Sure, it's something called "context". People splice Bible passages all the time for their own agendas. If you remove passages from a parable and compare it to a poetic book (which holds entirely different meanings) or a historical record it's not going to add up. Reading what's around the out-of-context passage is important when looking for Bible contradictions. I've been to this page before and many others, people don't take the time to read their Bibles to justify it for themselves. And I'm not going to spend all my time debunking so-called Bible contradictions. If you are genuinely interested then you can find the resources you need.
The Bible is a Bullshit book and you do need to spend time debunking those quotes (I could still see the case made for a greater being, just that this is not the right book). Also put them in context for me.
Says you? OK. Want me to type out the entire Bible for you as well while I'm at it? Sorry, I'm not going to do your homework for you. The Bible has been unchanging for the past 2,000 years and earlier in the OT. If there were any real contradictions you'd actually hear about them, not from some atheistic websites looking to splice or skew the true meanings of the passages. It's also funny you have a picture of Jesus in your avi, the Son of God. Sure you're not a believer?
Doesn't work for me. One could better justify never getting on an airplane, or in a car, because they might crash. Or never walking down a street, because a safe or a piano might fall from an upper story window. Or never having sex because you might catch a disease. Or never doing anything at all other than cowering under the bed in hopes that no bad thing ever happens. To misquote advice given to me by Dean Wormer: "Fat, drunk, and afraid of God is no way to go through life, son." So I'm not going to be afraid of God. barfo
I'd rather spend time debunking BS scientific theories. Can you explain how blind, dead, brainless matter can create life? How do you account for consciousness from non-consciousnesses? Can you give me an example of macro-evolution in action or any hint to it whatsoever? Can you give me evidence of man made writings or artifacts that date past 5,000 years? What is the uncaused first cause? Something has to be eternal, whether it's God or the singularity that caused the big bang. Nothingness begets nothingness. What set it into motion? How can you justify morality from a secular worldview? I can go on and on, if you can answer a few of these questions for me I'll kindly take the time to address your Bible contradictions. As you can see I'm someone who puts very little confidence in the so-called "knowledge" of mankind. You can look through a telescope and tell me how the universe began, cool. I'll put my faith in God.
That's not very convincing, sorry. What could possibly be the context that makes these statements consistent? MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." barfo
If anything these passages make the accounts more authentic. This is going by what each of the apostles and the eyewitnesses heard, if you were making up a story that never happened would you include things that clearly contradict one another?
Well, in this animal house of life, I'm not afraid of God. Nor, am I fat and drunk. So, then, no double-secret probation for me. Awesome, man.
if you're really interested, and not just trying to stir the pot, there are --even in my limited laity--very easy answers to a bunch of those. Especially the ones with the "logic" applied after the verses.
replication of events is just a tool science uses to confirm predictions when it can do so. it is not essential to scientific knowledge. as i said the scientific method is just proposing models that make testable predictions and testing them, and always has been. you have more of an issue with the media and al gore here than science itself. there never was full scientific consensus on human impact on global warming. as far as lowering the bar, that's laughable. the technology all around you didn't just happen in spite of scientific conclusions now all being based on political agendas. the big bang theory just states that the universe was small and compact, and then expanded. it does not address questions like where did the matter come from or what happened 'before'. i just meant there isn't scientific consensus on whether the big bang started from a singularity or not, although it seems unavoidable based on current knowledge.
This is ridiculous. You have no evidence for God yet you want to put all your faith in him instead of the people who actually work to figure shit out? If believing that is what makes you have a happy life, good for you. Ignorance is bliss.
Good try, but the problem there is that if these apostles and eyewitnesses hear such very different things, why should we believe anything they say? It's the sort of variation you get when you separate a gang of criminals and they each have to make up their alibi without hearing the others. It's also the sort of variation you get when you paste together a bunch of old stories that have gotten confused, elaborated on, and rewritten by various parties over the years. Anyway, you've now gone from saying "there are no contradictions in the bible" to saying "of course there are contradictions in the bible, that's what makes it authentic". barfo
no evidence besides the entire physical universe and the irreducible complexity of nature and the human body? Ok then. Or do want to explain how all this popped into existence from a spontaneous, sourceless, uncaused singularity and then self-replicated to the point it's at now?
So because they heard different things means none of it ever happened? Did you expect them to record the same exact details even though they all had different experiences with Christ? And by comparing them to criminals I want to know what you think their motive was. And you have no proof that this ever happened. The earliest known manuscripts we have date back to within 2 and a half decades of the death of Jesus. What's the motive behind changing stories you knew were lies? No I really haven't, as someone who's currently studying Bible and going to college to become a theologian/philosopher I can say the contradictions are in the heads of people who don't understand what they are reading.
The size of the universe is unknown. Talking about the 'edge' of it is silly. Read the artilcle again.
I'm not actually very interested. Whether the bible is self-consistent or not is to me a fairly irrelevant point. Neither consistency nor inconsistency proves that it is the word of God as opposed to a collection of ancient fairy tales, laws, and Dear Abby columns bound together. barfo
