Is the Bible too Contradictory for All of it to be True?

[omega2xx]

Can you prove no other work has been inspired by G-d? Statements of faith can't be proven, and that's really what you have here. And I'm happy with disagreement, as it encourages conversation, and both parties can learn. I'm open to people disagreeing with me. I do expect them to offer a real argument though, and not just demand that I accept their truth, without explaining why.

You answer my question first---how do you know something written by man about religion is true?

Statements of faith ar proven to the individual by the Holy Spirit. I KNOW I have been justified by faith. I KNOW I have eternal life. I can't prove those statement to anyone, but I don't need to. My relationship to God is personal. Now if you say I can't know those things, it is up to up to prove I can't.

Sure it will. History helps a lot in understanding the Bible. To fully realize Jesus, one has to understand the historical period in which he is coming from. To understand what the prophets said, one has to understand their historical periods. That is why there is a considerable amount of the Bible focused on history.

Not true. The historical period will not help me understand that Jesus is the Messiah, that He came to earth to die for man sins, etc, The secular history of that period is mixed. Some say He lived, some say He didn't. Some say He was divine, some say He was a trouble maker. How can 2 views in history point to the truth? All either side has done is point to their opinion and both opinions can be truthful.

All I need to do to understand what a prophet said is to read what he said and in most cases, study it in context with other passages. There is some history in the Bible, but the Bible is not focused on it. The focus in the Bible is the person and work of Jesus Christ.

 

[Muffled]

@omega2xx when Jesus enters a life, what does he do?

I believe He does a little dance; sings a little song and gets down and boogies. Have you never been to a charismatic service?

 

[fallingblood]

You answer my question first...

I'm done. I've continually answered your questions, and really to no avail, because you refuse to have an open discussion here. There is no point to continue if you continually refuse to address the points I raise.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm done. I've continually answered your questions, and really to no avail, because you refuse to have an open discussion here. There is no point to continue if you continually refuse to address the points I raise.

I have address them, if you don think so, you are doing the right thing.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Alot of people make this one mistake with the bible. They will pick out one verse and go to another verse, and say look it's contradicting it's self.

Not realizing that those Verse's are talking about two different events.

If they had went back to the beginning of the Chapter and read on pass the verse they are talking about, they may find what they thought, is not what they thought at all.
If people had ever done a book report in school, the first thing they are taught to do. Is find out what the Article and Subject is about,
Therefore at the beginning of a Chapter may well tell you what the Chapter is about and who it concerns.
This being the Article and Subject of the Chapter.
It's always best to find out what the subject is about first.and then you will know what each Verse is about and who it concerns.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Non-believers can't understand the Bible(1 Cor 2:14). Why don't you post their best 2 or 3 examples and see it they really understand what they say are contradictions.

It's not only Unbelievers that can't understand the bible, There are lot of Christians that can't understand the bible either.
Seeing you gave 1 Cor 2:14, that tells me that you believe that you have Spiritual discernment.
In the book of Mark 13 Christ Jesus gave what the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is and when it will happen and who can commit it.
Now can you give the Spiritual discernment to this?

 

[Thief]

Is the Bible too contradictory for all of it to be true? I've heard that said about the Bible, but I don't know enough about it. What do you think?

you don't know enough about it?

I got here late....sorry
so let me ask......have you read the book?.....and which version was it?

 

[Sunstone]

you don't know enough about it?

I got here late....sorry
so let me ask......have you read the book?.....and which version was it?

Reading isn't the same as studying, Thief. I'm no biblical scholar and I even play one on the internet.

 

[Thief]

Reading isn't the same as studying, Thief. I'm no biblical scholar and I even play one on the internet.

let's play...

are miracles to be believed as printed?
they cannot be explained
should they be used as ...proof?

and the Carpenter said so.....
that you know the Lord is the Lord....even on the Sabbath
and then he healed a man his flesh

the Carpenter was accused of work on the Sabbath.....true?
contrary to Jewish law?.....the truth?

did the miracle really happen?.....is the account true?

and when you decide what to believe......is that the truth in your head?

 

[Faithofchristian]

You mean that contradictions such as

2 Samuel 8:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen.

1 Chronicles 18:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven thousand horsemen.
​

are too complicated to discern?


.

There is no contradiction here.

What you have here is two whole different battles that happen with David, At two different times.

The first battle is recorded in 2 Samuel Chapter 8.
Notice in Verse 1, that David smote the Philistines and subdued them, and David took Me- theg-am-mah out of the hand of the Philistines.

Now Notice in 1Chronicles 18:1 That David smote the Philistines and subdued them, and took Gath"
Notice took Gath, where as in 2 Samuel 8:1 David took Me- theg-am-mah,
This being two different towns, so being two different battles.

Now Notice in 2 Samuel 8:3 that David went to recover his border at the river Euphrates.

Now Notice in 1 Chronicles 18:3, That at this time David went to stablish his Dominion by the river Euphrates.

The first time David went to recover his border at the river Euphrates. 2 Samuel 8:3

Then in 1 Chronicles 18:3 David went to stablish his Dominion by the river Euphrates.

The first time David took a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen
2 Samuel 8:4.

And then the second time, David took a thousand chariots and seven thousand horsemen.

Therefore these two battles are two different battles. And not to be taken as the same battles.

The first battle David went to recover his border by the river Euphrates.
2 Samuel 8:3

And then in the second battle David went to stablish his Dominion by the river Euphrates. 1 Chronicles 18:3.

The first time David took
Me-theg-am-mah. from the hand of the Philistines, 2 Samuel 8:1.

Then the second time David took Gath and her towns out of the hand of the Philistines. 1 Chronicles 18:1

Therefore you have two whole different battles being done. At different times.
Therefore the first battle David took a thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen
2 Samuel 8:4

And then the second battle David took a thousand chariots and seven thousand horsemen. 1 Chronicles 18:4.

Therefore there is no Contradictions.
Just two different battles at different times.

Had you back up to the beginning of the Chapter and started to read down, Then you would haved seen there were two different battles at two different times.

But instead you do as alot of people do. Is pick one or two Verse's and try to build a whole mountain out of it. Instead of picking up the what Article and Subject is about.

 

[Skwim]

There is no contradiction here.

What you have here is two whole different battles that happen with David, At two different times.

The first battle is recorded in 2 Samuel Chapter 8.
Notice in Verse 1, that David smote the Philistines and subdued them, and David took Me- theg-am-mah out of the hand of the Philistines.

Now Notice in 1Chronicles 18:1 That David smote the Philistines and subdued them, and took Gath"
Notice took Gath, where as in 2 Samuel 8:1 David took Me- theg-am-mah,
This being two different towns, so being two different battles.

I'm only bothering with your first "no-contradiction" because it's obvious you haven't done your homework.

2 Samuel 8:1 (ERV)
After this, David defeated and subdued the Philistines by conquering Gath, their largest town.

2 Samuel 8:1 (TLB)
After this David subdued and humbled the Philistines by conquering Gath, their largest city.


2 Samuel 8:1 (NLT)
After this, David defeated and subdued the Philistines by conquering Gath, their largest town.
​

And why have these translations chosen to use "Gath" instead of Metheg-ammah?

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
Took Metheg-ammah.--No place of this name is known. The first word means bridle, and the other is probably, although not certainly, a derivation from the word mother, and has the sense metropolis. The translation will then be, took the bridle (i.e., the key) of the metropolis, and this seems sustained by the parallel phrase in 1Chronicles 18:1, "took Gath and her towns (lit daughters)." Gath appears to have been already the principal among the five Philistine cities (1Samuel 27:2), and with the rest of the country remained tributary to Solomon (1Kings 4:21; 1Kings 4:24).
_______

Pulpit Commentary
Metheg-ammah means "the bridle of the mother city." We learn from the parallel place (1 Chronicles 18:1) that the city of Gath is meant by this phrase. Gath was at this time the metropolis of Philistia, and had reduced the other four chief towns to a state of vassalage. Thus by taking Gath, his old city of refuge (1 Samuel 27:2), David acquired also the supremacy which she had previously exercised over the whole country, and by placing a strong garrison there, as previously the Philistines had done in the towns of Israel, he kept that martial race in awe. It denotes great progress in the arts of war that David could besiege and capture a town so strong as Gath.
________

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
1. David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines—that is, Gath and her suburban towns (1Ch 18:1). That town had been "a bridle" by which the Philistines kept the people of Judah in check. David used it now as a barrier to repress that restless enemy.
source​

So it was the same battle where the Bible reports that David took from him a both thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen and a thousand chariots and seven thousand horsemen.

Have a good day.
.​

 

[savagewind]

So I say I am right and you will say your right.
So we're stuck. With which Translation is right.
.

You have got to be kidding.

How can people say that God will not allow the Bible to be changed and also say that there are different translations which makes one right and some wrong and makes reading them "confusing"?

 

[Faithofchristian]

You have got to be kidding.

How can people say that God will not allow the Bible to be changed and also say that there are different translations which makes one right and some wrong and makes reading them "confusing"?

First where is that Written at, that God will not allow the bible, His word to be changed?

All God said, not to add unto his word nor take from his word.
Deuteronomy 4:2--"You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it"

So how much does a person know the bible, God's word, to know when or how it's been tampered with.

There are those people who believe in a rapture, but a person will not find it in the KJV 1611, But in the NIV you will find it.

The KJV 1611 which came to be first, Then much later the NIV came.

The NIV was put out to give support to the Rapture Theory.and other such things.
So the NIV changed the KJV 1611.
Just to support people's Agenda to support their rapture theory.

But God never said this will not happen nor did God said that he will not allow it.

All God did is give warning not to add to or take away from his word.

But as it is people have added to and taken away from his word.

 

[savagewind]

First where is that Written at, that God will not allow the bible, His word to be changed?

.

You must be new here or do you not read other people's posts.
I do not argue that God will not allow God's words to be changed.
But, it seems to me, that there are a lot of people who are willing to fight to the death
to protect that idea.
If you really want the scriptures that show them it's true I can get them, but later, if I remember.

 

[savagewind]

There are those people who believe in a rapture, but a person will not find it in the KJV 1611, But in the NIV you will find it.

I think that the rapture is just another way of looking at the fact that God will not allow any lasting harm to God's children. When the situation becomes like they believe in, then to be raptured just means that the evil which they believe comes cannot get them. So they devise a picture in their minds like flying. LOL

 

[Faithofchristian]

I'm only bothering with your first "no-contradiction" because it's obvious you haven't done your homework.

2 Samuel 8:1 (ERV)
After this, David defeated and subdued the Philistines by conquering Gath, their largest town.

2 Samuel 8:1 (TLB)
After this David subdued and humbled the Philistines by conquering Gath, their largest city.


2 Samuel 8:1 (NLT)
After this, David defeated and subdued the Philistines by conquering Gath, their largest town.
​

And why have these translations chosen to use "Gath" instead of Metheg-ammah?

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
Took Metheg-ammah.--No place of this name is known. The first word means bridle, and the other is probably, although not certainly, a derivation from the word mother, and has the sense metropolis. The translation will then be, took the bridle (i.e., the key) of the metropolis, and this seems sustained by the parallel phrase in 1Chronicles 18:1, "took Gath and her towns (lit daughters)." Gath appears to have been already the principal among the five Philistine cities (1Samuel 27:2), and with the rest of the country remained tributary to Solomon (1Kings 4:21; 1Kings 4:24).
_______

Pulpit Commentary
Metheg-ammah means "the bridle of the mother city." We learn from the parallel place (1 Chronicles 18:1) that the city of Gath is meant by this phrase. Gath was at this time the metropolis of Philistia, and had reduced the other four chief towns to a state of vassalage. Thus by taking Gath, his old city of refuge (1 Samuel 27:2), David acquired also the supremacy which she had previously exercised over the whole country, and by placing a strong garrison there, as previously the Philistines had done in the towns of Israel, he kept that martial race in awe. It denotes great progress in the arts of war that David could besiege and capture a town so strong as Gath.
________

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
1. David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines—that is, Gath and her suburban towns (1Ch 18:1). That town had been "a bridle" by which the Philistines kept the people of Judah in check. David used it now as a barrier to repress that restless enemy.
source​

So it was the same battle where the Bible reports that David took from him a both thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen and a thousand chariots and seven thousand horsemen.

Have a good day.
.​

Why does, ERV, TLB, NLT, have different translations. To throw people like you into confusion.
Ok so let's take Me-theg-am-mah in
2 Samuel 8:3. It's the same name Gath in
1 Chronicles 18:3.

You made a good point, which I should've look at myself by going to the Strong's Concordance of the Hebrew Translation.

And in my companion Bible which has the Hebrew and Greek manual Scripts translated into English and has the appendix to the companion Bible that gives the translation for each word.

But in looking at both 2 Samuel 8:3 and
1 Chronicles 18:3,
You will Notice in 2 Samuel 8:3 it has David went to Recover.
And then in 1 Chronicles 18:3 it has David went to Stablish his Dominion.

Two words with different meaning
Recover means to Recover what you had before.
Stablish, means to Stablish yourself in good standing.

What you done is caught the mistranslations, so what you did is dig it out to find the translation.

That's why in to days world we have the tools to translate words to get a better understanding of each word.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You must be new here or do you not read other people's posts.
I do not argue that God will not allow God's words to be changed.
But, it seems to me, that there are a lot of people who are willing to fight to the death
to protect that idea.
If you really want the scriptures that show them it's true I can get them, but later, if I remember.

I was only letting you know, what other people will say, just shows them, that they themselves have no idea about what the Bible, God's word will say or confirm's.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I think that the rapture is just another way of looking at the fact that God will not allow any lasting harm to God's children. When the situation becomes like they believe in, then to be raptured just means that the evil which they believe comes cannot get them. So they devise a picture in their minds like flying. LOL

Yes, that's why they put forth the NIV to give support to their Rapture Theory.

Since the KJV 1611 gives no support to their Rapture Theory.
So they put forth the NIV to support their Rapture Theory.

 

[savagewind]

I was only letting you know, what other people will say, just shows them, that they themselves have no idea about what the Bible, God's word will say or confirm's.

I have no idea what you are saying in that post (above).
Will say?
Will confirm?
NO idea?

 

[savagewind]

Yes, that's why they put forth the NIV to give support to their Rapture Theory.

Since the KJV 1611 gives no support to their Rapture Theory.
So they put forth the NIV to support their Rapture Theory.

I do not know what scripture in the NIV they use to support their idea. Do you?