20 May 11
Originally posted by 667joeas i suspected, no you haven't, thanks you for demonstrating your prejudice.
Here are 2 places where the bible gives statements that are false:
1) In the gospels, the Lineage of Jesus is given in 2 places and they disagree with each other. At the minimum, one is wrong.(They are more likely both wrong).
2) In the gospels at the time of Jesus's death, it says Jesus will return for judgment day in the life time of some of the peo ...[text shortened]...
There are many other errors that are easy to document. Clergy never dwell on these issues.
20 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joefirstly you have not examined the original documents from which Christ's lineage was taken, nor can you, secondly you deny or cannot comprehend that Christ was speaking in a prophetic sense when he uttered his statement, for you , as is the folly of the rationalist, are trying to rationalise spiritual things. How hard is it for you to understand that spiritual things cannot be subject to rationalisation? as if events, personages, details that are supernatural, prophetic etc can be governed by the same rationality as non supernatural entities, details, events. why is that so hard for you to grasp. in your endeavour to find fault with scripture you have missed its essential message, for you cannot get over your prejudices. you were asked, which parts have you personally examined, you produced nothing, not one verse, instead, you do what all the haters of scripture do, you produce two irrelevant details, one of which is based on an interpretation, the other, which is also a nonsense. Now you will go and cut and paste some critique of scripture and state that it was through your own efforts that you came to these conclusions, well i am sorry, i dont believe it is. What about all the instances where the Bible is most accurate, why dont you talk about them? why dont you, i want to know?
How am I wrong?
20 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThank you for admitting the bible is inconsistent. What you are saying is the bible does not mean what it says. How come Mathew lists 27 generations from David to Jesus, Luke lists 42 generations, and Chronicles lists 20 but fails to mention Joseph. How come Mathew (12:40) says Jesus was in the tomb 3 nights, but the gospels say he was entombed only 2 nights? John (19:17)says Jesus carried his own cross to his crucifixion, but Mark (15:21), Matthew (27:32) and Luke (23:26) all say Simon of Cyrene carried the cross for Jesus. If you want more examples, I can site plenty. I find it ironic that people swear on the bible in court, when any lawyer could make mince meat out of almost any thing in the bible.
firstly you have not examined the original documents from which Christ's lineage was taken, nor can you, secondly you deny or cannot comprehend that Christ was speaking in a prophetic sense when he uttered his statement, for you , as is the folly of the rationalist, are trying to rationalise spiritual things. How hard is it for you to understand tha ...[text shortened]... where the Bible is most accurate, why dont you talk about them? why dont you, i want to know?
Your excuses are a house of cards.
21 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by 667joeI admit nothing of the sort i just wanted to prove that you have come up with nothing of your own originality ever and well, your just a mouthpiece for other like minded haters of scripture. why dont you goggle it like you do all your posts and stop wasting my time, you will find answers for each and every one of your, dare i say it, own researched questions, or you can just take it upon trust as you have always done. i dont offer any excuses, i am just fed up wasting time on people who are content to reiterate stuff from the web, it hardly takes any effort and even less talent
Thank you for admitting the bible is inconsistent. What you are saying is the bible does not mean what it says. How come Mathew lists 27 generations from David to Jesus, Luke lists 42 generations, and Chronicles lists 20 but fails to mention Joseph. How come Mathew (12:40) says Jesus was in the tomb 3 nights, but the gospels say he was entombed only 2 ni ...[text shortened]... ould make mince meat out of almost any thing in the bible.
Your excuses are a house of cards.
21 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou,sir, have not shown me one bit of evidence that anything I said is wrong. You use the bible to proclaim the ultimate truth, but deny me use of the bible to show there are untruths. You can't have it both ways. Is one section true? Then the other section is false. If any part of it is false, how can you trust the rest? You can't offer any excuses because there are none!
I admit nothing of the sort i just wanted to prove that you have come up with nothing of your own originality ever and well, your just a mouthpiece for other like minded haters of scripture. why dont you goggle it like you do all your posts and stop wasting my time, you will find answers for each and every one of your, dare i say it, own researched ...[text shortened]... who are content to reiterate stuff from the web, it hardly takes any effort and even less talent
21 May 11
Originally posted by 667joeThe Holy Bible is not inconsistent. It may not be perfectly clear to
Thank you for admitting the bible is inconsistent. What you are saying is the bible does not mean what it says. How come Mathew lists 27 generations from David to Jesus, Luke lists 42 generations, and Chronicles lists 20 but fails to mention Joseph. How come Mathew (12:40) says Jesus was in the tomb 3 nights, but the gospels say he was entombed only 2 ni ...[text shortened]... ould make mince meat out of almost any thing in the bible.
Your excuses are a house of cards.
everyone. Matthew gives the genealogy of Jesus through Solomon
and foster father Joseph as a decendant of King David. Mary was
also a decendant of David and Luke gives the genealogy of Mary,
mother of Jesus, in David's line through Nathan. I am not aware of
what you are taling about in Chronicles. I think you need to check
that again. It might be helpful if you would quote chapter and verse.
Jesus was in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights. The gospels do not say He
was in the tomb only 2 nights. That is only a common misunderstanding
and not factual. Jesus did carry His own cross as far as He could then
Simon carried it the rest of the way. Not all the details are given by each
writer.
21 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsMy facts are accurate, and I quoted chapter and verse. The bible in one place says Jesus carried the cross, and the other place says Simon carried the cross. In neither place does it say both carried the cross. Only apologists reconcile this error in the manner you did. Why didn't the bible say both carried the cross and avoid the controversy? How do you explain that Luke (24:51) says Jesus ascended to heaven the 1st night after the resurrection, but Acts (1:3,9) says Jesus ascended 40 days after the resurrection? (We have not even discussed that fact that resurrections and virgin births are hogwash to be believed only by those easily capable of self delusion).
The Holy Bible is not inconsistent. It may not be perfectly clear to
everyone. Matthew gives the genealogy of Jesus through Solomon
and foster father Joseph as a decendant of King David. Mary was
also a decendant of David and Luke gives the genealogy of Mary,
mother of Jesus, in David's line through Nathan. I am not aware of
what you are taling abou ...[text shortened]... ld then
Simon carried it the rest of the way. Not all the details are given by each
writer.R
21 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThis has been studied already, biology tells us there are no restrictions.
As far as I know, the Holy Bible does not explain how
these restrictions work, only that it does. Maybe a biologist
will study this and figure out how it works someday. But
I don't worry about it. It is enough for me to know that it
does.
21 May 11
Originally posted by Proper Knob*******Bumped for Robbie********
Now explain to me why, biologically speaking, all mammals can't have a common ancestor. What is stopping the process happening?
Secondly, do you accept penguins evolved from a bird that could fly?
Now explain to me why, biologically speaking, all mammals can't have a common ancestor. What is stopping the process happening?
Secondly, do you accept penguins evolved from a bird that could fly?
21 May 11
8 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobBecause they are so fundamentally different as to exclude the possibility, blow holes on tops of heads, eating plankton, living in the sea, assertions like the whales nearest relative is the hippopotamus, or whales evolved in the sea, came to land, evolved some more and then returned to the sea about fifty million years ago. Or my favourite, the aquatic deer! it could be proof of why whales returned to the sea as it jumps into water to escape danger! a brilliant, compelling argument. If it wasn't simply conjecture it would be ludicrous, to say the least. Not to mention lack of fossilised data. Not to mention no actual evidence of transmutation. I believe that all creatures are created according to their kinds, i have made this statement enough times for it to be perfectly clear.
*******Bumped for Robbie********
Now explain to me why, biologically speaking, all mammals can't have a common ancestor. What is stopping the process happening?
Secondly, do you accept penguins evolved from a bird that could fly?
21 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTell me about the penguin Rob, did that evolve from a bird that could fly?
Because they are so fundamentally different as to exclude the possibility, blow holes on tops of heads, eating plankton, living in the sea, assertions like the whales nearest relative is the hippopotamus, or whales evolved in the sea, came to land, evolved some more and then returned to the sea about fifty million years ago. Or my favourite, the aqu ...[text shortened]... according to their kinds, i have made this statement enough times for it to be perfectly clear.