Biblical contradictions

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What this; a commune in the Doubs department in France? No the Bible is filled with Truth. LOL

you must forgive him Daniel, for to us it is a sweet smelling oudour, to others it issues forth a foul smell. the Apostle Paul alludes to this, check this out.

But thanks be to God who always leads us in a triumphal procession in company with the Ch ...[text shortened]... e in reading it, but to others like our friend Ringwett, it issues forth a different odour. 🙂

LOL😀

Originally posted by twhitehead
Taken as a whole they cannot be reconciled. Presumably though it is possible that each one is only partly correct and therefore one could have 'truths' from each as you said. However for any given fact that they make an assertion about (eg the age of the earth) then if the two disagree then only one at most can be correct.
It is not very clear from your ...[text shortened]... do not know which is actually correct? Can you clarify as I am just guessing in the dark here.

I'm saying that both are GENERALLY correct, with some minor alterations here and there. It just depends on your viewpoint and whether you are looking at things metaphorically or literally.

(from the bible for example. Some things are clearly to be taken as a metaphor)
Again I THINk it all comes down to semantics and interpretations.
We are on to the GENERAL 'truth' about our past. Now we are starting to work out the finer details.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What this; a commune in the Doubs department in France? No the Bible is filled with Truth. LOL

you must forgive him Daniel, for to us it is a sweet smelling oudour, to others it issues forth a foul smell. the Apostle Paul alludes to this, check this out.

But thanks be to God who always leads us in a triumphal procession in company with the Ch ...[text shortened]... e in reading it, but to others like our friend Ringwett, it issues forth a different odour. 🙂

In other words, you think your shyte doesn't stink. 😀

[Sorry, couldn't resist. 😞]

Originally posted by twhitehead
In the "Islam is Foul" thread [threadid]116706[threadid] josephw makes the following claim:

Originally posted by josephw
It has never been proven by anyone, including anyone eminently more qualified than anyone posting in this forum, that the Bible is false or contradictory in anyway. The Bible clearly makes the claim that it is what it is. TR ...[text shortened]... arly false as I am sure josephw is fully aware - so why doesn't he qualify it up front?

At face value it is clearly false as I am sure josephw is fully aware - so why doesn't he qualify it up front?
I find it interesting that you raise so precise a critique, and yet fail to qualify the term "face value" up front.

I would say that the "face value" of josephw's statement is pretty straight forward: no one has--- to date, and despite far more attempts than warranted--- ever been successful in uncovering any of the negating aspects mentioned.

Originally posted by daniel58
The devil is IN the Bible, but didn't help write it, like Adam is in the Bible, but didn't help write it.

jesus is in the bible but others wrote it

Originally posted by stoker
jesus is in the bible but others wrote it

But how many of the people who wrote about Jesus knew him?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I would say that the "face value" of josephw's statement is pretty straight forward: no one has--- to date, and despite far more attempts than warranted--- ever been successful in uncovering any of the negating aspects mentioned.

I am surprised you say that as you don't believe God or the Bible are bound by logic - I guess thats why you used the phrase "negating aspects" not "contradictions" as was originally used.
I guess the real flaw in the whole thing is that the Bible simply cannot contain contradictions as "the Bible" does not exist and hence cannot contain anything. If you disagree with me, then please tell me what this Bible is that you speak of and I will show you the contradictions in it.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
But how many of the people who wrote about Jesus knew him?

The implication of your question is that it is not possible to know Jesus today.

I reject the premise of the loaded question.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
But how many of the people who wrote about Jesus knew him?

by knew him you must only mean in the new testerment and personal or by faith.
As christians want to know him, but in his years here on our level the question remains, Paul must of known him. but was not a christian till after the road to damascus. does he count in your term.

Originally posted by jaywill
The implication of your question is that it is not possible to know Jesus today.

I reject the premise of the loaded question.

Yet many Christians (Such as FreakyKBH for example) claim that you cannot learn anything about God via such contact.
If you disagree, and feel that there was no real need for the writers of the New Testament to actually have met Jesus in person, then would you reject more recent books than those of the New Testament and why.
My main point here is that there seems to be a contradiction common amongst some Christians who simultaneously claim that the New Testament shows evidence that the writers had good or first hand information as a source, and the almost contradictory claim that the writing was inspired.

Originally posted by jaywill
The implication of your question is that it is not possible to know Jesus today.

I reject the premise of the loaded question.

The point of my 'loaded question' is this.

I've read on this forum more than once the quote - The Bible is the word of God.

But the Bible isn't, no scripture is the actual word of God, Jesus didn't author any parts of the Bible, the Bible was written by men. Out of the men who authored the New Testament how many of those actually knew Jesus? And by knew him, i mean which autors were alive in his life time and came into contact with him?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The point of my 'loaded question' is this.

I've read on this forum more than once the quote - The Bible is the word of God.

But the Bible isn't, no scripture is the actual word of God, Jesus didn't author any parts of the Bible, the Bible was written by men. Out of the men who authored the New Testament how many of those actually knew Jesus ...[text shortened]... y knew him, i mean which autors were alive in his life time and came into contact with him?

==========================
But the Bible isn't, no scripture is the actual word of God, Jesus didn't author any parts of the Bible, the Bible was written by men. Out of the men who authored the New Testament how many of those actually knew Jesus? And by knew him, i mean which autors were alive in his life time and came into contact with him?
=================================

If you mean that the Bible did not come floating down from heaven with wings but was rather written down by imperfect men, I agree.

This touches on the doctrine of inspiration of Scripture. It is obvious that Matthew has his flavor, Mark his, Luke - his style, and John his perculiar characteristic.

Yet these were all men and the styles of their writing reveals their personal touch - "written by men".

But that does not mean that God did not speak. Now there were thousands of other things written by men. In the Old Testament age and in the New Testament age the community of faith "discovered" among all these writings what they recognized as authoritative and apostolic prophetic writing.

Men faithful to record what Jesus said is the words of Jesus and is the word of God. The community of faith did not "bestow" canonization upon books. They recognized thier authoritative aspects.

You have a three way equation here - the Bible, the Holy Spirit of God, the people of God.

None of the three work in a vacuum alone. The people of God are guided by the Spirit of God to recognize the word of God. The word of God produces the people of God. The people of God possess the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God guides them to recognize the word of God.

I know it is circular.

But if you think about it, the reality of Space, Time, Motion is also circular. We need two to measure the third.

We need Motion and Time to measure Space.
We need Time and Space to measure Motion.
We need Space and Motion to measure Time.

It is circular also. Its not fair. But that is just the way it is.

The Spirit of God in the people of God informs them of the existence of the Word of God, which in turm conveys the Spirit of God to produce people of God.

My decision to accept the Bible as God's word came gradually by process. I started reading the Bible a little reluctantly and with a big filter to filter out all the unbelievable.

In the process of time I decided that it all stands together or falls together. And eventually I believed in the plenary inspiration of the Bible.

I recommend a book by Norm Giesler A General Introduction to the Bible. And there read the chapters on Inspiration and the various views about it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am surprised you say that as you don't believe God or the Bible are bound by logic - I guess thats why you used the phrase "negating aspects" not "contradictions" as was originally used.
I guess the real flaw in the whole thing is that the Bible simply cannot contain contradictions as "the Bible" does not exist and hence cannot contain anything. If you ...[text shortened]... ell me what this Bible is that you speak of and I will show you the contradictions in it.

Well, since you want to be so snarky...

I guess thats why you used the phrase "negating aspects" not "contradictions" as was originally used.
The reason I used the phrase is because the original statement indicated two negative adjectives; namely, "false" and "contradictory" ---not, as you claim, the sole "contradiction."

I guess the real flaw in the whole thing is that the Bible simply cannot contain contradictions as "the Bible" does not exist and hence cannot contain anything. If you disagree with me, then please tell me what this Bible is that you speak of and I will show you the contradictions in it.
Your attempt at deconstruction is real cute. I'll bet you could probably apply such "logic" to just about any aspect of reality, huh?

Let's make it real simple and just use that Bible you have on your shelf. Give us the version and the kick the whole thing off with your list.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet many Christians (Such as FreakyKBH for example) claim that you cannot learn anything about God via such contact.
If you disagree, and feel that there was no real need for the writers of the New Testament to actually have met Jesus in person, then would you reject more recent books than those of the New Testament and why.
My main point here is that t ...[text shortened]... hand information as a source, and the almost contradictory claim that the writing was inspired.

Yet many Christians (Such as FreakyKBH for example) claim that you cannot learn anything about God via such contact.
You're saying things I haven't said and attributing the same to me. Bad form. What I have maintained is that right here and right now, in the Church Age, our understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ begins first and foremost (exclusively) through that Bible.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Let's make it real simple and just use that Bible you have on your shelf. Give us the version and the kick the whole thing off with your list.

Actually I don't have one on my shelf, so I will just write one quickly .....
Done!

Version: twhiteheads Bible 1.0A
Genesis 1.1 God does not exist.
1.2 God made the earth.

Surely there is a contradiction there?