Believing for a Christian is much more than head knowledge. We have put our faith in Jesus, We have made Him our Savior. The demons have not done that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the Bible too Contradictory for All of it to be True?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Believing for a Christian is much more than head knowledge. We have put our faith in Jesus, We have made Him our Savior. The demons have not done that.
Unbelievable! A person can't be unborn physically or spiritually, but he can die.
I think that you believe born again and saved are the same thing.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
It's when you approve of something. That's the right time to clap. If the collective of a group also approves at the same time, it enhances the effect of the clap.
Now, back to the Bible.
Clap clap clap
Yes
right
Are you able to teach that to someone else?
All die whether they have been born again or not. Those who have been born again, get on the elevator going up. l Those no born again get on the one going down.
I can teach it, and supply the Scripture that supports it.. I can't get anyone to accept it. That is God's ministry. I am in sales, not management.
I'll take the scriptures.
There are many but I will only give you 3, make that 4.
Phil 1:6 - For I am confident of this vey thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfedt it until the day of Christ Jesus.
God promises to perfect what He has started in us. It will contginue until we die or until the day of Christ. This truth is repeated in Heb 12:2.
Jn 5:24 - Truly, truly I say o you, he who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and doe snot come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
Eternal means eternal, and If I am not going to be judged, I can't be penalized,
Jn 6:37-40 -These verses say Christians were given to Jesus by God, that Jesus will not cast out any God gave Him and that it is God's will that He does not lose any of them. It again promises those given to Jesus will have eternal life.
Thank you
I agree with that. To perfect does not mean to keep perfect. It means to make perfect. Imagine creating a sculpture. It is not perfect until it is finished. Matthew 24:13 the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
Does this not imply that it is possible NOT to stand firm?
fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
You seem to be saying that it is not possible to turn your EYE away from him. I witness people doing it, so I know you are wrong, if you believe it is not possible.
Yes, eternal means eternal. If you would do some real Bible study instead of taking it all for granted, you will see that has is a very complicated word.
What I mean is that you become an inheritor of everlasting life. To be an inheritor does not mean that you have already inherited anything.
All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day
John 6:39 does not say "lose". It says destroy. Jesus will never cause you ruin. That is what it means.
And John 6:38 is true that it will never be Jesus who causes a casting out. Oh! Wait a minute, that can't be true and also this be true: Matthew 7:23
(I think it says somehting different).
IMO we can't compare the work of man to the work of God. l The sculpture that apperas perfect, probably is not 100% perfect. The last part of that verse assures us God will keep it perfect---the day of Christ Jesus is the day He returns to earth, Eph 4:30 tells us the same thing. WE are sealed with the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption.
Yes it does, so we need to use all scripture to find the truth. Reformed theology is put in the acronym TULIP. The P stands for "they perseverance of the saints. We use Rom 8:38-39, Jn 10:28-29, Jn 5:24 and I pet 1:23 to support that doctrine. One basic theology in the Bible is that God takes care of His own, no matter how far they fall, because agape love never fails. God does not count our sins against us(Psa 103:10), He has removed them from us(Psa 103:12). When we go astray, our great Shepherd leaves the flock and searches for the lost one UNTIL He finds it(Lk 15:4). Being in God's hands are better than being in Allstate's.
First of all I am not suggesting we can't turn away from God. WE all do at some time in our life. Both of those verse is teaching that no matter what we do, God, will not hold that against us. He will continue to complete and perfect what He has started in us. We did not develop the faith we have. God gave it to us(Rom 12:3). l He will NEVER leave or desert us.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
We can look at the Birth Stories in the Gospels. The first discrepancy between Luke and Matthew are the genealogies. They both purport to go through Joseph, yet they include different names, in different orders. Looking more at the birth story, Matthew has the family fleeing Israel because Herod wants to execute Jesus and all the babies, while in Luke, the family simply goes back home. Huge difference. Who does the angel go to? Matthew and Luke disagree. Where does the family live before Jesus is born, one states in Bethlehem (Matthew) and the other states in Nazareth (Luke). In Matthew, the family only ends up in Nazareth after they return from Egypt.
But then you run into the problem that the Bible often disagrees with itself. Not to mention that the books were never written with the thought they would be compiled into one large collection later on.
In order for it to teach itself, one has to take it out of context. Jesus was preaching a different idea than someone like Elisha was teaching. And that differs from what Jeremiah taught. We are talking about individuals separated by hundreds of years, writing in different situations, as Judaism evolved.
It is true. The fact that the Bible contradicts itself raises serious questions about the integrity of the Bible, is one argues that it is the literal word of G-d. If one denies the idea that the Bible is the literal word of G-d, then the fact that it contradicts itself is no problem at all.
But we aren't talking about light, nor was Paul stating that he was writing the literal word of G-d. In fact, he was writing letters to people who either had problems with him, or who questioned him. Obviously, that would mean that those questioning him didn't believe that he was speaking the literal word of G-d, or even taught such.
That is easily explained if you understand a leverite marriage.
Here you have made up your own time line which is incorrect. The Magi were not present at Jesus' birth. They went to Jerusalem and Jesus was born in Bethlehem. After Jesus was circumcised , they went to Nazatreh, which is at least an 8 day journey from Jerusalem
Unlelss you provide chapter and verse, I have no idea what your are referring to.
I guess you would offer some eviiidence if you had any. Do you really expect me to accpt yur opinions?
More pontification and no evidence and what you said is 110% false.
Of course SOME of it was different, but there are no contradictions in any of it.
What is true is that all you have done is pontificate. The things you presented as contradictions was because you didn't understand what was written. Let me offers some advice. Atheist web-sites are as dumb as a bag full of doorknobs when it come to understanding the Bible 2 Cor 2:14 will explain it to you if you 'aren't afraid to show that at least one verse in the Bible is accurate.
What is so strange about that? Some today, including you question what Paul wrote. They are the ones like you who can't understand the Bible. Most he taught beleived him. If you understood the Bible, you would also.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
If you have a misunderstanding of Levarite marriage maybe. Both genealogies specifically state that they go through Joseph, who is claimed as the father. For a Levarite marriage to have any bearing here, one would have to assume that Joseph married Mary, died, leaving Mary still a virgin and a widow, and then Joseph's brother married Mary. It doesn't explain any discrepancy, because after all, the genealogy of Joseph, and his brother, should be the same. Not to mention that there is no evidence at all for any of that. Joseph is specifically stated as being the father of Jesus. Mary is never said to be a widow during the entire birth narrative, as Joseph is always there.
I didn't say the Magi were present. I said that in Matthew, Jesus and his family lived in Bethlehem, and continue to do so until Herod calls for the execution of all toddlers, in order to have Jesus killed. In Luke, the family leaves Nazareth, where there home is, to travel to Bethlehem, and then return home to Nazareth. There is no mention of Herod's massacre of toddlers, or the fleeing of the family to Egypt.
I'm talking about the birth stories in Matthew and Luke. Chapters 1 and 2 in both books. In Matthew, Chapter 2, the massacre of Herod, of all the infants, is talked about, and the family fleeing to Egypt is mentioned. In Luke, Chapter 2:21, the circumcision you talk about is mentioned, and then the family returns home to Nazareth (in Matthew, the home is in Bethlehem). It also states in verse 41, that every year his family went to Jerusalem. That is impossible in the story of Matthew, as in 2:13, Joseph is told to take the family to Egypt, and not leave until Herod is dead. The two stories don't mesh up.
I provided evidence that the Bible contradicts itself above. I used Matthew and Luke to show that they contradict each other. As for the individual books of the Bible not having been written with the thought they would be incorporated into the Bible. That's obvious. There was no Bible, so how could one possibly think that what they were writing would go into a work that didn't exist?
Even more, if Paul was writing to have his works collected and put into a Bible, why are we missing some? We know from Paul's letters that he wrote more than what we have. Did he just not care enough to keep a copy of his works around?
Not pontification. You took what I said out of context. If the Bible contradicts itself, and I have shown that it does, it can't possibly teach itself as it disagrees with itself. There are competing ideas throughout the Bible. For instance, is G-d all knowing? In Proverbs 15:3, it is stated that the eyes of G-d are everywhere. In Genesis 18:20, G-d instead has to descend to earth to see what's happening, as G-d doesn't know. Or, does G-d change? Malachi 3:6 says no, not changing. Johan 3:10, G-d does change. G-d repents and changes G-d's mind. You can't teach yourself the Bible if it disagrees with itself.
I've shown that yes, there are contradictions. Not to mention that we don't even have the original manuscripts. We have copies of copies of copies. Those copies contains thousands of discrepancies. Sometime those changes are small, and sometimes they include the entire addition of passages. Not to mention that the canon itself has been debated for hundreds of years.
That, and you're reading a translation of the original words. A translation does not give exact meanings. And often, we don't know what the meaning of the original is. That's why, if you read a study Bible, at the bottom, it will often say, we don't know what this passage really says. Or the Hebrew is unknown.
That's why translations change over time.
I studied religion in school. I went to a private college to get my degree, and have been working on a Master's degree. I don't go to some "dumb" atheist website. I have read and studied the Bible, and the manuscripts that make it up, not only in English, but also in Hebrew and Greek, as well as Latin. Don't assume you know where my sources are coming from. That is attacking the messenger, and not the message.
As I have shown above, there are contradictions. You haven't dealt with them besides making snide little remarks.
I understand the Bible. Your condescending remark is based on ignorance. See above.
If most he taught believed him, why did Paul have to debate with his followers? Why, in Galatians, is he so upset with his followers?
And please don't assume you know what I believe or don't.
Not maybe, actually.
The Bible does not say Joseph is the father of Jesus and neither genealogy point to the line of Joseph. The key is being in the line of David, Matthew give Jesus the right to be their king and Luke point to Jesus being made in the likeness of man. He is the second man and the last Adam.
First of all, the genealogies are not of Joseph, they are of Jesus. The levarite marriage occurred with Heli, as I remember. In a leverite marriage, the first son born was not given the name of its biological father. He was given the name of the dead brother.
I didn't say you said the Magi were present. I was trying to establish the time frame for the events. When the Magi were sent to Bethlehem, Joseph had already move his family to Nazareth. Circumcision occurred on the 8th day, and when Jesus had been circumcised the moved.
No evidence is not evidence. The evidence is in the "Bible. Why do you not accept that? Do you really think all of the records 2000+ years old have been found or are even still in existence.
I'm talking about the birth stories in Matthew and Luke. Chapters 1 and 2 in both books. In Matthew, Chapter 2, the massacre of Herod, of all the infants, is talked about, and the family fleeing to Egypt is mentioned. In Luke, Chapter 2:21, the circumcision you talk about is mentioned, and then the family returns home to Nazareth (in Matthew, the home is in Bethlehem). It also states in verse 41, that every year his family went to Jerusalem. That is impossible in the story of Matthew, as in 2:13, Joseph is told to take the family to Egypt, and not leave until Herod is dead. The two stories don't mesh up. [/QUOTE]
Do you live in the same town you were born in?
All you have done is prove you don't understand the time line.
Which ones are we missing. WE have over 25,000 NT mss. What makes you think some were not copies of his works?
If there are 1000's of discrepancies , post 3 of them. The debate of the canon ended years ago. Do you have any evidence one or both are wrong? I agree there is a difference in the Protestant and Catholic canons, but do you know which one if any is right?
Here you are dead wrong. The scholars who do Bible translation, and it is always a group, not one person, are experts in Greek and in Hebrew. Now some words can have more than one meaning, and sometimes this come out in the translation of different scholars. Most of the time, the differences are trivial---does it matter if one says "dirt" and another says "soil?" None of the variances affect any church doctrines.
Not true. Translations change basically or 2 reasons, First because the scholars learn more about the language, and second to make it easier to read and thus understand.
Let me give you 2 examples of variations.
NASB, Rom 6:15 - What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
NIV - What then? Shall we because we are not under law, but under grace? By no means!
--------------------------------------
NASB, Jn 3:12 - If I told you earthly things, and you did not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
NIV - I have spoken to you....
You are right. I painted you with the same brush I paint those who have not studied the Bible and say the same things you have said. I apologize .
If you ares still in college I have been seriously studying the Bible longer than you have been living and I have some of the best teachers in Christianity. I have at least one commentary on every book in the bible, more than one in most cases, written by experts scholars. I don't need too understand Greek or Hebrew, my commentaries were experts in both languages. In addition I have the Holy Spirit guiding me into the truth.
I am going to make another assumption, based on what you are saying. The college you attend, and it professors do not take the Bible as being the inspired and inerrant word of 'God.
If that is true, you will never understand the "Bible in any meaningful way. Will you tell me what college you go to, so I can check it out for myself?
There is a difference of opinion if you have shown any contradictions and it is obvious I have dealt with them. If you reject my comments, that's fine. and if I made some snider remarks, I apologize again.
You haven't convince me, but I will not try to convince you that you don't.
Now your brush is to wide. You can't take one example and make that typical. The Galatians were not THE MOST.
I don't have to assume. You are telling me what you believe---the Bible can't be trusted to contain the inspired and inerrant words of God.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Your argument here only works if we have both Luke and Matthew. If they were purposely created in order to compliment each other. That's not the case. Matthew and Luke were written for different audiences. More so, they weren't always agreed upon. Some early canons had one or the other, or even left both out. Your argument doesn't stand.
More so, they do explicitly state that Jesus was the son of Joseph. Luke 3:23, states Jesus was the son of Joseph, and tells us without doubt that the genealogy traces back through Joseph. In Matthew 1:16, we are told that the genealogy goes through Joseph, as in, we are told that Jacob is the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born. Both state with out a doubt that they go through Joseph.
So yes, both point to Joseph, as both specifically state that the line is going through Joseph.
The genealogies are also that of Joseph, as both specifically state, in no uncertain terms, that they go through Joseph. It is through Joseph that both of the genealogies argue that Jesus was a descendant of King David.
As for the levarite marriage, where is the evidence? There is none. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that there was a levarite marriage. There is no suggestion that Joseph died, and Mary was remarried. That doesn't even make sense in the story as the two were just engaged at the time of the conception. There was no time or evidence for a levarite marriage.
Not to mention that it wouldn't change the genealogy. If I married my brothers wife, the genealogy through the male line would be exactly the same. If my grandfather had married his brothers wife, the genealogy would have been the same through the male line. So it wouldn't explain the discrepancies in the genealogies.
Only if you read Luke. You are ignoring Matthew. It is in Matthew where the Magi are talked about (Luke doesn't mention them).
In Luke, it is because of a decree that the family goes from their home in Nazareth, to Bethlehem, to register for a census (a census that did not occur. We know that because there is no record of a census at that time. Not to mention that there was never a law or order that required people to go to their ancestral homes for a census. It makes no sense, as you would pay taxes in the place you lived, not the place that one of your ancestors lived. More so, Palestine would not have been subject to the census, as they were not under direct Roman rule). After the birth, they return home to Nazareth.
In Matthew, there is no census mentioned, no travel mentioned. Instead, the family already lives in Bethlehem. They don't move to Nazareth until quite some time after the birth of Jesus, and only after they come back from Egypt (as in, they live in Egypt for a couple of years, and then relocated to Nazareth after the fact).
You're combining the two Gospels instead of looking at them separately.
We have at least one historian, Josephus, who writes about the history of Palestine. He wrote about King Herod, as well as his death, and the atrocities he committed. There is no mention of the supposed massacre.
John and Mark, as well as Paul, never mention the massacre of infants by Herod either. Neither does Luke. So what you have is one source, Matthew, and only Matthew, that talks about this supposed historical event, while everyone else ignores it. Not to mention, Luke's account directly contradicts it. If it happened, why didn't Luke mention it, or even seem aware of it?
No. That's not the issue though. I don't have to works about my life stating that my family lived in one town when I was born, while another source contradicts it and says my family lived somewhere else.
The problem here is that you didn't address what I said, and instead are trying to distract from that with meaningless questions.
Then show me. Instead of making a condescending statement, and refusing to address the issues, show me where I'm wrong. Clear up the contradictions instead of ignoring them.
There is a lost letter to the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 5:9 Paul speaks of having written the congregation before. Colossians 4:16 talks of a letter to the church in Laodicea. In 2 Corinthians 2:3-9, a tearful letter is also mentioned, which would have come after 1 Corinthians. That's three letters we no longer have. There are probably more, as Paul was operating for quite some time.
And what makes me think that we don't have those copies? Because no one has found them. Those 25,000 NT manuscripts have been looked over by scholars, and those letters were not among them. They also aren't in the NT canon, so there's that as well. Obviously, Paul didn't think he was writing scripture, nor did his followers.
I don't think either one is "right." I think it is what people decided on. It wasn't inspired. It was something debated for more than a thousand years, and only finally came down to two different ones. Or actually, dozens of different ones, because we also have Orthodox canons, from different Orthodox churches. There is the Latter Day Saints canon. Yeah, so there is still quite a few canons out there, which again, suggests that there was no definitive guide as to which books were meant to be included.
As for discrepancies.
1) 1 Timothy 3:16. It says, "G-d made manifest in the flesh." The earliest manuscripts state, "who was made manifest in the flesh." The difference is quite considerable, as it changes the meaning to imply that Jesus is G-d. The earlier text did not call Jesus G-d.
2) Luke 24:51-53. Some later manuscripts state that "he was removed from them." Earlier texts have an addition. After stating that Jesus was removed from them, it adds, "and he was taken up into heaven." It's a significant addition.
3) Possibly the most famous discrepancy in the NT. Where does Mark end? Some manuscripts have it cut off at 16:8. Others include an addition to 16:8, which sometimes ends with Amen. Or others include verses 9-19.
You're dead wrong here. First, it is not always a group. There have been a number of translations done by just one person. Many of the earlier translations were in fact done by one person. Even today, there are translations done by one person, or at least translations of various books done by one person.
And you didn't address the fact that some of the Hebrew words (especially) don't have a direct translation. We don't know what some of the words mean. For instance, Deuteronomy 33:2, the note that goes along with it is that the Hebrew is uncertain. That happens dozens of times throughout the Old Testament. In fact, I found that one by randomly opening up my Bible.
The two variations you gave are new variations. Compare the KJV to the NRSV. There are far greater differences. Compare the Latin Vulgate to the NRSV. Even more differences.
Translations change for a variety of reasons. Yes, we lares more about the languages, and partially to make them easier to understand. But also because we discover new manuscripts. After the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, and translated, translations changed. Better manuscripts. We no longer rely on the Textus Receptus, as the KJV did. Since 1870, we've found much better manuscripts, and thus the translations have changed.
You are assuming wrong again. You have no idea how old I am, because me being in college means absolutely nothing in regards to my age. My education with the Bible began when I was 8. My pastor, who took me under his wing, used sources from Fuller Theological school. One that did believe that the Bible was the inerrant word of G-d. I was ordained at 18 after going through the course work. So I have that literal teaching of the Bible. I have since rejected it, because I don't think it gives a meaningful understanding of the Bible. I believe it requires one to bury their heads in the sand.
I have sense attended Concordia College, where the majority of my course work has been finished. I've also taken course from Loyola University, and will be returning full-time soon.
I've also taken other courses from a number of schools, because I love learning. As for commentaries, I bought the library of a Lutheran minister, that contained nearly 1,000 books. Many of them commentaries. In addition to that, I have dozens of commentaries myself. And I know the languages. So please don't try to have some sort of meaningless contest here. Instead of comparing rulers, why not show why I'm wrong.
As I showed above, you didn't deal with them. You side stepped them.
I didn't say they were the most. However, the Galatians provided a huge portion of his ministry. It was an example.
If you read the epistles of Paul, they are filled with him having to defend his positions. He's defending his position, and answering new questions.
You are assuming. You are taking one belief, and assuming it means something more. Yes, I don't think the Bible is the inerrant word of G-d. It contradicts itself, so I can't see how it could be. That is a common position within Christianity.
It says nothing about being inspired.
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
@op
The new testemant refutes the old testemant
The new testemant refutes the old testemant