Contradictions in the Bible...

2 Samuel 15:7
And it came to pass after forty years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron.

2 Samuel 5:4
David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years.

2 Samuel 15

1 After this it happened that Absalom provided himself with chariots and horses, and fifty men to run before him. 2 Now Absalom would rise early and stand beside the way to the gate. So it was, whenever anyone who had a lawsuit came to the king for a decision, that Absalom would call to him and say, "What city are you from?" And he would say, "Your servant is from such and such a tribe of Israel." 3 Then Absalom would say to him, "Look, your case is good and right; but there is no deputy of the king to hear you." 4 Moreover Absalom would say, "Oh, that I were made judge in the land, and everyone who has any suit or cause would come to me; then I would give him justice." 5 And so it was, whenever anyone came near to bow down to him, that he would put out his hand and take him and kiss him. 6 In this manner Absalom acted toward all Israel who came to the king for judgment. So Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel.

7 Now it came to pass after forty years that Absalom said to the king, "Please, let me go to Hebron and pay the vow which I made to the LORD. 8 For your servant took a vow while I dwelt at Geshur in Syria, saying, ?'If the LORD indeed brings me back to Jerusalem, then I will serve the LORD.' 9 And the king said to him, "Go in peace." So he arose and went to Hebron. 10 Then Absalom sent spies throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, "As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then you shall say, ?'Absalom reigns in Hebron!'" 11 And with Absalom went two hundred men invited from Jerusalem, and they went along innocently and did not know anything. 12 Then Absalom sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David's counselor, from his city?-from Giloh?-while he offered sacrifices. And the conspiracy grew strong, for the people with Absalom continually increased in number.

13 Now a messenger came to David, saying, "The hearts of the men of Israel are with Absalom." 14 So David said to all his servants who were with him at Jerusalem, "Arise, and let us flee, or we shall not escape from Absalom. Make haste to depart, lest he overtake us suddenly and bring disaster upon us, and strike the city with the edge of the sword." 15 And the king's servants said to the king, "We are your servants, ready to do whatever my lord the king commands." 16 Then the king went out with all his household after him. But the king left ten women, concubines, to keep the house.

2 Samuel 16
15 Meanwhile Absalom and all the people, the men of Israel, came to Jerusalem; and Ahithophel was with him. 16 And so it was, when Hushai the Archite, David's friend, came to Absalom, that Hushai said to Absalom, "Long live the king! Long live the king!" 17 So Absalom said to Hushai, "Is this your loyalty to your friend? Why did you not go with your friend?" 18 And Hushai said to Absalom, "No, but whom the LORD and this people and all the men of Israel choose, his I will be, and with him I will remain. 19 Furthermore, whom should I serve? Should I not serve in the presence of his son? As I have served in your father's presence, so will I be in your presence."

2 Samuel 19
9 Now all the people were in a dispute throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, "The king saved us from the hand of our enemies, he delivered us from the hand of the Philistines, and now he has fled from the land because of Absalom. 10 But Absalom, whom we anointed over us, has died in battle. Now therefore, why do you say nothing about bringing back the king?"... 14 So he swayed the hearts of all the men of Judah, just as the heart of one man, so that they sent this word to the king: "Return, you and all your servants!" 15 Then the king returned and came to the Jordan. And Judah came to Gilgal, to go to meet the king, to escort the king across the Jordan.

2 Samuel 20
1 And there happened to be there a rebel, whose name was Sheba the son of Bichri, a Benjamite. And he blew a trumpet, and said:

"We have no share in David,
Nor do we have inheritance in the son of Jesse;
Every man to his tents, O Israel!"

2 So every man of Israel deserted David, and followed Sheba the son of Bichri. But the men of Judah, from the Jordan as far as Jerusalem, remained loyal to their king.

Here you go, heph, start with this easy one.
Did jesus tell his disciples everything of God...

Quote:

John 15:15
For all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Or not?

Quote:

John 16:12
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Please read this link for once.

Written by Jim Merritt

dalahow2 wrote:

Please read this link for once.

Written by Jim Merritt

Well I think I could answer the list of contradictions you put up but they are so many it would take too much time. However, a found a website that does.

Jim Merrit's list of contradictions beaten to a pulp

Well knowjah. Personally speaking, I think it's worth the time to look it up myself. Then I know whether it's right or wrong based on my own research. I'm not one for believing something someone says just because they say it's right. I was led to believe many wrong things based on that kind of thinking. Of couse you are welcome to join the thread though. Any help you can offer is appreciated. By the way... welcome to A2K.

Examples?

While there well may be valid counter-argument to the contradiction/inconsistency challenges and criticisms levelled against the Bible - and, by extension the entire Abrahamic mythopaeia - no such valid counter-argument has been presented in these discussions.

So far in these discussions, apologists for any of the propositions dependent upon the Abrahamic mythopaeia have for authority only their particular subset proposition's exclusively self-referential claim of authority.

Resort to and reliance upon religious faith is not a forensic tool, it is but a theophilosophical construct of comfort and convenience - and at that, if and only if theology be granted stature equivalent to philosophy. While it may be argued all philosophy is suspect, religious philosophy - theology - proceedes from the shakiest of ground; "Faith" alone, and nothing more, is the font of theology.

hephzibah wrote:

Well knowjah. Personally speaking, I think it's worth the time to look it up myself. Then I know whether it's right or wrong based on my own research. I'm not one for believing something someone says just because they say it's right. I was led to believe many wrong things based on that kind of thinking. Of couse you are welcome to join the thread though. Any help you can offer is appreciated. By the way... welcome to A2K.

Yeah I feel the same way to. I didn't really look up any of that stuff but the only reason why I put that was because the other guy put up a list of contradictions so I just out up a random list too. I'm not sure if the whole list of contradictions were the all ones he really wanted to know anyway. (And the list being beaten to a pulp arent my words anyway). Some questions I think are ridiculous on that list while others I think are reasonable to ask.

Such as the one about Jesus being equal to God, on the link I gave they can barely answer it it seems, they are so desperate to keep tjheir cherished trinity concept. What is your opinion anyway about how I answered why Jesus is not equal?

Also can you please tell me which one on the link I gave gave poor reasoning to the "contradictions" as I have not looked it over.

I started to read the bible when I was about 12.I stopped when I read 2 daughters had sex with their dad to bare a son to keep the family line going.

As far as Im aware incest is wrong.

So theres yuor starter for 10.

timberlandko wrote:

While there well may be valid counter-argument to the contradiction/inconsistency challenges and criticisms levelled against the Bible - and, by extension the entire Abrahamic mythopaeia - no such valid counter-argument has been presented in these discussions.

So why do you keep reading and not saying anything then timber? Granted I do realize you are probably not talking about this thread only.

timberlandko wrote:

So far in these discussions, apologists for any of the propositions dependent upon the Abrahamic mythopaeia have for authority only their particular subset proposition's exclusively self-referential claim of authority.

This one really hasn't been a discussion. It's just been me researching and posting. No one has challenged what I have posted. Why? After all this is a debate forum right? I'm certainly not opposed to someone disagreeing with me or being able to show me the error of my ways. So... go ahead timber. If this thread is that bad why not point out what's wrong with the things I've been posting?

timberlandko wrote:

Resort to and reliance upon religious faith is not a forensic tool, it is but a theophilosophical construct of comfort and convenience - and at that, if and only if theology be granted stature equivalent to philosophy. While it may be argued all philosophy is suspect, religious philosophy - theology - proceedes from the shakiest of ground; "Faith" alone, and nothing more, is the font of theology.

I've never seen anyone claim it as a forensic tool. I don't think I have. However faith is not limited to religion only. Yet it is only "religious faith" that seems to suffer at the hands of those who don't "believe" simply because such a simple concept as actually "believing in something" is too preposterous for their "intellectual minds". Well that's how it could appear with some people at times anyway.

hephzibah wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

While there well may be valid counter-argument to the contradiction/inconsistency challenges and criticisms levelled against the Bible - and, by extension the entire Abrahamic mythopaeia - no such valid counter-argument has been presented in these discussions.

So why do you keep reading and not saying anything then timber? Granted I do realize you are probably not talking about this thread only.

The burden of proof falls to the presenter of the affirmative case. So far, that burden has not been taken up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. No more extraordinary claim may be imagined than the existence of the supernatural. Despite incessent claim and assertion by the proposition's proponents, no proof thereof, extraordinary or otherwise, has been presented; all that has been offered in support of the proposition has been assumption, preference, opinion, and further unsubtianted claim.

Quote:

timberlandko wrote:

So far in these discussions, apologists for any of the propositions dependent upon the Abrahamic mythopaeia have for authority only their particular subset proposition's exclusively self-referential claim of authority.

This one really hasn't been a discussion. It's just been me researching and posting. No one has challenged what I have posted. Why? After all this is a debate forum right? I'm certainly not opposed to someone disagreeing with me or being able to show me the error of my ways. So... go ahead timber. If this thread is that bad why not point out what's wrong with the things I've been posting?

Again - the burden of proof falls to the presenter of the affirmative case. What is "wrong" - and not just with your posts, nor even paricularly with reference to your posts, is that no proof has been forthcoming.

Quote:

timberlandko wrote:

Resort to and reliance upon religious faith is not a forensic tool, it is but a theophilosophical construct of comfort and convenience - and at that, if and only if theology be granted stature equivalent to philosophy. While it may be argued all philosophy is suspect, religious philosophy - theology - proceedes from the shakiest of ground; "Faith" alone, and nothing more, is the font of theology.

I've never seen anyone claim it as a forensic tool. I don't think I have. However faith is not limited to religion only. Yet it is only "religious faith" that seems to suffer at the hands of those who don't "believe" simply because such a simple concept as actually "believing in something" is too preposterous for their "intellectual minds". Well that's how it could appear with some people at times anyway.

The manner by which in this and related discussions on these boards proponents of the religionist proposition put forward their case reveals unambiguously their intent to employ religious faith as, or perhaps more accuratel, in lieu of a forensic tool. Faith in particular reference to the religious sense of that word is irrational by definition, in that the belief set thereon dependent is devoid of empirical external reference or validation; such faith exists soley within its own self-defined, wholly self-referential universe. A claim or assumption does not, cannot, validate itself. The argument operational here is not that religion/religious faith be or even may be proven valid or invalid, but rather that no proof or validation for the proposition and its dependencies has been presented.

Any are welcome to hold and espouse such opinion as they find fit. It is not opinion but clear fact that those participating on the affirmative side in this and related discussions on these boards so far have failed to satisfy the requirement of proving the case for the proposition they forward. It is my opinion those participating on the affirmative side in this and related discussions on these boards are unable to satisfy that requirement.

If I didn't find the discussion interesting, I'd neither follow along nor participate. Disagreement does not equate to disinterest, and dispute does not equal dismissal. I have no reason, no wish, to doubt, nor even to question, your sincerity and the depth and commitment of your belief, and be assured I respect you, and all of that. What I challenge is the mythopaeia from which your belief set derives; considered objectively, dispassionately, analytically, it is neither more nor less than a fascinating, multi-faceted, deeply ingrained cultural artifact, an attribute of the human condition with origins far predating history.

And once again, in all respect, "One must have have faith in order to believe" is no answer, it is a tautology, an intellectually bankrupt assertion the conclusion of which is indistinguishable from its premise, a rhetorical trick, circular, empty, meaningless, and alltogether useless, adding neither clarification nor even additional information to matter at discussion.

While you're trying to understand - a laudable effort, and one to be encouraged without reservation - try to understand I neither disbelieve nor believe, in the religious sense; I see nothing there to believe or disbelieve, I've encountered no reason to choose one or the other.

neologist wrote:

Examples?

"This is so because the Bible says its so; any reading of the Bible not consistent with inerrant, divinely-inspired revelation is in error" - petitio principii is the whole of the purported counter-argument. While there well may be valid counter-argument to the contradiction/inconsistency challenges and criticisms levelled against the Bible - and, by extension the entire Abrahamic mythopaeia - no such valid counter-argument has been presented in these discussions. So far in these discussions, apologists for any of the propositions dependent upon the Abrahamic mythopaeia have for authority only their particular subset proposition's exclusively self-referential claim of authority. Resort to and reliance upon religious faith is not a forensic tool, it is but a theophilosophical construct of comfort and convenience - and at that, if and only if theology be granted stature equivalent to philosophy. While it may be argued all philosophy is suspect, religious philosophy - theology - proceedes from the shakiest of ground; "Faith" alone, and nothing more, is the font of theology.

Once more, I submit that religious faith cannot, objectively, in forensically sound, academically valid manner, be differentiated from superstition; by definition and in actual effect, the two are equivalent.

Which Isaiah correctly predicted the complete abandonment and desolation of Babylon?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. No more extraordinary claim may be imagined than the existence of the supernatural. Despite incessent claim and assertion by the proposition's proponents, no proof thereof, extraordinary or otherwise, has been presented....