LCMS Sprecher
Member
Are there any significant contridictions that can be brought forward to support your claims that the Bible is full of lies (Sprinkles or Ceridwen)? Just curious to see you have anything more shocking than a staves problem.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
doctrine
- Thread starter jonjohnrob11
- Start date
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Hey now, LCMS, no one said the bible was 'full of lies'. We said it was 'full of contradiction'. I *think* there is a difference there...
Check out this site. It's full of good contradictory evidence!
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
Check out this site. It's full of good contradictory evidence!
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I would like to apologize on behalf of my friend Ceridwen....she has obviously forgotten that this is not a debate forum.....this is a Christian discussion forum (it's a 'safe' place, remember?).
I didn't say the Bible is full of lies. Martha said that God never lies, upon which I asked if God inspired every single word in the Bible. If so, I only pointed out that there are some contradictions. Most Christians (or so I thought) already knew of the many contradictions/mistranslations/fuzzy areas of the Bible.
The Catholic Church, for example, says that not every single word of the Bible was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit....the writers threw in their own spin/agenda in some parts.
I didn't say the Bible is full of lies. Martha said that God never lies, upon which I asked if God inspired every single word in the Bible. If so, I only pointed out that there are some contradictions. Most Christians (or so I thought) already knew of the many contradictions/mistranslations/fuzzy areas of the Bible.
The Catholic Church, for example, says that not every single word of the Bible was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit....the writers threw in their own spin/agenda in some parts.
true blood
Active Member
Its obvious you both ignore or rather do not understand what the following verse means: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." This verse indicates that there is Word of Truth and also false doctrine, man-made doctrine. Because of the host of different beliefs in Christendom taught, it is evident that not all doctrine is from "rightly dividing the word of truth". Also it is evident you have both read the Bible, in whatever print or prints you possess. However, the previous verse I mentioned indicate it's a responsibility for man to see whether doctrine originated in the right or wrong dividing of God's Word. It is obvious then that there exists doctrine that is nurtured by non-christian religions and given accreditation by churchmen under political expendiency. We can probably agree there exists illogically interpreted scripture. I read the link Cerd. provided, its evident the author of that page has not "rightly divided the word of truth" but rather took the scripture at face falue from tradition of men. It would take me some time to explain those contridictions on that webpage, however I will little by little.
Also Cerdwin, I notice the author of that webpage doesn't really understand the reason behind having 4 gospels. In truth, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all equally inspired records written by faithful men who received revelation from God. God would reveal to them by way of His spirit what Jesus Christ had said and had done, even things to which they had been eye witnesses. The events written down are set forth as a narration rather then as an epistle or another type of writing. Why didn't God only have one narrative set forth? Because there were four major aspects of Jesus' earthly life and ministry and the prophets of old fortold of these four aspects quite explictily as spoken of the "Branch".
1) One quality of the "Branch" from Jeremiah would be that of a king descended from David. The gospel of Matthew emphasizes Jesus Christ as the king.
2) Another aspect of the Branch where Zechariah fortold is Jesus Christ's ministry in the role of a servant is the gospel of Mark.
3) Also another major characteristic of the Branch is his humanity; in other words the Branch would be a man. Zechariah also fortold of this and this is clearly emphasized in the gospel of Luke.
4) The fourth major characteristic of the promised Branch by Isaiah 4:2 is of emphasizing Jesus Christ as the Son of God, plainly in the Gospel of John.
While each Gospel encompasses all these characteristics, each Gospel specifically emphasizes one of them. (1) a king, (2) a servant, (3) a man (4) the Son of God. Thus no one Gospel could comprehhensivly state Jesus Christ's multifaceted ministry with full illumination it deserves. Also no one historical record, Biblical or otherwise covers every detail regarding a given time period, event or person. Consider the volumes written on the American revolution in the 18th century. Even when these writings are accurate, the may cover the period from diferent viewpoints with different details. This doesn't necessarily mean they are contradictory; rather they corrobarate and supplement each other. Same is true with the four Gospels. The link you provided seems to ignore this however and I question the authors' intent. Also Jesus said the scripture cannot be broken, in other words the no scripture is contradictory to another scripture. Jesus was actually giving a guiding principle how to study the four Gospels and to see and test how they accurately they should fit one another. This is great contrast to how the "critics" as yourself, who search for and manufacture "contradictions" in attempts to show God's Word does not fit. If there ever is an apparant contradiction to another it is important to read accurately what is written without assuming or reading into it. In "truely" studing the Gospels, one may give details regarding an event not recorded in another Gospel. The author of the link you provided assumes that each Gospel must record all the details ignoring the purpose God had in having four Gospels written. Studying like this actually requires great discipline, usually unemotional. The approach to studying the gospels must be from the inside out, while noticing usage of terms and expressions. Only then will one truely find the special design and perfect order and accuracy.
Also Cerdwin, I notice the author of that webpage doesn't really understand the reason behind having 4 gospels. In truth, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all equally inspired records written by faithful men who received revelation from God. God would reveal to them by way of His spirit what Jesus Christ had said and had done, even things to which they had been eye witnesses. The events written down are set forth as a narration rather then as an epistle or another type of writing. Why didn't God only have one narrative set forth? Because there were four major aspects of Jesus' earthly life and ministry and the prophets of old fortold of these four aspects quite explictily as spoken of the "Branch".
1) One quality of the "Branch" from Jeremiah would be that of a king descended from David. The gospel of Matthew emphasizes Jesus Christ as the king.
2) Another aspect of the Branch where Zechariah fortold is Jesus Christ's ministry in the role of a servant is the gospel of Mark.
3) Also another major characteristic of the Branch is his humanity; in other words the Branch would be a man. Zechariah also fortold of this and this is clearly emphasized in the gospel of Luke.
4) The fourth major characteristic of the promised Branch by Isaiah 4:2 is of emphasizing Jesus Christ as the Son of God, plainly in the Gospel of John.
While each Gospel encompasses all these characteristics, each Gospel specifically emphasizes one of them. (1) a king, (2) a servant, (3) a man (4) the Son of God. Thus no one Gospel could comprehhensivly state Jesus Christ's multifaceted ministry with full illumination it deserves. Also no one historical record, Biblical or otherwise covers every detail regarding a given time period, event or person. Consider the volumes written on the American revolution in the 18th century. Even when these writings are accurate, the may cover the period from diferent viewpoints with different details. This doesn't necessarily mean they are contradictory; rather they corrobarate and supplement each other. Same is true with the four Gospels. The link you provided seems to ignore this however and I question the authors' intent. Also Jesus said the scripture cannot be broken, in other words the no scripture is contradictory to another scripture. Jesus was actually giving a guiding principle how to study the four Gospels and to see and test how they accurately they should fit one another. This is great contrast to how the "critics" as yourself, who search for and manufacture "contradictions" in attempts to show God's Word does not fit. If there ever is an apparant contradiction to another it is important to read accurately what is written without assuming or reading into it. In "truely" studing the Gospels, one may give details regarding an event not recorded in another Gospel. The author of the link you provided assumes that each Gospel must record all the details ignoring the purpose God had in having four Gospels written. Studying like this actually requires great discipline, usually unemotional. The approach to studying the gospels must be from the inside out, while noticing usage of terms and expressions. Only then will one truely find the special design and perfect order and accuracy.
LCMS Sprecher
Member
Mr. Sprinkles said:
"The Catholic Church, for example, says that not every single word of the Bible was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit....the writers threw in their own spin/agenda in some parts."
The Catholic church is no longer even a shadow of it's previous doctrinal stands. The LCMS is a Lutheran denomination and we are more catholic than they are now. (Surprising, the reformers are more Catholics). The Catholic church has given up on the literal translation of the Bible because:
1. Some biblical doctrine interfers with their affairs and offices.
2. It is unpopular nowadays to stand up for the Bible (they don't want to lose the youth of the world).
The Catholic church can not really be seen anymore as confessional, but more as a church attempting to make themselves retro for the times. This is not a good source for Biblical teaching.
"The Catholic Church, for example, says that not every single word of the Bible was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit....the writers threw in their own spin/agenda in some parts."
The Catholic church is no longer even a shadow of it's previous doctrinal stands. The LCMS is a Lutheran denomination and we are more catholic than they are now. (Surprising, the reformers are more Catholics). The Catholic church has given up on the literal translation of the Bible because:
1. Some biblical doctrine interfers with their affairs and offices.
2. It is unpopular nowadays to stand up for the Bible (they don't want to lose the youth of the world).
The Catholic church can not really be seen anymore as confessional, but more as a church attempting to make themselves retro for the times. This is not a good source for Biblical teaching.
true blood
Active Member
Now about the www.infidels website you provided I'll start with the first topic; The Geneology of Joseph. This one is quite easy, do you know what the name of Mary's father is? Joseph. Thus now the scripture fits like a hand in a glove. The author of the website you gave concentrated too much on Mary's husband who is also named Joseph. Obviously he's a critic and already made up his mind that there was no virgin conception before truely studying God's Word.
Subject 3 states: Why does only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth. My explanation of why the Gospels were written answers this.
B. the angels messge, or rather why would mary and her husband Joseph think Jesus was crazy? Why not?
C. The Date when Jesus was born. Are you aware that Herod's son was also named Herod?
D. The Place. The author actually questions Matthew's ability to speak Hebrew. I don't get the point he's trying to make here. There was a northern and southern dilect.
E. The virgin birth. The author questions why would Isaiah say "young woman" instead of "virgin". Again, I don't really get the point here. Can a young woman be a virgin?
I skipped a few and stopped at the Last Supper. Here I agree with him because the traditional teaching of the Last Supper is in error. However once one rightly divides the Word of God, it's explained in accuracy rather then relying on tradition taught by men.
Judas Iscariot. I agree with the author that tradition has taught that Judas "hanged" himself. At face value the bible records two accounts of Judas' death. Matthew 27:5 says, and Judas went and hanged himself and Peter graphically described Judas' death as " he burst asunder in the midst" In John 20:26-29, all 12 apostles were together to see the risen Christ, also confirmed by I corinthians 15:5. And there is further proof. So really the verse to question is Matthew 27:5, because outside of this verse there is no other record indicating Judas died before the accension. If one looks closely at Matthew 27:5 the words to question are "hanged himself" in the King James Version at least. The word translated "hanged himself" is apanchomai from the Greek word apancho. and its only used once in the New Testament. If you research this word, in classic literature it means "to strangle" or "to choke" and is often used figuaratively to mean to choke with anger or grief. Check out A greek-english lexicon. The word apancho is a combination of apo. "away from," and ancho, "to squeeze or embrace." It carries a negative connotation meaning "to squeeze from". "Chocking" is a literal "squeezing the life from" wheras "chocking with grief" is a figurative like our English expression "all chocked up". In The Expositor's Greek Testament it makes note that this apancho points to death by grief rather then a literal chocking. Therefor I believe that Matthew 27:5 means Judas was carried away by grief and despair. And this negative feelings consumed him until he could no longer tolerate it. There is even more evidence in older manuscripts where the word apeuchomai is used which means "to wish a thing away". Other older manuscripts use the word apopnigo, which is also used figuratively "to choke with vexation or rage". So with all this study one can be pretty positive that in Matthew 27 Jusas realized his grievous mistake in betraying his master, he threw down the money at the priest's feet and frantically withdrew himself, being choked up or doubled over with grief. It was too much for him to cope with emotionally. Thus now the reading and understanding of the scripture is accurate.
Subject 3 states: Why does only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth. My explanation of why the Gospels were written answers this.
B. the angels messge, or rather why would mary and her husband Joseph think Jesus was crazy? Why not?
C. The Date when Jesus was born. Are you aware that Herod's son was also named Herod?
D. The Place. The author actually questions Matthew's ability to speak Hebrew. I don't get the point he's trying to make here. There was a northern and southern dilect.
E. The virgin birth. The author questions why would Isaiah say "young woman" instead of "virgin". Again, I don't really get the point here. Can a young woman be a virgin?
I skipped a few and stopped at the Last Supper. Here I agree with him because the traditional teaching of the Last Supper is in error. However once one rightly divides the Word of God, it's explained in accuracy rather then relying on tradition taught by men.
Judas Iscariot. I agree with the author that tradition has taught that Judas "hanged" himself. At face value the bible records two accounts of Judas' death. Matthew 27:5 says, and Judas went and hanged himself and Peter graphically described Judas' death as " he burst asunder in the midst" In John 20:26-29, all 12 apostles were together to see the risen Christ, also confirmed by I corinthians 15:5. And there is further proof. So really the verse to question is Matthew 27:5, because outside of this verse there is no other record indicating Judas died before the accension. If one looks closely at Matthew 27:5 the words to question are "hanged himself" in the King James Version at least. The word translated "hanged himself" is apanchomai from the Greek word apancho. and its only used once in the New Testament. If you research this word, in classic literature it means "to strangle" or "to choke" and is often used figuaratively to mean to choke with anger or grief. Check out A greek-english lexicon. The word apancho is a combination of apo. "away from," and ancho, "to squeeze or embrace." It carries a negative connotation meaning "to squeeze from". "Chocking" is a literal "squeezing the life from" wheras "chocking with grief" is a figurative like our English expression "all chocked up". In The Expositor's Greek Testament it makes note that this apancho points to death by grief rather then a literal chocking. Therefor I believe that Matthew 27:5 means Judas was carried away by grief and despair. And this negative feelings consumed him until he could no longer tolerate it. There is even more evidence in older manuscripts where the word apeuchomai is used which means "to wish a thing away". Other older manuscripts use the word apopnigo, which is also used figuratively "to choke with vexation or rage". So with all this study one can be pretty positive that in Matthew 27 Jusas realized his grievous mistake in betraying his master, he threw down the money at the priest's feet and frantically withdrew himself, being choked up or doubled over with grief. It was too much for him to cope with emotionally. Thus now the reading and understanding of the scripture is accurate.
true blood
Active Member
A good way I found to study the passover is to create a calendar of events. Look at John 12:1-10 is a good starting point. It places Jesus 6 days before the passover, which would be the 8th of Nisan originally called Abib. Another point of reference to establish is that the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan was the day and time the Passover lamb was killed. Also note that according to Hebrew time reckoning a day begins at sunset so some events taking place near sunset may actually overlap the end of one day and the beginning of the next.
8th of Nisan: 6 days before the Passover John 12:1-10
9th of Nisan: 1st entry to Jerusalem "entrance of judgment" on 1 animal Mark 11:1-11, Luke 19:28-44, John 12:12-19
10th of Nisan: Weekly Sabbath however its the Selection of lamb and Jesus' 2nd entry to Jerusalem, "entrance of blessing" on 2 animals Matthew 21:1-17, Mark 11:12-19, Luke 19:45-46
11th of Nisan: Jerusalem at Temple, Matt. 21:18-26:5, Mark 11:20-14:2, Luke 20:1-22:2
12th of Nisan: Preparation of room for the Passover, Matt. 26:6-19, Mark 14:3-16, Luke 22:3-13
13th of Nisan: Trial and Torture, (Jesus' last meal often confused as the passover meal) Matt. 26:20-27:31, Mark 14:17-15:20, Luke 22:14-23:25, John 13:1-19:16
14th of Nisan: Crucifixion and The Passover sacrifice
15th of Nisan: The Passover meal Feast begins, High day Special Sabbath
16th of Nisan: Buy and Prepare Spices and Oils
17th of Nisan: Weekly Sabbath, Resurrection
18th of Nisan: Firstfruits, Wave-Offering and Post-Resurrection Appearances
Why do critics of God's Word always seem to look for discrepancies so that they can discredit it? Why wouldn't one do the opposite and study it and perhaps discover something of it? Shall I keep explaining these so called contridictions? Your website claims Jesus was stripped and dressed two times and that this is a contridiction. However when truly studying the Word he was in fact stripped and dressed 4 times! It also states that Jesus wasn't cruicifyied with 2 robbers because the romans would never crucifiy a "robber". However in truth he was crucified with 4! The website claims Pilate was a cruel mean man and I agree, but the website claims Pilate would have never given into the crowd to kill him...I don't get this point. Fact, Pilate was cruel and often killed. Fact, the crowd wanted Jesus killed. Why wouldn't he give in to them but that's besides the point that Pilate actually hoped he'd release Jesus until Pilate was accoused of High Treason against Caesar.
8th of Nisan: 6 days before the Passover John 12:1-10
9th of Nisan: 1st entry to Jerusalem "entrance of judgment" on 1 animal Mark 11:1-11, Luke 19:28-44, John 12:12-19
10th of Nisan: Weekly Sabbath however its the Selection of lamb and Jesus' 2nd entry to Jerusalem, "entrance of blessing" on 2 animals Matthew 21:1-17, Mark 11:12-19, Luke 19:45-46
11th of Nisan: Jerusalem at Temple, Matt. 21:18-26:5, Mark 11:20-14:2, Luke 20:1-22:2
12th of Nisan: Preparation of room for the Passover, Matt. 26:6-19, Mark 14:3-16, Luke 22:3-13
13th of Nisan: Trial and Torture, (Jesus' last meal often confused as the passover meal) Matt. 26:20-27:31, Mark 14:17-15:20, Luke 22:14-23:25, John 13:1-19:16
14th of Nisan: Crucifixion and The Passover sacrifice
15th of Nisan: The Passover meal Feast begins, High day Special Sabbath
16th of Nisan: Buy and Prepare Spices and Oils
17th of Nisan: Weekly Sabbath, Resurrection
18th of Nisan: Firstfruits, Wave-Offering and Post-Resurrection Appearances
Why do critics of God's Word always seem to look for discrepancies so that they can discredit it? Why wouldn't one do the opposite and study it and perhaps discover something of it? Shall I keep explaining these so called contridictions? Your website claims Jesus was stripped and dressed two times and that this is a contridiction. However when truly studying the Word he was in fact stripped and dressed 4 times! It also states that Jesus wasn't cruicifyied with 2 robbers because the romans would never crucifiy a "robber". However in truth he was crucified with 4! The website claims Pilate was a cruel mean man and I agree, but the website claims Pilate would have never given into the crowd to kill him...I don't get this point. Fact, Pilate was cruel and often killed. Fact, the crowd wanted Jesus killed. Why wouldn't he give in to them but that's besides the point that Pilate actually hoped he'd release Jesus until Pilate was accoused of High Treason against Caesar.
martha dodge
Member
true blood, I hope that you have the stamina to continue answering with the truth because when you finish some of those who question may have finally read the Bible for the very first time. Jesus said "My Words will not return void". So even if it is only just for one. I will pray for you and your stamina.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
true blood-- allow me to address only the geneologies of Matthew and Luke.
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, ........
Matthew 1:16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
I do not feel you have fully explained this contradiction, nor did I feel you explained the contradiction with the staffs (I thought you conceeded that one). Which gospel, Matthew or Luke's, describes Mary's and not Joseph's geneology? Which translations support such a claim? The American Standard version (quoted above) clearly does not.
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, ........
Matthew 1:16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
I do not feel you have fully explained this contradiction, nor did I feel you explained the contradiction with the staffs (I thought you conceeded that one). Which gospel, Matthew or Luke's, describes Mary's and not Joseph's geneology? Which translations support such a claim? The American Standard version (quoted above) clearly does not.
LCMS Sprecher
Member
Ture blood is correct that both Matthew and Luke speak of different geneologies. Matthew presents Joseph's geneology while Luke presents Mary's geneology. You must also look at the context. While Matthew was showing the relation to David, Jesus has, Luke shows the relation of Jesus to the very first person in the world, Adam. That is it plain and simple.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, ........
LCMS, this is clearly the geneology of Jesus' father Joseph. I'm merely quoting the American Standard Bible. If there are more precise translations, please provide them.
LCMS, this is clearly the geneology of Jesus' father Joseph. I'm merely quoting the American Standard Bible. If there are more precise translations, please provide them.
true blood
Active Member
The gospel of Matthew emphasizes Jesus Christ as the king.
The gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus Chirst as humanity, or the man.
Perhaps then there are two geneology explained, and even through translations there could of been brought about errors.
"1. Where was Jesus taken immediately after his arrest?
a. Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54).
b. John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24)" --from the site cerdwin provided.
Before taking Jesus to Caiphas, the guards and soldiers first took him to Annas', a former high priest. Annas himself had been the only high priest at one time. In the minds of most Judeans who knew the Scriptures, he would be the high priest as long as he lived. However by this point in time, the Romans had deposed Annas and appointed Caiaphas as high priest. Thus while Caiaphas was the official high priest in the eyes of the Romans, Annas remained the high priest in the eyes of Judaism. That is how the Judaens had the unique situation of having two high priests at this time. Caiaphas had the most legal power, but Annas for many reasons actually carried the most influence in the religious community. Annas, also had influenced the decision as to who was to be chosen. No fewer then five of his sons, a son-in-law, and one of his grandsons filled the officer of high priest at various times. At this time of Jesus' trail, Annas' son-in-law Caiaphas was the high priest. Obviously they both were as resolute in seeking the death of Jesus. Annas knew Caiaphas would be valuable in dealing with Jesus and formulation the charges against him.
The gospel of Luke emphasizes Jesus Chirst as humanity, or the man.
Perhaps then there are two geneology explained, and even through translations there could of been brought about errors.
"1. Where was Jesus taken immediately after his arrest?
a. Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54).
b. John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24)" --from the site cerdwin provided.
Before taking Jesus to Caiphas, the guards and soldiers first took him to Annas', a former high priest. Annas himself had been the only high priest at one time. In the minds of most Judeans who knew the Scriptures, he would be the high priest as long as he lived. However by this point in time, the Romans had deposed Annas and appointed Caiaphas as high priest. Thus while Caiaphas was the official high priest in the eyes of the Romans, Annas remained the high priest in the eyes of Judaism. That is how the Judaens had the unique situation of having two high priests at this time. Caiaphas had the most legal power, but Annas for many reasons actually carried the most influence in the religious community. Annas, also had influenced the decision as to who was to be chosen. No fewer then five of his sons, a son-in-law, and one of his grandsons filled the officer of high priest at various times. At this time of Jesus' trail, Annas' son-in-law Caiaphas was the high priest. Obviously they both were as resolute in seeking the death of Jesus. Annas knew Caiaphas would be valuable in dealing with Jesus and formulation the charges against him.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
What other translations of Luke 3:23 can you provide to support this?true blood said:
true blood
Active Member
Just the fact that Mary's father was also named Joseph. Read the previous posts lol.
Besides, I was merely stating my opinion, hence the word "perhaps". Maybe you should look into some other writings other then your American Bible lol. Check out The Sinaitic Palimpest or perhaps the Curetonian Syriac or maybe the Pe****ta text of the Aramaic. Hmm, maybe the Codex Alexandrinus, the Lachmann's Greek text, Codex Siniaticus, Codex Bezae, Codex Vaticanus, Sinaitic Palimpsest and the Washingtonian Koridethai. However it will require actual studying on your behalf, not mine.
Cerd provided a website listing contridictions, probably written by someone who is considered a great theologian, maybe even a degree and considered an expert lol. Probably a living example of contriditction lol. I'll resume with his statement of Field of Blood. Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 have been misunderstood. People keep maintaining that the 30 silver Judas paid to betray Jesus was the selfsame "reward of iniquity" spoken in Acts. Maintaining this, they have consistently overlooked the fact that in Matt. 27 Judas threw the money into the Temple, so he no longer had the money. Now, how could he purchase the field referred to in Acts 1 with 30 silver he no longer had? The answer is simple. The "reward of iniquity" was money which he had stolen from the apostles' treasury, not the betrayel money.
The author of the website also referrs to the dead raising in Matt. 27. I agree with him to a certain extent but rather then say its a huge contridiction of God's Word I would actually put forth a little studying. It's clearly been added by scribes. Manuscript 354 in Venice, Italy doesn't even contain these verses, so I'm sure older manuscripts do the same. These verses must be an addition since they are contradictory to other scriptures which teach that the dead are dead and will remain so until Christ returns. Textual critics as well as marginal notes in other old manuscripts have recognized these verses as later interpolations, probably added in the 4th century. The phrase "after his resurrection" in Matt. 27:53 demonstrates the passage is totally out of context, obviously a scribal addition. The author also states that there were no other records stating a catastrophe in the Temple. However I have found 3 independent testimonies outside of God's Word which do in fact refer to it. Sources are Josephus, the Talmud, and Tacitus. The author of that site is a moron that hasn't a clue how to study and I will no longer be looking into and explaining his so-called contridictions
Besides, I was merely stating my opinion, hence the word "perhaps". Maybe you should look into some other writings other then your American Bible lol. Check out The Sinaitic Palimpest or perhaps the Curetonian Syriac or maybe the Pe****ta text of the Aramaic. Hmm, maybe the Codex Alexandrinus, the Lachmann's Greek text, Codex Siniaticus, Codex Bezae, Codex Vaticanus, Sinaitic Palimpsest and the Washingtonian Koridethai. However it will require actual studying on your behalf, not mine.
Cerd provided a website listing contridictions, probably written by someone who is considered a great theologian, maybe even a degree and considered an expert lol. Probably a living example of contriditction lol. I'll resume with his statement of Field of Blood. Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 have been misunderstood. People keep maintaining that the 30 silver Judas paid to betray Jesus was the selfsame "reward of iniquity" spoken in Acts. Maintaining this, they have consistently overlooked the fact that in Matt. 27 Judas threw the money into the Temple, so he no longer had the money. Now, how could he purchase the field referred to in Acts 1 with 30 silver he no longer had? The answer is simple. The "reward of iniquity" was money which he had stolen from the apostles' treasury, not the betrayel money.
The author of the website also referrs to the dead raising in Matt. 27. I agree with him to a certain extent but rather then say its a huge contridiction of God's Word I would actually put forth a little studying. It's clearly been added by scribes. Manuscript 354 in Venice, Italy doesn't even contain these verses, so I'm sure older manuscripts do the same. These verses must be an addition since they are contradictory to other scriptures which teach that the dead are dead and will remain so until Christ returns. Textual critics as well as marginal notes in other old manuscripts have recognized these verses as later interpolations, probably added in the 4th century. The phrase "after his resurrection" in Matt. 27:53 demonstrates the passage is totally out of context, obviously a scribal addition. The author also states that there were no other records stating a catastrophe in the Temple. However I have found 3 independent testimonies outside of God's Word which do in fact refer to it. Sources are Josephus, the Talmud, and Tacitus. The author of that site is a moron that hasn't a clue how to study and I will no longer be looking into and explaining his so-called contridictions
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I do not find anywhere in the Bible where it mentions Mary's father as being called Joseph. Maybe you should double check: http://bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp Could you please tell me which passage tells us that Mary's father's name is Joseph? Also, until I find a different translation in which Luke is not clearly describing the geneology of Jesus' supposed father Joseph (I have looked and still not found one), I will have to conclude that either Luke or Matthew were misinformed on the geneology of Joseph (it doesn't necessarily make them liars).true blood said:
I have checked at least a dozen different versions of the Bible, and none of them give translations of Luke which would indicate anything other than that he was referring to Jesus' supposed father Joseph's geneology--not Mary's (or her father). Perhaps Luke meant it to be Mary's geneology, but because of the culture of the time, did not want to state a womans' geneology, so he disguised it as Joseph's?
I have done much actual studying, in fact we studied these topics extensively at my Catholic school--it is well known among Biblical scholars that there are contradictions in the Bible, some a result of bad translation, some contained even in (what are believed to be) correctly translated texts. You seem to have a hard time accepting this, though I do not see why. I think we agree that any Bible (like the American Standard Bible, for example) must be investigated in a scholarly fashion rather than taken literally word for word.
Haha, I can understand your distaste for the author of that website Ceridwen provided...though I will not state my opinions on it here.
true blood
Active Member
[/quote]I have done much actual studying, in fact we studied these topics extensively at my Catholic school--it is well known among Biblical scholars that there are contradictions in the Bible, some a result of bad translation, some contained even in (what are believed to be) correctly translated texts. You seem to have a hard time accepting this, though I do not see why. I think we agree that any Bible (like the American Standard Bible, for example) must be investigated in a scholarly fashion rather than taken literally word for word.
Aye, we pretty much agree then. I was only saying there was a mistake made when translating Mary's husbands name Joseph and anyone can figure it out by studying the names and the generations. I'm not sure how it happened but just pointing out its spottable. Don't quote me but the American Standard bible probably was translated from the King James Version. If you have a KJV bible you will notice many italic words. These italic words were added out of courtesy by scribes to help people of that time for understanding. It helps in most cases but also it throws some things completely off. The American Bible doesn't have this courtesy of showing what was added. Also one should note that the KJ Bible was translated from the Greek text. The Greek text contains no puncuation, chapters or verses but was added by scribes, according to their own understanding. I think we both agree that humans make mistakes, in understanding or simple textual mistakes, especially while translating from one language to another. The Greek text was translated from the Aramaic. It's really impossible to know all the mistakes added by scribes through out 2000 years. However, a true bible scholar knows that God's Word isn't suppose to contridict itself. Therefore if a contridiction exist it wouldn't be God's Word but an error through translation, understanding and/or misinterprtation. I only have a problem when non-believers ignore these truths. Aethiest are usually convinced there is no God and since the bible contains these human errors they concluded its screwed. They are not searching for truth but searching for error. And since God has magnifiyed His Word above everything, these non-believers are all void of understanding spiritual things. This is true because i've noticed that when someone has a contridiction and even prove it, they seem to say, aha!, even boasting, but when it's disproved they'll never accept it, but move on to the next contridiction, clearly void of understanding spiritual things, thinking its a game of intellect.
Aye, we pretty much agree then. I was only saying there was a mistake made when translating Mary's husbands name Joseph and anyone can figure it out by studying the names and the generations. I'm not sure how it happened but just pointing out its spottable. Don't quote me but the American Standard bible probably was translated from the King James Version. If you have a KJV bible you will notice many italic words. These italic words were added out of courtesy by scribes to help people of that time for understanding. It helps in most cases but also it throws some things completely off. The American Bible doesn't have this courtesy of showing what was added. Also one should note that the KJ Bible was translated from the Greek text. The Greek text contains no puncuation, chapters or verses but was added by scribes, according to their own understanding. I think we both agree that humans make mistakes, in understanding or simple textual mistakes, especially while translating from one language to another. The Greek text was translated from the Aramaic. It's really impossible to know all the mistakes added by scribes through out 2000 years. However, a true bible scholar knows that God's Word isn't suppose to contridict itself. Therefore if a contridiction exist it wouldn't be God's Word but an error through translation, understanding and/or misinterprtation. I only have a problem when non-believers ignore these truths. Aethiest are usually convinced there is no God and since the bible contains these human errors they concluded its screwed. They are not searching for truth but searching for error. And since God has magnifiyed His Word above everything, these non-believers are all void of understanding spiritual things. This is true because i've noticed that when someone has a contridiction and even prove it, they seem to say, aha!, even boasting, but when it's disproved they'll never accept it, but move on to the next contridiction, clearly void of understanding spiritual things, thinking its a game of intellect.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
true blood-- I admire your Biblical scholarship. The only thing I would keep in mind is the following: if you are truly searching for truth, you have to accept at least the possibility that the authors of the Gospels did contradict each other, and not every word they wrote was inspired by God. I agree it is wrong to only look for errors in the Bible....but if you want the truth, you should not dismiss the possibility of errors, either.
true blood
Active Member
Because there is something about this man named Jesus Christ I find amazing. He perfectly fulfilled the law regarding the sacrificial Passover lamb. He was acclaimed the Messiah, confronted religious enemies with their hypocrisy. Over and over again his life was unjustly maligned, called into question, slandered, faced the cruel injustice of evil men and faced unspeakable mental and physical torture and was killed yet he never hurt or wronged anyone, on the contrary, he was the epitome of love, innocence and great courage. But it doesn't stop there because God raised him from the dead to die no more and on the day of Pentecost the gift of holy spirit was given to believers and this is the age of grace in human history before Christ's return. Now is it possible to be called sons of God. What do I have to lose? If I'm wrong in my faith then who cares? Why so much hate toward these words Christ Jesus the Lord?
I don't really dismiss the possiblites of errors but rather the possibility of a God making errors.
I don't really dismiss the possiblites of errors but rather the possibility of a God making errors.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
No one cares if you are wrong, that is exactly my point--I came to the conclusion long ago that it doesn't even matter if the stories in the Bible are true, what matters is what these stories have to teach me about how to live my life. Aesop's Fables contain truth and inspiration whether or not animals can talk in real life.
I do not hate the stories in the Bible, but I am concerned that people blindly follow irrational patterns when traditional beliefs are not open to questioning (think of the Inquisition, etc). I still find the stories amazing and inspiring, and please think about this: that the story of Jesus can be both of these things even if it is not an historically accurate story.
I do not hate the stories in the Bible, but I am concerned that people blindly follow irrational patterns when traditional beliefs are not open to questioning (think of the Inquisition, etc). I still find the stories amazing and inspiring, and please think about this: that the story of Jesus can be both of these things even if it is not an historically accurate story.
jonjohnrob11 said:
This assumption is all too common in religious circles today, but it is a fallacy. There is an aspect of the church that must inevitably change. With this change comes change in doctrine and administration. Can anyone tell me what facet of the church I speak of?