Biblical errors

[Tiassa]

The sons don't die for the fathers' sins, but since they have no one else to learn from, they learn their fathers' sins.

Short form: Like father, like son.

So if I have you correctly:

* The sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers, except that they shall because the Lord shall visit those iniquities upon them.

Nonetheless--like father, like son is a result, and speaks nothing of the process.

You seem to be avoiding the contradiction that the Bible says two things which equal opposing states. Now, that one of them is reflected in allegory is, actually, aside. These things you have addressed are known and recognized issues, but they speak nothing of the fact that the Bible makes statements which equal contradictory states.

There is an academic exploration to be undertaken here, but I'm curious why you don't pursue it; a possible reconciliation which could be provided which you choose not to offer.

Tell you what: I'll do the reading again and post it for you, since you have chosen not to address it.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Markx]

Since I am no expert in religion but I do think that certian things are contradicting, errors or Confusion. I start with simple things, And would like to hear simple answers. If you guys can shed some light ( religious experts ) that would be great. Don't give me every day BS by telling it is one of the God's mystery. Thanks in advance.


Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?

Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And
he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."


Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great
multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."


Now which one to believe in?. Aren't they talking about same moment??? Or they are different. Help me out thanks.

Another thing that confuses me is here,

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?

In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned.
Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke
3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first
one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The
only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH.

How can this be true? and also How can
Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.


Thanks in advance.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Avatar
people are not stupid you know*

Somebody has to be, and that somebody is people.

*I have a freedom of choice and I choose in what I beleive.*

God says that.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).

* And if some christian fundie thinks he can scare me with internal flames, wellllll let his think so*

Internal flames?
Is that like heartburn?

*It is truly stupid to beleive tht only christians shall be rewarded after death, or anyone will. Why that top priority. They are scared of unknown and thus think of a good hidding place, behing concept of one god, tht shall reward only them after the apocalypsis.*

It may be stupid but it works for me, except for the "reward after the apocalypse."

The reward is NOW, and then.

Wealth and riches shall be in his house: and his righteousness endures for ever.
(Psalms 112:3, KJV).

*What about Hidu, Islam, Mormon, Buddhism, all those pagan beleifs.*

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Does that answer your question?

*You think tht you are better then they are.*

No, just right.

*Take a look in what America is turnong into.
God save America. and new born christians and fundies everywhere, allowing you not to live.
[where did the rest of the world go?*

I don't know, is it gone?
Besides, anyone at all will allow you not to live.
Hindus will allow you not to live.
Muslims will allow you not to live.
Buddhists will allow you not to live.
Pagans will allow you not to live.
It's a free world if you want to not live.

*Originally posted by tiassa
Tell you what: I'll do the reading again and post it for you, since you have chosen not to address it.*

Thanks, tiassa.

*Originally posted by Markx
Aren't they talking about same moment?*

Jesus spoke more than once.

Luke event is immediately after choosing his disciples, whereas Matt. event is after choosing his disciples AND going thru Galilee and Syria and THEN going up the mountain.

Besides, the Luke event is closer to the Mediterranean since people were there from Tyre and Sidon which are seaports.
The Matt. event is farther from the sea since people from Jordan and beyond are mentioned as being there.

*The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
How can this be true?*

Who said it was supposed to be true?
In fact, who said both genealogies were supposed to be true?

One genealogy is presented as a SUPPOSITION....

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,
(Luke 3:23, KJV).

So what is the problem if people thought that and thought wrong?
Many people in this forum think wrong and think nothing of it.

*How can
Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.*

I don't know of anyone yet that has figured that Jesus had no father.
That is definitely a new one.

 

[Markx]

Originally posted by tony1
*Originally posted by Avatar


*Originally posted by Markx
Aren't they talking about same moment?*

Jesus spoke more than once.

Luke event is immediately after choosing his disciples, whereas Matt. event is after choosing his disciples AND going thru Galilee and Syria and THEN going up the mountain.

Besides, the Luke event is closer to the Mediterranean since people were there from Tyre and Sidon which are seaports.
The Matt. event is farther from the sea since people from Jordan and beyond are mentioned as being there.

*The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
How can this be true?*

Who said it was supposed to be true?
In fact, who said both genealogies were supposed to be true?

One genealogy is presented as a SUPPOSITION....

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,
(Luke 3:23, KJV).

So what is the problem if people thought that and thought wrong?
Many people in this forum think wrong and think nothing of it.

*How can
Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.*

I don't know of anyone yet that has figured that Jesus had no father.
That is definitely a new one.

So what you are saing here is that those geneologies are not true??? But they are still in Bible?? Word of God?

"One genealogy is presented as a SUPPOSITION" Preseneted by a man. Correct?. Supposition in God's word? What are you trying to say here?? All our life we take Bible as word of God the True word of God and now you just told me that it is not suppose to be true?? You confuse me again.


And now you are saing that Jesus has/had a father??? So you are denying the mircle birth without a man?. Now it could be whole new topic to discuss.

"So what is the problem if people thought that and thought wrong?"

So what people are you talking about people in Bible? If thats what you mean then Bible is not pure word of God since God doesn't make mistakes ?? Am I correct??

I do apperciate you explanation regarding my first question and thank you for clearing it up.

 

[blonde_cupid]

Regarding the question concerning the seeming contradiction between Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20... If one reads Ezekiel 18 in its entirety, they might find that a similar question was asked and answered more than 1400 years ago.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ezekiel 18
1
The word of the LORD came to me:
2
"What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: "`The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'?
3
"As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel.
4
For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.
5
"Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right.
6
He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife or lie with a woman during her period.
7
He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked.
8
He does not lend at usury or take excessive interest. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between man and man.
9
He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign LORD.
10
"Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things
11
(though the father has done none of them): "He eats at the mountain shrines. He defiles his neighbor's wife.
12
He oppresses the poor and needy. He commits robbery. He does not return what he took in pledge. He looks to the idols. He does detestable things.
13
He lends at usury and takes excessive interest. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.
14
"But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:
15
"He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife.
16
He does not oppress anyone or require a pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked.
17
He withholds his hand from sin and takes no usury or excessive interest. He keeps my laws and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live.
18
But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
19
"Yet you ask, `Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live.
20
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
21
"But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.
22
None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.
23
Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24
"But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.
25
"Yet you say, `The way of the Lord is not just.' Hear, O house of Israel: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust?
26
If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die.
27
But if a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will save his life.
28
Because he considers all the offenses he has committed and turns away from them, he will surely live; he will not die.
29
Yet the house of Israel says, `The way of the Lord is not just.' Are my ways unjust, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?
30
"Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.
31
Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel?
32
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If one sees in the Bible a recording of a developing relationship between God* and man which involves a number of changing covenants between the two as the relationship progressed, they might come to a better understanding of the differences. In this case, Ezekiel speaks to a newer covenant than the one recorded in Exodus.

 

[Tiassa]

Blonde Cupid

Good post for a start; it's at least a part of what I was after when I mentioned to Tony1 that there was an academic avenue yet untread. While I think the ellipsus is certainly more fair than the omissions in Tony1's text, it is always interesting to see if anyone turns to the larger text to derive context.

It would seem that the context of the Ezekiel chapter is that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers; we recognize, however, the choice of those who would continue living according to what is prescribed as sinful.

But this does not begin to approach the contradiction. You have, in your post, affirmed the contracted summary of the Ezekiel verse, and supported KalvinB's point about the choices made by the sons. However, what of what the sons do not choose?

The other half of the contradiction presented: I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20.5).

The Lord has said through His prophet that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers. Is this a revision of the Lord's prior declaration that he shall visit the iniquities of the fathers unto the sons? Is this a correction? A retraction? What, on the day of Ezekiel's prophecy, prompted the change? It would seem that the Word of God, while consistent and true according to faith, continually creates transitory and contradictory states, such as asserted in the topic post.

How is it that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers if the Lord will intentionally visit those iniquities unto those sons?

We understand the point about choosing to live according to sinful ways; it speaks nothing, however, of the choices the Lord makes.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[blonde_cupid]

tiassa,

At the time of Exodus, the relationship between man and God* was in its infancy. At that time, a son didn't have much of a choice as all he could know is that which his father taught him. Since it would take generations for the relationship to mature to a point where a son had the knowledge of God* sufficient to make his own decisions, it was incumbent upon the fathers of the Exodus generation to lead by example and it was made clear there would be severe consequences upon their family for generations if the fathers chose the way of unrighteousness.

At the time of Ezekiel, although iniquities continued to be visited upon sons through the example of some fathers and through the ever-present temptations in the world, by that time, sons of Israel had sufficient knowledge of God* to have their own personal relationship with God* and make their own choices.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Markx
So what you are saing here is that those geneologies are not true??? But they are still in Bible?? Word of God?*

It is true that the one genealogy is a SUPPOSED genealogy.
It is true that people supposed that.
Is that some kind of a problem?

*"One genealogy is presented as a SUPPOSITION" Preseneted by a man. Correct?. Supposition in God's word? What are you trying to say here?? All our life we take Bible as word of God the True word of God and now you just told me that it is not suppose to be true?? You confuse me again.*

It's just you confusing yourself.
If you kill someone and tell the police that you didn't, it isn't a lie when the police report says, "He said he didn't kill the victim," even though you did.

*And now you are saing that Jesus has/had a father??? So you are denying the mircle birth without a man?. Now it could be whole new topic to discuss.*

Who said anything about a man?
You just brought it up.

*So what people are you talking about people in Bible? If thats what you mean then Bible is not pure word of God since God doesn't make mistakes ?? Am I correct?? *

God correctly reported that people were wrong.
Besides, where did you get the idea that the Bible is the word of God, when it has words by dozens of beings in it?

*Originally posted by tiassa
While I think the ellipsus is certainly more fair than the omissions in Tony1's text, it is always interesting to see if anyone turns to the larger text to derive context.*

Nah, in discussions like these, context is rarely discussed due to the flat, literal nature of the "contradictions."
Since most "contradictions" are a result of failing to read what is actually written, no context is required.

*However, what of what the sons do not choose? *

That would be the question of import.

*The Lord has said through His prophet that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers.*

Ezekiel is saying that the sons will not die because of the penalty due their fathers.
Each man dies as the penalty for his own sin.

*How is it that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers if the Lord will intentionally visit those iniquities unto those sons?

We understand the point about choosing to live according to sinful ways; it speaks nothing, however, of the choices the Lord makes.*

The choice the Lord makes is to honor both his and the fathers' words.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).

The father makes this choice after Exodus and prior to Ezekiel.
A choice to live means that both you and your seed MAY live.
A choice to die means that both you and your seed may NOT live.
Thus, the father curses the son by making a poor choice.
The Lord then visits that poor choice, i.e. iniquity, onto the son.

The Lord is not forcing the son to sin; he is merely enforcing the term of the contract made by the father in De. 30:19.
The son may live under the curse, cursed but not sinning, in which case he would not have to bear the iniquity of his father, i.e. die for the father's sin.

*Originally posted by blonde_cupid
it was made clear there would be severe consequences upon their family for generations if the fathers chose the way of unrighteousness.*

There still are those severe consequences, i.e. curses, in existence.

One main one is this...

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
(Genesis 12:3, KJV).

Simply observe the result on any person or nation who has made anti-Semitic statements or taken anti-Semitic actions.
Curses are baaaaaaaaaaad news.

 

[Markx]

Originally posted by tony1




*Originally posted by tony1


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,
(Luke 3:23, KJV).

Ok here is another thing, Are they talking about same Joseph?



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

LUK 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. "

So was Jospeh son of Heli or Jacob?








I brought it up becuase I think you said,



How can
Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.*

I don't know of anyone yet that has figured that Jesus had no father.
That is definitely a new one. [/B]

I am still not sure what you mean by this. So are you beeing Sarcastic?

 

[Tiassa]

That's the point, Tony1

Nah, in discussions like these, context is rarely discussed due to the flat, literal nature of the "contradictions."
Since most "contradictions" are a result of failing to read what is actually written, no context is required.

That's the point, the very academic point I was hinting at. Now, I'll even put aside your running disregard for context in order to ask what is so hard for a Christian to explain about that larger reading. If the appearance of contradiction is a failure to read completely, then perhaps you might demonstrate that instead of just say it. Blonde Cupid has gotten a start on it, now if you'd like to compare the larger text of the Exodus citation, go for it. But since you say the larger text doesn't show a contradiction, show it. I, personally, agree with the appearance of contradiction; it is possible to demonstrate otherwise, but why do you sit there saying that something is and merely expect us to see it? Again, we come back to the issue whereby I accuse that you expect all people to read the same words the same way. Cupid showed us the larger text of Ezekiel, and insofar as I can tell, the larger text supports the idea that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the father.

The Exodus citation, as offered, says that the sons shall bear the iniquities of the father by proxy of those iniquities being visited on them by the Lord. This visitation of iniquity seems to have nothing to do with the choices the sons make. What you, KalvinB, and Blonde Cupid point out is applicable, but in a different debate. You keep telling us much about the choices of the sons and of the fathers, but none about the Lord's choice to visit those iniquities unto the sons.

If the appearance of contradiction comes from an inappropriate abridgement of the text, then please demonstrate that.

chuckling,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Blonde Cupid

At the time of Exodus, the relationship between man and God* was in its infancy. At that time, a son didn't have much of a choice as all he could know is that which his father taught him. Since it would take generations for the relationship to mature to a point where a son had the knowledge of God* sufficient to make his own decisions, it was incumbent upon the fathers of the Exodus generation to lead by example and it was made clear there would be severe consequences upon their family for generations if the fathers chose the way of unrighteousness.

At the time of Ezekiel, although iniquities continued to be visited upon sons through the example of some fathers and through the ever-present temptations in the world, by that time, sons of Israel had sufficient knowledge of God* to have their own personal relationship with God* and make their own choices.

2 primary questions:

1) You continue to speak of the choices of the sons. The Exodus citation refers to the choice made by the Lord. It is not that I disagree with the principles of what you're communicating, but that I do not see the reconciliation of ideas. What do the sons' choices matter if the Lord will visit iniquity unto them anyway?

2) Does this running revision of the human relationship with God imply that all is not known from the outset? What need has God of revision? Mind you, your personal faith might explain how it is that God could need to go back and fix something about the way things are put together, but that's part of the problem: what is an individual's faith and what is a broader faith? No interpretation of God can escape the facts that the Lord says one thing in one verse and another in another, and that the two statements equal opposing states. Revision works, but I didn't think God made mistakes, and furthermore, what does this say of Biblical laws pertaining to homosexuality, diet, tattoos, haircuts, &c? That, perhaps, they are outdated laws from an earlier period in the development of the human relationship with God? What does this need for revision say of the Hebrew laws that Christ did not address? You know, the ones Paul got to, eventually? Did you go to the edge of town for the required period after your last bowel movement? It isn't that the idea isn't valid, Cupid, but that it invites a host of considerations toward the larger image of faith.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[blonde_cupid]

tiassa,

I'm going out for a Japanese New Year's dinner. As for your questions, I'd better start with the first one only since I'm not sure what you're getting at:


***1) You continue to speak of the choices of the sons. The Exodus citation refers to the choice made by the Lord.***

I think we agree here. As I believe I stated, at Exodus, the sons really didn't have much of a choice:

"At the time of Exodus, the relationship between man and God* was in its infancy. At that time, a son didn't have much of a choice as all he could know is that which his father taught him."

***It is not that I disagree with the principles of what you're communicating, but that I do not see the reconciliation of ideas. What do the sons' choices matter if the Lord will visit iniquity unto them anyway?***

Perhaps we're not agreeing on what is meant by "visiting iniquity"?

Got to go...

Happy New Year.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Markx
I am still not sure what you mean by this. So are you beeing Sarcastic?*

Nope.
I've heard of people arguing WHO the father was, but I've never heard of no father at all.

Anyway, Joseph in a true genealogy and in a supposed one could be the same.
But a supposed genealogy could be wrong, otherwise it would be a true one.

Therefore, Joseph's father is Jacob, since the other genealogy is supposed, i.e. subject to error.

*Originally posted by tiassa
If the appearance of contradiction is a failure to read completely, then perhaps you might demonstrate that instead of just say it.*

No, you claim a contradiction, therefore the onus is on you to prove that there is one.
It isn't sufficient to create the impression of a contradiction.

*I, personally, agree with the appearance of contradiction; it is possible to demonstrate otherwise, but why do you sit there saying that something is and merely expect us to see it?*

Because you are alleging a contradiction, not me.

*the larger text supports the idea that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the father.*

Of course, the sons will NOT bear the iniquities of the father.
The Lord will, however, visit the iniquities to the 3rd and 4th gens of those who hate the Lord.

*This visitation of iniquity seems to have nothing to do with the choices the sons make.*

Oh no.
The visitation is only on those who hate the Lord, such as yourself.
See, in the absence of hating the Lord, the sons are just fine.
If the father makes the choice to hate the Lord, then the son defaults to hating the Lord.
At any time, however, the son could make the choice to change, as could you.

In the case of fathers choosing to love the Lord, the Lord also visits their iniquity on their sons, but since there isn't any, it's a moot issue.

*none about the Lord's choice to visit those iniquities unto the sons.*

He honors your choices even as they apply to your children.
As you can see, visiting iniquities when there aren't any is moot.

*What do the sons' choices matter if the Lord will visit iniquity unto them anyway?*

It is only visited upon those who hate the Lord, as you do.
That curse goes away when, you choose to love the Lord yourself, as you could do.

*What need has God of revision?*

None, whatsoever.
If revision is indicated, then please demonstrate.

 

[Markx]

So tony1, If you are correct on what you said. Then Bible is not in it it's true form any more?? I knew about contradictions but people always try to make some excuses, It is nice to know your views. Now let me ask you this, Since there are man made things in Bible how can a one Believe and become convert to some thing men made? I know there is real writings in Bible as well but still why would some one wana become Christian when there are things men made?? Just a thought.

 

[Stryder]

The Biggest Biblical Error:

Who forgot the Copyright????

Hangon.... If a supposed infallible God, forgot to place a copyright upon a book of his words, wouldn't that mean he was in fact fallible? Does that mean we are doomed Tony1?

Personally I think we are just doomed to have people quote the retched thing for eternity.

It's just sinister how the topic can be resolved, How a mention of Primitive minds being tutored to write suffered the blight of a fabricative disease that we now know of as imagination.

How one tall taled story teller, took to the road similar to that of bards of ancient greece and caught attention, purely because people lacked entertainment back then (Other than throwning Tony1's Relatives to the Lions... Oh by the way Tony1... ever thought about re-enactments?).

It's amusing to think that ships use to have bards on board to keep their sailors amused, and at each port the bards would sing of the tales of the crew and their conquests... Although the crew might have only been fishing, a Bard would tell a story of how they hoisted in Mermaids, And fought against dreaded hydras as apart of their voyage to make the sailors seem foolhardy and wrought and to be the toast of attention to a town.

The Occasional, "You should have seen the fish I caught... it was this big" was the norm, and over time, the fish got bigger, and the methods of catching got more ludicrous that only a few stubbornly iggorant people choose to believe myths over the reality of Physics. I'm sure you them personally Tony1.

One last thing TONY1....

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

 

[Markx]

Happy new year to all of you here too. Stryderunknown, I got something for you regards to copy right. funny you brought it up

 

[Teg]

tiassa

For the first statement to disconnect from the second, one of two presumptions are necessary:

1. The Lord/God cannot control some events. In this case the god is no longer omnipotent and is therefore invalidated.

2. There is an equally powerful force that can manipulate.

The first statement also carried an implication of divine power. When a biblical phrase is stated in absolute it is often understood that God/Lord is involved. Otherwise the bibles god is not an absolute power. See argument 2.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Markx
Since there are man made things in Bible how can a one Believe and become convert to some thing men made? I know there is real writings in Bible as well but still why would some one wana become Christian when there are things men made?? Just a thought. *

There are houses mentioned in the Bible.

Should I quit believing in the Bible because there is a house mentioned in the Bible?

Or are you talking about some other man-made things?

*Originally posted by Stryderunknown
forgot to place a copyright upon a book of his words*

It isn't copyright so anyone can have a copy.
Which reminds me, the idiots who think they are copyrighting the Bible, aren't.
Thus if you see a copyrighted Bible, that would be a suspicious Bible.

*Oh by the way Tony1... ever thought about re-enactments?*

Yeah, but the humane societies get all bent out of shape when lions start getting killed.

*I'm sure you them personally Tony1.*

Yeah, you, Teg, Xelios, razz, etc.

BTW, Happy New Year, O great Stryderunknown, legendary battler of the imagination!

*Originally posted by Teg
For the first statement to disconnect from the second, one of two presumptions are necessary: *

Yes?

Happy New Year

 

[razz]

Bible boo boo's

This is just the tip of the iceberg, I have about 60 pages of POSSIBLE mistakes within the bible.
Wonder what else was POSSIBLY mistaken.

As with the Resurrection, accounts clash in many respects.
(1) What color was the robe that was put on Jesus? Scarlet--Matt. 27:28 ("And they stripped him, and put on a scarlet robe") versus purple--Mark 15:17 ("And they clothed him with purple....") and John 19:2 ("...and they put on him a purple robe").

(2) When was the robe put on Jesus?
During his trial--John 19:1-2, 15 ("Then Pilate took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers...put on him a purple robe.... Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King?") versus after Pilate delivered him to be crucified--Matt. 27:26-28 ("Then released he Barrabas unto them; and when he had scourged Jesus he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into a common hall,...stripped him and put on him a scarlet robe") and Mark 15:15-17 ("And so Pilate, willing to content the people...delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified. And the soldiers led him away into the hall...and they clothed him with purple").

(3) At what hour was Jesus crucified?
The third hour--Mark 15:25 ("And it was the third hour, and they crucified him") versus before the sixth hour--Luke 23:43-44 ("And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. And it was about the sixth hour....") versus after the sixth hour--John 19:14-16 ("...and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.... Then delivered he him unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away") to be crucified later.

(4) What was the inscription on the Cross?
"This is Jesus the King of the Jews" (Matt. 27:37) versus "The King of the Jews" (Mark 15:26) versus "This is the King of the Jews" (Luke 23:38) versus "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews" (John 19:19).

(5) For what did the soldiers at the Cross cast lots?
His garments--Matt. 27:35 ("they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots") and Mark 15:24 ("And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take") and Luke 23:34 ("... And they parted his raiment, and cast lots") versus his coat alone--John 19:23-24 ("Then the soldiers when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be....").

(6) What was Jesus given to drink?
Vinegar--Matt. 27:48 ("And straightaway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and...gave him to drink") and Luke 23:36 ("And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him and offering him vinegar") and John 19:29-30 ("Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished....") versus vinegar mingled with gall--Matt. 27:34 ("They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall") versus wine mingled with myrrh--Mark 15:23 ("And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh; but he received it not").

(7) When Jesus got the sponge filled with vinegar, who said they would see if Elijah would come to his rescue?
The person who actually gave him the sponge--Mark 15:36 ("And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down") versus those with the person who gave him the sponge--Matt. 27:48-49 ("And straightaway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him").

(8) How many of the thieves on the Cross reviled Jesus?
One--Luke 23:39-40 RSV ("One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, 'Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!' But the other rebuked him, saying, Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?") versus both--Matt. 27:44 RSV ("And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way") and Mark 15:32 ("And they that were crucified with him reviled him").

(9) Who were the named women watching the Crucifixion?
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children--Matt. 27:55-56 versus Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the less and Joses and Salome--Mark 15:40 versus Jesus' mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene--John 19:25.

(10) From where did the women observe the Crucifixion?
From afar--Matt. 27:55-56 ("And many were beholding afar off...among which was Mary Magdalene...") and Luke 23:49 ("...and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things") and Mark 15:40 ("There were also women looking on afar off; among whom was Mary Magdalene,....") versus near the cross--John 19:25 ("now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene").



Children--Punishment of children is one thing; child abuse is another. And, unfortunately, many biblical verses can be easily used to justify the former by means of the latter: Prov. 23:13-14 ("Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell"), Prov. 22:15 RSV ("Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him"), Prov. 20:30 RSV ("Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost parts"), Prov. 13:24 RSV ("He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him"), Prov. 19:19 ("Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying"), Prov. 29:15 ("Thy rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother"), Prov. 26:3 ("A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back <children are often foolish--Ed.>"), and Deut. 21:18-21 ("If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city...and they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from the midst").

And, then, there are those verses which demean and degrade children by looking upon them as little more than beings to be punished for the misdeeds of others: Ex. 20:5 ("I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"), Lev. 26:22 ("I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children...."), Hosea 13:16 ("Samaria shall become desolate: for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up"), and Isa. 13:16-18 ("Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.... Their bows will slaughter the young men; they will have no mercy on the first of the womb; their eyes will not pity children").
...................................................................................................
This information was sourced online.
If you find a POSSIBLE mistake... oh well...
Blame the original author..dun ask me who that was.
__________________________________________________

Cheers
RazZ

 

[Tiassa]

Well, if you want to be accurate ....

No, you claim a contradiction, therefore the onus is on you to prove that there is one.
It isn't sufficient to create the impression of a contradiction.

The original contradiction was posted by Teg, and I don't know what you want toward proof of the appearance of contradiction if two sentences that create opposing states won't do it. I'd say the presence of the words is the proof of the contradiction. If you think that Teg or I or anyone else at this forum is reading those sentences incorrectly--the essence of your assertion, I believe--then the onus is quite yours.

thanx,
Tiassa