Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeSome of these blatantly don't match up at all!
GE 4:16 Cain went away (or out) from the presence of the Lord.
JE 23:23-24 A man cannot hide from God. God fills heaven and earth.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 11:9 At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world.
1CO 14:33 Paul says that ...[text shortened]...
GA 3:19 The law was ordained through angels by a mediator (an intermediary).
etc etc etc
Genesis 2 involves God bringing the various animals and creatures before Adam to see what he would name them, etc.
It has nothing to do with him creating them after Adam.
it's like you are trying to make the perfect compilation of willfully misreading & doing bad takes to manufacture contradictions.
Hardly masterful.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @philokaliaHe just copy-and-pasted from an atheist website and he expects believers to go to the trouble of copy-and-pasting the refutations.
Some of these blatantly don't match up at all!
Genesis 2 involves God bringing the various animals and creatures before Adam to see what he would name them, etc.
It has nothing to do with him creating them after Adam.
it's like you are trying to make the perfect compilation of willfully misreading & doing bad takes to manufacture contradictions.
Hardly masterful.
The refutations are out there; I’m just not going to waste time getting in a copy-and-paste duel with a lying troll.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29783
Originally posted by @philokaliaI understand sir. Contradictions can be difficult to accept.
Some of these blatantly don't match up at all!
Genesis 2 involves God bringing the various animals and creatures before Adam to see what he would name them, etc.
It has nothing to do with him creating them after Adam.
it's like you are trying to make the perfect compilation of willfully misreading & doing bad takes to manufacture contradictions.
Hardly masterful.
I note you said 'some' of them don't match up. Care to discuss the ones you think 'do' match up? (And as an aside, do you think just one clear contradiction would be sufficient to discredit the Bible's divine authorship, bearing in mind God's infallibility? )
Take, for example:
EX 34:6-7 God remembers sin, even when it has been forgiven.
JE 31:34 God does not remember sin when it has been forgiven.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYour Hebrews citation is wrong and the Jeremiah citation refers to the New Covenant (in the future.)
I understand sir. Contradictions can be difficult to accept.
I note you said 'some' of them don't match up. Care to discuss the ones you think 'do' match up? (And as an aside, do you think just one clear contradiction would be sufficient to discredit the Bible's divine authorship, bearing in mind God's infallibility? )
Take, for example:
...[text shortened]... even when it has been forgiven.
JE 31:34 God does not remember sin when it has been forgiven.
Do you even look up what you’re quoting?
Like I advised before, find a better atheist website. The one you’re using - where you undoubtedly got the “talking snake” in Genesis and the Bible being written “decades apart” - is full of banana peels.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29783
31 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeJeremiah 31:34 tells us, "...for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
I understand sir. Contradictions can be difficult to accept.
I note you said 'some' of them don't match up. Care to discuss the ones you think 'do' match up? (And as an aside, do you think just one clear contradiction would be sufficient to discredit the Bible's divine authorship, bearing in mind God's infallibility? )
Take, for example:
...[text shortened]... even when it has been forgiven.
JE 31:34 God does not remember sin when it has been forgiven.
Any reasonable theist want to equate that with EX 34:6-7, "...maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”
If God does not remember sin when it is forgiven, why is he punishing future generations for said sins?!
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeThe Jeremiah verse refers to the (then) future New Covenant God would make with man. Here’s Jeremiah 31:31-34
Jeremiah 31:34 tells us, "...for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
Any reasonable theist want to equate that with EX 34:6-7, "...maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of th ...[text shortened]... oes not remember sin when it is forgiven, why is he punishing future generations for said sins?!
“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
Exodus refers to the Old Covenant.
And what about that Hebrews verse? Hebrews 9:27 had nothing to do with any of this.
Very sloppy, Heartpence. Yet another banana peel for you. It’s like your feet are magnetized to them.
Better stick to trolling and posting Google quotes.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
31 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYour post has been completely busted - most notably your erroneous Hebrews citation - and now you’re acting like a little child.
Look forward to hearing from a reasonable theist.
And you want people to believe you’re not only an adult but a mental health professional who supervises other mental health professionals? Hilarious!
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI see you removed your erroneous Hebrews citation. That’s good - dishonest but glad you fixed your mistake. Next time, look up the Bible verse before you quote it?
I understand sir. Contradictions can be difficult to accept.
I note you said 'some' of them don't match up. Care to discuss the ones you think 'do' match up? (And as an aside, do you think just one clear contradiction would be sufficient to discredit the Bible's divine authorship, bearing in mind God's infallibility? )
Take, for example:
...[text shortened]... even when it has been forgiven.
JE 31:34 God does not remember sin when it has been forgiven.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29783
Hebrews 6:17:
'So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath,'
The Bible God, OT and NT, is 'unchanging'. If forgiven sins are forgotten in one then they should be forgotten in the other. (Not held against future generations).
31 May 18
Does "visiting iniquity" mean refusing forgiveness at the time of judgment in the afterlife?
The sin, spanning over generations is referred to in some commentary as a generational curse. Likened to things we see current day that are passed on from parents to children. Child abuse, sexual abuse, addiction problems, etc. Not to say that an individual who repents with a humble heart can't break the cycle.
But getting back to my original question. Since you have cited this as a contradiction, please define "visiting iniquity," demonstrate how it eliminates forgiveness at judgment, and finally, demonstrate how God's character contradicts itself by "visiting iniquity" for some and forgiving individuals at judgment.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29783
31 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyWill do Tom.
Does "visiting iniquity" mean refusing forgiveness at the time of judgment in the afterlife?
The sin, spanning over generations is referred to in some commentary as a generational curse. Likened to things we see current day that are passed on from parents to children. Child abuse, sexual abuse, addiction problems, etc. Not to say that an individual w ...[text shortened]... racter contradicts itself by "visiting iniquity" for some and forgiving individuals at judgment.
Will address these point later this evening.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
31 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeThe erroneous Hebrews citation you posted and then removed was Hebrews 9:27.
Hebrews 6:17:
'So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath,'
The Bible God, OT and NT, is 'unchanging'. If forgiven sins are forgotten in one then they should be forgotten in the other. (Not held against future generations).
I don’t expect you to admit it. Being a liar and troll are apparently parts of your “impeccable morality.”
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29783
31 May 18
For the benefit of the thread, the previous(original) Hebrews reference is STILL there. (Second post on the previous page). My second reference to Hebrews is a DIFFERENT passage to highlight the 'unchanging' nature of God.
It's tiresome to have to constantly explain this stuff.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYes, everyone please check the second post on the previous page for the Hebrews verse.
For the benefit of the thread, the previous(original) Hebrews reference is STILL there. (Second post on the previous page). My second reference to Hebrews is a DIFFERENT passage to highlight the 'unchanging' nature of God.
It's tiresome to have to constantly explain this stuff.
The erroneous Hebrews verse was Hebrews 9:27. It was quickly removed after I pointed out it had nothing to do with the assertion that it was tied to.
Edit: Before it was removed, it was in the third post from the top on this page.
Thank you, and may God bless America.