• 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!

Errors And Contradictions In Bible

JerryL

Well-Known Member
So you have to see something to believe it exists, huh?
To believe a given text had a given content, I would want a reference to that content actually being there, yes. A modern copy of the original, the original itself, a contemporary reference to it.

I suppose there are some others. If, for example, you could prove that the event ocured and that the numbers you assert were actually reported, that would lead good credence to your hypothesis.

Well, I can't possibly satisfy that kind of scepticism, so you can chalk this one up as a win. I bow out in abject and utter shame.
OK. Bye.
 
1.if god is perfect he has no use for humanity
he made humanity,therofre he is imperfect only claiming
to you with the memetic ways of the wordvirus that he
is the "perfection" he once was.
2.if you were all that back in school
you cant say 40 years later your still that same labeled idiot
beetween these two events you notice your f#cked.
 
I always thought that the Bible had gone through numerous translations. From what I have learned from historical facts, parts of the Bible were actually removed/censored and there are missing books that would have posiible explained the contradictions. We will probably never know. This is my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the rulers of their time had re-written passages that contributed to the contradictions. Again its my opinion.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
GodLovesUs said:
I always thought that the Bible had gone through numerous translations. From what I have learned from historical facts, parts of the Bible were actually removed/censored and there are missing books that would have posiible explained the contradictions. We will probably never know. This is my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the rulers of their time had re-written passages that contributed to the contradictions. Again its my opinion.
That would be another attempt to explain *why* it's wrong while admitting it's wrong.

That said: the NT, especially the works of Paul and his diciple Timothy (who is believed to have written Mark) are, I believe, currently available in their original or nigh-original version.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
blood-lord14 said:
1.if god is perfect he has no use for humanity
he made humanity,therofre he is imperfect only claiming
to you with the memetic ways of the wordvirus that he
is the "perfection" he once was.
2.if you were all that back in school
you cant say 40 years later your still that same labeled idiot
beetween these two events you notice your f#cked.
Ah, the all-to-common pattern of idiots who think they're intelligent: completely false inferences. "If god is perfect he has no use for humanity". Two completely unrelated statements that come with no qualification or explanation.

The other idiot pattern that sticks out is the lugubriously sinister nom de plume. "Blood-lord". I wonder if he's ever been lord of anything other than his parents basement and internet connection.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Ah, the all-to-common pattern of idiots who think they're intelligent: completely false inferences. "If god is perfect he has no use for humanity". Two completely unrelated statements that come with no qualification or explanation.
Better symantics would be "if he is complete, he has no needs; and if he's incomplete, he's imperfect".

If he has no need, yet does something anyway; then he's wasteful, which is imperfect; but if he had a need than he was incomplete and imperfect.

Of course, if he's all knowing then he can't change his will without making his knowledge false, which not only means he's not all-powerful, but that he actually has no free will.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
JerryL said:
That would be another attempt to explain *why* it's wrong while admitting it's wrong.

That said: the NT, especially the works of Paul and his diciple Timothy (who is believed to have written Mark) are, I believe, currently available in their original or nigh-original version.
Peter is said to have written Mark.

Timothy didn't write anything in the NT. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are disputed Pauline letters. That is, people think that they are the products of the Pauline school.

The earliest manuscript of the NT is a portion of 1 John, dated 150 CE. The letters of Paul are thought to be written between 55 and 67 CE, a hundred years before the earliest MSS of any of his letters. We have several hundred MSS of Paul's letters and no two of them are the same.

Do you just believe what you wrote above? Why would you believe that?
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Peter is said to have written Mark.
One of the synoptic gospels was also written by a man named John, whose Latin name was Marcus, generally known as Mark. He is said to have been the nephew of Mary, the sister of Barnabas (Acts 12:12; Colossians 4:10), which would explain why he accompanied Barnabas and his friend Paul on missionary journeys (Acts 12:25; 15:36-40; 2 Timothy 4:11). He later traveled with the apostle Peter, who called the young man “my son” (1 Peter 5:13). In fact, several early Christian writers indicated that Mark’s gospel comprised a collection of stories about Jesus that he heard from Peter. Barnabas, a native of Cyprus, was an early convert to the church (Acts 4:36), but there is no indication that either he or his nephew Mark had known Jesus.

Timothy didn't write anything in the NT. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are disputed Pauline letters. That is, people think that they are the products of the Pauline school.
Luke or Lucas, a physician by trade, was one of Paul's later missionary companions (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24). He is the author of both the gospel that bears his name and the Acts of the Apostles (compare Luke 1:1-4 with Acts 1:1 and note the use of Awe in Acts 16:10-13, 16; 20:6, 13-15; 21:1-8, 10, 12, 14-17; 27:1-5, 7, 15-16, 18-20, 26-27, 29, 37; 28:10-14, 16). Luke was at least a second-generation Christian and had not known Christ.

The earliest manuscript of the NT is a portion of 1 John, dated 150 CE. The letters of Paul are thought to be written between 55 and 67 CE, a hundred years before the earliest MSS of any of his letters. We have several hundred MSS of Paul's letters and no two of them are the same.
I stand corrected. We can't emperically establish a date before 150AD.
 

dan

Well-Known Member
JerryL said:
Better symantics would be "if he is complete, he has no needs; and if he's incomplete, he's imperfect".

If he has no need, yet does something anyway; then he's wasteful, which is imperfect; but if he had a need than he was incomplete and imperfect.

Of course, if he's all knowing then he can't change his will without making his knowledge false, which not only means he's not all-powerful, but that he actually has no free will.
How do you define complete? How do you know what needs He would have? Why does incomplete mean imperfect? He lacks sin. That would make Him incomplete, but still perfect. These things have to be defined for a qualification to be valid.
 

Dentonz

Member
Ron68 said:
these are facts
So you were there? And since it's not scientifically possible, God can't do it?
Nothing to do with creation or with the power of God is understandable to science.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
dan said:
How do you define complete?
Main Entry: 1com·plete
Pronunciation: k&m-'plEt
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): com·plet·er; -est
Etymology: Middle English complet, from Middle French, from Latin completus, from past participle of complEre
1 a : having all necessary parts, elements, or steps

How do you know what needs He would have?
Definitional. A need would be "neccessairy", and therefore having one would be a lack of a neccessair part which would result in "incompleteness"

Why does incomplete mean imperfect?
Something can be perfect and missing neccessairy parts? I must ask how you define "perfect".

He lacks sin.
Depends on the definition.

That would make Him incomplete, but still perfect.
Sin is a neccessairy part?
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
MidnightBlue said:
Believed by whom? I'm unfamiliar with that theory.
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/021231gospels.html

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Evangelists.htm:
Matthew – apostle (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13); Galilean tax collector (Matt 9:9; 10:3; "Levi" in Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27?)
Mark – Jerusalem youth (Acts 12:12, 25 "John Mark"); missionary with Paul (Acts 13:5, 13; 15:36-40; 2 Tim 4:11; Phlm 24); "cousin" of Barnabas (Col 4:10); Peter’s "son" (1 Pet 5:13); Peter’s "interpreter" (Papias)
Luke – client of Theophilus (Luke 1:1-4); "co-worker" of Paul (Phlm 24; 2Tim 4:11); a Greek "physician" (Col 4:14)
John – brother of James, son of Zebedee (Mark 3:17, par.); the "beloved disciple"? (John 13:23; 19:26-27; etc.); the "elder"? (2John, 3John); the same "John" who wrote Revelation? (Rev 1:4,9) – probably not (see Eusebius, E.H. 3.39; 4.14; 7.25)
 

dan

Well-Known Member
JerryL said:
Main Entry: 1com·plete [url="http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif"]http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/url]
Pronunciation: k&m-'plEt
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): com·plet·er; -est
Etymology: Middle English complet, from Middle French, from Latin completus, from past participle of complEre
1 a : having all necessary parts, elements, or steps
So tell me what you deem to be the necessary ingredients to qualify as a God.
 

Smoke

Done here.
JerryL said:
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/021231gospels.html

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Evangelists.htm:
Matthew – apostle (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13); Galilean tax collector (Matt 9:9; 10:3; "Levi" in Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27?)
Mark – Jerusalem youth (Acts 12:12, 25 "John Mark"); missionary with Paul (Acts 13:5, 13; 15:36-40; 2 Tim 4:11; Phlm 24); "cousin" of Barnabas (Col 4:10); Peter’s "son" (1 Pet 5:13); Peter’s "interpreter" (Papias)
Luke – client of Theophilus (Luke 1:1-4); "co-worker" of Paul (Phlm 24; 2Tim 4:11); a Greek "physician" (Col 4:14)
John – brother of James, son of Zebedee (Mark 3:17, par.); the "beloved disciple"? (John 13:23; 19:26-27; etc.); the "elder"? (2John, 3John); the same "John" who wrote Revelation? (Rev 1:4,9) – probably not (see Eusebius, E.H. 3.39; 4.14; 7.25)
I don't see anything there to indicate that Timothy wrote the Gospel of Mark. What am I missing?
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
So tell me what you deem to be the necessary ingredients to qualify as a God.
We are dealing with your criteria. You said God was incomplete.

Let's go back to my originial comment:
"if he is complete, he has no needs; and if he's incomplete, he's imperfect".

Since "complete" is "having all neccessairy parts" then "incomplete" is "lacking a neccessairy part". Something whcih lacks a neccessairy part is not perfect.

If, on the other hand, God is complete; then he has all neccessairy parts. As such, he has no needs. You can't have it both ways.
 

DeepShadow

White Crow
JerryL said:
If, on the other hand, God is complete; then he has all neccessairy parts. As such, he has no needs. You can't have it both ways.
Sure you can! The real issue with the definition as you cite it is not with "necessary" or "unnecessary." It's with the word "part." "Needs" can include much more than necessary parts. I have a need to express myself, but that's not a part of me.

You could say that my need isn't a real need, but only a want that I feel strongly about. In that case, I could also take issue with the assumption that the creation of mankind was a need. It might likewise have been a want.
 
Top