Read the appalling Chapter 31 of the Book of Numbers

[smokinglizard]

Alan McDougall 14/7/2007

So what is sweet kind merciful Moses proposal? Verse: 15, He says now murder all the “little boys”. In ABSOLUTE contrast Jesus said blessed are the little children for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

For goodness sake is this the same merciful loving God depicted by Jesus. No this horrific story does not end yet. Moses goes on saying.” Kill all the woman” except those that have not had "sex with a man". How on earth in those remote primitive days were the soldiers to know which woman was a virgin and which were not?.

Attempting to point up biblical discrepancies, plot holes, or contradictions by comparing passages found in the Old Testament to passages in the New Testament or quotes from Jesus is an exercise in foolishness.

Make no mistake -- the Bible was written by Man. It was inspired by God, but most certainly written letter for letter, word for word, by Man.

As such, the observations, teachings, and admonishments found in the Old Testament were made by men who lived anywhere between 700 and 1,000 years before Jesus. Their observations were based on the world and society as they understood it. Thus, from a modern perspective, many of those observations are flawed.

Hence the critical importance of Jesus' ministry. Jesus came to earth to communicate his (God's) true message that the original writers of the Old Testament had gotten wrong. In his own words: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

In plain English, Jesus was saying, "Hey, guys, most of the stuff in the Old Testament is correct, but you've misconstrued, mistranslated, or misunderstood much of it. So I'm here to set you straight."

The New Testament was also written by men, but by men who heard the message straight from Jesus' (God's) mouth.

In short, the New Testament trumps the Old Testament, as its authors heard its message straight from God's mouth rather than a message that was handed down orally (and thus skewed, mistranslated, or misinterpreted) for scores of generations.

Thus, comparing and contrasting things from the OT to things from the NT is a grand waste of time.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It was inspired by God

Evidence please.

In plain English, Jesus was saying, "Hey, guys, most of the stuff in the Old Testament is correct, but you've misconstrued, mistranslated, or misunderstood much of it. So I'm here to set you straight."

So who's coming to "set us straight" on the discrepancies, errors and contradictions in the NT?

 

[smokinglizard]

So who's coming to "set us straight" on the discrepancies, errors and contradictions in the NT?

Name them.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Samples:-
Luke 1:26-31 - Mary was not pregnant when she was told she would have a son.
Matthew 1:18-21 - Mary was pregnant when she told it would be a won.

Matthew 1:1-17 - 28 generations from David to Jesus.
Luke 3:23-31 - 43 generations from David to Jesus.

Try here for more.

Still waiting for this:

Originally Posted by smokinglizard
It was inspired by God

Evidence please.

 

[smokinglizard]

Samples:-
Luke 1:26-31 - Mary was not pregnant when she was told she would have a son.
Matthew 1:18-21 - Mary was pregnant when she told it would be a won.

Did you read these two passages? In the first, the angel is speaking to Mary. In the second, the angel is speaking to Joseph. Different contexts.

Matthew 1:1-17 - 28 generations from David to Jesus.
Luke 3:23-31 - 43 generations from David to Jesus.

Luke’s genealogy is through Mary, while Matthew describes the genealogy through Joseph.

What else you got?

Like JFK assassination theories and "discrepancies," there's always a simple, rational explanation to explain these things away.

And on the issue of the Bible being inspired by God, providing evidence that it was or wasn't isn't the point of this thread or the point of my original post. If you want to discuss that topic, I'd suggest starting a new thread.

My point was, Bible naysayers often attempt to discredit the Bible by pointing out discrepancies in it and claiming something along the lines of, "I thought you said this was the word of God? So is God contradicting himself here?" My counter to that is that the Bible is not the literal word of God; rather, per Christian faith, inspired by God but still greatly subject to potential error.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Luke’s genealogy is through Mary, while Matthew describes the genealogy through Joseph.

Still doesn't explain 28 vs. 43 generations.

What else you got?

You were given a link.

And on the issue of the Bible being inspired by God, providing evidence that it was or wasn't isn't the point of this thread or the point of my original post. If you want to discuss that topic, I'd suggest starting a new thread.

Yet you made the claim and queried mine.

inspired by God but still greatly subject to potential error.

And you repeat the claim...
How about "the bible was written by men, and invented by men"?

 

[smokinglizard]

Still doesn't explain 28 vs. 43 generations.

Yes it does. I suggest you read up on the subject.

You were given a link.

I was just poking at you. I don't have time to refute every assertion made by someone else on some other web page. If you have a specific purported NT discrepancy you want to discuss, by all means, throw it out there and let's discuss.

And you repeat the claim...

Nope...I said according to Christian faith.

How about "the bible was written by men, and invented by men"?

Absolutely -- if that's what you want to believe. You can believe the sky is pink if you like!

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yes it does. I suggest you read up on the subject.

Um, no it doesn't. Unless one line of parents aged at a vastly different rate.

I was just poking at you. I don't have time to refute every assertion made by someone else on some other web page. If you have a specific purported NT discrepancy you want to discuss, by all means, throw it out there and let's discuss.

No point.

Nope...I said according to Christian faith.

Yup. The second time you made the statement.

Absolutely -- if that's what you want to believe. You can believe the sky is pink if you like!

But unless I can provide evidence then all it means is I'm deluded...

 

[smokinglizard]

But unless I can provide evidence then all it means is I'm deluded...

Now, now, no need to be nasty. Just because one cannot or does not provide evidence for an assertion does not mean that person is delusional or even wrong.

For example, in 1988, my brother owned an MG Midget. Today, he has no proof that he owned that car -- no documentation, no photos, nothing. But that lack of evidence does not mean that he never owned the car and it certainly doesn't mean that when he tells his friends that he once owned an MG that he's being delusional.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Now, now, no need to be nasty. Just because one cannot or does not provide evidence for an assertion does not mean that person is delusional or even wrong.

For example, in 1988, my brother owned an MG Midget. Today, he has no proof that he owned that car -- no documentation, no photos, nothing. But that lack of evidence does not mean that he never owned the car and it certainly doesn't mean that when he tells his friends that he once owned an MG that he's being delusional.

Fail: there is independent corroboration. Including records somewhere.

Edit: and of course, owning an MG is not outside of everyday experience. A claim to have owned one is not extraordinary. A claim to be able turn invisible, for example, IS. And as such WOULD require evidence to be accepted as more than delusion.

 

[smokinglizard]

Fail: there is independent corroboration. Including records somewhere.

Fail? I don't think so. The lack of evidence does not prove nonexistence -- it simply does not prove existence. Something can most certainly exist or have existed without the claimant having to provide evidence, as my MG example illustrates. But again, that's a different subject.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Fail? I don't think so. The lack of evidence does not prove nonexistence -- it simply does not prove existence.

Oh, I see you didn't understand what I wrote.
The fail was in making your point. I.e. your example didn't substantiate the argument.
I'll go back to your original statement and my reply:

You can believe the sky is pink if you like!

But unless I can provide evidence then all it means is I'm deluded...

In other words my comment about requiring evidence was implying that belief in something without evidence, when that something (e.g. a pink sky) is contrary to everyday experience and observation, would be deluded.

Something can most certainly exist or have existed without the claimant having to provide evidence, as my MG example illustrates. But again, that's a different subject.

Quite.

 

[spidergoat]

Fail? I don't think so. The lack of evidence does not prove nonexistence -- it simply does not prove existence. Something can most certainly exist or have existed without the claimant having to provide evidence, as my MG example illustrates. But again, that's a different subject.

Actually, the lack of evidence where evidence should exist, would be proof of the non-existence of something. If, for instance, there were no records of ownership at the Department of Motor Vehicles where those records should exist, that is evidence that no MG was owned by him.

Lack of trampled trees and large droppings would be proof that no elephants exist in your backyard.

 

[spidergoat]

...The New Testament was also written by men, but by men who heard the message straight from Jesus' (God's) mouth.

....

No it was not written by the disciples. It was written by the Council of Nicea in Rome, most of the gospels taken from the writings of Paul of Tarsus who did not know Jesus personally.

 

[smokinglizard]

No it was not written by the disciples. It was written by the Council of Nicea in Rome, most of the gospels taken from the writings of Paul of Tarsus who did not know Jesus personally.

Ummm...no. I assume (and hope) you're being facetious!

The Council of Nicea was convened in 325 AD, and there is no evidence that Bible canon was discussed there. Most scholars hold that the Gospel of Mark dates to 65 to 72 AD and the other Gospels somewhere between 75 and 90 AD.

And no, the Gospels were not taken from the writings of Paul.

You really shouldn't read so many Dan Brown novels!

 

[spidergoat]

I don't read Dan Brown, I read Elaine Pagels.

 

[NMSquirrel]

dyw..how does one 'prove' someone is inspired by god?

and which are you argueing dyw, bible is gods word or bible was written by man?

smokinglizard..keep going!..dyw likes to argue..does not neccesarily mean thats what he believes..(mostly..but not always..)

my memory is bad when it comes to names and numbers..you have those names and numbers..grats..keep posting!

 

[Dywyddyr]

dyw..how does one 'prove' someone is inspired by god?

Good question. Yet people seem to think that simply making the claim is sufficient.
It is not provable yet it keeps getting repeated as if it were actually worth repeating.
Plus, of course, the claim pre-supposes that god exists. It's another "we know the bible is true because god inspired it, and we know god exists because it says so in the bible".

and which are you argueing dyw, bible is gods word or bible was written by man?

I'm arguing neither. Simply asking for evidence for assertions.

smokinglizard..keep going!..dyw likes to argue..does not neccesarily mean thats what he believes..(mostly..but not always..)

Hush!

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Um, no it doesn't. Unless one line of parents aged at a vastly different rate.

Now why would that be? exactly.

What does the length of your genealogy have to do with your age?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Now why would that be? exactly.
What does the length of your genealogy have to do with your age?

Read the relevant posts.
If one line has 46 generations and another has 28, while both have the same end and start points what does that imply to you?