No. This is only the way you see it.

The reason it does not is to point out contradictions.You are not twisting your words enough. The differences are to much for that to work.

Yes, but there are none. Its just that the person that made that quiz doesn't know what a contradiction really is. Again, I already explained these in the 101 thread.

Some people do not know how to interpret scripture.

and some people can tell "there is something rotten in denmark" mile away!

Yes, I guess that I am not articulate, or literate enough to understand the complexity of "biblical English".

Please educate me and elucidate on your vast comprehension of this extremely complex doggerel.

Now let me ask you: Did you take the flippin quiz? I did. I answered the questions BOTH ways, and BOTH times was rated as "INCORRECT". How could this be, unless both answers were legitimately correct?


Oh, the quiz needs a third anwser, "All of the above"? What hogwash. Were there one or two men in the tomb? It is either one or the other. All of the above doesn't fit the bill.


Oh, and please drop the superior pompous attitude when answering

no one is.

Because the answer is always the biggest one. If one answer is "1" and the other one is "2," then the answer is "2." This is due to the fact that the author who mentioned "1" left out the other "1". One author chose "2" because he included more detail. That's all that is. Its as simple as that.

They both are correct. Its like me showing up at a party and saying there was 25 people there. But later on I say there were 50. So, were there "25" people at the party? Yes. Were there "50" people as well? Yes. So, im right on both accounts. Its just that in one statement I say there are more. I go into more detail.

There was one man in the tomb, and there was two men overall in the tomb. Notice on the "questions" the answers never say "There was ONLY one man in the tomb."

It says there was a man in the tomb. Then it says "two men" were in the tomb. Even if there were two men in the tomb, does this mean that one man was in there? Yes. There were two men in the tomb.

You are being way too critical and you are grasping for anything that will discredit the bible. Again I say these "20 Contradictions" have all been answered in the "101 Biblical contradictions" thread. If you had read them you would see these are very weak attempts. I fail to realize why this same question is being asked again, when I have already answered it.

amal:

so if i were to write an exam and tell somebody i got 50% on it, and then later i told them i got 100% on it, i would not be misleading the person the first time but just giving more information the second time?

so if i am a witness to a crime and tell the police i saw only one robber shoot people, but then on the witness stand testify i say 3 robbers shoot people, i am just giving more information the second time?

so if i tell my girlfriend i am only seeing her, but then later (presumably after we break up) tell her i was seeing 10 girls, i am just giving more information the second time?

now i understand why christians seem to be saying all is forgiven as long as you repent. with this twisted view of the world you are going to need a 'get out of jail free' card should there ever be a judgement day!!!!!

YOU will make and EXCELLENT politician one day with that type of doublespeak.

You are comparing an exam to a story. If I asked someone the story about the men in the tomb, then they would tell me there were "two men."

But, I would ask "why does it say there was one man in this scripture?"

And they would reply, "they are only talking about part of the story."

If I asked you "what did you make on your exam?"

You would reply "I made a 100%" on it.

Now, if you were to tell me "I made at least a 50% on the test" then you would still be correct. You would just not be telling me the complete story.

But see thats the thing, you are saying "there were only."

Only is a very strong word. It is absolute.

In the scritpures, it doesn't say "there was only (so many people there)"

It mentions certain parts of the story. Whereas the other book speaks of other parts. Thats why you must put them together, to understand the full meaning.

ok.. then leave out the "only" in my examples. am i still being honest? (i.e are you telling me that omission is not misleading? politicians do it all the time, and when they get caught the people don't seem as 'approving' of the half-truths as you seem to be towards the bible tales)

telling me that the bible only tells half the story is not a good way to try and sell it.

Obviously not too different. You only think that way because you don't believe in the Bible. Granted, I only think the way I do BECAUSE I believe in the Bible.

Let's take a couple of those questions as an example -

Whe Jesus cursed the fig tree (Mark 11, Matthew 21), did it wither immediately or overnight? A fig tree doesn't usually wither overnight, yet if it does it may as well be to the onlooker to be immediate.

How many donkey's did Jesus ride on on the way to Jerusalem (Matthew 21, Mark 11) - Perhaps there were two, but Matthew didn't feel it necessary to make the distinction that there was more than one (NB- this reasoning can apply to most of the questions in this "test")

I could continue, but as Amalgamut has said, all these have already been answered in the 101 thread.

Until next time,

I don't see "half-truths". If i'm sitting in a pub and tell the story of the 2002 rugby grand-final. I say it was a great match and that tackle right on full-time was the best part of the game.

Then someone agrees, but says that the kick/ chase ten minutes before half-time was the greatest part of the game.

Who is right? We can't BOTH be right, can we. Does one statement invalidate the other?

EDIT - or, God forbid, does the different impressions of the game mean the game never happened or was false?

one MUST wonder what else was left out because it was deemed 'unnecessary'.



makes a prophet look bad: leave that bit out.
makes the 'god' look false: leave that bit out.
deprives the church of power: leave that bit out.





while the two of you dispute the 'best' part of the game, the rest is lost to history?

we have no way of validating the writers of the bibletales. we have no way of validating the writing or editing of the bibletales. the bible has been 'gone over' so many times the saying "too many cooks spoil the stew" is applicable. there is NO WAY to separate out any truths from all the rest.

and this is all on top of a book of tales that is clearly biased to begin with!

00:31 11 June 2005

I herewith resign from the Spirituality & Skepticism Forum.



"I will fight no more, forever."

*sigh*
Even when you use perfectly acceptable reasoning to explain how it is not a contradiction to omit certain details, skeptics just change the focus of the argument so that we aren't talking about the information itself, but the validitiy of its source. What next?

the validity of the source is directly related to how we interpret the omission of data!!!

hypothetically speaking, if it was in my vested interest to omit telling my girlfriend that i slept with her sister while she was out of town, don't you think i would?

But we're not talking about differences as a result of keeping to a particular agenda. The differences that we are talking about are simple "1 person or 2; 1 donkey or 2" kind of things. Hardly anything that would require a cover up, yet they are being thrown up as reasons to doubt the validity of the Bible.

Tell me then, if each account of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were exact without any differences or deviations, would you not then claim that they are too similar and must be copies of each other? THus they cannot be trusted as true and accurate?

to be honest, i don't care.

i can not accept the mangod stuff nor the infallibility issue, so the little errors, omissions, lies, half-truths, edits, etc are all secondary.

now if we go back to the torah, i will admit to there being signs of human intellignce in there. just all the superstitious 'guy in the sky' jabber has to go!

as the writings of men, it makes for a fascinating philosophy. if you want to live by it that is no different than living by any other philosopher(s). just don't get caught up in false absolutes. neither you nor i know what was really going on in front of or in in the minds of the writers or the editors.

question everything.

[QUOTE=Something Like Laughter Yesterday, 10:22 PM ][QUOTE=JMPD1 Yesterday, 09:52 PM ]Yes, I guess that I am not articulate, or literate enough to understand the complexity of "biblical English".[/QUOTE]no one is. [/QUOTE]
Then how can you say he is wrong and you are right?

[QUOTE=Amalgamut Yesterday, 10:37 PM ]Because the answer is always the biggest one. If one answer is "1" and the other one is "2," then the answer is "2." This is due to the fact that the author who mentioned "1" left out the other "1".One author chose "2" because he included more detail. That's all that is. Its as simple as that.
[/QUOTE]
I see now....Bearing false witness.

[QUOTE]They both are correct. Its like me showing up at a party and saying there was 25 people there. But later on I say there were 50. So, were there "25" people at the party? Yes. Were there "50" people as well? Yes. So, im right on both accounts. Its just that in one statement I say there are more. I go into more detail.[/QUOTE]
If you was to tell me there was 25 people at this party and I found out later there was 50 I would call you a liar (Or you did not know how to count).

[QUOTE]There was one man in the tomb, and there was two men overall in the tomb. Notice on the "questions" the answers never say "There was ONLY one man in the tomb."[/QUOTE]
I there was only one man in the tomb why doesn't the verse just say so?

[QUOTE]It says there was a man in the tomb. Then it says "two men" were in the tomb. Even if there were two men in the tomb, does this mean that one man was in there? Yes. There were two men in the tomb[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE]You are being way too critical and you are grasping for anything that will discredit the bible.[/QUOTE]
No just trying to show you that there are many contradictions in the Bible. The Bible has been discredited enough by it's self.

[QUOTE]Again I say these "20 Contradictions" have all been answered in the "101 Biblical contradictions" thread. If you had read them you would see these are very weak attempts. I fail to realize why this same question is being asked again, when I have already answered it[/QUOTE]
Your answers is what was weak and lame.

[QUOTE=hyperactive Yesterday, 11:07 PM ]so if i am a witness to a crime and tell the police i saw only one robber shoot people, but then on the witness stand testify i say 3 robbers shoot people, i am just giving more information the second time?[/QUOTE]
As I tried to tell Amal...In this case the shooter would go free.

[QUOTE]YOU will make and EXCELLENT politician one day with that type of doublespeak.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like he would be about as honest as one.

[QUOTE=Amalgamut Yesterday, 11:28 PM ]You are comparing an exam to a story. If I asked someone the story about the men in the tomb, then they would tell me there were "two men."[/QUOTE]
And you was trying to compare the Bible to a party.

[QUOTE]But, I would ask "why does it say there was one man in this scripture?"

And they would reply, "they are only talking about part of the story."[/QUOTE]
A half truth is still a whole lie. If said witness did not state the whole truth then the rest of his testimony would be subject to be disproved and tossed out as unreliable.

[QUOTE]It mentions certain parts of the story. Whereas the other book speaks of other parts. Thats why you must put them together, to understand the full meaning.[/QUOTE]
But in this one case the Bible is talking about the same event not something else.

[QUOTE=BFG Yesterday, 11:35 PM ]Obviously not too different. You only think that way because you don't believe in the Bible. Granted, I only think the way I do BECAUSE I believe in the Bible. [/QUOTE]
Then I am sad for you.

[QUOTE]Whe Jesus cursed the fig tree (Mark 11, Matthew 21), did it wither immediately or overnight? A fig tree doesn't usually wither overnight, yet if it does it may as well be to the onlooker to be immediate.[/QUOTE]
There is a difference between immediate and overnight....say 8-10 hours.

[QUOTE]How many donkey's did Jesus ride on on the way to Jerusalem (Matthew 21, Mark 11) - Perhaps there were two, but Matthew didn't feel it necessary to make the distinction that there was more than one (NB- this reasoning can apply to most of the questions in this "test")[/QUOTE]
Careful now...these are supposed to be witnesses for jesus's life remember.

[QUOTE]I could continue, but as Amalgamut has said, all these have already been answered in the 101 thread.[/QUOTE]
As I told Amal the answers was weak and lame.

[QUOTE]I don't see "half-truths". If i'm sitting in a pub and tell the story of the 2002 rugby grand-final. I say it was a great match and that tackle right on full-time was the best part of the game.

Then someone agrees, but says that the kick/ chase ten minutes before half-time was the greatest part of the game.

Who is right? We can't BOTH be right, can we. Does one statement invalidate the other?[/QUOTE]
How is this a half truth? I would call this just a difference of opinion. If one of you had said that one team had only half their players and someone else said both teams had all of their players then one of you would be lying.

[QUOTE=hyperactive Yesterday, 11:47 PM ]one MUST wonder what else was left out because it was deemed 'unnecessary'.[/QUOTE]
Or what else was that was half true.

[QUOTE]we have no way of validating the writers of the bibletales. we have no way of validating the writing or editing of the bibletales. the bible has been 'gone over' so many times the saying "too many cooks spoil the stew" is applicable. there is NO WAY to separate out any truths from all the rest. [/QUOTE]
That is if there was any to begin with.

[QUOTE]*sigh*
Even when you use perfectly acceptable reasoning to explain how it is not a contradiction to omit certain details, skeptics just change the focus of the argument so that we aren't talking about the information itself, but the validitiy of its source. What next?[/QUOTE]
Because the source of those details/information/contradictions is what is in question.

[QUOTE=hyperactive Today, 01:02 AM ]the validity of the source is directly related to how we interpret the omission of data!!![/QUOTE]
OK sorry you got it before I did.

[QUOTE=BFG Today, 01:19 AM ]But we're not talking about differences as a result of keeping to a particular agenda. The differences that we are talking about are simple "1 person or 2; 1 donkey or 2" kind of things. Hardly anything that would require a cover up, yet they are being thrown up as reasons to doubt the validity of the Bible.[/QUOTE]And the credibility of the witness.

[QUOTE]Tell me then, if each account of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were exact without any differences or deviations, would you not then claim that they are too similar and must be copies of each other? THus they cannot be trusted as true and accurate?[/QUOTE]
Minor differences would be expected. Was there one shooter or two, Was there one getaway car or two getaway cars.

Sorry I took so long to respond

I have noticed your “common sense” and “reading comprehension” – your first two answers to the first two contradictions were a good example! First you tried to explain away the question as to whether God or Satan had David conduct the census by saying “notice small case letters here”, totally oblivious to the fact that until relatively recently there have only been one case of letters (what we now call the upper case, or capital letters). Then you ignored the fact that both 2 Sam and 1 Chron speak of “men that drew the sword” by saying that 2 Sam left out the 300,000 support troops, yet if you read 2 Sam, nowhere did it mention anything other than “men that drew the sword” and have ignored the fact that there were no “support troops” in ancient armies, all soldiers were trained primarily as warriors with any other duties as secondary – much as the United States Marine Corps is today (this extends all the way up to the USMC Commandant)! This shows that your “reading comprehension” is actually “reading into” – in other words, your opinion with no documentary back up! As for "common sense", it takes second place to knowledge - without knowledge (in this case of military history and matters) common sense is useless.


And my point was that this is a straw man….it would be like saying too books supporting Darwin’s Theory of Evolution would not be valid if they totally contradicted each other! As I said, that is as ludicrous example and nothing more than a straw man argument that doesn’t deserve addressing other than the original rebut . I probably won't be back to check your answer for several days.

Then my answers must be too complicated for you to understand.

Regardless of me saying "notice the small case letters here," (which I edited a long time ago) the answer is still the same. "They both incited the men"

There were no "support troops" back then? And how exactly do you know this? I dont recall you being at this battle to know the whole picture....

Yes, just like your above comment.

It doesnt say "there was only one man in the tomb." Nor did I imply there was "only one man in the tomb."

I think the reason as to why you think this is because you arent grasping the entire story (and you utterly hate christianity).

No, the weakness lies in your ability to fully grasp the information.

Yes and your point is? In one story it only mentions one man. In the other, it mentions two men.

Yes, likewise.

Yes, and which scripture says "the fig tree withered over night?"

Yes and so is your ability to understand simple scripture that a child could comprehend.

What I hate is when someone or something tries to spread a myth as fact. Religion (Any) is good for a crutch and should be used only as such.

My weakness is that I refuse to believe in said myth.

Yes....One contradiction that you say does not exist in the Bible.

But I am stronger for not believing.





Does this answer your question?

MY MY MY a little on the sore side?
Did this little quiz bother you that much?

And what, in your definition, constitutes a "minor difference"? And what do shooters and getaway cars have to do with this?

A parable...It might be easier for you to understand and it seems like you still don't.

It calls into question the credibility of the witness or witnesses.

Is this simple enough?

The same thing can be said about the theories of science.

Really? and how is that?

No.

Yes....it goes to show how ignorant some people are.

With attitudes like this we would still be living in the dark ages.

I do not need a moral crutch to live an honest life.

For some reason I did not think it would.

Sad isn't it? You will not except all that is in your Bible.

[quote=zandore,Jun 14 2005, 12:25 AM]
And what, in your definition, constitutes a "minor difference"? And what do shooters and getaway cars have to do with this?
[right][snapback]673112[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
A parable...It might be easier for you to understand and it seems like you still don't.

It calls into question the credibility of the witness or witnesses.

Is this simple enough?
[right][snapback]673125[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

okey, I still want to know what your definition of a "minor difference" is.

Yes? And? It doesnt say "only," now does it?

Ahh, but that is a myth, hence its not a fact.

Nor do I.

Source

You do realize we are talking about religion and Christianity in specific.

The crutch we are talking about again is religion specifically Christianity.


As far as the fig tree you found someone else to twist the words in the Bible.

Let me give you some advice:

And what exactly am I "taking away" or "adding"?

I am also looking for the verse about "Beware of false preachers".

Umm...ok...maybe you should study that line for yourself.

Rather than wait for Lamont's response, I will add a few words here:



I guess that since neither 1 Chron nor 2 Sam says that both God and Satan “incited the men” and one says, “God did it” and the other says “Satan did it”, then 1 Chron and 2 Sam must be in contradiction!



I guess that means you were? If you will study a little ancient history (if you can get your nose out of your mythology long enough), in particular ancient military history as put forward by Julius Caesar, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and others, you might understand that prior to Alexander there were no “support troops” per se. All Soldiers were warriors first and whatever second. They were all enumerated as warriors, not as warriors and support troops. It wasn’t until very recently that Quartermaster Corps were formed and even after that, most relied more on civilian contractors doing the work of supplying the troops while the QMs monitored it, this is why armies as recently as the American Civil War had to send out foraging parties to feed the army. As for the contradiction between number of “men that drew the sword” (both 1 Chron and 2 Sam use the term specifically), if you can show me specifically where in 1 Chron it says that 300 thousand of the thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew the sword were support troops or in 2 Sam where it says that uncounted as “men that drew the sword”, there were another three hundred thousand that were support troops, then I will give you 5 dollar Mex (Texas term) and if you can’t, then you expose yourself as the modern day Eusebius of Caesarea and all that that entails - and the contradiction stands!

Yes, they both did. Just like I said. (I didn't realize it would be this hard for you to understand) God allowed Satan to do this. They both wanted this to happen.



Um....NO.

Yes, but you werent there now were you? How would you know? Remember....

Okay, here is another chance to make 5 dollar Mex, show me where it says that God allowed Satan to do this – one verse says God did it and the other say Satan did it, and unless I am misreading the entire boring and bloody chapter, nowhere did it say God allowed Satan to do anything, especially since Satan sure seems to be at least as strong as Yhwh. If you can’t show it, then there is another contradiction that is a true contradiction! Since you seem to not be able to show any place that explained the discrepancy between the troop counts in 1 Chron and 2 Sam! As far as how I know about ancient troops, I actually read history, not mythology!

mako, i have challenged amal in the past to actually look at history and i have yet to have him reply that he has, so don't hold your breath on that one.

Source

The bible was never meant to be taken literal, Jesus was not a supporter of organized religion, I AM THE WAY I AM THE LIFE FOLLOW MY EXAMPLE remember that suggestion? Jesus was a construct of a a collective conciousness that needed some serious help, religion was failing those people in a big way, The bible reflects a belief conciousness of that time( which isn't to far ahead now a days) Whats the point of finding contradictions other than to point out that its mans interpretation of the divine, not actual truths, ( Jesus's stuff is the only sound advice anyways) The majority of people suspect thaf anyways why don't we stand more in the newer truths we find. There hasn't been one new idea introduced to the bible since conception, how can that be possible, Did God stop talking long ago I don't think so, Do we possibly know everything there is to know about God? Its all in the bible thats got to be the biggest lie ever told..........

hence why i call it "the book of lies" or "the dark book"

It can just as easily be called "the book of truth" or "the book of light" now cant it?

you call it one thing, I call it another

given its contents, calling a book of truth would be a lie.....
calling the OT the book of light, who knows. as for the NT, more like the book of light-headedness

hmmmmmmm......ok

I agree, Hmmmmmmmmm....................

Well, I see where you get your material! I am not impressed, it is nothing more than opinions by the anonymous author (maybe he is afraid to sign his works) relayed by you. Where is the body of evidence? Where does the Bible state that God let Satan tempt David to do a census? Where does it say there were 300 thousand support troops? Where is any secular evidence of a census or a troop count - the contemporary Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites and Egyptians had such documents and they have survived, so why not David's? Heck, there isn't any archaeological (or documentary - other than the very biased and untrustworthy word of the bible) evidence of David, Solomon, or the "Davidic Empire". None of their contemporary empires seem to have corresponded with them. Give me some evidence (even very weak evidence) of God letting Satan egg David on to do a census or of 300 thousand support troops. Don't haul another person's opinion into the debate, it doesn't wash! We are still counting 101+ contradictions

Yes, opinions based on facts. Besides, the same thing could be said about your views. However, I knew this answer before I read his. I was just showing you a more detailed answer. Its pretty obvious that nothing can or will change your mind. Honestly, I really don't care how you see it.

God lets Satan do many things in the bible. I thought you would have known this by now (since you know so much).

Again, God lets Satan do many things in the Bible to hasten destruction for hopeless ones. (I thought you'd know this.)

You must have thought I got every single answer from this guy and copied it down. Even so, what would it matter? All the opinions in the world don't mean a thing. All you have is opinion as well, so don't give me that crap.

Then bring on the facts, all you and that website have offered so far is opinions. My opinion is based on recorded history and archaeological evidence. If you have any evidence (other than your mythology and that website), bring it on.

A non-believer of your cult, reading your book of mythology, does not see your God letting Satan do anything. Instead they see two equally powerful dualist Gods contending for the control of the world. Your mythology boasts that your God is stronger, then why doesn't he correct things and get rid of the weaker God and his minions? To do otherwise shows which one is truly the evil God (and it wouldn't be Satan).

That seems to devolved into my duty, at least until you learn something besides mythology.

The Bible is evidence enough - for us at least. We do not see it as "mythology".



Have you ever read Job? Satan has to go to God and ask Him for permission to do basically everything that he does. A dualistic, equal power would not have to do that.



To you it's mythology. To us, it is the teaching of the true and living God.