Bible Discrepancies

[linwood]

So! There is no contradiction!--both verses speak of a Literal God creating a literal earth with a literal foundation; called physics.

That use of the word would still be considered figurative.

'eden
from the same as ''adown' (113) (in the sense of strength); a basis (of a building, a column, etc.):--foundation, socket.

Continue with your belief if you wish (I`m sure you will) but in a literal sense this foundation is material.

And yes! It is "dead freezing" in outer space....because God made it so!

My sig makes no mention of outer space.

 

[precept]

Continue with your belief if you wish (I`m sure you will) but in a literal sense this foundation is material.

And so it is: The laws of material gravitational forces are as literal as the forces that cause liquid concrete to harden into a foundation capable of holding in its hardened state multi-millions of tons of weight; when in its liquid state it was unable to support a pin-prick.
The material forces of gravity, unseen to the naked eye; and in effect not even there in believable reality--skycrapers penetrate it to lofty heights without penalty--Air planes fly through and into it in every direction without penalty--except those aircraft that experience engine failure--tiny little birds fly through it without any effort.--even mosquitoes fly with reckless abodon in these extreme forces capable of holding stationary a earth, and I dare say multimillions of globes throughout the universe weighing in numbers unable to be comprehended by the human mind.

How much more literal would you want God to be?

The question you should ask yourself is the question Job also asked himself:"Can you by searching; find out God!" Job 11:7

And though your "sig" doesn't say its "dead freezing" in outer space; yet it is!
And so God would have it.

precept

 

[roli]

No. Sectarian apologists, writing decades after the storied events, produced a body of dialogue which you take as real solely as a matter of faith. That is your right.

You have some very strong viewpoints as well, may I ask you how accurate your sources are of the writings you follow and possibly adhere to and how it is you came to believe what it is you believe
Could I ask you a personal question, who is it you read about , who do you study, what philosopher or thinker do particularly follow ,Darwin , Kant, Marx etc ,
Let me know so I can find their writings and dates when they were published and compare the accuracy , volitity of what was spoken or written
For certain if you knew anything of the evidences found both, from the actual Jewish customs ,traditions and stories past thru from generation to generation of the life and stories of Jesus and the eye witness accounts from countless people you might just have a different view.
How many people today read countless stories , follow the writings,practices and principals and follow certain mindsets of those who have since past on centuries ago and yet are toatlly captivated and compelled to follow and adhere to, regardless of the volitity and accuracy of these writings , rarely does a humanistic intellectual question those in which he /she so avidly follow, The logic and relative rationale are first and foremost

 

[linwood]

the eye witness accounts from countless people you might just have a different view.

I count....0

Unless you know of some I don`t and I`ve been searching A REALLY LONG TIME.

rarely does a humanistic intellectual question those in which he /she so avidly follow,

Actually most humanists question EVERYTHING.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You have some very strong viewpoints as well, may I ask you how accurate your sources are of the writings you follow and possibly adhere to and how it is you came to believe what it is you believe

Sure;

• relatively accurate, but certainly not inerrant
• the substitution of methodological naturalism for mindless superstition

May I ask you why you would quote me and then proceed to evade the quote? I'd also be curious to know what you think about casting the first stone.

 

[Don Wallace]

I guess I am a latecomer to this thread, but here are my two cents. The idea of a "discrepancy" or "contradiction" in the Bible makes sense only if you assume that the Bible is, in the first place, the unmediated literal word of God. If it were so, such discrepancies would indeed be serious. However, the Bible is not a single book. It is a collection of books by different authors, assembled over quite a long period of time. It was never intended to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle or to be read like a shop manual. Rather than the literal "Word of God," we can see the Bible as a sacred collection of words about God, by the ancient Hebrews and by the Christian saints who preceded us. Reading the Bible like a fact sheet rather than a sacred collection is like squeezing oranges then eating the pulp and throwing out the fresh, rich juice.

I love the Bible and I read it regularly. When I read the Gospels or the letters of Paul, I don't think of this writing as if it fell out of the sky one day, carved in marble, but as the sacred work of these early Christians who brought us the Word. May God bless them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Rather than the literal "Word of God," we can see the Bible as a sacred collection of words about God, by the ancient Hebrews and by the Christian saints who preceded us.

What makes them sacred?
What makes canon more sacred that, e.g., Thomas or the Infancy Gospels?

 

[HelpMe]

What makes them sacred?

is any writing sacred?

 

[bibleconsultant]

Jesus was crusified on Passover (Wedesday) and was ressurected on the Sabbath (Saturday)

 

[cardero]

HelpMe writes: is any writing sacred?

If you ask any author they will tell you that their writings are sacred. I would have to agree.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Mein Kampf comes to mind ...

 

[dan]

Jesus was crusified on Passover (Wedesday) and was ressurected on the Sabbath (Saturday)

What? He was buried on Friday. Saturday was a "high day", or a Sabbath during the Passover, and His body couldn't be up on the cross. This is why they requested their legs be broken to kill them (so they could be buried before the sun went down and the Sabbath began). Mosiac law would have restricted everyone from visiting His grave or many of the other activities entered into on the day of Christ's resurrection.

 

[linwood]

Don,

You are far too sensible to be posting to this thread.

I guess I am a latecomer to this thread, but here are my two cents. The idea of a "discrepancy" or "contradiction" in the Bible makes sense only if you assume that the Bible is, in the first place, the unmediated literal word of God. If it were so, such discrepancies would indeed be serious. However, the Bible is not a single book. It is a collection of books by different authors, assembled over quite a long period of time. It was never intended to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle or to be read like a shop manual. Rather than the literal "Word of God," we can see the Bible as a sacred collection of words about God, by the ancient Hebrews and by the Christian saints who preceded us. Reading the Bible like a fact sheet rather than a sacred collection is like squeezing oranges then eating the pulp and throwing out the fresh, rich juice.

I love the Bible and I read it regularly. When I read the Gospels or the letters of Paul, I don't think of this writing as if it fell out of the sky one day, carved in marble, but as the sacred work of these early Christians who brought us the Word. May God bless them.

 

[true blood]

What? He was buried on Friday. Saturday was a "high day", or a Sabbath during the Passover, and His body couldn't be up on the cross. This is why they requested their legs be broken to kill them (so they could be buried before the sun went down and the Sabbath began). Mosiac law would have restricted everyone from visiting His grave or many of the other activities entered into on the day of Christ's resurrection.

Jesus was indeed sacrificed on a Wednesday. This day represents the passover sacrifice. The following day, Thursday, was the High Day, or Special Sabbath. The weekly sabbath is still three days in the future, a Saturday. The saturday Jesus Christ was Resurrected.

 

[linwood]

Ok Doc.

Who was created first, man or beast?

Gen 1:25-27
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 2:18-19
And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.

Gen 1:27 is interesting as well since it states..
So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

But Elsewhere we`re told woman was made after man with one of his ribs.

Then there`s Gen 2:19
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.

It says God made "every fowl of the air" out of well..dirt but Gen 1 :21 says they came from the water.

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Actually it appeasr to say all beasts came from the water but Gen 2 tells us they came from the ground.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Man and woman... No contradiction there. He made man and woman... Only one scripture denotes an order, so how can there be a disagreement here? He created both and explained it in a way that EVERYONE could understand.

As for the foul or other beasts... I guess he used both "ground" and "water". He didn't exclude either in either passage.

Any more? These are pretty simple to me.

 

[linwood]

Man and woman... No contradiction there.

I`d say it was a contradiction albeit not a major one but gen one sounds as if he`s making them at the same time.
gen 2 says differently.

But my main question was ..who did he make first "Man or Beast"?

gen 1 says beast but Gen 2 says man was first.

Which is it?

Any more? These are pretty simple to me.

Don`t worry Doc, I`ve got lots.

 

[prosecutor]

true blood:

Your response is both faulty in logic and the Greek language. The same apostles to whom Jesus spoke (Acts 1:1-9) were the same apostles of Acts 2. This is the case in that the apostles to whom Jesus spoke prior to His ascension, He promised them that they would be "baptized in the Holy Spirit" within a short period of time. (1:5) Even by your own admission Judas was not with the apostles by the time we get to the events of Acts 2. Yet in Acts 2 we read of the apostles receiving this baptism. (2:1-4) So the "you" of (1:5) could not have included Judas in this context.
Your attempt to "explain" the Greek word (Matthew 27:5) translated "hanged himself" (KJV) is clever but far from conclusive. The usual meaning of the expression is to be accepted unless the context demands otherwise. There is no conflict between what Matthew and Luke wrote. (1) Judas
hung himself. (Matt. 27:5) (2) He fell "headlong and burst open" (Acts 1:18) It is reasonable to conclude that Judas hung himself and at some point, probably after hanging for a period of time, the "limb" (or whatever he was hung from) broke, his body fell and burst open when it hit below.
Thus there is no contradiction between the two accounts. Each describes something that happened.
Prosecutor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is reasonable to conclude that Judas hung himself and at some point, probably after hanging for a period of time, the "limb" (or whatever he was hung from) broke, his body fell and burst open when it hit below.

How could anything be more reasonable than that? :biglaugh:

Oh, well ...

Exodus 9:

• 01 Then HaShem said unto Moses: 'Go in unto Pharaoh, and tell him: Thus saith HaShem, the G-d of the Hebrews: Let My people go, that they may serve Me.
• 02 For if thou refuse to let them go, and wilt hold them still,
• 03 behold, the hand of HaShem is upon thy cattle which are in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the herds, and upon the flocks; there shall be a very grievous murrain.
• 04 And HaShem shall make a division between the cattle of Israel and the cattle of Egypt; and there shall nothing die of all that belongeth to the children of Israel.'
• 05 And HaShem appointed a set time, saying: 'Tomorrow HaShem shall do this thing in the land.'
• 06 And HaShem did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died; but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one.
• 07 And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not so much as one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. But the heart of Pharaoh was stubborn, and he did not let the people go.

Exodus 12:

• 29 And it came to pass at midnight, that HaShem smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the first-born of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the first-born of cattle.
• 30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.

I guess amidst all of that slaughter it's hard to remember what you've already killed.

 

[Pah]

It is reasonable to conclude .......

It is more reasonable to conclude that there are two authors each re-telling a tale passed on by oral tradition. It is unreasonable to contrive "harmony"