Bible

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 24 2008,07:49)

Hi Stu,
Useless.
You cannot teach faith.
It is not primarily of the intellect.

Obviously it isn't. If you can't evaluate it, how do you know it does more good than harm? I think it is pretty obvious to the world that belief without evidence is a major factor in each of the most pressing problems we have: climate change and religious terrorism. Is it not the duty of everyone to examine their beliefs to determine their effect on others? Don't fundamentalists of any kind give succour to the violent ones? Does this world and its inhabitants matter or not? What ethical right does faith have to exist?

Stuart

March 23, 2008 at 8:45 pm#84629

Participant

Quote

What ethical right does faith have to exist?

Religion as a whole has absolutely no right to exist. It is disgusting and immoral, and will soon be done away with.

Rev. 18:21: “A strong angel lifted up a stone like a great millstone and hurled it into the sea, saying: ‘Thus with a swift pitch will Babylon the great city be hurled down, and she will never be found again.’”

“The ten horns that you saw, and the wild beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her devastated and naked, and will eat up her fleshy parts and will completely burn her with fire. For God put it into their hearts to carry out his thought, even to carry out their one thought by giving their kingdom to the wild beast, until the words of God will have been accomplished.”—Revelation 17:16, 17.

I believe the wild beast represents the political conglomerate of almost all the nations on earth—the United Nations.

It used to be that when we told people that religion would come to an end, it seemed such an impossible thing. But more and more are seeing false religion for what it is. They are seeing the bad uses it is put to, the violence that it causes.

The very idea that the world would unite in an effort to stamp out religion used to seem absurd. But, things are beginning to seem like this would be a very easy thing.

The end of this world’s false religions will come while they are still seemingly vigorous and influential. The prophecy shows that just before the harlot is destroyed, she will still be saying in her heart: “I sit a queen, and I am no widow, and I shall never see mourning.” (Revelation 18:7) However, her destruction will come as a surprise to her billions of subjects. It will be one of the most unexpected and catastrophic events in human history.

Christendom’s sects have brought reproach on the name of the God whom they hypocritically claim to represent. They have taught Babylonian and Grecian philosophies instead of the pure Word of God and have contributed to the moral delinquency of entire nations by approving permissive life-styles that flout Bible principles. Greedy wheeler-dealers among them stand condemned by the words of James 5:1, 5: “Come, now, you rich men, weep, howling over your miseries that are coming upon you. You have lived in luxury upon the earth and have gone in for sensual pleasure. You have fattened your hearts on the day of slaughter.”

How will the world regard the devastating of Babylon the Great? From a distance, corrupt politicians—“kings of the earth”—grieve over her because they had for centuries found mutual pleasure in their spiritual fornication. Also weeping and mourning over her are greedy men of commerce, “traveling merchants . . . , who became rich from her.” These also distance themselves from her, saying: “Too bad, too bad—the great city, clothed with fine linen and purple and scarlet, and richly adorned with gold ornament and precious stone and pearl, because in one hour such great riches have been devastated!” All the finery of ecclesiastical garments and the magnificence of the world’s great cathedrals will be gone forever! (Revelation 18:9-17)

Anyway, after the removal of religion, the world will say: “Peace and security” (1 thess) but of course, it won't be a true peace or security, and then, sudden destruction will be upon them.

(1 Thessalonians 5:3) Whenever it is that they are saying: “Peace and security!” then sudden destruction is to be instantly upon them just as the pang of distress upon a pregnant woman; and they will by no means escape.

I believe this call of peace and security (which is the U.N.'s primary purpose, to achieve these things.) The U.N. was created for the purpose of ‘uniting our strength to maintain international peace and security.’

March 24, 2008 at 1:22 am#84633

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 24 2008,07:57)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 24 2008,07:49)

Hi Stu,
Useless.
You cannot teach faith.
It is not primarily of the intellect.

Stuart

Hi Stu,
The Word of God does not always take root.
Stony soil cannot accept it.

March 24, 2008 at 1:55 am#84634

Participant

Hi Stu,
1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

March 24, 2008 at 2:15 am#84638

Participant

Hi Nick

Quote

The Word of God does not always take root.
Stony soil cannot accept it.

Ironic then that we are to build our houses upon rock. This stony soil is exactly the medium we need in the Middle East right now (or have needed for several thousand years).

Quote

1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

Wouldn’t the world be a safer place if no one was the hearer of anyone’s doctrine? There would not be suicide bombers and abortion clinic bombers.

Stuart

March 24, 2008 at 2:22 am#84639

Participant

Quote

Wow, David. Bring on the theocracies. Shall we have a world-wide islamic caliphate? They are the ones with the most experience in oppressing people in this way. You base your whole anti-democratic tirade on the inerrancy of a set of books that have been demonstrated to be very fallable. I do remember your olympian feats of apology in attempting to bring Genesis into line with reality. I also remember the message of that book being distorted out of shape in the process. Isn't this current pleading of your just a tiny bit hypocritical?

Stuart

March 26, 2008 at 1:39 am#84859

Participant

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record a miraculous healing that took place near Jericho. (Mat 20:29-34; mark 10:46-52; luke 18:35-43)

Both Matthew and mark say it was when Jesus was “going OUT” of Jericho that he performed this miracle.

Luke, however says that it occured when Jesus was “getting NEAR” to Jericho.

Contradiction? No.

By Jesus time, Jericho had been rebuilt about 1.6 km (a mile) south of the old city. Herod the Great had established a winter palace there. This is verified by the book “Archaeology and Bible History,” which says: “Jericho of Jesus’ time was a double city….The old Jewish city was about [1.6 kilometers] away from the Roman city.”
So perhaps Jesus performed the miracle while leaving the Jewish city and approaching the Roman city or vice versa.

There are so many things like this that at first, seem contradictions, but upon more knowledge, become clear.

March 26, 2008 at 1:54 am#84860

Participant

Thanks david,
Yes some folks love to pick at the detail of the bible in the hope of finding cracks they can enlarge to undermine faith in it. They cannot take away from it's beauty and consistency, the incredible harmony that forms revealed truth.

March 26, 2008 at 6:05 am#84877

seek and you will find

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 26 2008,13:54)

Nick and David I am so happy that you still believe in the word of God called the Bible. So many are denying it, and it makes me very sad, for them. I have wondered about them, do you believe that they had God's Holy Spirit? Jesus said that the Father has given us to Him, and He will not loose us. So were they among us or not?
Peace and Love Mrs.

March 26, 2008 at 6:55 am#84879

Participant

Quote

I do remember your olympian feats of apology in attempting to bring Genesis into line with reality. I also remember the message of that book being distorted out of shape in the process. Isn't this current pleading of your just a tiny bit hypocritical?

You my friend are delusional. At least, when it comes to what genesis actually says, as opposed to what you want it to say. If all the days of genesis are also spoken of as one “day” then it is obvious they are not 24 hour periods, as you would like them to be. They are epochs of time, which both a dictionary will confirm is one meaning of “day” and which science agrees with.

Quote

You base your whole anti-democratic tirade on the inerrancy of a set of books that have been demonstrated to be very fallable.

I didn't notice a tirade against democracy. What I did notice was me pointing out that many have believed that we are living in the last days of this system of things and that before the end came, the end of religion as a whole would come. Decades ago, that seemed an impossible idea. Today, it is not. The waters of babylon are drying up today, just as they did back then, before she was conquered.

March 26, 2008 at 7:43 am#84882

Participant

Quote (david @ Mar. 26 2008,13:39)

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record a miraculous healing that took place near Jericho. (Mat 20:29-34; mark 10:46-52; luke 18:35-43)

Both Matthew and mark say it was when Jesus was “going OUT” of Jericho that he performed this miracle.

Luke, however says that it occured when Jesus was “getting NEAR” to Jericho.

Contradiction? No.

There are so many things like this that at first, seem contradictions, but upon more knowledge, become clear.

Hi David

You are right about this kind of discrepancy. The lists of '101 bible contradictions' tend to be full of them; such differences are often trivial, and within the margin of error of estimating the size of a crowd etc. Certainly there is no way it is a perfect record of events, but the difference in the number of fighting Israelites between 2 Samuel 24:9 and 1Chronicles 21:5 is not really very important, unless you are obsessive about the literal truth of every single phrase, or can’t accept that much of it was not written when it is traditionally thought to have been written. Indeed although others make something of it, I find there to be no difference at all between Matthew 16:17 and John 1:41. There is nothing special about ‘revelation’, as these two verses indicate.

As I have mentioned already, Genesis 2:17 disagrees with Genesis 5:5.

The contradiction between John 5:31 and John 8:14 is problematic.

As kejonn has been saying, there would seem to be disagreement about the OT between 2 Timothy 3:16 and Hebrews 7:18.

Genesis 6:6-7, Isaiah 38:1-5 , 1 Samuel 15:10-11, 1 Samuel 15:35, Jeremaih 18:8 , Amos 7:3, 6 , Exodus 32:14 (and a few others) indicate that god changes his mind, contrary to 1 Samuel 15:29, Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17.

Stuart

March 26, 2008 at 7:32 pm#84908

Participant

Hi Stu,
Jn5.31
31If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

By bible standards this is so. Truth is proven in the mouth of witnesses.

2Cor 13
1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Jn8.14
14Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

Jesus alone has been in heaven and will return there.
No other man has done so and his word is truth, no lie ever being found in his mouth.
Thus he appeals to a higher standard again as scripture has not revealed much about the heavenly realm.

March 26, 2008 at 7:42 pm#84909

Participant

Hi Stu,
The Lord God does not change as Mal 3 and Jas 1 point out.
But God did regret the appointment of Saul as King and withdrew that anointing as is His sovereign right.
This was not a change in the nature of God.

March 26, 2008 at 8:01 pm#84910

kejonn

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 26 2008,14:32)

Hi Stu,
Jn5.31
31If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

By bible standards this is so. Truth is proven in the mouth of witnesses.

2Cor 13
1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Jn8.14
14Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

Uh, John 5:31 and 8:14 are contradictory.

March 26, 2008 at 8:03 pm#84911

kejonn

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 26 2008,14:42)

But it does put to question the idea that God is omniscient. If He regretted something He already knew would happen, why did He do it in the first place

March 26, 2008 at 8:29 pm#84913

Participant

Hi KJ,
Is omniscient in the bible or is it a human idea?
Men demanded a king and God allowed it.

We need to learn about God from the bible
not apply human measures to him.

March 26, 2008 at 9:53 pm#84921

Participant

Quote

Certainly there is no way it is a perfect record of events, but the difference in the number of fighting Israelites between 2 Samuel 24:9 and 1Chronicles 21:5 is not really very important,

And yet, stu, you mention it.

2 SAMUEL 24:9
“Jóab now gave the number of the registration of the people to the king; and ISRAEL amounted to eight hundred thousand valiant men drawing sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.”
1 CHRONICLES 21:5
“Jóab now gave the number of the registration of the people to David; and ALL ISRAEL amounted to a million one hundred thousand men drawing sword, and Judah four hundred and seventy thousand men drawing sword.”

The count revealed that Israel had 1,100,000 men and Judah had 470,000, according to the record at 1 Chronicles 21:5. The report at 2 Samuel 24:9 says 800,000 men of Israel and 500,000 men of Judah. Some believe that a scribal error exists. But it is unwise to ascribe error to the record when the circumstances, methods of counting, and so forth, are not fully understood. The two accounts may have reckoned the number from different viewpoints. For example, it is possible that members of the standing army and/or their officers were counted or omitted.
And different methods of reckoning may have caused a variation in the listing of certain men, as to whether they were under Judah or Israel. We find what may be such an instance at 1 Chronicles 27. Here 12 divisions of the army are listed, naming all the tribes except Gad and Asher, and naming Levi and the two half tribes of Manasseh. This may have been because the fighting men of Gad and Asher were combined under other heads at the time, or for other reasons not stated.
First Chronicles 21:6 mentions that Levi and Benjamin are not registered in among them, whereas no such notation is made in Second Samuel, also suggesting, therefore, such a variation.
THAT BEING SAID, LET’S REMOVE THE “CONTRADICTION”:
Regularly enlisted in the royal service were 288,000 troops, divided into 12 groups of 24,000 each. They served under a rotation system whereby each group of 24,000 served one month during the year. There were an additional 12,000 attendant on the twelve princes of the tribes, making a total of 300,000. Apparently the 1,100,000 of 1 Chronicles includes this 300,000 already enlisted, whereas 2 Samuel does not. (Num. 1:16; Deut. 1:15; 1 Chron. 27:1-22)
As for Judah, 2 Samuel apparently counted in 30,000 who were in an army of observation stationed on the Philistine frontiers, and which were not included in the 1 Chronicles figure. (2 Sam. 6:1) We note that in 2 Samuel the record does not say “all they of Israel were”, as it does in the more complete summation in 1 Chronicles, but just “there were in Israel”, not using the all-inclusive expression, since it did not include in its numbering the regularly enlisted forces. Again, in 1 Chronicles the account does not say “all they of Judah were”, as it did in the case of Israel, but only “and Judah was”, since it left out 30,000 and hence was not all-inclusive.

Quote

As I have mentioned already, Genesis 2:17 disagrees with Genesis 5:5.

Interestingly, your first example you can find on the “101 clear contradictions of the Bible” site, as well as many of the other 101 contradictions sites you refer to.
Is it a contradiction? Only if we only understand the word “day” to mean “24 hour period.” If that is the limit of our knowledge, then yes, it is definitely a contradiction. Of course, neither English dictionaries, nor the meaning of the original word “yom” nor the Bible itself support this idea.

GENESIS 2:17
“But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for IN THE DAY you eat from it you will positively die.””
GENESIS 5:5
“So all the days of Adam that he lived amounted to nine hundred and thirty years and he died.”

First, consider Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8
“For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday”
when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”

“… that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day.”

To God almighty, Adam died that day. Whether you want to look at it as him being spiritually dead and separated from God from that day forward, (compare Rev 3:1) or whether you want to look at it in light of these scriptures, there are reasons for not seeing a contradiction here. Especially in view of the way the word “day” is used in those first chapters of Genesis. There are several days which are epochs of time. Then all these days are lumped into one “day.” Even in English dictionaries of today, or even my grandfather’s “day,” the word “day” is not as limited as you would like to have people believe.
Perhaps some study on the Hebrew word (I think it’s “yowm.”)

But if this is one of the best 101 “contradictions”….it really strengthens my faith in the Bible.

March 26, 2008 at 9:55 pm#84922

Participant

Quote

You are right about this kind of discrepancy.

As far as I can tell, every kind of discrepancy is this kind of discrepancy. At first look, “going out” and “getting near” to jericho sound completely opposite, very clear contradiction. But often with just a little more knowledge, the contradiction is solved. Over and over again in history, this has been the case with the Bible. It mentioned kings that were never believed to exist, such as david. Yet, over and over, we find evidence for these things.

When you think of the word “day” everyone automatically thinks of the main definition (24 hours) or the secondary definition (the period of 24 hours with light) but few consider the wider definitions, even when the Bible itself makes it plain that this is what was meant.

One scripture may say “Jehovah doesn't change” and another says Jehovah “felt regret” over something. Does this mean he changed? It might or it might not. To me it seems people look for contradictions and when they find them, they stop looking, because with the Bible, the longer you look, the less likely the contradiction will remain.

March 26, 2008 at 10:14 pm#84924