jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (77 posts)

The bible doesn't contradict itself

  1. heavenbound5511 profile image80
    heavenbound5511posted 5 years ago

    heavenbound5511posted 26 minutes ago in reply to this

    This is in response to the 23 points that was given by another saying the bible did contradict itself.


    1.-Gen 1:31 does not contradict Gen 6:6
    The Bible records: "God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1:31), and then: "And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (Gen. 6:6). The unbeliever cites both verses and suggests that the Lord was simultaneously satisfied and dissatisfied with his creation. But the fall of man, and several hundred years of human history separate the two statements! Man was viewed in two entirely different time frames. Some have charged the Bible with a mistake in connection with the time of Jesus' trial and death. Mark writes that Jesus was crucified at the third hour (Mk. 15:25), while John's account has the Lord being tried at the sixth hour (Jn. 19:14). John's record, however, was based upon Roman civil days, while Mark computed according to Jewish time. Thus, different time references were involved. There is no contradiction!

    2.-2 Chron 7:12,16 does not contradict Acts 7:48-
    First answer
    The answer is pretty short. Paul and Stephen say that God doesn’t dwell in a temple house. That is putting God into a box, not appropriate for God Almighty. They probably formulated a general opinion of their time among Jews and non-Jews. Stephen could use this argument successfully before his Jewish listeners and Paul to his Greek listeners. Full explanation>>>
    http://contradictingbiblecontradictions … n-temples/

    3.-Tim 6:16 Does not contradict  1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2

    A)1Kings 8:12 refers to God’s dwelling place in the holy of holies in the Jerusalem Temple on earth, so this doesn’t contradict 1Tim 6:16, which refers to God’s dwelling place in heaven. There is no contradiction between 1Timothy and the Psalms either, God dwells in the light (1Tim 6:16) beyond the dark clouds talked about in Psalm 97:2 and 18:11.
    B)God dwells in light

    "who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light whom no one has seen or can see." [1 Tim 6:16]
    God dwells in darkness

    "Then spake Solomon. The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness" [1 Kings 8:12]

    "He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies." [Ps 18:11]

    "Clouds and darkness are round about him." [Ps 97:2] The first thing I would point out is these are likely to be metaphors and it would seem unwise to take such language too literally when describing God. But what could such seemingly contradictory metaphors convey? Note that in both cases there is the theme of the unsearchableness of God. That is, the light is unapproachable and the darkness is thick and covers a secret place. Thus, these verses could actually be teaching the same thing - simply that God is unapproachable.

    One could also note that Paul's account is quite optimistic following from a consideration of Christ. Prior to the Incarnation, there was indeed a certain darkness associated with the hidden God. But the eyes of the blind have been opened!

    Or it could be said that the verses in 1 Kings and Psalms need be nothing more than a description of God perceived through the memory of His interation with His people described in Exodus19:9.

    4.-God is invisible and cannot be heard [John 1:18 / John 5:37 / Ex 33:20 / 1 Tim 6:16]

    These "contradictions" are easily resolved if one accepts the Trinitarian view of God. 

    Attempts to discredit the deity of Christ by appealing to John 1:18:

    "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJV)

    The argument:
    "If no man has seen God, then logically Jesus was not God, since there is no secular record of an outbreak of sightlessness in Judea in Jesus' time".

    How shall the Christian respond? Well, let's consider the statement that "No man hath seen God." Consider the following verses from the Old Testament (OT):
    Sarah says"You are the God who sees me," for she said,
    "I have now seen the One who sees me" (Gen 16:13)

    "So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." (Gen 32:30)

    "Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel." (Ex 24: 9-10)

    "they saw God" (Ex 24:11)

    "We have seen God!" (Judges 13:22) Now while this person's logic seems to rule out that Jesus was God, it also means that the Bible contains a very significant contradiction. If no one has seen God, how is it that Sarai, Jacob, Moses et al, and Monoah and his wife are said to have seen God?

    Actually, this is a problem only for those who deny the deity of Christ while claiming to follow the teachings of the Bible. Let's look again at John 1:18:

    "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only (or Only Begotten), who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

    I think it is clear that John is speaking of the Father as the one who has not been seen. To paraphrase it, "No one has ever seen God, but the Son, who is at His side, has made Him known". This interpretation not only seems to follow naturally from this verse, but is also quite consistent with the Logos doctrine taught in John 1. Recall, it is the Logos who mediates between God and man, and who reveals God to man. Jesus would later say, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." Prior to the Incarnation of the Son, no one had seen the Father, for it is through the Son that the Father is revealed.
    So for the Trinitarian, there is no Bible contradiction. No one ever saw God the Father, and what Sarah, Jacob, Moses, etc saw was God the Son. This can be seen from many perspectives, but let's simply consider one from Isaiah 6. Isaiah "saw the Lord" (v 1). Seraphs were praising the "Lord Almighty" (v 3). Isaiah is overwhelmed and responds, "Woe to me, I am ruined. For I am a man of unclean lips [this rules him out as the servant in Isaiah 53], and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty" (v 5). Later, we read:

    "Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" (vs. 8).

    Again, the plurality of God is implied. Isaiah asks God to send him, and then God gave him a message to preach.
    Now it's time to jump to John 12:37-41. John claims that the peoples failure to believe in Jesus was a fulfillment of these teachings Isaiah received from the Lord in Isaiah 6. Then note verse 41.

    "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him".

    Here is a clear example where John equates Jesus with the Lord Almighty seen by Isaiah! This all fits together beautifully. Isaiah sees the Lord Almighty, yet he sees Jesus' glory. Jesus speaks as a plural being (who will go for US). It is the Son who is seen, not the Father.
    Thus, John 1:18 does not mean that Jesus was not God, it only means He is not the Father. This verse presents no problems for the Trinitarian, and in fact, when studied, serves as a great launching point for finding Christ in the OT. Prior to the Logos dwelling amongst us and revealing the Father to us, no one had seen the Father. But because of the Incarnation, we can now cry, "Abba, Father" (Romans 8:15) and "Our Father who art in heaven"! Those who see the Son can see the Father.

    5.-God is tired and rests- no contradictions

    "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." [Ex 31:17]

    God is never tired and never rests
    "The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary." [Is 40:28]

    According to Haley, and many others, the term "rested and was refreshed' is simply a vivid Oriental way of saying that God ceased from the work of creation and took delight in surveying the work.

    6.-  Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21 does not contradict Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8

    Psalms 139:7-11 and Jer.23:24 say that God is omnipresent i.e. he is everywhere.
    But...Gen.18:21, Gen.11:5, Num 23:15, 1Kings 19:11-12 and Job 1:12 say that God moves from place to place to place and that it is possible to leave his presence. Since he is everywhere how is that possible?
    Bible Believer: In Gen 18:21, 11:5, Num 23:15 and 1Kings 19:11-12 God, being invisible to man (Col 1:15) took on a form of some sort in all these Scriptures (mostly a human form) so that man could see and converse with Him. He was still invisibly omnipresent; it’s just that His manifestation or the form He took on moved from place to place. Regarding Job 1:12,God is everywhere but has a special concentrated presence on a throne in heaven. This is God’s soul we’re talking about, not a human being’s; WE can’t stay where we are and at the same time be somewhere else but God can. Satan goes to heaven to speak with God in Job 1:12 and moved away from His presence, this is clearly only speaking of His presence in HEAVEN as the context will show.

    7.-God knows the hearts of men [Acts 1:24 / Ps 139:2,3]

    God tries men to find out what is in their heart

    "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God." [Gen 22:12]

    "Remember how the LORD your God lead you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and test you in order to know what was in your hearts." [Deut 8:2]

    "The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul." [Deut 13:3] We'll assume that God knows the hearts of men, so let us determine if the above three verses are necessarily contradictions.

    Could it be that these three instances simply serve to reveal and verify to man that which is already known by God? Anyone who has ever had a college chemistry course can probably relate to the following. A chemistry professor comes into class, and says, "I will now add acetic acid to this compound to see what happens." The professor already knows what will happen! After the experiment, he might even add, "I now know that such and such results will occur after adding the acid." Here he is simply putting himself in the place of the class, and speaking for them.

    What the three verses could be showing is that once again, God is not some aloof sky-god who merely dictates. Instead, he relates. By asking questions, by claiming to have found something, he relates and allows man to play an active, not passive, role in the relationship. For example, Abraham now knew that God knew his heart. And he also knew God's knowledge was true in light of the 'test' that he just went through.

    In this supposed contradiction, along with the one immediately prior, the critic perceives ignorance on the part of God because of a belief that an omniscient God ought to dictate. Why can't an omniscient God refrain from dictating, and simply relate in a way which intimately involves humanity?

    8.-God is all powerful [Jer 32:27 / Matt 19:26]

    God is not all powerful

    "The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots." [Judg 1:19]

    This is obviously not a contradiction. John Baskette notes that the critic is "reading the verse as saying that the LORD ... he ... could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley." He adds: "This is an egregiously bad misreading of the text. The 'he' is Judah! not the LORD. That should be obvious to even the most obtuse objector."

    9.- God is unchangeable [James 1:17 / Mal 3:6 / Ezek 24:14 / Num 23:19]

    God is changeable [Gen 6:6 / Jonah 3:10 / 1 Sam 2:30,31 / 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6 / Ex 33:1,3,17,14]

    Once again, these purported contradictions all presuppose some platonic-type sky god. Christianity has always believed that God is a God who relates and who is personal. And whenever there is a personal relationship, there is a dynamic. And dynamics can involve both immutability and change. Whenever you have a personal dynamic, when one person changes, the other responds in a way which reflects this change. But all is not relative. If God's essence is immutable, then He is the standard by which such change is understood.

    For example, imagine you are in a field standing next to a tree. As you walk around the tree, you may end up north of the tree (and the tree is south of you). If you continue walking, such a relative relationship changes, so that you might find yourself south of the tree (and the tree is north of you). In the same way, our behavior towards God is like walking around the tree. Depending upon what we do, God is in a different relationship with us.

    Let's consider a better analogy. A man and a wife are in a happy marriage. The man commits adultery, and the wife becomes unhappy. Has the wife changed in a significant manner? Not really. Her change is a function of what her husband did, and reflects the immutability of her belief that infidelity is wrong.

    In the purported contradictions, we have a set of Scriptures which speak of God's essence - it is unchangeable. The other set deal with God's relationships with men (they don't abstractly speak of God's essence). Thus, as the above analogies show, there need be no contradiction.

    10.-  God is just and impartial

    "To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock and there is no unrighteousness in him." [Ps 92:15]

    "Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" [Gen 18:25]

    "The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He." [Deut 32:4]

    "Yet you say, "The way of the LORD is not right." Here now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?" [Ezek 18:25]

    "For there is no partiality with God." [Rom 2:11]

    God is unjust and partial

    "So he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." [Gen 9:25]

    "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers in the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." [Ex 20:5]

    "for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." [Rom 9:11-13]

    "For whoever has, to him shall more be given, and he shall have in abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken from him." [Mt 13:12] The first set is as follows:

    "To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock and there is no unrighteousness in him." [Ps 92:15] = Basic Teaching (BT) -- God is righteous

    "Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" [Gen 18:25] = (BT) -- God does not condemn the righteous with the wicked.

    "The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He." [Deut 32:4] = (BT) -- God is righteous

    "Yet you say, "The way of the LORD is not right." Here now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?" [Ezek 18:25] = (BT) -- God's ways are right, the ways of Israel, when the prophet spoke, were not.

    "For there is no partiality with God."  [Rom 2:11] = (BT) -- God is impartial. However, it seems clear from the context that we are talking about God being impartial when it comes salvation being offered to both Jew and Gentile. Thus, the verses cited below could only be contradictory if they teach that Christ's atonement was only for the Jews or Gentiles. Since they don't, we need only consider if God is unrighteous in any of them.

    The second set is as follows:

    "So he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." [Gen 9:25] Here, one must read a contradiction into the teachings as it is unclear whether Noah's curse would make God "unrighteous."

    "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers in the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." [Ex 20:5] The following verse notes that loving-kindness extends to thousands of generations of those who love God. This leads me to believe this verse is hyperbolic and thus difficult to make into a contradiction. For example, is God really unrighteous for bestowing blessings for a thousand generations, yet visiting iniquity for ONLY three or four generations? The thrust seems to run in the other direction. Whether or not one views this as "unrighteous" is a function of their ethics, and thus the "contradiction" is read into the scripture. (BTW, I would note, however, that sinful behavior is often transmitted in families. For example, the son of an alcoholic is often an alcoholic himself.)

    MaryAnna responds to another related "contradiction" which is also relevant here:

    Are children punished for the sins of the parents?

    Exo. 20:5 tells us that God is to be feared, as He has the ability to visit the sins of the fathers on the children.

    Ezek. 18:20 tells us this will not happen if the children repent and turn away from the ways of their fathers. Not a contradiction.

    "for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." [Rom 9:11-13] Again, I view that "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" as a hyperbole which indicates that God simply favored Esau. This is not a clear case of unrighteousness.

    "For whoever has, to him shall more be given, and he shall have in abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken from him." [Mt 13:12] I view this as a proverbial way of saying that he who improves upon the gifts that he receives will receive more, but he who does not improve upon them (i.e., neglects or takes them for granted) shall have them removed. I find this the very opposite of 

    11.-. God is the author of evil
    "Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?" [Lam 3:38]

    "Now therefore say to the people of Judah that those living in Jerusalem, 'This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan for against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and actions." [Jer 18:11]

    "I form light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the LORD, do all these things." [Is 45:7]

    "I also gave them over to statues that were not good and laws they could not live by." [Ez 20:25]

    "When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? [Amos 3:6]

    God is not the author of evil [1 Cor 14:33 / Deut 32:4 / James 1:13]

    Now, in Deut 32:4, we read that God is just. None of the above verses teach that God is unjust. Paul is speaking about God in the context of Church gatherings - that in such gatherings, God is a God of peace, not confusion. None of the above verses speak of such Church gatherings. James teaches that God does not tempt anyone with evil. None of the above verses teach that God tempts with evil. (I think Ez 20:25 is best understood in light of Romans 1). Thus, no obvious contradictions in this set.

    12.-God gives freely to those who ask [James 1:5 / Luke 11:10]

    God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving them [John 12:40 / Josh 11:20 / Is 63:17]
    Joshua 11:20 says nothing about some asking, and God refusing to give. Is 63:17 says nothing about someone asking, and God refusing to give. John 12:40 says nothing about someone asking, and God refusing to give. In these three verses, it is mentioned that God "hardened the hearts" of someone. If someone never asked, and will never truly ask, it is not a contradiction to harden one's heart, yet give to those who DO ask.

    13.- God is to be found by those who seek him [Matt 7:8 / Prov 8:17]

    God is not to be found by those who seek him [Prov 1:28]

    "Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but they shall not find me." [Pr 1:28]

    Here, the context has been ignored. First of all, it is wisdom which is speaking. Those who laugh, scoff, and refuse wisdom are not going to magically find it when calamity strikes. If one wishes to identify wisdom with God, the same principle holds - those who scoff, reject, and laugh at God are not going to find God when calamity strikes. After all, if they look, they look through the filters of selfishness (i.e., "save my butt"). Instead of calling on God or looking for God, they should be repenting. But those who live a life of scorning God are not those who repent when disaster strikes. Thus, no contradiction.

    14.-God is warlike [Ex 15:3 / Is 51:15]

    God is peaceful [Rom 15:33 / 1 Cor 14:33]

    "The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name." [Ex 15:3]

    (Is 51:15 has nothing to do with war)

    "The God of peace be with you all. Amen" [Rom 15:33]

    "For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace." [1 Cor 14:33]

    It seems clear that God reveals Himself as a God of Battles in much of the OT. So what of these NT teachings? This "contradiction" is premised on equivocation, where the NT references to peace are interpreted to be the antonym of war, when this is obviously not the case. In Romans, Paul seems to be speaking of peace in a subjective, existential sense -- a relationship with God brings a sense of peace. In Corinthians, Paul is speaking about the activity of Church congregations -- they should be orderly and peaceful, not full of confusion and contention. No obvious contradiction here.

    15.- A)God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious [Jer 13:14 / Deut 7:16 / 1 Sam 15:2,3 / 1 Sam 6:19]

    God is kind, merciful, and good [James 5:11 / Lam 3:33 / 1 Chron 16:34 / Ezek 18:32 / Ps 145:9 / 1 Tim 2:4 / 1 John 4:16 / Ps 25:8]

    The first set of scriptures say nothing about God being cruel (this is a subjective call). They deal simply and bluntly with God's judgment. Thus, we have a both/and situation here. Yes, God is merciful and full of compassion. Yet, those who reject his mercy and compassion will find that His judgment in unrelenting and ferocious -- that is His nature.
    B)Isa.27:4 "Fury is not in me".
    But...
    Isa.34:2 "For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and HIS FURY upon all their armies ".
    Jer.21:5 "And I myself [God] will fight against you with an outstretched hand and with a strong arm, even in anger, and IN FURY, and in great wrath ".
    Micah 5: 15 "I will execute vengeance in anger and FURY".
    Nahum 1:2 "The LORD is FURIOUS".
    Isa.51:20 "They are full of the FURY OF THE LORD".
    Any person of any reasonable intelligence can see that this contradiction allegation is nonsense. Some bizarrely seem to think that God has to be either constantly furious or constantly not furious! Like anyone else, fury is not in God (Isa 27:4) until He has something to be furious about (Isa 34, Mic 5, Nah 1:2, Isa 51:20). Isa 34:2 is actually a prophecy about God being furious at all nations in the far off FUTURE (see 34:3-4).

    16.-God's anger is fierce and endures long [Num 32:13 / Num 25:4 / Jer 17:4]

    God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute [Ps 103:8 / Ps 30:5]

    The verse in Numbers and Jeremiah do not teach some general truth that "God's anger is fierce and endures long." This is the critic's personal interpretation. In Jeremiah, in RESPONSE to Judah's great sin, God's anger is kindled (which itself, implies that it is slow to occur) and will "burn forever." I view this as a hyperbole (like "walking a thousand miles"). Put simply, God's anger against Judah would endure long. In Num 32, God's anger burned against Israel because of their sin and he made them wander in the desert 40 years. In Num 25, we read that God had Moses slay those who sought to contaminate the Jews with pagan ideals in order that his fierce anger may turn away from Israel. Since there is no contradiction between a fierce anger, and an anger slow to rise, this is an irrelevant verse.

    So let's focus on duration. Above, we saw that God's anger lasted long (in human terms) in SPECIFIC cases as the RESULT of sinful behavior. What of the Psalms? First, let's keep in mind that we have now entered the territory of another genre - poetry. As such, it's going to be hard to make an unequivocal contradiction. Anyway, in Ps 103, we simply note that God is slow to anger. Nothing in Jer or Num contradicts this. In Ps 30:5, it appears as if David is speaking from his personal experience with God in saying that God's anger lasts only a moment. And what is a 'moment' in poetical terms anyway? And could this teaching be yet one more proverbial way of saying that God is far more gracious than angry? That is, when all is said and done, what is revealed is a God who is slow to anger, quick to forgive, yet who can indeed demonstrate a fierce anger when provoked by great or ubiquitous sin. I see no obvious contradiction here.

    17.-God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days [Ex 29:36 / Lev 23:27 / Ex 29:18 / Lev 1:9]

    God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days [Jer 7:22 / Jer 6:20 / Ps 50:13,4 / Is 1:13,11,12]

    The first set of Scriptures explains where God institutes sacrifices, etc., among Israel. Nothing in the second set contradicts this. In Jer 7:22, we read, "I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices," The author of this supposed contradiction conveniently left out the next verse: " but I gave them this command: "Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people." This is obviously not a disapproval of burnt offerings, but a disapproval on emphasizing such offerings to the exclusion of obedience in all areas. Jer 6:20 speaks of the incense in Sheba, hardly contradicting the first set. The verse in Psalms is lifted out of context, as the LORD clearly says, "I do not rebuke you for your sacrifices." (Ps 50:8). The verses in Isaiah are also lifted out of context. God rebukes the people for the sacrifices because they represent religious hypocrisy. Is 1:15-17 clearly demonstrate this.

    1. heavenbound5511 profile image80
      heavenbound5511posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      18.-God accepts human sacrifices [2 Sam 21:8,9,14 / Gen 22:2 / Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39]

      God forbids human sacrifice [Deut 12:30,31]

      The account in Gen 22:2 has been the subject of a great wealth of religious speculation, but the fact remains that Isaac was not sacrificed. The account in 2 Sam is misnamed as a "human sacrifice." It looks far more like an execution carried out by the Gibeonites because Saul had previously persecuted them. The verses in Judges do not obviously indicate that Jephthah offered his daughter as a "human sacrifice" and if He did, there is no indication that God "accepted it." No contradictions here.

      19.-God tempts men [Gen 22:1 / 2 Sam 24:1 / Jer 20:7 / Matt 6:13]

      God tempts no man [James 1:13]

      Gen 22 refers to testing; 2 Sam says nothing about God tempting; In Jer 20, the prophet Jeremiah is simply complaining. Just because in a moment of desperation, he accuses God of deceiving him, does not mean that God DID deceive him. Mt 6:13 is part of the Lord's prayer, "lead us not into temptation." The prayer simply inquires of God that helps us keep our distance from temptation (hardly an example of God tempting men!). The only possible hope of a contradiction in this set is to equate testing with temptation. But is testing identical to tempting? For example, let's say God wants to test someone's honesty and puts them in a room with a lost wallet. Is this tempting? I think not. To truly tempt, God would have to whisper, "Pick it up, keep it, no one will know, etc." No clear contradictions here.

      20.- A)God cannot lie [Heb 6:18]

      God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits to deceive [2 Thes 2:11 / 1 Kings 22:23 / Ezek 14:9]

      In this case, we need not even consider the scriptures. As "sending forth lying spirits" is not the same as actually lying yourself.

      1 Kings 22:21-22 Lying spirit -- Here, of course, God does not lie directly nor approve of nor sanction man's lying. One could argue that all that happens on earth is permitted by God -- He could stop it if He saw fit. He even permitted Satan to cause Job to suffer -- a much more interesting case. But that does not mean that He is the source of all such things. They just afford Him opportunities, as here, to accomplish what He is after. As they are useful to Him, He permits them to continue for a season. Like Judas. Eventually, those instruments no longer useful, all such spirits and men will be judged by being cast into the eternal lake of fire. That is neither approval nor sanction, but merely proof of God's sovereignty. --MAW

      The basic point is that by allowing the spirit to lie, God is not Himself lying. After all, God allows us all to lie, but He is not a liar for allowing us to lie.
      B)Titus 1:2 "God..., cannot lie",
      1 Sam,15:29 "The Strength of Israel will not lie",
      But..,
      Ezek.14:9 "I the Lord have deceived that prophet",
      Jer,20:7 "O Lord thou hast deceived me and I was deceived",
      2 Chron.18:22 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets ",
      2 Thess,2: 11 "God sends upon them a strong delusion to make them believe a lie", Acts 7:5 The author admits that God's promise to Abraham (Gen 13:15) did not come to pass,
      1 Sam,16:2 God not only told Samuel to lie put told him what lie to use! He was really going to anoint David,
      Isa,7:1-7 God told Isaiah to promise Ahaz that his enemy the King of Syria would not harm him, It was a lie because in 2 Chron.28:5 the King of Syria killed Ahaz, in Jonah 3:4 God told Jonah to tell the Assyrians that in 40 days their capital Nineveh would be overthrown but verse 3:10 shows that it was not, since God is omniscient and knew that Nineveh would not in fact be destroyed verse 3:4 was a lie and Ezek.20:25 says God deliberately gave people statutes that they should not live by i.e., he lied to them!
      Bible-Believer: Nothing Brian brings up here shows that God tells lies. In Ezek 14:9 God is merely saying that He led a prophet astray, which doesn’t have to involve lying to him. In Jer 20:7 Jeremiah FALSELY accuses God of deceiving Him (Jer 20:7-13). In 2Chronicles 18:22 God puts a lying spirit in the mouth of certain prophets, He doesn’t LIE to them. In Acts 7:5 Stephen (not “the author” - see Acts 7:2) doesn’t say God LIED either. The book of Hebrews sorts out the meaning of Stephen’s statement (scripture always explains scripture).  Heb 11:8-9 says Abraham was called to go and sojourn in a land in which he would AFTERWARD receive an inheritance. 11:9 (and Acts 7:17) confirm that Abraham’s seed DID receive the promise eventually, gaining possession of the Promised Land. And Heb 11:10-16 settles the issue as it tells us that the true fulfilment of the inheritance promise to Abraham is YET to take place, it is the New Jerusalem. God didn’t break His promise to Abraham.
      In 2Thess 2:11 God blinds some people into believing “A” lie not HIS lie, He doesn’t LIE to them. In 1Sam 16 God told Samuel to say that he went to Bethlehem to sacrifice a heifer, which is REALLY why he was going. God told Samuel not to mention the other reason he was going to Bethlehem (which was to anoint David), not LIE about it!
      Lastly in Isaiah 7:1-7 God DOES NOT tell Isaiah to promise Ahaz that the King of Syria would NEVER harm him, God tells Isaiah to tell him that the confederates would not vex Judah or set Tabeal as king there (7:6-7), God’s promise of course did come true. The King of Syria killed Ahaz at a much later stage and in a completely different situation.
      The only reason that Nineveh was not overthrown in 40 days was because the Ninevites repented and cried for God to have mercy on them (Jonah 3:5-9). And just because God knew it wasn’t going to be overthrown in the end doesn’t mean He was lying when He told them it was, because Nineveh was TRULY going to be overthrown, they were TRULY heading towards destruction in 40 days from an in-time, human perspective (the way God HAS TO talk to humans). But they changed their direction, repented and weren’t overthrown. Lastly Ezek 20:25 is clearly not referring to God’s own statutes that He gave Israel (see verse 24). The verse is referring to pagan laws that God allowed Israel to follow without His intervening chastisement (in other words He “gave them” these laws indirectly) in order for Israel to see the consequences of their stupid actions (compare verse 26 with Lev 18:21) and for a comparison case with similar wording see Rom 1:26-27.
      21.-. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him [Gen 6:5,7]

      Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him [Gen 8:21]

      This is only a contradiction because the critic interprets it as so. Does Genesis 8:21 say that God will not destroy man because he is wicked? Not really. For God says that he will never again curse the ground, even though man's heart is evil (NIV). Furthermore, cursing the ground does not necessarily mean the same thing as destroying man, now does it?

      22.-God's attributes are revealed in his works [Rom 1:20]

      God's attributes cannot be discovered [Job 11:7 / Is 40:28]

      Romans 1:20 simply notes that Creation points to the Creator - a divine being of great power. Job 11:7 points out that we can never fully grasp the divine, it does NOT say that God cannot be inferred from nature. Is 40:28 notes that we can never hope to fully scrutinize the understanding of God. None of this is contradictory.

      23.- There is but one God [Deut 6:4]

      There is a plurality of gods [Gen 1:26 / Gen 3:22 / Gen 18:1-3 / 1 John 5:7]

      This, of course, would lead us to a discussion of the Trinity, something that is beyond the scope of this article. Trinitarian theology is a classic example of "both/and" thinking. Besides, what of Deut 6:4?
      describe God's essence!
      Deut. 6:4 reads, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."

      Now it is important to note that the Hebrew word used for 'one' is NOT yahid, which denotes absolute singularity elsewhere in the OT. Instead, Moses chose the Hebrew word ehad, which signifies unity and oneness in plurality. This word is used in Gen 2:24 where Adam and Eve are instructed to become "one flesh". It's also found in Numbers 13:23, where the Hebrew spies returned with a "single cluster" of grapes. So Deut 6:4 actually supports the concept of the Trinity, by noting that God is "oneness in plurality" (composite unity). The same word which describes the oneness of a marriage relationship is also used to

      1. 0
        Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        more stolen content.  Do you not have morals?

      2. Greg Sage profile image60
        Greg Sageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Holy cut and paste, Batman.

        1. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't mind cut and past. If you can find the information to make a point already written out.
          For those who work online, it can save time as long as it is used with common sense, but to be so out of touch with others that they cut and past something no others are going to read because it is TLDNR is hardly going to make her point come across, especially since it is all from a book we have mostly all read before!

    2. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      yawn

    3. Shadesbreath profile image87
      Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      TLDNR

      LOL

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Huh?

        1. Shadesbreath profile image87
          Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          TLDNR = too long, did not read.

          It is one of the funniest Internet abbreviation thingies, and I find a somewhat sadistic joy in using it at the end of a ridiculously long post like that one was. I mean, I'm longwinded, but, just wow.  lol.

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

            I didn't read it either.  I just made a comment about how it should have been a hub.  UGH.

    4. Jessicablox profile image60
      Jessicabloxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Too Long.. Not read all.. Bt seems informative..

  2. recommend1 profile image70
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    Ha ha ha ha ha big_smile  you are so having a larf mate !  I think you must wear one eyed dark glasses to read !

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I wonder how mentally ill one has to be to swallow this whale? lol

      1. dutchman1951 profile image60
        dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        evidently, VERY!

        I see Captin Ishmael here, will stay on this hunt till we all drown at sea!    smile

        1. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I had to supercharge the scroll on my mouse since this started! lol

          1. dutchman1951 profile image60
            dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lolol

            me thinks this ship needs a bit more skullin!!!!!!

            1. earnestshub profile image88
              earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I just love nautical terms. What is skullin exactly me old salt? smile

          2. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Was thinking the same thing, earnest.  The OP really should have been a hub.  With all due respect, the forums aren't really the place for this.  Especially since it's really about proving a point, and not beginning, or facilitating a discussion.

  3. MelissaBarrett profile image62
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    I'm not even sure what the point of these posts are anymore.  I mean even on a religious level... why?  seriously, why?  Wouldn't it be easier to go door to door?

    1. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      agree

    2. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      it's annoying when no debate & discussion takes place - just annoying spamming

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image62
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You HATE me don't you?

        1. 0
          Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          now I hope you are just being cheeky and not being serious.  It's hard to tell on these threads

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image62
            MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes.  I read your thread and was making a joke.  Cheeky comes with two benydryl.  In another 15 minutes, I'll be downright flippant smile

            1. 0
              Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I thought you might have.  Guess what threads I was talking about specifically?

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image62
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Wouldn't hazard a guess... surely not this meaningful debate?  Another four threads and I'll have the king james version in entirety...

                1. earnestshub profile image88
                  earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  lol lol lol

                2. 0
                  Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I had to push the page down button repeatedly to get to any dialogue

                3. 0
                  Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  there's several threads worse than this one in the religious section lately

  4. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    As Benny Hill would say "We got us a right one ere!"

    1. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I was thinking of Benny Hinn - he probably thinks the same thing.  Off to the bank laughing with $100 million in donations each year

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And they said being crazy would not make you rich.

        Boy did televangelists blow that one away! lol

  5. lone77star profile image91
    lone77starposted 5 years ago

    Heavenbound5511, you make some good points, but this is an awfully long post. Wouldn't it be far more fruitful to write a Hub on each point, or make a separate Forum post for each item?

    There are so many interpretations of each of these passages. Who is right? Could it be that no one has it right, yet? Certainly the cackling hyenas who like to laugh at such things have their own fixed ideas. We know what they're after. But what are you after?

    If you think you've found all your answers, you're not looking hard enough.

    The scholars who compiled and wrote the Bible included Jewish Kabbalists who hid their works from the staunch traditionalists by coding it into existing stories. On some items you're not even close. It requires humility and a hunger for the answers. They're in there, but you have to let go of everything you think you know. Wisdom was hidden in the Bible for a reason. Find that reason.

  6. MelissaBarrett profile image62
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    Would you guys PLEASE stop responding with the entire post?  The internet is only so big.

    1. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Amen.

      lol

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        YES PLEASE!
        Sorry about yelling. I do it myself, because most posts aren't bigger than war and peace, so we forget to put a new post with their name on it instead smile

  7. brotheryochanan profile image60
    brotheryochananposted 5 years ago

    Nice attempt sister. All contradictions go down in flames because the bile does not contradict itself.

    one minor adjustment to the lying spirit dialogue.
    1 Kings 22:19   And he said: I SAW the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.

    The lying spirit is a vision. When I saw is mentioned then it depicts a vision. God does not have a right and left hand, vision again. In visions anything can happen because it is God communicating with pictures that the see-er then describes.

    Godly works (work with God in them) are never forgotten in heaven
    congrats on a lot of work and very nicely done.

    1. Shadesbreath profile image87
      Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Here's the thing... I'm not even opposed to Christianity. Jesus is the guy who brought us all "turn the other cheek," which is the real secret to global peace (the prime ingredient that the other still-relevant bronze age religions are missing, despite how vehemently they will argue that their faiths have "forgiveness clauses" in them too!).... but, that said, just, if you took a long breath, and, for a moment, allowed that I am not attacking here at all... just, if you took that breath and then pulled back the spiritual/social acuity lens for a minute, panned back and looked at the original post... that massive, 10,000 page cut-and-paste... is there any way you can see how people who are skeptics--heck, even people who are looking for answers and totally open to anything--might see that big old post and the, well, sort of spastic Christian responses, the glaring dismissal of reasonable questions as an indication that the whole founding construct has no merit either? You guys are killing your own arguments by how you comport yourselves in the debate. Just an observation. smile

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        actually, i can't see how people who are skeptics.. i think earnests post was pretty long and of course it will take longer to explain how invalid earnests post is. (He has done this before, cut and paste, lol... out of context, etc, probably from some misguided atheist website, without even knowing what He is cutting and pasting, but as we see, another embarrassing moment for him. I suspect he will have learnt his lesson this time - i never tire of mortally wounding him and now i see another sister is defeating the dragon).
        All i see is a bunch of p*ssed off heathen people complaining that someone knows 1,000 words and 18 pages more than they do lol

      2. 0
        Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        of course there are no contradictions in bile.  As for the bible, well...

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          wanna give me one of your favorite contradictions.. since the title is the bible doesn't contradict itself.... cheap one liners are sort of spastic UNchristian responses.

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image62
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

      Oh My God, you brought it back to life?  For resurrecting this thread I curse you to random rains of spaghetti Os and infestations of sand fleas in the pants.  May this be a plague upon you and your house for the next 7 generations... or until Tuesday (whichever comes first)

      1. Shadesbreath profile image87
        Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It's funny plus, Jessicablox just did the TLDNR thing, except she didn't know the abbreviation... still counts IMO.

        Plus I'm bored. My family is all gone; I worked too late to work on my novel or my blog, and, well, this is what you get when I'm bored. big_smile

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image62
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Some people just play solitaire smile If you are bored, you can read all 29 of my exciting and informative hubs... or something else as interesting like-oh I don't know- watching the grass grow or something

          1. Shadesbreath profile image87
            Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Tell you what, you give me one of your hubs to go read, I'll give you one of mine, and then we can meet back here and compare notes.  Fair?

      2. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        banned for ruining spaghetti Os

    3. MelissaBarrett profile image62
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

      Sure, read my hub on bad online writing...http://hubpages.com/hub/Why-Your-Bad-Online-Writing-is-Costing-Me-Money

      I love that one, I got to be mean and stuff.  KK, give me one of yours..
      Tell me when you've got it so I can take the link down

      1. Shadesbreath profile image87
        Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        1. Don't take the link down.

        Why would you? I asked for it fair and square. Perfect opportunity to promote yourself.  HP may have semi-draconian rules, but they do have work arounds they don't mind because, well, they get it too.  smile

        2. If you haven't seen this one, check it out. See you back here in eight minutes or so. smile

        http://hubpages.com/hub/Fiber-One-Bars- … ibly-Wrong

    4. MelissaBarrett profile image62
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

      That was, beyond a doubt, the best product review I've ever read in my entire life.  And to see the amazon capsule at the end just made it even better. I've got to know, have you ever actually sold any of the kellogs stuff at amazon?  And I really, REALLY want to see a picture of you now. 

      On another note: Holy Crap!  You can say shit in a hub?  A whole world of possibilities just opened up to me smile

      1. Shadesbreath profile image87
        Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I was actually going to comment on your use of "fig" in that one. Yes, you can be honest and just write here. For now. Times are changing though, and they used to embrace artists and what I call "real" writing in adition to the copy writing and stuff, they are definitely moving towards being the slaves of the Search Master. So, it is what it is. When my Stop Neutering Our Kids (or whatevr the name was) hub got its ads cut off, I realized HP was not going to be a place for real writing for long.

        It's not "America" so they don't have to.  But, for now, yeah, write free, be yourself. You have a great voice, love it. Probably smarter to develop a following on a blog if you are planning long term. Writing is on the wall here for artistic content, which is ironic given that they have some creative writing stuff starting up. Art and commerce have never worked well together, sadly.

        Oh, and yes, I have ONE sale on that Fiber One hub. They bought THREE boxes. LMAO.  How do you read THAT, and then want THREE boxes.  lololol

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image62
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          LOL, maybe they were going to hand them out to their classmates.

          I was considering starting a blog, probably will one day.  I'd like to do some stuff for parents that have lost a child.  However, since it is a subject dear to me, I want to do it right.

          Right now, the amount of writing I'm doing to keep food in the table is prohibitive to any big projects.  Especially ones that I have no intention of monetizing.

    5. MelissaBarrett profile image62
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

      On another topic, Holy crap you play magic?  I didn't think ANYONE played magic anymore! Come, let me show you my vice deck

      1. Shadesbreath profile image87
        Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't play online. We're old school. You actually have to find the cards (or pay for them in ridiculous ways before we house ban them <cough>annihilator<cough> etc.)  smile

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image62
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I actually HAD the cards, I started playing at the end of Beta.  My ex-husband is a douche though and he got them in the divorce.

          1. Shadesbreath profile image87
            Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Wow, that sucks. We started playing in The Dark. Played really heavy through Ice Age and the one or two that came after... tapered off until about five years ago, but I don't pay as close attention as I did back then now. I rely on my 19 and 21 year old boys to give me the anal-retentive breakdown (or I just buy a box and see what I get LOL).

            Anyway, we hijacked the crap out of this thread, which is awesome; that's how it deserved to go... So, now I'm off to bed. You should try to do a 30 minute hub challenge with me and Cags tomorrow if you are up (which I might not be, so, yeah, it is what it is). lol.

            I'm out.

    6. secularist10 profile image90
      secularist10posted 5 years ago

      Rewriting the Bible in a forum will not prove your point, lol.

      By my count, that is over 6400 words. I pasted them into Word and it reached a whopping 18 pages!

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Fundies cannot help it.  They have no answers for questions which require logical and realistic thought.  That's why they are given a manual to show others.  smile

      2. MelissaBarrett profile image62
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        God's gonna be pissed about the copyright infringement.

        1. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          He will indeed! lol

          The biblical god gets p*ssed about almost everything. smile

          1. Paul Wingert profile image80
            Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            God was pretty pissed off throughout the Old Testiment. Then he mellowed out when the New testiment came along. I guess fatherhood has that effect on gods as well as people.

            1. brotheryochanan profile image60
              brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              fatherhood has that effect on gods as well as people

              It's the same God. Because of Israels' national rejection of Jesus as messiah (they refuted the 3 messianic miracles - raising the dead, curing leprosy and casting out a deaf and dumb spirit) the Gentiles (everyone else other than Israel) were grafted into the tree (romans 11) and because with change comes adjustments - it is not convenient that Gentiles in N.A should sacrifice cattle for example or pilgrimmage to a holy place in what is called palestine, therefore, at the proper time God changed the way things were done. The invitations to the Gentiles is mentioned in - Isaiah 19:21   And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the LORD in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it - Egypt represents the Gentile nation, and in other places.
              Here again is prophecy of a change of dispensation:
                 Ezekiel 18:2   What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the childrens teeth are set on edge?
                Ezekiel 18:3   As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
                Ezekiel 18:20   The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
                Ezekiel 18:21   But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. (Note: the die here is referring to the end of that persons natural life - not by immediate penalty under the law of moses)
              The minor prophets all convey the message of how God is fed up with the OT laws and sacrifices.
              Suffice it to say, God has not changed, the dispensation has - we are not under law with immediate penalty, but grace and love to make our mistakes and receive judgment later) - And there is love all through the OT, otherwise God would not have given mankind the chance to know Him and a burning bush that did not consume itself would never have happened.

        2. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Naw, unlike people, God doesn't care about copyright infringement, in fact, He encourages it!
          lol

    7. psycheskinner profile image82
      psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

      It would be a mercy of someone that wants to right a 1000 word rant, put it on a hub rather than the forums.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        jealousy will get ya nowhere smile

    8. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago

      The Bible doesn't contradict itself. People's interpretations of the Bible contradict themselves.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Some people have really sloppy interpretations

      2. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes all those religious versions of belief stem from it, yours included, except yours is always right of course! lol

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't understand
          can you explain that earnest

    9. psycheskinner profile image82
      psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

      Given that words require interpretation to create understanding, that kind of amounts to the same thing.

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The correct iterpretation is done by the Bible itself, if you read it and take the time to consder it from God's perspective and words.

        It is not to be based on your knowlrdge or understandings, but God's alone. Everything required to understand the Bible is contained within it's texts. Too many apply their own beliefs and understanding to how it reads and not God's.

        I am not stating this to argue with you Psyche, or anyone else, about the Bible. I have already stated I am not a Christian who seeks to convert anyone. If you choose not to believe, or to believe, that is all fine.

        I simply answer the topic point.

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly, he did it all in ONE book.
          Protestants ripped the apocrypha out of the bible, catholics didn't get that right either.

    10. Stigma31 profile image71
      Stigma31posted 5 years ago

      To say the Bible does not have contradicition is inane. The bible was written and put together by men. NOT GOD! The stories of God were passed down for generations and written into text and rewritten and editted by a group called the Gnostics. Many of these works were different points of view from different people, I.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each has there own perception of what happened, therefore they would not be exact. If you were at say an accident sight with 10 people and asked what happened, odds are you would get at least 3 or 4 different stories.
      I am not religious, but the bible having contradictions or flaws actually gives it more merit, not less. If it was perfect I would be likely to say one person wrote it....which would make it even less believable. Good luck finding your answers, I think mankind would be better of spending all this energy on helping each other, no matter what race, creed, religion they may be.
      Ask yourself why the Christians, Jews, Muslims all share several books but not ALL! Even just the OLD testament. Who did the picking and chosing? God apparently wrote them all.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you had any knowledge gained by paralleling the Gospels you would understand, that each perspective adds additional information which is complimentary not contradictory.
        In your accident theory, yes this is true... but did any take notes? and was God giving the information to the stander bys?
        If the bible had any contradictions then we would have to call those contradictions, lies, and God does not lie, thereby, the book - as has been proven over the centuries - does not contain contradictions.
        If one person wrote it, it would have to be God because nobody lives that long... 4,000yrs plus to be approximate.
        Good luck in finding your answers.
        You answer our own question: God APPARENTLY wrote them all.. but really it is so easy to ascertain which is real from the phonies.

    11. Seek-n-Find profile image88
      Seek-n-Findposted 5 years ago

      Here is something that helped me.  I used to see contradictions in the Bible.  But now, within the context of the whole, i see many paradoxes.  I believe there is a difference!

      1. Evolution Guy profile image61
        Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This is actually "denial." wink

        Do you know what the word "paradox," means?

        Sure - paradoxes. Uhuh. No contradictions, just a large amount of false premises that create seeming contradictions.

        False premises. lol

    12. R.S. Hutchinson profile image86
      R.S. Hutchinsonposted 5 years ago

      There are lots of contradictions in the KJV. There are couple different versions of Judas death. There is a contradiction in Deuteronomy vs revelations. There is the whole "trinity" vs two separate beings contradiction.. and even more but I'm not a scriptorium. I just remember doing research on this very topic years ago and finding a ton of contradictions- some were minute (just wording) but others were pretty obvious.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        heres one contradiction down the drain smile
        http://hubpages.com/hub/judas-hanged-or … -of-course

        safe to assume other contradictions go down the drain also
        I would love to hear your contradictions about deuteronomy vs revelations. That sounds like something i can get my teeth into.

     
    working