Is the bible full of contradictions?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Orrrr you could actually read the whole accounts.

Do not mean to be rude, but you should also do what you preaching. Here is the Source.


Matthew 27.1-10

1 Πρωΐας δὲ γενομένης συμβούλιον ἐλαβον πάντες οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ κατὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ὡστε θανατῶσαι αὐτόν· When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death;

2 καὶ δήσαντες αὐτὸν ἀπήγαγον καὶ παρέδωκαν Πιλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι. and they bound him and led him away and delivered him to Pilate the governor.

3 Τότε ἰδὼν Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν ὅτι κατεκρίθη μεταμεληθεὶς ἐστρεψεν τὰ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ πρεσβυτέροις When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, The Death of Judas Mt.27.3-10 | Ac.1.18-19

4 λέγων, Ἥμαρτον παραδοὺς αἷμα ἀθῷον. οἱ δὲ εἶπαν, Τί πρὸς ἡμᾶς; σὺ ὀψῃ. saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself."

5 καὶ ῥίψας τὰ ἀργύρια εἰς τὸν ναὸν ἀνεχώρησεν, καὶ ἀπελθὼν ἀπήγξατο. And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.

6 οἱ δὲ ἀρχιερεῖς λαβόντες τὰ ἀργύρια εἶπαν, Οὐκ ἐξεστιν βαλεῖν αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν κορβανᾶν, ἐπεὶ τιμὴ αἱματός ἐστιν. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money."

7 συμβούλιον δὲ λαβόντες ἠγόρασαν ἐξ αὐτῶν τὸν Ἀγρὸν τοῦ Κεραμέως εἰς ταφὴν τοῖς ξένοις. So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

8 διὸ ἐκλήθη ὁ ἀγρὸς ἐκεῖνος Ἀγρὸς Αἵματος ἑως τῆς σήμερον. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

9 τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἰερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, Καὶ ἔλαβον τὰ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια, τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ τετιμημένου ὃν ἐτιμήσαντο ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, - And they took the thirty pieces of silver Mt.27.9 | Zch.11.12-13

10 καὶ ἔδωκαν αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως, καθὰ συνέταξέν μοι κύριος. and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."

Acts 1.15-19

15 Καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις ἀναστὰς Πέτρος ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἀδελφῶν εἶπεν (ἦν τε ὀχλος ὀνομάτων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὡσεὶ ἑκατὸν εἰκοσι), In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,

16 Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί, ἐδει πληρωθῆναι τὴν γραφὴν ἣν προεῖπεν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἀγιον διὰ στόματος Δαυὶδ περὶ Ἰούδα τοῦ γενομένου ὁδηγοῦ τοῖς συλλαβοῦσιν Ἰησοῦν, "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.

17 ὁτι κατηριθμημένος ἦν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐλαχεν τὸν κλῆρον τῆς διακονίας ταύτης. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.

18 Οὗτος μὲν οὖν ἐκτήσατο χωρίον ἐκ μισθοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας, καὶ πρηνὴς γενόμενος ἐλάκησεν μέσος, καὶ ἐξεχύθη πάντα τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ. (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.

19 καὶ γνωστὸν ἐγένετο πᾶσι τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν Ἰερουσαλήμ, ὡστε κληθῆναι τὸ χωρίον ἐκεῖνο τῇ [ἰδίᾳ] διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν Ἀκελδαμάχ, τοῦτ' ἐστιν, Χωρίον Αἵματος. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel'dama, that is, Field of Blood.)

Sooo...Judas is distraught and remorseful, tosses the silver back into the temple, and then off himself by hanging...in a non-specific location.

The location is mentioned both in Matthew and Acts. In Matthew it is mentioned "Potter's Field" as location. Here is the Potters field.
And in Acts is called "Akeldama". Here is the Akeldama.


Peace

reply to post by Seed76


And in Matthew it's bought by the priests after Judas throws the money back at them and hangs himself. In Acts it is bought by Judas who purchases it himself and falls headlong into it.

In Matthew we have a repentant Judas, in Acts we have a Judas punished for his inequity.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

And in Matthew it's bought by the priests after Judas throws the money back at them and hangs himself. In Acts it is bought by Judas who purchases it himself and falls headlong into it.

Here is a quick Source.

Matthew says the priests bought the field, but Acts says that Judas did. So who did it?

The alternate site opts for this explanation:

The chief priests did not want to put the money paid for the betrayal of Jesus back into the temple treasury as it was "blood money." So they bought an "agros:" a field to bury strangers in. Because blood money was used to purchase the field it was called "the field [agros] of blood." This is different than the property [chorion] that Judas purchased himself referred to in Acts Chapter 1.
The problem here is that both Acts and Matthew connect the purchase specifically with Judas' act of treachery. Thus I cannot accept this solution. However, it does lead into our own answer. There are a few factors at here -- one linguistic, the others sociological.

The word used by Matthew for "bought" is agorazo -- a general term meaning, "to go to market." It means to purchase, but also to redeem. It is a verb that refers to the transaction of business. Note how Luke uses it in opposition to another word:

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell (poleo) his garment, and buy (agorazo) one.
Poleo can mean "sell" but it's primary meaning has to do with trading and bartering. Therefore the translation of "buy" (and "sell") is made according to context.

How does this mean anything with regard to Judas?

First note the word Luke uses. It is ktaomai, which means to "get, acquire, obtain, possess, provide, purchase." This word has the connotations of ownership that agorazo does not. Matthew says that the priests transacted business for the obtaining of the field, but they did not thereby have possession of the field. The money they used was Judas' and the field was bought in his name; the field was technically and legally his.

And that leads to another question no one has yet raised, but which I will:

It seems too much of a coincidence, that the priests managed to buy the exact same field that Judas died in.

Not at all. Once Judas died in the field, the land became defiled by his corpse. Hence it would become perfectly suited to become a full-time cemetery. In this ancient collectivist society, the gossip would readily get around as to where and how Judas died and it would not be a burden for the decision to be made to purchase the field in Judas' name (see below) to turn into a cemetery.

If Judas threw the money away, it wasn't his anymore, it belonged to the priests.

This is where our social factor comes into play. Note that the money cannot be put in the treasury -- it cannot be made to belong to the temple again -- because it is blood money. Keener observes in his Matthean commentary [657-8]:

Ancient Eastern peoples regarded very seriously the guilt of innocent blood, sometimes viewed in terms of corporate responsibility. Like Pilate the priestly officials wanted nothing further to do with the situation, and likewise understand that the blood was innocent...
The money was profaned and tainted by the way it was used. By ancient thinking, it was ritually unclean -- though even today a charity may refuse money if it is gained by ill-gotten means.

Now it follows that when they transacted the business of the field for the temple, to avoid association with ritual uncleanness, the priests would have to have bought it in the name of Judas Iscariot, the one whose blood money it was. The property and transaction records available to the public and probably consulted by Luke would reflect that Judas bought the field -- or else Luke is indeed aware of what transpired and is using just the right verb to make the point.

In Matthew we have a repentant Judas, in Acts we have a Judas punished for his inequity.

Taken from the same Source.

Judas' gut-burst would hardly warrant a "field of blood" designation for the whole property. There would not be blood everywhere. The "Field of Blood" name was derived -- even as Matthew says -- from the act of purchase with the reward of Judas' iniquity -- what iniquity? The betrayal of innocent blood, which Luke recorded in his own Gospel.

So, as many have pointed out, there is no contradiction. There is one Judas that hang himself because he betrayed innocent blood which was his iniguity.
If you still have questions, then you should probably do your own research and consult a theologian and bible scholar to help you out with your research.
But since i know you are not interested,it doesn´t matter really if you still claim there are contradictions.

Peace

The bible simplifies things good or bad and that life is black and white. Your either with god or not and if your not your against it. That is a really naive approach to life. People can except that a magic person created everything in 6 days but not the fact that it might not be true that is close minded indoctrination. If the bible is true and god does exist why isn't it 70,000 years old instead of a mish mash of old stories that the romans decided to use as a control measure. Unless you mean the old testament. Thats why life is like it is because not to long ago people was told that if they did something wrong they would be struck down by the hand of god and they believed it. Until people questioned it just like standing in front of a mirror and saying bloody mary. Out dated train of thought that needs to be forgotten. If we are all gods children then why does he let the nastiest siblings rule?

Originally posted by SparkyP

[...]. If we are all gods children then why does he let the nastiest siblings rule?

Pro 27:26 The lambs are for thy clothing, and the goats are the price of the field.

reply to post by Seed76


I've already addressed this:

Originally posted by madnessinmysou
...there is no historical reason why the field of blood would have been bought in the name of Judas. Ritually, it would have been considered unclean and thus the money wouldn't have been used for sacred purchases, but the use of it by the priestly class to buy a field for anonymous burial wouldn't have made a difference.

And again, Acts says that Judas himself bought the field. Even if the priests had bought the field themselves, the account in Matthew clearly puts the hanging of Judas before the purchase of the field.

Seriously, should you have to do this much contorting of the situations and adding of external information to reconcile events in the true word of god?

There is zero precedent for anyone to say that the field was bought by the priests in Judas name. Unless you can provide an example of this being done during that period of in the few centuries preceding it, I'm going to have to dismiss this and not just conjecture, but fantasy.

reply to post by Abovo


How can you compare a goat to hitler, stalin, pol pot etc.

Originally posted by SparkyP
reply to post by Abovo

 

How can you compare a goat to hitler, stalin, pol pot etc.

In Judeo/Christian symbolism Goats represent the, Strong or Forceful aspect of humanity. While sheep represent the docile and meek and generally altruistic.

Originally posted by Abovo

In Judeo/Christian symbolism Goats represent the, Strong or Forceful aspect of humanity. While sheep represent the docile and meek and generally altruistic.

Thank you for clearing that up but being strong doesn't necessitate being nasty/evil, one would assume Jesus (for the sake of this argument existed) was a strong person and his followers where/are weak. Does that mean that all goats are evil and all lambs are docile? Obviously not but rationality is not supposed to be applied to religion. I don't need to believe in any religion because I follow man, religion is what divides us as children of the light. People understand things in different ways, I could of thought the lamb was clothing/warmth/comfort and the goat was destruction or that even though the goat eats all your land it still gives milk (it might be destructive but it still has something to offer).

The bible was a book of rules written many years ago to keep people in check, we have laws for that now some right some wrong just like the bible (people working on a sunday springs to mind). I'm merely voicing my opinion and totally respect anybody that lives there life to any religion, it's just that I don't differentiate between people based on there beliefs but on what they do.

Peace and compassion

Originally posted by SparkyP

Thank you for clearing that up but being strong doesn't necessitate being nasty/evil, one would assume Jesus (for the sake of this argument existed) was a strong person and his followers where/are weak.

There are levels of comprehension when interpreting data which are attributable to a few factors. This idea can be generally summed under what can be called esotericism and exotericism. The difference between these two views is depth of perception and range of application, which are products of an individuals level of spiritual development.

Every person has a dual nature [Goat and Sheep] and one is usually more dominant than the other. In Judeo/Christian symbolism, Goats and Sheep are situated on the left and right hands of God respectively. The Right hand of God aducts [draws] and the Left hand abducts [rejects]. These contrary forces are what establish equilibrium within the material and spiritual worlds. The goal is to recognize, phenomenologically, what these respective forces represent and then efficiently manage them through disciplined thought.

Jesus was a sheep [lamb] but is also, according to symbolism, a lion. He showed through his philosophy the correct way to manage the aforementioned forces to achieve an super-efficient form of physical existence.

Originally posted by SparkyP

Does that mean that all goats are evil and all lambs are docile? Obviously not but rationality is not supposed to be applied to religion. I don't need to believe in any religion because I follow man, religion is what divides us as children of the light. People understand things in different ways, I could of thought the lamb was clothing/warmth/comfort and the goat was destruction or that even though the goat eats all your land it still gives milk (it might be destructive but it still has something to offer).

There is no morality as pertains to G-d. For man an ethical code was established to facilitate; promote evolution of the species. For example, the Ten commandments weren't designed with limitation in mind but where instituted to protect humanity and its environment from destructive, imperceptible, forces until a level of spiritual maturity was reached where control could be intellectually managed.

Originally posted by SparkyP

The bible was a book of rules written many years ago to keep people in check, we have laws for that now some right some wrong just like the bible (people working on a sunday springs to mind). I'm merely voicing my opinion and totally respect anybody that lives there life to any religion, it's just that I don't differentiate between people based on there beliefs but on what they do.

Peace and compassion

Yes, no... to dualism. The path is in the middle.



Peace

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

There is zero precedent for anyone to say that the field was bought by the priests in Judas name. Unless you can provide an example of this being done during that period of in the few centuries preceding it, I'm going to have to dismiss this and not just conjecture, but fantasy.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but everything on the so called "Judas Death" and purchasing of the "Field "contradictions been explained. There is no contradiction at all as other posters pointed out including myself. Various sources been provided, on previous posts from others as from me. And as i mentioned on my previous post if you really interested you should do your own research, or ask a Theologian and Bible scholar to help you with your questions.


Peace

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So you made a response to two paragraphs and I'm supposed to be able to figure out that "No, it doesn't say that" was only in reference to the opening line?

It wasn't the opening line Madness, it was the line directly preceding my statement. It's irrelevant though, now you know why I said that, let's move on...

Also, it's induced, not deduced. You're using inductive reason, not deductive. Now, if you could directly derive the cliff from the premises of the Bible verses, you'd be using deductive reasoning. Of course, your conclusion is not derived directly from the premises and you'd be unable to rewrite it as a syllogism, so it's definitively inductive reasoning.

Just a quick logic lesson, just because misuse of the word 'deduce' is a pet peeve (it's why I can't read Sherlock Holmes anymore).

You're not correct Madness, and this is beginning to become slightly petty IMHO.

So uptight? You're claiming that two entirely contradictory stories are in fact the same story. Story one has a remorseful man throwing his ill gotten gains back into the Temple and hanging himself (nowhere does it say in what manner he hung himself, as hanging has been known to take place from a tree, from housing supports, or from basically any place that is slightly higher than the torso's height from the ground that can support its weight).

They are the same story from two different PERSPECTIVES. Right now if this was a court testimony and the two witnesses said the exact same thing the defense attorney would immediately stand up and object for COLLUSION. Two slightly different accounts of the same story actually give credibility to "truth" in courts of law around the world. You're wrong Madness, and if you'd swallow your pride for 2 minutes and read the link provided you'd have very reasonable answers to your objections.

You're salivating at the idea that there is a contradiction here, but there isn't. You're completely ignoring the tradition of the Jews and the account was written by Jews and included only Jews in the story. Ignoring this aspect is fundamentally flawed logical reasoning.

Even if he did hang himself from a tree, we have no idea how many trees were around back then, so we can't point to a specific area as being the most likely.

Absurd. Matthew and Peter both knew Judas as a friend and knew exactly where he hung himself. It was probably well known amongst the entire population of Jerusalem. Suicide was forbidden by the Jews and this would have been one of the biggest stories of the year back then to them. Secondly, the areas of the incident are still called by the same name TODAY that they were 2,000 years ago!

I'll wait.

You'll wait for what Madness? You have a predictable history of refusing to read provided links or watch linked videos, so why should I spend my time researching something you'll just ignore??

Who cares, here is the video. Also, don't reply with something similar to "I didn't have time to watch the video because of X...". I'm not putting a timetable on your reply to me, I never do.

Indirectly or directly? I'm sorry, but him buying the field automatically contradicts the Matthew account where he gets rid of the money before he can buy the field.

Madness, it was purchased for Judas in HIS name after he threw the money into the temple. The Temple priests didn't take the 30 pieces of silver, the account even states they refused to take the money back from Judas.

No, I'm not making any conjecture. In the story of Matthew he got rid of the money. He couldn't have bought the field.

B.S. you're relying on a conjecture from the text. But I am also relying on a conjecture from the text. You think yours is "truth", yet mine is rejected outright. Your conjecture is your personal arbitrary opinion, mine take into account the customs of the Jews and the Greek differences the original account were written in. You'd know this is you'd be slightly reasonable and just read someone's provided sources and links. I have no idea why you refuse to view others presented materials, to me that's just stubborn and very rude.

...he tosses the money away. He doesn't have any money to buy the field.

The ONLY time the 30 pieces of silver changed owners after Judas threw it into the temple was when it went into the pockets of the potter who owned the field. When the 30 pieces of silver were laying on the floor of the temple it still belonged to Judas! When the priests picked the pieces of silver up and gave them to the potter they STILL belonged to Judas! When the bill of sale was written up, Judas's name was on it!

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that the priests REFUSED to accept the money? This is stated directly in the text. When the field was purchased JUDAS was the owner of the 30 pieces of silver.

So then your idea that you could induce the proper spot of his hanging sort of falls apart. He could have hanged himself anywhere. I'm sorry, but when you explain away one thing you just make one of your points seem flimsy.

When you say the words "He could have" you are using your CONJECTURES again. And I'll repeat my objections to why you're allowed this leeway and no one else is?? That's a fallacy of logic Madness.

I'm not making a conjecture. I'm making a point that you can't say where or how he hanged himself, only that he did. You're creating a straw man to make it seem we're on equal footing. I'm not making a conjecture, I'm merely saying you cannot.

False. You're holding me to a standard you don't hold yourself to. That's called "Special Pleading" and it's a fallacy to reason this way with others.

He could hang hanged himself anywhere or in any manner.

"Could"... another conjecture you're allowing yourself.

I actually have been trying to find a source on hanging in that region in the first century, but I've found nothing.

Like I said, it was FORBIDDEN by the Jewish culture and religion, it was EXTREMELY rare. that is precisely why Judas's suicide would have been known by a vast number of people. That's why they location of his suicide is STILL known by the Jews to this day. It was an abomination to them.

You are making a claim without direct evidence.

No Madness, there is direct evidence, you REFUSE to read it. Secondly, go back to every time you state 'could have' or 'could in your posts above and remember that special pleading is a fallacy.

And seeing as he could have had two hours to find himself a hanging place, your claims are sort of silly.

They appear silly to you because your subconscious knows your reasoning is based on a fallacy and you refuse to read provided links I have provided. That's arrogant and rude Madness. I still consider you my friend Madness even though we disagree, but in this case you're not arguing in a fair manner with me.

So instead of providing the arguments in the link, I had to read through the whole thing myself?

I'm not going to copy/paste the link for you in this thread, not only is that a waste of time, but it's against the TOS here Madness. You can read the link in less than 5 minutes. And i am not going to recycle the link's apologetics to you and the ATS community as if they are my own, that's plagiarism.

Read the link, this is getting absurd IMHO.

I'm sorry, but I'm arguing this directly from the book. It is not an account of the same story. If this book is, as you claim, the perfect word of the all-knowing creator of all things, how is it that there are two contradictory perspectives?

It's not contradictory Madness.

I'm sorry, but I'm not making a conjecture.

yes, you have been, and have done so TWICE in this post alone I'm replying to. "Could" and "could have" is terms of a conjecture.

End of story...

It is you you is using conjectures to reconcile the accounts. Without conjecture, the stories don't add up.

I've already ADMITTED I am Madness, I'm being upfront and honest with you about that!!! The entire point I'm making is why you reason via your own conjectures yet you demand that I not make any myself?

And yet suicide is never mentioned in the second story. And again you're wrong. I'm not straining at a gnat, I'm pointing out that the only way to reconcile two stories of the same event contained within the perfect word of god is to create unprovable conjectures about other circumstances.

Of course they are "unprovable" to you, you're doing the internet equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears by refusing time and time again to view others presented links and videos. Not just in this thread, by you routinely do this with information others provide to you.

And that's not the only contradiction in the Bible. I mean, the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 alone makes 4 omissions and is unnecessary if Jesus was the son of a deity rather than the son of Joseph...as being the son of Joseph is meaningless and there is no point in making Joseph part of the house of David.

WOW, now you've really stepped into a subject you have no idea about. I'm not going to get off on that tangent with you in this thread.

The answer emerges in the differing genealogies of Jesus Christ recorded in the gospels. Matthew, as a Levi, focuses his gospel on the Messiahship of Jesus and presents Him as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Thus, Matthew traces the legal line from Abraham (as any Jew would) through David, then through Solomon (the . royal. line) to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus (3). On the other hand, Luke, as a physician, focuses on the humanity of Jesus and presents Him as the Son of Man. Luke traces the blood line from Adam (the first Man) through to David -- and his genealogy from Abraham through David is identical to Matthew's. But then after David, Luke departs from the path taken by Matthew and traces the family tree through another son of David (the second surviving son of Bathsheba), Nathan, down through Heli, the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus (4).

Source

On top of that, Matthew puts around 26 (I'm not going to bother to get the exact number on this, but if you want to correct me on it, go ahead) steps between David and Jesus on his father's side, while Luke's genealogy puts I believe 39-41 steps between David and Jesus on his mother's side...that's a hell of a big difference. It doesn't make any sense that there'd be that big of an ancestry discrepancy.

The reason it makes ZERO sense to you is because you've done ZERO research. The two authors are highlighting Christ's genealogies through 2 different sons of David, Solomon and Nathan. Read the link, I'm not holding my breath though.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You know what, I've realized that this is futile. And this is coming from someone who debates creationists...oh wait, you're one of those too...I'm just not going to bother. I'm not giving up, I just have a lot more important things to do with my time and I've gotten to the point where I'm spending several hours on ATS every day to make all of these futile posts.

I'm open to correction. I've admitted my mistakes on here before, I've even conceded points to people. I'm not above reproach, I'm not infallible, neither are my positions. The thing is that I'm formulating my positions based on the evidence, and you're fitting your evidence into your positions...you've admitted as much before on the creationism and claimed that those who opposed creationism are merely doing the same thing from another side. I'm here to examine evidence, not prove a point.

You've got a laundry list of contradictions in the video to address, how about you start with those?

Also:
Hands down, proof that the Bible is far from perfect: The geologic record does not reflect a catastrophic flood, as there would be quite a bit of evidence for it and everything we have does not reflect it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You know what, I've realized that this is futile. And this is coming from someone who debates creationists...oh wait, you're one of those too...I'm just not going to bother. I'm not giving up, I just have a lot more important things to do with my time and I've gotten to the point where I'm spending several hours on ATS every day to make all of these futile posts.

Cool, take care.

I'm open to correction. I've admitted my mistakes on here before, I've even conceded points to people. I'm not above reproach, I'm not infallible, neither are my positions. The thing is that I'm formulating my positions based on the evidence, and you're fitting your evidence into your positions...you've admitted as much before on the creationism and claimed that those who opposed creationism are merely doing the same thing from another side. I'm here to examine evidence, not prove a point.

What is this new argument about Creationism? That's not even discussed in this thread. And say what you wish, but from my experience with you that's not the case. You refuse to read linked pages or watch linked videos. You most definitely are not here to "examine evidence", that would mean you would examine the contrary evidence. You refuse to do so, either outright, or by complaining you don't have the time.

You've got a laundry list of contradictions in the video to address, how about you start with those?

You're 100% right Madness, it surely is a "laundry list". It's called the Shotgun Argumentation fallacy. If the OP wants to present alleged contradictions in a clear, concise manner I'd attempt to answer them all, but you ought to know enough about me by now to know I refuse to acknowledge fallacies on this forum.

Hands down, proof that the Bible is far from perfect: The geologic record does not reflect a catastrophic flood, as there would be quite a bit of evidence for it and everything we have does not reflect it.

Again, irrelevant to our argument.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Shotgun argumentation? It's a video meant to entertain and thus is not really subject to logical fallacy claims. Entertainment isn't supposed to be logical, it's supposed to entertain. It wouldn't be all that amusing if they examined each claim for 5 minutes and explained them all.

But it shouldn't be an issue. Since you're so certain the Bible is inerrant, you should be able to knock down each of the claimed contradictions quickly.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Yes, it was entertainment. I did find the video quite amusing so you're correct there. My point was it would be easier to address the alleged contradictions one by one instead of lengthy apologetics for all that the video contains which is many in a very short span of time.

But on the other hand, numerous people on the net have already addressed each and every alleged contradiction that anyone who really cares to know if there are in fact contradictions or not can easily look at that material.

Do you have another one specifically you're interested in me addressing?

Here Madness, I'll hit the first one:


The video claims that the bible says God stays angry "forever" and "not forever" and just leaves it at that. Then sites Micah 7:8 and Jeremiah 17:4. Like most alleged contradictions the context of the two passages is completely ignored. In Micah chapter 7 God is speaking about Israel as a nation, that He will not 'retain His anger' on them forever because He 'delights in His mercy'. In Jeremiah chapter 17 God is speaking about the "sin of Judah", and that His anger for that particular sin will 'burn for ever'.

These verses are speaking of two entirely different things. In Micah it is speaking about the nation of Israel, and in Jeremiah it is speaking about the specific sin Judah committed.

Question #2; Does God "tempt"?

The contestant says that yes God "tempted" Abraham, and the other contestant says based on James 1;13 that God would never "tempt" anyone.


The answer lies in the laziness of the English language. "Tempt" is used for entirely different words and entirely different connotations in the Hebrew and the Greek. The "tempt" used in Genesis 22:1 in regards to God "tempting" Abraham is the Hebrew word nasah meaning "to test".

The Greek word for "tempt" in James 1:13 is peirazo meaning "to try one's virtue, to solicit to sin".

There is no contradiction, in Genesis when God is "tempting" Abraham He is testing His faith. When James says God doesn't "tempt" the Greek intent is to "solicit to sin".


Would you like me to do more?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


"You know what, I've realized that this is futile. And this is coming from someone who debates creationists...oh wait, you're one of those too...I'm just not going to bother. I'm not giving up, I just have a lot more important things to do with my time and I've gotten to the point where I'm spending several hours on ATS every day to make all of these futile posts."


loool i feel your pain buddy . Talking to these people is like teaching a monkey to use google like i always say .


check out this thread to see how they sugar coat , lie , minipulate , quote mine , and try to attack the messenger .

These christians don't care about truth . There mind is already made up

example

"Now, there are three possibilities. First, Christ may have been speaking metaphorically"

they can make up whatever bull# they want . Cherry pick , change between metaphor/ literal lool

You can't win against such reason and logic. BECAUSE its not reason and logic

its twisting a fairy tale so it doesnt look as bad and makes more sense to them . Regardless of truth or not


they make up there truth as they go along ......

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You're a troll Chucky, kindly go back under the bridge. Grown folks are trying to have a civilized conversation in this thread.