Contradictions in the Bible

[sooda]

No, you get an inference to a change in religion, before that. Unfortunately it didn't happen with Jesus, certain things. So, I'm not sure you can say 'everything occurred', no, not really.

I don't want to get into this, because the religions are such a mess. In other words, can't try and change certain ideas.

Darby and Scofield changed Protestantism.

Read Scofield commentary against the Geneva Bible or the KJV.


John Nelson Darby - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Darby_(evangelist)
Darby is noted in the theological world as the father of "dispensationalism", whose eschatology was adopted and later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible. Charles Henry Mackintosh , 1820–1896, with his popular style spread Darby's teachings to humbler elements in society and may be regarded as the journalist of the Brethren Movement.

 

[Desert Snake]

Darby and Scofield changed Protestantism.

Read Scofield commentary against the Geneva Bible or the KJV.


John Nelson Darby - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Darby_(evangelist)
Darby is noted in the theological world as the father of "dispensationalism", whose eschatology was adopted and later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible. Charles Henry Mackintosh , 1820–1896, with his popular style spread Darby's teachings to humbler elements in society and may be regarded as the journalist of the Brethren Movement.

That isn't quite what I'm talking about, and I believe Israel to mean, Spiritual Israel.

Again this however is outside mainstream christianity, by my estimation.

 

[sooda]

That isn't quite what I'm talking about, and I believe Israel to mean, Spiritual Israel.

Again this however is outside mainstream christianity, by my estimation.

I agree re: spiritual Israel.

Darby's theology came from the dream of a teen-aged girl.. Scofield had NO religious training. He was a defrocked lawyer and convicted felon. His annotated bible was not mainstream Protestantism. In fact, it was a political strategy to promote Christian Zionism.. That's where you get "futurism" and the premillenial rapture.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I agree re: spiritual Israel.

Darby's theology came from the dream of a teen-aged girl.. Scofield had NO religious training. He was a defrocked lawyer and convicted felon. His annotated bible was not mainstream Protestantism. In fact, it was a political strategy to promote Christian Zionism.. That's where you get "futurism" and the premillenial rapture.

Scofield is also guiltu of the Gap theory between Genesis 1 and 2.
He created more damage to the Christian world than any other person.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I always wondered about Darby's rapture learned from a girl.
Thanks, with a bit of googling I found the source to be possibly margaret mcDonnald.
But then again, there is evidence that this is a fake assumption.
Margaret MacDonald (visionary) - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scofield is also guiltu of the Gap theory between Genesis 1 and 2.
He created more damage to the Christian world than any other person.

I disagree. It is those Christians that call God a liar that do more damage to Christianity than any others. But then creationists cannot allow themselves to see how they are claiming that God is a liar.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I disagree. It is those Christians that call God a liar that do more damage to Christianity than any others. But then creationists cannot allow themselves to see how they are claiming that God is a liar.

I am a bit confused about your post.

• Which Christians called God a liar?
• and why do you say "Creationists are claiming that God is a liar"?

 

[sooda]

Scofield is also guiltu of the Gap theory between Genesis 1 and 2.
He created more damage to the Christian world than any other person.

He did indeed...…...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am a bit confused about your post.

• Which Christians called God a liar?
• and why do you say "Creationists are claiming that God is a liar"?

If you are a creationist you are calling your God a liar. Christians that realize that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally do not have this problem.

To explain let's try to look at this logically. To fully understand the you would have to learn at least the basics of science and most creationists will not let themselves learn this. Most of them appear to be too afraid. It is not that they are not bright enough. At any rate if your God exists he made everything. Right? That would mean that he made the Earth, the laws of nature, he would even be responsible for our DNA. All of that and more tells us that we are the product of evolution. All of the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution. There is no evidence for creationism, but there is evidence that tells us the Genesis story is a myth. If your God made the world as in the Genesis myths then he had to also have made the evidence that tells us it did not happen. Making and planting false evidence is a version of lying. Creationists do not realize that they are claiming that God is a liar, but that is the logical result of their beliefs.

 

[SA Huguenot]

If you are a creationist you are calling your God a liar. Christians that realize that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally do not have this problem.

To explain let's try to look at this logically. To fully understand the you would have to learn at least the basics of science and most creationists will not let themselves learn this. Most of them appear to be too afraid. It is not that they are not bright enough. At any rate if your God exists he made everything. Right? That would mean that he made the Earth, the laws of nature, he would even be responsible for our DNA. All of that and more tells us that we are the product of evolution. All of the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution. There is no evidence for creationism, but there is evidence that tells us the Genesis story is a myth. If your God made the world as in the Genesis myths then he had to also have made the evidence that tells us it did not happen. Making and planting false evidence is a version of lying. Creationists do not realize that they are claiming that God is a liar, but that is the logical result of their beliefs.

It seems as if you are placing the world in 2 categories.
Creationists and Evolutionists.
The one you like is the Evolutionist, and the one you dont is the Creationist.
The reason is that you are not against Christians per se, but against any notion that the Bible might be correct.

to you, if the Bible might have any glimpse of truth, you will have to admit that the Biblical God exists.
Therefore, you would love to have a Christian agree with you that the Bible is a mythological book.
This way you are creating allowance for your hatred against any evidence of a Creator, and soothe your feelings to stay in your comfort zone.
What you do not realise, IS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO GOD, AS WELL AS THE CONTRARY, NO EVIDENCE FOR HIS EXISTANCE.

Thats it!
you dont have any evidence that God does not exist, and I dont have any evidence that He does.
So simple.

Now, that is if we ignore the Bible, and this is where the crux of the matter stands errect.
I will use the Bible to show you that what I found written therein, does not contradict with History, science and moral standards as atheists claim.
You will use the theory of evolution to show me I am wrong.
Well, the end result is, I have the theory of the Bible, and you the Theory of Evolution.

These 2 can never be reconciled.
Any Bible believing Christian I know, is unable to build Evolution into the Bible, and those that does, are not believers of the Bible as written litteraly, and are not Bible believing Christians, but only believers of God, perhaps even the God I believe in.

And this counts vice versa too.
I do not know of any Atheist that believes the Evolution theory and the Bible can be reconciled.
Those that does, are only telling me in a deceptive argument.

Therefore, as time passed over 400 years, the Atheist will attempt to get any information to prove the Bible wrong, and Christians to prove it correct.
and this is the one thing I do!

I look at your accusations, go read what the Bible say, and come back with what I found.
So far I could not find a single accusation made by the Atheist against the Bible that was watertight.
Actually, the Atheist's concoctions of Biblical absurdities and contradictions are so poor, I wonder how they can sign it off as evidence at all.

Just as you would find my arguments not to your liking, I feel the same about yours.
Therefore, All I can do is to show the Atheist their mistake when they accuse the Bible, thats all.
Greetings

 

[metis]

It seems as if you are placing the world in 2 categories.
Creationists and Evolutionists.

Most Christians and most Christian theologians do accept the basic premise of the ToE as long as it is understood that God is behind it all, so there is a 3rd category.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Most Christians and most Christian theologians do accept the basic premise of the ToE as long as it is understood that God is behind it all, so there is a 3rd category.

Yes, they are "Christians that do not believe in the literal meaning of the Bible".
Please see that what I call a Christian is someone that believes in the Bible.
If I speak to this 3rd category, they will normally all agree they do not believe in the Bible, but do believe in Christ.
Huge difference.
They are not Bible believing Christians.
Period.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Most Christians and most Christian theologians do accept the basic premise of the ToE as long as it is understood that God is behind it all, so there is a 3rd category.

Allow me to show you the question.
"OK, so as a Christian you believe that God created animals millions of years ago, and there was no Adam and Eve, and they were only some story we should not take as fact?"
"No, I believe that there was an Adam and Eve, but they were descendands of Animals due to God using Evolution to create them."
"Ok, so Adam and Eve lived when, 6 000 years ago, or 1.5 million years ago?"
"We dont know. It can well be 1.5 million years ago! the geaneology registers of the Bible can not be trusted."
"Ok, so was Adam then the first human who descended from a common ancestor as the great apes?"
"Yes!"
"So, what do you say, did Adam and Eve looked like half an Ape, or did they appear as humans does today?"
"We dont know!"
"Well, if the Bible say they looked like Humans, and God created Adam from Matter and made him alive, is this in contradiction to what you believe Adam descended from a homonid?"
"Well, we can not trust the mythological stories about how God made man, but we are sure that Evolution was used by god to create Evolution!"
"OK, so we cant trust the Bible, how do you get to a point that God used Evolution to create Adam, if the Bible does not say that?"
"Well, science proved Evolution to be true!"
"Good, so does this mean the Bible is wrong?"
"Must be so, science can not be wrong."
"Do you know that Evolution is only a theory, and nothing more?"
"I know many Creationists believe it is only a theory, but scientists have evidence in the geological colomb, rocks, fossils, and even bacteria that grows resistant to chemicals."
"well, do you know that the Creatoinist can also explain the geological columb with a Global Flood, and we knew for a long time viruses and bacteria grows resistant to manychemicals in nature, it does not mean that evolution somehow changed one animal into another."
and so the argument goes on.
Conclusion:
Any person believing in Evolution is not a Bible believing Christian, and can never be one.

 

[metis]

Yes, they are "Christians that do not believe in the literal meaning of the Bible".
Please see that what I call a Christian is someone that believes in the Bible.
If I speak to this 3rd category, they will normally all agree they do not believe in the Bible, but do believe in Christ.
Huge difference.
They are not Bible believing Christians.
Period.

Categorically false. The enemy of good biblical scholarship is "certainty", so what you have written above is indeed the "enemy".

What you are missing is the simple fact that scriptural narratives need to be interpreted, and anyone who has ever been involved in Bible studies well knows that two people can read the same narrative but draw some different conclusions. For either of us to claim that we know exactly what the author meant is nothing short of arrogance.

The Church in it's long history never taught that every single word in the scriptures are precisely correct. Such an approach was only an overreaction to "modernism" during the 19th century that led some to claim that every word in original manuscripts were 100% correct. But we have no such manuscripts, plus anyone that knows at least two languages well knows that translating from one language to another is fraught with problems.

The Creation accounts are rather clearly not history nor science because they simply don't mesh with what we do know about the history of our universe and Earth. So, instead of history and science, what is the purpose of these accounts?

It's probably, imo, in reaction to the widespread knowledge back then of the polytheistic Babylonian accounts of "creation" versus the monotheistic teachings of the Jewish people. It's like "Here's what they believe, but here's what we believe".

IOW, it's the use of story-telling, which we call "myths", to teach what's important. In this case it's that God created all and that Creation is a good creation unlike what the Babylonians were teaching.

Even if you don't accept the use of "myth" [btw, that doesn't mean nor imply falsehood] with this, that doesn't mean that it's not a viable theory. Therefore, to claim that there are only two alternatives is simply not even close to being true, plus it's really is quite theologically arrogant to assume that only "my" interpretation must be the only correct one. I don't do that, and I recommend that you shouldn't either.

Take care.

 

[metis]

Any person believing in Evolution is not a Bible believing Christian, and can never be one.

See above, and much of your last post is based on assumptions that I personally don't believe in. Please speak for yourself and not me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems as if you are placing the world in 2 categories.
Creationists and Evolutionists.
The one you like is the Evolutionist, and the one you dont is the Creationist.
The reason is that you are not against Christians per se, but against any notion that the Bible might be correct.

Poorly written accusation. The fact is that Genesis cannot be interpreted literally. And "evolutionist" is a poor term. How about those that accept reality? It is not just the theory of evolution that shows Genesis to be full of errors and myths.

to you, if the Bible might have any glimpse of truth, you will have to admit that the Biblical God exists.
Therefore, you would love to have a Christian agree with you that the Bible is a mythological book.
This way you are creating allowance for your hatred against any evidence of a Creator, and soothe your feelings to stay in your comfort zone.
What you do not realise, IS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO GOD, AS WELL AS THE CONTRARY, NO EVIDENCE FOR HIS EXISTANCE.

This is false. There could be quite a bit of "truth" in it and their mythical version of God would still not exists. And you are now trying to shift the burden of proof. No one needs to prove that your God does not exist. You need to prove that he does. By your weak standards you should be believing in all of the gods since they all have the same evidence for their existence. If you do not believe in Brahma for a logical reason then by that same logic you should not believe in your god. Your beliefs for your god are not based upon reason.

Thats it!
you dont have any evidence that God does not exist, and I dont have any evidence that He does.
So simple.

Now you are getting somewhere. You should be an atheist by this statement of yours. But then you do not seem to understand what an atheist is.

Now, that is if we ignore the Bible, and this is where the crux of the matter stands errect.
I will use the Bible to show you that what I found written therein, does not contradict with History, science and moral standards as atheists claim.
You will use the theory of evolution to show me I am wrong.
Well, the end result is, I have the theory of the Bible, and you the Theory of Evolution.

Actually it does. For example there was no Exodus. History tells us this. And that is just a start. And no, you do not have a "theory of the Bible". Here is a simple question for you:

What reasonable test, that means testing the Bible on its own merits, could refute your belief?

If you cannot think of a reasonable test you do not have a theory. You only have an ad hoc explanation and that is of no value in a discussion. I could "prove" that yetis exist with such poor reasoning.

These 2 can never be reconciled.
Any Bible believing Christian I know, is unable to build Evolution into the Bible, and those that does, are not believers of the Bible as written litteraly, and are not Bible believing Christians, but only believers of God, perhaps even the God I believe in.

Nope, you do not get to set the standard for what is and what is not a Christian. Not only that, but you yourself are not a "Bible believing Christian" since there are clear rules in the Bible that you do not follow.

And this counts vice versa too.
I do not know of any Atheist that believes the Evolution theory and the Bible can be reconciled.
Those that does, are only telling me in a deceptive argument.

And many Christians believe that too and still accept reality. They realize that Genesis was not meant to be read literally. It not only is refuted by mountains of evidence, and there is no evidence for its stories (that alone should give you pause since you are claiming that God lies) but Genesis also portrays God as immoral, incompetent, and paranoid. Why would you believe in such a God?

Therefore, as time passed over 400 years, the Atheist will attempt to get any information to prove the Bible wrong, and Christians to prove it correct.
and this is the one thing I do!

No, this is a false claim. People do not attempt to get information that the Bible is wrong. They honestly study the world. Something that some Christians are afraid to do. You appear to be afraid. Why is that?

I look at your accusations, go read what the Bible say, and come back with what I found.
So far I could not find a single accusation made by the Atheist against the Bible that was watertight.
Actually, the Atheist's concoctions of Biblical absurdities and contradictions are so poor, I wonder how they can sign it off as evidence at all.

Then you could never have argued seriously and honestly about the contents of the Bible. We are not even talking high school levels of scientific literacy.

Just as you would find my arguments not to your liking, I feel the same about yours.
Therefore, All I can do is to show the Atheist their mistake when they accuse the Bible, thats all.
Greetings

Sorry, but the ostrich defense does not work, Which why even ostriches do not really use it. Instead of running away from reality are you ready to have a serious discussion? Or do you want to continue to call your God a liar?

 

[JasAnMa]

I have heard it said that The Bible is a spiritual book, written by a spiritual being to Spiritual beings. You can't understand it physically. Everytime I see an apparent contradictory in the Bible, upon further study I find something important. I think of it as fingerprints of the Holy Spirit. I also believe that if don't retain God in your knowledge, or want to know Him.... He's not going to force you into a relationship, or knowledge. If you want contradictions... You'll find them. If you want the truth... You'll find it too.