And one of the MOST GLARING CONTRADICTIONS in the Bible is the in genealogy of Jesus...it's completely different in Luke and Matthew:


< snip >

Apparently, Joseph had two fathers. If God wanted this book to represent him as an absolute authority, why let such gross errors in?

It's only a contradiction because you simply read it with no knowledge of why it's like that. The genealogy is normally traced through the male side. Luke traces it back through Mary's side - Jesus' only biological parent. This becomes problematic for Jesus's genealogy. If you look at the two genealogies, they're completely different. "son" in the verse in Luke is actually "son-in-law", but may also have legally been "son" through adoption or some other arrangement.


The majority of the "contradictions" people like to point out are like this. There are some actual less-than-ideal translations of words in scripture, but they don't change the overall meaning. The Bible was not a word-for-word transcription of God speaking directly to man. The translation of the original text was done by imperfect men. Anyone that says every word of the Bible is completely correct hasn't studied it and is just fooling himself.

[quote name='discodowney' timestamp='1298042638' post='4775899']
I dont usually get involved in discussions like this cos where "faith" is involved there is no right or wrong answer. But studying the Bible then accepting it as truth is a wrong way of looking at it, i think. The Bible was written a long time after Jesus died. 4 gospels from dozens (cant remember the exact number) were chosen and probably chosen because they gave the picture of Jesus that the Church wanted. (I know using probably here isnt gonna help, but lets face it, it was 2000 years ago nearly, no-one knows for sure).

That is not accurate at all. The gospels were actually written shortly after Jesus was alive, and the 4 gospels were chosen for the Bible based on them being written by people who were in direct contact with Jesus, not because they best fit the early church's idea of what Christ should be.
[/quote]
Depends on your definition of "long time" - Matthew, Mark, and Luke are believed at have been written somewhere around the AD 50s, John around AD 90-100. As has been stated though, they were written by people with first hand knowledge, thus the best source.

It's only a contradiction because you simply read it with no knowledge of why it's like that. The genealogy is normally traced through the male side. Luke traces it back through Mary's side - Jesus' only biological parent.

But both genealogies end with ...-> Joseph->Jesus so how can you even say that?

This becomes problematic for Jesus's genealogy. If you look at the two genealogies, they're completely different. "son" in the verse in Luke is actually "son-in-law", but may also have legally been "son" through adoption or some other arrangement.

Ok well you just contradicted your first point. You said that the genealogy in Luke was from Mary's side, so how can that mean "son in law" or "adopted"? I don't know Hebrew but I'm just saying that Jesus WAS Mary's son right? O_o

[quote name='Machaira' timestamp='1298055100' post='4776020']
It's only a contradiction because you simply read it with no knowledge of why it's like that. The genealogy is normally traced through the male side. Luke traces it back through Mary's side - Jesus' only biological parent.

But both genealogies end with ...-> Joseph->Jesus so how can you even say that? [/quote]
Good grief! Read the verse in Luke again - "[color=#1C2837][size=2]He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph"

[quote name='Machaira' timestamp='1298055100' post='4776020']
This becomes problematic for Jesus's genealogy. If you look at the two genealogies, they're completely different. "son" in the verse in Luke is actually "son-in-law", but may also have legally been "son" through adoption or some other arrangement.

Ok well you just contradicted your first point. You said that the genealogy in Luke was from Mary's side, so how can that mean "son in law" or "adopted"? I don't know Hebrew but I'm just saying that Jesus WAS Mary's son right? O_o
[/quote]
No, I didn't contradict my first point. Did you read the verses in question? Heli is Joseph's father-in-law. The genealogy starts with the child's father, in this case Jesus' legal father, not biological father. In Matthew it traces back through Joseph, in Luke through Mary.

Machaira, you are obviously not familiar with the scientific method. Strict proof is only possible in formal sciences, like mathematics. The correct word for natural sciences is "validation" (as in "the theory is validated by the evidence"). Scientists may also use the word "proof" as a shorthand for "compelling evidence" - which is what I provided in my previous post.

You have completely failed to provide any "proof" for the existence of the cardinal sin. The best you've been able to come up with is "snakes don't talk now but that doesn't mean they didn't talk back then". Is that really the best you can do? I hope you don't think any logical person will buy into this nonsense.

What is the source of your holy text? What corroborates it?[/quote]

The word of God, given to the last Prophet and founder of our religion. There's more than enough proof that this is the one true religion. Fortunately, our God is a forgiving one - believe in Him and He will forgive you.

The evidence for sin existing is visible every second of every day. If you want to approach is logically, how logical is it for a race that one would think would be trying to ensure its survival to be killing itself off dozens or hundreds of times per second every day?[/quote]

First of all, your math is totally off, considering the birth rate is around 4.17 births per second. If dozens or hundreds of people died every second, humanity would have been wiped out by now.

Second, why do you think that those deaths are an unnatural thing? Your very own holy text is filled to the brim with wars and deaths (not to mention rape, incest, pedophilia, homosexuality), many of which are actually commanded by the god itself:

Numbers 31

17: Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18: But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

After that, god asks his share of the spoils from Moses, which comes down to 32 persons (including little girls). Having fun with your sick sociopathic god, yet?

Third, death does not in any way prove the existence of the cardinal sin. You keep accusing me that I am a sinner - ok, where's your evidence?

Machaira, you are obviously not familiar with the scientific method. Strict proof is only possible in formal sciences, like mathematics. The correct word for natural sciences is "validation" (as in "the theory is validated by the evidence"). Scientists may also use the word "proof" as a shorthand for "compelling evidence" - which is what I provided in my previous post.

You have completely failed to provide any "proof" for the existence of the cardinal sin. The best you've been able to come up with is "snakes don't talk now but that doesn't mean they didn't talk back then". Is that really the best you can do? I hope you don't think any logical person will buy into this nonsense.

I'm quite familiar with the scientific method. "Compelling evidence" is subjective and still != "proof". "Compelling evidence" is not sufficient to state something as fact.

Proof of sin relies on belief and acceptance of God and scripture. What proof would be sufficient for you that the Jesus is real and the Bible is true?

First of all, your math is totally off, considering the birth rate is around 4.17 births per second. If dozens or hundreds of people died every second, humanity would have been wiped out by now.

That's besides the point. You know what I meant, I'm sure.

Second, why do you think that those deaths are an unnatural thing?

So people killing each other and committing all kinds of atrocities against each other is natural?

[quote name='Fiddler' timestamp='1298066304' post='4776090']
Machaira, you are obviously not familiar with the scientific method. Strict proof is only possible in formal sciences, like mathematics. The correct word for natural sciences is "validation" (as in "the theory is validated by the evidence"). Scientists may also use the word "proof" as a shorthand for "compelling evidence" - which is what I provided in my previous post.

You have completely failed to provide any "proof" for the existence of the cardinal sin. The best you've been able to come up with is "snakes don't talk now but that doesn't mean they didn't talk back then". Is that really the best you can do? I hope you don't think any logical person will buy into this nonsense.

I'm quite familiar with the scientific method. "Compelling evidence" is subjective and still != "proof". "Compelling evidence" is not sufficient to state something as fact.[/quote]

This very sentence proves you really are not.

Proof of sin relies on belief and acceptance of God and scripture. What proof would be sufficient for you that the Jesus is real and the Bible is true?[/quote]

That's belief, not proof.

What proof do you have that the Bible is true? Please lay it all out, so that people can make an objective judgment.

Second, why do you think that those deaths are an unnatural thing?

So people killing each other and committing all kinds of atrocities against each other is natural?
[/quote]
Maybe. History certainly hints at this but, unlike you, I won't try to offer an explanation for this phenomenon. I simply don't have the necessary knowledge to form a valid theory - and neither do you. However, there are scientists who have dedicated their lives into studying and understanding human nature, so why don't you try there? (scientists not priests).


So is god acting like a pedophile rapist natural?

So is god acting like a pedophile rapist natural?

Hold on a minute dude, how could capital-G God act like a "pedophile" or "rapist"? They didn't offer him little girls so God could have sex with them, they offered them to the temple, I guess. They have been given, before this, commands like "no adultery" and "no murder". For a nomadic tribe to even have these kinds of Laws, that even its leaders are bounded by, it's kind of unique. A battle of a nation to defend itself from opponents is different, though. It was a battle against an opposing tribe that was a threat. How else was it going to be executed?

As for the text you have quoted, whoever says that it's not disturbing is lying, but that's WAR. Mankind decided to solve its quarrels with wars from the beginning. It's free will. What you quoted is the description of a battle like any other battle, no more, no less. The reason God decided to direct this battle from being on the Israelite's side is unknown, but God or no God that's how battles and wars go down.

Btw, I myself am fully willing to accept that some acts of extreme violence accredited to "God" in the OT were really desires of men, that later put it into the Bible this way. That doesn't really lessen my faith to a benovelent God. But what we have to understand is that these are stories of clashing nomadic tribes 3,000 years ago. They always were at war with each other for all kinds of reasons. To judge them by today's standards is a bit...unscientific, as you would say.

This very sentence proves you really are not.

No, it proves that I have some common sense. Evidence != fact, especially for things that you cannot recreate to verify that evidence. If you're willing to accept things as fact that haven't been proven I can't help that.

What proof do you have that the Bible is true? Please lay it all out, so that people can make an objective judgment.

That would obviously take a lot more space that is reasonable in a forum. Why do you have to dodge the question?

Let's try this another way - what evidence would be acceptable to you that Jesus was a real historical person that you would expect for any historical person?

So is god acting like a pedophile rapist natural?

Nope, but since he doesn't it doesn't matter.

[quote name='Fiddler' timestamp='1298103922' post='4776247']
This very sentence proves you really are not.

No, it proves that I have some common sense. Evidence != fact, especially for things that you cannot recreate to verify that evidence. If you're willing to accept things as fact that haven't been proven I can't help that.[/quote]

You are hopelessly confused.

I am willing to accept a scientific theory that is supported by overwhelming evidence. Are you?

What proof do you have that the Bible is true? Please lay it all out, so that people can make an objective judgment.

That would obviously take a lot more space that is reasonable in a forum. Why do you have to dodge the question?

Let's try this another way - what evidence would be acceptable to you that Jesus was a real historical person that you would expect for any historical person?[/quote]

a. You are the who has repeatedly dodged my questions. If you have so much proof, please post some. The ball's in your court.
b. How would the existence of jesus prove the validity of the bible and the existence of god? You are trying to build a strawman but I'll indulge you anyway: historical documents from independent authors that verify his existence.

(Note: I don't doubt his existence. I deny the ridiculous claims of christians).

So is god acting like a pedophile rapist natural?

Nope, but since he doesn't it doesn't matter.
[/quote]
a. He instructed his soldiers to kill the boys and women and keep the virgin girls alive.
b. He asked for some of those girls for himself.

If a human did that what would you, the chsistian fundamentalist, call him? Yeah, yeah, he's a figure of authority so he gets a free pass. Keep your blinders on.

Hold on a minute dude, how could capital-G God act like a "pedophile" or "rapist"? They didn't offer him little girls so God could have sex with them, they offered them to the temple, I guess.[/quote]

By acting exactly like one, I guess?

As for the text you have quoted, whoever says that it's not disturbing is lying, but that's WAR. Mankind decided to solve its quarrels with wars from the beginning. It's free will. [/quote]

No. This massacre is explicitly ordered by this "all-loving" god,

Numbers 31

31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.