"By the gods... Brace for impact!"
Two different census. 2 Sam 24:1, number Israel and Judah; I Chr 21:1 - number Israel. Different number of people.
Firstly, it's not the census that is the contradiction. It is who incited David to enact it; Samuel says Yahweh, Chronicles says Satan. Contradiction.
Secondly, it is the exact same census. Perhaps you should read your bible in context? Although Chronicles does not mention Judah, we get a report of their numbers as well. And guess what?
Contradiction.
"And Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men." 2 Samuel 24:9 (Total: 800,000/500,000)
"And Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword. 1 Chronicles 21:5 (Total: 1,100,000/34,000) ("threescore" is 60: 400 x 60 = 24,000)
Ah, and with Chronicles we also get
another contradiction. Samuel says that in Israel, 800,000 men "drew the sword". Yet in Chronicles only 100,000 men drew the sword. In Judah, the totals don't add up in any instance - whether they drew the sword or didn't.
Easily explained if you understand a leverite marriage.
Do explain how a marriage in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his sister-in-law explains away this contradiction?
Jesus said Elijah suffered and that He would suffer at the hands of the Jews, the disciples understood that what He said also applied to the suffering of John the Baptist.
In Matthew, Jesus is likening Elijah's suffering to his own suffering to come. He is saying that John the Baptist
is Elijah. John apparently disagrees.
Contradiction.
I'm not going to look them up.
Of course you're not.
When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.” “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.” So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Matthew 27:3-8
In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.” With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood. Acts 1:15-20
Double contradiction there, in both the manner of Judas' death, and the reason why the field is named the "Field of Blood."
Then there is also the account in the Gospel of Judas that says he was stoned to death by the other apostles. Lastly, the early Christian leader Papias accounted that Judas
"walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."
Contradictions abound.
I have a record written by a man who thought bearing false witness was a sin aginst God.
The Ninth Commandment of your god: Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness.
You have no evidence God did not control the canon
And you have no evidence that he did. What we do have is the
fact that men compiled the canon. If your god only wanted the four "Canon Gospels," then why are there so many others?
you certainly have no evidence they chose the books to push a narrative.
Oh, but we do. The canon gospels more or less agree with one another, especially concerning the divinity of Jesus. The other gospels? Less so. As they threaten this narrative and doctrine, they are deemed "heretical". Yet they exist none the less, and some are even dated to when Jesus would have actually lived, not 60 years after the fact.
You have no evidence it was commissioned to to use poor translations and they were threatened with punishment.
The Bible in English: its history and influence goes into detail as to the manner in which the KJV was translated. Such limitations were to intentionally limit Puritan influence on the translation (why would this be needed on a "pure word of god"?) and translators were given strict instructions to not place notes explaining verses in the margins; notably because King James found two marginal notes "offensive": Exodus 1:19, where the example of civil disobedience showed by the Hebrew midwives was commended, and also II Chronicles 15:16, where King Asa was criticized for not having executed his idolatrous grandmother, Queen Maachah.
Translators were also given instruction by the King that the new translation would conform to the ecclesiology of
his Church of England. This included the manner in which words were translated, such as "church" not being translated to "congregation."
The KJB did not change anything about divorce that is not in it today.
Nor did I say it did. (Hint: what you've done here is an example of strawman). I said that divorce was the reason that King Henry the VIII formed the Church of England.
You need to understand that a person can be coming and going at the same time. Those Jesus mentioned did see Jesus coming into His kingdom, To them He was going, To God He was coming.
Biblical Gymnastics: 3/10.
I am not more obstinate than you are.
On the contrary. That I - and Scotsman - have invited you to show evidence for your claims, provide explanation for any of your beliefs, etc is testament to extreme flexibility. You're the one in this exchange who flung verbal feces around like an irate baboon and provided
nothing save "my god says so." Well bully for you.
That is hilarious coming from someone who claims, Thor is a God.
Yes, coming from someone who believes that his god came down to write one of 42,000+ books. Side-splittingly hilarious. Yet show me the correlation between Thor and
zero evidence for a tribe of 2.5-3.5 million Hebrews wandering around for 40 years.
If I go to the library to find some information on him, will I find it in the non-fiction section?
As Scotsman mentioned, you'll find all the information you need in the Religion section - the 200's according to the Dewey Decimal system.
As usual, it it talk with no evidence.
I have provided
far more evidence here than you have, omega.
That is something you can't possibly know.
Preposterous. I can absolutely know that you don't know enough about me to be able to factually claim that you know yourself better than I know myself.
I have limited knowledge.
You have no knowledge, as you've told us. Your religion tells you that they're "false", and that's enough for you.
Most if not all of what all other religions teach is not unique. They all have basically the same doctrines.
And how would you know, knowing nothing of other religions because it's a "waste of time"?
None of them have the teachings I have mentioned,
And do tell, what teachings are those?
For the umpteen time, spiritual concepts CANNOT be proved. The ae are accepted by faith alone. That does not means they have not been prove internally to Christians.
"Proven internally" makes them absolutely useless outside your group. It certainly does not make your spiritual concepts infallible enough to support your statements here, or refute many things that have been presented to you.
If Ragin says what I beliee is wrong, it is up to him to prove it.
Good thing I haven't said that. You, on the other hand,
have. You've repeatedly said that my religion is false and a "waste of time," that my God is not a God, etc. Thus, it is
up to you to prove it. As you say, this is not a one-way street, though this conversation has been up until now. You've provided
nothing to support your accusations and claims.
If he says Thor is a God, it is up to him to prove it.
As Scotsman pointed out, in reply to you accusing me of worshiping myself as a god, I refuted you in that Thor is my God. Let me explain this grammar to you, since it seems to be problematic for you.
A "god" is that which is worshiped. Nothing more. "God" is not the name of your deity, it is identifying him as the being that you worship. Capitalizing it is nothing more than a symbol of respect. I could say that Thor is my god or I could say that Thor is my God. Nothing about that sentence changes, and the fact remains that Thor is
my God. I have not said - as you have - that my God is true and all other gods are false, and as such I have
nothing regarding this to prove to you.
You, on the other hand, have full responsibility to back up your claims, as they have been presented definitively about other peoples' beliefs and gods as fact.
The Bible says there is one God,
No, actually it does not. The bible says that Yahweh is the god of the Israelites, and that they should not worship foreign gods before him. Which could mean that they're not to worship them above him (as he claims to be superior,) or that they're not to worship those gods in Yahweh's presence - i.e. in his temple.
"And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness." Isaiah 34:7 (King James Version, 21st Century King James Version)
And I know that Presbyterians use the KJV.
I have not said or implied my religion is universally true
Yes you have. By stating that
all non-Christian religions are false, you heavily imply that Christianity is the only truth.
if you consider rejecting someone's religion is slandering it,
Rejecting a religion is not the same as slandering it, or saying that it's false and a "waste of time." Religions are ultimately personal things, so if someone rejects a religion they are - at best - saying that the specific religion is not right
for them. This is not saying that it's false. This is not slandering the religion, as you've done by saying that other religions are a waste of time.
I know enough about myths to know I don't need to learn any more about them.
And what - past
"they're bad, m'kay?" - do you know.
That is you imagination, to continue to try and show me in a bad light.
Worse still, you have shown Christianity in a very poor light.
