doom?
enjoy the ride, because you sure are going to hate the end.
Something Like Laughter
Jun 7 2005, 04:57 AM
QUOTE(hyperactive @ Jun 6 2005, 07:52 PM)
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!
[right][snapback]659825[/snapback][/right]
actually, it probably is a language problem. just because a group of people lived a long time ago doesnt mean they are stupid. id wager a good guess that the guy writing that (where is it, leviticus or deuteronomy) knew the various dietary habits of a rabbit somewhat well. at least better than today's Hebrew experts.
im sure someone living now understands the Bible better than many in previous times, but not as well as the audience it was originally intended for. there is just too much to learn.
QUOTE
this god.. he does not love the way you think he loves.
or is it
love, it does not mean what you think it means.
Love in the ANE is somewhat different from our conceptions of love.
The same goes for quite a few cultural values.
Amalgamut
Jun 7 2005, 07:31 AM
QUOTE(hyperactive @ Jun 6 2005, 08:24 PM)
what do you think the rats thought as the pied piper led them to their doom?
enjoy the ride, because you sure are going to hate the end.
[right][snapback]659940[/snapback][/right]
Lets say I'm wrong. What will I end up hating in the end?
shandar5
Jun 7 2005, 01:54 PM
QUOTE
Lets say I'm wrong. What will I end up hating in the end?
Interesting topic. Should a person err on the side of caution? Good debate material.
zandore
Jun 7 2005, 02:01 PM
Everyone take a quiz if you dare!
THE QUIZPost how you do.
hyperactive
Jun 7 2005, 02:25 PM
QUOTE(Amalgamut @ Jun 6 2005, 11:31 PM)
QUOTE(hyperactive @ Jun 6 2005, 08:24 PM)
what do you think the rats thought as the pied piper led them to their doom?
enjoy the ride, because you sure are going to hate the end.
[right][snapback]659940[/snapback][/right]
Lets say I'm wrong. What will I end up hating in the end?
[right][snapback]660134[/snapback][/right]
it is human nature to feel safer being wrong in a crowd, than right on one's own.
that is why the use of the term 'sheep' is so apt in the bible.
if you are happy having sold yourself out to have been a little sheep only to end up in a place with no contrasts (either one of them) so be it. i would rather stand on my own, and if some other being is to try and judge me, it will be for me being me and not me 'playing along' or submitting out of fear. not that i would even accept the judgement of such a 'being' as mr. biblegod, for he does not measure up to my ethical standards.
theomegacode
Jun 7 2005, 10:16 PM
Hyperactive, you haven't answered the question. What will we end up hating in the end. In you all mighty wisdom, you should be able to tell us and provide hard evidence with your statement.
hyperactive
Jun 7 2005, 10:30 PM
i did answer it.
you will hate the fact you wasted the potential of this life for nothing.
how can i say nothing?
- if biblegod does exist (i will grant you the leniency of possibility for now), an incomplete thing (half of a duality) will give you eternal bliss or eternal torment. however, without contrast it means nothing, so either way you are headed for lobotomy-land.
- if biblegod does not exist, but there is another world afterwards: who is to say the next place will like christians? maybe that is where you will be persecuted for falsely worshipping a man as a god. perhaps you will see you wasted all that effort on the 'wrong' belief structure.
- if biblegod does not exist, and there is nothing after death: well then there is nothing, is there.
but for me, the odds of biblegod being real are just not very high. why would a allpowerful creature of suppoesed goodness mislead people with other religions, threaten people with eternal damnation, kill and torment people on this earth, etc, etc, etc. if it does exist, it does not measure up to my standards and I will be the one judging mr sky tyrant, not the other way around! how can i say this? simple: if the bible is true, and this biblegod exists, then it clearly needs humans (for what i will discuss some other time), but i do not need it. therefore i am a superior being to the biblegod. the biblegod that can not even complete itself, yet alone anything else.
most of all you will hate you were misled by mr biblegod.
Amalgamut
Jun 7 2005, 10:38 PM
QUOTE(hyperactive @ Jun 7 2005, 08:25 AM)
it is human nature to feel safer being wrong in a crowd, than right on one's own.
that is why the use of the term 'sheep' is so apt in the bible.
if you are happy having sold yourself out to have been a little sheep only to end up in a place with no contrasts (either one of them) so be it. i would rather stand on my own, and if some other being is to try and judge me, it will be for me being me and not me 'playing along' or submitting out of fear. not that i would even accept the judgement of such a 'being' as mr. biblegod, for he does not measure up to my ethical standards.
[right][snapback]660400[/snapback][/right]
What does it matter?
If I am wrong, and I die, then I will be out of existence forever. So what will it matter whether or not I believed in a God when I was alive?
Amalgamut
Jun 7 2005, 10:47 PM
QUOTE(zandore @ Jun 7 2005, 08:01 AM)
Everyone take a quiz if you dare!
THE QUIZPost how you do.
[right][snapback]660357[/snapback][/right]
I got a 100%!
No, but seriously I answered these already....
JMPD1
Jun 7 2005, 11:25 PM
QUOTE(Amalgamut @ Jun 7 2005, 05:38 PM)
What does it matter?
If I am wrong, and I die, then I will be out of existence forever. So what will it matter whether or not I believed in a God when I was alive?
[right][snapback]661679[/snapback][/right]
Thats what I keep saying, but the believers aren't satisfied with the answer.........
TaintedDoughnuts
Jun 8 2005, 01:07 AM
QUOTE(hyperactive @ Jun 7 2005, 03:30 PM)
i did answer it.
you will hate the fact you wasted the potential of this life for nothing.
how can i say nothing?
- if biblegod does exist (i will grant you the leniency of possibility for now), an incomplete thing (half of a duality) will give you eternal bliss or eternal torment. however, without contrast it means nothing, so either way you are headed for lobotomy-land.
- if biblegod does not exist, but there is another world afterwards: who is to say the next place will like christians? maybe that is where you will be persecuted for falsely worshipping a man as a god. perhaps you will see you wasted all that effort on the 'wrong' belief structure.
- if biblegod does not exist, and there is nothing after death: well then there is nothing, is there.
but for me, the odds of biblegod being real are just not very high. why would a allpowerful creature of suppoesed goodness mislead people with other religions, threaten people with eternal damnation, kill and torment people on this earth, etc, etc, etc. if it does exist, it does not measure up to my standards and I will be the one judging mr sky tyrant, not the other way around! how can i say this? simple: if the bible is true, and this biblegod exists, then it clearly needs humans (for what i will discuss some other time), but i do not need it. therefore i am a superior being to the biblegod. the biblegod that can not even complete itself, yet alone anything else.
most of all you will hate you were misled by mr biblegod.
[right][snapback]661664[/snapback][/right]
how can we hate something if we're dead???
the chances of God not being real?! its better than the chances of evolution. think about it: what are the chances of two like beings with the same mutations breeding and that mutated gene becoming a dominant gene(if you learned genetics, mutated genes are recessive, which means it takes two of that gene to overrule a dominant gene)? also, if evolution was real, wouldn't we have species that are halfway in another evolution, if it was a constant thing???
im not even going to touch the whole "God is bad cause He torments people" subject, cause ive already explained it 89327894372894 times!!!
zandore
Jun 8 2005, 01:19 PM
QUOTE(Amalgamut @ Jun 7 2005, 06:47 PM)
QUOTE(zandore @ Jun 7 2005, 08:01 AM)
Everyone take a quiz if you dare!
THE QUIZPost how you do.
[right][snapback]660357[/snapback][/right]
I got a 100%!
No, but seriously I answered these already....
[right][snapback]661691[/snapback][/right]
100% Wrong?
It was just a simple quiz with 20 questions and you could not get any right?
TheGreatWhiteHorse
Jun 9 2005, 03:47 AM
QUOTE(Hotoke @ Dec 21 2004, 12:46 PM)
QUOTE
i knew there would be a few brick walls here who didnt try to refute anything i said and just said they were wrong. sorry, but just saying something is wrong doesnt make it so
...in the first three gospels we meet an entirely different christ then in the gospel of christ. they all give a different view on jesus, mark says that christ was a man, matthew and luke sya he was a demi god, and john claimed he was god
[right][snapback]415875[/snapback][/right]
Well, firstly, any Christian who knows what it is he believes in will tell you that the reason for this is because Christ was all three of those things. He was God and man at the same time. Christ was God's presence on Earth, just like the burning bush and/or the Ark of the Covenant before him.
What we are failing to address here is that the relationship between God and Man changed after the life of Christ. The rules were different. No longer was there a need for artifacts that represented God's presence because Jesus lived in all of us. He was a savior...saviors change things. Just as any father is disciplinarian one day and, under different circumstances, nurturer the next. That is one theological explanation for the difference in the personality of God in the OT and NT.
Also, I have to add that I do not think that some of us who are posting here understand the principles and purpose of this forum. Now, I am in no means a moderator, but I thought it wass a forum for the debate about the so-called "contradictions" in the Bible and their attempted rebutal...not a chance to mock anyone's God or to damn anyone to hell for doing so.
Paranoid Android
Jun 9 2005, 09:03 AM
QUOTE(zandore @ Jun 8 2005, 12:01 AM)
Everyone take a quiz if you dare!
THE QUIZPost how you do.
[right][snapback]660357[/snapback][/right]
Suffice it to say I got the best possible result!
Loco Chupacabra
Jun 9 2005, 11:12 AM
Cannibus, the only rapper with a P.H.D. He has this line that makes since.
Yo, the holy script from Genesis 1-26
says, "Let us make man in our image under our likeness"
First of all who's THEY? You see if God
was truly a single entity that's not what he would say.
That's a part of the bible that says god is making man to look like himself. But you notice he says "OUR IMAGE", it should really be "MY IMAGE". He was just pointing out a contradiction.
JMPD1
Jun 9 2005, 12:06 PM
Or, the writers were using the "Imperial We"
Queen Victoria's "We are not amused" line was her statement, not a collective.
Ashley-Star*Child
Jun 9 2005, 12:38 PM
God is a TRINITY. 'OUR Image' was the 3 parts of the same God. Like triplets, or clones. Well, more close to clones. You can clone yourself to become your own child and you can't understand that God, while being one, is a Trinity?
If you cloned yourself twice, once to be your own child, wouldn't your clones still be you, but separate? With cloning technology nowadays, this should be so easy to understand....
Also, there's the fact that angels helped out in Eden. Like Satanail (satan) planting the vine, Gabriel planting another tree, Michael another....
Er, I should point out though that most angels look not in the least bit human, and God has said that man was made in the image of God's FACE, and therefore it was a sin to say something about someone's face.
God's own face emits sparks like metalworks, and is blinding in light, God eats and breathes fire. In short, God, is NOT a mortal or 'human', but in the image of God's FACE, man was made. And while Jesus was BORN human, Jesus Himself is not, actually 'human', He is part of God.
It was more in-depth explained in Enoch...the veins for this, the eyes for this, the ears for this, etc etc etc.
zandore
Jun 9 2005, 01:20 PM
QUOTE(BFG @ Jun 9 2005, 05:03 AM)
QUOTE(zandore @ Jun 8 2005, 12:01 AM)
Everyone take a quiz if you dare!
THE QUIZPost how you do.
[right][snapback]660357[/snapback][/right]
Suffice it to say I got the best possible result!
[right][snapback]664755[/snapback][/right]
Just like Amal 100% wrong!
Contradictions in the bible.
JMPD1
Jun 9 2005, 01:32 PM
20 out of 20- wrong.
Tried again, using all the 'other' answers, and got
20 out of 20- wrong!
But I'm sure that someone will come up with an explanation of how all the answers are actually correct............
zandore
Jun 9 2005, 01:43 PM
QUOTE(JMPD1)
But I'm sure that someone will come up with an explanation of how all the answers are actually correct............
This might be one reason:
It's in the bible so it has to be right!
hyperactive
Jun 9 2005, 02:13 PM
QUOTE(Loco Chupacabra @ Jun 9 2005, 03:12 AM)
Cannibus, the only rapper with a P.H.D. He has this line that makes since.
Yo, the holy script from Genesis 1-26
says, "Let us make man in our image under our likeness"
First of all who's THEY? You see if God
was truly a single entity that's not what he would say.
That's a part of the bible that says god is making man to look like himself. But you notice he says "OUR IMAGE", it should really be "MY IMAGE". He was just pointing out a contradiction.
[right][snapback]664802[/snapback][/right]
the bible calls it the trinity.
multiple personality disorder is more likely true.
alas the poor little entity all alone in the universe,
didn't have anyone to play with but himself.
so he made up some imaginary friends in his mind,
gave them too much power, and then there were three.
Something Like Laughter
Jun 9 2005, 02:30 PM
if i had to describe that quiz with one word, it would be loaded.
zandore you never got around to showing me how i was wrong about the gen 1 and 2 creations accounts. here is the thread i created about it:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=41663of course the same thing is probably somewhere in this thread.
i really do hope you have something more than "you are wrong."
zandore
Jun 9 2005, 10:20 PM
QUOTE(hyperactive Posted Today @ 10:13 AM )
the bible calls it the trinity.
multiple personality disorder is more likely true.
alas the poor little entity all alone in the universe,
didn't have anyone to play with but himself.
so he made up some imaginary friends in his mind,
gave them too much power, and then there were three.
QUOTE(Something Like Laughter Posted Today @ 10:30 AM )
if i had to describe that quiz with one word, it would be loaded.
Really? I have one word also...
CONTRADICTIONS!
It is all Bible verses so whats the problem?
QUOTE
zandore you never got around to showing me how i was wrong about the gen 1 and 2 creations accounts.
All you have to do is read the Bible. Read it word for word and you will see for yourself.
QUOTE
i really do hope you have something more than "you are wrong."
Sometimes the truth hurts. By the way....How did you do on the quiz?
Something Like Laughter
Jun 10 2005, 12:29 AM
QUOTE
All you have to do is read the Bible. Read it word for word and you will see for yourself.
[sarcasm]Of course, English translations are the ultimate authority on what the Bible says, how could I have been so stupid to think otherwise.[/sarcasm]
i bet you think Gal 6:2 and 6:5 contradict each other too.
zandore
Jun 10 2005, 12:53 PM
QUOTE(Something Like Laughter Posted Yesterday @ 08:29 PM )
i bet you think Gal 6:2 and 6:5 contradict each other too.
QUOTE(Galatians 6:2)
Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.
QUOTE(Galatians 6:5)
For each one will bear his own load.
Are you saying that this is another contradiction?
What do you think?
Something Like Laughter
Jun 10 2005, 02:04 PM
those two verses do not contradict each other.
JMPD1
Jun 10 2005, 02:32 PM
Gal.6
[1] Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
[2] Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.[3] For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
[4] But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
[5] For every man shall bear his own burden.explain please, how these two statements do not directly contradict one another.
Something Like Laughter
Jun 10 2005, 03:41 PM
the word for burden used in 6:2 is baros. the word for burden in 6:5 is phortion. baros carries with it the connotation of something heavy. it is the root word for barus, which is the adjective heavy. phortion doesnt carry this connotation. it is used in Matt 11:30 as follows: For my yoke [is] easy, and my burden (phortion) is light.
and in Matt 23:4: For they bind heavy(barus) burdens(phortion) and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers.
note the use of the adjective barus in Matt 23:4
i thought after the last time i posted that everyone would have figured it out.
JMPD1
Jun 10 2005, 03:54 PM
So then, according to you, the passages should read:
Gal.6
[2] Bear ye one another's
HEAVY BURDEN, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
[3] For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
[4] But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
[5] For every man shall bear his own
LIGHT BURDENOf course! It is all so clear now! I must have been blind not to see this before.
Something Like Laughter
Jun 10 2005, 04:39 PM
you forgot to put in burden.
so more like
Bear ye one another's heavy burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
and
For every man shall bear his own normal, not nessesarily heavy, burdens.
or something like that. i dont know of any words in english that follow this pattern.
JMPD1
Jun 10 2005, 04:47 PM
I adjusted my post above.
But, where does that leave Gal 6.4?
One of those three statements doesn't fit.
1 -share each others heavy load
2 - rejoice in your own achievements
3 - bear your own weight (load).
So, if you share my load, how can I rejoice in my own achievement? And, my load may seem unbearably heavy to me, yet be inconsequential to you. So, where does this leave us?
zandore
Jun 10 2005, 04:52 PM
QUOTE(JMPD1 Posted Today @ 12:47 PM )
So, where does this leave us?
OTL Maybe
hyperactive
Jun 10 2005, 08:16 PM
OTL? hmmm...
maybe the contradiction we should worry about is not any of the vast numbers within, but the contradiction between what is within the bible and what is without (i.e. bible vs reality)!
otherwise things like this 'burden' issue really come down to the bible being written to cover all bases. 10000's of interpretations, just in case; 10000's of interpretations to cover every base!
Amalgamut
Jun 10 2005, 09:17 PM
QUOTE(JMPD1 @ Jun 9 2005, 07:32 AM)
20 out of 20- wrong.
Tried again, using all the 'other' answers, and got
20 out of 20- wrong!
But I'm sure that someone will come up with an explanation of how all the answers are actually correct............
[right][snapback]664967[/snapback][/right]
I already did in the 101 thread. These were all included.
Amalgamut
Jun 10 2005, 09:20 PM
QUOTE(zandore @ Jun 10 2005, 06:53 AM)
QUOTE(Something Like Laughter Posted Yesterday @ 08:29 PM )
i bet you think Gal 6:2 and 6:5 contradict each other too.
QUOTE(Galatians 6:2)
Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.
QUOTE(Galatians 6:5)
For each one will bear his own load.
Are you saying that this is another contradiction?
What do you think?
[right][snapback]666854[/snapback][/right]
Yep, already discussed this one as well...
I see that none of you people even bothered to read the 101 thread.
Amalgamut
Jun 10 2005, 09:23 PM
QUOTE(JMPD1 @ Jun 10 2005, 08:32 AM)
Gal.6
[1] Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
[2] Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.[3] For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
[4] But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
[5] For every man shall bear his own burden.explain please, how these two statements do not directly contradict one another.
[right][snapback]666989[/snapback][/right]
Do you really need that much explanation on this one?
zandore
Jun 10 2005, 09:24 PM
The words in the Bible are so easy to twist one way or twist it in just the opposite direction.
So every one got 20 out of 20 wrong?
How can that be?
zandore
Jun 10 2005, 09:26 PM
QUOTE(Amalgamut Posted Today @ 05:23 PM )
QUOTE(JMPD1 @ Jun 10 2005 @ 08:32 AM)
explain please, how these two statements do not directly contradict one another.
Do you really need that much explanation on this one?
To hard to twist the right words?
Amalgamut
Jun 10 2005, 09:27 PM
QUOTE(Loco Chupacabra @ Jun 9 2005, 05:12 AM)
Cannibus, the only rapper with a P.H.D. He has this line that makes since.
Yo, the holy script from Genesis 1-26
says, "Let us make man in our image under our likeness"
First of all who's THEY? You see if God
was truly a single entity that's not what he would say.
That's a part of the bible that says god is making man to look like himself. But you notice he says "OUR IMAGE", it should really be "MY IMAGE". He was just pointing out a contradiction.
[right][snapback]664802[/snapback][/right]
Umm...no. This is not a contradiction. God made angels before man. So it would be "our."
zandore
Jun 10 2005, 09:29 PM
QUOTE
Umm...no. This is not a contradiction. God made angels before man. So it would be "our."
But that would be putting angels on the same level as God.
Amalgamut
Jun 10 2005, 09:33 PM
QUOTE(zandore @ Jun 10 2005, 03:24 PM)
The words in the Bible are so easy to twist one way or twist it in just the opposite direction.
So every one got 20 out of 20 wrong?
How can that be?
[right][snapback]667624[/snapback][/right]
What your test doesn't realize is that both it needs a third choice which would be "all of the above."
Certain authors of the bible mention certain events in certain ways. These answers seem different because different people are talking about the same event in a different form. One author leans more on one side of the occurance, whereas the other is the opposite and leads toward the other one. The event happens, but each author details more on one side. They talk about the SAME events, but they describe them in different ways. Thats why they put the two different accounts in the bible. Ever wonder why most books talk about the same thing? Well, thats because you are getting more than one perspective on the acount that is talked about.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.