Biblical Contradictions

[Vadergirl123]

Day and night as in day and night. I don't think that they need to be defined as we all have surely seen both day and night. Genesis already defines it. The portion of the day that is bright is "day" and the portion of the day that is dark is "night". Regular days and nights.

No they don't I redid that message that's what I get for replying to fast haha

 

[sojourner]

No. 100 Did Jesus say before the bird crows or before the bird crows twice? So this isn't a contradiction. If a bird crows twice it's still crowing. Matt, Mark, and Luke say, "crow" John says, "crow twice." Matthew, Mark, and Luke just chose not to say the exact number of crows the bird would do. John, however chose to say the exact number. There's no contradiction.

It is a contradiction of storytelling. Otherwise, they'd read exactly the same.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Here's a link, which gives a good explanation
Sunlight Before the Sun

It would be nice if you started refuting the contradictions yourself instead of just linking to other websites or copying their answers.

That link really doesn't explain it. It just goes on about there being "other sources of light than the sun" and it also claims that "light from stars created anywhere in the universe on Day Four would reach earth in two earth days" which simply isn't scientifically correct.

Genesis clearly speaks about day and night several days before the Sun is actually created.

 

[sojourner]

No. 130 Did Jesus drink on the cross? John says he drank a "spunge filled with vinegar." Mark says they gave him, "wine mingled with myrrh." However he didn't drink it. These are different drinks he drank the one with vinegar and didn't drink the wine. These aren't a contradiction

This stretches not only the limits of reason, but of credibility. Sounds like a weak excuse to me. No credible bible scholar in the land would buy it.

 

[sojourner]

No. 149 When was Eve created? Genesis 1:27 it says, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them." And in Genesis 2:20-22 It talks about Adam giving names to the animals and when he fell asleep, God created woman(Eve) from his rib. There's no contradiction in these verses. The first verse is just an overview of God creating both man and woman. Genesis 2:20-22 talks about the process in depth.

No. 168 How long did the flood last? Genesis 7:17 says the flood was, "forty days upon the earth." Genesis 7:24 and Genesis 8:3 say the waster prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days(7:24) and after the end of the 150 days were abated(8:3) The writer of Genesis isn't saying the flood waters had receded by forty days, that's how long it rained(vs 4&12 of chapter 7) This verse just says that the "flood was forty days upon the earth." the waters didn't start to recede, or be abated, until the end of 150 days(8:3)

Oh, good grief!!!
Tell me you're joking. Please!
This is one of the most pathetic tortures of semantics I've ever seen.

 

[sojourner]

Here's a link, which gives a good explanation
Sunlight Before the Sun

What a crock of baloney!

The ancients didn't make the connection that the sun caused the light. To them, light was separate from the sun. That's how the two could be created separately.

 

[Vadergirl123]

They're not telling the same story, though. They're telling different stories. That's what I'm trying to get across to you.

It's not a different story. A different story is Jesus walking on water,Noah's flood, The feeding of the five thousand, THOSE are DIFFERENT stories.

That's not the topic here, and if we begin, it will derail this topic.

Fair enough.Then please message me how I "ruined" the theology. It's not fair to accuse me of something then not explain how I did it.

To treat the stories as collaboration is to treat them falsely. If you wanna talk about Matthew, talk about Matthew. But don't drag Mark into that particular discussion. It does no real good to talk about any resurrection account out of the context of its parent gospel.

If Matthew's talking about the same thing is Mark is(but adding some more detail) then yeah I can.

There are four gospels and, therefore, four accounts of resurrection. Creating one account out of four accounts is wrong.

(sigh) I'll rephrase it for you there are four accounts of the SAME event. the accounts ALL take place at the SAME time. so there's nothing worng with me combining them into one account(again the resurrection only happened ONCE)

Yes, I do -- for reasons I've more than adequately laid out.

If you don't agree that I could perform the whole May 18th analogy then we should just end this discussion(we're getting nowhere. What you're saying doesn't make common sense to me, and I think I'm just confusing you)

 

[mycorrhiza]

"How much better and more satisfying it is to accept Scripture as it stands. It doesn't need to be fully understood and explained by modern scientific thought; it just needs to be believed and obeyed."

The website even says "Don't think, just obey". I would hardly say that's a healthy message.

 

[Vadergirl123]

What a crock of baloney!

The ancients didn't make the connection that the sun caused the light. To them, light was separate from the sun. That's how the two could be created separately.

God isn't an ancient,and he was the one who created the earth(which means he KNOWS everything about it).

 

[Vadergirl123]

"The website even says "Don't think, just obey". I would hardly say that's a healthy message.

Eesh.I agree that's not the best message, but I gave you the link to explain your question. I hope it offered some insight.

 

[mycorrhiza]

God isn't an ancient,and he was the one who created the earth(which means he KNOWS everything about it).

Actually, according to the definition of ancient, God is ancient.

You start with a conclusion and try to fit the facts around it. Try to start with looking at the facts and THEN draw a conclusion.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Eesh.I agree that's not the best message, but I gave you the link to explain your question. I hope it offered some insight.

It didn't, because it didn't give a satisfying answer to the question, it just provided further false statements and encouraged ignorance.

What makes you believe that the Bible is 100% literal and perfect? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[Vadergirl123]

It would be nice if you started refuting the contradictions yourself instead of just linking to other websites or copying their answers.

Most of them I have adressed on my own. However for some of them the link just word everything perfectly and says exactly what I'd say so I use it instead.

That link really doesn't explain it. It just goes on about there being "other sources of light than the sun" and it also claims that "light from stars created anywhere in the universe on Day Four would reach earth in two earth days" which simply isn't scientifically correct.

Well if there are other sources of light then that's how you would have "day and night"

 

[mycorrhiza]

Well if there are other sources of light then that's how you would have "day and night"

We measure day and night using the sun. Why would God put an identical procedure there using a temporary light source rather than putting the Sun there in the very beginning?


It also calls the Moon the "lesser light". How do we explain this? The Moon isn't a light source.

 

[Vadergirl123]

It didn't, because it didn't give a satisfying answer to the question, it just provided further false statements and encouraged ignorance.

So I can look up other things if you want, and I don't mean this to sound rude but if you really are interested then you can even look up things yourself. I mean the other sources of light is good enough for me.

What makes you believe that the Bible is 100% literal and perfect? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Hahaha this thread is for contradictions remember and I'm working on replying to your message

 

[Vadergirl123]

We measure day and night using the sun. Why would God put an identical procedure there using a temporary light source rather than putting the Sun there in the very beginning?

Yes we do(but God doesn't have too),and I don't know why God did that. The bible doesn't say.

 

[Vadergirl123]

It is a contradiction of storytelling. Otherwise, they'd read exactly the same.

If we were to both write about what President Obamah did yesterday. Do you think the accounts would use the EXACT same wording, or say the exact same things?

 

[mycorrhiza]

So I can look up other things if you want, and I don't mean this to sound rude but if you really are interested then you can even look up things yourself. I mean the other sources of light is good enough for me.

It doesn't really answer the question, so it isn't enough for me.

The website only avoids the question and then points to "don't think, just accept it".

 

[mycorrhiza]

Yes we do(but God doesn't have too),and I don't know why God did that. The bible doesn't say.

What makes more sense:

1. The story meant actual day and nights as was understood by the people of the time it was written.

2. The story meant a different kind of day and night that included an unknown, perhaps not visible, light-source, rendering the usage of day and night useless as it is impossible to understand the magical day and night of God.

 

[sojourner]

God isn't an ancient,and he was the one who created the earth(which means he KNOWS everything about it).

No, but then, God's not the one who authored the stories, either.