Is the Bible too Contradictory for All of it to be True?

omega2xx said:

No. Acts 1:8 Jesus says wse will be His witnesses. We witness to others by living by what Jesus taught us---love you neighbor---love each other---love your enemies. WE can be a witness and never say a word,

Click to expand...

May I rephrase that then? Am I to LIVE for making more disciples?

If you are going to change what the Bible clearly says, I see no need in continuing this discussion.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine that you are that deaf or dumb. I am saying, THE BIBLE WAS CHANGED.

OMG.

omega2xx said:

How do you know what Jesus is teaching you if not from the Bible?

Click to expand...

He is telling me where men have changed it.

omega2xx said:

The bible says "make" I am going to stick with God on this one.

Click to expand...

No! It does not say make.

Here it is AGAIN.

3100 [e] mathēteusate μαθητεύσατε disciple V-AMA-2P < do you see that word? IT IS A VERB
3956 [e] panta πάντα all Adj-ANP
3588 [e] ta τὰ the Art-ANP
1484 [e] ethnē ἔθνη, nations,

omega2xx said:

The Bibles say a census occurred. I will take God's word over you every time. Do you really think all of the records of that time are still available? Just because something doesn't make sense to you does not mean it doesn't make sense, unless you are claiming to be omniscient.

Click to expand...

If we take the Bible as G-d's word, G-d's word even skips it. Matthew does not talk about the census, and instead, states that they were already living in Bethlehem.

I posted this on page 13, which explains why we can be certain that there was no census: Luke says, in chapter 2, that a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should register. Luke tells us that this took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. It then says that all went to their own towns to be registered. This is where we learn that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, and for some odd reason, had to go to Bethlehem in order to register.

That's all false though. So, under Augustus, there were three censuses, 28 B.C.E, 8 B.C.E., and 14 C.E. No record of one during the time of the birth of Jesus, which is generally placed around 4-2 B.C.E. The earliest evidence for a Roman census in Palestine though wasn't until 6 or 7 C.E., after the death of Herod. During the time of Herod, Palestine operated not under direct Roman control, and thus wouldn't be part of a global census.

There is also no real evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria until after the death of Herod. This leads many scholars to believe that Luke was instead thinking of the census in 6 C.E. Jesus could not have been born that late as in Luke 1:5, we are told that his birth, or at least conception, was still during the life of King Herod.

The final problem is that there was never any regulation, or reason, for people to travel to their ancestral homes. It didn't make sense. A census was taken for tax reasons. It makes no sense to have everyone travel to their ancestral homes, to register, and screw things up for taxation. It would be like if we were required to return to our ancestral homes today for a census. It throws off every number as there is no way for it to be accurate for any town or city. It makes no sense, and would be a governmental nightmare.

So what. Read 10 biographies of Washington. Some will have the exact same information, but some will have different information, and all of the variations could still be true.

Click to expand...

No. There are many biographies about Washington that contain false information. The story of him cutting down the cherry tree, which is included in some of the biographies, is known to be false. It never happened, and we know it never happened because the author of that story has come forward claiming that it is false. Yet, people once believed it.

I'm a historian of magic. One of my primary subjects has been the life of Harry Houdini. I can tell you that I have multiple books on my shelf that claim different reasons for his death, including poisoning, dying during a magic trick, from appendicitis, and from being punched in the stomach. Obviously, not all the them can be true, especially when the details disagree with each other. Not variations of the truth at all.

So what?

Click to expand...

So what? Well it shows that the stories differ. In Luke, the family lives in Nazareth, before Jesus is born, and returns home to Nazareth, very shortly after Jesus is born. In Matthew, the family lives in Bethlehem, flees to Egypt for a couple of years, and only later on moves to Nazareth. Both stories can't be true as they disagree with each other.

Why should we look at them separately? The correct way to read the Bible is to read it all to get the whole story. All of the sayings of Jesus on the cross are not in one gospel, but they are all true and there are no contradictions.

Click to expand...

I have shown there are contradictions. Why should we look at them separately? Because they say different things. Luke, in the birth story, is not saying what Matthew is. I showed that clearly above. Thus, you have to read them separately as the stories don't mesh up. I can't read Matthew and claim that the family went to Bethlehem, away from their home in Nazareth, because of a census. Matthew doesn't say that. Matthew says something very different. If you gleam over the differences, then you're not reading the Bible, you're making something up.

One you have not answered is what does the allegory in Gal 4:21-31 teach us?

I will not answer any more of yours until you answer that one.

Click to expand...

One, I haven't asked you questions. Unless they were rhetorical questions. Two, I didn't answer that question as you refuse to address anything I say, but instead keep claiming you will show me how I'm wrong, yet you never do. Three, I've answered basically all your questions, and it goes nowhere, because you never respond back to them. I think its because you know you don't have a valid argument. I've shown that there are in fact discrepancies in the manuscripts, after you asked. I've pointed to verses we can know are false, because you asked. I've shown that the Bible does disagree with itself, such on whether G-d is all knowing, because you asked.

I even told you which college I went to (so you could check it out), just to have you say that it isn't necessary for me to say what college I went to (contradiction on your part).

As for Gal. 4:21-31, what does it have to do with our conversation? Why try to test me, so you can then ignore my answer and insult me?

As for the allegory, Paul explains it himself. Two covenants based on the mothers of Abrahams sons. Those in Christ, according to Paul, are of the second covenant, that of the woman who corresponds to Jerusalem, (which would be Sarah, the mother of Issac). They are free, even though outsiders may persecute them.

And as for did Jesus walk on water? It is a matter of faith. Historically, one can neither confirm or deny that it happened. The study of history is based on probability. Anything is possible, but some things aren't probable. Jesus walking on water would be a miracle, and by definition, would be the least likely thing to have happened. So historically, one can rule it as having a low probability of happening. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but that one has to take it on faith.

@omega2xx You and THEY MUST MAKE A CASE that disciple (the verb) means to make disciples.

fallingblood said:

If we take the Bible as G-d's word, G-d's word even skips it. Matthew does not talk about the census, and instead, states that they were already living in Bethlehem.

I posted this on page 13, which explains why we can be certain that there was no census: Luke says, in chapter 2, that a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should register. Luke tells us that this took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. It then says that all went to their own towns to be registered. This is where we learn that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, and for some odd reason, had to go to Bethlehem in order to register.

That's all false though. So, under Augustus, there were three censuses, 28 B.C.E, 8 B.C.E., and 14 C.E. No record of one during the time of the birth of Jesus, which is generally placed around 4-2 B.C.E. The earliest evidence for a Roman census in Palestine though wasn't until 6 or 7 C.E., after the death of Herod. During the time of Herod, Palestine operated not under direct Roman control, and thus wouldn't be part of a global census.

There is also no real evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria until after the death of Herod. This leads many scholars to believe that Luke was instead thinking of the census in 6 C.E. Jesus could not have been born that late as in Luke 1:5, we are told that his birth, or at least conception, was still during the life of King Herod.

The final problem is that there was never any regulation, or reason, for people to travel to their ancestral homes. It didn't make sense. A census was taken for tax reasons. It makes no sense to have everyone travel to their ancestral homes, to register, and screw things up for taxation. It would be like if we were required to return to our ancestral homes today for a census. It throws off every number as there is no way for it to be accurate for any town or city. It makes no sense, and would be a governmental nightmare.
No. There are many biographies about Washington that contain false information. The story of him cutting down the cherry tree, which is included in some of the biographies, is known to be false. It never happened, and we know it never happened because the author of that story has come forward claiming that it is false. Yet, people once believed it.

I'm a historian of magic. One of my primary subjects has been the life of Harry Houdini. I can tell you that I have multiple books on my shelf that claim different reasons for his death, including poisoning, dying during a magic trick, from appendicitis, and from being punched in the stomach. Obviously, not all the them can be true, especially when the details disagree with each other. Not variations of the truth at all.
So what? Well it shows that the stories differ. In Luke, the family lives in Nazareth, before Jesus is born, and returns home to Nazareth, very shortly after Jesus is born. In Matthew, the family lives in Bethlehem, flees to Egypt for a couple of years, and only later on moves to Nazareth. Both stories can't be true as they disagree with each other.
I have shown there are contradictions. Why should we look at them separately? Because they say different things. Luke, in the birth story, is not saying what Matthew is. I showed that clearly above. Thus, you have to read them separately as the stories don't mesh up. I can't read Matthew and claim that the family went to Bethlehem, away from their home in Nazareth, because of a census. Matthew doesn't say that. Matthew says something very different. If you gleam over the differences, then you're not reading the Bible, you're making something up.
One, I haven't asked you questions. Unless they were rhetorical questions. Two, I didn't answer that question as you refuse to address anything I say, but instead keep claiming you will show me how I'm wrong, yet you never do. Three, I've answered basically all your questions, and it goes nowhere, because you never respond back to them. I think its because you know you don't have a valid argument. I've shown that there are in fact discrepancies in the manuscripts, after you asked. I've pointed to verses we can know are false, because you asked. I've shown that the Bible does disagree with itself, such on whether G-d is all knowing, because you asked.

I even told you which college I went to (so you could check it out), just to have you say that it isn't necessary for me to say what college I went to (contradiction on your part).

As for Gal. 4:21-31, what does it have to do with our conversation? Why try to test me, so you can then ignore my answer and insult me?

As for the allegory, Paul explains it himself. Two covenants based on the mothers of Abrahams sons. Those in Christ, according to Paul, are of the second covenant, that of the woman who corresponds to Jerusalem, (which would be Sarah, the mother of Issac). They are free, even though outsiders may persecute them.

And as for did Jesus walk on water? It is a matter of faith. Historically, one can neither confirm or deny that it happened. The study of history is based on probability. Anything is possible, but some things aren't probable. Jesus walking on water would be a miracle, and by definition, would be the least likely thing to have happened. So historically, one can rule it as having a low probability of happening. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but that one has to take it on faith.

Click to expand...

Maybe you missed the part where he/she told you he/she doesn't DO long posts.

omega2xx said:

The bible says "make" I am going to stick with God on this one.

Click to expand...

Tradition has the Bible saying make. To say you will stick with God on it, makes tradition your god.

What about the Pharisees? Jesus told me that they were not bad people. He censored them because they were doing what YOU ALL do which is to make tradition your god.

Proof? It is written that they were not willing, even with their little finger, to budge anything. Matthew 23:4

It is written that John the Baptist had disciples. John 3:25 Were his disciples for making more disciples for John?
If yes, then why do you think John was OK with that? If not, then why does it mean to make disciples when it is written about Jesus?

@omega2xx I can't fathom why you can not imagine what a disciple is.

What are these people doing? Are they looking for more people to be gathered around Jesus?

savagewind said:

I think you are able to listen, but you are proving that you won't.

I rely on God's Holy Spirit and I can't but wonder why YOU don't.

Click to expand...

Then you can quit wondering. God's holy Spirit teaches from God's word, not from man's word or from one imagination about what God says.

What is something God's holy Spirit has taught you that is not in God's word?

fallingblood said:

I understood you. And I rebutted your argument as it makes no sense here. To claim a levarite marriage, you have to claim something that has no evidence. Not to mention that it doesn't change the genealogy. The brother, and dead brother still have the same father, so the genealogy would continue in the same manner.

And they don't disagree in just one place, but in many. The first place is Joseph's father, either Jacob or Heli. Both agree next with Matthan/Matthat, but they disagree in the next entry, Levi or Eleazar. The next is also different, Melchi or Eliud. And they just keep disagreeing from there, Jannai or Achim. Joseph or Zadok. Mattathias or Azor. Even from which son of David they disagree. Matthew is from Solomon, Luke is from Nathan. The two agree very seldom.

So no, you didn't offer a rebuttal. You claimed levarite marriage, for one place. You seem unaware that it isn't just one place where they disagree.

Click to expand...

The levaritge marriage does explain it. Since you don't understand why, fine, it is time to move on.

So why don't we start there. Offer a rebuttal. Explain why the two genealogies disagree with each other, and why they don't contradict each other. I will address rest of your post in a separate post, in case you want to go back to the other points.

Click to expand...

This is my last response until you explain the allegory in Galatians.

savagewind said:

According to your understanding, it is every Christian's responsibility to obey Jesus' command to be making disicples because to love him is to obey his commands.

Now, you say;


Can you see that you are teaching against obeying God's commands?

Click to expand...

• Here is what the Bible clearly teaches----Apart Me(Jesus) we can do nothing(n 15:5)
• You(All Christians) will be My witnesses... wherever you are(Acts 1:8)
• Christians plant and water, God causes the growth(I Cor 3:6-7).
• We received the Holy Spirit when we believe the gospel of our salvation(Eph 1:13). Only then can the Holy Spirit enlighten the eyes of of our heart(Eph 1:18) and guide us into God's truth.

I can teach God's truth, but I cannot make anyone believe it is true. Only God's Holy Spirit can do that. my only responsibility is to tell the truth as I know it. That is what a witness in a court room swears to do.

Now a witness for Jesus is also required to live by the principles we claim to believe. This includes, but is not limited to first loving God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and loving others as our self, and letting our light shine so other can see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven(Mt 5:16).

There is some disagreement as to whether a disciple is a believer or just a follower, who has not made Jesus their Lord. IMO a disciple is a believer, because non- believers can't understand God's word, It is foolishness to them(I Cor 2:14).

If I am teaching and a non-believer suddenly sees and understands the truth and is converted, God did it ,not me. I have only done my part.

A disciple is basically a learner. I can only do my part to try and make the person a better disciple by teaching the truth from God's word.

This is my final comment of making disciples. I can't have any more to add. If Jesus has told you something different, believe Him and disregard what I have said. Keep one thing more in mind. The holy Spirit only guides us into what God;s written word says and that Satan will try to convince you it is wrong as he did Eve.

savagewind said:

May I rephrase that then? Am I to LIVE for making more disciples?





I can't imagine that you are that deaf or dumb. I am saying, THE BIBLE WAS CHANGED.

OMG.

Click to expand...

Don't tell me, show me.

omega2xx said:

What is something God's holy Spirit has taught you that is not in God's word?

Click to expand...

Have I not told you a hundred times?

omega2xx said:

Don't tell me, show me.

Click to expand...

savagewind said:

No! It does not say make.

Here it is AGAIN.

3100 [e] mathēteusate μαθητεύσατε disciple V-AMA-2P < do you see that word? IT IS A VERB
3956 [e] panta πάντα all Adj-ANP
3588 [e] ta τὰ the Art-ANP
1484 [e] ethnē ἔθνη, nations,

Click to expand...

I trust that what was written is true and for The Truth. All of it. OK?

What you trust: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, New International Version

Now you should show us by God's Word that disciple means make disciples.
I asked you if John's disciples were for making disciples. Did you answer me?

omega2xx said:

• Here is what the Bible clearly teaches----Apart Me(Jesus) we can do nothing(n 15:5)
• You(All Christians) will be My witnesses... wherever you are(Acts 1:8)
• Christians plant and water, God causes the growth(I Cor 3:6-7).
• We received the Holy Spirit when we believe the gospel of our salvation(Eph 1:13). Only then can the Holy Spirit enlighten the eyes of of our heart(Eph 1:18) and guide us into God's truth.

I can teach God's truth, but I cannot make anyone believe it is true. Only God's Holy Spirit can do that. my only responsibility is to tell the truth as I know it. That is what a witness in a court room swears to do.

Now a witness for Jesus is also required to live by the principles we claim to believe. This includes, but is not limited to first loving God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and loving others as our self, and letting our light shine so other can see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven(Mt 5:16).

There is some disagreement as to whether a disciple is a believer or just a follower, who has not made Jesus their Lord. IMO a disciple is a believer, because non- believers can't understand God's word, It is foolishness to them(I Cor 2:14).

If I am teaching and a non-believer suddenly sees and understands the truth and is converted, God did it ,not me. I have only done my part.

A disciple is basically a learner. I can only do my part to try and make the person a better disciple by teaching the truth from God's word.

This is my final comment of making disciples. I can't have any more to add. If Jesus has told you something different, believe Him and disregard what I have said. Keep one thing more in mind. The holy Spirit only guides us into what God;s written word says and that Satan will try to convince you it is wrong as he did Eve.

Click to expand...

I do not disagree with anything you have said in that post above.
I understand that living God's way is right and it is an advertisement for living God's way.

Romans 10:14-15How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

That scripture might be the reason someone changed Matthew 28:19 and put to make there. I agree with you that only The Holy Spirit can make a disciple and a disciple is a student of The Lord.

Thank you that you have conversed with me here. God bless you.

I have hearing aids. A skilled technician tested me and she adjusted the little computer in them.
She had a helper.

The Bible* says the helper got me hearing aids. She didn't. I could have got them whether the helper was there or not.

God's helpers are people who love Jesus. GOD makes them that way. People who love Jesus listen to him. They are disciples of him.

Please know that a disciple of Jesus is not also a disciple of Paul or of the Bible. 1 Corinthians 1:12-13

*God doesn't say that........The Holy Spirit doesn't it say that........the writer didn't say that........YOU ALL say that. I do not blame you @omega2xx , you are going with the crowd. I wonder how many people must agree that disciple is a verb before you would change your mind?

fallingblood said:

If we take the Bible as G-d's word, G-d's word even skips it. Matthew does not talk about the census, and instead, states that they were already living in Bethlehem.

I posted this on page 13, which explains why we can be certain that there was no census: Luke says, in chapter 2, that a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should register. Luke tells us that this took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. It then says that all went to their own towns to be registered. This is where we learn that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, and for some odd reason, had to go to Bethlehem in order to register.

That's all false though. So, under Augustus, there were three censuses, 28 B.C.E, 8 B.C.E., and 14 C.E. No record of one during the time of the birth of Jesus, which is generally placed around 4-2 B.C.E. The earliest evidence for a Roman census in Palestine though wasn't until 6 or 7 C.E., after the death of Herod. During the time of Herod, Palestine operated not under direct Roman control, and thus wouldn't be part of a global census.

There is also no real evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria until after the death of Herod. This leads many scholars to believe that Luke was instead thinking of the census in 6 C.E. Jesus could not have been born that late as in Luke 1:5, we are told that his birth, or at least conception, was still during the life of King Herod.

The final problem is that there was never any regulation, or reason, for people to travel to their ancestral homes. It didn't make sense. A census was taken for tax reasons. It makes no sense to have everyone travel to their ancestral homes, to register, and screw things up for taxation. It would be like if we were required to return to our ancestral homes today for a census. It throws off every number as there is no way for it to be accurate for any town or city. It makes no sense, and would be a governmental nightmare.
No. There are many biographies about Washington that contain false information. The story of him cutting down the cherry tree, which is included in some of the biographies, is known to be false. It never happened, and we know it never happened because the author of that story has come forward claiming that it is false. Yet, people once believed it.

I'm a historian of magic. One of my primary subjects has been the life of Harry Houdini. I can tell you that I have multiple books on my shelf that claim different reasons for his death, including poisoning, dying during a magic trick, from appendicitis, and from being punched in the stomach. Obviously, not all the them can be true, especially when the details disagree with each other. Not variations of the truth at all.
So what? Well it shows that the stories differ. In Luke, the family lives in Nazareth, before Jesus is born, and returns home to Nazareth, very shortly after Jesus is born. In Matthew, the family lives in Bethlehem, flees to Egypt for a couple of years, and only later on moves to Nazareth. Both stories can't be true as they disagree with each other.
I have shown there are contradictions. Why should we look at them separately? Because they say different things. Luke, in the birth story, is not saying what Matthew is. I showed that clearly above. Thus, you have to read them separately as the stories don't mesh up. I can't read Matthew and claim that the family went to Bethlehem, away from their home in Nazareth, because of a census. Matthew doesn't say that. Matthew says something very different. If you gleam over the differences, then you're not reading the Bible, you're making something up.
One, I haven't asked you questions. Unless they were rhetorical questions. Two, I didn't answer that question as you refuse to address anything I say, but instead keep claiming you will show me how I'm wrong, yet you never do. Three, I've answered basically all your questions, and it goes nowhere, because you never respond back to them. I think its because you know you don't have a valid argument. I've shown that there are in fact discrepancies in the manuscripts, after you asked. I've pointed to verses we can know are false, because you asked. I've shown that the Bible does disagree with itself, such on whether G-d is all knowing, because you asked.

I even told you which college I went to (so you could check it out), just to have you say that it isn't necessary for me to say what college I went to (contradiction on your part).

As for Gal. 4:21-31, what does it have to do with our conversation? Why try to test me, so you can then ignore my answer and insult me?

As for the allegory, Paul explains it himself. Two covenants based on the mothers of Abrahams sons. Those in Christ, according to Paul, are of the second covenant, that of the woman who corresponds to Jerusalem, (which would be Sarah, the mother of Issac). They are free, even though outsiders may persecute them.

And as for did Jesus walk on water? It is a matter of faith. Historically, one can neither confirm or deny that it happened. The study of history is based on probability. Anything is possible, but some things aren't probable. Jesus walking on water would be a miracle, and by definition, would be the least likely thing to have happened. So historically, one can rule it as having a low probability of happening. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but that one has to take it on faith.

Click to expand...

To long. When I get on the forum, I usually have 8-10 post to respond to, and I like to get to all of them. Plus I usually read some not addressed to me and I want to comment on them Plus I am in another forum. Plus I have tthings outside the fourm to do.

Answer the question. Yes or no. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of believing/not believing what God says.

Your explanation of the allegory is not bad but it omits the central teaching---the new birth is supernatural and those born again are not under the law.

The first thing we learn about Sarah is that she was barren(Gen 11:30), she could not have children. When Isaac was born Abraham was past the age where he could conceive children. Therefore his birth was a miracle, just like our new birth was. He, like us is the child of the promise.

This allegory is an allegory of comfort. The spiritual birth teaches us at least 2 things. Just as we did not play a part in our natural birth, we played no part in our spiritual birth, and we can't lose our relationship with God. My son, good, bad or indifferent will always be my son. Once someone is born physically, they can't be unborn; the same is true of our spiritual birth.

savagewind said:

Tradition has the Bible saying make. To say you will stick with God on it, makes tradition your god.

What about the Pharisees? Jesus told me that they were not bad people. He censored them because they were doing what YOU ALL do which is to make tradition your god.

Proof? It is written that they were not willing, even with their little finger, to budge anything. Matthew 23:4

Click to expand...

This post tell me you do not know what you are talking abut.


What traditions do I have?

omega2xx said:

This post tell me you do not know what you are talking abut.


What traditions do I have?

Click to expand...

Why are you talking to me?