• 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

Earthling

David Henson
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.

OK. You're right. I will look at it first thing in the morning before I respond to anything else. Right now I'm just really tired. I've been doing this since about 7 this morning with little time away from it, and it's 1:30 the next morning now. I need some sleep.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
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?

There are a few of us.
winking0060.gif

Most know that I am openly a JW as I have been posting on this forum for years.
To identify as "Christian" is still openly declaring oneself to being a follower of Jesus Christ. The proof of that pudding is in the actions.

A "Bible Believer" is what we are too....but one cannot preach the good news single-handedly in the "entire inhabited earth", as Jesus said......it has to be organized just as Jesus apostles and disciples were organized. (Matthew 10:11-15) People in "the most distant part of the earth" had to be reached. You will find us there.

Jehovah is a God of order. Jesus said that he would be "with" his disciples, supporting this global witness before the "end" of the present system of things takes place. (Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19-20) It has been accomplished.....so who was Jesus "with" in this work that was to continue right up until the judgment time? Who else is known for preaching in every continent on earth and have continued to do so for over 100 years?

@Hockeycowboy has also mentioned that we must "all speak in agreement"....can I ask....with whom do you speak in agreement? Is it a case of God fitting into your box...or is he asking you to fit into his? What do you think?

As a refugee from Christendom myself, I know that the contrast is huge.....and I have no qualms about any of it. In order to be a "Bible Believer" we have to believe what it says......not just some of it, but all 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.

The example of Melchizedek was applied only to Jesus Christ, (Hebrews 6:20; Hebrews 7:17, 21) because in Israel no one could be both a King and a Priest since they came from separate tribes. Jesus was of the Kingly tribe of Judah, but made a High Priest by Jehovah's special appointment.....I am curious to know how do you think it applies to you?
confused0006.gif


I see how the appearance of Jehovah's modern day Witnesses fits the prophesy in Daniel perfectly. In "the time of the end" God was going to supply an abundance of knowledge and his worshippers would "cleanse, whiten and refine" themselves at this time period. (Daniel 12:4; 9-10) Daniel said that the wicked would go on acting wickedly....I believe this is because they refused to be cleansed of all the false teachings that Christendom had introduced. He said they would understand nothing. Gradually as each teaching was examined, they got rid of all of them....the trinity, immortality of the soul, hellfire, Easter, Christmas, infant baptism etc. I don't know of any other group as a global brotherhood who unitedly did that....do you?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
OK. You're right. I will look at it first thing in the morning before I respond to anything else. Right now I'm just really tired. I've been doing this since about 7 this morning with little time away from it, and it's 1:30 the next morning now. I need some sleep.
Sweet dreams!
 

Earthling

David Henson
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?

What about Psalms 2:7 Hebrews 1:5-5?
 

Earthling

David Henson
They confirm Mark's adoption view. But that view, though it makes vastly more sense, is not reflected in the creeds.

Do you wish to offer some reconciliation of the irreconcilable? Or do you agree there are two irreconcilable views?

I think that you're just putting two different spins on the same thing. Mark doesn't begin with Jesus' birth but that doesn't imply that Mark intended to establish some other view. To me, the conclusion you've drawn of the irreconcilable is of a religious nature. One Hebrew and one Greek. I wonder, is there some continuation of that theme or is that pretty much it?

Was each supposed account meant to appeal to or reflect each religious ideology and the theme you suppose develop into a practical attempt of the Jesus Myth Theory or do you suppose it was merely a reflection of the times in which each were given?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Not a one.

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 missed my point. My point was... my belief is that ALL wars were only ever sanctioned by humans. That God had nothing to do with any of them.

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.
I'm told all the time that we can't know why God does what He does, or the way He does it.

Consider this... if God rewards or punishes people IN THIS LIFE, while they are alive, then His forms of reward and punishment are secret. He doesn't come out and tell you why you are being rewarded, or punished. You can only infer it. This is exactly the same as me noticing my son got straight A's, and to reward him I secretly leave a $5 for him to find on his way to school the next morning. Or I see my under-age daughter smoking from afar, and as punishment I decide to put a spider in her bed that night before she sleeps. THIS is how God would necessarily be working in the real world at any given moment. And it is probably one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard expressed. And yet there are people who simply accept this and still worship, etc.



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.
I'm really glad you mentioned this. I can only know what I am told, can't I? There really is no more than that to go on. There's a book... which is age-old people trying to tell me, then there are people like you, also trying to tell me. So, I DON'T GET GOD'S TESTIMONY. At least not directly.

When was the last time you heard about a court-case in which a witness didn't show, and it was acceptable to the court that an acquaintance of his stand in his place? Has that EVER happened? No? I wonder why not? you seem to think secondhand information is so very valuable. Don't you? Just a helpful hint: you kind of have to say "yes" here, or EVERYTHING YOU HAVE TO GO ON (or at the very least, everything you expect ME to go on with respect to your faith) falls apart.

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.
I get it... you've already said it. In your opinion it is fine for God to kill human beings and instruct other human beings to kill one another. No reason to try and tip-toe around it or dress it up in euphemistic language. That, at its core, is the point you have been making, and I accept it.



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?
My bold capitals are the parts I want to make sure you don't miss. That's it. Take it as yelling if you wish. It doesn't matter.

Also, I'll be the first to tell you, you shouldn't try. it is fruitless. I have heard too much, I know too much. The only possible way for me to accept God would be for some inter-subjectively verifiable event that proved His existence beyond an ability to logically question. Short of that, there is NOTHING that will convince me. If God exists He's aware. He can deal with it. Or not. It truly doesn't matter. If He doesn't exist, that's already what I was expecting. If He does exist, then He knows exactly why I couldn't believe. You don't get to tell me why I don't believe... that I have "closed my heart" or some other nonsense. Give me a break.

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:
I was complaining about a supposed authority figure punishing the actions of one set of people by sanctioning the original victims going and doing the exact same thing to them, all while breaking one of the authority's own "cardinal rules" (there are only 10 of them for goodness sake!) What did you think I was complaining about?

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.
Please... if you answer NO OTHER QUESTION in my entire reply thus far, PLEASE answer these two:
Would JESUS want you to turn around and rob the people you just beat into the ground? Would JESUS want you to beat people into the ground in the first place?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known 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.
Hahaha... "read no further." Typical. I said your attempt was pitiful... not YOU. No ad hominem there. If you get nothing out of our conversation, please go look up what it means.

However... I did refer to you as "disingenuous"... which you would have understood had you read just a sentence or two further. It was also characteristic of your post, but I have to admit was also directed at you.

But in the end... just go look up "ad hominem", please.
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I think the biggest contradiction is the claimed miraculous transformation of lives.

The Bible says and advises one thing, the person says and does another.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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.
Read your church history. They’re not “apostate teachings.”
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
There is no where in Exodus 9:3, that God killed any horses. Maybe you need to
re-read it again.
LOL! You do realize that when you type in a verse as you did that the site automatically creates a link to it, don't you? From the link that you inadvertently created:

"3 Behold, the hand of the LORD is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain." (bolding mine)
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
How can anyone claim that the God of the bible is a moral being when the God of the bible very specifically condones slavery?

If a person can not buy or pay for things, then if that person wants to be in slavery to make up their payment, then there's nothing wrong in that.

Back in the old testament, people didn't have money as we have money, so to pay off their debt they would put themselves in slavery until the debt was paid off.

Jacob did this to have Rachel as his wife.
To work for Rachel'' father to have Rachel as his wife.

There were other people who would become others slaves, but after 7 yrs. They were set free, with what ever they had during that 7yrs.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If a person can not buy or pay for things, then if that person wants to be in slavery to make up their payment, then there's nothing wrong in that.

Back in the old testament, people didn't have money as we have money, so to pay off their debt they would put themselves in slavery until the debt was paid off.

Jacob did this to have Rachel as his wife.
To work for Rachel'' father to have Rachel as his wife.

There were other people who would become others slaves, but after 7 yrs. They were set free, with what ever they had during that 7yrs.
You are conflating the limited time "slavery" with all slavery in the Bible. There were slaves that did not enter into slavery voluntarily and for them it was a life sentence. One could also sell one's daughters into life long slavery. She would have no say in the matter.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
There is no where in Exodus 9:3, that God killed any horses. Maybe you need to
re-read it again.
YOU need to re-read it again.

Exodus 9:3 CEB
the Lord will send a very deadly disease on your livestock in the field: on horses, donkeys, camels, cattle, and flocks.

Exodus 9:3 JUB
behold, the hand of the LORD is upon thy livestock which are in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the cows, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous pestilence.


Exodus 9:3 TLB
the power of God will send a deadly plague to destroy your cattle, horses, donkeys, camels, flocks, and herds.

Exodus 9:3 NASB
behold, the hand of the Lord will come with a very severe pestilence on your livestock which are in the field, on the horses, on the donkeys, on the camels, on the herds, and on the flocks.

Exodus 9:3 NLT
the hand of the Lord will strike all your livestock—your horses, donkeys, camels, cattle, sheep, and goats—with a deadly plague.



.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
If a person can not buy or pay for things, then if that person wants to be in slavery to make up their payment, then there's nothing wrong in that.

Back in the old testament, people didn't have money as we have money, so to pay off their debt they would put themselves in slavery until the debt was paid off.

Jacob did this to have Rachel as his wife.
To work for Rachel'' father to have Rachel as his wife.

There were other people who would become others slaves, but after 7 yrs. They were set free, with what ever they had during that 7yrs.

Wow... are you blatantly lying or are you just clueless about what's actually in the bible?

What you describe is indentured servitude. Those were the rules for when Hebrews owned other Hebrews. Then God went and dictated the rules for owning NON-Hebrews. THOSE slaves you could own forever ( none of this 7 years stuff)... you could even pass them on as property to your children after you died. You were allowed to beat them... just as long as they didn't die as a result of the beating within a couple of days. Any reason why you ignored those despicable passages?

In other words, God was perfectly okay with the vile immoral type of slavery that was practiced in the US for hundreds of years. Now that is NOT a God worthy of my worship... and if you are a moral person, this god shouldn't be worthy of your worship either.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Also, I'll be the first to tell you, you shouldn't try. it is fruitless. I have heard too much, I know too much. The only possible way for me to accept God would be for some inter-subjectively verifiable event that proved His existence beyond an ability to logically question. Short of that, there is NOTHING that will convince me. If God exists He's aware. He can deal with it. Or not. It truly doesn't matter. If He doesn't exist, that's already what I was expecting. If He does exist, then He knows exactly why I couldn't believe. You don't get to tell me why I don't believe... that I have "closed my heart" or some other nonsense. Give me a break.

OK....now I get it. I didn't read past this statement. No point in trying to adjust your thinking because nothing short of a physical encounter will suffice. Your mind is set....and that is your choice.

That "inter-subjectively verifiable event that proved His existence beyond an ability to logically question" will have to suffice....but when it happens, what do you expect the outcome to be?

If God deliberately stepped out of the picture to allow humans to prove to themselves what happens without him, and he only invites people of faith to become participants in his future plans for planet earth once he has cleansed it of all wickedness, where does that leave people who have no faith? (1John 2:17)

If all we have is the Bible as God's only instruction manual for the human race, and we ignore it because we have no faith in it, or its author....where does that leave those who demand absolute proof? Disappointed? Without hope or direction? Lost?

The thing is, people of faith need no proof. God proves himself to us in ways that unbelievers apparently cannot imagine. We don't have this confidence based on wishful thinking....we know our God and he knows us. It's the difference between being spiritually "alive" and spiritually "dead". "Dead" people see nothing and feel nothing.

We believe that the "event" you need to "see" is not too far away, based on what the Bible says. It's not a case of "if" for us...but "when". I guess we will all just have to wait and see.....?
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Wow... are you blatantly lying or are you just clueless about what's actually in the bible?

What you describe is indentured servitude. Those were the rules for when Hebrews owned other Hebrews. Then God went and dictated the rules for owning NON-Hebrews. THOSE slaves you could own forever ( none of this 7 years stuff)... you could even pass them on as property to your children after you died. You were allowed to beat them... just as long as they didn't die as a result of the beating within a couple of days. Any reason why you ignored those despicable passages?

In other words, God was perfectly okay with the vile immoral type of slavery that was practiced in the US for hundreds of years. Now that is NOT a God worthy of my worship... and if you are a moral person, this god shouldn't be worthy of your worship either.

Seeing you have no knowledge about what the Bible will say, on the matter about having bondmen's and bondmaidens, which are slaves.

In the Bible book of Leviticus 25:10--"And you shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants there of, it shall be a jubile unto you, and you shall return every man unto his family"

Therefore if a man or woman be slave, in the year of the jubile they are to be returned unto their family.

Verse 13--"In the year of this jubile, you shall return every man unto his possession"
There are no discrepancies of who every man is. So it could be taken as Slaves and those of Israel. Are to be returned back to their family in the 7th year of the jubile.

Man or woman that be a slave, are to be returned unto their family with all their possession in the year of the jubile to their family.

But there is no where that slaves are beaten. As you want to claim they are.
 
Top