Contridictions in the bible

Quote from the post
I wonder what would happen if God decided to attack a "modern" 1950 Buick?

Gee the last time I saw a 1950 Buick, it was at an antique car show. This is a strange
statement to find in a article written within the last ten years. It does sound like something
that might have been copied almost verbatim from someone else�s work (which was
written in the 1950�s). Can�t you guys do a little updating when you copy the work of
dead atheists (all of the post is based on the writings of M. J. Gauvin).
A link to the original author of the article (M. J. Gauvin)
www.umanitoba.ca...
n_gauvin.shtml

Marshall J. Gauvin was born near Moncton, New Brunswick, in 1881. As a youth he
worked for eleven years for the Canadian National Railways as carpenter and cabinet
maker. After years of self-education and preparation, he embarked on a career as a
freelance public lecturer and educator. He lectured for fourteen years in Pittsburgh,
Indianapolis and Minneapolis.

1. The direct �cut and paste� of an entire web page is a violation of ATS posting rules.
2. If a Christian writer had done the same, the atheists would be crying plagiarism and
complaining to the moderators.
3. I presume satyr that your are indeed Bob Fink creator of the web page and writer of
the pamphet referenced by the web site:
www.webster.sk.ca...
Otherwise I must then conclude that you plagiarized a pamphet which plagiarized
someone else�s work. Anyway it is a set of old arguments.

For Genesis and creation accounts:

www.yfiles.com...

www.yfiles.com...

www.yfiles.com...

www.yfiles.com...

Since you did not honor us with the dignity of making an original post, I will only respond
with the following. For specific answers of issues of Biblical contradictions, check one of
the following:

www.christian-thinktank.com...

www.tektonics.org...

www.yfiles.com...

Since all the contradictions listed in the post are based on the work of a dead atheist (and
hence been around for some time), then responses will be somewhere in one of the web
sites listed above.

argue over the context of the bible...
and still do wrong in the light of the father?

it's only contradictory if u use it as a history book which i find to be an absurd use for a mythology book

StationsCreation, can i ask what the surnames of the Gospel writers?
If you cant answer it, then could it be that they are just pen names?
Or they are just historians?
And one more this why is the words According To
at the start of every gospel?
Does it mean its a 3rd person that is actually writng this?
According To doesnt actually mean its the real deal or otherwise it would have just been called The Gosple By such an such, agree?

Guerilla

Like I said, I stay out of religious debates, but I will say this:

The bible was written by men, and these "Holy" men (Or Prophets if you prefer) are still beholden to the same needs, urges, and desires that we "mere" mortals are. I have always believed that some parts of the bible, the more outlandish and somewhat contradictory ones, are complete fabrications. This is why, in an earlier post, I drew attention to the "Apocryphal Studies" and how, among other things, they claim time stopped when Jesus was born and that Cain did not die. Can you believe everything you read in either book? No, but as with the information on this site, it's *just enough* to help you form your own idea.

Case in point: Jesus' birth date is dead wrong. I did research on this awhile back. Seems he was really born in 6BC, April 14th. Supposedly, the Vatican Monk asked to determine his date of birth had more on his mind then getting his savior's birth date correct. They wanted to compete with the Pagan religions and saw the winter equinox as a great time to celebrate "Christmas"

To back up this claim, it was said that Jesus was born when the Shepherds were tending their flock at night. According to the person whose work I read (It was also aired this past Easter on the discovery channel) the shepherds NEVER watched their flock at night except when the sheep were mating so that they could protect them from opportunistic predators. It was said that the mating season ran through the month of April...so knowing this, the month of December has to be false.

Furthermore, the "Star of Bethlehem" is believed by professional astronomers to be a rare but possible alignment of the brightest star in Orion�s constellation with the planet Jupiter. The alignment, which astronomers were actually able to trace back to the year 6BC, would have created a huge purple star in the sky that would be so powerful it could easily be seen by the naked eye, even during the day.

Furthermore, it is said that King Herod was alive when Jesus was born, because supposedly he sent his soldiers to murder all newborns out of fear of the prophesized savior. Yet, Herod died in 2BC.

Piecing all of these factoids together, scholars estimate that Jesus true birth was April 14th, 6C. Give or take a few days.

Watch the Discovery channel this Christmas. You might actually see a repeat of that special, or if not, wait until next Easter.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that according to many people back then, Orion represents Judea, and Jupiter represents "King". So what do you get? "King of Judea" or, better yet, "King of the Jews".


[Edited on 5-11-2003 by Kai-Raega]

Originally posted by Tassadar
I have read the original Gospel of St. Thomas, and it is not "truth" as one might say.
While I do love some ideals mentioned within it, I look at it in the same way I view "Sun Zi's" Art of War. Great knowledge, great principles, not 100%.

It has been dismissed as heresy by the Vatican, this was in the sixties...
One of the few points I agree on with the Roman Catholic Church.

What controversies are there? You haven't presented any yet?
There are false translations, or, to be politically correct..."inaccurate".

- Tass

Why do you think it is not accepted, and why it is said it's not truth? Just because they say so, because it doesn't fit in the picture....

Why do you agree with that point... I don't understand... it is older then the other documents... and just because it doesn't fit in the idea it is herasy...

Or could the idea about God could perhaps not be so true at all, and that the Gospel of Thomas was the truth.

It is enough to form your own idea?

Why is it enough? Is it not better to form your idea with the Egyptians, the Mayans, The Koran, the Zohar, Mahabharata etc.?

Well Leen, most religions worship the same creation god (Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah, GOD) so its a moot point.

You can, as far as I'm concerned, read any other holy text and learn enough to build your own ideas.


[Edited on 5-11-2003 by Kai-Raega]

Hey, Kai-Raega why did you remove the url you gave? It is a very interesting site

And yes, hey perhaps even the Hopi-indians are nice to read about...

www.hopi.nsn.us...

Originally posted by Kai-Raega
Well Leen, most religions worship the same creation god (Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah, GOD) so its a moot point.

You can, as far as I'm concerned, read any other holy text and learn enough to build your own ideas.

That is also what I meant by the way I just wanted to say by naming those books and religions that it perhaps isn't so good to make your idea about God by just one book, just one belief...

Originally posted by LeenBekkemaa
That is also what I meant by the way

I just wanted to say by naming those books and religions that it perhaps isn't so good to make your idea about God by just one book, just one belief...

Most of them all worship the same creator, a lot of people won't admit that.

As for the URL being removed, the information was very innaccurate and contradicted what I heard on the Discovery Channel special. It says he was born in January, 4BC...something I don't buy, given the whole "Shepherds at night" thing.

Originally posted by Guerilla
StationsCreation, can i ask what the surnames of the Gospel writers?
If you cant answer it, then could it be that they are just pen names?
Or they are just historians?

The Gospel of Matthew;
MAT'THEW (math'u; contraction of Mattathias, "gift of Jehovah"). The son of a certain Alphaeus, surnamed Levi .

I couldn�t find the surnames of the others.

And one more this why is the words According To
at the start of every gospel?
Does it mean its a 3rd person that is actually writng this?
According To doesnt actually mean its the real deal or otherwise it would have just been called The Gosple By such an such, agree?

Guerilla

�The Gospel According to�, this one is simple. It is in the third person. It�s not in the original greek, I checked. It was just put there as a heading by the translators. They are the third person.

I�m at work so I couldn�t put much more study into it

i blame it on the translations

Originally posted by StationsCreation
'Satyr' I have never seen so many verses used out of context. You will find that the 'contradictions' in your previous post hold no merit when understood in the context it was written in.

I challenge you to pick three of your favourite or most convincing 'contradictions' and I bet I can explain them in context and show that they do not contradict.

I'll look forward to your post

Again, this is just one more case of interpreting it the way you want, isn't it? Why would "god" be inaccurate in his descriptions? Unless! They're not really the words of "god". Frankly, I don't have time to go through them all. I've looked several up before, and they're all quite clear, unless you want to put your own religious spin on them. That's what everyone seems to do.

Originally posted by jagdflieger

Quote from the post
I wonder what would happen if God decided to attack a "modern" 1950 Buick?

Gee the last time I saw a 1950 Buick, it was at an antique car show. This is a strange statement to find in a article written within the last ten years. It does sound like something that might have been copied almost verbatim from someone else�s work (which was written in the 1950�s). Can�t you guys do a little updating when you copy the work of
dead atheists (all of the post is based on the writings of M. J. Gauvin).
A link to the original author of the article (M. J. Gauvin)
www.umanitoba.ca...
n_gauvin.shtml

Thanks for the laugh!!!

This is quite hilarious (IMO) coming from someone who thinks the bible is accurate and timely!

Why don't you update your bible? This is such an ironic statment! I got a kick out of that one. You're insisting a 2000yr old book is accurate, yet you pick on one reference to an old Buick? That old Buick is still far more advanced that anyone who wrote the bible. Just imagine how they would've tried to describe a car.

Oh yeah, BTW, try your link.

1. The direct �cut and paste� of an entire web page is a violation of ATS posting rules.

I already explained that. If a mod wants to remove it, they're free to do so. It's not a crime punishable by death or anything, is it?

2. If a Christian writer had done the same, the atheists would be crying plagiarism and complaining to the moderators.

Yeah. And if you were black, it'd be twice as bad, eh?

Whine, whine, whine.

3. I presume satyr that your are indeed Bob Fink creator of the web page and writer of the pamphet referenced by the web site:

You're more foolish than I thought, then. I guess that's why you buy the bible so readily, eh?

Would you like to buy stock in a Cubic Zirconia mine?

Originally posted by Herder
Wow Satyr, heh, long post. I like 'em short.

Sorry. I like 'em short too. I just didn't have the link at the time.

Short version is: Bible is an incredibly accurate historical and educational document hobbled together....

Show me some examples of this accuracy. I have yet to see anything that's more than hearsay in that book. There's absolutely nothing accurate about hearsay, and it's obvious (to me, anyway) that the authors did not even come close to having a grasp on the concept they were trying to explain.

Hey! Actually, that might make for a much shorter thread! "Bible consistencies and accuracies". Good idea.

How about this one?

Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at anytime. (Ex 33:20; Tim. 6:16; John 6:46; I John 4:12)
Gen. 32:30 For I have seen god face to face. (Ex. 33:11, 23; Is. 6:1; Job 42:5)

...or this one?

Is God Peaceable?
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. (Luke 2:14; Acts 10:36)
Matt. 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matt. 10:35-37; Luke 22:36)

...or this one?

Is God good or evil?
Psa. 145:9. The Lord is good to all. (Deut. 32:4; James 1:13)
Is. 45:7 I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things. (Lam 3:38; Jer. 18:11; Ezek. 20:25)

Do these have different meaning to you, or something?

Here's some more interesting observations...

www.beconvinced.com...

[Edited on 11-5-2003 by Satyr]

[Edited on 5-11-2003 by StationsCreation]

The bible is accurate if you realize the old testament is a historical document relating the story of how to control a race of people through fear and superstition, sprinkled liberally with specification of a social contract. The new testament is where much of the schism comes into focus and that is due to the religion being hijacked by a roman emperor and putting his "spin" on it.

The Manicheans were a sect completely and utterly wiped out by the romans (who had recently adopted christianity as the official religion) because they believed that Jesus was the anti-christ. Old testament god was: judgemental, tempremental, savage in retribution. No idols before me, kill the non-jew, sacrifice children, sleep with your daughter, worship only me. Now this jesus guy comes along and flips the entire perspective upside down, love they neighbor, just confess, no problem, go to heaven.

Anyway, through rambling heh.

Originally posted by Herder
The bible is accurate if you realize the old testament is a historical document relating the story of how to control a race of people through fear and superstition, sprinkled liberally with specification of a social contract. The new testament is where much of the schism comes into focus and that is due to the religion being hijacked by a roman emperor and putting his "spin" on it.

The Manicheans were a sect completely and utterly wiped out by the romans (who had recently adopted christianity as the official religion) because they believed that Jesus was the anti-christ. Old testament god was: judgemental, tempremental, savage in retribution. No idols before me, kill the non-jew, sacrifice children, sleep with your daughter, worship only me. Now this jesus guy comes along and flips the entire perspective upside down, love they neighbor, just confess, no problem, go to heaven.

Anyway, through rambling heh.

That's pretty much the way I see it. As for accuracy, I don't think it was ever an accurate depiction of history. Some events do coincide with possible actual events (maybe), but that's about as far as it goes. If I write fiction, many aspects of my story can, and probably will, coincide with events that have actually happened. Most good fiction has that quality.
The bible remains so controversial because there is very little that can be proven accurate. It's such a cluster # of vague descriptions, I don't see how anyone can pretend to make sense of it. And worse, I can't understand why anyone would want to.

do you study khemetian history?
do you study the history of persia?
do you study the history of the "real" early Jewish people?
do you study the history of paganism?
do you study Zoroastrianism?

these are mere questions regarding the disrespectful(to me anyways) attitude you have taken on my ancient ancestors the khemetians,the Punts, and the Ku#es...


there are several contradictions in the bible, why?
because when ever you use an analytical perspective on righteousness there are boung to be discrepancies...

[Edited on 5-11-2003 by bigsage]

quote from bigsage
do you study Zoroastrianism?

bigsage would by any chance would you be familar with the terms DDD-AG, SDAC, BPP, GAC, or with Doongerwadi? Does taikrat or kusti have a meaning for you?