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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What other translations of Luke 3:23 can you provide to support this?true blood said:Perhaps then there are two geneology explained, and even through translations there could of been brought about errors.
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:Just the fact that Mary's father was also named Joseph. Read the previous posts lol.
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?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.
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.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.
Haha, I can understand your distaste for the author of that website Ceridwen provided...though I will not state my opinions on it here.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
jonjohnrob11 said:what is the perfect church, the one who has never changed it's doctrines? the one who got it right the first time, evidently as God doesn't change, but man does, imlplying that real truth never changes as God is truth. i found the perfect church, the only one that hasn't changed it's doctrines. have u?