PDA

View Full Version : Biblical contradictions


Flobajob
30-07-2006, 11:59
There's a very good source for the contradictions here:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Now, I had offered a huge list of site's via Google but it would appear that the christians here aren't interested in reading about anything that might show any aspect of their religion in a bad light (e.g. the BOOK they live their lives by). What's that saying? There are none so blind as those who will not see!

Kliro
30-07-2006, 15:13
You don't have to force your views on everyone else you know.

A simple - I don't believe in your religion because of its inaccuracies or w/e would suffice.

Russ
30-07-2006, 15:31
There's a very good source for the contradictions here:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Now, I had offered a huge list of site's via Google but it would appear that the christians here aren't interested in reading about anything that might show any aspect of their religion in a bad light (e.g. the BOOK they live their lives by). What's that saying? There are none so blind as those who will not see!

This is why I'm not interested in discussing the subject with you.

From experience of dealing with others on this subject, if you were genuinely interested in such matters, you would cite particular instances, and I'd gladly debate them with you.

However again from experience with others, those who have no real interest other than to want to rubbish other people's views will just provide a google link and say "go defend yourself".

btw Kilro, greenie on it's way - I appreciate the tolerance shown by people such as yourself.

Xaccers
30-07-2006, 16:52
You don't have to force your views on everyone else you know.

A simple - I don't believe in your religion because of its inaccuracies or w/e would suffice.

He was invited create this topic by Chris T to discuss such contradictions.

Flobajob
30-07-2006, 16:54
You don't have to force your views on everyone else you know.

A simple - I don't believe in your religion because of its inaccuracies or w/e would suffice.

As Xaccers said, Chris T asked me to create a thread regarding this.

---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:54 ----------

This is why I'm not interested in discussing the subject with you.

From experience of dealing with others on this subject, if you were genuinely interested in such matters, you would cite particular instances, and I'd gladly debate them with you.

However again from experience with others, those who have no real interest other than to want to rubbish other people's views will just provide a google link and say "go defend yourself".

btw Kilro, greenie on it's way - I appreciate the tolerance shown by people such as yourself.

As I said in my original post, none so blind ... ;)

Russ
30-07-2006, 16:58
That works right back at you btw.

Xaccers
30-07-2006, 17:00
That works right back at you btw.

The thing is, he can see there are contradictions, can you?

Flobajob
30-07-2006, 17:00
That works right back at you btw.

Not really, I've read the Bible, I'm perfectly willing to address issues in it, you're not.

Russ
30-07-2006, 17:02
The thing is, he can see there are contradictions, can you?

Just because he and some website say they are contradictions does not make them so.

---------- Post added at 16:02 ---------- Previous post was at 16:01 ----------

Not really, I've read the Bible, I'm perfectly willing to address issues in it, you're not.

As I've stated, if your intentions were legitimate I'd have no problem in dealing with you.

Xaccers
30-07-2006, 17:06
Just because he and some website say they are contradictions does not make them so.


Are you saying it is misquoting the passages, or worse, fabricating them, and the bible actually does not contain the text they use?
Are you also saying that you cannot see the contradictions?

Flobajob
30-07-2006, 17:07
Just because he and some website say they are contradictions does not make them so.

Website? Is there only one?

As I've stated, if your intentions were legitimate I'd have no problem in dealing with you.

Don't ever make the mistake that you have the first clue as to what my "intentions" are, if you don't want to discuss this particular subject then find something else to occupy your time instead of posting pointless comments in here.

Russ
30-07-2006, 17:12
Are you saying it is misquoting the passages, or worse, fabricating them, and the bible actually does not contain the text they use?

I'm saying that it's common practise for cynical people to take anything they want out of context to present something as a 'contradiction'.

Are you also saying that you cannot see the contradictions?

I think you'll agree that what you might call a 'contradiction' is unlikely to something I'd call the same.

---------- Post added at 16:12 ---------- Previous post was at 16:08 ----------

Website? Is there only one?

I believe you only quoted one?

Don't ever make the mistake that you have the first clue as to what my "intentions" are,

You see, long since before you joined the site I was answering questions from anyone who wanted ask something about the Bible. After a while, certain patterns from particular people developed. So much so that I have a pretty accurate method of detecting who has a genuine interest and who has an agenda. Seeing as I don't want to waste my time with people who only wish to criticise, I make a habit of not engaging in discussion about this subject to those with an agenda.

if you don't want to discuss this particular subject then find something else to occupy your time instead of posting pointless comments in here.

Tell you what, when the day comes that you have any say in what I post on here, I'll be sure to let you know ok?

Xaccers
30-07-2006, 17:12
I'm saying that it's common practise for cynical people to take anything they want out of context to present something as a 'contradiction'.

I think you'll agree that what you might call a 'contradiction' is unlikely to something I'd call the same.

So person A saying "there are 20 can's of coke on the shelf inside that locked up shop" isn't contradicted by person B saying "there are 15 cans of coke on the shelf inside that locked up shop" because that to me, is a contradiction.
Similarly, one passage saying that the earth dried after 1 month to me is contradicted by another passage saying that the earth dried after 2 months.

Flobajob
30-07-2006, 17:14
Take your pick ...

Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

(a) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)

(b) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)


In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?

(a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)

(b) One million, one hundred thousand (IChronicles 21:5)


How many fighting men were found in Judah?

(a) Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)

(b) Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)


God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?

(a) Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)

(b) Three (I Chronicles 21:12)


How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)

(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)


How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?

(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)

(b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)


How long did he rule over Jerusalem?

(a) Three months (2 Kings 24:8)

(b) Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)


The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?

(a) Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)

(b) Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)


When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?

(a) After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)

(b) Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)


How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?

(a) Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)

(b) Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)


When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?

(a) One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4)

(b) Seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:4)


How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?

(a) Forty thousand (I Kings 4:26)

(b) Four thousand (2 chronicles 9:25)


In what year of King Asa's reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?

(a) Twenty-sixth year (I Kings 15:33 - 16:8)

(b) Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1)


How many overseers did Solomon appoint for the work of building the temple?

(a) Three thousand six hundred (2 Chronicles 2:2)

(b) Three thousand three hundred (I Kings 5:16)


Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?

(a) Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26)

(b) Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5)


Of the Israelites who were freed from the Babylonian captivity, how many were the children of Pahrath-Moab?

(a) Two thousand eight hundred and twelve (Ezra 2:6)

(b) Two thousand eight hundred and eighteen (Nehemiah 7:11)


How many were the children of Zattu?

(a) Nine hundred and forty-five (Ezra 2:8)

(b) Eight hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:13)


How many were the children of Azgad?

(a) One thousand two hundred and twenty-two (Ezra 2:12)

(b) Two thousand three hundred and twenty-two (Nehemiah 7:17)


How many were the children of Adin?

(a) Four hundred and fifty-four (Ezra 2:15)

(b) Six hundred and fifty-five (Nehemiah 7:20)


How many were the children of Hashum?

(a) Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:19)

(b) Three hundred and twenty-eight (Nehemiah 7:22)


How many were the children of Bethel and Ai?

(a) Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:28)

(b) One hundred and twenty-three (Nehemiah 7:32)


Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:

(a) 29,818 (Ezra)

(b) 31,089 (Nehemiah)


How many singers accompanied the assembly?

(a) Two hundred (Ezra 2:65)

(b) Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67)


What was the name of King AbijahÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s mother?

(a) Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2)

(b) Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20) But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27)


Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?

(a) Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40)

(b) No (Joshua 15:63)


Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?

(a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16)

(b) Hell (Luke 3:23)


Jesus descended from which son of David?

(a) Solomon (Matthew 1:6)

(b) Nathan(Luke3:31)


Who was the father of Shealtiel?

(a) Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12)

(b) Neriâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ (Luke 3:27)


Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?

(a) Abiud (Matthew 1: 13)

(b) Rhesa (Luke 3:27) But the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: i.Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v.Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (I Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anyway.


Who was the father of Uzziah?

(a) Joram (Matthew 1:8)

(b) Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1)


Who as the father of Jechoniah?

(a) Josiah (Matthew 1:11)

(b) Jeholakim (I Chronicles 3:16)


How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ?

(a) Matthew says fourteen (Matthew 1:17)

(b) But a careful count of the generations reveals only thirteen (see Matthew 1: 12-16)


Who was the father of Shelah?

(a) Cainan (Luke 3:35-36)

(b) Arphaxad (Genesis II: 12)


Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?

(a) Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)

(b) No(John 1:19-21)


Would Jesus inherit DavidÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s throne?

(a) Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)

(b) No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1: I 1, I Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon DavidÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s throne (Jeremiah 36:30)


Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals?

(a) One - a colt (Mark 11:7; cf Luke 19:3 5). †œAnd they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it.ââ‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚

(b) Two - a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7). †œThey brought the ass and the colt and put their garments on them and he sat thereon.ââ‚ ‚¬Ã‚


How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?

(a) By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)

(b) His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)


Where did Jesus first meet Simon Peter and Andrew?

(a) By the sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22)

(b) On the banks of river Jordan (John 1:42). After that, Jesus decided to go to Galilee (John 1:43)


When Jesus met Jairus was JairusÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ daughter already dead?

(a) Yes. Matthew 9:18 quotes him as saying, †œMy daughter has just died.ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â

(b) No. Mark 5:23 quotes him as saying, †œMy little daughter is at the point of death.ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â


Did Jesus allow his disciples to keep a staff on their journey?

(a) Yes(Mark6:8)

(b) No (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3)


Did Herod think that Jesus was John the Baptist?

(a) Yes (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16)

(b) No (Luke 9:9)


Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus before his baptism?

(a) Yes (Matthew 3:13-14)

(b) No (John 1:32,33)


Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus after his baptism?

(a) Yes (John 1:32, 33)

(b) No (Matthew 11:2)


According to the Gospel of John, what did Jesus say about bearing his own witness?

(a) †œIf I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not trueâ₠¬Ã‚ (John 5:3 1)

(b) †œEven if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is trueâ₠¬Ã‚ (John 8:14)


When Jesus entered Jerusalem did he cleanse the temple that same day?

(a) Yes (Matthew 21:12)

(b) No. He went into the temple and looked around, but since it was very late he did nothing. Instead, he went to Bethany to spend the night and returned the next morning to cleanse the temple (Mark I 1:1- 17).


The Gospels say that Jesus cursed a fig tree. Did the tree wither at once?

(a) Yes. (Matthew 21:19)

(b) No. It withered overnight (Mark II: 20)


Did Judas kiss Jesus?

(a) Yes (Matthew 26:48-50)

(b) No. Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him (John 18:3-12)


What did Jesus say about PeterÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s denial?

(a) †œThe cock will not crow till you have denied me three timesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â (John 13:38).

(b) †œBefore the cock crows twice you will deny me three timesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â (Mark 14:30) . When the cock crowed once, the three denials were not yet complete (see Mark 14:72). Therefore prediction (a) failed.


Did Jesus bear his own cross?

(a) Yes (John 19:17)

(b) No (Matthew 27:31-32)


Did Jesus die before the curtain of the temple was torn?

(a) Yes(Matthew27:50-5 1;MarklS:37-38)

(b) No. After the curtain was torn, then Jesus crying with a loud voice, said, †œFather, into thy hands I commit my spirit!ââ‚à ‚¬Ã‚ And having said this he breathed his last (Luke 23:45-46)


Did Jesus say anything secretly?

(a) No. †œI have said nothing secretlyââ‚ ‚¬Ã‚ (John 18:20)

(b) Yes. †œHe did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everythingââ ¬Â (Mark 4:34). The disciples asked him †œWhy do you speak to them in parables?ââ‚ ¬Â He said, †œTo you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been givenÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â (Matthew 13: 1 0-11)


Where was Jesus at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion?

(a) On the cross (Mark 15:23)

(b) In PilateÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s court (John 19:14)


The gospels say that two thieves were crucified along with Jesus. Did both thieves mock Jesus?

(a) Yes (Mark 15:32)

(b) No. One of them mocked Jesus, the other defended Jesus (Luke 23:43)


Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion?

(a) Yes. He said to the thief who defended him, †œToday you will be with me in Paradiseââ‚ ‚¬Ã‚ (Luke 23:43)

(b) No. He said to Mary Magdelene two days later, †œI have not yet ascended to the FatherÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â (John 20:17)


When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice?

(a) Yes(Acts9:7)

(b) No(Acts22:9)



When Paul saw the light he fell to the ground. Did his traveling companions also fall to the ground?

(a) Yes (Acts 26:14)

(b) No (Acts 9:7)



Did the voice spell out on the spot what Paulâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s duties were to be?

(a) Yes (Acts 26:16-18)

(b) No. The voice commanded Paul to go into the city of Damascus and there he will be told what he must do. (Acts9:7;22: 10)



When the Israelites dwelt in ****tin they committed adultery with the daughters of Moab. God struck them with a plague. How many people died in that plague?

(a) Twenty-four thousand (Numbers 25:1 and 9)

(b) Twenty-three thousand (I Corinthians 10:8)



How many members of the house of Jacob came to Egypt?

(a) Seventy souls (Genesis 4&27)

(b) Seventy-five souls (Acts 7:14)



What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?

(a) He bought a field (Acts 1: 18)

(b) He threw all of it into the temple and went away. The priests could not put the blood money into the temple treasury, so they used it to buy a field to bury strangers (Matthew 27:5)



How did Judas die?

(a) After he threw the money into the temple he went away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5)

(b) After he bought the field with the price of his evil deed he fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out (Acts 1:18)



Why is the field called †œField of BloodÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â?

(a) Because the priests bought it with the blood money (Matthew 27:8)

(b) Because of the bloody death of Judas therein (Acts 1:19)



Who is a ransom for whom?

(a) †œThe Son of Man came...to give his life as a ransom for manyâ₠¬Ã‚ (Mark 10:45). †œChrist Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all... †œ(I Timothy 2:5-6)

(b) †œThe wicked is a ransom for the righteous, and the faithless for the uprightââ‚à ‚¬Ã‚ (Proverbs 21:18)



Is the law of Moses useful?

(a) Yes. †œAll scripture is... profitable...â↚¬Â (2 Timothy 3:16)

(b) No. †œ. . . A former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness... †œ(Hebrews 7:18)



What was the exact wording on the cross?

(a) †œThis is Jesus the King of the Jewsâ₠¬Ã‚ (Matthew 27:37)

(b) †œThe King of the Jewsâ₠¬Ã‚ (Mark 15:26)

(c) †œThis is the King of the Jewsâ₠¬Ã‚ (Luke 23:38)

(d) †œJesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jewsâ₠¬Ã‚ (John 19:19)



Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist?

(a) Yes (Matthew 14:5)

(b) No. It was Herodias, the wife of Herod who wanted to kill him. But Herod knew that he was a righteous man and kept him safe (Mark 6:20)



Who was the tenth disciple of Jesus in the list of twelve?

(a) Thaddaeus (Matthew 10: 1-4; Mark 3:13 -19)

(b) Judas son of James is the corresponding name in Lukeâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s gospel (Luke 6:12-16)



Jesus saw a man sitat the tax collectorâ₠¬â„¢s office and called him to be his disciple. What was his name?

(a) Matthew (Matthew 9:9)

(b) Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27)



Was Jesus crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal or the daytime after?

(a) After (Mark 14:12-17)

(b) Before. Before the feast of the Passover (John 1) Judas went out at night (John 13:30). The other disciples thought he was going out to buy supplies to prepare for the Passover meal (John 13:29). When Jesus was arrested, the Jews did not enter PilateÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s judgment hail because they wanted to stay clean to eat the Passover (John 18:28). When the judgment was pronounced against Jesus, it was about the sixth hour on the day of Preparation for the Passover (John 19:14)



Did Jesus pray to The Father to prevent the crucifixion?

(a) Yes. (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42)

(b) No. (John 12:27)



In the gospels which say that Jesus prayed to avoid the cross, how many times did †˜he move away from his disciples to pray?

(a) Three (Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42)

(b) One. No opening is left for another two times. (Luke 22:39-46)



Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus went away and prayed three times. What were the words of the second prayer?

(a) Mark does not give the words but he says that the words were the same as the first prayer (Mark 14:3 9)

(b) Matthew gives us the words, and we can see that they are not the same as in the first (Matthew 26:42)



What did the centurion say when Jesus dies?

(a) †œCertainly this man was innocentââ‚ ‚¬Ã‚ (Luke 23:47)

(b) †œTruly this man was the Son of Godââ‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ (Mark 15:39)



When Jesus said †œMy God, my God, why hast thou forsaken Me ? † in what language did he speak?

(a) Hebrew: the words are †œEloi, Eloi †¦..ââà ¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã…“( Matthew 27:46)

(b) Aramaic: the words are †œEloi, Eloi †¦.. †œ(Mark 15:34)

When Jesus entered Capernaum he healed the slave of a centurion. Did the centurion come personally to request Jesus for this?

(a) Yes (Matthew 8:5)

(b) No. He sent some elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3,6)



(a) Adam was told that if and when he eats the forbidden fruit he would die the same day (Genesis 2:17)

(b) Adam ate the fruit and went on to live to a ripe old age of 930 years (Genesis 5:5)





(a) God decided that the life-span of humans will be limited to 120 years (Genesis 6:3)

(b) Many people born after that lived longer than 120. Arpachshad lived 438 years. His son Shelah lived 433 years. His son Eber lived 464 years, etc. (Genesis 11:12-16)



Apart from Jesus did anyone else ascend to heaven?

(a) No (John 3:13)

(b) Yes. †œAnd Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heavenÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â (2 Kings 2:11)



Who was high priest when David went into the house of God and ate the consecrated bread?

(a) Abiathar (Mark 2:26)

(b) Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar (I Samuel 1:1; 22:20)



Was JesusÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ body wrapped in spices before burial in accordance with Jewish burial customs?

(a) Yes and his female disciples witnessed his burial (John 19:39-40)

(b) No. Jesus was simply wrapped in a linen shroud. Then the women bought and prepared spices †œso that they may go and anoint him [Jesus)ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â (Mark 16: 1)



When did the women buy the spices?

(a) After †œthe Sabbath was pastâ₠¬Ã‚ (Mark 16:1)

(b) Before the Sabbath. The women †œprepared spices and ointments.ââ ¬Â Then, †œon the Sabbath they rested according to the commandmentââ ¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ (Luke 23:55 to 24:1)



At what time of day did the women visit the tomb?

(a) †œToward the dawnâ₠¬Ã‚ (Matthew 28: 1)

(b) †œWhen the sun had risenÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â (Mark 16:2)



What was the purpose for which the women went to the tomb?

(a) To anoint JesusÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ body with spices (Mark 16: 1; Luke 23:55 to 24: 1)

(b) To see the tomb. Nothing about spices here (Matthew 28: 1)

(c) For no specified reason. In this gospel the wrapping with spices had been done before the Sabbath (John 20: 1)



A large stone was placed at the entrance of the tomb. Where was the stone when the women arrived?

(a) They saw that the stone was †œRolled backâ₠¬Ã‚ (Mark 16:4) They found the stone †œrolled away from the tombâ₠¬Ã‚ (Luke 24:2) They saw that †œthe stone had been taken away from the tombâ₠¬Ã‚ (John 20:1)

(b) As the women approached, an angel descended from heaven, rolled away the stone, and conversed with the women. Matthew made the women witness the spectacular rolling away of the stone (Matthew 28:1-6)



Did anyone tell the women what happened to JesusÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ body?

(a) Yes. †œA young man in a white robeââ‚ ¬Ã‚ (Mark 16:5). †œTwo men ... in dazzling apparelââ‚à ‚¬Ã‚ later described as angels (Luke 24:4 and 24:23). An angel - the one who rolled back the stone (Matthew 16:2). In each case the women were told that Jesus had risen from the dead (Matthew 28:7; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5 footnote)

(b) No. Mary met no one and returned saying, †œThey have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid himââ‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ (John 20:2)



When did Mary Magdelene first meet the resurrected Jesus? And how did she react?

(a) Mary and the other women met Jesus on their way back from their first and only visit to the tomb. They took hold of his feet and worshipped him (Matthew 28:9)

(b) On her second visit to the tomb Mary met Jesus just outside the tomb. When she saw Jesus she did not recognize him. She mistook him for the gardener. She still thinks that JesusÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ body is laid to rest somewhere and she demands to know where. But when Jesus said her name she at once recognized him and called him †œTeacher.à¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚à  Jesus said to her, †œDo not hold me...ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â (John 20:11 to 17)



What was JesusÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ instruction for his disciples?

(a) †œTell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see meâ₠¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ (Matthew 2 8: 10)

(b) †œGo to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your Godââ‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ (John 20:17)



When did the disciples return to Galilee?

(a) Immediately, because when they saw Jesus in Galilee †œsome doubtedââ‚à ‚¬Ã‚ (Matthew 28:17). This period of uncertainty should not persist

(b) After at least 40 days. That evening the disciples were still in Jerusalem (Luke 24:3 3). Jesus appeared to them there and told them, stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on highâ₠¬Ã‚ (Luke 24:49). He was appearing to them †œduring forty daysâ₠¬Ã‚ (Acts 1:3), and †œcharged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise ... †œ(Acts 1:4)



To whom did the Midianites sell Joseph?

(a) †œTo the Ishmaelitesââ ¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ (Genesis 37:28)

(b) †œTo Potiphar, an officer of Pharaohââ‚à ‚¬Ã‚ (Genesis 37:36)



Who brought Joseph to Egypt?

(a) The Ishmaelites bought Joseph and then †œtook Joseph to EgyptÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â (Genesis 37:28)

(b) †œThe Midianites had sold him in EgyptÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â (Genesis 37:36)

(c) Joseph said to his brothers †œI am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into EgyptÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â (Genesis 45:4)



Does God change his mind?

(a) Yes. †œThe word of the Lord came to Samuel: †œI repent that I have made Saul King...ââ‚à ‚¬Ã‚ (I Samuel 15:10 to 11)

(b) No. God †œwill not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repentÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â (I Samuel 15:29)

(c) Yes. †œAnd the Lord repented that he had made Saul King over IsraelÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â (I Samuel 15:35). Notice that the above three quotes are all from the same chapter of the same book! In addition, the Bible shows that God repented on several other occasions:
i. †œThe Lord was sorry that he made manââ‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ (Genesis 6:6)
†œI am sorry that I have made themâ₠¬Ã‚ (Genesis 6:7)
ii. †œAnd the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his peopleÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â (Exodus 32:14).
iii. (Lots of other such references).

Russ
30-07-2006, 17:19
So person A saying "there are 20 can's of coke on the shelf inside that locked up shop" isn't contradicted by person B saying "there are 15 cans of coke on the shelf inside that locked up shop" because that to me, is a contradiction.

But if person A has a massive agenda against shops which stock coke on shelves and only looks through the window through almost closed blinds at night when there's little light, the whole debate is useless.

Flobajob
30-07-2006, 17:20
But if person A has a massive agenda against shops stocking coke in shelves and only looks through the window through almost closed blinds at night when there's little light, the whole debate is useless.

I can tell you this, person A has an agenda against nothing, you seriously need to stop making silly assumptions.

Russ
30-07-2006, 17:26
I can tell you this, person A has an agenda against nothing, you seriously need to stop making silly assumptions.

With respect, this discussion has been going on for a lot longer than you've been on here.

nfs6600
30-07-2006, 17:35
THis thread will get nowhere at all. Russ is never going to admit there are contradictions in the bible. I once "had it out" with someone before over the whole God subject and the bible. She believed in the bible and that god helps those who pray, are with the faith and so on and so on. Yet when one mentions poverty, famine, wars, etc. for those people who are probably more religious that Russ for example, they can't explain that away. Why????

To me religion is all a load of b*llocks. But each to their own and we are all entitled to our own beliefs

pedantic
30-07-2006, 17:37
Live And Let Live ! ;)

Russ
30-07-2006, 17:39
Russ is never going to admit there are contradictions in the bible.

I didn't say that at all. I haven't closely studied each chapter enough to be able to say there are NO contradictions at all - my point is if there is a website (or many websites) which are clearly not subjective pointing out what they consider to be 'contradictions' which usually turn out to be no more than quotations taken out of context or differences due to interpritation, I become less likely to agree that they are an actual contradiction.

To me religion is all a load of b*llocks. But each to their own and we are all entitled to our own beliefs

We have a swear filter for a reason - please don't try to bypass it.

Flobajob
30-07-2006, 17:40
With respect, this discussion has been going on for a lot longer than you've been on here.

If you don't want to discuss these contradictions fine, your reasons why don't interest me at all. If you had a juxtaposition to offer on the information I've posted I'd be very interested, but you don't.

Can I also point out (to anyone who wants to use it for their pro/con religion 'agenda') that this thread is for discussing CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE, nothing else.

nfs6600
30-07-2006, 17:44
But if person A has a massive agenda against shops which stock coke on shelves and only looks through the window through almost closed blinds at night when there's little light, the whole debate is useless.

This whole fricken thread is useless. No one is going to back down

---------- Post added at 16:44 ---------- Previous post was at 16:41 ----------


We have a swear filter for a reason - please don't try to bypass it.

ermm, I wasn't trying to bypass anything mate. I placed the * there purely through habit. By all means if it offends remove the word

Ramrod
30-07-2006, 17:47
I'm still waiting for an explanation of the contradictions listed in post #14, Russ......

Russ
30-07-2006, 17:49
Can I also point out (to anyone who wants to use it for their pro/con religion 'agenda') that this thread is for discussing CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE, nothing else.

I wasn't aware that there was some 'bylaw' here that pointedly prohibited explanations to anyone but the person who started the thread.

Flobajob
30-07-2006, 17:50
I wasn't aware that there was some 'bylaw' here that pointedly prohibited explanations to anyone but the person who started the thread.

Huh :confused:

(And if I ask REALLY nicely, could you PLEASE stop ruining this thread? If it had been about anything else I have no doubt that you'd have been all over it like a fly on a cow pat asking people to stay on topic)

Russ
30-07-2006, 17:51
I'm still waiting for an explanation of the contradictions listed in post #14, Russ......

As I'm sure you can appreciate Ram that was a very long post (actually I was going to edit that post and request that people don't simply cut and paste from other sites as per our T&Cs but you know, accusations of abusing my admin rights etc etc) and it's not something I can just answer immediately - I'm sure someone as well-educated as Chris would have trouble giving a satisfactory reply to so many points but I will happily take them to my Bible study group for debate and destruction ;)

Flobajob
30-07-2006, 17:53
As I'm sure you can appreciate Ram that was a very long post (actually I was going to edit that post and request that people don't simply cut and paste from other sites as per our T&Cs but you know, accusations of abusing my admin rights etc etc) and it's not something I can just answer immediately - I'm sure someone as well-educated as Chris would have trouble giving a satisfactory reply to so many points but I will happily take them to my Bible study group for debate and destruction ;)

You don't have to answer all of them, but there's plenty there to pick and choose from.

Russ
30-07-2006, 17:56
You don't have to answer all of them, but there's plenty there to pick and choose from.

You need to learn to ways of the Usual Suspects on here - doing as you suggest will lead to accusations that I'm avoiding the ones I have no reply for, or are uncomfortable with etc.

timewarrior2001
30-07-2006, 18:00
OK Flobajob.

Russ is religious, he has a strong belief, why cant you just accept that?

I hate religion, Me and Russ have clashed several times over it. Unlike you I try and discuss with Russ in a reasonable (sometimes) Way. And although I cant understand his faith, I respect it.

I fail to see what you want, there is no right or wrong here, Russ believes you dont.

Now can you please stop bating him over it, as you are ruining the forum for us all.
Russ has stated he has no intention of rising to you so please LEAVE IT.

Flobajob
30-07-2006, 18:02
OK Flobajob.

Russ is religious, he has a strong belief, why cant you just accept that?

I hate religion, Me and Russ have clashed several times over it. Unlike you I try and discuss with Russ in a reasonable (sometimes) Way. And although I cant understand his faith, I respect it.

I fail to see what you want, there is no right or wrong here, Russ believes you dont.

Now can you please stop bating him over it, as you are ruining the forum for us all.
Russ has stated he has no intention of rising to you so please LEAVE IT.

Russ has stated that he doesn't want to discuss it, I have no problem with that, Chris T has indicated in another thread that I should start one regarding bibical contradictions and that he WOULD discuss it, hense the reason for this thread. Russ does not have to participate in this, he can simply ignore it (as can you)

timewarrior2001
30-07-2006, 18:06
Russ has stated that he doesn't want to discuss it, I have no problem with that, Chris T has indicated in another thread that I should start one regarding bibical contradictions and that he WOULD discuss it, hense the reason for this thread. Russ does not have to participate in this, he can simply ignore it (as can you)


Perhaps I dont want to ignore it, perhaps I'm not complaining about the thread.
Hey maybe even I am with you on this one, but there is no excuse for you to go at Russ the way you are.
I dont believe the bible one iota. I dont believe in religion....ANY religion.
I beleive in Jesus as a Phrophet but not as an immortal, as the son of god.
I dont htink he was crucified on the cross for several reasons, although Russ did point out to me something I had forgotten.
I have many questions to ask, and they dont concentrate on information taken directly from another website.

I get the impression your just going to rip into anyone that tries to defend their faith, so I ask what is the point?

Xaccers
30-07-2006, 18:11
Perhaps I dont want to ignore it, perhaps I'm not complaining about the thread.
Hey maybe even I am with you on this one, but there is no excuse for you to go at Russ the way you are.

Hang on TW, how is he having a go at Russ?
Russ has made it clear he has no interest in starting a real discussion about the topic at hand, accused Flob of having an agenda, and all Flob has done is say fine, if you don't want to participate, don't, but please don't disrupt this thread.

Flobajob
30-07-2006, 18:12
Perhaps I dont want to ignore it, perhaps I'm not complaining about the thread.
Hey maybe even I am with you on this one, but there is no excuse for you to go at Russ the way you are.
I dont believe the bible one iota. I dont believe in religion....ANY religion.
I beleive in Jesus as a Phrophet but not as an immortal, as the son of god.
I dont htink he was crucified on the cross for several reasons, although Russ did point out to me something I had forgotten.
I have many questions to ask, and they dont concentrate on information taken directly from another website.

I get the impression your just going to rip into anyone that tries to defend their faith, so I ask what is the point?

I've no intention of ripping into anyone, please don't tar me with the brush that you appear to have been painted with, I've every intention of having a satisfying, mature conversation with anyone who'd like to offer their viewpoint on the irrefutable (I'm not asking people to argue with me that these contradictions don't exist because from just checking the bible a little while ago I can categorically state that they do) fact that the bible appears to have many MANY contradictions.

Instead of jumping down my throat and making assumptions that are almost as incorrect as Russ's, why don't you contribute something in line with the actual topic?

punky
30-07-2006, 18:13
Right... I'll have a bash at it then if noone else will.... I'm not exactly a Christian scholar, I could be entirely wrong, but i'll try my best anyway. I'm probably not knowledgable enough to debate it properly, but i'll give you my intrepretation of the general situation.

I haven't read the site exhaustively, but I have browsed over it.

Firstly, a lot of the contradictions they declare there refer to books in the New Testament... The NT was written by tens of different people over the course of a hundred or so years. Its not divine contribution, it's human created. That itself makes contradictions and mistakes a surefire certainty. Get 20-odd different doctor's opinions, spread over the course of 100-odd years of a fixed point of science - I am sure you'll find their opinions would be far from unanimous or unambiguous. Also, not all text were transcribed first hand... nor transcribed immediately. Sometimes decades had passed before they were recounted and transcribed.

Now, the Old Testament is considered mostly divine contribution - i.e. the word of God. It was still dictated through humans though, like Moses. Also, it was transcribed thousands of years ago. Languages wern't as sophisticated as they are now. Its also been translated through different languages by different people. They wern't saved onto computer disk and backed up... There were written on tablets (wax or stone)... These can become corrupted, or lost. Some had to be rebuilt.

In short, there are many reasons that can lead to ambiguity in religious text. This would apply to any other book that was written under the circumstances of the Bible. Religion is based on a faith... Not a book. A Bible is a supporting text to religion, not an absolute de facto instruction set to live your life as a religious person. I am certainly not going to stone gay people because it was acceptable behavior thousands of years ago when the Bible was written. The Bible has to be taken for exactly what it is... A guide on how to follow a religion (OT actually forms part of 3 different religions), but also written 2,000-4,000 years ago.

My :2cents: anyway. I dare say i'll be ripped apart mercilessly in the true spirit of CF's basement. Still, its how I intrepret it.

Russ
30-07-2006, 18:13
Hang on TW, how is he having a go at Russ?
Russ has made it clear he has no interest in starting a real discussion about the topic at hand, accused Flob of having an agenda, and all Flob has done is say fine, if you don't want to participate, don't, but please don't disrupt this thread.

I've not 'made it clear' at all - I'll discuss supposed 'contradictions' with anyone as long as they don't have a pre-set agenda. There are plenty of those on CF but also many who don't have one and if any of these members want to discuss such a subject in this thread I'll be more than happy to help.

I hope he doesn't mind me using him as an example but so far Ramrod is doing just that.

Flobajob
30-07-2006, 18:17
Right... I'll have a bash at it then if noone else will.... I'm not exactly a Christian scholar, I could be entirely wrong, but i'll try my best anyway. I'm probably not knowledgable enough to debate it properly, but i'll give you my intrepretation of the general situation.

I haven't read the site exhaustively, but I have browsed over it.

Firstly, a lot of the contradictions they declare there refer to books in the New Testament... The NT was written by tens of different people over the course of a hundred or so years. Its not divine contribution, it's human created. That itself makes contradictions and mistakes a surefire certainty. Get 20-odd different doctor's opinions, spread over the course of 100-odd years of a fixed point of science - I am sure you'll find their opinions would be far from unanimous or unambiguous. Also, not all text were transcribed first hand... nor transcribed immediately. Sometimes decades had passed before they were recounted and transcribed.

Now, the Old Testament is considered mostly divine contribution - i.e. the word of God. It was still dictated through humans though, like Moses. Also, it was transcribed thousands of years ago. Languages wern't as sophisticated as they are now. Its also been translated through different languages by different people. They wern't saved onto computer disk and backed up... There were written on tablets (wax or stone)... These can become corrupted, or lost. Some had to be rebuilt.

In short, there are many reasons that can lead to ambiguity in religious text. This would apply to any other book that was written under the circumstances of the Bible. Religion is based on a faith... Not a book. A Bible is a supporting text to religion, not an absolute de facto instruction set to live your life as a religious person. I am certainly not going to stone gay people because it was acceptable behavior thousands of years ago when the Bible was written. The Bible has to be taken for exactly what it is... A guide on how to follow a religion (OT actually forms part of 3 different religions), but also written 2,000-4,000 years ago.

My :2cents: anyway. I dare say i'll be ripped apart mercilessly in the true spirit of CF's basement. Still, its how I intrepret it.

There we go! I knew someone could manage it. What you've said makes perfect sense but do you not think that someone might have collated it slightly better? There are some quite glaring contradictions of the ilk "god said so and so" and in another section it's "satan said so and so".

Xaccers
30-07-2006, 18:18
Right... I'll have a bash at it then if noone else will.... I'm not exactly a Christian scholar, I could be entirely wrong, but i'll try my best anyway. I'm probably not knowledgable enough to debate it properly, but i'll give you my intrepretation of the general situation.

I haven't read the site exhaustively, but I have browsed over it.

Firstly, a lot of the contradictions they declare there refer to books in the New Testament... The NT was written by tens of different people over the course of a hundred or so years. Its not divine contribution, it's human created. That itself makes contradictions and mistakes a surefire certainty. Get 20-odd different doctor's opinions, spread over the course of 100-odd years of a fixed point of science - I am sure you'll find their opinions would be far from unanimous or unambiguous. Also, not all text were transcribed first hand... nor transcribed immediately. Sometimes decades had passed before they were recounted and transcribed.

Now, the Old Testament is considered mostly divine contribution - i.e. the word of God. It was still dictated through humans though, like Moses. Also, it was transcribed thousands of years ago. Languages wern't as sophisticated as they are now. Its also been translated through different languages by different people. They wern't saved onto computer disk and backed up... There were written on tablets (wax or stone)... These can become corrupted, or lost. Some had to be rebuilt.

In short, there are many reasons that can lead to ambiguity in religious text. This would apply to any other book that was written under the circumstances of the Bible. Religion is based on a faith... Not a book. A Bible is a supporting text to religion, not an absolute de facto instruction set to live your life as a religious person. I am certainly not going to stone gay people because it was acceptable behavior thousands of years ago when the Bible was written. The Bible has to be taken for exactly what it is... A guide on how to follow a religion (OT actually forms part of 3 different religions), but also written 2,000-4,000 years ago.

My :2cents: anyway. I dare say i'll be ripped apart mercilessly in the true spirit of CF's basement. Still, its how I intrepret it.

Thank you punky for such a good post.
What I find interesting, is that when the books were written down, such contradictions weren't highlighted and corrected.

punky
30-07-2006, 18:19
Also.... I just want to say... There are a lot of anti-religious sentiments here. Think what you want of the Bible, or organised religion, but let people believe what they want to believe without animosity or persecution.

This thread is to discuss contradictions, not an excuse so people can lambast people for 'following an imaginary man in the sky'. If you don't like religion or know nothing about it, or want to know nothing about it, then find another thread.

timewarrior2001
30-07-2006, 18:19
Right... I'll have a bash at it then if noone else will.... I'm not exactly a Christian scholar, I could be entirely wrong, but i'll try my best anyway. I'm probably not knowledgable enough to debate it properly, but i'll give you my intrepretation of the general situation.

I haven't read the site exhaustively, but I have browsed over it.

Firstly, a lot of the contradictions they declare there refer to books in the New Testament... The NT was written by tens of different people over the course of a hundred or so years. Its not divine contribution, it's human created. That itself makes contradictions and mistakes a surefire certainty. Get 20-odd different doctor's opinions, spread over the course of 100-odd years of a fixed point of science - I am sure you'll find their opinions would be far from unanimous or unambiguous. Also, not all text were transcribed first hand... nor transcribed immediately. Sometimes decades had passed before they were recounted and transcribed.

Now, the Old Testament is considered mostly divine contribution - i.e. the word of God. It was still dictated through humans though, like Moses. Also, it was transcribed thousands of years ago. Languages wern't as sophisticated as they are now. Its also been translated through different languages by different people. They wern't saved onto computer disk and backed up... There were written on tablets (wax or stone)... These can become corrupted, or lost. Some had to be rebuilt.

In short, there are many reasons that can lead to ambiguity in religious text. This would apply to any other book that was written under the circumstances of the Bible. Religion is based on a faith... Not a book. A Bible is a supporting text to religion, not an absolute de facto instruction set to live your life as a religious person. I am certainly not going to stone gay people because it was acceptable behavior thousands of years ago when the Bible was written. The Bible has to be taken for exactly what it is... A guide on how to follow a religion (OT actually forms part of 3 different religions), but also written 2,000-4,000 years ago.

My :2cents: anyway. I dare say i'll be ripped apart mercilessly in the true spirit of CF's basement. Still, its how I intrepret it.

S' a good point that Punky.
Plus the fact is that most of the bible has been translated back and forth through different languages.

There is now reasonable arguments saying that Jesus was not his real name, thats from a mis translation from or to Greek, I cant remember which.
What about the holy grail, traditionally thought to be a cup, but now could be the geneology of Jesus, or simply a reference to Mary Magdalene.

Also we must remember that the bible is about guidance, not what you must do and what you must not do.
It is a collection of stories, some may be true others may not be true.

New testament was interfered with by the then catholic church bigwigs also.

So I guess that answers the questions as to why there are contradictions.

*stands and waits to be feathered......he's already tarred*

Ramrod
30-07-2006, 18:23
I hope he doesn't mind me using him as an example but so far Ramrod is doing just that.Huh? Wassat? What am I doing? :confused: :)

Russ
30-07-2006, 18:26
Huh? Wassat? What am I doing? :confused: :)

Post 23 sir...:D

---------- Post added at 17:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:25 ----------


Plus the fact is that most of the bible has been translated back and forth through different languages.

Not quite true....just from Hebrew and Ancient Greek to English... :angel:

timewarrior2001
30-07-2006, 18:27
Hang on TW, how is he having a go at Russ?
Russ has made it clear he has no interest in starting a real discussion about the topic at hand, accused Flob of having an agenda, and all Flob has done is say fine, if you don't want to participate, don't, but please don't disrupt this thread.

Doesnt take 3 pages to do that.

punky
30-07-2006, 18:27
Thank you punky for such a good post.
What I find interesting, is that when the books were written down, such contradictions weren't highlighted and corrected.

You're welcome...

But how can you correct something when you don't know you've made a mistake? Nor know what the correct version is? The reason for this thread is that the Bible had already been molested enough by people. I think its best that the Bible is kept as original as possible - i'm sure most would agree with me.


There we go! I knew someone could manage it. What you've said makes perfect sense but do you not think that someone might have collated it slightly better? There are some quite glaring contradictions of the ilk "god said so and so" and in another section it's "satan said so and so".

How can you have collated slightly better though? People did the best they could at the time under the circumstances. In this day and age, its much easier to record a series of events because we have computers, video recorders, etc.

This isn't a Bible-specific problem. This happens with Roman & ancient Greek texts too - they have suffered under the same consequences.

timewarrior2001
30-07-2006, 18:28
Post 23 sir...:D

---------- Post added at 17:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:25 ----------



Not quite true....just from Hebrew and Ancient Greek to English... :angel:

Was translated from Latin, to Germanic to English too i thought????

Xaccers
30-07-2006, 18:30
You're welcome...

But how can you correct something when you don't know you've made a mistake? Nor know what the correct version is? The reason for this thread is that the Bible had already been molested enough by people. I think its best that the Bible is kept as original as possible - i'm sure most would agree with me.


Take the council of Nicea where they decided what would be in the NT and disgarded the rest.
Perfect time to have done it, after all, they were messing with the texts anyway, picking parts from one and disgarding parts from another.
When was proof reading invented?

punky
30-07-2006, 18:31
Not quite true....just from Hebrew and Ancient Greek to English... :angel:

Was translated from Latin, to Germanic to English too i thought????

Plus there are more than one version of Hebrew. Ancient hebrew is different from modern. Also, the Bible covers a wide area of many countries... Each country spoke its own local dialect, etc...

Russ
30-07-2006, 18:32
Was translated from Latin, to Germanic to English too i thought????

I don't claim to be a scholar but that would be news to me :confused:

timewarrior2001
30-07-2006, 18:34
Take the council of Nicea where they decided what would be in the NT and disgarded the rest.
Perfect time to have done it, after all, they were messing with the texts anyway, picking parts from one and disgarding parts from another.
When was proof reading invented?


Hindsight mate.

Its not like they suspected they were wrong is it?
I mean these guys were untouchable, they were the people that controlled the power that controlled the world......at that time.

Also the ways in which the bible was written, pages copied by monks, many monks, over many years. Could it not be that they did not comunicate? its not like they could drop a quick email for proof reading, or mail a newly burnt CD, hey even mailed it, as there was no mail service.

Thats how I would guess that things were overlooked.

But even i this day in age, I have spotted mistakes in modern books, its done by human error, same as the majority of computer screw ups and plane crashes.

punky
30-07-2006, 18:35
Take the council of Nicea where they decided what would be in the NT and disgarded the rest.
Perfect time to have done it, after all, they were messing with the texts anyway, picking parts from one and disgarding parts from another.
When was proof reading invented?

Could have something to do with the fact that NT is human-created but the OT is considered divine word and infallible?

As I said at the very beginning of my post. I am not a scholar on this subject. I don't know what the hell happened, I wasn't there. I could be totally wrong, or a 100% right. I don't know. I can only state what I believe. I can only defend my opinion as far as my existing knowlege reaches...

timewarrior2001
30-07-2006, 18:35
I don't claim to be a scholar but that would be news to me :confused:


Well in olden days, all Books in England were in Latin, Was it not the King James bible the first English one? the one where you didnt need to be a scholar to read???

I'm probably totally wrong here, but you never know.


EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible

Appears I am wrong or mixed up lol.

RE EDIT:

Hang on ... The Project

In May 1601 King James VI of Scotland attended the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland at St. Columba's Church in Burntisland, Fife, and proposals were put forward for a new translation of the Bible into English. Two years later he acceded to the throne of England.

Ramrod
30-07-2006, 18:35
But surely it is impossible for the bible to have contradictions in it since it was divinely inspired?

Russ
30-07-2006, 18:38
But surely it is impossible for the bible to have contradictions in it since it was divinely inspired?

Inspired by God (who is faultless), written by men - and one woman (who are flawed).

Ramrod
30-07-2006, 18:39
Inspired by God (who is faultless), written by men - and one woman (who are flawed).....and yet you take what is written in it to be true whilst acknowledging that it was written by people who can make mistakes? :confused:

timewarrior2001
30-07-2006, 18:40
....and yet you take what is written in it to be true whilst acknowledging that it was written by people who can make mistakes? :confused:


No the bible is a means of guidance, like a DIY manual for Christianity.....or a teach yourself Christianity in 24 years kind of thing.

zing_deleted
30-07-2006, 18:41
But surely it is impossible for the bible to have contradictions in it since it was divinely inspired?

Translations mate. A lot of bibles thats read to most christians in church are King James version with olde english.Its easy to understand that errors in calculations etc can be made.
One things for sure and that is if there is a God in heaven and the bible at least pre translation and perversion by man is his word and that is there is just one true religion only one truth. This by definition means that by far and away the vast majority of those who follow a religion of any form are wrong but all think theirs is the one. A lot of people by following false religions (and a lot of them are obvious to the reasonable man) are in fact doing satans work for him so I stand by the belief that its good to have a faith but not good to follow the wrong men

Paul
30-07-2006, 18:41
This thread seems to have trouble written all over it.

Take note: If the baiting and insults that I have seen so far (in just a quick scan) continue, it will get closed.

I, and the rest of the team, have better things to do with our Sundays than police pointless threads.

Ramrod
30-07-2006, 18:47
Fine, I withdraw my self from this thread...

Flobajob
30-07-2006, 18:48
I think that sums it up somewhat, people have pointed out that the contradictions are down to human error, even the ones in the old testament, if humans are that fallible no-one knows just how jazzed up some of it might be. My opinion is that there's believing in God/Jesus and there's believing the bible, of course according to the Bible you're supposed to believe in it but who dictates which parts you believe?

Russ
30-07-2006, 18:50
The individual.

Flobajob
30-07-2006, 18:53
The individual.

Based on what though? Free will? The ability to pick and choose sections that might or might not apply to your lifestyle? (See Homosexual christians for an example, not that I'm against homosexuality in any way before anyone starts)

idi banashapan
30-07-2006, 18:56
Right... I'll have a bash at it then if noone else will.... I'm not exactly a Christian scholar, I could be entirely wrong, but i'll try my best anyway. I'm probably not knowledgable enough to debate it properly, but i'll give you my intrepretation of the general situation.

I haven't read the site exhaustively, but I have browsed over it.

Firstly, a lot of the contradictions they declare there refer to books in the New Testament... The NT was written by tens of different people over the course of a hundred or so years. Its not divine contribution, it's human created. That itself makes contradictions and mistakes a surefire certainty. Get 20-odd different doctor's opinions, spread over the course of 100-odd years of a fixed point of science - I am sure you'll find their opinions would be far from unanimous or unambiguous. Also, not all text were transcribed first hand... nor transcribed immediately. Sometimes decades had passed before they were recounted and transcribed.

Now, the Old Testament is considered mostly divine contribution - i.e. the word of God. It was still dictated through humans though, like Moses. Also, it was transcribed thousands of years ago. Languages wern't as sophisticated as they are now. Its also been translated through different languages by different people. They wern't saved onto computer disk and backed up... There were written on tablets (wax or stone)... These can become corrupted, or lost. Some had to be rebuilt.

In short, there are many reasons that can lead to ambiguity in religious text. This would apply to any other book that was written under the circumstances of the Bible. Religion is based on a faith... Not a book. A Bible is a supporting text to religion, not an absolute de facto instruction set to live your life as a religious person. I am certainly not going to stone gay people because it was acceptable behavior thousands of years ago when the Bible was written. The Bible has to be taken for exactly what it is... A guide on how to follow a religion (OT actually forms part of 3 different religions), but also written 2,000-4,000 years ago.

My :2cents: anyway. I dare say i'll be ripped apart mercilessly in the true spirit of CF's basement. Still, its how I intrepret it.

does that not just make the whole thing a story based on 'chinese whispers'? it scares me to think people take it so seriously. it's a book.

Chris
30-07-2006, 18:58
There's a very good source for the contradictions here:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Now, I had offered a huge list of site's via Google but it would appear that the christians here aren't interested in reading about anything that might show any aspect of their religion in a bad light (e.g. the BOOK they live their lives by). What's that saying? There are none so blind as those who will not see!

And there are very good answers to those 'contradictions' here:

http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/answering.htm

and here:

http://skepticsannotatedbiblerespons.blogspot.com/

In fact, both those sites are linked directly from the Skeptics Annotated Bible (fair dos to them for being so even handed).

But firing salvos of links we find on Gooooooogle and on other websites is a poor substitute for a discussion, isn't it? ;)

idi banashapan
30-07-2006, 18:59
....and yet you take what is written in it to be true whilst acknowledging that it was written by people who can make mistakes? :confused:
a very good point, made very well.

timewarrior2001
30-07-2006, 18:59
I think that sums it up somewhat, people have pointed out that the contradictions are down to human error, even the ones in the old testament, if humans are that fallible no-one knows just how jazzed up some of it might be. My opinion is that there's believing in God/Jesus and there's believing the bible, of course according to the Bible you're supposed to believe in it but who dictates which parts you believe?


That kinda goes back to why I beleive in Jesus as a man, as a Prophet, but NOT as a divine individual.
I think the bible was jazzed up, I think it was done alarmingly....probably the guys responsible should have direct descendants on the news desk at NOTW HQ.
I think your views on beleiveing in God/Jesus or Beleif in the bible are good. Its a minefield, because when discussing religion, we have a tendancy to be insinuating the very core of someones belief is wrong. We are not suitably qualified to make those kinds of statements.
Beleif comes from a lot of different ways. When I first heard Russ mention that he felt God spoke to him Or was it messages to help you through tough descision (sorry if I mis represented you there), I almost fell off my chair laughing, but over the years of knowing Russ here, I have come to realise....I think, what he means.

Chris
30-07-2006, 19:00
Incidentally, flattered as I am to have a thread dedicated to me, I have 'depersonalised' the title a little. :D

Russ
30-07-2006, 19:02
Based on what though? Free will?

Common sense. Decency. Morals. I used to work with a male homosexual couple. I assume they are sexually active - they'd been together almost 2 years and live together. I don't call for them to be publically stoned to death. I realise that if the Bible calls them sinful for what they do then in God's eyes I am just as tainted and it's not for me to judge them on that score.

Taking any single verse, line or quotation out of the Bible and acting on it alone can be dangerous. This is why I am very much in favour of responsible leadership.

punky
30-07-2006, 19:04
does that not just make the whole thing a story based on 'chinese whispers'?

Unless you can find a 4,000 year old man walking about who personally knows God, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc...

How can you expect a version of events to make it this far without corruption somwhere along the line?

Russ
30-07-2006, 19:04
When I first heard Russ mention that he felt God spoke to him Or was it messages to help you through tough descision (sorry if I mis represented you there), I almost fell off my chair laughing, but over the years of knowing Russ here, I have come to realise....I think, what he means.

He didn't 'verbally' speak to me but that's a different subject entirely :)

timewarrior2001
30-07-2006, 19:06
Common sense. Decency. Morals. I used to work with a male homosexual couple. I assume they are sexually active - they'd been together almost 2 years and live together. I don't call for them to be publically stoned to death. I realise that if the Bible calls them sinful for what they do then in God's eyes I am just as tainted and it's not for me to judge them on that score.

Taking any single verse, line or quotation out of the Bible and acting on it alone can be dangerous. This is why I am very much in favour of responsible leadership.


Which leads us on to......

Moses, geezer, goes up a mountain, gives God a bit of stick for wanting to wipe some race of the face of the earth, and gets two stone tablets for his pains.

God zapps em and theres like these Laws on there. Thou shalt not kill being one of the main ones.
Yet the followers publically call for death penalties.....what happened to thou shalt not kill?


Wouldnt it have been easier for god to have zapped moses and claimed a stray bolt did it? Would have saved him a lot of trouble

Xaccers
30-07-2006, 19:06
Unless you can find a 4,000 year old man walking about who personally knows God, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc...

How can you expect a version of events to make it this far without corruption somwhere along the line?

Is there any evidence that he Koran has been modified in the 1500 (ish) years of it's existance?

Russ
30-07-2006, 19:08
Yet the followers publically call for death penalties.....what happened to thou shalt not kill?


To help you better understand that, substitute 'kill' for 'murder'.

idi banashapan
30-07-2006, 19:09
imho, religion was a way of controlling the masses based on fear of the unprovable (after-life). genius in it's own way, but I think science has taugh us a lot since the time of 'witches' and 'warlocks'. in the past, the contradictions could not be brought to light for fear of persecution / death. because of this history, there seems to be some major defence mechanisms within the religious communities when dealing with flaws being pointed out in what is seen by many as 'the truth'. to me, the 'truth' is starting to be shaken a little. problem is, as a whole, the world would fall apart if religion were proven not to be all it was told.

for example, I'm sure there are intelligent life forms out there from other worlds. I would place money on the fact that some sort of organisation is aware of their existance. but if this information were to get out into the 'public' realm, religion would be shot.

therefore, religion is still a way of controlling the masses, thousands of years after its conception, it is still doing its job.

---------- Post added at 18:09 ---------- Previous post was at 18:08 ----------

Unless you can find a 4,000 year old man walking about who personally knows God, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc...

How can you expect a version of events to make it this far without corruption somwhere along the line?

my point exactly - so why do people hold it so truely?

timewarrior2001
30-07-2006, 19:09
To help you better understand that, substitute 'kill' for 'murder'.


Thats the point though isnt it Russ.
Its not what what the bible says as such, its the meaning taken from it?

I guess I could be saying well why should I substitue words, that detracts from the message. But in fairness I do understand...or think I do, what you mean.

Chris
30-07-2006, 19:10
Unless you can find a 4,000 year old man walking about who personally knows God, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc...

How can you expect a version of events to make it this far without corruption somwhere along the line?
There were all kinds of methods used to ensure accurate copying. One of them was to use illiterate scribes, so they couldn't accidentally misread what they were copying. Another was to use a checksum at the end of each line of text. The people who were charged with copying the old testament took their religion so seriously they would have a bath before even writing YHWH, the name of God. These are not the sort of people to make casual errors of the magnitude that completely changes the sense of the text.

At the end of the day, the killer fact that does away with the 'Chinese Whispers' argument is that among the Dead Sea Scrolls was a 2,000 year-old copy of the book of Isaiah. Suffice it to say, when you sit it alongside what we have today after two millennia of copying, they match overwhelmingly, and where there are copying errors, they do not alter the sense or (more importantly) the doctrine of the book.

punky
30-07-2006, 19:12
....and yet you take what is written in it to be true whilst acknowledging that it was written by people who can make mistakes? :confused:

Hope you haven't left just yet... I can't speak for every Christian, but I have said in my post, 2 points:

1. I take the Bible for what it is... Flaws and all.

2. It is a supporting text - not to be relied on explicitly and literally.

In the Bible, you have two intrepretation... One that gay people should be stoned, and one that says you should treat people with decency and respect. I think you can use your own judgement over what intrepretation you should follow.

Imagine a CF Bible.... You'd have one intrepretation that anyone accused of child sex offenses should be lynched... And another that people are innocent until proven guilty. Like with the Bible, you have to use your own common sense and judgement to decide which intrepretation to follow.

Russ
30-07-2006, 19:13
Thats the point though isnt it Russ.
Its not what what the bible says as such, its the meaning taken from it?


And the meaning is to take a life unlawfully. To die at the hands of (for example) Saddam is the same principle as dying on a battlefield - in both cases someone has their life taken. However in Saddam's case it's (probably) going to be murder, whereas in a war it's not seen as unlawful.

Would an executioner be classed as a serial killer? I think not.

punky
30-07-2006, 19:15
imy point exactly - so why do people hold it so truely?

What makes you think I can speak for 2 billion Christians? I don't know why another person believes something.. How about you go ask them. I can only say what I believe.

idi banashapan
30-07-2006, 19:16
Hope you haven't left just yet... I can't speak for every Christian, but I have said in my post, 2 points:

1. I take the Bible for what it is... Flaws and all.

2. It is a supporting text - not to be relied on explicitly and literally.

In the Bible, you have two intrepretation... One that gay people should be stoned, and one that says you should treat people with decency and respect. I think you can use your own judgement over what intrepretation you should follow.

Imagine a CF Bible.... You'd have one intrepretation that anyone accused of child sex offenses should be lynched... And another that people are innocent until proven guilty. Like with the Bible, you have to use your own common sense and judgement to decide which intrepretation to follow.

then why are people SOOOOO defensive about the religion, the bible and its context?

Russ
30-07-2006, 19:17
What makes you think I can speak for 2 billion Christians? I don't know why another person believes something.. How about you go ask them. I can only say what I believe.

Good point - many non-believers think Christians have uniform views - nothing could be further from the truth.

idi banashapan
30-07-2006, 19:19
What makes you think I can speak for 2 billion Christians? I don't know why another person believes something.. How about you go ask them. I can only say what I believe.

the same as I my friend, the same as I. I am not rubbishing anyone elses views or beliefs. I take no stand with anything posted here. I, like you, am just saying the way I see things.

punky
30-07-2006, 19:19
Is there any evidence that he Koran has been modified in the 1500 (ish) years of it's existance?

Other than the fact the OT forms part of the Koran?

Muslims believe that the Koran is the direct word of Mohammed, that came direct from God. If that's what floats their boat - that's their perogative.

idi banashapan
30-07-2006, 19:21
Good point - many non-believers think Christians have uniform views - nothing could be further from the truth.

i made no indication that was what I was saying. for the record, it isn't what I am saying. I mean nothing more than what I post. no underlying agendas or meanings. apologies if you feel I have offended anyone or anything. that was not my intention.

Russ
30-07-2006, 19:22
i made no indication that was what I was saying. for the record, it isn't what I am saying. I mean nothing more than what I post. no underlying agendas or meanings.

If it was aimed at you then I'd have named you ;)

I was just pointing out a common fallacy :)

punky
30-07-2006, 19:24
then why are people SOOOOO defensive about the religion, the bible and its context?

Like I said before... How can I be expected to speak on behalf of people I have never even met? You acknowleged that - so why ask?

On a personal note, I am not "SOOOOO defensive about the religion, the bible and its context". You can think the Bible is a work of total fiction. You can believe that God is an imaginary man with a long white beard sitting on the edge of a cloud. That's fine. I really don't care. Its your choice.

I am getting agitated and hungry so i'm taking a break from all this fun and games.

idi banashapan
30-07-2006, 19:30
If it was aimed at you then I'd have named you ;)

I was just pointing out a common fallacy :)

thank goodness for that! I was getting prepared for a long rant-reply!!!! lol ;)

---------- Post added at 18:30 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ----------

Like I said before... How can I be expected to speak on behalf of people I have never even met? You acknowleged that - so why ask?

On a personal note, I am not "SOOOOO defensive about the religion, the bible and its context". You can think the Bible is a work of total fiction. You can believe that God is an imaginary man with a long white beard sitting on the edge of a cloud. That's fine. I really don't care. Its your choice.

I am getting agitated and hungry so i'm taking a break from all this fun and games.
Sorry, i think my post appeared a little personal. i suppose i should have said "why are SOME people", especially as a previous post was taken in the wrong context by myself (stated non-christians thought christian views were uniform).

Personally, I am not religious, but it would be extremely blinkered of me to pressume there is not some kind of greater force than ourselves, be it in the form of a divine energy, an extra-terrestrial or whatever. I'm one of these people that needs to see it to believe it really. If it can be proven to me without any other explanation, i'm all there. perhaps it makes me incapable of having a faith in that sense, but that's just me.

Stuart
30-07-2006, 21:39
Would an executioner be classed as a serial killer? I think not.

IIRC, Executioners (in the UK anyway) were, for the purposes of administration, charged with Murder then let off each time they executed someone. So, to some degree, they may have been considered Serial Killers.

Saaf_laandon_mo
30-07-2006, 22:10
Other than the fact the OT forms part of the Koran?

Muslims believe that the Koran is the direct word of Mohammed, that came direct from God. If that's what floats their boat - that's their perogative.

Sorry Muslims do not belief that the Koran is the direct word of Muhammed. Muslims believe that the Koran is the word of God, revealed to Muhammed who recorded them and spread the word to his followers, in God's words. Like Jesus spread the word of God to his followers. Its the same principle.

me283
30-07-2006, 22:16
In short, there are many reasons that can lead to ambiguity in religious text. This would apply to any other book that was written under the circumstances of the Bible. Religion is based on a faith... Not a book. A Bible is a supporting text to religion, not an absolute de facto instruction set to live your life as a religious person. I am certainly not going to stone gay people because it was acceptable behavior thousands of years ago when the Bible was written. The Bible has to be taken for exactly what it is... A guide on how to follow a religion (OT actually forms part of 3 different religions), but also written 2,000-4,000 years ago.

My :2cents: anyway. I dare say i'll be ripped apart mercilessly in the true spirit of CF's basement. Still, its how I intrepret it.

That makes sense Punky, but how does one then follow the Bible? How can anyone decide which particular parts are "correct"? Sorry if this has been raised already, but it's a long thread to wade through!

Also, (general question), was it really "Jesus of Nazreth"? I read an interesting account where it was claimed that Nazareth didn't exist in Jesus' time, and it was actually "Jesus the Nasorean", which was a tribe of the time. Not a very nice one, assording to what I read.

---------- Post added at 21:16 ---------- Previous post was at 21:15 ----------

Sorry Muslims do not belief that the Koran is the direct word of Muhammed. Muslims believe that the Koran is the word of God, revealed to Muhammed who recorded them and spread the word to his followers, in God's words. Like Jesus spread the word of God to his followers. Its the same principle.

Does it depend on how the Koran is interpreted? It seems to be fairly ambiguously interpreted by different Muslims...

TheDaddy
30-07-2006, 22:27
IIRC, Executioners (in the UK anyway) were, for the purposes of administration, charged with Murder then let off each time they executed someone. So, to some degree, they may have been considered Serial Killers.

If memory serves some of them were actual murderers, they had the prospect of execution themselves if they did not take up the executioners position.

Saaf_laandon_mo
30-07-2006, 22:29
Does it depend on how the Koran is interpreted? It seems to be fairly ambiguously interpreted by different Muslims...

The problem with any religious (and quite a few non religious texts) is that they are oppen to interpretation. Recent events have led people to conclude that this to be more the case with Islam than other religions.

A previous expample quoted two revelations from the bible regarding homosexuality. How you interpret them is upto you, same with the Koran I guess.

However the fundamental morals and conduct regarding the religion are pretty clear. If you follow those well enough it helps you come up with a more 'correct' and harmonious interpretation. Thats my opinion anyway.

Russ
30-07-2006, 23:15
IIRC, Executioners (in the UK anyway) were, for the purposes of administration, charged with Murder then let off each time they executed someone. So, to some degree, they may have been considered Serial Killers.

:rolleyes:

Ok then, soldiers in a war. They do not get charged with murder.

Skatoony
30-07-2006, 23:32
Ok then, soldiers in a war. They do not get charged with murder.But don't soldiers kill to defend, before them or someone else gets killed?

Russ
30-07-2006, 23:35
But don't soldiers kill to defend, before them or someone else gets killed?

I think you're reading too much in to this - the point being made is that taking someone's life is not always murder - which is what the commandment refers to.

Skatoony
30-07-2006, 23:40
I think you're reading too much in to this - the point being made is that taking someone's life is not always murder - which is what the commandment refers to.Ah, my bad.

punky
30-07-2006, 23:55
Other than the fact the OT forms part of the Koran?

Muslims believe that the Koran is the direct word of Mohammed, that came direct from God. If that's what floats their boat - that's their perogative.

Sorry Muslims do not belief that the Koran is the direct word of Muhammed. Muslims believe that the Koran is the word of God, revealed to Muhammed who recorded them and spread the word to his followers, in God's words. Like Jesus spread the word of God to his followers. Its the same principle.

Eh? That's exactly what I just said....

That makes sense Punky, but how does one then follow the Bible? How can anyone decide which particular parts are "correct"? Sorry if this has been raised already, but it's a long thread to wade through!

Also, (general question), was it really "Jesus of Nazreth"? I read an interesting account where it was claimed that Nazareth didn't exist in Jesus' time, and it was actually "Jesus the Nasorean", which was a tribe of the time. Not a very nice one, assording to what I read.

Well, as I said you can use your own judgement.

Most of the supposed contradictions I saw on that site concern the history of the religion, as opposed to guides on how to live... So its not a major sticking point if you decide what to do.

Also, you aren't gauged on being a good Christian by how closely you follow the Bible. That's not how it works. The Bible is a supporting text, but its not the only component to Christianity that matters.

me283
31-07-2006, 00:22
The problem with any religious (and quite a few non religious texts) is that they are oppen to interpretation. Recent events have led people to conclude that this to be more the case with Islam than other religions.

A previous expample quoted two revelations from the bible regarding homosexuality. How you interpret them is upto you, same with the Koran I guess.

However the fundamental morals and conduct regarding the religion are pretty clear. If you follow those well enough it helps you come up with a more 'correct' and harmonious interpretation. Thats my opinion anyway.

But would it be fair to say that Muslims tend to exhibit more extremism than, Christians for example? Whilst the Bible may quote some extreme viewpoints, they seem to be interpreted in a milder way; one might be forgiven for thinking that those who follow the Koran demonstrate slightly more radical stances, methinks.

It's always baffled me though... people cite a "Holy book" as a guide, or whatever... then just use their own interpretation of it. It's a bit like making the rules up as you go along.

TheDaddy
31-07-2006, 00:25
But would it be fair to say that Muslims tend to exhibit more extremism than, Christians for example? Whilst the Bible may quote some extreme viewpoints, they seem to be interpreted in a milder way; one might be forgiven for thinking that those who follow the Koran demonstrate slightly more radical stances, methinks.

It's always baffled me though... people cite a "Holy book" as a guide, or whatever... then just use their own interpretation of it. It's a bit like making the rules up as you go along.

Do you not think that is why there are priest's ect, to help people interpret the more tricky bits, so you don't end up 'making it up as you go along'.

me283
31-07-2006, 00:32
Do you not think that is why there are priest's ect, to help people interpret the more tricky bits, so you don't end up 'making it up as you go along'.

What about when the "priests" have different interpretations? And who says they are so right?

TheDaddy
31-07-2006, 00:42
What about when the "priests" have different interpretations? And who says they are so right?

I am not saying they are right but if you are having issues with theological texts it stands to reason that you would ask someone that has devoted their life to following the said scriptures, if nothing else they could seek advice from a higher authority :) ;)

orangebird
31-07-2006, 10:52
I am not saying they are right but if you are having issues with theological texts it stands to reason that you would ask someone that has devoted their life to following the said scriptures, if nothing else they could seek advice from a higher authority :) ;)

And hope and pray that the one you trust to help you isn't a bloody kiddy fiddler. :mad:

banjo
31-07-2006, 11:48
I would not normally contribute to a religious thread such as this because it is so easy to slag people for their beliefs and sit back and take the p!ss.

If you have no belief then I feel sorry for you as your whole life is a waste, or as someone else said "Life is a bitch and then you die" Now go away and annoy someone else.

Stuart
31-07-2006, 12:31
It's also (apparently) easy to slag people off for not having beliefs.

Actually, in all seriousness, some people find comfort in believing in God, or Allah (or any religious figure). Some people find comfort in believing other things. It is not right for one group to say to the other group that they are wasting their lives. From their point of view, they may not be.

Nugget
31-07-2006, 12:40
I would not normally contribute to a religious thread such as this because it is so easy to slag people for their beliefs and sit back and take the p!ss.

If you have no belief then I feel sorry for you as your whole life is a waste, or as someone else said "Life is a bitch and then you die" Now go away and annoy someone else.

I have to take issue with your assertion that my life is 'a waste' because I don't believe in some 'higher being', be it a God or anything else you choose. I, and hundreds of thousands of others, have maintained a healthy, satisfying life without religious beliefs of any description, so I think that it's somewhat over the top to make your assertion.

Purely my opinion of course :)

orangebird
31-07-2006, 12:46
I would not normally contribute to a religious thread such as this because it is so easy to slag people for their beliefs and sit back and take the p!ss.

If you have no belief then I feel sorry for you as your whole life is a waste, or as someone else said "Life is a bitch and then you die" Now go away and annoy someone else.


Please don't waste any bible reading or church going time on feeling sorry for me. I have a fabulous, fulfilling life which is not wasted at all.. If all your waiting for is to meet your maker, I'd respectfully suggest that it is you, not I who is wasting life. :)

Maggy
31-07-2006, 13:02
A totally happy athiest here...Life is up and down but I see no need to put my faith in anything supernatural to explain that which science cannot AT THE PRESENT TIME.I'm sure a rational explanation awaits in the future to current phenomena that defies explanation.I've no urgent need to have everything explained but neither do I need to dress it up with religious overtones in the meantime.

However I will defend to the death anyone's right to their own beliefs provided they afford me the same consideration.I will therefore not be prepared to listen to anyone ridiculing someone for their faith.It's just rude to do so.So if you have nothing constructive to add to the thread apart from p*ss taking of those with opposing viewpoints I suggest you go elsewhere.

Xaccers
31-07-2006, 15:11
Another satisfied athiest here.
Been on my death bed (well, lying in a ditch by the side of the road not breathing), no thoughts of god then either.

Flobajob
31-07-2006, 15:44
Thanks to everyone who contributed something worthwhile to this thread (punky, xaccers, chris t, russ d (eventually ;) and anyone I missed), unfortunately it's ended in ignorant mudslinging from a certain element on both sides which appears to have completely ruined it. I'll know better next time.

Maggy
31-07-2006, 16:13
Thanks to everyone who contributed something worthwhile to this thread (punky, xaccers, chris t, russ d (eventually ;) and anyone I missed), unfortunately it's ended in ignorant mudslinging from a certain element on both sides which appears to have completely ruined it. I'll know better next time.

Frankly it's almost impossible to have a religious debate on CF without someone turning it into a petty squabble.Believe me I've tried as have many others. :(

Chris
31-07-2006, 17:13
Thanks to everyone who contributed something worthwhile to this thread (punky, xaccers, chris t, russ d (eventually ;) and anyone I missed), unfortunately it's ended in ignorant mudslinging from a certain element on both sides which appears to have completely ruined it. I'll know better next time.

That sounded pretty final ... are you wanting the thread closed? :)

Flobajob
31-07-2006, 17:18
That sounded pretty final ... are you wanting the thread closed? :)

Unless anyone else want's it open, otherwise it's not really serving any purpose, you know a religious discussion isn't going to work when someone play's the priest/paedophile card.

orangebird
31-07-2006, 17:23
Unless anyone else want's it open, otherwise it's not really serving any purpose, you know a religious discussion isn't going to work when someone play's the priest/paedophile card.


Oh, because none of them are, are they. :rolleyes:

You seriously think that my post alone doomed your thread? Give over, any religious thread on here is doomed before you've even decided on the title.

Flobajob
31-07-2006, 17:24
Oh, because none of them are, are they. :rolleyes:

You seriously think that my post alone doomed your thread? Give over, any religious thread on here is doomed before you've even decided on the title.

Give it up will you, the only reason threads like this end up doomed is people like you posting in them.

punky
31-07-2006, 17:27
Oh, because none of them are, are they. :rolleyes:

You seriously think that my post alone doomed your thread? Give over, any religious thread on here is doomed before you've even decided on the title.

Give it up will you, the only reason threads like this end up doomed is people like you posting in them.

:clap:

orangebird
31-07-2006, 17:31
Give it up will you, the only reason threads like this end up doomed is people like you posting in them.
Your thread was screwed for 7 pages and 103 posts before I posted. Yeah, ok then, all my fault. :dozey: :dunce:

If you had such a problem with it, why didn't you report it?

Chris
31-07-2006, 17:35
OK, I've seen enough. Until next time, folks. :)


Closed at OP's request