Does the Bible Contradict Itself ?

[Subduction Zone]

With the nativity some skeptics take references to the Old Testament
and argue whether such and such a verse can support the story of the
nativity.
(mind you - OT references to the crucifixion, suffering, rejection, preaching
etc are conveniently ignored.)
I believe the nativity because it is recorded in the New Testament. A
virgin gave birth to the Son of God. This son was of the house of David
and born in Bethlehem. I am okay with that - it's an article of faith, not
reason. For those who had no faith and were not moved by what He did
or what He said, there was always the Get Out Of Jail Card - he's not from
Bethlehem and he's not of the house of David. The bible is designed like
that.

If you are going to throw out all rational thought and consistency of course I can't show your errors to you. Then the big question is why believe the virgin birth myth. What purpose does it serve?

 

[PruePhillip]

If you are going to throw out all rational thought and consistency of course I can't show your errors to you. Then the big question is why believe the virgin birth myth. What purpose does it serve?

I don't fully know. I just accept it happened.
The narrative is that God would send His Son into the world,
born of a woman. Disbelieved upon by His brothers and sisters.
Rejected by his people. Suffer and die to atone for the sins of
mankind. Be crucified and rise the third day.
This is counter-rational.
But one aspect of this is being played out before us today -
the return of the Jews to their homeland. That wasn't considered
"rational" or possible in the late 1800's by many an eminent scholar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't fully know. I just accept it happened.
The narrative is that God would send His Son into the world,
born of a woman. Disbelieved upon by His brothers and sisters.
Rejected by his people. Suffer and die to atone for the sins of
mankind. Be crucified and rise the third day.
This is counter-rational.
But one aspect of this is being played out before us today -
the return of the Jews to their homeland. That wasn't considered
"rational" or possible in the late 1800's by many an eminent scholar.

The rejection by his people was never predicted. Nor was the suffering etc.. And what purpose does that serve? It is actually a rather immoral story if you look at it.

Also you are still forgetting that Luke had Jesus born in both roughly 4 BCE And 6 CE. That would qualify as an error in the Bible.

 

[PruePhillip]

The rejection by his people was never predicted. Nor was the suffering etc.. And what purpose does that serve? It is actually a rather immoral story if you look at it.

Also you are still forgetting that Luke had Jesus born in both roughly 4 BCE And 6 CE. That would qualify as an error in the Bible.

Yes, agreed. The account of the suffering Messiah is "immoral" by the liberal standards of today. But the bible would reject MOST liberal standards.
King David (the one the academics once claimed never existed) is one of the symbols of the bible. He symbolized the rejected and reigning king - as is Jesus.
I think its Psalm 22 and 69 where David speaks of the suffering Messiah.
The Jews who rejected Jesus, as prophesied, never accepted this suffering Redeemer, they only wanted a reigning and conquering king.
To the Jews several centuries before Jesus, the verses about the Messiah being "cut off" and "while the Temple still stands" would have been confronting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, agreed. The account of the suffering Messiah is "immoral" by the liberal standards of today. But the bible would reject MOST liberal standards.
King David (the one the academics once claimed never existed) is one of the symbols of the bible. He symbolized the rejected and reigning king - as is Jesus.
I think its Psalm 22 and 69 where David speaks of the suffering Messiah.
The Jews who rejected Jesus, as prophesied, never accepted this suffering Redeemer, they only wanted a reigning and conquering king.
To the Jews several centuries before Jesus, the verses about the Messiah being "cut off" and "while the Temple still stands" would have been confronting.

Not by "liberal" standards. By any logical standards. But yes, the Bible is for the most part a very immoral book.

And King David may have been a real character, but conflating the David of the Bible with the real King David is probably on the order of conflating Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter with the real Abraham Lincoln.

And once again, you are in error. The Bible never predicts that the Jews would reject Jesus. What you did was quote mining. To claim that it was prophecized you need real prophecies that support that claim.

 

[PruePhillip]

Not by "liberal" standards. By any logical standards. But yes, the Bible is for the most part a very immoral book.

And King David may have been a real character, but conflating the David of the Bible with the real King David is probably on the order of conflating Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter with the real Abraham Lincoln.

And once again, you are in error. The Bible never predicts that the Jews would reject Jesus. What you did was quote mining. To claim that it was prophecized you need real prophecies that support that claim.

King David, if you care to read of him, comes across as a very real person. His story of forcing himself onto Bathsheeba and having her husband killed in battle is very real. And the tidy way he dealt with his enemies when he handed the throne to Solomon is quite believable. Says of Solomon that he had 500 tonne of gold - that was considered impossible until later archaeology showed this was typical for Kings of his stature.
One of the most famous prophecies concerning the rejected Messiah is Isaiah 53, and the latter part of 52.

And agreed, by today's "standards" the bible is quite immoral. It suggests God is "immoral' by current standards. An example is Jesus telling the Jews they would be destroyed by their enemy (Rome) even to the very children. And of those who would not obey God, they would be taken out and burned.

 

[Subduction Zone]

King David, if you care to read of him, comes across as a very real person. His story of forcing himself onto Bathsheeba and having her husband killed in battle is very real. And the tidy way he dealt with his enemies when he handed the throne to Solomon is quite believable. Says of Solomon that he had 500 tonne of gold - that was considered impossible until later archaeology showed this was typical for Kings of his stature.
One of the most famous prophecies concerning the rejected Messiah is Isaiah 53, and the latter part of 52.

And agreed, by today's "standards" the bible is quite immoral. It suggests God is "immoral' by current standards. An example is Jesus telling the Jews they would be destroyed by their enemy (Rome) even to the very children. And of those who would not obey God, they would be taken out and burned.

Misinterpretation. It is not a prophesy, it is history. Some similarities may be found, but then the verses are very poetic and vague. This article goes a bit further:

Isaiah 53 – Plagiarism, not Prophecy

Also, even though all morals, including those of the Bible, are subjective, a rational basis for morals allows them to be compared. The Bible loses when one does that.

 

[nPeace]

Logic is not in your tool box.

Try again.

Thank God.
Too bad you hate it. So it would be illogical for me to meet your request.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank God.
Too bad you hate it. So it would be illogical for me to meet your request.

Why would you thank your imaginary being for your inability to reason properly? And no, I do not "hate" anything . Once again this is a violation of the Ninth Commandment. I would have hoped that as a Christian you could at least understand that .

Declaring that you won't think rationally is not a winning debate tactic.

 

[nPeace]

Why would you thank your imaginary being for your inability to reason properly? And no, I do not "hate" anything . Once again this is a violation of the Ninth Commandment. I would have hoped that as a Christian you could at least understand that .

Declaring that you won't think rationally is not a winning debate tactic.

Don't blame me for your lack. I can't help you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So we have Luke saying that Jesus was born over a ten year period. That they had to follow ridiculous rules for a census, and that it was "worldwide". All either self contradictions or contradicted by the real world.

Next we have what time of day Jesus was crucified. Mark has a six hour crucifixion beginning at roughly 9:00 AM and ending at roughly 6:00 PM while John has him still in front of Pontius Pilate at noon.


Do you need the verses? I can supply them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't blame me for your lack. I can't help you.

Watch the personal attacks. I am not the one that is lacking here.

You have not been able to touch the fact that Luke has Jesus being born in both roughly 4 BCE and 6 CE. You could only find Christian sides that could not support their claims The best you had was a fragment of mistranslated clay tablet.

Why don't you see if you can find support for your claims from reliable sources?

 

[nPeace]

Watch the personal attacks. I am not the one that is lacking here.

You have not been able to touch the fact that Luke has Jesus being born in both roughly 4 BCE and 6 CE. You could only find Christian sides that could not support their claims The best you had was a fragment of mistranslated clay tablet.

Why don't you see if you can find support for your claims from reliable sources?

What's a reliable source to you?
You couldn't even properly address this post. How can you talk about reliable sources?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's a reliable source to you?
You couldn't even properly address this post. How can you talk about reliable sources?

What post could I not properly address? A reliable source is not one with an obvious self interest. For example the "museum" that the fragment is at is in the Vatican. Tell me, do you think that they can avoid prejudice in this matter? Also the source that I used, which I admitted was the one biased source of mine, did rely on the work of scholars of Latin, not on their own say so, when they pointed out that the shard was mistranslated. Before the shard was found the history of Quirinius was known. You need the translation to be correct to even give you the faintest of hopes. Yet even if he was "twice the governor of Syria" you still have to explain away the fact that he was in what is now Turkey running a military campaign when Jesus was born. In those days one could not commute quickly. At best for you it appears that he could have been governor starting ion 6 CE and then some time later. The Bible still contradicts itself.

 

[nPeace]

What post could I not properly address? A reliable source is not one with an obvious self interest. For example the "museum" that the fragment is at is in the Vatican. Tell me, do you think that they can avoid prejudice in this matter? Also the source that I used, which I admitted was the one biased source of mine, did rely on the work of scholars of Latin, not on their own say so, when they pointed out that the shard was mistranslated. Before the shard was found the history of Quirinius was known. You need the translation to be correct to even give you the faintest of hopes. Yet even if he was "twice the governor of Syria" you still have to explain away the fact that he was in what is now Turkey running a military campaign when Jesus was born. In those days one could not commute quickly. At best for you it appears that he could have been governor starting ion 6 CE and then some time later. The Bible still contradicts itself.

Okay. Forget that inscription. Let's say I cast that in the garbage. Let's start again.
Can you properly address the post? Can you properly follow the link, because I don't know what post you think I am referring to.

...multiple sources support my claim. ...
There are many records of individual censuses. If there was an overarching one there would definitely have been a record of it.

Therefore you should be able to provide all of them. Can you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. Forget that inscription. Let's say I cast that in the garbage. Let's start again.
Can you properly address the post? Can you properly follow the link, because I don't know what post you think I am referring to.

I did properly address it. It was a pointless post. Do you seriously need your error explained to you?

Therefore you should be able to provide all of them. Can you?

Repeating your error does not help you. Seriously think about it.

This is similar to a mistake that flood believers make regarding geology that refutes their myth.

 

[nPeace]

I did properly address it. It was a pointless post. Do you seriously need your error explained to you?



Repeating your error does not help you. Seriously think about it.

This is similar to a mistake that flood believers make regarding geology that refutes their myth.

Yes please. Explain please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes please. Explain please.

There is no need to prove each and every census. That is a rather inane at best demand. We know that individual censuses took place. We also know the rules for when they took censuses. When Judea was under Herod taxes were exacted by tribute. It was not until that Quirinius was governor in 6CE that a census needed to be taken. Also if we see smaller censuses than there is no doubt at all that we would see a universal one. Just as in the flood myth. We can see evidence of smaller older floods but we can't see any evidence for a younger global flood.

You are making illogical demands that do not help your case one bit. If anything they hurt it.

 

[nPeace]

There is no need to prove each and every census. That is a rather inane at best demand. We know that individual censuses took place. We also know the rules for when they took censuses. When Judea was under Herod taxes were exacted by tribute. It was not until that Quirinius was governor in 6CE that a census needed to be taken. Also if we see smaller censuses than there is no doubt at all that we would see a universal one. Just as in the flood myth. We can see evidence of smaller older floods but we can't see any evidence for a younger global flood.

You are making illogical demands that do not help your case one bit. If anything they hurt it.

So you admit you made statements for which you cannot support. Illogical statements at best. That's all I wanted to know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you admit you made statements for which you cannot support. Illogical statements at best. That's all I wanted to know.

Now you are being dishonest and irrational again. And breaking the Ninth Commandment as well. If you do not understand something you should ask questions politely and properly.