Scriptural Wisdom

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is no contradiction.

Try reading Eccliastes and Revelation side by side -- and throw in some Matthew 6 while you're at it -- and tell me there's no contradiction.

For the record, you can do that or not, entirely up to you. I'm not going to bother doing the literary or literal comparison for you. But if you come back and say again that "there is no contradiction," I will make the assumption that you either haven't done the reading or don't know how to. I might be wrong, but that is what I will assume.

 

[74x12]

Try reading Eccliastes and Revelation side by side -- and throw in some Matthew 6 while you're at it -- and tell me there's no contradiction.

For the record, you can do that or not, entirely up to you. I'm not going to bother doing the literary or literal comparison for you. But if you come back and say again that "there is no contradiction," I will make the assumption that you either haven't done the reading or don't know how to. I might be wrong, but that is what I will assume.

Not to be rude (hopefully I'm not) but I really don't know how you think or how you look at certain passages. As far as I'm concerned there are no contradictions between Ecclesiastes 3:18-22 and the new Testament that can't be explained or understood.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not to be rude (hopefully I'm not) but I really don't know how you think or how you look at certain passages. As far as I'm concerned there are no contradictions between Ecclesiastes 3:18-22 and the new Testament that can't be explained or understood.

Nor do I wish to be rude, but quite honestly, for most of my life I've raised questions such as this, and they were never -- as you put it -- "explained or understood." Rather, what I was presented with was apologetics. And I have yet to see the apologia in which I can't find where the invalid premise has not been inserted -- usually with considerable effort to hide it.

Just out of curiosity, one of the most fascinating bits of apologetics is William Lane Craig's attempt to explain why it was God's goodness that led to the slaughter of the Canaanites, and the rape (yes, RAPE) of their virgin daughters. You should have a look -- see if you can find where he has inserted the lie. Slaughter of the Canaanites | Reasonable Faith

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Gen 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

That’s not Genesis 3:19. That is Ecclesiastes.

Yet & still, vs.20 does reiterate what Jehovah told Adam....”all turn to dust again.” With that Eccl vs.only, I see how you might conclude that it’s the body that is referred to.
But in Genesis 3:19, Jehovah specifically told Adam, “You will return to the ground.” God was talking to Adam the person, not his body. (How would that even work? I talk to people, not their bodies.)

Eccles 9:10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.
So there is a realm of the dead where the dead go and do not work nor plan anything and have not knowledge of what is going on on the earth.

But, Samuel did? Please.
This account is there for us to be aware that demons can imposter the dead! That’s why it’s so imperative that we stay away from such activity! And why the penalty of trying to do so in ancient Israel was so harsh, being linked w/ magic! (Deuteronomy 18:10:12) What force is behind magic, do you think? (Genuine magic, not the “sleight of hand” tricks.) Or fortune telling?

None of scripture say we do not exist.

I just gave you Gen. 3:19, above. That same point is reinforced in Psalms 146:3-4,...”His spirit goes out, he goes back to the ground. In that day his thoughts perish.”
More evidence that it couldn’t have been ‘Samuel.’

Consider: After Saul’s disobedience, Samuel for the rest of his life refused to see Saul. But a witch could make him?

it just couldn’t be! Samuel’s ‘thoughts had perished’!

Furthermore, Psalms 146 succinctly states the dead person’s spirit “goes out”. It is simply the force that keeps us alive... the Hebrew “ruach” and the Greek “pneuma” means breath or wind, impersonal forces. It is just a force. It can be likened to electricity that keeps devices working. When we die, it “goes out”.

Understanding the condition of the dead in this way, is the only interpretation that harmonizes all Scripture. Believing it another way, contradicts these passages I’ve quoted, and makes God’s Word contradictory.

Besides, Jehovah God is fully capable of remembering all the dead, and restoring their memories, behaviors and thought processes. Job 14.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

...rape (yes, RAPE)....

Are you familiar with the account of Dinah & Shechem, found in Genesis 34?

in vs.2, it says Shechem “raped her.” In vs.5, it refers to Dinah as having been “defiled.”

But was it rape, as we understand it? It may not have been.

Vs.5 tells us that, after the deed, Shechem “spoke tenderly to her” / “told her how much he loved her”. She apparently stayed there in his house for a while afterward.

He seduced her...and there may have been consent on her part, to some degree.
And vs.19 calls Shechem, “the most honorable in his Father’s house.”

But the Bible calls that incident, “rape”. A male ‘deflowering’ an unmarried virgin, even with some degree of consent on her part, was often called rape in the Scriptures.
See Deuteronomy 22 24

In discussing the “raping” of Canaanite women...how could that be, since Jehovah denounced sexual relations outside of marriage?

The following is quite informative:

“If the Israelites were commanded to capture a place and kill off the men and the women that were not virgin, they were not free to rape the girls who were preserved alive. That would have been defiling the army, for it would have been committing fornication, immorality. If any Israelite wanted any captive maid he could not have relations with her immediately on capturing her. No, but he must keep himself sanctified for theocratic warfare by following the law that said: “In case you should go out to the battle against your enemies and Jehovah your God has given them into your hand and you have carried them away captive, and you have seen among the captives a woman beautiful in form and you have gotten attached to her and taken her for your wife, then you must bring her into the midst of your house. She must now shave her head and attend to her nails, and remove the garment of her captivity from off her and dwell in your house and weep for her father and her mother a whole month, and after that you should have relations with her and you must take possession of her as your bride and she must become your wife.” (Deut. 21:10-13, NW) Until the military campaign was over and its sanctity had been maintained this sexual contact could not occur with divine approval. If a man called to the army was engaged to a girl, he was relieved of his army obligations for one year that he might go home and take his betrothed one in marriage and have a child by her that he might have an offspring and keep his name alive, that thus he might not be killed in battle childless.—Deut. 20:7; 24:5.”

Source— https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1954843?q="the+sacredness+of+our+warfare"&p=par

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Are you familiar with the account of Dinah & Shechem, found in Genesis 34?

in vs.2, it says Shechem “raped her.” In vs.5, it refers to Dinah as having been “defiled.”

But was it rape, as we understand it? It may not have been.

Vs.5 tells us that, after the deed, Shechem “spoke tenderly to her” / “told her how much he loved her”. She apparently stayed there in his house for a while afterward.

He seduced her...and there may have been consent on her part, to some degree.
And vs.19 calls Shechem, “the most honorable in his Father’s house.”

But the Bible calls that incident, “rape”. A male ‘deflowering’ an unmarried virgin, even with some degree of consent on her part, was often called rape in the Scriptures.
See Deuteronomy 22 24

In discussing the “raping” of Canaanite women...how could that be, since Jehovah denounced sexual relations outside of marriage?

The following is quite informative:

“If the Israelites were commanded to capture a place and kill off the men and the women that were not virgin, they were not free to rape the girls who were preserved alive. That would have been defiling the army, for it would have been committing fornication, immorality. If any Israelite wanted any captive maid he could not have relations with her immediately on capturing her. No, but he must keep himself sanctified for theocratic warfare by following the law that said: “In case you should go out to the battle against your enemies and Jehovah your God has given them into your hand and you have carried them away captive, and you have seen among the captives a woman beautiful in form and you have gotten attached to her and taken her for your wife, then you must bring her into the midst of your house. She must now shave her head and attend to her nails, and remove the garment of her captivity from off her and dwell in your house and weep for her father and her mother a whole month, and after that you should have relations with her and you must take possession of her as your bride and she must become your wife.” (Deut. 21:10-13, NW) Until the military campaign was over and its sanctity had been maintained this sexual contact could not occur with divine approval. If a man called to the army was engaged to a girl, he was relieved of his army obligations for one year that he might go home and take his betrothed one in marriage and have a child by her that he might have an offspring and keep his name alive, that thus he might not be killed in battle childless.—Deut. 20:7; 24:5.”

Source— https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1954843?q="the+sacredness+of+our+warfare"&p=par

Interesting that you stopped at Deut. 21: 10-13, because what follows is: "14 But if you are not pleased with her, you should then let her go wherever she wishes. But you may not sell her for money or treat her harshly, since you have humiliated her."

And also interesting to note that her consent to becoming a wife is neither sought nor required -- and in my view marrying a woman against her will and then have your way with her is still rape.

 

[Colt]

Its frank pessimism. Latter in the Bible books the Son of God incarnates on earth with a positive message of hope. He revealed the heavenly Father in his life.

 

[InChrist]

As most on this forum know, I am an atheist, and as such, I hold that the Bible is written by humans. I hold that it is wrong in many, many ways, both scientifically and historically -- but also morally and ethically -- and over the years I've pointed many of these out. So very often, when somebody says, "I've found a passage that expresses a very real truth," I've only need to flip through a few pages to find another passage that contradicts it completely, which makes it pretty tough for the atheist to take seriously at all.

I have also, by the way, said that I always found that the book of Eccliastes did indeed contain some wisdom. And here's a passage that speaks directly to me -- the atheist -- and at the very same time seems to point to the wisdom of Lucretius's great poem De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things).

My question to Christians is this: do you have to dismiss this passage from the Bible altogether in order to maintain that the Bible is an accurate reflection of "the Christian Message?"

Ecclesiates 3:18-22

I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?

I don’t dismiss the passage you referenced, yet still maintain the overarching theme and message of the Biblical scriptures concerning forgiveness, salvation, and eternal life through the promised Messiah and Savior Jesus Christ (John 3:15-16, one of so many more).

I see that the writer of Ecclesiastes observed when people live solely with a temporal, earthy focus preoccupied with fulfilling their physical needs and passions then they live and die no differently than the animals. Yet, he also saw and alluded throughout the book that human beings do look beyond the physical ( Ecclesiastes 3:11) and think differently than animals. He concludes with thoughts, such as...

...for man goes to his eternal home
Ecclesiastes 12:5

...the dust will return to the earth as it was and the spirit will return to God who gave it. Ecclesiastes 12:7

...Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:

Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.
For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14


The NT reveals that not only is salvation & eternal life found in Christ, but freedom from the corruptible flesh which dies
(1 Corinthians 15:42-56) and that Jesus Christ is the One who will judge good and evil ( John 5:27; Romans 2:16; 2 Timothy 4:1).

I hope you have a good eternity.

 

[Faithofchristian]

As most on this forum know, I am an atheist, and as such, I hold that the Bible is written by humans. I hold that it is wrong in many, many ways, both scientifically and historically -- but also morally and ethically -- and over the years I've pointed many of these out. So very often, when somebody says, "I've found a passage that expresses a very real truth," I've only need to flip through a few pages to find another passage that contradicts it completely, which makes it pretty tough for the atheist to take seriously at all.

I have also, by the way, said that I always found that the book of Eccliastes did indeed contain some wisdom. And here's a passage that speaks directly to me -- the atheist -- and at the very same time seems to point to the wisdom of Lucretius's great poem De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things).

My question to Christians is this: do you have to dismiss this passage from the Bible altogether in order to maintain that the Bible is an accurate reflection of "the Christian Message?"

Ecclesiates 3:18-22

I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?

As for the bible as being written by humans..
have you any clue or idea how and when God chosen those men to write the bible..
Why of course you don't..that's the whole problem with people that go into the bible and are illiterate of the bible..having no understanding or knowledge about how the bible came to be..
The word ( Bible ) simply means books within a book..so what you have is many books contained in a book..

Those men were not as humans as we are..
That's your first mistake...for thinking those men were as much like humans as we are..

Those men were sent by God into this world for one purpose...to write down what God wanted them to write down and no more and no less..they were chosen by God to be his Prophets..
God chosen those men before the foundation of this world ever began...
Back during the first earth age..
We are now in the second earth age..

In your speaking about
Ecclesiastes 3:18-22,
Had you back up and read from the beginning of chapter 3.
You would have found what the subject and article is about..

The subject being about that everything has a time to live and a time to die..
Whether it be people or animals trees.flowers and ect---?

We do do know that we live..but we never know when the time will come that we will die...

But as for there being contradictions in the bible...there is none..
All your doing is misunderstanding what your reading...
Which makes you think there are contradictions in the bible..

And on the other hand that those who translated the Greek and Hebrew language into English...
Did the best that they could with what limited tools they had back at that time
in 1611..
We today have all the necessary tools to help us in the translation of the Greek and Hebrew languages...

Therefore as for Ecclesiastes 3:18-22..
As the writer had written In verse 18.
"I said in my heart, concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beast"

What this means is, that God will test people, and that they might see themselves that they are no better than the beast it's self is that dies..
We all have appointed time to die and when that time comes then we die..
We might not know when that time will come, only God knows when that time will arrive..

 

[Brian2]

That’s not Genesis 3:19. That is Ecclesiastes.

Yet & still, vs.20 does reiterate what Jehovah told Adam....”all turn to dust again.” With that Eccl vs.only, I see how you might conclude that it’s the body that is referred to.
But in Genesis 3:19, Jehovah specifically told Adam, “You will return to the ground.” God was talking to Adam the person, not his body. (How would that even work? I talk to people, not their bodies.)

Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your bread, until you return to the ground— because out of it were you taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.”
We have the same problem here. Man is more than dust, so it does not tell the whole story. Man was made from the dust and returns to the dust but the spirit in men, the breathe of life, which is spirit, goes to the care of God. So no more man, just the parts. The body goes to the dust and the spirit to God. At the resurrection, the standing back up of the man, the spirit, which Jesus calls the soul, which does not die at the death of the body, (Matt 10:28) comes back to get another body, that is immortal and incorruptible. One that is immortal and incorruptible flesh just the same as the one Jesus rose in. (John 2:18-22, Matt 28:6, Luke 24)
Our body is a tent and clothes for our spirit.
2Cor 5:2 For in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4So while we are in this tent, we groan under our burdens, because we do not wish to be unclothed but clothed, so that our mortality may be swallowed up by life.…
In 1Thess 4 the dead in Christ are brought back by Jesus to be resurrected. What is brought back, memories?
Our spirits are more than a life force, they know our mind. (1Cor 2:11)

But, Samuel did? Please.
This account is there for us to be aware that demons can imposter the dead! That’s why it’s so imperative that we stay away from such activity! And why the penalty of trying to do so in ancient Israel was so harsh, being linked w/ magic! (Deuteronomy 18:10:12) What force is behind magic, do you think? (Genuine magic, not the “sleight of hand” tricks.) Or fortune telling?

WE are not using a witch when we see that God used a witch, just as He used Satan in Job and other evil people to do His work.
The Witch was in shock to see a spirit rising up from the floor and I think it says angels also, she did not know what was going on. When that happened she knew this must be Saul she was speaking with. The spirit which God's word tells us, all through the story, was Samuel, was used by God to condemn Saul and tell him a true prophecy. The WT is denying the scripture and using a ridiculous reason that can be seen to be false because of others that God has used.
I don't need to be asked about what force is behind "magic". I know. Saul was condemned by God for using his actions in going to the witch,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but it is plain that it was by God.

I just gave you Gen. 3:19, above. That same point is reinforced in Psalms 146:3-4,...”His spirit goes out, he goes back to the ground. In that day his thoughts perish.”
More evidence that it couldn’t have been ‘Samuel.’

A better translation and in context is "his plans perish".
Our plans perishing does not mean we do not exist as a spirit. If we are asleep our thought disappear.

Consider: After Saul’s disobedience, Samuel for the rest of his life refused to see Saul. But a witch could make him?

God could make him also.
1Sam 15:34,35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
I don't know the grammar of this passage but as it is above it is ambiguous and could mean that Samuel went and say Saul on the day of his death, which he did do.

Furthermore, Psalms 146 succinctly states the dead person’s spirit “goes out”. It is simply the force that keeps us alive... the Hebrew “ruach” and the Greek “pneuma” means breath or wind, impersonal forces. It is just a force. It can be likened to electricity that keeps devices working. When we die, it “goes out”.

Yes we do have a spirit that leaves the body, the definition of physical death in scripture. Our total person then is that spirit and so it is called our soul, and that is what Jesus called the part that does not die at the death of the body. In JW theology the soul does die at the death of the body and so the WT has to explain away Matt 10:28.
God also is "ruach" and that does not make God a force. God is the Father of ruachs, He is not the Father of chemicals. If we are children of God then we must have a ruach that God can be the Father of and that makes Him the Father of the total man also.
I have shown you above that our spirit

Understanding the condition of the dead in this way, is the only interpretation that harmonizes all Scripture. Believing it another way, contradicts these passages I’ve quoted, and makes God’s Word contradictory.

Surely I have shown you that understanding the condition of the dead in this way does not make God's Word contradictory. Surely I have shown you that understanding the condition of the dead in the way the WT teaches does make God's Word contradictory.
If you want more contradictions I'll be happy to hunt some up.

Besides, Jehovah God is fully capable of remembering all the dead, and restoring their memories, behaviors and thought processes. Job 14.

It is interesting that if God made a copy of me now it would be a copy but the WT claims that if God did the same thing after I died it would be me.
Recreation does not work and is not Biblical. Resurrection is the standing back up of the man, just as the scriptures show happened with Jesus. (John 2:18-22, Matt 28:6, Luke 24)
No materialising of bodies there, even the disciples on the road to Emmaus were stopped from recognising him, nothing about "another form" until the end of Mark, which is considered a late addition and contradicts what is said in Luke 24 anyway.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your bread, until you return to the ground— because out of it were you taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.”
We have the same problem here. Man is more than dust, so it does not tell the whole story.

So...Jehovah lied by omission? No. Adam exists nowhere. His spirit, i.e., life force, simply ‘went out.’

I don't need to be asked about what force is behind "magic". I know. Saul was condemned by God for using his actions in going to the witch,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but it is plain that it was by God.

“By God”? Saul acted on his own. Jehovah had nothing to do with it.

Recreation does not work and is not Biblical

Matthew 19:28 Greek Text Analysis
“Regeneration.”

You’re going to believe whatever you want. Pursue your Platonic ideas.

But “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom.” (1 Corinthians 15:50.) There is no physical flesh in heaven. Those who are baptized into Jesus’ death, are resurrected as spirit creatures. As Jesus was. 1 Peter 3:18

I’m done with this...
You take care, cousin.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As for the bible as being written by humans..
have you any clue or idea how and when God chosen those men to write the bible..
Why of course you don't..that's the whole problem with people that go into the bible and are illiterate of the bible..having no understanding or knowledge about how the bible came to be.

I put it to you that you know not a single bit more than I do about "how and when God chosen (sic) thos men to write the bible (sic)."

You can dig up every piece of evidence on that still remains on this planet, and all you find are clay tablets and cuneiform styluses, papyrus and reed and feather pens, and human beings scribbling away. You will never -- not ever -- dig up anything that demonstrates a communication between a deity and one of those humans -- let alone editing and quality assurance to make sure the humans got it right!

 

[74x12]

Interesting that you stopped at Deut. 21: 10-13, because what follows is: "14 But if you are not pleased with her, you should then let her go wherever she wishes. But you may not sell her for money or treat her harshly, since you have humiliated her."

And also interesting to note that her consent to becoming a wife is neither sought nor required -- and in my view marrying a woman against her will and then have your way with her is still rape.

Yes but that's the modern perspective. Speaking of things from the bronze age point of view. There were no rights for war captives. If you were captured in war you're likely to be enslaved or executed. The fact the Mosaic law attempts to regulate the practice means it was the most progressive and forward thinking law of it's day. In fact you won't find any law like it from those times.

The fact they had to marry her was actually an improvement when you consider other nations would likely only make her a slave. Slaves would still be raped. Slaves had no rights; but wives do have some rights.

Jesus indicates that there were laws given by Moses because "the hardness of your hearts". (Matthew 19:8) What that means is that God made allowances for the Hebrews of those days but that doesn't mean he was pleased.

 

[74x12]

We should look at the Law of Moses as slowly bringing people of those times forward in their thinking. Really designed to draw them closer to God over centuries; but they certainly weren't perfect people yet. The Law was more than just religious it was also covering civic life in detail. What we concern ourselves with now is more the spiritual aspect of the Law. Not even modern Judaism keeps to all the civic laws because they're not applicable anymore.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes but that's the modern perspective. Speaking of things from the bronze age point of view. There were no rights for war captives. If you were captured in war you're likely to be enslaved or executed. The fact the Mosaic law attempts to regulate the practice means it was the most progressive and forward thinking law of it's day. In fact you won't find any law like it from those times.

The fact they had to marry her was actually an improvement when you consider other nations would likely only make her a slave. Slaves would still be raped. Slaves had no rights; but wives do have some rights.

Jesus indicates that there were laws given by Moses because "the hardness of your hearts". (Matthew 19:8) What that means is that God made allowances for the Hebrews of those days but that doesn't mean he was pleased.

Rubbish! The Code of Hammurabi was written long, long before Mosaic law -- and the stele on which it is encoded also includes a picture of Hammurabi "receiving it" from Shamash, the Babylonian god of justice. It is by far an earlier version that contains what we now call the "lex talionis," or "eye for an eye" (meaning, "but no more than an eye")

It is also, by the way, one of the very earliest examples of a law in which the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty.

It is also, by the way, an interesting fact that though Hammurabi's Code long predates the Mosaic Law, the Mosaic law bears a lot of striking resemblances to it. So maybe 6th century BCE Israelites were copying -- from the God Shamash?

 

[74x12]

Rubbish! The Code of Hammurabi was written long, long before Mosaic law -- and the stele on which it is encoded also includes a picture of Hammurabi "receiving it" from Shamash, the Babylonian god of justice. It is by far an earlier version that contains what we now call the "lex talionis," or "eye for an eye" (meaning, "but no more than an eye")

It is also, by the way, one of the very earliest examples of a law in which the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty.

It is also, by the way, an interesting fact that though Hammurabi's Code long predates the Mosaic Law, the Mosaic law bears a lot of striking resemblances to it. So maybe 6th century BCE Israelites were copying -- from the God Shamash?

I didn't say that the Law of Moses came first. Actually I said there was no law like it. The code of Hammurabi does not try to tell people how to deal with war captives and furthermore there is one other way the Law of Moses is much more progressive than Hammurabi's law.

The code of Hammurabi is very classist. Your rights and punishments depend on your station in society. The higher your station the more the law favors you. Whereas Moses' law is the same for all Hebrews. I believe that's pretty significant.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I put it to you that you know not a single bit more than I do about "how and when God chosen (sic) thos men to write the bible (sic)."

You can dig up every piece of evidence on that still remains on this planet, and all you find are clay tablets and cuneiform styluses, papyrus and reed and feather pens, and human beings scribbling away. You will never -- not ever -- dig up anything that demonstrates a communication between a deity and one of those humans -- let alone editing and quality assurance to make sure the humans got it right!

I know more than you could even imagine..
You show yourself as not know what you think you know...
It's all evidence that the prophets of God that God chosen them way before this world came into existence..
And if you know anything about the bible you would know that much..unto which you don't anything about the bible as you think you do..

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I know more than you could even imagine...

Try me -- I have a great imagination. Tell us what you know that the rest of us don't, and prove it.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Try me -- I have a great imagination. Tell us what you know that the rest of us don't, and prove it.

Well I know this for sure that there is no contradictions in the bible..
The reason why you think that there are contradictions because you have no clue or idea what the Bible does say and confirm's..
If you believe there are contradictions bring it on...as I love challenges...
But I will guarantee you for every contradiction that you can give I have already proven them wrong that there is no contradictions in the bible...so what do you have that other people have given me and I proven each one wrong..

 

[Thief]

I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?

somewhere it is written.....God does not tempt (test) Man

but anyway........what seems like trail and tribulation
is just the struggle of life

everything is meaningless?

is this the portion that spoke to you?