Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Discordia

101 contradictions in the Bible

184 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Amalgamut

Basically try to explain Religion with Science. If you would use Science to prove religion it will always come up inconclusive. There may be facts supporting that certain people from the bible did exist but it doesn't make whats in the bible true. Also the way your trying to use the scripture to prove scripture is so much like Pseudo-Science because your trying to give explinations on clear contradictions with other mumbo-jumbo. Do you see where I am coming from?  hmm.gif

604751[/snapback]

No, I'm sorry, you lost me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Discordia

Basically try to explain Religion with Science. If you would use Science to prove religion it will always come up inconclusive. There may be facts supporting that certain people from the bible did exist but it doesn't make whats in the bible true. Also the way your trying to use the scripture to prove scripture is so much like Pseudo-Science because your trying to give explinations on clear contradictions with other mumbo-jumbo. Do you see where I am coming from?  hmm.gif

604751[/snapback]

No, I'm sorry, you lost me.

604774[/snapback]

You're a lost cause, I don't think I could make it any more clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amalgamut

Basically try to explain Religion with Science. If you would use Science to prove religion it will always come up inconclusive. There may be facts supporting that certain people from the bible did exist but it doesn't make whats in the bible true. Also the way your trying to use the scripture to prove scripture is so much like Pseudo-Science because your trying to give explinations on clear contradictions with other mumbo-jumbo. Do you see where I am coming from?  hmm.gif

604751[/snapback]

No, I'm sorry, you lost me.

604774[/snapback]

You're a lost cause, I don't think I could make it any more clear.

604781[/snapback]

You say "clear contradictions" when you probably haven't read more than five of your so called "clear contradictions." You probably have no idea what they are even talking about.

Remember, we are talking about contradictions in the Bible. NOT contradictions in "Little House on the Prairie." The Bible is a very complex batch of writtings, that are all harmonized together in one book. If you come in here and write off Christianity as nothing than crap, and then try and read the scriptures, how easy is it gonna be for me to tell you the scriptures do not quarrel with one another? It would be the same thing if you sent a US soilder to a Nazi propaganda speech in WW2. Do you think he would even listen? What if Hilter said "hey just listen to me for one second." Do you think he would? You have it burned into your brain that they are all contradictory, and you aren't even really sure why.

I have shown, that the reason that the Bible seems to be written off as contradictory is due to the lack of understanding. If people read these passages as a novel, and as "non-fiction" book. I'm sure your little list of contradictions wouldn't have even existed.

Why? Because for the most part it is being dismissed right off the bat. And then you point your finger at me. Telling me that "i need to open my mind."

And then you say something like THIS.

Basically try to explain Religion with Science.

604781[/snapback]

Ok, I will just basically do that. Then, I will basically fund a crew to go to Saturn.

Ask yourself, can science be "basically" explained? Can religion be "basically" explained?

How can anyone "basically" explain "religion" with "science."

My point is, this thread is about "101 Contradictions and the Bible."

If you want to bring science into this, then fine.

But make it relevant to the topic. And don't just open your mouth making a bunch of nonsense.

Whenever you can find a scripture in this list that is relevant to science, and how science can prove religion is bunk, then so be it. We can talk about it, and how it may be a "contradiction."

You started this topic, then you run and hide. Then you come back an see how many people that post are skeptics, you see many, then you feel its safe for you to post.

You get online for five minutes and you in no way could have read hardly any of my answers. But what do you do? You automatically write me off as crap. I respect some people on this thread, although they are skeptics. They actually read, and see what I'm trying to say. If they disagree, then we discuss.

You on the other hand did none of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mako

He is my take on your answers:

Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

"Again, the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he (notice small case letters here)

incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah." (2 Samuel 24:1) The scripture is paralllel, if it were talking about God inciting the men, than 1 Chron 21:1 would not exist, and in 2 Samuel 24:1, "he" would have a capital letter at the beginning of the word.

here is where your argument falls apart, there were no capital letters until quite recently. There is no way for a Hebrew writer to indicate that “he” meant Satan and not God. You are reading your wishes into the passage. The contradiction stands on its merits!

In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?

Its simple really, those 300,000 men were not recognized as "men of the sword" of this time. So, they were left out of the counting.

Here are the verses:

1 Chronicles 21:5 And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David and all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand (1,100,000) men that drew the sword.

2 Samuel 24:9 And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king and there wer in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword.

We are discussing “men that drew sword” here. Therefore for there not to be a contradiction, the figures in the two verses should be equal. If there were 1,100,000 men that drew the sword in Chronicles, then in order for there not to be a discrepancy or contradiction between it and Samuel, Samuel would also have to list 1,100,000 “men that drew the sword”. The song and tap dance of “300,000 men were not recognized as men of the sword" won’t work because they were recognized as such in 1 Chronicles. Can you spell contradiction? You sure have one here!

God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?

Both passages used the original Hebrew word for Septuagint It referred to it being 7 years.

In the NIV version of the Bible, they both say "three" but footnote the orginal septuagint.

So, again, there is no contradiction. Hence, both scriptures say "three" anyway.

How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?

There is a mistake in the question... it should read..(a) Eight(2 Kings 24:8) and

(b ) Eighteen (2 Chronicles 36:9)

Look! its a contradictory question!!!

Anyway...the author of Chronicles was more informant on his exact age

In any Bible you pick up, you will see a footnote saying the original number from Hebrew manuscripts is eight. Not really a contradiction if you ask me. Not only does the Bible point this out, but what exaclty is it contradicting? 10 years? Come on.

If this is true, then why did it get changed? After all this is the holy unchanging word of god isn’t it? What is 10 years? Let’s see 10 years ago, the 2000+ people that died in 9-11 were still alive, 87% of the nation was Christian (or paying lip service thanks to mom and dad) as opposed the 76% today, The Iraq action wasn’t even a dream (or nightmare depending on your take), Bush wasn’t in politics, much less President, there were 34,397,752 less Americans, I could go on an on but needless to say, so much could happen in 10 years. Come on!

In what year of King Asa's reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?

Man, this is getting old.I can't believe we have another argument about ten years.

Back in the day, there was a mis-interpretation of the age.

Ten of the years could have been taken out, because of these ten years he could have been doing evil things. He could have been "dead to God" on his twenty-sixth year. So, therefore one prophet saw him as 26, and the other 36.

Plus, like I have said many times, the author of Chronicles is more precise when it comes to peoples age.

And your proof of this is? Sorry, that is just what I love to call “waffling and tap dancing”, if you can’t really rebut it, it becomes a problem that they had back when or some such manure! Come on get real! You can’t explain it so you tap dance around it!

How many overseers did Solomon appoint for the work of building the temple?

The numbers in (a) and (b ) should be reversed. Anyway...One author included the supervisory force, the other didn't.

And you got this gem of information from where? There is no way 2500 years after the fact that you can say that! Again a waffle followed by a tap dance. Another contradiction!

Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?

My original answer would be "who cares?" But, for the sake of proving my point, I shall answer. The point of this passage is to show how big and rich Solomons temple was. In the Septuagint, it doesn't say "It held two thousand baths" in (1 Kings 7:26) Sometimes, numbers in the Bible are symbolic.The point of the scripture is to show the wealth of the Solomon. Again, the author of Chronicles shows there are more baths. He is more precise in numbering.

I agree with your original answer, but you are contending that these contradictions can be explained, so I have to answer. Where is your evidence that the author of Chronicles is more precise or even correct for that matter? Without this proof, this remains a contradiction!

Of the Israelites who were freed from the Babylonian captivity, how many were the children of Pahrath-Moab/ How many were the children of Zattu?/ How many were the children of Azgad?/ How many were the children of Adin?/ How many were the children of Hashum?/ How many were the children of Bethel and Ai/ Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. / How many singers accompanied the assembly?

What was the name of King Abijah’s mother?

In one passage daughter means "grand-daughter." The people are linked to greater relatives, than the immediate father(s)

I read the verses and they both say daughter not grand-daughter. Where is you evidence? What? None! Guess this is one more contradiction!

Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?

Hell?" I think you mean "Heli" Anyway. The births are told from two different perspectives.

The book of Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and the book of Luke gives the genealogy of Mary. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in naming only the males, while the other doesn't.

Okay, here are the verses:

Matt 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

HMMM, strange way to spell Mary. Last time I saw J O S E P H spelled out, it was pronounced Joh sef not May ree! In other words you have nothing…This is a definite and large contradiction! Incidentally Matthew was a Jew and Luke was a Greek, so your contention doesn’t make sense, first, it was not a custom of the Jews to list a woman’s genealogy and second, if they did, they would have listed her name, not her husbands., third if it had been the custom, Matthew the Jew would have been more apt to adhere to Jewish custom than would Luke an outsider. All through Luke and Acts, Luke shows his ignorance of Jewish culture and geography!

Jesus descended from which son of David?

This is linked to the "contradiction" above. So, it would seem this way, if you did not understand the previous genealogy, you couldn't understand the scripture and meaning.

I agree it is definitely linked to the one above and I do believe that you are the one “twisting in the breeze” with both that one and this one! Wow, too major contradictions in a row!

Who was the father of Shealtiel

Same thing as above.

yep, that makes three major contradictions in a row that you can’t give evidence to rebut!

Who was the father of Uzziah?

This is basically the same as above. One is a grandfather, and the other a father. It notes the immediate father in one book, but the grand father in another. Matthew used a different form of telescoping the genealogy, which was acceptable at this time.

Come on now, there was no “telescoping” of geneaology” in any ancient culture – your linage was very important to establish who you were, what your status was, who you could associate with, etc. They would no more telescope a genealogy (especially not Matthew the Jew who understood this) than you would run around town, bare from the waist down!

How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ?

Fourteen. The person who wrote the passage included themselves.

Here you are basing your answer on an assumption that Matthew (who probably wasn’t the disciple) was of the same generation as Jesus. Writing at least two generations (and maybe more – since a work by a man named Matthew’s isn’t mentioned until 130 CE and the Gospel not until 150 CE), the author of Matthew is probably not a member of Jesus’ generation! There’s another one that is a contradiction!

Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?

This misunderstanding is due to the lack of reading comprehension. They are both empowered by the Holy Spirt, their names are symbolic to who they are in Christ. “I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.'" (John 1:23)

That is major league tap dancing, you could use thinking of that type to prove that Adolph Hitler was actually the Pope in disguise! A lot of words but it really says nothing that has anything to do with the question.

Would Jesus inherit David’s throne?

This relates to the misunderstanding of the genealogy mentioned above.

Sorry, there was no misunderstanding of the genealogies, the fact that they don’t match shows that they are bogus. There is another fact that would keep him from inheriting David’s throne, Joseph (the man the linage comes from) is not the father of Jesus – God is and God is not of the House of David! Jesus can’t be the Messiah, since he is not of the House of David!Jesus rode into

Jerusalem on how many animals?

You see many scriptures like this in the Bible. This is scripture emphasizes the immaturity of the colt.

Many times in the Bible you see the same scripture, (running with its

parallel) but in one it mentions more or less, to emphasize a point.

Again, just because one scripture mentions more than the other hardly contradicts it.

Pure manure and a very weak waffle! Also If you will notice, Matthew reads that he sat on both – “They brought the ass and the colt and put their garments on them and he sat thereon.” This is enough for now, gotta go to a meeting…..I will continue later cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zandore
You say "clear contradictions" when you probably haven't read more than five of your so called "clear contradictions." You probably have no idea what they are even talking about.

I have read some of them AND read your responses to them....They are there and they are in your Bible.

... easy is it gonna be for me to tell you the scriptures do not quarrel with one another?
Not very easy as I have show you with a few they do "Quarrel with one another"
You have it burned into your brain that they are all contradictory, and you aren't even really sure why.
She has read them for herself as I have urged others to do here in this thread.
I have shown, that the reason that the Bible seems to be written off as contradictory is due to the lack of understanding. If people read these passages as a novel, and as "non-fiction" book. I'm sure your little list of contradictions wouldn't have even existed.
This is a good one. Did you ever think that this list might have been made by Biblical scholars? Someone that does know the Bible? hmm.gif
My point is, this thread is about "101 Contradictions and the Bible."
And I am looking at a list with 339 contradictions in the Bible so what? thumbsup.gif

EDIT: FIXED QUOTE

Edited by zandore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amalgamut
And I am looking at a list with 339 contradictions in the Bible so what? thumbsup.gif

604901[/snapback]

You have made it apparent to me that you don't understand what a contradiction is.

con·tra·dic·tion

con·tra·dic·tion [kòntrə díksh’n]

(plural con·tra·dic·tions)

n

1. something illogical: something that contains parts or elements that are illogical or inconsistent with each other

a contradiction in terms

2. opposing statement: a statement or the making of a statement that opposes or disagrees with somebody or something

I can say without fear of contradiction that she is our best worker.

Encarta ®

Edited by Amalgamut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amalgamut
This is enough for now, gotta go to a meeting…..I will continue later cool.gif

604879[/snapback]

Ok thumbsup.gif You do that rofl.gif

And I will be sure and read it, because you (who doesn't even believe in the Bible anyway) are going tell me its all wrong.

You are going to tell me that false scriptures are contradictory.

Yet, how can they be contradictory if they are all false?

Why would you write them off as contradictory, when the entire book is false to begin with?

Are you saying that some of the scriptures are true?

Ahhh, I see now. thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zandore

Yes I know what contradiction means. we have been useing this definition of it on this thread:

2. opposing statement: a statement or the making of a statement that opposes or disagrees with somebody or something
Let me quote you on one more thing before I run to work
I can say without fear of contradiction that she is our best worker.
thumbsup.gif

PS Remember 339 contradictions! ohmy.gif

339...hahahahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mako

Nope, there are none in there that is true...but you seem to think so, to the point of ignore the obbvious! rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amalgamut
Yes I know what contradiction means. we have been useing this definition of it on this thread:
2. opposing statement: a statement or the making of a statement that opposes or disagrees with somebody or something
Let me quote you on one more thing before I run to work
I can say without fear of contradiction that she is our best worker.
thumbsup.gif

PS Remember 339 contradictions! ohmy.gif

339...hahahahaha

604930[/snapback]

I'm not going to even waste my time on them because you obviously don't know what a contradition is...

Lets just say that the Bible is contradictory for a moment.

Matter of fact, lets change the whole thing into an orange.

I may think an orange tastes sour and sweet.

You may think the orange tastes spicy.

Who's right? Does the the orange taste sour and sweet? or spicy?

The sour and sweet orange has somewhat of a "contradictory taste." So, therefore it must not be true.

Does this mean it isn't an orange?

You and I are taking chunks out of the "orange" (Bible) and we have different tastes. I know that the orange tastes sour and sweet, and you say yours it spicy. But I know my orange is sour and sweet. But you [/i]know your orange is spicy.

You know I think that its sour and sweet. You realize that the two conflicting tastes that I speak of are contradictory. So, therefore, you say "the sour and sweet orange is not true," for it is contradictory, and must not be true.

Yet, in turn, we have the same exact thing. We both have the "orange" (Bible.)

It may taste differently to others, but the meaning is always the same. It is never an apple. It is always an orange.

Wheather or not you chose to believe what I have to say is up to you...

The attempts to contradict the Bible are very weak, and I would hardly call them attempts at all.

con·tra·dic·tion

con·tra·dic·tion [kòntrə díksh’n]

(plural con·tra·dic·tions)

n

1. something illogical: something that contains parts or elements that are illogical or inconsistent with each other

a contradiction in terms

2. opposing statement: a statement or the making of a statement that opposes or disagrees with somebody or something

I can say without fear of contradiction that she is our best worker.

Encarta ®.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amalgamut
Nope, there are none in there that is true...but you seem to think so, to the point of ignore the obbvious!  rolleyes.gif

604947[/snapback]

Your little "revision" hilarious. laugh.gif

And you got this gem of information from where? There is no way 2500 years after the fact that you can say that! Again a waffle followed by a tap dance. Another contradiction!

604947[/snapback]

SIMPLE! The person who made the "101 LIST" got the scripture numbers wrong!! So I switched them around for them!!! But, had you opened your Bible you would have realized this........ You didn't even lift a page of it, and you used my answer to try and show that I messed up!!!! w00t.gif

But in reality the question was wrong to begin with!!!!! rofl.gifw00t.gif

LMAO!!!! w00t.gif

Come on now, there was no “telescoping” of geneaology” in any ancient culture – your linage was very important to establish who you were, what your status was, who you could associate with, etc. They would no more telescope a genealogy (especially not Matthew the Jew who understood this) than you would run around town, bare from the waist down!

604947[/snapback]

Ahh I see you are a Jewish Rabbi, and I also see that you have perfomed many circumcisions as well. thumbsup.gif

If this is true, then why did it get changed? After all this is the holy unchanging word of god isn’t it? What is 10 years? Let’s see 10 years ago, the 2000+ people that died in 9-11 were still alive, 87% of the nation was Christian (or paying lip service thanks to mom and dad) as opposed the 76% today, The Iraq action wasn’t even a dream (or nightmare depending on your take), Bush wasn’t in politics, much less President, there were 34,397,752 less Americans, I could go on an on but needless to say, so much could happen in 10 years. Come on!

604947[/snapback]

Hmmm.....I see you are talking about politics.

I thought we were talking about 2 Chronicles 36:9 here. Oops my bad. rolleyes.gif

We are discussing “men that drew sword” here. Therefore for there not to be a contradiction, the figures in the two verses should be equal. If there were 1,100,000 men that drew the sword in Chronicles, then in order for there not to be a discrepancy or contradiction between it and Samuel, Samuel would also have to list 1,100,000 “men that drew the sword”. The song and tap dance of “300,000 men were not recognized as men of the sword" won’t work because they were recognized as such in 1 Chronicles. Can you spell contradiction? You sure have one here!

604947[/snapback]

Obviously, you are going to have some soilders that do not fight. Some stay back and command. If you had even bothered to read these stories you would know. But you are taking one passage from one book, and one from the other. And mashing just the two scriptures together. And saying "WOW A CONTRADICTION!!" w00t.gif

If you took a line from "My Little Pony" and mashed a line from the SAME STORY but it was written by someone 200 years later about the same subject would they relate? The answer is YES!!! They would!!!! However, you may have to read more than just that one line from each book.

Can you spell contradiction?

604947[/snapback]

Can you spell reading comprehension?

Edited by Amalgamut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beowulf

Isn't it wonderful how tightly religion can close a mind! tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrScienceGuy
He is my take on your answers:

Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

"Again, the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he (notice small case letters here)

incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah." (2 Samuel 24:1)  The scripture is paralllel, if it were talking about God inciting the men, than 1 Chron 21:1 would not exist, and in 2 Samuel 24:1, "he" would have a capital letter at the beginning of the word.

here is where your argument falls apart, there were no capital letters until quite recently.  There is no way for a Hebrew writer to indicate that “he” meant Satan and not God.  You are reading your wishes into the passage.  The contradiction stands on its merits!

Sorry Amalgamut, but mako is right. Originally the Bible was written in "uncial" writing. This type of writing consists of all capital letter with no connection between letters, no spaces between words and sentences, no periods or comas and no chapters or verses. Every subsequent translation of the bible had to rely on personal interpretation, since without punctuation marks and difference in letter type, phrases and words may take on several different meanings. So your argument that "he" would have a capital letter at the beginning of the word is invalid. There was no "He," just "HE." This is a clear example of what mako calls “waffling and tap dancing.” You are trying to rebute it for the sake of rebutting, while ignoring the fundamental facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amalgamut
He is my take on your answers:

Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

"Again, the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he (notice small case letters here)

incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah." (2 Samuel 24:1)  The scripture is paralllel, if it were talking about God inciting the men, than 1 Chron 21:1 would not exist, and in 2 Samuel 24:1, "he" would have a capital letter at the beginning of the word.

here is where your argument falls apart, there were no capital letters until quite recently.  There is no way for a Hebrew writer to indicate that “he” meant Satan and not God.  You are reading your wishes into the passage.  The contradiction stands on its merits!

Sorry Amalgamut, but mako is right. Originally the Bible was written in "uncial" writing. This type of writing consists of all capital letter with no connection between letters, no spaces between words and sentences, no periods or comas and no chapters or verses. Every subsequent translation of the bible had to rely on personal interpretation, since without punctuation marks and difference in letter type, phrases and words may take on several different meanings. So your argument that "he" would have a capital letter at the beginning of the word is invalid. There was no "He," just "HE." This is a clear example of what mako calls “waffling and tap dancing.” You are trying to rebute it for the sake of rebutting, while ignoring the fundamental facts.

605149[/snapback]

I threw that in there indeed. I may have been incorect about that part, by my answer still holds water...He didn't qoute my FULL answer.

This is still a test from God and Satan, God allowed Satan to do it. However God wanted this as well to show a point, which I stated in my post.

Here is another referrence...

Again, I tried to give the short answer in my post, and it is in fact the answer, but here is more to it.......

1. Does God incite David to conduct the census of his people (2 Samuel 4:1), or does Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

This seems an apparent discrepancy unless of course both statements are true. It was towards the end of David's reign, and David was looking back over his brilliant conquests, which had brought the Canaanite, Syrian, and Phoenician kingdoms into a state of vassalage and dependency on Israel. He had an attitude of pride and self-admiration for his achievements, and was thinking more in terms of armaments and troops than in terms of the mercies of God.

The Lord therefore decided that it was time that David be brought to his knees, where he would once again be cast back onto the mercy of God. So he let him go ahead with his census, in order to find out just how much good it would do him, as the only thing this census would accomplish would be to inflate the national ego (intimated in Joab's warning against carrying out the census in 1 Chronicles 21:3). As soon as the numbering was completed, God intended to chasten the nation with a disastrous plague which would bring about an enormous loss of life (in fact the lives of 70,000 Israelites according to 2 Samuel 24:15).

What about Satan? Why would he get himself involved in this affair (according to 1 Chronicles 21:1) if God had already prompted David to commit the folly he had in mind? It seems his reasons were entirely malicious, knowing that a census would displease the Lord (1 Chronicles 21:7-8), and so he also incited David to carry it through.

Yet this is nothing new, for there are a number of other occurrences in the Bible where both the Lord and Satan were involved in soul-searching testings and trials:

In the book of Job, chapters one and two we find a challenge to Satan from God allowing Satan to bring upon Job his calamities. God's purpose was to purify Job's faith, and to strengthen his character by means of discipline through adversity, whereas Satan's purpose was purely malicious, wishing Job as much harm as possible so that he would recant his faith in his God.

Similarly both God and Satan are involved in the sufferings of persecuted Christians according to 1 Peter 4:19 and 5:8. God's purpose is to strengthen their faith and to enable them to share in the sufferings of Christ in this life, that they may rejoice with Him in the glories of heaven to come (1 Peter 4:13-14), whereas Satan's purpose is to 'devour' them (1 Peter 5:8), or rather to draw them into self-pity and bitterness, and down to his level.

Both God and Satan allowed Jesus the three temptations during his ministry on earth. God's purpose for these temptations was for him to triumph completely over the very tempter who had lured the first Adam to his fall, whereas Satan's purpose was to deflect the saviour from his messianic mission.

In the case of Peter's three denials of Jesus in the court of the high priest, it was Jesus himself who points out the purposes of both parties involvement when he says in Luke 22:31-32, "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

And finally the crucifixion itself bears out yet another example where both God and Satan are involved. Satan exposed his purpose when he had the heart of Judas filled with treachery and hate (John 13:27), causing him to betray Jesus. The Lord's reasoning behind the crucifixion, however, was that Jesus, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world should give his life as a ransom for many, so that once again sinful man could relish in the relationship lost at the very beginning, in the garden of Eden, and thereby enter into a relationship which is now eternal.

Thus we have five other examples where both the Lord and Satan were involved together though with entirely different motives. Satan's motive in all these examples, including the census by David was driven by malicious intent, while the Lord in all these cases showed an entirely different motive. His was a benevolent motive with a view to eventual victory, while simultaneously increasing the usefulness of the person tested. In every case Satan's success was limited and transient; while in the end God's purpose was well served furthering His cause substantially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Discordia

Basically try to explain Religion with Science. If you would use Science to prove religion it will always come up inconclusive. There may be facts supporting that certain people from the bible did exist but it doesn't make whats in the bible true. Also the way your trying to use the scripture to prove scripture is so much like Pseudo-Science because your trying to give explinations on clear contradictions with other mumbo-jumbo. Do you see where I am coming from?  hmm.gif

604751[/snapback]

No, I'm sorry, you lost me.

604774[/snapback]

You're a lost cause, I don't think I could make it any more clear.

604781[/snapback]

You say "clear contradictions" when you probably haven't read more than five of your so called "clear contradictions." You probably have no idea what they are even talking about.

Remember, we are talking about contradictions in the Bible. NOT contradictions in "Little House on the Prairie." The Bible is a very complex batch of writtings, that are all harmonized together in one book. If you come in here and write off Christianity as nothing than crap, and then try and read the scriptures, how easy is it gonna be for me to tell you the scriptures do not quarrel with one another? It would be the same thing if you sent a US soilder to a Nazi propaganda speech in WW2. Do you think he would even listen? What if Hilter said "hey just listen to me for one second." Do you think he would? You have it burned into your brain that they are all contradictory, and you aren't even really sure why.

I have shown, that the reason that the Bible seems to be written off as contradictory is due to the lack of understanding. If people read these passages as a novel, and as "non-fiction" book. I'm sure your little list of contradictions wouldn't have even existed.

Why? Because for the most part it is being dismissed right off the bat. And then you point your finger at me. Telling me that "i need to open my mind."

And then you say something like THIS.

Basically try to explain Religion with Science.

604781[/snapback]

Ok, I will just basically do that. Then, I will basically fund a crew to go to Saturn.

Ask yourself, can science be "basically" explained? Can religion be "basically" explained?

How can anyone "basically" explain "religion" with "science."

My point is, this thread is about "101 Contradictions and the Bible."

If you want to bring science into this, then fine.

But make it relevant to the topic. And don't just open your mouth making a bunch of nonsense.

Whenever you can find a scripture in this list that is relevant to science, and how science can prove religion is bunk, then so be it. We can talk about it, and how it may be a "contradiction."

You started this topic, then you run and hide. Then you come back an see how many people that post are skeptics, you see many, then you feel its safe for you to post.

You get online for five minutes and you in no way could have read hardly any of my answers. But what do you do? You automatically write me off as crap. I respect some people on this thread, although they are skeptics. They actually read, and see what I'm trying to say. If they disagree, then we discuss.

You on the other hand did none of that.

604856[/snapback]

Amalgamut, no I have read what you have posted, I was online a lot longer than that. I go under invisible, so you wouldn't know. It's not that I am writing you off as crap. Don't get me wrong here, I respect your opinion I just disagree with them. In no way am I trying to offend you here. And I wasn't trying to convert this conversation into science I was simply using a comparasion trying to get my point across. thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpalz
It's not hard to read into things, s'pecailly when they are left so open. And yes I am sure I am in the right thread, 'cause what else debunks Religion better than Science? It is very much relevant to this thread. The contradictions are right there in black and white, so go ahead and call them "half baked."  thumbsup.gif

604666[/snapback]

I just higlighted what I want to talk about.

People say science and religion are opposed, that science brings enlightment while religion brings ignorance. Well, they are wrong. Science doesn't debunk religion, far from it. Both bring knowledge and answer the same question from different angles. And you can be a great scientist and a religious person at the same time. In fact, that's what I want to be (or else I wouldn't be studying engineering to make some kick-a** movies or videogames grin2.gif ) yes.gif

Well, back in topic. This so-called "contradictions" are REALLY weak arguments, and Amalgamut, you've been doing great. Keep it up!!! thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amalgamut

I just higlighted what I want to talk about.

People say science and religion are opposed, that science brings enlightment while religion brings ignorance. Well, they are wrong. Science doesn't debunk religion, far from it. Both bring knowledge and answer the same question from different angles. And you can be a great scientist and a religious person at the same time. In fact, that's what I want to be (or else I wouldn't be studying engineering to make some kick-a** movies or videogames grin2.gif ) yes.gif

Well, back in topic. This so-called "contradictions" are REALLY weak arguments, and Amalgamut, you've been doing great. Keep it up!!!  thumbsup.gif

605678[/snapback]

Thanks jpalz. thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TaintedDoughnuts
Also how can you disregard the fact that many stories from the bible are so "coincidentally" similar to older religions? Which someone had mentioned earlier on in this thread.  happy.gif

604607[/snapback]

you're wrong: Christianity is the oldest religion to date(google "dead sea scrolls": theyre the oldest living proof of any religion, Christian or not. so, its those "older" religions that copied the Christians.

BTW, nice job Amalgamut. most of them keep making the same arguments over and over again, shouldnt be a problem to you thumbsup.gif

Edited by TaintedDoughnuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android
You are blinded to the light my friend.

No, you can’t be blinded when there is no light. I have studied your mythology and found it hypocritical, bloody and totally wanting! There is nothing original in it, the crucified Savior ManGod was a recurring theme throughout the Eurasia from 1000 BCE onward, Mithra, Hercules, Osirus, Krishna, Tien Ti, etc. The only thing original about Christianity is no other religion has ever spilled the amount of blood over as extended a period as did Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant)! It had to borrow the Jewish scriptures, borrow the sacrificed savior concept and even borrow the miracles from the 1st century CE magician/savior Appollonius! As I said there is no light, only your imagination!

You will never see the answers.

I see the answer alright. I have made a point of studying your religion, it’s origins, and it’s history! The answer is that Christianity has been found wanting and patently without any evidence of veracity!

Again, I did not say I was done yet.

If you continue, you will still “waffle and tap dance”, so why does it matter? rolleyes.gif

604252[/snapback]

So you've made a point of studying our religion...

So have we. We do not blindly follow Christianity. We have searched for the answers just as hard as you have (I would have thought the comprehensiveness of Amalgamut's answer's would have shown you that).

That aside though, you claim there is nothing original in Christianity. Have you ever heard of the concept of Grace? The definition below comes from www.religioustolerance.org

Grace: an Christian expression meaning "the free and unmerited assistance or favor or energy or saving presence of God in his dealings with humanity..."). 4 Grace is a gift of God and is not considered to be deserved by the individual. According to the Bible, those to whom God does not give grace cannot understand the gospel message.

In every other religion, its purpose is to tell us how to get right with God (and if the religion does not believe in God/ gods, then how to live good lives etc)

Christianity is the only religion which says we don't actually have to do anything. It's all about what GOD HAS DONE FOR US through the death of Jesus on the cross. Can you find Grace in any other religion?

Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amalgamut

So you've made a point of studying our religion...

So have we.  We do not blindly follow Christianity.

605895[/snapback]

I'm glad you pointed this out. thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zandore
you're wrong: Christianity is the oldest religion to date(google "dead sea scrolls": theyre the oldest living proof of any religion,
"Oldest LIVING proof! I will let that slide as a typo.

I know that you did not GOOGLE Oldest religion. If you had you would have found this:GOOGLE SEARCH

Talk about a popped bubble! laugh.gif

Christian or not. so, its those "older" religions that copied the Christians.
laugh.gif How can older religions copy something newer?
BTW, nice job Amalgamut. most of them keep making the same arguments over and over again, shouldnt be a problem to you
Yes it isn't hard to keep giving the same answer over and over and over again when we keep coming up with new things for him to answer.
So have we. We do not blindly follow Christianity. We have searched for the answers just as hard as you have
Christianity is the only religion which says we don't actually have to do anything.
Looks like contradictory statements.

339 CONTRADICTIONS w00t.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mako

Since I am a little pressed for time, here are multiple answers for multiple postings:

Taintedoughnuts sez:

you're wrong: Christianity is the oldest religion to date(google "dead sea scrolls": theyre the oldest living proof of any religion, Christian or not. so, its those "older" religions that copied the Christians.

BTW, nice job Amalgamut. most of them keep making the same arguments over and over again, shouldnt be a problem to you

My answer:

Sorry to disappoint you, but Christianity is only 2000 years old, Judaism is only about 2600 years old. The Dead Sea scrolls date from about 1st century BCE to 1st century CE. The religion of the ancient Egyptians dates back to before 3200 BCE and continued until after 400 CE (much older and much longer lasting than Judiasm or Christianity). We have Egyptian religious scriptures that date to 2500 BCE, the oldest copy of the OT we have is 200 BCE and the oldest copy of the NT is dated 325 CE. We also have Akkadian, Sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hindu, Taoist and Buddhist scriptures that date (in the main part) to long before the first OT, although the Taoist and Buddhist scriptures might be contemporary to the OT. The oldest religion, hardly, a relatively new religion is more like it. The reason we keep making the same arguments to Amalgamut is that he doesn’t give evidence in his answers, only his opinions which are worthless in a debate. If he were to ever give evidence the he might have a leg to stand on!

Bobbie McRobbie sez:

So you've made a point of studying our religion...

So have we. We do not blindly follow Christianity. We have searched for the answers just as hard as you have (I would have thought the comprehensiveness of Amalgamut's answer's would have shown you that).

My answer:

Have either of you studied anything other than your scriptures, books on dogma or works of Christian Apologists? Have you read Celsus’ existing works, Lucian’s comments, Esuebius’ histories, St Augustine’s works, Origen, Justin Martyr, the works of the Essenes, the works of the Therapeutae (called by an early Christian historian “Christians before Christ”), Tertullian, Papias, or John Chrysostom? If your answer is yes, then you have searched for answers and truly studied your religion, if you answer is no, then you are only following the words of men you never knew, written around 1800 years ago! That is not studying or searching, that is accepting something because you were told it was so!

Bobby McRobby sez:

That aside though, you claim there is nothing original in Christianity. Have you ever heard of the concept of Grace?

My answer:

That was a precept that was originally taught in Zoroastrianism and carried over into Mithraism (Mithraism is a spin off of that religion, much as Christianity is a spin off of Judism) which is one of the “dying savior ManGod” religions that Christianity borrowed their beliefs from! As I said, nothing original in Christianity.

Amalgamut sez:

SIMPLE! The person who made the "101 LIST" got the scripture numbers wrong!! So I switched them around for them!!! But, had you opened your Bible you would have realized this........ You didn't even lift a page of it, and you used my answer to try and show that I messed up!!!!

My answer:

In other words, all the evidence you have is your interpretation of those scriptures and a feeling. Hardly admissible in even a heated argument, much less in a rebuttal to a biblical contradiction.

Amalgamut sez:

Ahh I see you are a Jewish Rabbi, and I also see that you have perfomed many circumcisions as well.

My answer:

Make a couple of points first. First present day Rabbinical Judaism is not the same as the Temple Judaism of Jesus’ day. Secondly, I am a research analyst with a degree in Anthropology and a minor in history, Thirdly,as I had stated before in all ancient tribal societies (of which Jews were very much a part of), you were who your ancestor were! To leave out any member (telescope you would call it) would be totally unheard of since it could degrade the individual’s social status, either because the man left out was of a high status or leaving him out would be perceived as lying. After all, Matthew was trying to convince other Jews (who knew the rules of personal genealogy) that Jesus was of the House of David. Still a contradiction until you can present viable evidence.

Amalgamut sez:

Hmmm.....I see you are talking about politics.

I thought we were talking about 2 Chronicles 36:9 here. Oops my bad.

My answer:

No, not politics, just making the point that much can happen in one decade and to miss by 10 years is just as bad as missing by 10 centuries! Still a contradiction until you can present viable evidence.

Amalgamut sez:

Obviously, you are going to have some soilders that do not fight. Some stay back and command. If you had even bothered to read these stories you would know. But you are taking one passage from one book, and one from the other. And mashing just the two scriptures together. And saying "WOW A CONTRADICTION!!"

My answer:

You’ve never been in the military before have you? All military members, no matter what their true job is, are taught to fight. They learn unarmed combat, how to fire and maintain a weapon, run obstacle courses and all other manner of maneuvers to keep them alive in combat. Even if you are a supply sergeant or a 5 star General the ebb and flow of battle may easily throw you on the front line of action. Consequently all of the men enumerated would be men of the sword and we still have a 300,000 man discrepancy. Also, in “time of yore” (which also fits Biblical times) commanders led their men, they did not stand back out of danger! It was the mark of the coward to let any of your men (other than scouts) to go before you into combat. Only with the invention of long distant communications (mirrors, telescopes, and eventually telegraph and radio) did the commanders start staying back and directing the battle from a distance. Geez, not ever in the military and little knowledge of history! Still a contradiction until you can present viable evidence.

If you took a line from "My Little Pony" and mashed a line from the SAME STORY but it was written by someone 200 years later about the same subject would they relate? The answer is YES!!! They would!!!! However, you may have to read more than just that one line from each book.

My answer:

And in the same way Sam and Chron should agree, after all they meet the criteria that you just laid out. Still a contradiction until you can present viable evidence.

Amalgamut sez:

Can you spell reading comprehension?

My answer:

Yeah, I can spell it, but do you know the definition of it? Evidentially not.

Amalgamut sez:

I threw that in there indeed. I may have been incorect about that part, by my answer still holds water...He didn't qoute my FULL answer.

My answer:

See you admit that you were wrong, and since you based your entire argument on that erroneous contention there was no reason to quote your full answer. However, if you want to go with “God was angry, and he allowed Satan to incite the census. God wanted to teach man that they should trust God over numbers (men in an army.)” Then I contend that your God was just looking for a reason to kick David around. Although 1 Chronicles states that Satan incited David, 2 Samuel says God moved David to “Go, number Israel and Judah” and then he gets mad because the man did what he moved him to do! In this day and age that is called entrapment and were Jehovah here, he would be doing some serious jail time over that! Your god, contrary to your beliefs, sins mightily!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android
Since I am a little pressed for time, here are multiple answers for multiple postings:

Bobbie McRobbie sez:

So you've made a point of studying our religion...

So have we. We do not blindly follow Christianity. We have searched for the answers just as hard as you have (I would have thought the comprehensiveness of Amalgamut's answer's would have shown you that).

My answer:

Have either of you studied anything other than your scriptures, books on dogma or works of Christian Apologists?  Have you read Celsus’ existing works, Lucian’s comments, Esuebius’ histories, St Augustine’s works, Origen, Justin Martyr, the works of the Essenes, the works of the Therapeutae (called by an early Christian historian “Christians before Christ”), Tertullian, Papias, or John Chrysostom?  If your answer is yes, then you have searched for answers and truly studied your religion, if you answer is no, then you are only following the words of men you never knew, written around 1800 years ago!  That is not studying or searching, that is accepting something because you were told it was so!

Bobby McRobby sez:

That aside though, you claim there is nothing original in Christianity. Have you ever heard of the concept of Grace?

My answer:

That was a precept that was originally taught in Zoroastrianism and carried over into Mithraism  (Mithraism is a spin off of that religion, much as Christianity is a spin off of Judism) which is one of the “dying savior ManGod” religions that Christianity borrowed their beliefs from!  As I said, nothing original in Christianity.

606167[/snapback]

The first point - I have read some of those, not all. And for the record, I was not a Christian until I turned 18. A church didn't tell me "REPENT OR GO TO HELL", to which I fearfully replied "Oh yes, anything to get out of fiery torment". I made the decision to commit my life to Christ after careful thought, not just believed what people told me.

Point two - A gathering of scientists came together to debunk the Bible. They were determined to find proof that the Bible had nothing new to offer. They were able to eliminate everything in the Bible. Except Grace. I can't find the link just at the moment from where this information is. I'll post it soon.

Can you tell me the sources where you get your information that Grace is a concept in Zoroastrianism and Mithraism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android
So have we. We do not blindly follow Christianity. We have searched for the answers just as hard as you have
Christianity is the only religion which says we don't actually have to do anything.
Looks like contradictory statements.

339 CONTRADICTIONS w00t.gif

606155[/snapback]

If you read the Bible as studiously as you read these posts, it's no wonder you have everything wrong. Here's the quote on Grace again from religioustolerance.org

Grace: an Christian expression meaning "the free and unmerited assistance or favor or energy or saving presence of God in his dealings with humanity..."). 4 Grace is a gift of God and is not considered to be deserved by the individual. According to the Bible, those to whom God does not give grace cannot understand the gospel message.

If you read my post again, you will find that when I say we 'don't actually have to do anything", it is in relation to being saved. God has done everything through Jesus.

My other sentence - "we have searched for answers" was in a different context. I was not referring to the saving work that Jesus performed on the Cross. I am talking about my personal journey to reach the point in my life where I accepted the Bible as true.

Or are you claiming that I should not read the Bible, and simply accept everything the Church tells me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zandore
If you read the Bible as studiously as you read these posts,
That is just it...I once was a believer but I realised what mind numbing BS religion is. So yes I have read the Bible and on occasion still do. You act like Christianity was the only thing that matters. Hey wake up....there are other beliefs out there that are just as important to the believer of them as Christianity is to you. If you did not have blind faith you would know this and not act like said believer is going to your Hell for that belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.