Does The Bible Contain Errors And Contradictions

[Colt]

OK, so I hope you don't really expect me to take you seriously. You are joking right, nobody can be that ignorant, or can they

Honestly no, I don't expect you to take me seriously. Ones pride/faith/trust won't allow it! When strong faith in God becomes tangled up in the fetishism of biblical idolatry, then it would be too devastating to their sincere faith to face and admit errors. In fetishism, faith in the fetish replaces faith in the God whose doings inspired the writings of fallible holy men.

My faith in God has never been based in a trust in the wildly exaggerated writings of Israelite holy men! The same kind of proud religious nationalism that rejected Jesus, put him through a trumped-up trial and had the Romans put him to death was perfectly capable of converting secular history into a miraculous fiction! Like many other nations the origins of Israel were based in a religious nationalism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You just forgot one small detail, in order to become a believer. God has to open your spiritual eyes, otherwise you won't be able to understand anything the Bible says.

Or maybe you are forgetting that in order to become a believer, one has to shut ones eyes to rational reality, which you then call "god opening your spiritual eyes".

We can go on like this till you turn blue in the face.
It will amount to nothing but a pissing contest.

Call me when you have some verifiable evidence instead of silly unreliable "personal testimonies".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

With all due respect

LOL

With all due respect, I must trash everything you said as nonsense as it all born out of fantasy and it's not based on any facts or truth.

Go ahead. Trash it then. Let's hear your rebuttals.

You have none? Oh. That's what I thought.

Everything I say is backed by Gods Word. Can you see the problem?

Yeah, I do. You don't.

How do you know that babies are not wicked and deserving of condemnation.

How do you NOT know that?

You reminded me of a discussion from the call-in cable show out of Austin called The Atheist Experience:

Tracie (humanist): "You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' .. If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God."

Shane (Christian caller): "True to life, you portray that little girl as someone who is innocent. She's just as evil as you."

Matt (humanist): [click] Goodbye, you piece of ****. I was a better Christian than you when I was a Christian and I still am.

(uses the s-word):

I was enslaved to Satan, before God liberated me from slavery to Him.

But now you're free of the imprisonment of maddening belief, right?

It's lower because it's just a piece of paper given to those who regurgitated what they were fed by false professors.

You've also deftly evaded that pitfall by putting your trust in scripture. You've put your trust is a solid foundation - the words of ancients who didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun went at night.

your wrong again.

You misspelled "you're."

 

[PearlSeeker]

I would just like to add one other point to your great summary. The Bible says that we first receive love from God and then we share it with others. Jesus showed His love for us, and then He commanded us to love one another, so that the world know that we are different by the love we have for one another.

Yes, that's what the Bible says. Does knowing that love is from God make any difference? Does the Spirit help only those who believe in Jesus or everyone that believes in love/good and practices active love?

 

[SkepticThinker]

A perverse and wicked generation ask for proof, but no proof will be given except for the sign of Jonah.

Nah. Rational thinkers ask for evidence and proof. People who care about believing in as many true things as possible while not believing in as many false things as possible ask for evidence and proof. People who want their view of the world to actually comport with reality ask for evidence and proof.

People who want to believe what they want to believe because they want to believe it, don't ask for evidence and proof.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
-Hitch

 

[SkepticThinker]

How do you know that babies are not wicked and deserving of condemnation. Are you some kind of psychic?

Yes. Or rather, I can observe that babies are not capable of being wicked. They certainly don't deserve condemnation.

I didn't determine that Satan is the evil One, I was enslaved to Satan, before God liberated me from slavery to Him. So I know that He is the lowest scum on earth, and God is the greatest of all

So you've determined that Satan is the evil one and God is the good one, since you believe that God saved you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

God hides from the reprobate,

How convenient for the people who believe in this god so that they never have to actually demonstrate the accuracy of their claims.

It seems to me that the reprobates are the very people God should be focusing on. That's assuming he loves us and all that.

He only reveals Himself to His Elect Saints.

Says who?

But everyone will stand before Him on judgement day. He will say, "depart from me into the everlasting fire, for I never knew you".

Prove it.

So anyway, back to my question. How do you know you're citing God's word?

 

[Kathryn]

Yes. Or rather, I can observe that babies are not capable of being wicked. They certainly don't deserve condemnation.

Let's talk about that for a minute. First of all, do you have kids?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let's talk about that for a minute. First of all, do you have kids?

I was nanny to my sister's kids for the first several years of their lives. Is that good enough for this talk?
I've also studied childhood development and cognition and neuroscience.

 

[leroy]

?????? Do you think for some strange reason that they haven't thought about it carefully?

yes

 

[leroy]

I have no idea. I think the accounts in the Bible are mostly, if not entirely, fiction.



There are plenty of passages in the Bible where, if the story were true, the author would have had no way to know the events they described. This passage from Mark is just one of them.

I suppose this doesn't have to be a problem for devout believers, since they can assume that an omniscient God told the author what happened. Personally, I take it as a sign that these accounts are fabrications.

So do you think Mark and the other authors of the bible made the story up from zero?.... no testimonies no investigation , they simply sat on a table and made stories up about jesus?.,………is that you *theory”*?

I suppose this doesn't have to be a problem for devout believers, since they can assume that an omniscient God told the author what happened. Personally, I take it as a sign that these accounts are fabrications.

Unless you think that Mark was a 4yo child………there is no way he would have made such an obvious mistake.

Your version is:

1 Mark Literally claimed that they told nobody

2 He reported that someone told him (implicitly)

Isn’t it more obvious that he didn’t meant “nobody” “never ever” in the literal sense?



I mean, when an atheist says “creationists always lie” they don’t mean that literally they always always lie………….. they would mean that they “ tend to lie in some specific contexts”…………. My point is that many times we don’t really mean what we say, and is not a big deal, we understand that this is how language works

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So do you think Mark and the other authors of the bible made the story up from zero?.... no testimonies no investigation , they simply sat on a table and made stories up about jesus?.,………is that you *theory”*?

No. I think that while evidence for Jesus is scant, the best explanation that fits the facts is that the Jesus myth has been glommrd onto a real, historical person. I think the fantastic mythic elements of the story were glommed on later, and that sayings attributed to him are probably a mix of paraphrasings of things he actually said (filtered through unreliable memory) and things that his followers wished that he had said or felt like things he would've said but didn't.

As far as the death and resurrection story goes, I think that the whole long ending of Mark (everything after verse 8) is clearly a later fabrication, but I wouldn't consider the original material to be reliable either; for instance, I have strong doubts that the empty tomb was a real thing.

Unless you think that Mark was a 4yo child………there is no way he would have made such an obvious mistake.

It would be far from the most ridiculous error in the Bible.

I mean, a few verses later, the fake Mark states that Jesus went up to Heaven and sat at the right hand of the father. I take it that you agree that this isn't an event that a human would be able to witness, right?

Your version is:

1 Mark Literally claimed that they told nobody

2 He reported that someone told him (implicitly)

Isn’t it more obvious that he didn’t meant “nobody” “never ever” in the literal sense?

I certainly don't think that he meant "they told nobody... then took a breath and immediately told everybody," which seems to be the interpretation you're suggesting.

Probably the most generous interpretation that could make sense would be that they told nobody in that setting.

In any case, the longer (fake) ending of Mark doesn't work if the other Gospel accounts are true.

In (fake) Mark, a few days after discovering the empty tomb, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene and she tells other disciples about that and that Jesus is alive... but nobody else believes that Jesus is alive until he later appears to them as well.

... but in Matthew and John, some of the other disciples saw Jesus shortly after the empty tomb was discovered, so they knew that Jesus was alive even though (fake) Mark says they didn't.

BTW: there's also the issue of the rock. The Gospels disagree on whether Mary Magdalene - and whoever she had with her - found the rock already rolled away or watched it roll away magically in front of them.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Let's talk about that for a minute. First of all, do you have kids?

I know that your question wasn't intended for me, but I'd like to answer it anyway.

I have seven children (ages 30 to 17) and one grandson (4 months), and I don't believe children deserve condemnation.

 

[Kathryn]

I know that your question wasn't intended for me, but I'd like to answer it anyway.

I have seven children (ages 30 to 17) and one grandson (4 months), and I don't believe children deserve condemnation.

OK I believe they are fallen creatures and very, very selfish naturally. From a very early age.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK I believe they are fallen creatures and very, very selfish naturally. From a very early age.

Why?

And what's a "fallen creature?"

 

[MelancholicPotatoChip]

The Holy Bible has been the worlds best selling book, in every generation since the printing press was invented many centuries ago.

Many Historians have studied the 66 books of the Bible, and compared them to secular contemporaries, to see if they could find any contradiction or errors. Most of those who set out to find faults with the Bible, became devout Christians instead. Because they found no faults of contradictions.

It's no different today, many sceptics set out to debunk the Bible and end up becoming believers instead. The vast majority converted to Christianity after finding that all 66 books are reliable, historical documents.

The 66 books of the Bible were written by 36 unrelated authors from various parts of the world over a period of 2,500 years, yet none of the accounts contradict each other. But the main reason so many became believers is due to the 356 prophecies which were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The whole Bible is about Jesus Christ. God's Prophets foretold of His coming into the world thousands of years before He came.

There is a list in the link, showing every one of the 356 prophecies and their fulfilment. This is well worth a look, as it provides irrefutable evidence that the Bible is a reliable historical document. No other historical figure ever came close to changing the world forever as Jesus Christ did.

AccordingtotheScriptures.org :: 356 Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus Christ

I am providing links from Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions

Biblical Contradictions

It is a central dogma of all fundamental Christians that the Bible is without error. They teach this conclusion by “reasoning” that god cannot be the author of false meaning and he cannot lie. Is this true? If written by a perfect being, then it must not contradict itself, as a collection of...

www.atheists.org

Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible - American Humanist Association

By Joseph C. Sommer Introduction Humanists reject the claim that the Bible is the word of God. They are convinced the book was written solely by humans in an ignorant, superstitious, and cruel age. They believe that because the writers of the Bible lived in an unenlightened era, the book...

americanhumanist.org

Correct me if any of the link's information is wrong.

 

[Kathryn]

Why?

And what's a "fallen creature?"

Because they are inherently self-centered. And you know what a fallen creature is. I believe that anyone who is fallen bibilcally means that the person is spiritually degraded from the get go.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because they are inherently self-centered. And you know what a fallen creature is.

I don't know what you think a fallen creature is.

I have a hard time describing babies and small children as "fallen creatures." They are young, innocent and naïve creatures in need of guidance.

Branding a baby as wicked is absurd to me. They're barely even capable of complex thoughts, never mind "wicked" thoughts and actions.
I also wouldn't characterize any babies I know as "selfish." And I don't know that I consider selfishness to be an act of "wickedness" in the first place. How is it "wicked?"

 

[Kathryn]

I don't know what you think a fallen creature is.

I have a hard time describing babies and small children as "fallen creatures." They are young, innocent and naïve creatures in need of guidance.

Branding a baby as wicked is absurd to me. They're barely even capable of complex thoughts, never mind "wicked" thoughts and actions.
I also wouldn't characterize any babies I know as "selfish." And I don't know that I consider selfishness to be an act of "wickedness" in the first place. How is it "wicked?"

I clarified my position. And I didn't label anyone as "wicked."

 

[SkepticThinker]

I clarified my position. And I didn't label anyone as "wicked."

This was the entire point of the discussion:

How do you know that babies are not wicked and deserving of condemnation. Are you some kind of psychic?

Me: Yes. Or rather, I can observe that babies are not capable of being wicked. They certainly don't deserve condemnation.



That's when you jumped in, and replied with, "Let's talk about that for a minute. First of all, do you have kids?"



We're definitely having a discussion about whether or not babies are wicked and/or deserving of condemnation.