1
   

The Bible and Its Contradictions

 
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 06:28 am
mesquite wrote:
Good catch neo. stlstrike3 should stick to real examples such as the lame excuse of setting an example as reason to have an unruly son stoned to death. There is no need to make stuff up when there are so many actual examples to choose from.
Moses in Deuteronomy 21 wrote:
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.


So with all these rules and whatnot... I'm confused... is this one of the passages from the bible that we are supposed to take literally or figuratively? Cause... that don't seem to leave much room for interpretation.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 07:23 am
It appears, to some Christians, that the Law no longer applies to Christians. It applies to Jews. As this one website claims;

Quote:
Quite simply, the Bible shows that Mosaic Law ended with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Followers of Christ are not under the Law of Moses: "He did away with the law of the commandments in regulations" (Eph. 2:15), and to this can also be added the fact that Gentiles do not have to follow the Law of Moses: "I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Gal. 2:14). It is manifestly bizarre that people calling themselves Biblical Christians make a point of preaching the absolute opposite of strong and clear Biblical statements.

If we are being asked to live by such a moral code, then we are also being asked to accept some highly undesirable practices (ignoring for now the possibility that Mosaic laws have not been altered during the course of time by unscrupulous Levites with their own power-agenda). For instance, one such law states that people could own other people as property (being their "money"), and, moreover, the owners could legally beat those poor slaves with "a rod", and not have to face any legal consequences whatsoever if the "servant" or "maid" did not die within "a day or two". The only punishment for the owner would occur if the life is literally beaten out of the physical body of the so-called maid or servant "under his hand" producing instant death (Exodus 21:20,21). One wonders how battered partners regard this notion.

A Fundamentalist who claims that others must adhere to even one regulation stated in Mosaic Law is bound by the whole of Mosaic Law: "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised (a stipulation of one of the Mosaic laws), that he is a debtor to do the whole law" (Gal. 5:3). Someone cannot just choose to adhere to one (or some) law and not adhere strictly to all the others, or this would literally demonstrate Pharisaical hypocrisy.


http://christianspiritualism.org/articles/lawrepeal.htm

It's kind of confusing because all these Bible experts can't seem to agree what the Bible says. Perhaps the contradictions found in the Bible contribute to this confusion.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 09:03 am
xingu wrote:
neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Seems to me that Neo has a problem with resolving his disrespect for priests and maintaining utmost confidence in the Bible, since the Bible is essentially a product of said priests or clergy.
Good observation. One must keep in mind the words of Jesus at Matthew 7 15, 16: "Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep's covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits YOU will recognize them . . ."

You mean like Paul?
You would have to prove that, skeet


Something for you to read Neo.

http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html

http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/

http://www.anatheist.com/Articles/paul_vs_jesus.html
Sorry, Xing. I stay away from off site rants with a dedication exceeded only by my aversion to cut-and-paste. If you can't put it in your own words, why bother?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 09:09 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Good catch neo. stlstrike3 should stick to real examples such as the lame excuse of setting an example as reason to have an unruly son stoned to death. There is no need to make stuff up when there are so many actual examples to choose from.
Moses in Deuteronomy 21 wrote:
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.


So with all these rules and whatnot... I'm confused... is this one of the passages from the bible that we are supposed to take literally or figuratively? Cause... that don't seem to leave much room for interpretation.
This is literal.

The mosaic law was unyielding and impossible to follow for a reason. (It was designed to help the Jews identify the messiah.)

But, if you read the words carefully, you should be able to see that this injunction would have been only very rarely carried out. How many teenagers, no matter how snotty, fit into the classification above?

Well, I might have. . . But that's another story.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 09:24 am
xingu wrote:
It appears, to some Christians, that the Law no longer applies to Christians. It applies to Jews. As this one website claims;

Quote:
Quite simply, the Bible shows that Mosaic Law ended with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Followers of Christ are not under the Law of Moses: "He did away with the law of the commandments in regulations" (Eph. 2:15), . . .


http://christianspiritualism.org/articles/lawrepeal.htm

It's kind of confusing because all these Bible experts can't seem to agree what the Bible says. Perhaps the contradictions found in the Bible contribute to this confusion.
Cut-and-paste again. Well, OK.

The real problem here is your acceptance of the bible contradiction straw man. You are happy to link, cut, paste and quote the straw man experts without ever considering the larger picture of their agenda.

I'm here to tell you that the harsh commands God gave to the Jews were given for a reason AND Jesus, having fulfilled the law, removed it's necessity.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 09:38 am
neologist wrote:
xingu wrote:
It appears, to some Christians, that the Law no longer applies to Christians. It applies to Jews. As this one website claims;

Quote:
Quite simply, the Bible shows that Mosaic Law ended with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Followers of Christ are not under the Law of Moses: "He did away with the law of the commandments in regulations" (Eph. 2:15), . . .


http://christianspiritualism.org/articles/lawrepeal.htm

It's kind of confusing because all these Bible experts can't seem to agree what the Bible says. Perhaps the contradictions found in the Bible contribute to this confusion.
Cut-and-paste again. Well, OK.

The real problem here is your acceptance of the bible contradiction straw man. You are happy to link, cut, paste and quote the straw man experts without ever considering the larger picture of their agenda.

I'm here to tell you that the harsh commands God gave to the Jews were given for a reason AND Jesus, having fulfilled the law, removed it's necessity.


The reason for the 'cut-and-paste' is I didn't choose to print out the entire text. That's why I gave you the source. Are you too lazy to go to it and read it?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 09:40 am
I may also point out that is not my opinion but the opinion of a Christian. So take up the issue with the Christians, of which I am not.

BTW, what makes you think you know more than other Christians that have a different opinion than yours.

Did God whisper in your ear?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 10:09 am
xingu wrote:
I may also point out that is not my opinion but the opinion of a Christian. So take up the issue with the Christians, of which I am not.

BTW, what makes you think you know more than other Christians that have a different opinion than yours.

Did God whisper in your ear?
If you were to really peruse the bible, you would know the difference between christian and Christian.

BTW, the person you quoted got it right for the most part. I didn't read it all. But the law existed to point the way to Jesus. Once fulfilled, it was no longer in effect.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 11:08 am
neologist wrote:
xingu wrote:
I may also point out that is not my opinion but the opinion of a Christian. So take up the issue with the Christians, of which I am not.

BTW, what makes you think you know more than other Christians that have a different opinion than yours.

Did God whisper in your ear?
If you were to really peruse the bible, you would know the difference between christian and Christian.

BTW, the person you quoted got it right for the most part. I didn't read it all. But the law existed to point the way to Jesus. Once fulfilled, it was no longer in effect.


Good, now we can trash the Ten Commandments.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 11:25 am
xingu wrote:
neologist wrote:
xingu wrote:
I may also point out that is not my opinion but the opinion of a Christian. So take up the issue with the Christians, of which I am not.

BTW, what makes you think you know more than other Christians that have a different opinion than yours.

Did God whisper in your ear?
If you were to really peruse the bible, you would know the difference between christian and Christian.

BTW, the person you quoted got it right for the most part. I didn't read it all. But the law existed to point the way to Jesus. Once fulfilled, it was no longer in effect.


Good, now we can trash the Ten Commandments.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 12:13 pm
neologist wrote:
xingu wrote:
neologist wrote:
xingu wrote:
I may also point out that is not my opinion but the opinion of a Christian. So take up the issue with the Christians, of which I am not.

BTW, what makes you think you know more than other Christians that have a different opinion than yours.

Did God whisper in your ear?
If you were to really peruse the bible, you would know the difference between christian and Christian.

BTW, the person you quoted got it right for the most part. I didn't read it all. But the law existed to point the way to Jesus. Once fulfilled, it was no longer in effect.


Good, now we can trash the Ten Commandments.


The Golden Rule is universal, a good common sense rule, unless your a self-abuser. As for loving God, well unless God has a mental problem I don't think he would care.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 04:31 pm
xingu wrote:
. . .The Golden Rule is universal, a good common sense rule, unless your a self-abuser. As for loving God, well unless God has a mental problem I don't think he would care.
Just giving a comment on the way in which Jesus summed up the 10.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2007 11:38 pm
neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Seems to me that Neo has a problem with resolving his disrespect for priests and maintaining utmost confidence in the Bible, since the Bible is essentially a product of said priests or clergy.
Good observation. One must keep in mind the words of Jesus at Matthew 7 15, 16: "Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep's covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits YOU will recognize them . . ."

You mean like Paul?
You would have to prove that, skeet

I made no claim to prove. I was merely asking a question. In another thread here I asked kate why she accepted Paul over more recent figures such as Sun Myung Moon (Jesus Christ Appears).It is unanswered. Perhaps you would like to give it a go.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 01:12 am
mesquite wrote:
neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Seems to me that Neo has a problem with resolving his disrespect for priests and maintaining utmost confidence in the Bible, since the Bible is essentially a product of said priests or clergy.
Good observation. One must keep in mind the words of Jesus at Matthew 7 15, 16: "Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep's covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits YOU will recognize them . . ."

You mean like Paul?
You would have to prove that, skeet

I made no claim to prove. I was merely asking a question. In another thread here I asked kate why she accepted Paul over more recent figures such as Sun Myung Moon (Jesus Christ Appears).It is unanswered. Perhaps you would like to give it a go.
Mostly because the next to last words of the bible warn us: "I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll." (Revelation 22:18-19)
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 10:42 am
Convenient. To a skeptic that sounds just like what one of those ravenous wolves might write, especially when the preceding words differ so much from the gospels.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2007 10:53 am
mesquite wrote:
Convenient. To a skeptic that sounds just like what one of those ravenous wolves might write, especially when the preceding words differ so much from the gospels.
In what way?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 04:17 am
Quote:
Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine
May 23rd, 2007 | Category: Truth

[Note - This aritcle is reposted from Blogs For Brownback. We're trying to get hold of the original author, sisyphus, and get proper permission, but sometimes you read something that smacks you upside the head so hard that your brains get knocked back into the place where they used to be before Madeline Murray O'Hare and the Dummy-Crats poisoned the air of God's righteousness with their secular humanism and sodomy. I'm expecting the pews to be full on Sunday after y'all read this!]

What's even worse than the debate raging in American schools about the teaching of the soulless doctrine of evolution, is the non-debate over an issue that rational Americans have foolishly conceded to the secular among us: the issue of Heliocentrism, or the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Now, it has to be granted that there may be some mathematical evidence going either way; mathematically speaking, Copernicus may be on ground nearly as firm as that of Tycho Brahe. Right-thinking people know the correct doctrine, however:

Quote:
Heliocentrism is the view that the sun is at the center of the universe. It was proposed by some ancient Greeks,[1] and became the dominant view in the 1700s and 1800s. It was abandoned in the 20th century.

Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in covariant equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and geocentric theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations


It seems clear that it may occasionally be convenient to assume that the calculations of Copernicus and Kepler were mathematically sound. However, for both moral and theological reasons, we should always bear in mind that the Earth does not move. If it moved, we would feel it moving. That's called empiricism, the experience of the senses. Don't take my word for it, or the evidence of your own senses, Copernicans. There's also the Word of the Lord:

Quote:
"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …" (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…" (Isaiah 45:18)

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." (Joshua 10, 12-13)


Moreover, as Answers in Genesis points out,

Quote:


The premier website for those wishing an absolute debunking of the Biblically unsound, empirically fraudulent, historically heretical doctrine of Heliocentrism is http://www.fixedearth.com/. The website contains numerous links to essays and analyses proving that the embrace of Copernicus is almost as foolish as the embrace of Darwinism. To quote from just one of these astounding essays:

Quote:
Copernicanism, in short, is a concept that is protected in a bunker under a 50 foot thick ceiling of solid "scientific" concrete. It is meant to be impregnable. It is a concept that has become ensconced in men's minds as the indestructible cornerstone of enlightened modern man's knowledge. Virtually all people everywhere have been taught to believe-and do believe-that this concept is based on objective science and dispassionate secular reasoning, now long since freed from religious superstitions based on the Bible.

Indeed, it was this Copernican heliocentricity concept that gradually broke the back of Bible credibility as the source of Absolute Truth in Christendom. Once the Copernican Revolution had conquered the physical sciences of Astronomy and Physics and put down deep roots in Universities and lower schools everywhere, it was only a matter of time until the Biological sciences launched the Darwinian Revolution.

This embrace of Darwinism then quite predictably emboldened increasingly secular-minded mankind to further reject Biblical Absolutism and replace its teachings with yet more new "truths" in areas of learning having to do with economics and government. Thus was unsuccessful and floundering Marxism given new life. Marx openly tried to dedicate his own books to Darwin, exulting: "You have given me the basis for my system". Thus, the "Social Science" disciplines were born and began to make their contributions to the destruction of Bible credibility…

Darwin, of course, only popularized evolutionism with his book in 1859, giving it a supposed mechanism thru natural selection and mutations, both since demonstrated to be utter nonsense. The actual roots of the evolutionary concept can be traced back to antiquity…as indeed can the roots of Copernican heliocentricism. Certainly the neo-heliocentrists, i.e., the early Copernicans such as Kepler were evolutionists. Galileo, like Kepler his friend, a neo-heliocentrist, was probably an evolutionist. Newton gave Copernicanism its biggest boost with his book in 1687, but I've seen no overt evidence that he was an evolutionist. (If you know of such evidence, I'd like to see it….)

Thanks, however, to Newton's invented math and the excesses of his gravitational hypotheses (HERE), Copernicanism dug in its heels in the universities in the 1700's, and by the last quarter of that century had produced a large crop of hard core heliocentrists, not a few of whom were advocating ape-man theories (amongst them, Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, Voltaire's disciples in France, etc.). This was the age of "The Enlightenment" which produced Thomas Paine, the celebrated pamphleteer of the American Revolution, whom George Washington referred to as "that filthy little atheist". Thomas Jefferson's and Ben Franklin's Deism was commonplace in Europe as well as amongst the rebellious American colonies. During the French Revolution of the 1790's the Bible was actually outlawed.

These developments were sixty to a hundred years and more before Darwin, but the damage to Bible credibility done by the Copernican Revolution by that time was making an ever-widening open door for Evolutionism to take root. By 1830-even before Darwin (with his Degree in Theology, not Biology) went to the Galapagos Islands and began to formulate his mythology, Charles Lyell (with his degree in Law, not Geology) had advanced his idea of a "geologic column" with great ages attached to alleged descending layers of the earth. Though such a column has never, ever been confirmed, and though there are mountainous examples of the theoretically old layers being on top of the supposedly more recent ones, and though the Cambrian layer shows a sudden profusion of highly developed life forms with no antecedents, Darwin picked up on Lyell's fantasy and it is still taught as a proof of an ancient earth and macro-evolutionism.


If that, alone, isn't enough to convince you of the folly of embracing a soulless, atheistic pseudoscience like Heliocentrism, perhaps this will soften your stony head:

Quote:
God, thru His Word, teaches a non-moving and immovable earth just as surely as he teaches a six-day Creation 6000 years ago and a universal Flood some 1600 years later. All attempts to twist and even boldly reverse geocentric Scriptures by claiming that God just used a "language of appearance" are extremely reckless for the Christian devoted to the inerrancy of Scripture. After all, the same argument has been employed with near devastating effect upon the Creationist Movement by Theistic Evolutionists, has it not?

Attacking vulnerable Copernicanism is a strategy that outflanks the entire secular science establishment (overrunning the Theistic Evolutionist's position in the process!)

In addition to all that, being men and women of sound mind (II Tim. 1:7), Creationists should be eager to learn that:

1) No one-not Copernicus, not Kepler, not Galileo, not Newton, not Einstein-absolutely no one has proven the earth to be moving.

2) The earth moves only thru abstract, abstruse, and esoteric mathematics invented to make it move.

3) Over 200 truly scientific experiments using real mathematics have shown no earth movement, and these had the science establishment in a panic from the 1880's until Einstein came to the rescue in 1905 with his "relativity" hypothesis.

4) Relativity is pure claptrap and there isn't a person reading this who can't know that fact.

5) Foucault's Pendulum, the Coriolis Effect, and geostationary satellites do not prove a moving earth.

6) Anyone can see that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments-especially the light fringe results-prove a stationary earth; and other facts about eclipses, satellite re-positionings, alleged blinding earth speeds, gravitational hooey, etc., add to the proof. Moreover, the Big Bang Baloney, the growing awareness of the effect of Dark Matter on galactic speeds, parallax factors (HERE) which shrink the cosmos, the evidence for speed-of-light retardation, the behavior of reflections and their capabilities for producing phenomena regarding size and depth, etc., all combine to corroborate the certitude of a greatly sanforized universe (one no more than one light day thick: Start HERE), a universe put in diurnal rotation around the spiritual and physical center of God's Creation, just exactly as it appears to be day in and day out.

7) The Bible not only flatly states scores of times (HERE) and in several ways (HERE) that the earth does not move, it actually has a built-in geocentric assumption-sun rise, sun set-from beginning to end. (One scholar, a geocentrist and mathematician, is cataloguing some 2000 (!) of these.)

In the beginning, the Bible makes clear, the earth was the center of our "solar" system, with no sun for it to go around until the 4th day of creation (Gen.1:14-19; HERE). At the End we read of a New Earth (HERE) replacing in the same location this old one (Rev. 20:11; 21:1,2). This New Earth which occupies the same location in the cosmos as the old one which has "fled away" is the place where God the Father and Jesus will dwell with the redeemed forever (Rev. 21:3).

Given that unpreached but clear teaching, do you think that God the Father and Jesus the Son will eternally be somewhere out on the edge of Their NEW Universe in the boonies…or at the center?


If you ask me, that settles the question right there. I support the Bible, and I don't want my children learning about Heliocentrism in school. I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism. I don't want my tax dollars going to finance this kind of false science. It's complete rot, and I hope that those of us who come to realize this can ultimately prevail against its propogation amongst OUR children with the money from OUR salaries.

I can't wait to hear from the moonbats and the Darwinists and the other rubes on this one, though. Go on, witch doctors. Preach to me how the planet hurtles through the ether, Scriptural and physical evidence to the contrary! Your false doctrines will be cast down on the day when America rediscovers its Christian roots. That is a promise.

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/2007/05/23/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine.aspx
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 07:55 am
OMG. Someone actually wrote that? This person should be shot. Obviously she(he?) is too stupid to live.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 08:11 am
I never thought anyone would believe, in this day and age, in a heliocentric universe, but with 25% of religious Americans believing Christ will appear in 2007 I suppose 18% believing in heliocentrism should not come as a shock.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 08:36 am
An obvious spoof which xingu adopted as a straw man.

Author's name Sisyphus - as in Myth of Sisyphus
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 07:04:26