Contradictions in the Bible

[Subduction Zone]

I said 'if' which means I have no court date at present.

Good-Ole-Rebel

You also said that one would happen for sure. There is logically only one that you could know would happen for sure. The other is mere belief.

We need to brush up those logic skills just a tad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the lie does not originate with God. He sends the lie. The lie is not of Him. But when truth is rejected it is from Him sent.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Like it or not you are still claiming that God is a liar.

 

[sooda]

.......the well-known muslim........

I really, really like Israel Finkelstein.. he cuts thru all the crap and gets down to the bare necessities.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

God gives man the Truth. When man rejects that Truth, He sends the lie. It doesn't make God a liar. It means man would rather have the lie than the Truth.

Good-Ole-Rebel

You're making that up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, the lie does not originate with God. He sends the lie. The lie is not of Him. But when truth is rejected it is from Him sent.

Good-Ole-Rebel

So a lie that I use that does not originate from me is not my lie and therefore I am not a liar? So if someone makes a lie about the Bible and I put it forward, I am not a liar? If I promote the lie of someone else as the truth, then I am not a liar? Well,, Senator, I think you have stumbled onto something here.

 

[exchemist]

I really, really like Israel Finkelstein.. he cuts thru all the crap and gets down to the bare necessities.

Sorry I don't know who he is, but I just saw it and thought, now that is a real 6-cylinder Jewish name. Respect!

 

[exchemist]

This is for some that are..
But not for everyone that is..

Say there is a: straight line..
A straight line that was: long..
A long straight line that be a: Piece..
A Piece of Long straight Line that be: Flexible..

Now picture this in mind:
You are holding this Piece of long straight line that be flexible..
Both hands grasp on each end..

Now you your aim is to ‘Bend’ the object in hand and meet the two ends with each other.

Now that you have measured this was it not shaped in a circle?

A circle cannot create(exist) itself without a [LINE]!..but a line can flex itself to a circle...no matter weather if it is 1 line to trillions of micro lines in it..that made it flex!..size plays a big part with this; but you should know size does not matter..(I) cannot see it;eye(s):can be deceiving for some;obvious (certainty) kind.

The line does not curve..but (A) line(trillions) can make it curve..to any shape it want to.

The earth shaped into a circle..
Last time I looked outside my window I can only see straight. Now imagine this: say you are to go only forward and never stop going forward around the earth..until you meet back at that same starting point,
You did not see no curves ‘Here and there’..because you are on ‘straight flat’ lines that carries you to curve back to the start; this is a formula also an equation..it bends with flexibility..there are more in it than you can imagine..if only you knew what It can really mean..but time here is not ready for that reason. So I rather not!

But I told you so..the formula you are living in today which was stolen from [ME] now be deceived in all of you..
HINT: it’(S) shaped in a triangle, and the triangle you thought be only its shape..but look pass that shape and it well tell you a equation/formula..if you really want to know than you would seek it’(S)...PUZZLE!..look for me in this puzzle than I WILL see you in HEAVEN. For than your WILL believeth in [ME].

Brothers and Sisters! do you now understand this measurement I have shown you..SO BE IT!..it seem(S)..don’t be deceived by it.
But others have already fell in it.

IT is all about the ‘CREATING’.

Sorry, I read that too quickly and thought I saw " It is all about the CRETIN".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I trust you understand that there is a huge community (2,000,000,000+) who do not take the scriptures in the same light as yourself. They can in fact take the scriptures in their totality while improving their life in the process. You say no, the scriptures say yes. Who to believe?

One can't help but point out, when faced with huge numbers like 2 billion plus, that another 5 billion plus do not take those same scriptures at all the way you do.

Second, I would ask (and please try to answer honestly), how many of those 2 billion plus actually READ the Bible -- as I have, and as you can clearly see others, like @Audie have also done? I've been told how the Bible is, of course, the "best selling book in the world," but I would be dollars to donuts that it is very far from being the most read.

And third, and to my mind much more importantly, what have careful readers of those scriptures found that it has given the licence to do, without any sense of guilt or moral responsibility? I'll start with just a few examples:

• When Priscillian was put to death for heresy in 385 CE, some church notables (including 3 saints) condemned the Spanish bishops for ordering it, claiming that silencing of heretics and dispersing their congregations was enough. St. Augustine, originally against the death penalty, had his heart hardened by the Donatist problem in North Africa, and he conceived a theory of persecution based on the idea that since there is only salvation in the "true Church," it is an act of love and kindness to force people to conform, and to punish lack of conformity.
  
• In the 10th century, executing heretics (usually by strangling and burning) was commonplace, and got into full swing later under the Inquisition.
  
• In 1301 at Valencia 11,000 Jews were compelled to accept baptism on pain of death, and elsewhere in that same year entire towns were burned to the ground and their Jewish populations slaughtered.
• In 1525, not to be outdone by Catholics, Zwingli in Zurich murdered hundreds of Anabaptists over "re-baptizing" (fittingly, by drowning). Luther didn't think this was very nice (aren't you glad?), but he did use his pen to urge the ruling classes to murder over 100,000 "Murderous, Thieving hordes of Peasants" in that same year.
  
• Some years later, Calvin even used the argument that if God was prepared to sacrifice even babies among the Amalekites (though 'we must rest assured that God would suffer only those infants to be destroyed whom he had already damned and destined to eternal death'), then we must be unremitting in our pursuit and destruction of any who impugned His honour!
  
• Try a review of the reigns of the Tudors, Henry VIII, Edward V, Mary and Elizabeth I for some merry tales of using the scriptures to light your streets with burning human beings.
  
• You are aware, of course, that the clergy of the United States often advised Abe Lincoln on the matter of slavery – both for and against.
  
• Even today, there are churches fervently wishing to take away the rights, so hard-won, of gay people to marry those that they love and cherish.

I could go on and on, but what good would it do? My view of religion has been tainted by my experience of the people that follow them. As Gandhi once said, "I like your Christ very much. It is your Christians I do not like."

 

[Audie]

You're making that up.

Isnt it something how consistently our devout
theists do that?

IF they were right, there'd be no reason to
make things up, deny science, do blind
faith of any of that.

Everything would be on their side, including me!

 

[sooda]

Sorry I don't know who he is, but I just saw it and thought, now that is a real 6-cylinder Jewish name. Respect!

He's brilliant and lets the chips fall where they may.. LOVE him.

1. Israel Finkelstein - Wikipedia
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Finkelstein
   Israel Finkelstein (Hebrew: ישראל פינקלשטיין ‎, born March 29, 1949) is an Israeli archaeologist. He is the Jacob M. Alkow Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University.
   
   
2. Israel Finkelstein (Author of The Bible Unearthed)
   www.goodreads.com/.../show/98755.Israel_Finkelstein
   Israel Finkelstein is a professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University. He is a leading figure in the archaeology of the Levant and the laureate of the 2005 Dan David Prize in the Past Dimension -- Archaeology.
   

 

[Audie]

No, the lie does not originate with God. He sends the lie. The lie is not of Him. But when truth is rejected it is from Him sent.

Good-Ole-Rebel

It is sad to see you tie yourself in
pretzels trying to make sense of nonsense.

Lets drop it.

What part of dixie do you live in?

 

[exchemist]

He's brilliant and lets the chips fall where they may.. LOVE him.

1. Israel Finkelstein - Wikipedia
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Finkelstein
   Israel Finkelstein (Hebrew: ישראל פינקלשטיין ‎, born March 29, 1949) is an Israeli archaeologist. He is the Jacob M. Alkow Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University.
   
   
2. Israel Finkelstein (Author of The Bible Unearthed)
   www.goodreads.com/.../show/98755.Israel_Finkelstein
   Israel Finkelstein is a professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University. He is a leading figure in the archaeology of the Levant and the laureate of the 2005 Dan David Prize in the Past Dimension -- Archaeology.

Thanks for this. If I come across him in future I will know who he is and what his credentials are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So a lie that I use that does not originate from me is not my lie and therefore I am not a liar? So if someone makes a lie about the Bible and I put it forward, I am not a liar? If I promote the lie of someone else as the truth, then I am not a liar? Well,, Senator, I think you have stumbled onto something here.

Some creationists are "liars by proxy". They have the excuse that they do not know what they are repeating is a lie. They could claim not to be liars. The problem is that @Good-Ole-Rebel 's God is omniscient. He does not have the excuse of not knowing. For him sending a lie is lying.

 

[Audie]

Some creationists are "liars by proxy". They have the excuse that they do not know what they are repeating is a lie. They could claim not to be liars. The problem is that @Good-Ole-Rebel 's God is omniscient. He does not have the excuse of not knowing. For him sending a lie is lying.

If the topic is creationists rather than fundies as such,
then the main lie-by-proxy is of course from creosites.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Isnt it something how consistently our devout
theists do that?

IF they were right, there'd be no reason to
make things up, deny science, do blind
faith of any of that.

Everything would be on their side, including me!

I noticed that my point, supported by scripture, was not addressed nor was the false claim, about my view of God, retracted. Creationist horses were just swapped midstream.

So far, I see two different creationist positions here. One is that the contradictions do not really exist and the claim they do is based on confusion or incomplete analysis. The other, held by @Good-Ole-Rebel, is the contradictions do exist, but they are placed there by God for those that do not accept Him to see. The former claim does not hold water, because the criteria used to claim that most would be cleared up, is flawed and fails most of the time. The latter claim is against scripture itself and actually supports the claim that the contradictions exist. Creationists are fascinating in the rationalizations they concoct.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some creationists are "liars by proxy". They have the excuse that they do not know what they are repeating is a lie. They could claim not to be liars. The problem is that @Good-Ole-Rebel 's God is omniscient. He does not have the excuse of not knowing. For him sending a lie is lying.

It is amusing to see people claim they follow the Bible, while they are recreating Christianity to suit their own personal views. That there demand to view the Bible literally is supported by a view of the Bible that is their own personal interpretation that is not literal.

It is one thing to believe a lie, but it is another to perpetuate a known lie. The former is a victim of the liar, while the latter is just a liar.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree with you. About half of "science" has been at some time or another proven false. Who knows what we think is scientific "truth" today will not subsequently be shown to be false. Using history as a guide, one could conclude about half of it. And we think we understand the nature of things! The foolishness of God is truly infinitely higher than the wisdom of man.

It follows that using science to interpret the Bible would give a 50/50 chance of getting it right. I don't think that is what God intended. He wants us to know. The scriptures can be understood by reading them. They explain a lot more about true science than any of man's science explains about itself.

There is no proof in science. This is a false statement perpetuated by those that do not understand the science they attack.

Why would you say half? What is the basis for that. An exhaustive study or is it just hyperbolic reasoning and rhetoric and you really have no idea?

Are you lying, the victim of a lie or are you an active participant that is placing a lie for those that do not want to see, but not a liar yourself?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree with you. About half of "science" has been at some time or another proven false. Who knows what we think is scientific "truth" today will not subsequently be shown to be false. Using history as a guide, one could conclude about half of it. And we think we understand the nature of things! The foolishness of God is truly infinitely higher than the wisdom of man.

It follows that using science to interpret the Bible would give a 50/50 chance of getting it right. I don't think that is what God intended. He wants us to know. The scriptures can be understood by reading them. They explain a lot more about true science than any of man's science explains about itself.

This is all utter nonsense. You make up statistics and then use them to make your argument. This has a name. It is called a straw man.

 

[rrobs]

I do not think that he will allow himself to learn.

And that from the bastion of knowledge! I should only dream to be as enlightned as yourself

One can't help but point out, when faced with huge numbers like 2 billion plus, that another 5 billion plus do not take those same scriptures at all the way you do.

Second, I would ask (and please try to answer honestly), how many of those 2 billion plus actually READ the Bible -- as I have, and as you can clearly see others, like @Audie have also done? I've been told how the Bible is, of course, the "best selling book in the world," but I would be dollars to donuts that it is very far from being the most read.

And third, and to my mind much more importantly, what have careful readers of those scriptures found that it has given the licence to do, without any sense of guilt or moral responsibility? I'll start with just a few examples:

• When Priscillian was put to death for heresy in 385 CE, some church notables (including 3 saints) condemned the Spanish bishops for ordering it, claiming that silencing of heretics and dispersing their congregations was enough. St. Augustine, originally against the death penalty, had his heart hardened by the Donatist problem in North Africa, and he conceived a theory of persecution based on the idea that since there is only salvation in the "true Church," it is an act of love and kindness to force people to conform, and to punish lack of conformity.
  
• In the 10th century, executing heretics (usually by strangling and burning) was commonplace, and got into full swing later under the Inquisition.
  
• In 1301 at Valencia 11,000 Jews were compelled to accept baptism on pain of death, and elsewhere in that same year entire towns were burned to the ground and their Jewish populations slaughtered.
• In 1525, not to be outdone by Catholics, Zwingli in Zurich murdered hundreds of Anabaptists over "re-baptizing" (fittingly, by drowning). Luther didn't think this was very nice (aren't you glad?), but he did use his pen to urge the ruling classes to murder over 100,000 "Murderous, Thieving hordes of Peasants" in that same year.
  
• Some years later, Calvin even used the argument that if God was prepared to sacrifice even babies among the Amalekites (though 'we must rest assured that God would suffer only those infants to be destroyed whom he had already damned and destined to eternal death'), then we must be unremitting in our pursuit and destruction of any who impugned His honour!
  
• Try a review of the reigns of the Tudors, Henry VIII, Edward V, Mary and Elizabeth I for some merry tales of using the scriptures to light your streets with burning human beings.
  
• You are aware, of course, that the clergy of the United States often advised Abe Lincoln on the matter of slavery – both for and against.
  
• Even today, there are churches fervently wishing to take away the rights, so hard-won, of gay people to marry those that they love and cherish.

I could go on and on, but what good would it do? My view of religion has been tainted by my experience of the people that follow them. As Gandhi once said, "I like your Christ very much. It is your Christians I do not like."

Check your premise. Do the people that you think follow the religion actually follow the religion?

One can't help but point out, when faced with huge numbers like 2 billion plus, that another 5 billion plus do not take those same scriptures at all the way you do.

Second, I would ask (and please try to answer honestly), how many of those 2 billion plus actually READ the Bible -- as I have, and as you can clearly see others, like @Audie have also done? I've been told how the Bible is, of course, the "best selling book in the world," but I would be dollars to donuts that it is very far from being the most read.

And third, and to my mind much more importantly, what have careful readers of those scriptures found that it has given the licence to do, without any sense of guilt or moral responsibility? I'll start with just a few examples:

• When Priscillian was put to death for heresy in 385 CE, some church notables (including 3 saints) condemned the Spanish bishops for ordering it, claiming that silencing of heretics and dispersing their congregations was enough. St. Augustine, originally against the death penalty, had his heart hardened by the Donatist problem in North Africa, and he conceived a theory of persecution based on the idea that since there is only salvation in the "true Church," it is an act of love and kindness to force people to conform, and to punish lack of conformity.
  
• In the 10th century, executing heretics (usually by strangling and burning) was commonplace, and got into full swing later under the Inquisition.
  
• In 1301 at Valencia 11,000 Jews were compelled to accept baptism on pain of death, and elsewhere in that same year entire towns were burned to the ground and their Jewish populations slaughtered.
• In 1525, not to be outdone by Catholics, Zwingli in Zurich murdered hundreds of Anabaptists over "re-baptizing" (fittingly, by drowning). Luther didn't think this was very nice (aren't you glad?), but he did use his pen to urge the ruling classes to murder over 100,000 "Murderous, Thieving hordes of Peasants" in that same year.
  
• Some years later, Calvin even used the argument that if God was prepared to sacrifice even babies among the Amalekites (though 'we must rest assured that God would suffer only those infants to be destroyed whom he had already damned and destined to eternal death'), then we must be unremitting in our pursuit and destruction of any who impugned His honour!
  
• Try a review of the reigns of the Tudors, Henry VIII, Edward V, Mary and Elizabeth I for some merry tales of using the scriptures to light your streets with burning human beings.
  
• You are aware, of course, that the clergy of the United States often advised Abe Lincoln on the matter of slavery – both for and against.
  
• Even today, there are churches fervently wishing to take away the rights, so hard-won, of gay people to marry those that they love and cherish.

I could go on and on, but what good would it do? My view of religion has been tainted by my experience of the people that follow them. As Gandhi once said, "I like your Christ very much. It is your Christians I do not like."

I can see you put a lot of effort into your answer, but I really think the last paragraph is the most relevant to our discussion. You could go on and on and I could go on and on, but, as you said, what good would it do?

Perhaps I was misguided in my OP. It was not my intention to debate the validity of the scriptures. It was intended for those with an open mind but had trouble with apparent contradictions. I thought it might help them as it did me when I was first exposed to the ideas I mentioned.

I am like most people that believe the scriptures, in that I can't possibly understand every single verse. With the passage of time and study, one can understand more, but there will always be questions. But I don't throw the whole thing out the window because there are some things I don't understand, because there are a few places that contradict. I look at the message as a whole and find it to be a most reliable guide to this life as well as giving me hope for the next life. I'll wait to learn the whole story perfectly. That time will come.

I certainly don't discard the message because of the acts by many who claim to follow the scriptures. I think it is very clear that all the atrocities you mentioned done in the name of God are not God's idea at all. They simply point out the depravity of mankind in general. God has nothing to do with their acts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If the topic is creationists rather than fundies as such,
then the main lie-by-proxy is of course from creosites.

I am not sure I am aware of a distinction between the two.