How Does The Bible Contradict Itself?
So be it.
Glory be to the freethinkers
Saint Mark AMPA, CMT, LSD
And thus, a legend was born. (I have to thank Peter Lopez for the title though)
LOL - Yes. We can say things like, "You wouldn't understand because you lack faith, if you just open your heart to the truth it would all be clear, " when it comes up in discussion. And then we can misinterpret it to mean something completely different to suit whatever position we are taking at the time.
Aw shucks, isn't that what the theoligcal wiggle is?
As always ridicule is the best response to ridiculousness and you know this.
What I like most is that the "blasphemy" of people like you and me in response to the theological wiggle does not have the same resultant "helfire" as the response to the "blasphemy" of established knowledge and being informed due to the facts as we currently understand them, aka science and reason.
No one will be rotting in hell for all eternity in a torture that is unfathomably disproportionate to their crimes because they do not "believe" in something as well established as evolution.
lolcatz!
Ridicule is certainly one of the tools in my box LOL I tend to reserve it for certain types.
You might like this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT-mrvrPJIs
Glory be to the freethinkers
Saint Mark AMPA, CMT, LSDThanks Peter. Still there for the moment. Hubpages move in mysterious ways their wonders to perform.
I know loads of atheists that are not worth talking to. Christians too LOL
But you do not fit that category.
- sandra rinckposted 17 years ago
0It's all happening now. I guess whatever happens happens for whatever reason it happens for. Contradiction are probabaly best meant for the internal purposes of the indavidual whom reads it. Good and Bad.
Anyways, that probabaly didn't make a lot of sense, but whateva, a seal was broken. Well, I think bringing Paul into this part merely serves as another way of avoiding the question. Mainly because Paul does not use the term "spiritual death." His words have been interpreted to mean that. By some.
Yes you are implying that you are the one who knows how to interpret each passage of the bible. By saying that you believe the days of creation are literal and that death doesn't mean death (in some cases) and also saying that Christians would disagree with you. Yes.
You are saying that you are correct and any one who deciphers the bible differently to suit their belief system is wrong.
They must be wrong if you are correct.
And you must be correct as far as you are concerned.
Your version must be the correct version.
Everyone else's must be incorrect.
Otherwise - Why would you believe this?
But this also raises yet another contradiction.
If this use of the term spiritual death is correct - Either Jesus has already come into his kingdom, or some of those people that were listening that have physically died are still alive spiritually. Also this seems more like a threat than a promise now.
"I will come into my kingdom before you are dead spiritually."
Doesn't really make a lot of sense now.
- sandra rinckposted 17 years ago0
I bet your fun to party with Mark!
Well, I don't think that's a fair comment. I do like to argue, but usually with some point. You are the one who is evading the question. I have answered honestly when you have called me to be more specific. You are the one that keeps taking us off-track. I understand why. You are arguing an untenable position and feel defensive. I have been very clear as to my beliefs:
Now, you are welcome to query, question and poke holes in those beliefs to your heart's content.
After you have answered the questions I posed.
The simple fact is that your explanation of Jesus' sayings as not referring to actual death, renders the entire statement meaningless.
And your belief in literal creationism begs the question as to why you consider that part of the bible factual yet choose to "interpret," other parts?
I am not arguing anything in circles. I am trying to pin you down to an answer that makes some sense.See I don't agree with this. Lol.
I think 2 people holding opposing views can both be right, just as they can both be wrong. It's our perception and ego that has us think different to this.I agree with you RFox. Everything comes down to the variable perception. I precieve Gods works in other people who do not believe in God, as other precieve my works as blaspemous and evil, but truth I find is that no one is wrong when it comes to beliefs, cause where in the heart one can find a truth suitable to thier life, then it is very much the truth to life.
Had I no opposition, what could I understand?
Yes. By all means. I realize this is a limited medium, and I enjoy discussing with you. I try to not come across as too aggressive with judicious use of these
Pride and ego are something we all wrestle with. Believer or non believer. But yes, I would be interested to hear you explain this particular contradiction more thoroughly. And don't worry about bamboozling me with the amount of studying you have done. I have probably studied the thing for longer than you. I choose not to quote from it because it gives it more weight and people always assume I believe when I do.
But you seemed to think I had not been clear on my beliefs. And I have been. I can summarize them here:
There is no god
The bible is a political tool and wrong in many respects
I am a very very small part of something greater than myself that does not involve a supreme being and I am very aware of my connection and part in this
The world is a lot more than 6,000 years old
There is only one life to be had
I will not burn anywhere for all eternity for not believingShort, sweet and even put in outline form! Just my style.
I did think that you hadn't been clear on your beliefs. I wish I could remember where in that uber-long thread on atheism I remembered reading it because I could either reference it or discover that it wasn't you. I just recall reading you (or someone else?) having some question in the reply concerning stated beliefs. Oh well, it would be to frivilous to track down and it's only water under the bridge now. Your outline helps clear that up!
First of all, I don't think you have to worry about people thinking you're a believer here if you quote from scripture!
In fact if you did you might just win some respect/credibility from other believers. Secondly, is it all that wrong to quote from scripture when the topic is concerning the credibility of the Bible?
(I'll get back to the passage a little later- just wanted to respond to your post first)In your own time
Whenever you are ready
Can't say Jesus either without people thinkin' your a christain.
Any time
It's been 400 years alreadyWhenever
- sandra rinckposted 17 years ago0
I hate preachers.
And yet another circular argument
These contradictions only seem like contradictions and they magically go away if you believe.
IMHustle. If you feel like answering the question I am listening.......
Other than with the usual argument you have just provided of course.Mark,
You seem to be a bit impatientlol
I can wait another 400 years, but that's itBecause I very much believe in God, I will share my humble opinion with you and hope that you do not take offense to what I have to say about what you wrote.
First: there is no one sin greater than the other. Hence, commandment number 1. Have no other God besides God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth.
For what sin could not be forgiven, even this one if no one sin is greater than the other? To hear someone speak in such rediculas tones to deny one obvious truth, that this world is confussing, with or without God, and to disbelieve in God is just as forgiveable in the eyes of God, as it is to commit murder or adultry.
If God did not intend for this, then Jesus would be a liar, for it was Jesus who said that no one sin is greater than the other.
You find for me why this TRUTH can not be the truth, and I will take my words back, but until then, all people will are deserving of Heaven or their ideas of Heaven or whatever it is they want.
To walk this life at all is a guarantee of life, for once life is given, it shall remain. Amen.Certainly I see your point, but in the grand scheme of things, which are the things we don't know, what could not be forgiven. Yes, disbelieving in God does no body any harm and torture and murder do, this was posted with regards to Christain beliefs that they are nothing without God, which is something I disagree with strongly.
Personally, I find it amusing just how many people are prepared to ignore THE TRUTH i.e that there is not a god, in favor of trying to earn money off people by using the bible as a sales tool.
Pathetic even.
I believe these sad, pathetic people are the bottom of humankind's pond. And to listen to them pontificate while living a lie is almost nauseating.
Perhaps I will start writing hubs on the genuine lies, mis-truths and garbage in the bible.
Whether one accepts the truth or not ...doesn't change the fact that it is true.
AND THE TRUTH NEVER NEEDS TO BE DEFENDED!
And shouting the same thing over and over will not make it true.
But I am glad we agree there is no god and that this truth is self-evident and does not really need defending.
Here's your 2 cents back with interest.Hmmm. This is not what we were discussing exactly, so I will refresh your (and my) memory(800 years is a long time
). I said:
Then you said:
Then I said:
Then you said:
Then I said:
Then you said:
And I was waiting for an answer (still am)
Plus I cut all the side discussions out, but that's it in a nutshell.
Whenever you are ready
Another 800 years
I am a patient man. Another 800 years is nothing in the grand scheme
Not sure - you are the expert on time values
say, 15 years?
Ah. Leaving aside the spirit/flesh discussion, when did Jesus come into his Kingdom?
It is an invisible magic kingdom presumably?
You can only see it if you believe in God sort of kingdom?
Now, Jesus being the son of god and all, he presumably knew the future, so what he was saying is that some people listening to him would not be dead spiritually before he came into his kingdom. Which still doesn't make sense.
Not that Judas would be dead before this happened. Real dead, not imaginary dead. Stopped breathing dead. Which is what I understand it to have meant.
Jesus had the whole sarcasm thing down.
WC- Some of us will still be alive by the time you solve this conundrum.
I really like how you explained this weddingconsultant! My added cents, anything done is love is done in the spirit, without it, you have nothing at all and the soul dies away with the flesh, but in love the soul or spirit which is the essence of or being, the "thing" that makes our blood circulate without being plugged in or spun etc. will live forever.
Mark- I know your feelings on the matter, but I do pray that you would know you have a soul and I think you are really great and your gonna live on, I don't believe God tosses out the good on accounts of matter only concerned with life. You live it and you deserve more and I believe you will.OK, but this still doesn't deal with the contradiction we are discussing and just brings up one more point of contradiction.
If, as you say, he was returning to his Kingdom, why did he not just say that? This is what he was supposed to have said:
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 16:28
But, now you have interpreted him to be saying that he was already in his kingdom, then he came down to earth, then he went back.
Ignoring the obvious other contradictions of being omnipotent, omnipresent, all-powerful, and therefore in all places at one time, why do you feel that you can interpret this to mean something other than what was said? If he was going back, surely he would not have been worried, would not have asked for the cup to pass from his lips, and would have said "I am going back from whence I came."
Not going to argue with the death and taxes, but I know a man who can help with the one (taxes).
But -
This brings up more contradictions. You are taking one meaning for one part of the discussion, yet choosing to use another meaning for another part. And Christ was already alive in the spirit. He was God's "only" son. Therefore assured of a place in heaven and perpetual life. So what difference does it make if he was killed? None. I would cheerfully die tomorrow for a promise of everlasting life. Hmmmmm, sound like a selling point?
I hate to say it, but I have read this whole passage. In fact at one point, I had it memorized, although I do not recognize this version. I had to learn an old-school version, but I get your drift.
But this raises yet another contradiction. Like much of what the bible says, it presupposes a belief in original sin. If you accept this, it makes perfect sense. I do not. I was not born in sin and do not need saving Also, I do not need to suffer to achieve glory after death. The creation lives and dies and decays. Me and you included. This is the way it is. No book will change that. It is in the nature of everything to die.
I can't say I have looked at that website in detail either. But, once again this presupposes a belief that the natural order of things i.e. birth, life, death can be broken by some sort of magical formula. And the bible keep on saying the same thing over and over and over will not make it so.
I will answer your other comment in a separate post lol
I was thinking about you as well, and wondering how you are coping with the new addition. All is well, I trust?
Of course., I didn't need the Lord to put it there, I though of you myself
And I understand how you could see that as applying to me.
I, on the other hand, feel that it applies to you. I understand the "spirit," aspect of myself. I can, if I choose, make a very strong connection to what (I think) you call god. But - it isn't god. It is all the living things around us. Including the trees and the sea and the moon and the tides. And it is very powerful. But it is not as you think. It is natural, no rules, no need to "accept Jesus as my personal savior." None of the attachments religions "create."
I understand how important I am in this system. Not very. I was born, I will die, and part of me will continue to exist in this system as food or fertilizer, or the molecules that form me on my death will be used to build something else unrelated to my current being.
This is what the bible means by everlasting life. This is what the believers in reincarnation mean. That is it. Simple.
The only way to stop troll is stop talking to him.
I agree 100%!!!
For once in my life, I find myself in agreement with SirDent. A pleasant change
I have stopped speaking to the third worst poet in the universe. Not worth the effort and I have yet to see him say anything remotely worth listening to. He will be gone soon.I think you will find this interesting...
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/5694The absolute worst poetry in the universe died with Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings with the destruction of the Earth in "The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy."
The second worst is written by the Azgoths of Kria.
Mo here, rivals Vogon poetry as being the third-worst in the Universe.
Some one kindly created a Vogon poem about me:
"See, see the Dead sky
Marvel at its big Puce depths.
Tell me, Mark Knowles do you
Wonder why the Platypus ignores you?
Why its foobly stare
makes you feel Energised.
I can tell you, it is
Worried by your frongelous facial growth
That looks like
A Chicken.
What’s more, it knows
Your varpid potting shed
Smells of capsicum.
Everything under the big Dead sky
Asks why, why do you even bother?
You only charm Rotten fishs."
And I have made it my SEO mission in life to dominate the term. Worried by your frongelous facial growth?"
It is all mine
I sure hope so.
All is well, yes. Love abounds, as well as crying, lack of time and lack of sleep!
Well Mark, you have made me chuckle because, as you know, I don't necessarily see eye to eye with you regarding your views. I do, however, find it interesting that you are "attuned" to things other than yourself in this world (you had mentioned understanding the "spirit"aspect of yourself). I think that tendency is innate in all of us, it's just that it's twisted in about as many ways as there are people in existence.
I would like to bring up one of your quotes:
I hope you understand I certainly don't agree with this! haha this is where the 'chuckling' came in. To believe in God and pursue a heart felt relationship with Him through Jesus only to turn into fertilizer is nothing to hope for indeed! That is where our physical bodies will go, but again our soul/spirit will live on accd. to the verses previously mentioned.
And as far as the version of the Bible used- I quoted from New International Version. It's got an 8th grade reading level, so it appeals to the widest audience. Not to say that you're of 8th grade reading level, of courselol
If by 8th grade you mean dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, I think I understand. I am racking my brains to remember which version I had to learn from and the best I can come up with is "Old school 1970's English high church Protestant." lol In fact my grandparents were so incensed at the idea of female priests, they converted to Catholicism in their early 80's. I hope they made the right choice
But I now have a question for you as we seem to have lost the contradiction somewhere in the dim and distant past :
Everything you see around you follows a natural course. Everything is born, lives and dies. Everything.
Mountain ranges, cultures, animals, trees, weather patterns. Entire species even - I have known species to die out in my life time.
Pop artists, languages - who the hell speaks Manx or Latin? ( not counting the crappy version the Roman church pretends is Latin), countries, technology, borders, fashions. Stars even. Stars die out. Never to come to life again.
Everything dies and feeds the next generation......... The circle of life. The Lion King (one of my favorites)
Yet you choose to believe you are different to everything else. You will live on. In a heaven. Never die. Ever. Perpetual life. For ever.
Despite the fact that everything else around you dies and this is part of what allows the next generation to live.
Why?Na uh, stars don't die out, they change. Do you know what a neutron star is? Not dead that's for sure.
LOL
Certainly some thing clusters around some types of neutron stars because of the massive increase in density created by a collapsing star as it dies. The same way flies cluster around a dead rat.
I could argue that you don't die, you just change. In to a dead body which attracts certain things lol
Is the rat still alive? Or just "changed"
But nicely sent off on a tangent
Let me know how "alive" that makes you feel when our star dies. Or changes rather.I wont be around to see our star die, thank God! LOL, but who knows, it could turn into something better...the rat becomes energy for the flies, which die in about a day anyways, but hey, you know all about the circle of life.
Ok, back to your discussion with weddingconsultant.
We were talking about bible contradictions. But we got lost I think.
Oh well, there are worse places to get lost in.
I will read these when I get the chance. But just so I got it right:
Despite all the evidence around you that everything is born, lives and dies, you still prefer to believe that does not apply to you - because of what is written in a political book that has existed for 2,000 years in the 13,000,000,000 year life span of the universe?
Even though it makes no sense whatsoever without a belief in something that cannot be proven?
Just checking lol
Oh, it's obviously an allegory - Ezekiel explicitly says the two sisters are the two nations, Samaria and Jerusalem.
His beef is that they are worshipping other gods, which he equates with prostitution and adultery. He says that the armies of these other gods will be victorious and ravish the lands of Samaria and Jerusalem, because they have turned away from monogamous worship of their One True God.
Colorful language to make a religious point.
Of course, the "every word in the Bible is literally true and can only be taken at face value" people must struggle to explain that particular chapter!
And I totally agree with you on the other one - the Bible contradicts itself regularly on the topic of the nature of God, because it is a compilation of an oral history of a particular tribe with a bunch of parallel writings and a theology which developed over a couple of thousand years and absorbed various outside influences in the process, all filtered through the political needs of different groups through out the subsequent couple of thousand years.
But that's only a problem for those who want to argue that the Bible is the Word of God without error or omission, and that the Word of God is Timeless and Irrefutably True.
Jenny
Sorry - I missed this response.
But I have to question the use of the word "many," here.
13,000,000,000 years / 2,000 years = 0.00000153% of time
Amount of people who have ever lived = 106,456,367,669 (guesstimate)
Witnesses who have testified over the thousands of years = (500?)
Too many zeros to work out how small a percentage that is - but I will call it infinitesimal
Current world population = 6,820,378,030 (roughly)
Amount of people who believe in christianity (going with Baptist denomination as they are all different) 23,929,356
0.35085% of the world's population believe in the Baptist version of events.
So. If we can exchange the word "many" for "almost none," I will ask you the same question
Awesome. I lived in Virginia for 10 years. Love the late spring/early summer there before the humidity arrives
Mark it seems you've brought up two uses of the word many:
1. Many witnesses to the writing of the Bible
2. Many Christians in the world
In reference to #1 you're comparing apples to oranges. You're using the world population up to today whereas we should be looking at the world population up to the time the books of the canonical Bible were written. Regardless, it's still a very small %, so I concede that point.
But I don't see the relevance of the ratio:
% of world population
_______________________________________________
% of those who witnessed (or pointed to) the life of Christ
and how that relates to the authenticity of the message. Simply because all (or even a 51% majority) have not accepted something as truth does not make it irrelevant. In that case, global warming doesn't exist, pulling out of Iraq is in our best interest, Iran has nuclear weapons, France is apt to frequently raising the white flag [just for you Mark], etc. I'm not saying I hold to these ideas, but hopefully one can see the absurdity of this thought process.
What I was pointing out is that the authenticity of the Bible is (partly) found in the phenomenon that the writers of the books in the Bible had accounts that succinctly matched. And for this to have happened over thousands of years is nothing short of a miracle.
As for point #2, I'll offer this statistic:
2.1 billion people claim to be Christian. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world.
You picked Baptist as a denomination to use statistically, but that isn't even the most popular denomination! In the U.S. Southern Baptist is most popular. And the most popular (non-Protestant) denomination is Catholicism. Regardless, when combining all denominations of Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant) it is the most popular religion in the world.
Of course the argument can be made that most of those claiming to be Christians have no idea what that means and have no outward signs of that life-changing decision. One could also argue that certain denominations are not Christian, but those are entirely different topics.
I suspect a good majority of those turned off to Christianity have seen the examples of the those claiming to be Christians and have been appalled. Rightfully so, but again that's a whole other topic.Well, I picked Baptist because I thought it was fairly popular and didn't want to be unfair in my comparison. I also put you down as a Baptist. Correct me if I am wrong. I think we can both agree that all chistians do not hold the same belief system.
So I picked a pretty popular one.
My point is that there are a lot of other options. Merely breeding heavily, indoctrinating your offspring at a young age and excluding any one who does not believe from your academic institutions is certainly not a good criteria to follow.
I guess my real point is more on the fact that you are apparently basing your belief system on a very small minority of "witnesses," in a very small part of the world. Even back then there was a substantial part of the world's population who failed to witness anything. I still think my point about the small percentage of people who have witnessed anything as a number of people who have lived is pretty good, but then I remembered god stopping doing stuff for people to see unless they already believe
As to the amount of christians there are - I would think this is a shrinking percentage, but I will do some research.In my opinion there are thousands of "witnesses" who don't know they're contributing to the authenticity of Scripture.
Take the flood, for example. That there are accounts of a world-wide flood is a testament to it's factual occurrence. Some would say the other accounts discredit my faith, but I would say it solidifies it. It shows there were witnesses to an event that actually occurred in the past.
There are a ton of similar accounts of events in Scripture (such as creation of the earth), but I'll just bring up flood since we have some experience in that area
Some other points:
Yes I agree all Christians do not hold the same belief system.
Some statistics say Christianity is either stagnant or declining. Link #2 that I posted states this.
As you well know, other major world religions have the same issue as Christianity. Buddhists, Muslims, etc. all have people who claim to follow that particular religion but have nothing to demonstrate that belief except words.I haven't managed to find any believable statistics, but I would think it is declining as a percentage.
Education will do that to a religion like christianity
Having said that, the Roman Catholics are a force to be reckoned with and will not give up without a struggle. Too much money and power involved for them ever to go away.
Yes, the flood. I chose to ignore your last reference to that I honestly don't know what to say to you on the flood issue. I can only say that when I look at a scree slope, or watch a coastline erode and rivers as they change course, I cannot imagine why any one believes it took five minutes to happen. And if you think it was just a flood a few thousand years ago that created the white cliffs of Dover and the Grand Canyon; and wiped out the dinosaurs - in a matter of days......... Struggling for words here. Really don't know what to say.
You seem like a reasonably intelligent person but........
I mean, I have heard accounts of what some one considers to be a flood and turns out to have been a very heavy downpour.
The other thing to consider:
How could anyone possibly know what went on all over the world in the days that these things are "recorded"? A world wide flood? In the time where it was believed that the earth was flat and America and Japan had not even been discovered by Europeans.
The first circumnavigation of the earth was not until 1519 and it took 3 years to get around. But you believe there were people who knew what happened all over the earth long before that?
And if there was a flood. Noah and his family the only survivors. Where did all the other religions come from? Black people? Asian people? All the different ethnicities?
White people do not have black children. Simple as that. Unless you are suggesting that black people evolved from white people?Link to it Sir Dent
No need to google them.
Is it worth me showing you proof that there is more than 3 different races and it is physically impossible to generate 6 billion human beings from 6 in 6,000 years. Even discounting the bible's recommendations as to incest and marrying 12 year old girls off.
lol
One word - Australia............
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Who-Are- … 5323.shtml
So basically, what you are saying is Magellan was way behind the times lol
That is an interesting link.
It may be that this speaks more to another question though.......
Glad you liked it, Jenny and Mark! I think we would agree that the statistics seem odd. Of course I only let statistics have so much weight as the statisticians can almost create whatever result they want...but you brought up some questions I didn't think to ask.
Such as how can 92% believe in a god and yet a majority of religious people have doubts. I think this speaks to what I was talking about earlier- that most people who claim to be of a certain religion know nothing about that.
I'd go into a few thoughts about Obama here, but that's already been done HERE.
And I should state that at this point I am an undecided voter so don't take my criticism of Obama to mean I'm a Bush supporter, Obama hater, McCain supporter, ignorant right-wing, uneducated, hillbilly so on and so forth....haha
Maybe some of you say, "he took the words right outta my mouth!)
According to these resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpop … lation.htm
http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english … ocial/pgr/
http://www.npg.org/facts.htm
etc. etc. etc.
the world population doubles in approximately 100-200 years. It is very reasonable to believe that the current world population of 6.7+ billion people could have come from eight people reproducing about 4,500 years ago. Whip out a calculator and do some quick math.
So as a young-earth creationist speaking to an evolutionist I'll ask you this question:
Assuming humans have been around for a mere 50,000 years, why is the population so small?
Now one might respond by picking apart that question and saying humans have not reproduced sexually until such-and-such a date. Pick a date, then- it's what "scientists" do all the time! But I think we'd agree that the date set by evolutionists as the time in which humans stopped reproducing asexually and started producing sexually is further than a mere 4,500 years ago.
Not only that, but if we picked a date closer than 50,000 years ago we are *choosing* to ignore that asexual reproduction is a form of reproduction and as such would also increase the world population!
Anyway, let's have fun with figures. Pretending humans have been around since 50,000 and pretending the world population doubles every 150 years, the current world population should be about:
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000 give or take a few zeros...
!lol
You are persistent WC
I don't have time to do this right now, but I promise I will be back with a more detailed response. Thanks for linking to these, but you seem to have missed one crucial part.
"each doubling has taken roughly half as long as the previous doubling."
And one quick link before I go back to work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death
The black death killed an estimated 75 million people. Put a dent in the population growth I would think?
Related Discussions
- 77
The bible doesn't contradict itself
heavenbound5511posted 26 minutes ago in reply to thisThis 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 6:6The Bible records: "God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Gen....
- 8
What are the most obvious contradictions in the Bible?
What are the most obvious contradictions in the Bible?Give chapter and verse if you can. Tell me what you feel is the most blatant example of the Bible not agreeing with itself.
- 46
Discovering the contradictions of the Bible.
Logical thinking. Quick note about John In Revelations 22:10, Don't seal the prophetic words of this book, because the time is near. Let the unrightous go on in unrightousness; let the filthy go on being made filthy; let the rightous go on in righteousness; and the holy go on being made holy....
- 88
God as Collective Consciousness
Without delving into a lot of deep studying on the origins of words, I'll make a suggestion. Could it be that Jesus was redefining what God is when He called Himself the Son of Man?THink about it: He often referred to God as His Father, right? And then He refers to Himself as the Son of Man....
- 9
How does Muhammad contradict What Jesus taught 600 years before him?
How does Muhammad contradict What Jesus taught 600 years before him?It would be a wise idea to examine Muhammad's actions in light of Jesus' moral teachings. If Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, went against the established moral teachings of Christ that future generations under the new covenant must...
- 8
What are your beliefs about Jesus and do those beliefs correspond or contradict
What are your beliefs about Jesus and do those beliefs correspond or contradict what the Bible teachThe Jesus of the Bible is strikingly different than the Jesus of popular opinion. It is horribly unpopular to make such a claim; however, I find it of great importance that we think rightly about...