Biblical Contradictions

[Vadergirl123]

(make the check out to Angellous Evangellous)

I went to your site, but what does it have to do with contradictions?

 

[waitasec]

why must a religious person feel compelled to set aside faith..?
this entire thread refutes your faith as you need to prove something...

how cute.

 

[fantome profane]

Hahaha I am using the internet and books, and the bible itself of course . hahaha people have already refuted these contradictions, and if what they say is true I'll post it. And I don't have to pay them, it's what the sites are for lol. If I were to try to tackle all 463 without knowing all the original Hebrew/greek words, understanding the customs back then, the history, dates, etc I don't think I'd get very far...

You may not need to pay them, but you do need to credit them. You wouldn't want to be accused of plagerism would you?

 

[HerDotness]

No. 11 is the two contradictory creation accounts..
This "contradiction" is based on a translational error NOT a biblical one. In the original hebrew writings The verb for formed is in the pluperfect tense NOT the perfect.

According to whom is that the case? I want your source.

And I want your source because the Tanakh itself translates that as
"19 And out of the ground HaShem G-d formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof." Source

This is very interesting since one would think that today's rabbis and Jewish scholars would be extremely interested in assuring their own text is translated correctly.

Your source can claim whatever it likes about how it "should be read," but the authorized JPS (Jewish Publication Society) translation states as I quoted. Now, if the Hebrew actually should be translated "HAD formed," stands to reason the Tanakh would say that. It doesn't.

In Mark 10:6 Jesus is talking about divorce and states how God created man and woman.

And Jesus in Mark 10:6 only states that God created both man and woman.

Mark 10:6 NIV--
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a
Source

Nothing whatsoever is said about who came first or that they were created simultaneously. This passage does not as you suggested it does say Thing #1 about how God created them.

The contradiction between the two creation accounts remains. They are two quite different accounts.

Do source link what you're saying or give a full bibliographic citation for any offline books you're using. You're much less credible without both as required.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I went to your site, but what does it have to do with contradictions?

Dammit I took the Paypal button off.

I'm glad you reminded me!

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

So I'm going to attempt to refute the 463 contraditcions in this linkSAB Contradictions It'll probably take awhile so please bear with me

 

[HerDotness]

Good luck doesn't seem to have had much bearing upon the explanations Vadergirl has offered thus far.

 

[EnochSDP]

No, it's a testament to bibliolatry. According to certain people, if the Bible is indeed the word of god then it must be perfect because god is perfect. Therefore, any apparent contradiction must be a result of misinterpretation and/or taking the passage in question "out of context".

It shows an inability to separate doctrine from deity. It was once quite well understood that the Bible could be wrong and god still exist. The sacred texts, being the works of men, were not expected to be flawless anyway.

However, now (with the "certain people" mentioned above) the mindset seems to be that if the Bible is wrong then it can only mean that god lied and, furthermore (with the most hardcore of them), disproving the Bible automatically means disproving god. Not just their god but all gods everywhere.

It's a very sad, sad state of mind.

True and I can accept that!

 

[EnochSDP]

As apposed to worrying about the contradictions, I always wonder why nobody cares about the wild claims like people living to be 200, 400, 900 years old. That right there tells you the stories are simply that... stories,

Merlin was over 1000 years old... (oh wait...just a story)

And your proof they didnt is?

 

[EnochSDP]

Okay I probably would wallow and be heartbroken and probably cry my eyes out that my whole life's beliefs have been a lie, but so far I feel pretty good hahaha

Keep on trucking, do not let nothing slow you down.God Bless!

 

[Me Myself]

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 completely contradict each other in the order of creation.

In Luke there is a good thief, in Mark there is no Good thief, but both mock Jesus.

I´ve heard the people that stand in the way of Jesus tomb change from different gospels. In one it is angels in other a guard, etc.

those are just form the top of my head.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

And your proof they didnt is?

Biology

 

[McBell]

Hahaha I am using the internet and books, and the bible itself of course . hahaha people have already refuted these contradictions, and if what they say is true I'll post it. And I don't have to pay them, it's what the sites are for lol. If I were to try to tackle all 463 without knowing all the original Hebrew/greek words, understanding the customs back then, the history, dates, etc I don't think I'd get very far...

i was wondering when you were going to start actually "refuting" them....

"WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)"
refute
v 1: overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof; "The speaker
refuted his opponent's arguments" [syn: refute, rebut]
2: prove to be false or incorrect [syn: refute, rebut,
controvert]​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No. 11 is the two contradictory creation accounts ... This "contradiction" is based on a translational error NOT a biblical one.

According to whom is that the case? I want your source.

The possibility is noted in NICOT and reflected in the NIV translation as well as the translations offered by ArtScroll, Soncino, and the NWT (Jehovah's Witnesses).

At the same time ...

It is not the translation found in the Catholic NJB.
It is not the translation found in the KJV and NKJV.
It is not the translation found in the RSV and NRSV.
It is not the translation found in the Septuagint.
It is not the translation found in the targumic texts (Onkelos & Pseudo-Jonathan)
It is not the translation found in the Complete Jewish Bible With Rashi Commentary.
It is not the translation found in the JPS Tanakh.
It is not the translation found in the translations by Alter, or Fox, or Friedman.

So, yes, the ambiguity of the language offers some relief to our inerrantists. At the same time, for someone to claim translation error with absolute certainty is embarrassingly adolescent. It is far more likely that what we see here is a transparent example of selection bias.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Vadergirl123, please don't forget about ...

Is it reasonable to assume that you're a creationist who rejects scientific consensus regarding such things as evolution and geology?

And what of Abishalom and Uriel?

Thanks.

 

[cablescavenger]

So I'm going to attempt to refute the 463 contraditcions in this linkSAB Contradictions It'll probably take awhile so please bear with me

I may not be here when you get back, but good luck!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If I were to try to tackle all 463 without knowing all the original Hebrew/greek words, understanding the customs back then, the history, dates, etc I don't think I'd get very far...

Are you seriously presenting yourself as someone "knowing all the original Hebrew/greek words, understanding the customs back then, the history, dates, etc."?

Or are you simply offereing your ability to search out inerrant sites and cut and paste whatever best supports your bias? If it's merely the latter, any dim witted kid could do as much and you're simple wasting everyone's time. More, by demonstrating a woeful and irresponsible lack of discernment you simply reinforce the worst stereotypes of Christians and thereby do a real disservice to a wealth of Christian scholarship and those who have worked with such integrity to provide it.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Are you seriously presenting yourself as someone "knowing all the original Hebrew/greek words, understanding the customs back then, the history, dates, etc."?

Or are you simply offereing your ability to search out inerrant sites and cut and paste whatever best supports your bias? If it's merely the latter, any dim witted kid could do as much and you're simple wasting everyone's time. More, by demonstrating a woeful and irresponsible lack of discernment you simply reinforce the worst stereotypes of Christians and thereby do a real disservice to a wealth of Christian scholarship and those who have worked with such integrity to provide it.

:run:

 

[Fraleyight]

I just want to say this is insane someone is going through all this trouble. This will take a lot of work to do. I do not think there is anyway possible you could find a way to refute all of them but I wish you the best of luck.

 

[HerDotness]

...
So, yes, the ambiguity of the language offers some relief to our inerrantists. At the same time, for someone to claim translation error with absolute certainty is embarrassingly adolescent. It is far more likely that what we see here is a transparent example of selection bias.

Thanks for that info. Very interesting.

I likely should have been much more brief and to the point which primarily was: Cite/link your sources as any responsible and intellectually honest person will do when source material is used, because I want to check their authority and degree of bias.

I thought it unwise to express my opinion of the "refutations" we've seen thus far from Vadergirl more forthrightly than I did.