Those who say the Bible is without contradiction, have obviously never read it!

[1213]

You need to be more precise than that.

Why? What if I just don't know the exact time?

 

[1213]

Believe what you like, but killing infants who have not had time to give any possible reason for it is murder. And just to be clear, it is impossible to kill ALL the first born of Egypt without killing infants, just as it is impossible to wipe out whole populations (the flood or slaughter of the Canaanites) without killing infants.

And, if an innocent righteous person died, we can assume he is in eternal life with God, because:

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Matt. 25:46

In Biblical point of view death of a body is not a problem. I don't think anyone who is innocent and righteous will actually die, even if their "life" on earth ends.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why? What if I just don't know the exact time?

Alright, we know when Herod died. Was Jesus born while Herod was still alive or not according to the myths?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And, if an innocent righteous person died, we can assume he is in eternal life with God, because:

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Matt. 25:46

In Biblical point of view death of a body is not a problem. I don't think anyone who is innocent and righteous will actually die, even if their "life" on earth ends.

Forever trying to explain the bad stuff away, eh? If life isn't value, a thing worth having, then why is murder considered wrong by God? I mean, aren't you just sending somebody to eternal bliss sooner, before they have to suffer all that life stuff?

 

[YellowFeather]

In terms of ancient history ending and a new dispensation beginning; BC changes to AD or BC=Before Christ and changes to AD=Anno Domini or the year of the Lord.


The main two ways I resolve contradictions in the Bible; Old Testament, is an evolving awareness, where although the past was appropriate to the past, as the times change, other conclusion are more appropriate in that future. The Bible is not a point in time, but a collection of points in time that span thousands of years. People are maturing, advancing and the times are changing.

In the case of the New Testament, it was written 150-200 hundred years after the fact. If you were an historian trying to write about the past, you would do your research and if two different accounts appeared, since you were not around to break the tie, if you were honest, you would include both, and not try to game the system by picking your favorite. If both descendants of these witnesses, seemed to be sincere, use both. Usually this occur from two different disciples and two different witnesses; wording differences.

If you were trying to describe the political environment today, the hack writer would paint a one sided picture to promote their favorite side; fake news, and distort the other side. The objective reporter would present both sides, each side in their own words, which will lead to an ambiguous story, that the audience will get to judge. That is how journalism used to be. This mutation has to do with feminism. When I was younger the adult men preferred the newspaper and TV news from trusted national sources; Walter Cronkite. While women preferred the National Enquirer; gossip rag at the super market checkout. Fake news is like the modern gossip rag, with Liberalism feminized ,so even their men are like the women of old.

Too many people who try to knit pick the Bible, are like those who read fictional detective stories where an intricate tangled plot is all connected by the time you finish the story. That is not how reality works, but more like fake news running a clever scam for fun and profit, sanitized to woke and PC nonsense standards; fictional like the Russian Collusion rehearsed Reality TV series.

The Old Testament is about the History of Earth being made and the beginning of life. The New Testament is about now and how God wants us to live for him and what will start happening as the end gets closer and closer. We are now experiencing those things that God said would happen and are now happening. I have studied the Bible to the fullest and understand the whole word of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Old Testament is about the History of Earth being made and the beginning of life. The New Testament is about now and how God wants us to live for him and what will start happening as the end gets closer and closer. We are now experiencing those things that God said would happen and are now happening. I have studied the Bible to the fullest and understand the whole word of God.

No, there is not much history in the Old Testament. Large parts of it are myths and legends. As for the New Testament, people have always said that we are in the Last Days. And those were supposed to have started while at least some of the disciples were still alive.

 

[YellowFeather]

No, there is not much history in the Old Testament. Large parts of it are myths and legends. As for the New Testament, people have always said that we are in the Last Days. And those were supposed to have started while at least some of the disciples were still alive.

The bible is only true to those who are of God and have a new life that has only loving people. Those who do not believe in the Bible are lost souls that need to find God before the end comes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The bible is only true to those who are of God and have a new life that has only loving people. Those who do not believe in the Bible are lost souls that need to find God before the end comes.

Now that is just bad reasoning on your part, and an actual admission that it is mostly a book of myths. A more sensible approach is that some of it is true and that some is not, but it still teaches valuable lessons. As I like to point out, if one claims that Genesis is literally true then one is claiming that God is a liar.

 

[YellowFeather]

Now that is just bad reasoning on your part, and an actual admission that it is mostly a book of myths. A more sensible approach is that some of it is true and that some is not, but it still teaches valuable lessons. As I like to point out, if one claims that Genesis is literally true then one is claiming that God is a liar.

The Whole Bible is True. I have studied it and I know the word of God. I can answer your questions that you think are not true in the bible. The Bible takes true patience and will to want to know the truth. Most people just read a few verses and then makeup in their head the rest. The bible has 66 books that take a lot of patients to read and believe in. Those who have the true knowledge of God and follow God will be of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Whole Bible is True. I have studied it and I know the word of God. I can answer your questions that you think are not true in the bible. The Bible takes true patience and will to want to know the truth. Most people just read a few verses and then makeup in their head the rest. The bible has 66 books that take a lot of patients to read and believe in. Those who have the true knowledge of God and follow God will be of God.

Then can you explain why you claim that God is a liar?

 

[YellowFeather]

Then can you explain why you claim that God is a liar?

God is not a liar, You need to give me a verse from the Bible that gives you that feeling. I will answer you.

 

[Spiderman]

Josephus said of Herod's painful death: "an intolerable itching of the whole skin, continuous pains in the intestines, tumors in the feet as in dropsy, inflammation of the abdomen and gangrene of the privy parts, engendering worms, in addition to asthma, with great difficulty in breathing, and convulsions in all his limbs." (Jewish Wars 1:656)

The problem with the dating of his death when considering Bible chronology is that some put it in the year 5 or 4 BCE based primarily upon Josephus' history. In dating Herod's being appointed as king by Rome Josephus uses a consular dating, which is a location of events occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls. According to this method Herod was appointed as king in 40 BCE, but another historian - Appian - set the event in 39 BCE.

Josephus places Herod's capture of Jerusalem at 37 BCE but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey which was in 63 BCE (Jewish Antiquities 14:487) So in that case the date of Herod taking the city of Jerusalem would be 36 BCE so 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans and 34 years after he took Jerusalem (Jewish Antiquities 17:188) would indicate the date of his death as 2 or 1 BCE.

It might be that Josephus counted the reigns of the kings of Judea by the accession year method which was used in the case with the kings of the line of David.

If Herod was appointed king in 40 BCE his first regnal year would probably begin at Nisan 39 to Nisan 38 BCE. If counted from the capture of Jerusalem in 37 or 36 BCE his first regnal year would have started in Nisan 36 or 35 BCE. So, if Herod died 37 years after his appointment by Rome and 34 years after his capture of Jerusalem and those years are counted both according to his regnal year his death would have been 1 BCE.

In The Journal of Theological Studies (Edited by H. Chadwick and H. Sparks, Oxford, 1966, Vol. XVII, p. 284), W. E. Filmer indicates that Jewish tradition says that Herod's death occurred on Shevat (January - February) 2.

Josephus stated that Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover (Jewish Antiquities 17:164). There was a partial eclipse on March 11, 4 BCE (March 13, Julian) and so some conclude that this was the eclipse mentioned by Josephus, but there was a total eclipse of the moon in 1 BCE about three months before Passover on January 8 (January 10, Julian) 18 days before Shevat 2 the traditional day of Herod's death.

There was also another partial eclipse on December 27 (December 29, Julian).

Most scholars date Herod's death as 4 BCE citing the March 11 eclipse as proof and so place the birth of Jesus as early as 5 BCE, but that eclipse was only 36 percent magnitude and early in the morning. The other two taking place in 1 BCE would both fit the requirement of having taken place not long before Passover. The one of December 27 would have been observable in Jerusalem but not as a conspicuous event. Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses (p. 343), says the moon was passing out of the earth's shadow as twilight fell in Jerusalem so by the time it was dark the moon was shining full. That particular one isn't included in the Manfred Kudlek and Erich Mickler listing. I personally think you can rule that one out because it is uncertain that it was visible in Jerusalem.

The January 8, 1 BCE was a total eclipse where the moon was blacked out for 1 hour and 41 minutes and would have been noticed. (Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East From 3000 BC to 0 With Maps, by M. Kudlek and E. H. Mickler; Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany; 1971, Vol. I, p. 156.)

Also, the calculation of Herod's age at the time of death is thought to be about 70, according to Josephus and he received his appointment as governor of Galilee (generally dated 47 BCE) when he was 15, though scholars think that to be an error that should read 25. Though Josephus has many inconsistencies in his dating of events and is not the most reliable source. The most reliable source is the Bible itself.

The evidence is pretty clear that Herod likely died in the year 1 BCE as Luke says that John began baptizing in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. (Luke 3:1-3) Augustus died on August 17, 14 CE. On September 15, Tiberius was named emperor by the Roman Senate. They (the Romans) didn't use the accession year method so the 15th year would have run from the latter part of 28 CE to the latter part of 29 CE.

John was six months older than Jesus and began his ministry in the spring of that year (Luke 1:35-36) Jesus was born in the fall of the year and was about 30 years old when he came to John to be baptized (Luke 3:21-23) putting his baptism in the fall - about October of 29 CE. Counting back about 30 years would put us at the fall of 2 BCE, the birth of Jesus. Probably the first week of October. Daniel's prophecy of "70 weeks" points to the same time (Daniel 9:24-27) From the year 455 BCE when King Artaxerxes of Persia, in the 20th year of his rule, in the month of Nisan, gave the order to rebuild the wall of the city of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1-8) to 29 CE when Jesus was baptized was 69 weeks or 483 years.

Do you think the death of king Herod, the intolerable itching everywhere, tumors, intestine pain, gangrene genitals, worms, convulsions while having torturous terrorizing asthma attacks and difficulty breathing, a worse way to die than most serial killer victims face, (and because of how long it lasted , easily worse than wearing a crown of thorns and being nailed to a cross for a day)...

...do you think his death with such afflictions was a sign of a curse or the wrath of God? Is this the same Herod who built some of the Temple and had the title "King of the Jews " before Jesus did?

Do you feel God would eventually end his torment , or make it continue in the next life? Could it be that his suffering was atoning for his sins, in union with the passion of Christ, to make him purged and fit for heaven (or place of purgation that isn't hell, the place Jesus says there will be " wailing and gnashing of teeth ...where the worm does not die").

What made you interested in the history of the early Roman Empire, and are you a reliable source?

 

[YellowFeather]

Do you think the death of king Herod, the intolerable itching everywhere, tumors, intestine pain, gangrene genitals, worms, convulsions while having torturous terrorizing asthma attacks and difficulty breathing, a worse way to die than most serial killer victims face, (and because of how long it lasted , easily worse than wearing a crown of thorns and being nailed to a cross for a day)...

...do you think his death with such afflictions was a sign of a curse or the wrath of God? Is this the same Herod who built some of the Temple and had the title "King of the Jews " before Jesus did?

Do you feel God would eventually end his torment , or make it continue in the next life? Could it be that his suffering was atoning for his sins, in union with the passion of Christ, to make him purged and fit for heaven (or place of purgation that isn't hell, the place Jesus says there will be " wailing and gnashing of teeth ...where the worm does not die").

What made you interested in the history of the early Roman Empire, and are you a reliable source?

God is not the one causing pain to man, Man is the one that causes pain and follows Satan who rules the world. God gave man the mind to use properly and choses to follow in sin. God does allow this because God wants man to decide own his own what life he choses to live. Majority of man choses to live in hate, war, and destruction. That they created. Those who fall away from this world of sin and obey God now will have a good life and one to follow.

 

[Spiderman]

When you raise your children to hate and to follow in the worlds ways then that is what they will do. God does not want anyone on the new earth to hate, kill or hurt others but only to love. Those who teach their children now to believe and obey God and treat others with respect and kindness are the ones God wants on his new kingdom.

Then why did God create forbidden fruit to tempt Eve if he was not looking for an excuse to kill her? And he invited that serpent to approach his daughter to lead her into self destructive behavior and fall into the snare God set for her, then he claims to be perfect for killing his daughter for eating a piece of fruit he told her not to, and she was so uneducated, so naive she didn't even know she was naked, and she was listening to a talking serpent (what would be grounds for the insanity plea by law).

Such people are not culpable usually for getting the death penalty in America, because there is a certain level of naivety , not having the mental faculties to know you are culpable for a crime. Not knowing you are naked and listening to a talking serpent tell you to commit a crime, usually means you need medical care in a facility, eligible for the insanity plea if you are serious, not prison for a crime, certainly not the death penalty for eating a piece of fruit you shouldn't.

A father on the other hand, who created the deadly fruit, knowing it was so that he could have an excuse to kill his daughter, lay a snare for her, multiply labor pains in women so that death during childbirth was the number one reason women were not living to see the age of 30 for thousands of years...

Killing people for crimes of their ancestors is what people do in north Korea. They will punish three generations, so that their descendants are born in concentration camps, suffering for a crime they don't probably know about .

The God of scripture did something more cruel, over the forbidden fruit that he created. And Isaiah 45 says "I create evil, I the Lord do these things".

We need to call God out on his cruelty, because he knows better, and is not naive or clueless. I also prefer to invoke the people that are victimized by him, died naked and humiliated, tortured, terrorized, and petrified at the hand of a monster(s) and they don't get a resurrection, ascension into heaven, or billions of people worshipping them .

And they aren't serial killers or terrorists like the Bible verifies and proves Yahweh (the God of the Bible) is. I consider victims of serial killers to be above their killer, regardless of how much more powerful, ingenious, handsome, eloquent, artistic, talented, or intriguing their killer is.

We need to encourage the God of scripture to stop being a predator, stop letting devils and monsters go around raping and destroying Everything, stop causing plagues, pestilence, famine, and wars and evil regimes to rise so that in our desperation we turn to him.

He should give us positive motive to turn to him, not out of fear , but because he is actually likeable. He needs a good girlfriend like in beauty and the beast. He needs to be reborn, become a new creation.

 

[YellowFeather]

When God created man, God also wanted man to understand who was to be obeyed. So God told Adam and Eve not to touch or eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil or they would die. God told Adam and Eve what would happen to them. They chose to disobey God and eat from the tree that created sin and death. Genesis 2:17

 

[YellowFeather]

If Adam and Eve had not eaten from the tree of life they would still be alive today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God is not a liar, You need to give me a verse from the Bible that gives you that feeling. I will answer you.

Then you cannot have it both ways. If God is not a liar then the book of Genesis cannot be read as history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If Adam and Eve had not eaten from the tree of life they would still be alive today.

We can show that there never were just two people. And people have always died, even before they were "people".

 

[YellowFeather]

A baby cannot make a baby, so the first two adults had to be created for life to reproduce. People did not start dying until Adam and Eve disobeyed God and created sin and death for life. Your Car. there are many many cars now. It started with one car that the person Ford created. Then multiple cars where then made from it. and now we have 1000s of cars. That started with one car. Everything start with one. then multiples from it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A baby cannot make a baby, so the first two adults had to be created for life to reproduce. People did not start dying until Adam and Eve disobeyed God and created sin and death for life. Your Car. there are many many cars now. It started with one car that the person Ford created. Then multiple cars where then made from it. and now we have 1000s of cars. That started with one car. Everything start with one. then multiples from it.

No, life is the product of evolution. Are you willing to learn at least the basics of science? And cars cannot reproduce with variation. Your analogy fails.

Do you want to know how we know that the Earth is billions of years old? Do you want to know how we know that there never was a worldwide flood?

Or maybe we could skip the science and go over how history refutes parts of the Bible.