Biblical contradictions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2015, 07:42 AM
RE: Biblical contradictions
(13-01-2015 05:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  Right, the Bible doesn't say what it clearly says, it says what you want it to say.

Got it. Drinking Beverage

How else is one supposed to get a Biblical definition of "true Christian"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 10:47 AM
RE: Biblical contradictions
Q, still waiting for your response on Neri's fluctuating sex. Sometimes male, sometimes female. Are you sure you're not talking about George Michael? Or Dennis Rodman?

I'm almost certain that when you cut and pasted your response to me, you did not read the passage yourself and failed to notice that Dr. Custance subtly changed Neri's sex, hoping no one would notice.

Is it just me or do theists not respond when faced with a perplexing question? I've noticed it happens a lot in this forum.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes docskeptic's post
21-01-2015, 08:15 PM
RE: Biblical contradictions
I can't believe no one has posted this yet.




"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
21-01-2015, 08:18 PM
RE: Biblical contradictions
(21-01-2015 08:15 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  I can't believe no one has posted this yet.




Ah seen that one, very nice video!

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 11:26 PM
RE: Biblical contradictions
(13-01-2015 11:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(12-01-2015 10:17 AM)Leo Wrote:  Another point is that the Jesus cruxifiction was faked. According to the gospel of mark Jesus was crucified at the third hour (9:00)am . According to the Roman catholic church and orthodox church the third hour could mean the period of time between 9:00 and 12:00pm. Any how Jesus dies after only 3-6 hours in the cross at 3:00 pm. The gospel of John says that Jesus was condenmed to death at the sixth hour or noon. The others gospels talk about a darkness of 3 hours between noon and 3:00 pm but the actual cruxifiction hour is not mentioned. So Jesus was hung at the cross for a few hours and the cruxifiction was a very long execution lasting many hours and sometimes several days. Even Pilate was surprised at the Jesus super fast "death" . He don't expect Jesus to "die " that fast.

This kind of thing--and I do appreciate the logic you employed here--underscores my request that the Bible be treated just like other books written for another culture and time and not in English, in context and from the languages then in use. You needed to tell us what "sixth hour" and etc. meant to begin to study the passages/issues.

They were surprised at the speed of the death--the crucifixion was meant to keep the poor person awake day and night as they lingered. Jesus said "Father, I commend my spirit to you" and then died. There was an earthquake and etc. and a soldier is heard to remark (a Gentile, not a proselyte) truly this was God's Son (as had been reported/rumored).

The fact of the speedy death is mentioned in an appeal to the unusual nature of the death of Jesus. Prophecies were fulfilled including "not a bone of Him shall be broken" and then there was no need to break his thigh bone and prevent Jesus from pulling Himself up and down on the cross to breathe--He was dead. The thieves lingered until their thigh bones were shattered...
"He was dead."

Well said. Now....get over it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
22-01-2015, 03:21 PM
RE: Biblical contradictions
(21-01-2015 10:47 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  Q, still waiting for your response on Neri's fluctuating sex. Sometimes male, sometimes female. Are you sure you're not talking about George Michael? Or Dennis Rodman?

I'm almost certain that when you cut and pasted your response to me, you did not read the passage yourself and failed to notice that Dr. Custance subtly changed Neri's sex, hoping no one would notice.

Is it just me or do theists not respond when faced with a perplexing question? I've noticed it happens a lot in this forum.

Doc

Hi, I already responded in this thread with my correction--bottom of page 5. I apologize for my error. And as I wrote, I edited Dr. Custance's remarks years ago but failed to miss my typo. Sorry.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2015, 09:36 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2015 10:18 AM by docskeptic.)
RE: Biblical contradictions
Q,
How do you account for this verse, then? Luke 3: 27-28 is about the middle of Jesus's genealogy and states that, "Joanan (was) the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melki,"

This portion clearly states that Neri was the son of Melki. How can you arbitrarily change the sex of the poor man?

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: Biblical contradictions
That is an honest question, and demands an honest response. I'm being honest with you when I write that not every person in every genealogy is male. In the Matthew/Luke ones alone (from memory) are Bathsheba, Mary and Rahab.

And as an interesting aside (not trying to shift the goalposts here, by the way, seriously) it's interesting that Jews and Christians are dead set on saying "What the mother is becomes the religion of the child" but the Bible DOES lean on the father's genealogy.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2015, 03:11 PM
RE: Biblical contradictions
(23-01-2015 12:46 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  That is an honest question, and demands an honest response. I'm being honest with you when I write that not every person in every genealogy is male. In the Matthew/Luke ones alone (from memory) are Bathsheba, Mary and Rahab.

And as an interesting aside (not trying to shift the goalposts here, by the way, seriously) it's interesting that Jews and Christians are dead set on saying "What the mother is becomes the religion of the child" but the Bible DOES lean on the father's genealogy.

OK, first of all, the English Bible specifically calls Neri, the SON of Melki. Unless "son" has a different meaning of daughter that I am not aware of, Neri was a MAN.

Second, please read the genealogies for yourself. Only Matthew mentions the women. Moreover, when Matthew mentions a woman's name he specifies it by calling the person a wife or a mother. All the other names are specifically male names.

Luke has ONLY men's names because each name is said to be the SON of another name. Admittedly, the original Greek simply says "of X" instead of "son of X'. However, when Jesus's name is mentioned it specifically says that he was the huios (son) of Joseph and this sets the precedent for the rest of the names.


Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2015, 04:09 PM
RE: Biblical contradictions
(10-01-2015 12:24 PM)666wannabe Wrote:  If sin entered into the world because of "the fall", how was it possible for Adam and Eve to commit sin (disobedience to God) before the fall. Either Genesis is mistaken or the Apostle Paul is mistaken or the whole story is a load of crap. I suggest the latter.
Roman Catholic view according to my RC wife. Right and wrong are not the same thing as good and evil. Before the fall (eating the apple) A&E knew the difference between right and wrong, ergo, they knew that disobedience was wrong. Then they ate the apple and added knowledge of good and evil.

I know. It still doesn't make sense.Frusty

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: