Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
I have always said the Bible was written by men. But, the Author is God.
I have not called God a liar.
Good-Ole-Rebel
-
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 in the Bible
- Thread starter rrobs
- Start date
I have always said the Bible was written by men. But, the Author is God.
I have not called God a liar.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Audie
Veteran Member
It is not really a contradiction as such.
I was concentrating on an approximation.
You know nobody can measure to
a trillionth of a millimeter.
The numbers given in the bible are approximate. You
can see that?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
A magic hat? You just make this stuff up as you go along, don't you?
My own view is that it's not a question of perfection, so much as it is one of ability to convey important truths accurately and unambiguously. The fact that there are so many Christian denominations and sects (38,000 at last count!) tells me that the Bible cannot do this, and it therefore cannot be what is claimed for it -- a summary of "God's Own Truth." The existence of all those disagreements stands in stark proof that it is not.Only a perfect god would write an imperfect book. Gee, that makes sense doesn't it.
.
.
What is the difference between "sending" and "uttering" when it comes to something like a lie, which is a statement, not an object?
No, Joseph Smith claims to have used a hat, into which he put the "seer stones" and then put his face into the hat so that he could translate the plates from "reformed Egyptian" (no such thing) into the English Book of Mormon.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You know that I do not make stuff up, I am not a creationist:
". The only eyewitnesses to the process said Smith translated the plates, not by looking at them, but by looking at a seer stone in the bottom of his hat.[5] "
Golden plates - Wikipedia
That you have to deny this aspect of Mormonism indicates that even you can see how parts of it are ridiculous.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Close, according to sources he did that in front of people. Talk about being gullible.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wrong verse, try again.
By the way, this is why one should also do a copy and paste of verses. If you do not know how ask and people will help you.
Your view that God lies is not based on scripture. And I will repeat the truth as long as necessary.
Good-Ole-Common-Sense
nPeace
Veteran Member
You could be right, but I don't know, since he never answered.
Also, he never responded to the evidence he asked for, and received, so I guess that proves he really doesn't want any. He only wants to complain that there is none, it seems.
Reminds me of the blind man that kicked the neighbor's cat, and when she complained to the cops, and the officers asked him, "Did you kick this lady's cat?" responded to the officers, "What cat? Officers, I'm blind. I didn't see no cat."
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I haven't denied what the article on Wiki states. I didn't see anywhere in the article that implied the hat was "magic." You obviously find it very entertaining to mock other people's beliefs, but you can't even get your facts straight. The hat was used solely to keep out the light. Now if you want to ridicule the seer stones, have at it.
InChrist
Free4ever
I used to think as you do about it, as it seemed there was just too much confusion with so many denominations and sects. I no longer see it like that, though. Now I believe this simply shows that various groups of Christians who are in agreement on the essentials, yet still have many differences are made up of individual, unique people who are all at different places in their understanding of God and His word, as well as their sanctification or maturity in their relationship with God. The Bible addresses this and from my view it is a tremendous testimony of the greatest and patience of God as He allows and waits for people to grow.
So far, we have three positions on the contradictions of the Bible.
1. They exist. They are real, require explanation and place limits on the interpretations of the Bible.
2. They do not exist. 99% can be explained away following a protocol. There are no limits to interpretation.
3. They exist. God has lied and placed these in the Bible to trip people up. All interpretation is slanted to support the Bible.
I am not certain whether to consider the following a 4th position or just an example of a means of dealing with the contradictions. Obviously, this entails recognition that the contradictions exist. It has been stated that where contradictions exist that have no obvious, easy or apparent explanation, it is best to ignore them. That does appear to be the majority approach to contradictions in the Bible, but I do not feel certain it rates consideration an independent position here.
1. They exist. They are real, require explanation and place limits on the interpretations of the Bible.
2. They do not exist. 99% can be explained away following a protocol. There are no limits to interpretation.
3. They exist. God has lied and placed these in the Bible to trip people up. All interpretation is slanted to support the Bible.
I am not certain whether to consider the following a 4th position or just an example of a means of dealing with the contradictions. Obviously, this entails recognition that the contradictions exist. It has been stated that where contradictions exist that have no obvious, easy or apparent explanation, it is best to ignore them. That does appear to be the majority approach to contradictions in the Bible, but I do not feel certain it rates consideration an independent position here.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Yes we have, and your explanation was that there were "Two different Ahaziah's." (post 44)
In post # 78 I showed that this was certainly not the case.
To which you merely asserted that "I just showed you, both were different. What is the problem?" (post 137) without having done any such thing. You merely made an empty claim.
Then in post 524 you made a rather odd remark, "Apparent contradictions do exist because the revelation is from God. Had the Bible been written to the perfect logic and understanding of man, it wouldn't have been from God. It would have been from man."
To which I replied, "Only a perfect god would write an imperfect book. Gee, that makes sense doesn't it."
To which you replied in post 549, "It is not an imperfect Book." Just as if the contradiction I pointed out and which you failed to contradict, never existed.
To which I pointed out that
2 Kings 8:25-27
25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2 Chronicles 22
22 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. 2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
Two and twenty (22) is not the same as Forty and two (42). To contend it is violates the law of contradiction. And violating the law of law of contradiction is a logical error.
25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2 Chronicles 22
22 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. 2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
Two and twenty (22) is not the same as Forty and two (42). To contend it is violates the law of contradiction. And violating the law of law of contradiction is a logical error.
And now your only retort is, "I believe we already discussed this contradiction." As if you've actually showed that 2 Kings 8:25-27 and 2 Chronicles 22 don't contradict each other, AND that there were "two different Ahaziah's."
Sorry, Good-Ole-Rebel, but pretending you've met the burden of proving your claim just doesn't work. You are wrong in your assertion that there were "Two different Ahaziah's, " and that the Bible "is not an imperfect Book." and I and everyone else here knows it. You've been busted and you don't even have the cajones to admit it, which comes as no surprise.
.
Last edited:
Looks like you got him Good-Ole-Cornered.
Skwim
Veteran Member
I am interested in how he defends the contradictions in the Bible by creating his own set of contradictions. God is the truth and a liar at the same time. The same person is two different people. He uses scripture to refute others, but that same scripture refutes him.Yeah, he pretty much put himself in that corner.
.
What other amazing tricks will we see?
Workman
UNIQUE
Yes..it does make sense of your
“(i) want to [see]” ain’t it?
After all when you use the word (I),
You are not speaking for what you want to see...but from which its eyes(I) wants to see...your eyes!
You have become noisey and Very gullible..from your ‘(I) always think’..
Last edited: