It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

101 Biblical Contradictions. The Fallible Word of God.

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by luciferhorus
 

i just want to ask, when do we get out souls/ at conseption , the reason i ask is because i just watched oprah n they talked about the gal who had 8 kids n she said she didnt want to destroy any embroys excuse my spelling. she thought they were beings at the embroy stage. so if their beings , then when do we get our souls. if u believe in that. or is it another man made mith. when we die do we go on to another place or just die. or do we go on to the next life. Can anyone prove to me we have a soul of that there is a god. just asking.




posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by luciferhorus
 


Seen these threads before and everyone of your questions and more have been answered and re-aswered by many theologians, linguists and historians.

Feel free to feel anything you want and serve any God or not that you want, trying to bait people into debate that the only goal of is to disprove at all costs the faith of another is lame in my opinion.

Zeitgest is 99% crap with a few grains of truth and the best response I have seen to that particular schlockumentary was issued by G.Edward Griffin of the Freedom Force Group and also well known author.

I like that you know your history and Bible that is great, no matter how you feel about either one, most people don't really have a good grasp of either and rely on others to do their interpreting or reading for them. Your name is fitting in that Horus is just another name for the multiple Sun-Gods of which Satan and Lucifer would most definitely fit into. I look forward o some good debates with you now that I know your background, but as for this thread I don't think it adventagous to anyone to to see a debate that couldn't start without a debate.

Which Bible version are you using? What form of the Hebrew are you using, for instance the same Hebrew word means fire and woman, so depending on what transliteration one uses could cause it to seem full of contradictions. Just look at Zepheniah for the woman/fire word usage.

Then the questions that are ridiculous that show up and a simple basic understanding of the History or cultures would clear up are to many to mention. It may interest you to know that in the late 80's a rather large group of scientists got together to find mistakes in the KJV Bible. The scientists hailed from many fields and all worked together to list the mistakes they found that they could scientifically or historically or such disprove. They found two things...

The sun set, the sun rose...

They claimed a God would know that the earth rotated and the sun didn't set or rise. Now had they referenced Isaiah 38, I believe, they would have had their answer to those two items. Like I said it is too broad and vague in the details to ever have a real conversation about that would not end up in neither changing their mind and a possibly a fight over a word or a historical accuracy.

Then dating comes into play particularly when speaking about the Egyptian history of the Hebrews. Egyptology just recently learned that there were times when more than one Pharaoh ruled during the same time thereby screwing up all their dynastic dating systems. Look into Pharaoh Achmose and his rule and the history recorded in his burial chamber and in their history and it is identical to the Exodus story but because of the error in dating the Pharaoh's reigns most in Egyptology will say it had to be Ramses and the Achmose date doesn't fit. Of course they will not give you a 100% sure hard date for either reign of the Pharaohs, they are just sure it isn't the one that Egyptian History backs up.

How many Horses draw a chariot in King David's reign? How many charioteers are there per chariot in that reign? Yet we hear over and over that the Bible contradicts itself on the number of horse stalls and horses and or Charioteers.

There is a name for this area of interest, it is called Higher Criticism. People who look for discrepancies or inaccuracies in the Bibles are called Higher Critics. I know the Bible pretty well myself, and I am fairly proficient in history but in order to have a debate with you over your questions we would have to set ground rules on which Bible and Which Concordance were used for that side, we would have to throw out all Egyptian Era questions that depend on a definite Pharaoh's Reign as no one will give a hard date for most of them. We would have to agree to use only known and reputable history sources. Which gets us into a whole other problem, there are over 34,000 texts of the KJV Bible in over 120 languages all identical over thousands of years but there are only handfuls of some so-called historical texts, the Catholic Bible is based on ancient texts that there are less than 5 known copies of. We would have to agree on a few other simple ideas also in order for it to be fair and accurate. Does writing a thing mean that thing was published when written? Stephen king released a book called Duma Key last year it was published and printed. He wrote it in 1967, he admits this in the book, so does a publication automatically predate another knowledge or does publication indicate writing date?

I guess I would endeavor to answer your questions if we could lay groundwork rules agreed upon and we took the questions one at a time. I will only use the KJV Authorized Bible and no other edition, that is not something I will compromise on. I understand that several of your questions go bye bye based on that very fact, but it is what it is.

So I guess if you truly want the answers to your questions and are not looking at ridiculing I would be willing to give it a go. I can state up front that I believe that the KJV Authorized Bible is the Inerrant WORD of GOD and is truth, science, history and is 100% accurate in all accounts.


So in your first question let's begin... Your question is flawed or your using the wrong Bible. Could you elaborate on what "(b) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1) " is? I looked at 1st Chron chapter 2:1 and chapter 1:1 and it is not about a census neither is 2nd chron 2:1 or 1:1, so none of the typos that seem to fit would be about a census o fighting men, but don't feel badly. Your first answer of "(a) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1) " is not about a census of the fighting men of Israel and Judah either.

"Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?" so please correct the question, the topic, he verses, books and chapters so that I can answer your first question.

I will say most so called contradictions are wrong in the question not in the Texts. I will post 2nd Samuel 24:1 so others can see that it does not say anything about the fighting men of Israel. I also posted verse two of that chapter to double prove it was not told he number the fighting men of Israel. I can not post your other verses as they are undecipherable to me.

"1 ¶ And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. 2 For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people. [Go: or, Compass] "

So let's get question one cleared up as to what it is you're asking and where it is you're quoting and then we chall move on to number 2.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Contradictions in the bible only point out that man is not capable of retelling stories accurately enough.

I'm pretty sure that no one understands the mind of god completely.

So these anti christian posts are just silly.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus
reply to post by miriam0566
 


instead of cracking up just answer the first one:

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)


Do me a favor and tell one exactly which version of any Bible has this Book Chapter and Verse?

(I Chronicles 2 1:1) What is that? No such book or verse exists??? Parroting won't help if you parrot something that does not exist...

And don't fret, I know where this first question is going, what books and verses he means but they do NOT say what he claims in his question, hence the problem with the question, is the question. The answer as written is easy

(C) NONE OF THE ABOVE.

See if I am wrong?


sty

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
i know the list of contradictions, and actually I remember finding a website that gives very educated arguments against this famous list:

website

I am not saying that there is no contradiction at all , but a good part can be assigned on the confusion between metaphoric and factual

cheers

[edit on 25-2-2009 by sty]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Do me a favor and tell one exactly which version of any Bible has this Book Chapter and Verse?

(I Chronicles 2 1:1) What is that? No such book or verse exists??? Parroting won't help if you parrot something that does not exist...



lol... it's I Chronicles 21:1 not "I Chronicles 2 1:1". It's a 'typo'.
Let me help you out...

1 Chronicles 21:1 (NIV) : Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.

2 Samuel 24:1 (NIV) : Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."

Or, maybe it's not a contradiction... maybe Satan IS God!
Dun dun dun...



I've seen people here misunderstand this thread...
It's not a "God doesn't exist" thread... It's a "The Bible is not inerrant" thread.
Which, by the way, should be obvious after 2 minutes of picking it up and reading it...



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus
reply to post by miriam0566
 


instead of cracking up just answer the first one:

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)

Simple. They both are true.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Or, maybe it's not a contradiction... maybe Satan IS God!
Dun dun dun...


i explained this one on page 1



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Or, maybe it's not a contradiction... maybe Satan IS God!
Dun dun dun...


i explained this one on page 1


I just read your explanation.
That's fine and well - maybe you're right.
But it doesn't take away from the fact that it proves the Bible is not inerrant - which is the only point that should be taken from this.
It doesn't matter how the writer was deceived.

He was, according to you, tricked.
So then the Bible is not exempt from human faults.
So then the writers of any other book in the Bible could also have been mistaken about any number of things.
Maybe the whole story of Jesus was also a deception... Maybe Judaism was the true religion, and maybe Satan deceived people into believing that they needed to change it.
Who knows? The Bible is now only as accurate as the fallible humans with extreme biases who reported it.
It can not be claimed to be the direct word of God when it has such obvious contradictions.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
He was, according to you, tricked.
So then the Bible is not exempt from human faults.
So then the writers of any other book in the Bible could also have been mistaken about any number of things.
Maybe the whole story of Jesus was also a deception... Maybe Judaism was the true religion, and maybe Satan deceived people into believing that they needed to change it.
Who knows? The Bible is now only as accurate as the fallible humans with extreme biases who reported it.
It can not be claimed to be the direct word of God when it has such obvious contradictions.


first, i never claimed that the writer was tricked. david was the one who was tricked.

what i stated is that one account was written that included the deception and the other was written that excluded it.

no contradiction, so it cant be used as an example of an ¨obvious contradiction.¨

second, the bible never claims to be the direct word of god. it claims to be the inspired word of god. BIG difference.

third, satan wouldnt be able to add a story like jesus to deceive people. 1- the hebrew scriptures point to and prophecy about jesus, 2- god wouldnt allow a deception like that into his bible.

if you want to read half truths and fancy stories that have been kept out of the bible, check out the apocryphal library.

there is a reason the bible has been the way it is for so long. and its not because of the church



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
first, i never claimed that the writer was tricked. david was the one who was tricked.

what i stated is that one account was written that included the deception and the other was written that excluded it.


But it never said one was a deception. That's your assumption.
Either way, the two accounts DO contradict one another.
Both can not be true.
Therefor you are left to assume, as you have done.



Originally posted by miriam0566
no contradiction, so it cant be used as an example of an ¨obvious contradiction.¨


No contradiction?
It is a contradiction as both can not be true.
Why would it matter by what means it came about?
The fact is that both accounts can not be true, meaning the Bible is not free from error.



Originally posted by miriam0566
second, the bible never claims to be the direct word of god. it claims to be the inspired word of god. BIG difference.


I don't think the Bible even claims that much (the writer of one book can not claim that a future book will also be inspired by God and then be chosen to be in the compilation we now call the Bible)...
It's the Christians that claim these things.
But direct or inspired is not what I'm arguing.
I'm arguing that it is not inerrant (the somewhat commonly held belief that the Bible is completely free from error).


Originally posted by miriam0566
third, satan wouldnt be able to add a story like jesus to deceive people. 1- the hebrew scriptures point to and prophecy about jesus, 2- god wouldnt allow a deception like that into his bible.


Maybe the prophecies were part of the deception?
And maybe God would allow that deception.
He allows a lot of things does he not?
He never seems to intervene today. It's your assumption that he would have before.
Did he intervene when the prophet Muhammad deceived the masses?
Maybe Jesus was exactly the same.

But I don't actually believe that is the case (as I don't believe God exists to begin with)... I'm just saying that when you take out the idea that the Bible is completely free from error, it opens up all sorts of possibilities - this is why so many Christians are unwilling to even admit the obvious errors.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by miriam0566
first, i never claimed that the writer was tricked. david was the one who was tricked.

what i stated is that one account was written that included the deception and the other was written that excluded it.


But it never said one was a deception. That's your assumption.
Either way, the two accounts DO contradict one another.
Both can not be true.
Therefor you are left to assume, as you have done.



Originally posted by miriam0566
no contradiction, so it cant be used as an example of an ¨obvious contradiction.¨


No contradiction?
It is a contradiction as both can not be true.
Why would it matter by what means it came about?
The fact is that both accounts can not be true, meaning the Bible is not free from error.



Originally posted by miriam0566
second, the bible never claims to be the direct word of god. it claims to be the inspired word of god. BIG difference.


I don't think the Bible even claims that much (the writer of one book can not claim that a future book will also be inspired by God and then be chosen to be in the compilation we now call the Bible)...
It's the Christians that claim these things.
But direct or inspired is not what I'm arguing.
I'm arguing that it is not inerrant (the somewhat commonly held belief that the Bible is completely free from error).


Originally posted by miriam0566
third, satan wouldnt be able to add a story like jesus to deceive people. 1- the hebrew scriptures point to and prophecy about jesus, 2- god wouldnt allow a deception like that into his bible.


Maybe the prophecies were part of the deception?
And maybe God would allow that deception.
He allows a lot of things does he not?
He never seems to intervene today. It's your assumption that he would have before.
Did he intervene when the prophet Muhammad deceived the masses?
Maybe Jesus was exactly the same.

But I don't actually believe that is the case (as I don't believe God exists to begin with)... I'm just saying that when you take out the idea that the Bible is completely free from error, it opens up all sorts of possibilities - this is why so many Christians are unwilling to even admit the obvious errors.


First thing to agree on is what version of the bible to use? The majority of biblical inerrancy believers would choose the KJV not the NIV.

Read the KJV there is NO contradiction.

1Ch:21:1: And Satan stood up against Israel, and PROVOKED David to number Israel.

Where do you see the satan "said" anything to David?

2Sa:24:1: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to SAY, Go, number Israel and Judah.

Here, we see that God did indeed "say" something to David.

Maybe when satan somehow provoked David to do the count, David knowing it was sinful didn't do it. Then GOD told him it was ok to do it.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
This looks like a fun topic, lol.



Originally posted by luciferhorus

For those of you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God.
By
Lucifer


Whoever believes the bible is the word of God mustn't have read it. I'm not a Christian, but am a fan of all religions. Christianity unfortunately created this problem many centuries ago, and hasn't moved to correct it. For sure, within the bible, direct speech from God is made, yet, it is another person relaying it. And after all, humans did write it. In large part, the bible is personal or second hand stories of racial, political, spiritual, expereinces. Always at best subjective, are these kind of stories.



There are a number of legal and non-legal definitions of this, but generally A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design should suffice. I accuse the Christians in general of being co-collaborators in a conspiracy to corrupt and pervert humanity, by alleging that their ‘Holy Bible’ represents the ‘highest truth,’ and that their genocidal, infanticidal, homophobic God is the actual Creator of the Universe (i.e., the God of Physics)....


You use a lot of emotive words to string together a somewhat convoluted tale. I'd say the paragraph is tenatively linked at best, but you gotta be more concise if i have a hope of replying in substance. :-) .



There appears to be at least one Christian here offering a cash reward for anyone who can prove the many claims in the Zeitgeist move, based on Jordan Maxwell’s ‘Sons of God,’ which offers argument and evidence of numerous historical sun-gods who were allegedly miraculously born, given divine status and entwined with astro-theology. Unfortunately ancient history is often the propaganda of tyrants and prophets, entwined with miracles stories and myth; ‘proving’ or disproving the truth of such legends is often thus a can of worms.


Ok. If ancient history is not to be trusted, what is the point of including the above paragraph. By you, referencing, one of the most dubious claims re: religion (Zeitgeist part 1), it takes doesn't help your arguement with credibility. (I'd like to debate with you over the supposed Christian link & Zeitgeist part 1, if you want. :-) . )



My offer is that of 73 virgins in the afterlife (the Muslims currently offer 72), though I am quite sure that this reward shall not be collected, particularly since the Christian Capitalists bear the curse of Jesus (i.e., the Capitalists allegedly end up in Hell).


Emotive phrases aside, maybe it won't be collected since you couldn't even provide it in the first place?



....I am a qualified school teacher and I am quite familiar with the process of marking student’s essays.

If the Bible is the word of the actual Creator, I would expect to give Her an A+ for historical methodology....


I find that curious. Since you are 'learned' in so many mattters. The so-called 'historical methodology' of the book of the bible is BS my friend. There is so much of it that fails miserably historically.


A Guide to Historical Method Book by Gilbert J. Garraghan

1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
2. Where was it produced (localization)?
3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?


Source: en.wikipedia.org...

On all 6 benchmarks, the bible must fails as a historical expose. This is because, right throughout the collection of books, it is difficult, if not impossible to properly address all 6 questions, in most, if not all books.

Take care
Wayne



[edit on 28-2-2009 by reiki]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by died4government
 


the Torah is infallible

everytime it says "thus ayeth the lord" this is infallible. anything else is history, comentary or prophecy

Yeshua definately considered torah nfallible and mightve considered the prophets infallible as well.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by reiki

A Guide to Historical Method Book by Gilbert J. Garraghan

1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
2. Where was it produced (localization)?
3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?


Source: en.wikipedia.org...

On all 6 benchmarks, the bible must fails as a historical expose. This is because, right throughout the collection of books, it is difficult, if not impossible to properly address all 6 questions, in most, if not all books.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by reiki]


Uhh, maybe this is exactly the point you are trying to make (excuse my sleep-deprived brain if so), but, considering what you have said above: doesn't that make it totally pointless, insincere, and misleading to try and apply the 6 benchmarks to the Bible as a whole and then proclaim that it "fails"? Surely each book and/or manuscript needs to be tested individually...

I'm not a Christian, nor a believer, but the manuscriptural, historical integrity of the Bible's components has long been established, and further reinforced by the scrolls found at Qumran.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   

I accuse the Christians in general of being co-collaborators in a conspiracy to corrupt and pervert humanity, by alleging that their ‘Holy Bible’ represents the ‘highest truth,’ and that their genocidal, infanticidal, homophobic God is the actual Creator of the Universe (i.e., the God of Physics).


Good, than it's only fair that they get to blame science for the atom bomb.
And mustard gas, and bioweapons, and eugenics, etc etc etc.

Or blame psychology for the various things done like historectomies for females dubed insane.


[edit on 17-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


There is no record in Acts of any tree limb breaking but that "...falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out" if Judas was hanging he would have fallen feet first.

I think Luke (possible author of Acts) was describing an alternate story. Just as the genealogy of the Son of Man; Jesus Christ, Matthew 1 is different to the Genealogy of the Son of God; Jesus Christ in Luke 23. They both change direction after King David. Son of Man is born from the line of King Davids son Solomon, leading to Josephs father being Jacob (Matthew 1). Jesus Christ the Son of God is born from the line of King Davids son Nathan leading to Josephs father being Heli (Luke 23).

The concept of different perspectives may be correct in the text of different Christs as well?
Account for the Son of God
Luke 23: 46 "...Father into Your hands I commit my spirit..."
Luke 24:4"...two men stood by them in shinning garments"
Luke 24: 1-10 "they and certain other women...Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them
Account for the Son of Man

Matthew 27: 46; "...My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
Matthew 28: 1; "...Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb..."
Matthew 28; 2 "...for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven..."

Looks to me not as though there are biblical contradictions as much as there are two very interesting biblical accounts depicting different people.
It could be possible the authors of the bible did not even see this.
regarding Judas
Matthew 26: 50: But Jesus said to him, Friend, why have you come?" Jesus is not referred to as the Son of God in Matthew ( as far as I have researched) and refers to the Lord your God ( dark Lord of OT) very often
Luke 22: 48 "But Jesus said to him, Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?" now the account of Luke is basically about the Son of God aka Son of Man in certain places

I am still researching the new testament however the Old Testament is clearly a vivid description of two very different gods, One God of Love the other a dark lord.

Let us not confuse the two. God is beautiful kind and loving. Let us release God from the passages of the OT where He is quoted to have ordered and said vile and horrid things. Let us release God from the accusations held by many and exhalt God in the highest way. The bible depicts choice and possibly the greatest of all deceivers and liars masquarding as God, calling himself to the Israelites " I am the Lord your God" and pretending to be God where as the dark Lord is obviously dark and obviously cruel.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

erm, you probably want to rethink this comment. he's gonna get you on the thou shalt not kill ..


Yes, that maybe a problem, unless of course, you know what is being said.

Thou shall not _ _ _ _.

Well, a search of the Manuscripts finds the Original Text used the term/word, "ratsach". Ratsach has a specific meaning.

7523 ratsach raw-tsakh' a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:--put to death, kill, (man-)slay(-er), murder(-er).

This applies to acts such as Cain bestowed upon Abel. Murder.

A search of the "word" Kill in the Strong's offers many hebrew/chaldean/aramaic words which are associated to it.
www.eliyah.com...

Only, ratsach, was used in the Original text for this Verse (Exodus 20:13)

Only, Ratsach, dealt with Murder.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
What's the need to debunk the Bible all of a sudden? I think some people might be at least opening their eyes to the idea of it. I think the whole thing is beautiful. It's a work of art. Divine art. I think even the skeptics are seeing we live in some interesting times, so they won't accept it more than ever.

The only conspiracy in this religion is the church corruption and maybe the vatican alien thing.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join