• 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!

Contradictions Challenge

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
You are suggesting that the God of the Bible is immoral in your phrasing, which as I said, is subjective. I don't think the God of the Bible is immoral, and I do worship the God of the Bible, Jehovah.

Yes, I am suggesting that anyone who condones owning other people as property is an immoral being. I'm interested to hear what ethical gymnastics you're going to perform in order to try and suggest otherwise.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
This is an excellent response! It's a very accurate criticism and, to an extent, I must admit, it bothers me that this has always been true about me in a 22 year history of discussion and debate on forums like this. I relish the opportunity to talk about it. Kind of odd, because I don't know you except for a couple of posts today. You must have been following my posts for some time. Let me explain why I think I do this.

1. I get bored really quickly, and secondly I don't know about you, but I have a lot of different people coming at me with all sorts of different responses and I want to get to as many of them as I can, but let's be reasonable. I can't. So to a certain extent I have to pick my battles. I would think that this applies to everyone else as well.

2. I think a discussion should be over in 2 or 3 exchanges per person. If you can't make your point and move on by then, give it a rest. To me, this is fair and reasonable. I presented my case, each of you presented yours, why labor it for weeks? Move on to the next topic.

3. Many people who disagree with you will simply vilify you by putting you into a category. Well, you're just an atheist, or Christian, Jehovah's Witness, or Jew, or Racist, or Bigot, or uneducated, or any other thing, worst of all . . . troll. I'm none of those things and that sort of argument doesn't mean anything to me. That has nothing to do with the debate or discussion. I'm not here to attack or defend anyone. What I am or am not isn't the subject, what I say is the subject. People will use sources or attack sources you use like this as well. Who said a thing and what they are isn't the subject to me, the subject is what is being said about the subject. I ignore those sorts of responses because they are irrelevant.

4. Often a person who disagrees strongly with you will start peppering their commentary as if to manipulate the people reading their responses that something about your position is failing or questionable when it isn't and they haven't given any evidence that it is. They'll say something like "You've already lost the debate." or "You've already proven your ignorance." or "You still haven't refuted my claims." When nothing remotely similar has occurred. This is often combined with #3. Maybe, for example, I would post something like "[Genesis 1:11] The Biblical kind, from the Hebrew leminoh, Greek genos, and Latin genus, differs from the Evolutionist kind. The Biblical "kind" can be defined as divisions in which cross fertility can occur, a boundary between these kinds is drawn where fertilization ceases. Apple trees, for example, don't produce broccoli, squirrels don't produce horses.

"In biology a kind applies to animals and plants which possess one or more distinctive characteristics, meaning the biological term kind may contain several varieties within a Biblical kind."

A good response to this would be something like: " No, the Greek genos and Latin Genus is more in agreement with the biological term etc. etc."

A bad response would be: "You've shown your ignorance again, probably due to your uneducated Christian upbringing, here's a link I found in a quick search, a 45 page dissertation on Strawman arguments, don't I look clever with out having actually said anything at all. " Repeat, reapeat, repeat. I guess they are so obtuse they think that if they repeat it often enough it must be true, or at least the readers might think so.

My position is if the reader or the poster of responses like that are so obtuse to think that is impressive then there isn't anything I would waste my time to pursue further molestation in order to clarify anything with. I just ignore it because I don't want to have that same discussion for a month or more.

Excellent material, you have such great stuff to work with, great critique of yourself.

To be honest you just ignore it because you wont admit your mistakes.

P.s. methinks thou doth protest to much
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Not if I am told to do so by an authority who, otherwise, would be telling me that I would be the one punished for doing so, no. If the matter were left between myself and the person who stole from me, then yes, I could see some form of "justice" in the act. But we're talking about a situation in which I, instead, appeal to an authority and then us together going and GANGING UP on the individual who did the stealing. We're talking about an authority who would likely punish the other person for stealing, telling me... "Go ahead, you know it will feel good, and I won't punish you. We'll just punish that guy and you go ahead and take that scumbag's stuff."

Not to mention that the later teachings (New Testament, which I am sure you also agree with) would likely have you "turning the other cheek", "loving your enemy", "forgiving trespasses against you." Is STEALING BACK from someone ("WITH INTEREST" as @Deeje ridiculously added) doing ANY of those things, do you think? In other words... would JESUS ever want you stealing from people? Answer truthfully now.
Are you serious?! You're grasping at straws.

Regarding your first paragraph (my quote feature isn't working, neither is my copy ability on this tablet):

"Ganging up"? Is that what you call the government doing to criminals? Because crime and injustice is what we're talking about....someone first commits a crime against you, all you are doing is getting recompensed, with punitive damages added in.

Your second paragraph, in comparing what is required of a Christian to that of ancient Israel.....that's like comparing apples to oranges. Christians have no specific physical country they reside in, they're worldwide. As opposed to ancient Israel, which was a nation and had actual borders to protect.

There's no tangible land that Christians need to protect....so there is a big difference!
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
@RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha , you said

"3. Many people who disagree with you will simply vilify you by putting you into a category. Well, you're just an atheist, or Christian, Jehovah's Witness, or Jew, or Racist, or Bigot, or uneducated, or any other thing, worst of all . . . troll. I'm none of those things....."

Ok, maybe I missed something; you don't follow Christ?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No, there are contradictions, most of which are numerical copyist errors, since they are somewhat more problematic in nature, what I'm saying is that most alleged contradictions are not contradictions at all but misunderstanding of the text.
An example here?
I don't know, I've never read it. I doubt it, though. From the little I've seen of that sort of thinking it's about on the same level as some History Channel program on ancient aliens.
Let me reassure you on the point. Ehrman is a reputable scholar of biblical texts. When he tells you something is a forgery, or began as a marginalium, or exists in various incompatible versions, he also makes his reasoning and his evidence plain.

The bible, after all, is first and foremost a set of ancient documents, each of which is susceptible to reasoned enquiry and is to be approached like any other ancient document: what, where, when, who, why, in what context, and with what antecedents and what influence, &c.


Anyway, here's one example of a contradiction which I mentioned just recently. In Mark, the earliest gospel, Jesus is simply a young Jewish male until he's baptized by JtB; Mark 1:11
and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.”​
This (as Acts 13:33 affirms) alludes to Psalm 2:7 (of King David):
I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, “You are my son, today I have begotten you.​
The same idea is found in 2 Samuel 7:14 (of David):
I will be his father, and he shall be my son.​
and Psalm 89:26 (again of David)
He shall cry to me, ‘Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ 27 And I will make him the first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth.
So the Jesus of Mark is a human adopted by God as his son in accordance with Jewish tradition.

By contrast, in Luke, perhaps ten years later than Mark, Mary is impregnated by the Holy Ghost, that is, by divine insemination in the Greek tradition. This raises all sorts of vexatious questions about the source of Jesus' Y chromosome ─ Jesus is theologically 'fully human' so he must have had a Y chromosome, and Mary, being theologically pure womanhood, didn't. Mark's version avoids all that silliness; but by the time the question could be clearly expressed, it was a millennium or so too late, and Greek insemination for Jesus had found its way into the creeds.

That seems plain as day to me: there are two versions provided, one Jewish and one Greek, and the bishops preferred the latter.

What's your take?
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Are you serious?! You're grasping at straws.

Regarding your first paragraph (my quote feature isn't working, neither is my copy ability on this tablet):

"Ganging up"? Is that what you call the government doing to criminals? Because crime and injustice is what we're talking about....someone first commits a crime against you, all you are doing is getting recompensed, with punitive damages added in.
You're completely misrepresenting the situation I was discussing, and you're doing so disingenuously so that you can get out of how completely debase this type of "justice" is!
  • In your pitiful attempt at an analogous scenario you position the authority as an arbitrator simply making a judgment call on the crime committed against you and deciding on a fair recompense.
  • In the ACTUAL scenario we were discussing, instead a person commits a crime against you (one that you decidedly aren't please about) and instead of letting the authority rule in judgment, you turn around and commit a similar crime against them! And the authorities are backing you as you break the law! Can you imagine if our "justice" system worked in this way? You have NO LEG TO STAND ON WITH THIS. Give up while you still can. Everyone else did.
Your second paragraph, in comparing what is required of a Christian to that of ancient Israel.....that's like comparing apples to oranges. Christians have no specific physical country they reside in, they're worldwide. As opposed to ancient Israel, which was a nation and had actual borders to protect.

There's no tangible land that Christians need to protect....so there is a big difference!
Again, all this proves is that God's morality/rules/laws change over time... or at His whim, or whatever. There is no "objective morality"... it is simply (supposedly) whatever God says it is at any given moment. Is that about right?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Last I checked God didn't sanction any of the wars of recent history. Did He?

Not a one.

Yet someone "sanctioned" those wars... hmmm... who was it?

That "someone" was human. Humans fight wars, usually over land or resources....or sometimes just to demonstrate their superior power. Nothing changes in human nature to prevent those things from still happening. Religion is often used to promote their nation's agenda...right or wrong. Propaganda is a powerful tool.

You seem to be looking at God's actions from a premise that is entirely mistaken IMO. If you understand "why" God does what he does, "the way" he does it, with the right perspective to begin with, the end results become a history of human behavior that will be used to set precedents for all time to come. We have not endured this history for no reason. It serves a much bigger purpose. One that perhaps you are unaware of.

But the point is the laws weren't upheld. We call that "martial law" in the U.S. - when the governing authority wants to do something that is outside of their current laws so that they don't have to be held accountable. It is generally frowned upon.

Human reaction to situations involves our sense of justice being either satisfied, or insulted. We have a very limited perspective when it comes to evaluating the actions of others using only our own interpretation of what they do in response to any given situation. That limitation can send us on a witch hunt and close our minds on the subject. That is a very undesirable position from which to judge anything.

If you were to sit in a courtroom and listen to all the evidence presented by one side, you can easily walk out of that courtroom convinced of either their guilt or innocence.....but when you hear all the evidence from the other side, sometimes all you pre-conceived notions can dissolve as you hear reasonable explanations for how or why they responded in that situation. It is imperative when making judgments about any actions to have the whole story. I don't believe that you do when judging the actions of the Creator; you act as if you know more about any of his actions and reactions than he does.

Why do you think there are so many who so adamantly oppose the death penalty?

Looking back on how many people were wrongly convicted and executed in the past, I'd say that most people oppose the death penalty because of that, more so than eliminating a despicable criminal from society so they could never offend again. Ask the victims' families if they think the death penalty is too severe in the murder and rape of a child?

God clearly outlined in his law what was acceptable and what was not. When routing their enemies, Israel were allowed to send a clear message to their foes.....if you mess with us, you mess with our God. When you lose to him...you lose everything you value.

You mistake my emphasizing what I think are important points as my being angry or something. If your God has done anything, it is to prove himself ineffectual in every way imaginable. I'd even go so far as to say that He's not even there, really. Tell me... do you find yourself getting angry at "nothing?"

Well, when you yell, (in bold capitals on an internet forum) it is a clear indication of strong emotion. It is your misconception of God that is the problem I believe, not the actions of the Creator himself. You have tried and convicted him on the evidence of your own limited evaluation. You have your fingers in your ears when it comes to any defense. How can anyone get past that? Why should they even try?

To the victor go the spoils" is NOT a rule, nor a statement of divine law or anything so grand. It is a "this is how it is" type of statement.

Yes....it is the way it is....its the way it has always been since humans began recording history.
Can you change human nature by complaining about it? :shrug:

And it is usually used to explain why people who "win" wars are "allowed" to write the history books, or are "allowed" to ransack the "enemy's" homes. In other words, it is used most often in a negative light, to shrug off what is otherwise a terrible situation and try to move on

Its funny how it takes on a different connotation when the shoe is on the other foot. If you are the loser, it means you lose everything, so who really expects otherwise?....but if you are the winner, you gain what they lose. Its the difference between 'yahoo' and 'boo hoo', isn't it? The emotion is not much different to who wins an international soccer game....the winning nation gets the trophy and the accolades, but the losers get tissues.
That trophy could have gone to the other team if they had played a better match.
Yahoo
happy0064.gif
and boo hoo.
sad0004.gif


Its all about human nature......so what are you really complaining about?
God is not about changing fallen human nature collectively...he is about teaching us how to change our view of it....how to get a handle on our own nature and improve our own behavior accordingly.....one human at a time.

Following the teachings of Jesus Christ, is the best way to accomplish that IMO.
 

Earthling

David Henson
@RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha , you said

"3. Many people who disagree with you will simply vilify you by putting you into a category. Well, you're just an atheist, or Christian, Jehovah's Witness, or Jew, or Racist, or Bigot, or uneducated, or any other thing, worst of all . . . troll. I'm none of those things....."

Ok, maybe I missed something; you don't follow Christ?

Well, I certainly try to. To many, wrongly so, one has to agree to the Nicene creed in order to be a Christian. I do not. Arguably, according to the Bible one must be baptized in order to be a Christian, I am not. For me, the issue is the teachings. 99% of modern day Christianity is based upon apostate teachings. Hell from Dante and Milton, the immortal soul from Socrates, the Trinity from Plato, Christmas from the winter solstice, Easter from Astarte, the rapture from Darby. All teachings contrary to scripture.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Well, I certainly try to. To many, wrongly so, one has to agree to the Nicene creed in order to be a Christian. I do not. Arguably, according to the Bible one must be baptized in order to be a Christian, I am not. For me, the issue is the teachings. 99% of modern day Christianity is based upon apostate teachings. Hell from Dante and Milton, the immortal soul from Socrates, the Trinity from Plato, Christmas from the winter solstice, Easter from Astarte, the rapture from Darby. All teachings contrary to scripture.
Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation, I understand.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Well, I certainly try to. To many, wrongly so, one has to agree to the Nicene creed in order to be a Christian. I do not. Arguably, according to the Bible one must be baptized in order to be a Christian, I am not. For me, the issue is the teachings. 99% of modern day Christianity is based upon apostate teachings. Hell from Dante and Milton, the immortal soul from Socrates, the Trinity from Plato, Christmas from the winter solstice, Easter from Astarte, the rapture from Darby. All teachings contrary to scripture.

So close to what JW's believe and yet far from being attached to any denomination? :shrug:
Can I ask how someone can be a follower of Christ whilst seemingly unattached to any Christian body?
Who do you see as teaching the truth today? Only yourself?
confused0007.gif
As far as I can ascertain from the scriptures, one cannot be a follower of Christ in isolation. Who are your "brothers"? Why do you see no need for baptism if Christ himself set the example? I am confused....
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
You're completely misrepresenting the situation I was discussing, and you're doing so disingenuously so that you can get out of how completely debase this type of "justice" is!
  • In your pitiful attempt at an analogous scenario you position the authority as an arbitrator simply making a judgment call on the crime committed against you and deciding on a fair recompense.
  • In the ACTUAL scenario we were discussing, instead a person commits a crime against you (one that you decidedly aren't please about) and instead of letting the authority rule in judgment, you turn around and commit a similar crime against them! And the authorities are backing you as you break the law! Can you imagine if our "justice" system worked in this way? You have NO LEG TO STAND ON WITH THIS. Give up while you still can. Everyone else did.

Again, all this proves is that God's morality/rules/laws change over time... or at His whim, or whatever. There is no "objective morality"... it is simply (supposedly) whatever God says it is at any given moment. Is that about right?
'In my pitiful attempt', huh? Resorting to ad Homs, huh?

I read no further.

Tell me, do you understand the future for unrighteous mankind who have died, called the Resurrection?

Your skepticism has been fueled through teachings promoted by Christendom. If all of you accurately understood what the Bible says about it, your hard-core attitude would be softened. It did mine.

Good day.
 

Earthling

David Henson
An example here?

An example of the alleged contradictions being misunderstandings? All of my responses to those alleged contradictions in this thread.

Or an example of numerical copyist errors?

Oh, I just came across one the other day when responding to the alleged contradiction of horses of Egypt, but I can't remember where it was or what it was about, except for the number involved horses.

I can give a close example, off hand, Ezra 2:1-67 / Nehemiah 7:63-65. The numbers in both accounts are a total of 42,360 exiles returned from the Babylonian exile, minus slaves and singers, but there are variations in the numbers of the individual families. So if you add them up yourself you come up with a different number than both totals.

Many scholars attribute this to copyist errors, but it could also be that they used different sources. For example, Ezra might have been counting those who were enrolled to return and Nehemiah might have used a source that listed those who actually did return. Or some may not have been able to establish their ancestry until later.

Let me reassure you on the point. Ehrman is a reputable scholar of biblical texts. When he tells you something is a forgery, or began as a marginalium, or exists in various incompatible versions, he also makes his reasoning and his evidence plain.

The bible, after all, is first and foremost a set of ancient documents, each of which is susceptible to reasoned enquiry and is to be approached like any other ancient document: what, where, when, who, why, in what context, and with what antecedents and what influence, &c.

Well, I don't know Erman's work so I can't say, but I agree with that.

Anyway, here's one example of a contradiction which I mentioned just recently. In Mark, the earliest gospel, Jesus is simply a young Jewish male until he's baptized by JtB; Mark 1:11
and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.”​
This (as Acts 13:33 affirms) alludes to Psalm 2:7 (of King David):
I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, “You are my son, today I have begotten you.​
The same idea is found in 2 Samuel 7:14 (of David):
I will be his father, and he shall be my son.​
and Psalm 89:26 (again of David)
He shall cry to me, ‘Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ 27 And I will make him the first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth.
So the Jesus of Mark is a human adopted by God as his son in accordance with Jewish tradition.

By contrast, in Luke, perhaps ten years later than Mark, Mary is impregnated by the Holy Ghost, that is, by divine insemination in the Greek tradition. This raises all sorts of vexatious questions about the source of Jesus' Y chromosome ─ Jesus is theologically 'fully human' so he must have had a Y chromosome, and Mary, being theologically pure womanhood, didn't. Mark's version avoids all that silliness; but by the time the question could be clearly expressed, it was a millennium or so too late, and Greek insemination for Jesus had found its way into the creeds.

That seems plain as day to me: there are two versions provided, one Jewish and one Greek, and the bishops preferred the latter.

What's your take?

I don't know. I would have to look into it, and I really don't have the time right now. Sorry. I'm just too busy with other stuff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Earthling

David Henson
So close to what JW's believe and yet far from being attached to any denomination? :shrug:
Can I ask how someone can be a follower of Christ whilst seemingly unattached to any Christian body?
Who do you see as teaching the truth today? Only yourself?
confused0007.gif
As far as I can ascertain from the scriptures, one cannot be a follower of Christ in isolation. Who are your "brothers"? Why do you see no need for baptism if Christ himself set the example? I am confused....

Definitely influenced by the JW's and more confident in their material as a source than any other. The JWs are the closest to the truth. Far more than any other, but I have major problems with some of their teachings so what can I do? I don't think that I could pass their pre baptism interview. All of the problems I have with their teachings have to do with their own estimation of themselves in prophecy and things of that nature. Their take on the two witnesses, for example. Their take on "the anointed" is nonsensical. They are without a doubt false prophets, probably more for the sake of gaining adherents and money. The way the organization hordes money given to them mostly by people of lesser means, and then that organization leaves the poor local congregation to fend for itself while they have billions. The way they cover up child molestation in order not to bring reproach on Jehovah, do you think he would approve of that? Is that a Biblical example?

Organized religion always transmogrifies into something abhorrent. I don't want to be a part of it. I'm more comfortable with Melchizedek as an example, though an obscure one. In Jesus' time it was important to spread the good news. That has been accomplished.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Definitely influenced by the JW's and more confident in their material as a source than any other. The JWs are the closest to the truth. Far more than any other, but I have major problems with some of their teachings so what can I do? I don't think that I could pass their pre baptism interview. All of the problems I have with their teachings have to do with their own estimation of themselves in prophecy and things of that nature. Their take on the two witnesses, for example. Their take on "the anointed" is nonsensical. They are without a doubt false prophets, probably more for the sake of gaining adherents and money. The way the organization hordes money given to them mostly by people of lesser means, and then that organization leaves the poor local congregation to fend for itself while they have billions. The way they cover up child molestation in order not to bring reproach on Jehovah, do you think he would approve of that? Is that a Biblical example?

Organized religion always transmogrifies into something abhorrent. I don't want to be a part of it. I'm more comfortable with Melchizedek as an example, though an obscure one. In Jesus' time it was important to spread the good news. That has been accomplished.
Were the Israelites, Jehovah's people? Were they problem-free?
If you had lived during Manasseh's reign, or others....would you have decided that they weren't God's people?

The first-century Christians had problems, many still wanting to enforce aspects of the Mosaic Law onto their brothers....but for the most part, they were united. Remember, no matter how perfect an organization 's structure can be, it's still run by people, and we're all imperfect.

You would have to expect attacks and certain situations be exaggerated by the world....it's Satan's, as you well know.
But the preaching of the Kingdom (Matthew 24:14) is being accomplished worldwide as prophesied, which would take an organized group, all 'speaking in agreement'. -- 1 Corinthians 1:10

We are imperfect, but we try....and remove those who stop trying.

Take care.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
You mention money. Really?
If that was our goal, we'd have huge churches with large congregations, requiring less upkeep than smaller ones, proportionally.

Besides, the preaching work takes money....that's where the money goes. What comes in, comes from Jehovah's blessing.

Take care, and good night.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
'In my pitiful attempt', huh? Resorting to ad Homs, huh?

I read no further.

Tell me, do you understand the future for unrighteous mankind who have died, called the Resurrection?

Your skepticism has been fueled through teachings promoted by Christendom. If all of you accurately understood what the Bible says about it, your hard-core attitude would be softened. It did mine.

Good day.
I see that you still do not know what an ad hom is.
 

Earthling

David Henson
You mention money. Really?
If that was our goal, we'd have huge churches with large congregations, requiring less upkeep than smaller ones, proportionally.

Besides, the preaching work takes money....that's where the money goes. What comes in, comes from Jehovah's blessing.

Take care, and good night.

Wait a minute. Exactly how many JWs are posting here? I wouldn't have recognized any until now. Is it that I haven't had many conversation with those I'm not recognizing as JWs or are y'all just keeping a very low profile?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't know. I would have to look into it, and I really don't have the time right now. Sorry. I'm just too busy with other stuff.
You were asking for contradictions in the bible to explain, and when I propose one, you make the reply above.

That rather jars with the OP, wouldn't you say.
 
Top