Total Posts:120|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does the Bible contradict itself?

LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 3:45:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
OK, peeps. I want a civil discussion. No name calling. Try to be polite. If you can't do this, then don't participate.

Many people claim that the Bible contradicts itself. I have yet to see any 'contradictions' that can be proven. In order for something to be a contradiction, it must be proven beyond all doubt, that it is, in fact, a contradiction.

So. I would like the scoffers to provide their favorite contradiction, and we'll look at the evidence to see if it really is one. One per participant, please. Most of them are easy to refute. Some are harder. But all I need to do is raise a reasonable doubt that the verses in question are accurate. The burden of proof is on the one who claims that the Bible contradicts itself.

And, once again, let's have a civil discussion.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 8:54:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 3:45:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK, peeps. I want a civil discussion. No name calling. Try to be polite. If you can't do this, then don't participate.

Many people claim that the Bible contradicts itself. I have yet to see any 'contradictions' that can be proven. In order for something to be a contradiction, it must be proven beyond all doubt, that it is, in fact, a contradiction.

So. I would like the scoffers to provide their favorite contradiction, and we'll look at the evidence to see if it really is one. One per participant, please. Most of them are easy to refute. Some are harder. But all I need to do is raise a reasonable doubt that the verses in question are accurate. The burden of proof is on the one who claims that the Bible contradicts itself.

And, once again, let's have a civil discussion.

How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?
2 Samuel 23:8
These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

1 Chronicles 11:11
And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.

Was Abraham justified by faith or by works?
Romans 4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory.

James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

How many sons did Abraham have?
Genesis 22:2
Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, ... and offer him there for a burnt offering.

Genesis 16:15
And Hagar bare Abraham a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.

Was Abiathar the father or the son of Ahimelech?
1 Samuel 23:6
Abiathar the son of Ahimelech.

2 Samuel 8:17
Ahimelech the son of Abiathar

The two contradictory creation accounts.
Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)
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.... So God created man in his own image.
Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.)
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.
Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
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 the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

That should be enough for now. There are 480 on this site though:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 9:03:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I notice old testament - new testament contradictions, but not new testament - new testament contradictions.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
bulproof
Posts: 25,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 9:17:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 9:03:44 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
I notice old testament - new testament contradictions, but not new testament - new testament contradictions.
You said bible. Man up.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 9:58:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 3:45:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK, peeps. I want a civil discussion. No name calling. Try to be polite. If you can't do this, then don't participate.

Many people claim that the Bible contradicts itself. I have yet to see any 'contradictions' that can be proven. In order for something to be a contradiction, it must be proven beyond all doubt, that it is, in fact, a contradiction.

So. I would like the scoffers to provide their favorite contradiction, and we'll look at the evidence to see if it really is one. One per participant, please. Most of them are easy to refute. Some are harder. But all I need to do is raise a reasonable doubt that the verses in question are accurate. The burden of proof is on the one who claims that the Bible contradicts itself.

And, once again, let's have a civil discussion.

Many will tell you that it does, but that is only because they do not understand what it is actually saying, and / or accept some of the many misinterpretations that false Christianity has put on it's word.

The bible is the word of God, and since God is perfect, it is impossible for it to contradict itself so if you think it is doing then you need to find out where you are going wrong, because God does not.

There is also a difference between contradictions and reporting differences.

For instance the two reports of the number of stables in Solomon's Palace are not contradictions even though they appear to vary wildly.

The problem is one of interpreting exactly what the reporter was counting. Was one reporting the individual stalls in the buildings and the otehr simply the buildings? We cannot know for sure, but neither can we rule it out as a possible, even a probable explanation for the apparent discrepancy. Both reports could be equally accurate from different viewpoints. Such is often the case with apparent reporting errors.

People are however all to quick to shout "foul" without bothering to work out why it may not be such.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:02:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 9:03:44 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
I notice old testament - new testament contradictions, but not new testament - new testament contradictions.

Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples after the resurrection?
Matthew 28:16
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him.

Mark 16:14
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

On what did Jesus ride into Jerusalem?
Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ***, and a colt the foal of an ***. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them And brought the ***, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. Matthew 21:5-7

And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. Mark 11:7

Did Jesus baptize anyone?
John 3:22
After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

John 4:2
Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.

Was Jesus taken to Caiaphas or Annas first?
Matthew 26:57
And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

John 18:13
And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.
bulproof
Posts: 25,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:09:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hosea 8:4
They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not.
1 John 3:20
God ... knoweth all things.
bulproof
Posts: 25,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:12:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 9:58:18 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 3:45:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK, peeps. I want a civil discussion. No name calling. Try to be polite. If you can't do this, then don't participate.

Many people claim that the Bible contradicts itself. I have yet to see any 'contradictions' that can be proven. In order for something to be a contradiction, it must be proven beyond all doubt, that it is, in fact, a contradiction.

So. I would like the scoffers to provide their favorite contradiction, and we'll look at the evidence to see if it really is one. One per participant, please. Most of them are easy to refute. Some are harder. But all I need to do is raise a reasonable doubt that the verses in question are accurate. The burden of proof is on the one who claims that the Bible contradicts itself.

And, once again, let's have a civil discussion.

Many will tell you that it does, but that is only because they do not understand what it is actually saying, and / or accept some of the many misinterpretations that false Christianity has put on it's word.

The bible is the word of God, and since God is perfect, it is impossible for it to contradict itself so if you think it is doing then you need to find out where you are going wrong, because God does not.

There is also a difference between contradictions and reporting differences.

For instance the two reports of the number of stables in Solomon's Palace are not contradictions even though they appear to vary wildly.

The problem is one of interpreting exactly what the reporter was counting. Was one reporting the individual stalls in the buildings and the otehr simply the buildings? We cannot know for sure, but neither can we rule it out as a possible, even a probable explanation for the apparent discrepancy. Both reports could be equally accurate from different viewpoints. Such is often the case with apparent reporting errors.

People are however all to quick to shout "foul" without bothering to work out why it may not be such.

Yeah mad, in one passage stables are called stables and in another balls of string are called stables.

Very convincing.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:41:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:12:05 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:58:18 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 3:45:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK, peeps. I want a civil discussion. No name calling. Try to be polite. If you can't do this, then don't participate.

Many people claim that the Bible contradicts itself. I have yet to see any 'contradictions' that can be proven. In order for something to be a contradiction, it must be proven beyond all doubt, that it is, in fact, a contradiction.

So. I would like the scoffers to provide their favorite contradiction, and we'll look at the evidence to see if it really is one. One per participant, please. Most of them are easy to refute. Some are harder. But all I need to do is raise a reasonable doubt that the verses in question are accurate. The burden of proof is on the one who claims that the Bible contradicts itself.

And, once again, let's have a civil discussion.

Many will tell you that it does, but that is only because they do not understand what it is actually saying, and / or accept some of the many misinterpretations that false Christianity has put on it's word.

The bible is the word of God, and since God is perfect, it is impossible for it to contradict itself so if you think it is doing then you need to find out where you are going wrong, because God does not.

There is also a difference between contradictions and reporting differences.

For instance the two reports of the number of stables in Solomon's Palace are not contradictions even though they appear to vary wildly.

The problem is one of interpreting exactly what the reporter was counting. Was one reporting the individual stalls in the buildings and the otehr simply the buildings? We cannot know for sure, but neither can we rule it out as a possible, even a probable explanation for the apparent discrepancy. Both reports could be equally accurate from different viewpoints. Such is often the case with apparent reporting errors.

People are however all to quick to shout "foul" without bothering to work out why it may not be such.

Yeah mad, in one passage stables are called stables and in another balls of string are called stables.

Very convincing.

Well we all know you have no interest in believe it true or not, and it wasn't intended to be convincing, just to raise what in law is called "reasonable doubt" which to the reasonable among us it does.

As usual you accept only what you want to believe and not anything which casts doubt on it, however feasible.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:43:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:09:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
Hosea 8:4
They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not.
1 John 3:20
God ... knoweth all things.

Context.

The word know has many different applications. Obviously God knew what they were doing, but he was pointing out that he was not involved.

Another example of your bigoted thinking. You have no intention of taking context into account unless it supports what you say, which in Biblical terms it rarely if ever does.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:45:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:43:39 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:09:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
Hosea 8:4
They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not.
1 John 3:20
God ... knoweth all things.

Context.

The word know has many different applications. Obviously God knew what they were doing, but he was pointing out that he was not involved.

Another example of your bigoted thinking. You have no intention of taking context into account unless it supports what you say, which in Biblical terms it rarely if ever does.

Okay, and your response to any that I pointed out?
bulproof
Posts: 25,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:49:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:43:39 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:09:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
Hosea 8:4
They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not.
1 John 3:20
God ... knoweth all things.

Context.

The word know has many different applications. Obviously God knew what they were doing, but he was pointing out that he was not involved.

Another example of your bigoted thinking. You have no intention of taking context into account unless it supports what you say, which in Biblical terms it rarely if ever does.

Yeah mad, he meant to say he was playing volleyball at the time. Gee you make no sense.
mwtech
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:50:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
On what day did Jesus die?

Mark 14 and 15 tell of Jesus and his disciples eating the Passover supper the day before Jesus is crucified. Jesus dies at 3:00 on the day after the Passover meal.
--Mark 14:17 "In the evening Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18 As they were at the table eating, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, one of you eating with me here will betray me."....
--Mark 15:33-37 "34 Then at three o"clock Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" 35 Some of the bystanders misunderstood and thought he was calling for the prophet Elijah. 36 One of them ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, holding it up to him on a reed stick so he could drink. "Wait!" he said. "Let"s see whether Elijah comes to take him down!" 37 Then Jesus uttered another loud cry and breathed his last.

John 19 has Jesus crucified sometime after noon on the day before the Passover.
--John 19:14-18 "14 It was now about noon on the day of preparation for the Passover. And Pilate said to the people, "Look, here is your king!" 15 "Away with him," they yelled. "Away with him! Crucify him!" "What? Crucify your king?" Pilate asked. "We have no king but Caesar," the leading priests shouted back. Then Pilate turned Jesus over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus away. 17 Carrying the cross by himself, he went to the place called Place of the Skull (in Hebrew, Golgotha). 18 There they nailed him to the cross. "...
--John 19:30 "30 When Jesus had tasted it, he said, "It is finished!" Then he bowed his head and released his spirit. 31 It was the day of preparation, and the Jewish leaders didn"t want the bodies hanging there the next day, which was the Sabbath (and a very special Sabbath, because it was the Passover)."
bulproof
Posts: 25,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:53:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:41:43 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:12:05 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:58:18 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 3:45:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK, peeps. I want a civil discussion. No name calling. Try to be polite. If you can't do this, then don't participate.

Many people claim that the Bible contradicts itself. I have yet to see any 'contradictions' that can be proven. In order for something to be a contradiction, it must be proven beyond all doubt, that it is, in fact, a contradiction.

So. I would like the scoffers to provide their favorite contradiction, and we'll look at the evidence to see if it really is one. One per participant, please. Most of them are easy to refute. Some are harder. But all I need to do is raise a reasonable doubt that the verses in question are accurate. The burden of proof is on the one who claims that the Bible contradicts itself.

And, once again, let's have a civil discussion.

Many will tell you that it does, but that is only because they do not understand what it is actually saying, and / or accept some of the many misinterpretations that false Christianity has put on it's word.

The bible is the word of God, and since God is perfect, it is impossible for it to contradict itself so if you think it is doing then you need to find out where you are going wrong, because God does not.

There is also a difference between contradictions and reporting differences.

For instance the two reports of the number of stables in Solomon's Palace are not contradictions even though they appear to vary wildly.

The problem is one of interpreting exactly what the reporter was counting. Was one reporting the individual stalls in the buildings and the otehr simply the buildings? We cannot know for sure, but neither can we rule it out as a possible, even a probable explanation for the apparent discrepancy. Both reports could be equally accurate from different viewpoints. Such is often the case with apparent reporting errors.

People are however all to quick to shout "foul" without bothering to work out why it may not be such.

Yeah mad, in one passage stables are called stables and in another balls of string are called stables.

Very convincing.

Well we all know you have no interest in believe it true or not, and it wasn't intended to be convincing, just to raise what in law is called "reasonable doubt" which to the reasonable among us it does.

As usual you accept only what you want to believe and not anything which casts doubt on it, however feasible.

Oh puhhhleeeease, you're the one who needs to deny the definitions of words in order that you can believe what you want to believe. I just read the words, you make up knew meanings for words.

You produced nothing at all that would caste reasonable doubt, you just lied to support your foolish indoctrination.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:54:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:02:19 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:03:44 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
I notice old testament - new testament contradictions, but not new testament - new testament contradictions.

Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples after the resurrection?
Matthew 28:16
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him.


We are not told, and the reporter can only remark on what he has observed.

Some of the 11 may have seen him at other times, but not the entire 11.

Mark 16:14
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

Which tells us little about when he first appeared to them other than that was the first occasion that particular reporter knew of, and that the 11, as a group, were not the first..



On what did Jesus ride into Jerusalem?
Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ***, and a colt the foal of an ***. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them And brought the ***, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. Matthew 21:5-7

And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. Mark 11:7

Where is the problem with that? Both accounts say that he rode in on a colt. One reporter mentions the colt's mother the otehr doesn't, so what?



Did Jesus baptize anyone?
John 3:22
After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

John 4:2
Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.


Did Sir lfr4ed McAlpine build the M54? The sings that were hung over it for some time said he did.

Who actually invented the lightbulb? Eddison or one of his employees working under his direction?

Watson and Crick did not disc over the DNA helix, they improved on the work of another, it's true discoverer, who history has all but forgotten because that one was a woman.

It is the same with creation.

God created everything, but in the vast majority he did so using hi8s son as his worker.

Jesus arranged for his disciples to baptise people, they did so with his full authority, therefore they are counted as having been baptised by him , though he baptised no-one with his own hands.


Was Jesus taken to Caiaphas or Annas first?
Matthew 26:57
And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

John 18:13
And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

Do you imagine for one second that only the one of the two was present at such an important meeting? Of course not, it is simply that the one reporter named the one and the other reporter the other. No contradiction, merely a reporting difference.

Keep them coming, they are all easy to explain away if you approach them with reason and not bigotry. You won;t find one I can't give a reasonable explanation for, that I can guarantee. Many have tried, and all have failed.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:56:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:53:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:41:43 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:12:05 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:58:18 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 3:45:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK, peeps. I want a civil discussion. No name calling. Try to be polite. If you can't do this, then don't participate.

Many people claim that the Bible contradicts itself. I have yet to see any 'contradictions' that can be proven. In order for something to be a contradiction, it must be proven beyond all doubt, that it is, in fact, a contradiction.

So. I would like the scoffers to provide their favorite contradiction, and we'll look at the evidence to see if it really is one. One per participant, please. Most of them are easy to refute. Some are harder. But all I need to do is raise a reasonable doubt that the verses in question are accurate. The burden of proof is on the one who claims that the Bible contradicts itself.

And, once again, let's have a civil discussion.

Many will tell you that it does, but that is only because they do not understand what it is actually saying, and / or accept some of the many misinterpretations that false Christianity has put on it's word.

The bible is the word of God, and since God is perfect, it is impossible for it to contradict itself so if you think it is doing then you need to find out where you are going wrong, because God does not.

There is also a difference between contradictions and reporting differences.

For instance the two reports of the number of stables in Solomon's Palace are not contradictions even though they appear to vary wildly.

The problem is one of interpreting exactly what the reporter was counting. Was one reporting the individual stalls in the buildings and the otehr simply the buildings? We cannot know for sure, but neither can we rule it out as a possible, even a probable explanation for the apparent discrepancy. Both reports could be equally accurate from different viewpoints. Such is often the case with apparent reporting errors.

People are however all to quick to shout "foul" without bothering to work out why it may not be such.

Yeah mad, in one passage stables are called stables and in another balls of string are called stables.

Very convincing.

Well we all know you have no interest in believe it true or not, and it wasn't intended to be convincing, just to raise what in law is called "reasonable doubt" which to the reasonable among us it does.

As usual you accept only what you want to believe and not anything which casts doubt on it, however feasible.

Oh puhhhleeeease, you're the one who needs to deny the definitions of words in order that you can believe what you want to believe. I just read the words, you make up knew meanings for words.

You produced nothing at all that would caste reasonable doubt, you just lied to support your foolish indoctrination.

No, I do not need to deny the definitions of words, I merely select the definition which fits in with the context.

You on the other hand accept only that definition which suits you and ignore all other definitions.

Which is the most reasonable? The one who accepts that words have multiple meanings, which any dictionary will tell you (me), or the one who decides that there is only one which can possibly apply despite the possible alternatives (you)?
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:57:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:54:16 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:02:19 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:03:44 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
I notice old testament - new testament contradictions, but not new testament - new testament contradictions.

Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples after the resurrection?
Matthew 28:16
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him.


We are not told, and the reporter can only remark on what he has observed.

Some of the 11 may have seen him at other times, but not the entire 11.

Mark 16:14
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

Which tells us little about when he first appeared to them other than that was the first occasion that particular reporter knew of, and that the 11, as a group, were not the first..



On what did Jesus ride into Jerusalem?
Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ***, and a colt the foal of an ***. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them And brought the ***, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. Matthew 21:5-7

And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. Mark 11:7

Where is the problem with that? Both accounts say that he rode in on a colt. One reporter mentions the colt's mother the otehr doesn't, so what?



Did Jesus baptize anyone?
John 3:22
After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

John 4:2
Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.


Did Sir lfr4ed McAlpine build the M54? The sings that were hung over it for some time said he did.

Who actually invented the lightbulb? Eddison or one of his employees working under his direction?

Watson and Crick did not disc over the DNA helix, they improved on the work of another, it's true discoverer, who history has all but forgotten because that one was a woman.

It is the same with creation.

God created everything, but in the vast majority he did so using hi8s son as his worker.

Jesus arranged for his disciples to baptise people, they did so with his full authority, therefore they are counted as having been baptised by him , though he baptised no-one with his own hands.


Was Jesus taken to Caiaphas or Annas first?
Matthew 26:57
And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

John 18:13
And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

Do you imagine for one second that only the one of the two was present at such an important meeting? Of course not, it is simply that the one reporter named the one and the other reporter the other. No contradiction, merely a reporting difference.

Keep them coming, they are all easy to explain away if you approach them with reason and not bigotry. You won;t find one I can't give a reasonable explanation for, that I can guarantee. Many have tried, and all have failed.

How about my first post of contradictions?
bulproof
Posts: 25,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 10:57:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:49:14 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:43:39 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:09:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
Hosea 8:4
They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not.
1 John 3:20
God ... knoweth all things.

Context.

The word know has many different applications. Obviously God knew what they were doing, but he was pointing out that he was not involved.

Another example of your bigoted thinking. You have no intention of taking context into account unless it supports what you say, which in Biblical terms it rarely if ever does.

Yeah mad, he meant to say he was playing volleyball at the time. Gee you make no sense.

Genesis 22:12
For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
bulproof
Posts: 25,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:02:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:56:52 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:53:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:41:43 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:12:05 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:58:18 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 3:45:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK, peeps. I want a civil discussion. No name calling. Try to be polite. If you can't do this, then don't participate.

Many people claim that the Bible contradicts itself. I have yet to see any 'contradictions' that can be proven. In order for something to be a contradiction, it must be proven beyond all doubt, that it is, in fact, a contradiction.

So. I would like the scoffers to provide their favorite contradiction, and we'll look at the evidence to see if it really is one. One per participant, please. Most of them are easy to refute. Some are harder. But all I need to do is raise a reasonable doubt that the verses in question are accurate. The burden of proof is on the one who claims that the Bible contradicts itself.

And, once again, let's have a civil discussion.

Many will tell you that it does, but that is only because they do not understand what it is actually saying, and / or accept some of the many misinterpretations that false Christianity has put on it's word.

The bible is the word of God, and since God is perfect, it is impossible for it to contradict itself so if you think it is doing then you need to find out where you are going wrong, because God does not.

There is also a difference between contradictions and reporting differences.

For instance the two reports of the number of stables in Solomon's Palace are not contradictions even though they appear to vary wildly.

The problem is one of interpreting exactly what the reporter was counting. Was one reporting the individual stalls in the buildings and the otehr simply the buildings? We cannot know for sure, but neither can we rule it out as a possible, even a probable explanation for the apparent discrepancy. Both reports could be equally accurate from different viewpoints. Such is often the case with apparent reporting errors.

People are however all to quick to shout "foul" without bothering to work out why it may not be such.

Yeah mad, in one passage stables are called stables and in another balls of string are called stables.

Very convincing.

Well we all know you have no interest in believe it true or not, and it wasn't intended to be convincing, just to raise what in law is called "reasonable doubt" which to the reasonable among us it does.

As usual you accept only what you want to believe and not anything which casts doubt on it, however feasible.

Oh puhhhleeeease, you're the one who needs to deny the definitions of words in order that you can believe what you want to believe. I just read the words, you make up knew meanings for words.

You produced nothing at all that would caste reasonable doubt, you just lied to support your foolish indoctrination.

No, I do not need to deny the definitions of words, I merely select the definition which fits in with the context.

You on the other hand accept only that definition which suits you and ignore all other definitions.

Which is the most reasonable? The one who accepts that words have multiple meanings, which any dictionary will tell you (me), or the one who decides that there is only one which can possibly apply despite the possible alternatives (you)?

Give me another definition for what your special godly thing knows?
You are fuking brain dead.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:05:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 10:50:32 AM, mwtech wrote:
On what day did Jesus die?

Mark 14 and 15 tell of Jesus and his disciples eating the Passover supper the day before Jesus is crucified. Jesus dies at 3:00 on the day after the Passover meal.
--Mark 14:17 "In the evening Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18 As they were at the table eating, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, one of you eating with me here will betray me."....
--Mark 15:33-37 "34 Then at three o"clock Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" 35 Some of the bystanders misunderstood and thought he was calling for the prophet Elijah. 36 One of them ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, holding it up to him on a reed stick so he could drink. "Wait!" he said. "Let"s see whether Elijah comes to take him down!" 37 Then Jesus uttered another loud cry and breathed his last.

John 19 has Jesus crucified sometime after noon on the day before the Passover.
--John 19:14-18 "14 It was now about noon on the day of preparation for the Passover. And Pilate said to the people, "Look, here is your king!" 15 "Away with him," they yelled. "Away with him! Crucify him!" "What? Crucify your king?" Pilate asked. "We have no king but Caesar," the leading priests shouted back. Then Pilate turned Jesus over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus away. 17 Carrying the cross by himself, he went to the place called Place of the Skull (in Hebrew, Golgotha). 18 There they nailed him to the cross. "...
--John 19:30 "30 When Jesus had tasted it, he said, "It is finished!" Then he bowed his head and released his spirit. 31 It was the day of preparation, and the Jewish leaders didn"t want the bodies hanging there the next day, which was the Sabbath (and a very special Sabbath, because it was the Passover)."

I don't see where you have a problem there.

The answer is simple and all scriptures, including the ones you cite point to the same thing.

The "last supper" was held on "Preparation" the Thursday evening, which according to Jewish reckoning was the start of the day before Passover, since the Jewish day started and ended at sunset.

Yes it would have been after noon on the Friday that Jesus expired, hence the urgency to have him removed from the stake and buried before sundown, and the commencement of the Sabbath, especially since the Sabbath that year was a special one, sometimes called a "Great Sabbath" or a "Double Sabbath", because it was the normal weekly Sabbath as well as the Passover Sabbath, the Passover that year coinciding with a Sabbath day.

That is because Passover itself was a Sabbath whatever day of the week it fell on. Therefore if it fell on a Saturday you had two Sabbaths on one day.

There is absolutely no confusion in scripture about when Jesus died, only in the minds of those who do not understand what they are reading.

The same goes for all scriptures that some people believe contradict. They only appear to do so because the reader does not understand the true meaning of one or both of them.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:08:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 3:45:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK, peeps. I want a civil discussion. No name calling. Try to be polite. If you can't do this, then don't participate.

Many people claim that the Bible contradicts itself. I have yet to see any 'contradictions' that can be proven. In order for something to be a contradiction, it must be proven beyond all doubt, that it is, in fact, a contradiction.

So. I would like the scoffers to provide their favorite contradiction, and we'll look at the evidence to see if it really is one. One per participant, please. Most of them are easy to refute. Some are harder. But all I need to do is raise a reasonable doubt that the verses in question are accurate. The burden of proof is on the one who claims that the Bible contradicts itself.

And, once again, let's have a civil discussion.

James 1:13 [KJV]
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Genesis 22:1 [KJV]
1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:09:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 11:02:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:56:52 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:53:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:41:43 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:12:05 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:58:18 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 3:45:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK, peeps. I want a civil discussion. No name calling. Try to be polite. If you can't do this, then don't participate.

Many people claim that the Bible contradicts itself. I have yet to see any 'contradictions' that can be proven. In order for something to be a contradiction, it must be proven beyond all doubt, that it is, in fact, a contradiction.

So. I would like the scoffers to provide their favorite contradiction, and we'll look at the evidence to see if it really is one. One per participant, please. Most of them are easy to refute. Some are harder. But all I need to do is raise a reasonable doubt that the verses in question are accurate. The burden of proof is on the one who claims that the Bible contradicts itself.

And, once again, let's have a civil discussion.

Many will tell you that it does, but that is only because they do not understand what it is actually saying, and / or accept some of the many misinterpretations that false Christianity has put on it's word.

The bible is the word of God, and since God is perfect, it is impossible for it to contradict itself so if you think it is doing then you need to find out where you are going wrong, because God does not.

There is also a difference between contradictions and reporting differences.

For instance the two reports of the number of stables in Solomon's Palace are not contradictions even though they appear to vary wildly.

The problem is one of interpreting exactly what the reporter was counting. Was one reporting the individual stalls in the buildings and the otehr simply the buildings? We cannot know for sure, but neither can we rule it out as a possible, even a probable explanation for the apparent discrepancy. Both reports could be equally accurate from different viewpoints. Such is often the case with apparent reporting errors.

People are however all to quick to shout "foul" without bothering to work out why it may not be such.

Yeah mad, in one passage stables are called stables and in another balls of string are called stables.

Very convincing.

Well we all know you have no interest in believe it true or not, and it wasn't intended to be convincing, just to raise what in law is called "reasonable doubt" which to the reasonable among us it does.

As usual you accept only what you want to believe and not anything which casts doubt on it, however feasible.

Oh puhhhleeeease, you're the one who needs to deny the definitions of words in order that you can believe what you want to believe. I just read the words, you make up knew meanings for words.

You produced nothing at all that would caste reasonable doubt, you just lied to support your foolish indoctrination.

No, I do not need to deny the definitions of words, I merely select the definition which fits in with the context.

You on the other hand accept only that definition which suits you and ignore all other definitions.

Which is the most reasonable? The one who accepts that words have multiple meanings, which any dictionary will tell you (me), or the one who decides that there is only one which can possibly apply despite the possible alternatives (you)?

Give me another definition for what your special godly thing knows?
You are fuking brain dead.

God has the ability to know whatever he wants.

However he does not read our minds and thoughts, out of choice and respect for our privacy, so he does not know what we are thinking except where it is revealed by our actions.

UNfortunately for you I am nto so brain dead as to fail to realise that the word know can have many shades of meaning, as the Merriam Webster dictionary explains below:

1know verb \G2;n!3;\
to have (information of some kind) in your mind

to understand (something) : to have a clear and complete idea of (something)

to have learned (something, as a skill or a language)
knew known know"ing

Full Definition of KNOW

transitive verb
1
a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern
b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
2
a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of
b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>
3
archaic : to have sexual intercourse with
intransitive verb
1
to have knowledge
2
to be or become cognizant "sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech
" know"able adjective
" know"er noun
" know from
to have knowledge of <didn't know from sibling rivalry " Penny Marshall>

I understand these things, you do not, so it cannot be me who is brain dead.
bulproof
Posts: 25,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:28:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 11:09:21 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 11:02:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:56:52 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:53:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:41:43 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 10:12:05 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2014 9:58:18 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 7/5/2014 3:45:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK, peeps. I want a civil discussion. No name calling. Try to be polite. If you can't do this, then don't participate.

Many people claim that the Bible contradicts itself. I have yet to see any 'contradictions' that can be proven. In order for something to be a contradiction, it must be proven beyond all doubt, that it is, in fact, a contradiction.

So. I would like the scoffers to provide their favorite contradiction, and we'll look at the evidence to see if it really is one. One per participant, please. Most of them are easy to refute. Some are harder. But all I need to do is raise a reasonable doubt that the verses in question are accurate. The burden of proof is on the one who claims that the Bible contradicts itself.

And, once again, let's have a civil discussion.

Many will tell you that it does, but that is only because they do not understand what it is actually saying, and / or accept some of the many misinterpretations that false Christianity has put on it's word.

The bible is the word of God, and since God is perfect, it is impossible for it to contradict itself so if you think it is doing then you need to find out where you are going wrong, because God does not.

There is also a difference between contradictions and reporting differences.

For instance the two reports of the number of stables in Solomon's Palace are not contradictions even though they appear to vary wildly.

The problem is one of interpreting exactly what the reporter was counting. Was one reporting the individual stalls in the buildings and the otehr simply the buildings? We cannot know for sure, but neither can we rule it out as a possible, even a probable explanation for the apparent discrepancy. Both reports could be equally accurate from different viewpoints. Such is often the case with apparent reporting errors.

People are however all to quick to shout "foul" without bothering to work out why it may not be such.

Yeah mad, in one passage stables are called stables and in another balls of string are called stables.

Very convincing.

Well we all know you have no interest in believe it true or not, and it wasn't intended to be convincing, just to raise what in law is called "reasonable doubt" which to the reasonable among us it does.

As usual you accept only what you want to believe and not anything which casts doubt on it, however feasible.

Oh puhhhleeeease, you're the one who needs to deny the definitions of words in order that you can believe what you want to believe. I just read the words, you make up knew meanings for words.

You produced nothing at all that would caste reasonable doubt, you just lied to support your foolish indoctrination.

No, I do not need to deny the definitions of words, I merely select the definition which fits in with the context.

You on the other hand accept only that definition which suits you and ignore all other definitions.

Which is the most reasonable? The one who accepts that words have multiple meanings, which any dictionary will tell you (me), or the one who decides that there is only one which can possibly apply despite the possible alternatives (you)?

Give me another definition for what your special godly thing knows?
You are fuking brain dead.

God has the ability to know whatever he wants.
That's not what god says.
1 John 3:20
God ... knoweth all things.
However he does not read our minds and thoughts, out of choice and respect for our privacy, so he does not know what we are thinking except where it is revealed by our actions.
Acts 1:24
Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men.
You're a fuking liar according to the bible.

So have you told your god that he doesn't know what is in the hearts of all men?
Job 42:2
No thought can be withholden from thee.
UNfortunately for you I am nto so brain dead as to fail to realise that the word know can have many shades of meaning, as the Merriam Webster dictionary explains below:
The word know for an omniscient god has only ONE meaning unless you are a liar, then you can claim it means Meerkat Poop. Like you do.
1know verb \G2;n!3;\
to have (information of some kind) in your mind

to understand (something) : to have a clear and complete idea of (something)

to have learned (something, as a skill or a language)
knew known know"ing

Full Definition of KNOW

transitive verb
1
a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern
b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
2
a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of
b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>
3
archaic : to have sexual intercourse with
intransitive verb
1
to have knowledge
2
to be or become cognizant "sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech
" know"able adjective
" know"er noun
" know from
to have knowledge of <didn't know from sibling rivalry " Penny Marshall>

I understand these things, you do not, so it cannot be me who is brain dead.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:41:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I believe the question itself is misleading and stacked to encourage the discourse you are trying to avoid. In short - the issue of contradiction in the Bible is more complicated than it appears.

The Bible, as you probably know is a collection or library of 66 books written in numerous genres and over the span of more than a thousand years. To further complicate the issue - it is not put together in chronological order. Sure - Creation "Genesis" starts the book and Revelation ends the book, but everything in between is ordered by category or context than chronology. If it was chronological, Job would probably be the first story after Genesis. To further complicate the issue, the Bible is divided by two sections. Old Testament and New Testament. In the Old Testament, books are divided into several categories "Law, Prophets and Writings or stories" The New Testaments also has sections including "4 gospels (jesus story), Acts (how the church got started). Then there is a stack of letters loosley arranged longest to shortest.

Does the Bible contradict itself - sure, on the surface this is certainly identifiable. In context however, it is a little harder to justify or merit worthy consideration in relation to the totality. You are going to have those who on occasion read a scripture here or read a scripture there and make a broad sweeping conclusion about the Bible. This happens everyday on this site. Likewise there are people who actually study the Bible and truly try to understand it - some even devout a life to this.

At the end of the day, this is the way I see it. The Bible will give you as much as you put into it. If you won't give it the time of day, it will return in kind. If you blindly read the scripture without making any effort to comprehend what the Bible is actually saying, it will blindly regurgitate the "Apple". Same can be said for performing critical analysis, cause and effect, compare and contrast. It will stretch your mind and show a whole new level of insight.

So it all boils down to the reader. If the reader wants to find contradiction in the Bible, they will find it. If the reader wants to understand the context of the contradiction - they will need to dig deeper and perhaps learn the contradiction is not really a contradiction at all.
mwtech
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:41:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"So they took Jesus, 17 and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha." John 19:17

"And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross. 22 And they brought him to the place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull)." Mark 15:21-22
bulproof
Posts: 25,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:47:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If the reader wants to believe that there are no contradictions s/he will believe that regardless of all of the contradictions there are.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 11:58:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 11:47:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
If the reader wants to believe that there are no contradictions s/he will believe that regardless of all of the contradictions there are.

Probably the least trolly thing you have said, and it is true.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 12:03:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 3:45:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK, peeps. I want a civil discussion. No name calling. Try to be polite. If you can't do this, then don't participate.

Many people claim that the Bible contradicts itself. I have yet to see any 'contradictions' that can be proven. In order for something to be a contradiction, it must be proven beyond all doubt, that it is, in fact, a contradiction.

So. I would like the scoffers to provide their favorite contradiction, and we'll look at the evidence to see if it really is one. One per participant, please. Most of them are easy to refute. Some are harder. But all I need to do is raise a reasonable doubt that the verses in question are accurate. The burden of proof is on the one who claims that the Bible contradicts itself.

And, once again, let's have a civil discussion.

Yes the Bible contradicts itself. See the following verses

In genesis 32:30 God is seen but john 1:18 claims God is invisible.

Genesis 32:30King James Version (KJV)
30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

John 1:18King James Version (KJV)
18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

https://www.biblegateway.com...
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 2:21:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 11:08:17 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/5/2014 3:45:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK, peeps. I want a civil discussion. No name calling. Try to be polite. If you can't do this, then don't participate.

Many people claim that the Bible contradicts itself. I have yet to see any 'contradictions' that can be proven. In order for something to be a contradiction, it must be proven beyond all doubt, that it is, in fact, a contradiction.

So. I would like the scoffers to provide their favorite contradiction, and we'll look at the evidence to see if it really is one. One per participant, please. Most of them are easy to refute. Some are harder. But all I need to do is raise a reasonable doubt that the verses in question are accurate. The burden of proof is on the one who claims that the Bible contradicts itself.

And, once again, let's have a civil discussion.

James 1:13 [KJV]
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Genesis 22:1 [KJV]
1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

If you dig a little deeper, you will notice that the word you're reading in English is not the original word used in Scripture. Some translations use the word tempt. The actual meaning of the original word is different. God TESTED Abraham. He didn't TEMPT him.

http://carm.org...
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
bulproof
Posts: 25,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 2:26:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/5/2014 11:58:38 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 7/5/2014 11:47:58 AM, bulproof wrote:
If the reader wants to believe that there are no contradictions s/he will believe that regardless of all of the contradictions there are.

Probably the least trolly thing you have said, and it is true.

All of what I say is true.,
That it offends people is not my concern.