Bible Contradictions

[mwtech]

I used to be a Christian and only recently become an atheist after studying the Bible enough to notice the flaws. I believe the Bible in itself to be contradictory enough to prove itself wrong, and I enjoy discussing it with other people, especially Christians who disagree. I would really like to have a one on one debate with any Christian who thinks that they have a logical answer for the contradictions in the Bible. The one rule I have is that you can't make a claim without evidence, whether from the Bible or any other source. I am interested in logical conversation, and I don't believe that any Christian can refute the contradictions I have found without making up some rationalization that has no evidence or logical base.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 296 by micatala]

I was going to reply earlier to this but real life got in the way. Real life got in the way of me replying earlier.

I presume the details came from the women.

1 vs 7) It's always darkest before the dawn I guess. I just don't see a problem here. It was early morning, around the time when it goes from night to day.

2) The versions I just read said. 7 Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’�

What is this about feet?

[mwtech]

My kids hear me, especially when I get angry at them, but they go back doing the very same thing, I know they heard me, but their action proves otherwise, .. as if they didn't.
Or take it as I have explained previously.

Well, that explanation implies that they understood perfectly what Jesus said, and just chose to ignore it. But the verse obviously says, "hearing they do not hear, neither do they understand

The second interpretation cannot be read literally and not be contradictory. You have to read it in a poetic sense to make it sensible. If you make it non-literal, it basically means, they hear me, but they might as well not have heard a word I said because they didn't understand it at all. If this is the way we are to interpret it, then it also implies that the phrase before, "seeing they see not," means the same thing. They saw it, but it has no practical purpose because they don't know what it means.

This conversation with you is a reflection of what we are debating, you hear what you want to hear, only not what I'm saying.

Just because I think you are wrong does not mean I don't understand what you are saying, ignoring you, or pretending you said something else. I simply think you are incorrect. It is quite rude to imply otherwise.

The point being. Literally read, the verse is contradictory. Translaing the first 'hear' to 'understand' makes it awkward, grammaticly incorrect, and the word nor implies that it can't actually mean that. Reading it poetically is the only option, but that doesn't support any other time the word 'hear' is used if it isn't paired with the rest of the poetic phrasing.

The message Jesus gave to them then, can be interpreted to mean the same today, 'they hear, but do not hear'. We do it all the time, especially my teenage kids.

So you are saying they had a "selective hearing moment"? This again implies that they heard him speaking and understood what he said, but chose to ignore it. The passage says they understood. Acts 22:9 says "9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." You seem to imply that when it is said in Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man," they are hearing the voice, but just choosing to ignore what it says. Even though they were afraid and rendered speechless, they just let whatever the voice of Jesus Christ said go in one ear and out the other. I doubt it.

I'm not saying the passage is contradictory. It is clearly poetic and not literal. But it doesn't support the claim Wootah was making when he brought it up.

Let's say the husband is watching Football on TV, and the wife is telling him something very important, and after a few minutes she says; "Honey, are you even listening to what I'm saying?"

Husband replies: "Uhum, .. yea, sure hon, .. yep, got it, .. love you too!"

But what she said before that holding her suitcase in hand was: "Honey, I had it with you and your football, I'm leaving you!"

Hearing he did not hear, .. seeing (the suitcase in her hand) he did not see, .. obviously.

Believe me, I understand the point you are making. See any of the previous reasons why I think it is invalid.

Look, if I really wanted to, I could create so many contradictions from the Bible that it would make the most sharpest [sic] Biblical scholars cry. (just saying) You know why? Because I am at war against religious indoctrinations. they estimate about 38,000 different Christian Denominations, what do you think those are? That's right, each one a slight contradiction to what the Bible really means to get across to us.

God is plural
God is One
Gods name is this
No, .. Gods name is that
We are to worship on Saturday
No, .. we are to worship on Sunday
No, we can worship ANY day
you can eat meat but not pork
No, .. you can eat pork too
No, you are to eat vegetables only
You are to wear hat, and the woman is to cover her head
No, the woman's hair is her covering, and the man wearing a covering is a shame
You are allowed to divorce,
No, you can never divorce
You are never to divorce "except" (Jesus actually responded to me in a dream regarding this one)

This is no case of twisting the words around, looking for them to mean something malevolent or faith breaking. This is a very apparent contradiction at face value, which has been looked into by studying the context, the original language, and every othor occurence of the same words. It is still a contradiction, no twisting necessary. And while it is quite the claim that you could make the best of Biblical scholars cry with the way you attack their book, I don't really think it to be valid. Just your (rather high) opinion.

Ahh .. I have dealt with so many different 'claimed' contradictions over the years, but I haven't found even one that came from the Bible itself, or that wasn't added in there on purpose. Bible-contradictions are man-made, and they are mostly created to justify their man-made religious indoctrinations like the Trinity-doctrine, or it is to identify their particular denomination from all the others. Then they jump around the entire Bible trying to find at least a word to justify their religious claim.

Have you considered that maybe it is you hearing only what you want to hear? I looked all over the Bible trying to justify your claim and mine. I simply found my claim to be the valid one. However rare that may be, it happens. You are certainly welcome to hold your own opinion, but please realize that it is your opinion, and not everyone who disagrees with you is just plugging their ears and refusing to see reason.

[mwtech]

You see, here you go again 'seeing but not seeing, hearing but not hearing!'

And again, here we have you insisting that my disagreeing with you is simply an inability to comprehend what you are saying or refusing to see reason.

"Read my lips" (pardon the word choice) but as I keep saying, that Christianity is a religion like the tens of thousands of other religions. Religions believe in gods they have created, or one special god from the many gods as in theism. These are theists, and then there are those who are atheists.

A theist is a person who believes in a superhuman, supernatural creator god. You don't get to change the definition so you can exclude yourself from the group and escape criticism.

Now the real atheists are the ones who really did stop believing in all them religiously made up gods. I am one of those atheists who stopped believing in all them other gods, especially this three-god-in-one 'plural' Christian god who by all Biblical definition is the demonic spirit that Jesus cast out into the pigs, .. remember? His name was "Legion" for he said: "we are many", or plural, .. same thing.

An atheist is someone who is not a theist, ergo, someone who does not believe in any supernatural creator God. If you believe in one, you are a theist. Every theist would say that all the other kinds of theists believe in a man made God. Your opinion that your religion is the only correct one does not make you unique, and it doe not make you an atheist. Even if you think the God the other theists believe in is false, you are still a theist for believing in the "right" one. Also, i find it ironinc that your previous post said tht all contradictions are just a purposeful twisting of words, and yet here you say that the triinity is exactly the same as a demon whose name is legion because it means many, which could also mean more than one. Is Neopolitan ice cream of the devil too?

I know this is confusing since I still have "Christian" in my user group. This is because Christianity uses the Bible, which I also use. But what's the use using the Bible when they made up another god to worship, like the three in one plural god Legion as their God?? Mormons have another idea of God which they worship, Muslims (who also use the Bible) have yet another god from the many in theism.

I believe and understand in God, no name, no frame, not from theism meaning one from other gods as your chosen one like Allah, or multi-gods, or a plural god like the Christian three or more god Legion, .. but God, the one described in the Bible; "I Am Who I Am", .. One, period. And because of the evidence, I am sure. To know more about Him, and me, I read the Bible, only outside of the influence of religion.

It isn't confusing. There are many Christians who think all other "christians" are under the influence of man made doctrine and they are the only true followers of the Bible. I used to go to a church whose pride was that they did not preach the corrupted doctrine of man, but only the word of God directly from the Bible. While I appreciate your studying for yourself, I don't agree with you any more just because you disagree with other people I disagree with.

And your claim that if you just read the Bible you can tell there are no contradictions, is your opinion. There have been shown contradictions. The last one I brought up was not resolved to not be a contradiction. Both sides gave all the information regarding it and left readers to decide, but it sitll stands, and many disagree with you in thinking that it is non-contradicting. You can't say that it isn't until you have discussed every proposed contradiction, which I doubt will happen, so it remains personal opinion. Just like it is my opinion that there are contradictions, and the only way to erase them is to use confirmation bias.

OK, .. you still don't hear. I even said that there are about 38,000 versions (denominations) of Christians, and this is because they all have a slightly different interpretation of the Bible. EACH split, my friend, .. each split took years, and it was over minute differences of Biblical-interpretations. These differences 'contradicted' the others point of view, correct? Do you think I'm going to go through all those contradictions, all 38,000 of them again when each one took years for Bible scholars and Bible readers to debate over? The contradictions obviously remained, right?

Again, I hear you, and I understand. I just think you are wrong. Most denominational differences aren't about supposed contradictions and how to best solve them. IMO, different denominations form because someone wants to do something their own way and the church wont let them. Henry VIII didn't like that the RCC wouldn't let him divorce so he just made up his own Church of England so he could. He never said the Bible was contradictory to what the Catholic church believed, he just wanted to do his own thing.

Now think about this for a second, .. these people dedicated their lives studying the Bible, they prayed, some whipped themselves, some starved themselves, most memorized the entire Bible where they could recite it practically backwards, they studied and spoke both Greek and Hebrew and yet after 2,000 years their contradictions got worse not better. Now some claim that Jesus was a homosexual.

And this goes to show what? That there are no real contradictions in the Bible? Or that it is a vague, outdated text and can be intepreted many ways, often using confirmation bias to support a religious belief already held. And that just because you think you know what it says and that everyone else is wrong, you might not actually be right. That being said, I doubt many of the people calling Jesus a homosexual are those who memorized every word of the Bible. I think you are hyperbolizing and over-generalizing here. Not all who study the Bible find numerous and ridiculous interpretations that are all incorrect. If they did, it would apply to you as well.

So look, if only ONE contradiction split these denominations, and there are about 38,000 of them, and we know (I do anyways since I was part of many splits) that there was a lot more then one contradiction, we are talking about over a hundred thousand contradictions. I mean if this was so, the Bible should be named: "The Book of Contradictions" lol

Again, churches don't split becuase they find a "contradiction" and one explains it one way and another, another way. I'm not sure you understand what a contradiction is. A contradiction is when one statement says something that is directly the opposite of the other, and it is not possible for both to be true.

So instead of finding excuses to deny your Creator by trying to create more religious contradictions, how about try to find God first?

Again, you rudely claim that I am trying to deny the existence of God by making up contradictions, instead of disccovering them and failing to find a valid explanation through scholarly study. It is also bold of you to assume that I have never looked for God. In fact, I was a Christian until I was 18 years old, and spent much time arguing on the other side of the fence. It just so happens that the more study I did and more knowledge I gained, that I found belief in God was one I could no longer hold. And not just because of contradictions in one of the many Holy Texts to choose from.

But which one, .. right?
I already told you that theism deals with god, or gods. The one god is clearly one from the many because by definition, theism deals with all gods not just the God of the Bible.

Obviously there can be only One Creator God, just as there can only be one 'eternity' and one 'infinity'.

If you are imagining two infinities, then the first one you are imagining is NOT infinite, and the same with Eternity. There can not be two infinities or eternities side be side, because then you don't understand the meaning of eternal nor infinite.

You seem to think that atheists think all gods are real and all the beliefs are valid, so we just choose to ignore them all instead of picking an infinity we would like to live in. It is also not obvious to many polytheists that there can only be one creator. And it is obvious to some people that there can be less than one. Your unsupported claim is no more convincing than the unsupported claim of any Hindu apologist trying to get me to see how obvious it is that all his Gods are the only possible answer.

You see, instead of creating paradoxes, contradictions, religions, lets start with the basic concepts, which actually is already beyond quantum theory, yet even a babe like me in mathematics can understand. Why?
Because a true Believer is not stuck in the physical realm, or with the limitation of the brain. He uses his mind, and only in the renewing of the mind, can anyone see/understand God, or infinity, or eternity, or the existence of 'nothing'.

So my friends, what do you want to do, continue creating more contradictions, or find the true meaning of 'Creator'? Remember, just like Eternity, there can be ONLY ONE Creator, or you get a finite regress that can go on throughout eternity (You noticed I didn't say; 'infinite regress' because that would not make any sense. That would also be like saying; "nothing doesn't exist" lol)

Now you are simply ranting/preaching, and making more unsupported claims. Your God existing does create an infinite regress becuase you have to then explain how he exists without a creator. He isn't immune to the regress just because it is convinient for him to be. A finite regress is no problem at all, because it just stops when you get to the end of it, and there is the answer.

So how about it? What are you afraid of, .. to learn that you may have been wrong all your life? Just look at the reward, you'll know the answer to everything/God, and even see the existence of 'nothing', thrown in there for free!! If that is not treasure worthy enough to give up everything you have even your religion for, what IS? Only I'm not asking you for anything, only true intent, an open mind, and the understanding of the value of such beyond-the-human brain to comprehend prize.

But if you are satisfied with contradictions and paradoxes, hey, stick with Einstein's version of special Relativity, Maxwell's equations, and all the other nonsense that goes along with the Big-bang Evolution Theory, they create new contradictions and paradoxes daily. With that, you'll be stuck believing you are nothing but an ape for petesake.

Oh my, where to start? Do I refuse to believe on no evidence other than "arian says so" that God exists becuase I am afraid I may have been wrong all my life? Not at all. I agreed with you for a very long time. I was wrong all my life. I have been wrong about loads of things. On the contrary, I am adverse to being wrong in the future, so I will refrain from holding gnostic beliefs, the belief in God included.

And you say I should take the chance and believe in your God without proper evidence because as a reward I will know the answer to everything somehow and see the existence of the paradoxical, regardless of the fact that paradoxes cannot and don't exist and are just fun word games people make up or errors we find in our understanding of a concept. Well, since I have no religion, I can't say I have a problem with giving up my religion. But no, that doesn't seem too welcoming, mainly because there is still no evidence to believe any of that is true.

And you can continue to believe you have the answer to everything, and believe that a theory creates daily paradoxes for us atheists like the weekly crossword in the newspaper. How silly of us to believe that the big bang theory (the explanation provided for the mounds of evidence we have available to us), while subjective to change upon new information, might be correct. And ignore the fact that the classification system, which was invented by humans, does classify us us as being in the same family as other hominids, making us apes. It is a little difficult to say that a method of organization is objectively incorrect on the grounds of not fulfilling your idea of what it ought to be.

[Zzyzx]

.

OK, .. you still don't hear. I even said that there are about 38,000 versions (denominations) of Christians, and this is because they all have a slightly different interpretation of the Bible. EACH split, my friend, .. each split took years, and it was over minute differences of Biblical-interpretations. These differences 'contradicted' the others point of view, correct? Do you think I'm going to go through all those contradictions, all 38,000 of them again when each one took years for Bible scholars and Bible readers to debate over? The contradictions obviously remained, right?

Now think about this for a second, .. these people dedicated their lives studying the Bible, they prayed, some whipped themselves, some starved themselves, most memorized the entire Bible where they could recite it practically backwards, they studied and spoke both Greek and Hebrew and yet after 2,000 years their contradictions got worse not better. Now some claim that Jesus was a homosexual.

So look, if only ONE contradiction split these denominations, and there are about 38,000 of them, and we know (I do anyways since I was part of many splits) that there was a lot more then one contradiction, we are talking about over a hundred thousand contradictions. I mean if this was so, the Bible should be named: "The Book of Contradictions" lol

So instead of finding excuses to deny your Creator by trying to create more religious contradictions, how about try to find God first?

But which one, .. right?
I already told you that theism deals with god, or gods. The one god is clearly one from the many because by definition, theism deals with all gods not just the God of the Bible.

Obviously there can be only One Creator God, just as there can only be one 'eternity' and one 'infinity'.

If you are imagining two infinities, then the first one you are imagining is NOT infinite, and the same with Eternity. There can not be two infinities or eternities side be side, because then you don't understand the meaning of eternal nor infinite.

You see, instead of creating paradoxes, contradictions, religions, lets start with the basic concepts, which actually is already beyond quantum theory, yet even a babe like me in mathematics can understand. Why?
Because a true Believer is not stuck in the physical realm, or with the limitation of the brain. He uses his mind, and only in the renewing of the mind, can anyone see/understand God, or infinity, or eternity, or the existence of 'nothing'.

So my friends, what do you want to do, continue creating more contradictions, or find the true meaning of 'Creator'? Remember, just like Eternity, there can be ONLY ONE Creator, or you get a finite regress that can go on throughout eternity (You noticed I didn't say; 'infinite regress' because that would not make any sense. That would also be like saying; "nothing doesn't exist" lol)

So how about it? What are you afraid of, .. to learn that you may have been wrong all your life? Just look at the reward, you'll know the answer to everything/God, and even see the existence of 'nothing', thrown in there for free!! If that is not treasure worthy enough to give up everything you have even your religion for, what IS? Only I'm not asking you for anything, only true intent, an open mind, and the understanding of the value of such beyond-the-human brain to comprehend prize.

But if you are satisfied with contradictions and paradoxes, hey, stick with Einstein's version of special Relativity, Maxwell's equations, and all the other nonsense that goes along with the Big-bang Evolution Theory, they create new contradictions and paradoxes daily. With that, you'll be stuck believing you are nothing but an ape for petesake.

Moderator Warning


The intent in this Forum is to debate WITHOUT preaching and WITHOUT personal comments. You are entitled to an opinion but not to a claim of truth until and unless you can demonstrate truth with something other than claims and promotional literature.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[arian]

My kids hear me, especially when I get angry at them, but they go back doing the very same thing, I know they heard me, but their action proves otherwise, .. as if they didn't.
Or take it as I have explained previously.

Well, that explanation implies that they understood perfectly what Jesus said, and just chose to ignore it. But the verse obviously says,

"hearing they do not hear, neither do they understand

Yes exactly, because of the hardness of their heart. Or just being stubborn, you know; La, .. la, .. la, .. la, .. I don't heeear you!

The second interpretation cannot be read literally and not be contradictory. You have to read it in a poetic sense to make it sensible. If you make it non-literal, it basically means, they hear me, but they might as well not have heard a word I said because they didn't understand it at all. If this is the way we are to interpret it, then it also implies that the phrase before, "seeing they see not," means the same thing. They saw it, but it has no practical purpose because they don't know what it means.

This conversation with you is a reflection of what we are debating, you hear what you want to hear, only not what I'm saying.

Just because I think you are wrong does not mean I don't understand what you are saying, ignoring you, or pretending you said something else. I simply think you are incorrect. It is quite rude to imply otherwise.

I guess I should have stuck with; "hearing you do not hear, neither do you understand."
Jesus already warned me in a dream not to go beyond what He said. Also, .. what you keep ignoring is that Jesus said this to His Disciples, not to the ones who because of the hardness of their heart just refused to understand what He was saying as if they didn't even hear it.

Stop trying to make a contradiction out of something as simple as this. As I explained in many ways, that this stands, and is still a common thing today.

The point being. Literally read, the verse is contradictory. Translaing the first 'hear' to 'understand' makes it awkward, grammaticly incorrect, and the word nor implies that it can't actually mean that. Reading it poetically is the only option, but that doesn't support any other time the word 'hear' is used if it isn't paired with the rest of the poetic phrasing.

The message Jesus gave to them then, can be interpreted to mean the same today, 'they hear, but do not hear'. We do it all the time, especially my teenage kids.

So you are saying they had a "selective hearing moment"? This again implies that they heard him speaking and understood what he said, but chose to ignore it. The passage says they understood. Acts 22:9 says "9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." You seem to imply that when it is said in Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man," they are hearing the voice, but just choosing to ignore what it says. Even though they were afraid and rendered speechless, they just let whatever the voice of Jesus Christ said go in one ear and out the other. I doubt it.

Acts 22:9 “And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear (make out) the voice of Him who spoke to me.

Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man,"

This is why I hate cheap thin-walled motels, I hear the next room neighbors conversation all night, but I just can't make out what they are saying!? No contradiction, I can give you many more examples.

I'm not saying the passage is contradictory. It is clearly poetic and not literal. But it doesn't support the claim Wootah was making when he brought it up.

Let's say the husband is watching Football on TV, and the wife is telling him something very important, and after a few minutes she says; "Honey, are you even listening to what I'm saying?"

Husband replies: "Uhum, .. yea, sure hon, .. yep, got it, .. love you too!"

But what she said before that holding her suitcase in hand was: "Honey, I had it with you and your football, I'm leaving you!"

Hearing he did not hear, .. seeing (the suitcase in her hand) he did not see, .. obviously.

Believe me, I understand the point you are making. See any of the previous reasons why I think it is invalid.

As I answered and explained regarding your previous reasons, .. mine IS valid.

Look, if I really wanted to, I could create so many contradictions from the Bible that it would make the most sharpest [sic] Biblical scholars cry. (just saying) You know why? Because I am at war against religious indoctrinations. they estimate about 38,000 different Christian Denominations, what do you think those are? That's right, each one a slight contradiction to what the Bible really means to get across to us.

God is plural
God is One
Gods name is this
No, .. Gods name is that
We are to worship on Saturday
No, .. we are to worship on Sunday
No, we can worship ANY day
you can eat meat but not pork
No, .. you can eat pork too
No, you are to eat vegetables only
You are to wear hat, and the woman is to cover her head
No, the woman's hair is her covering, and the man wearing a covering is a shame
You are allowed to divorce,
No, you can never divorce
You are never to divorce "except" (Jesus actually responded to me in a dream regarding this one)

This is no case of twisting the words around, looking for them to mean something malevolent or faith breaking. This is a very apparent contradiction at face value, which has been looked into by studying the context, the original language, and every othor occurence of the same words. It is still a contradiction, no twisting necessary. And while it is quite the claim that you could make the best of Biblical scholars cry with the way you attack their book, I don't really think it to be valid. Just your (rather high) opinion.

I can make most Biblical scholars run too, not just cry because they realize they are stuck in a cult preaching their lies with seemingly no-way-out!? But not attacking their Bible (it's my Bible too) but their twisted interpretations of the Bible. Like their Trinity-doctrine with their plural-god. When I show them that the only plural being in the Bible is the demon Legion, they run.

This is not some high opinion, but the truth. And if you didn't have such high opinion of yourself, you would admit this.

Ahh .. I have dealt with so many different 'claimed' contradictions over the years, but I haven't found even one that came from the Bible itself, or that wasn't added in there on purpose. Bible-contradictions are man-made, and they are mostly created to justify their man-made religious indoctrinations like the Trinity-doctrine, or it is to identify their particular denomination from all the others. Then they jump around the entire Bible trying to find at least a word to justify their religious claim.

Have you considered that maybe it is you hearing only what you want to hear? I looked all over the Bible trying to justify your claim and mine. I simply found my claim to be the valid one. However rare that may be, it happens. You are certainly welcome to hold your own opinion, but please realize that it is your opinion, and not everyone who disagrees with you is just plugging their ears and refusing to see reason.

"but please realize that it is your opinion." Yes, I have heard that too many times when I prove them wrong from the Bible they claim to be scholars of (one gentleman spoke and spread the Word in seven languages too! I can only speak 3)

You want to know what else he said?
No? Fine then.

... ooh I'm gona tell you anyways (I bet you already figured that, right?) The gentleman said that; "In my 40 some years teaching, and spreading the Word of God throughout the world, speaking seven different languages, but I have never heard anyone interpret the Bible with the power/assuredness (or some word like that) that you do."

Unfortunately though, the most his religion would allow him to do was: "To agree to disagree!"
Which I explained to him was very un-Biblical. There is no agreeing with divinations, or 'disagreements'. I can only agree with revelations that prove to be absolute truth.

Hebrew 11:11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

[mwtech]

My kids hear me, especially when I get angry at them, but they go back doing the very same thing, I know they heard me, but their action proves otherwise, .. as if they didn't.
Or take it as I have explained previously.

Well, that explanation implies that they understood perfectly what Jesus said, and just chose to ignore it. But the verse obviously says,

"hearing they do not hear, neither do they understand[/quote

Yes exactly, because of the hardness of their heart. Or just being stubborn, you know; La, .. la, .. la, .. la, .. I don't heeear you!

So the men traveling with Saul were being stubborn when the terrifying Jesus/light started speaking? If they just brushed off whatever Jesus says, why were they standing there speechless.(Or did they all fall on the ground, Acts 26:14)? They were obviously afriad, not some teenagers ignoring their parents out of spite.

The second interpretation cannot be read literally and not be contradictory. You have to read it in a poetic sense to make it sensible. If you make it non-literal, it basically means, they hear me, but they might as well not have heard a word I said because they didn't understand it at all. If this is the way we are to interpret it, then it also implies that the phrase before, "seeing they see not," means the same thing. They saw it, but it has no practical purpose because they don't know what it means.

This conversation with you is a reflection of what we are debating, you hear what you want to hear, only not what I'm saying.

Just because I think you are wrong does not mean I don't understand what you are saying, ignoring you, or pretending you said something else. I simply think you are incorrect. It is quite rude to imply otherwise.

I guess I should have stuck with; "hearing you do not hear, neither do you understand."
Jesus already warned me in a dream not to go beyond what He said. Also, .. what you keep ignoring is that Jesus said this to His Disciples, not to the ones who because of the hardness of their heart just refused to understand what He was saying as if they didn't even hear it.

Stop trying to make a contradiction out of something as simple as this. As I explained in many ways, that this stands, and is still a common thing today.

Did you not read where I said this is only a contradition of you read it literally? I am not making a contradiction up. This verse was offered as proof that the contradction in acts could be explained with this verse, but it can't. I said before, this verse cannot be read literally without being contradictory.

The point being. Literally read, the verse is contradictory. Translaing the first 'hear' to 'understand' makes it awkward, grammaticly incorrect, and the word nor implies that it can't actually mean that. Reading it poetically is the only option, but that doesn't support any other time the word 'hear' is used if it isn't paired with the rest of the poetic phrasing.

The message Jesus gave to them then, can be interpreted to mean the same today, 'they hear, but do not hear'. We do it all the time, especially my teenage kids.

So you are saying they had a "selective hearing moment"? This again implies that they heard him speaking and understood what he said, but chose to ignore it. The passage says they understood. Acts 22:9 says "9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." You seem to imply that when it is said in Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man," they are hearing the voice, but just choosing to ignore what it says. Even though they were afraid and rendered speechless, they just let whatever the voice of Jesus Christ said go in one ear and out the other. I doubt it.

Acts 22:9 “And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear (make out) the voice of Him who spoke to me.

Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man,"

This is why I hate cheap thin-walled motels, I hear the next room neighbors conversation all night, but I just can't make out what they are saying!? No contradiction, I can give you many more examples.

You are just changing the words in the Bible to make it mean what you say it means. It doesn't say they couldn't quite make out what the voice said. It said they did not hear his voice. Give all the examples you want, but if they are examples of your re-writings of the bible to suit your idea of what it means, it proves nothing.

I'm not saying the passage is contradictory. It is clearly poetic and not literal. But it doesn't support the claim Wootah was making when he brought it up.

Let's say the husband is watching Football on TV, and the wife is telling him something very important, and after a few minutes she says; "Honey, are you even listening to what I'm saying?"

Husband replies: "Uhum, .. yea, sure hon, .. yep, got it, .. love you too!"

But what she said before that holding her suitcase in hand was: "Honey, I had it with you and your football, I'm leaving you!"

Hearing he did not hear, .. seeing (the suitcase in her hand) he did not see, .. obviously.

Believe me, I understand the point you are making. See any of the previous reasons why I think it is invalid.

As I answered and explained regarding your previous reasons, .. mine IS valid.

No you didn't explain anything. You changed the words to suit your argument and then claimed it to be valid. That doesn't make it valid. It isn't supported by the context or the original language. That is just what it has to mean for the Bible to make sense.

Look, if I really wanted to, I could create so many contradictions from the Bible that it would make the most sharpest [sic] Biblical scholars cry. (just saying) You know why? Because I am at war against religious indoctrinations. they estimate about 38,000 different Christian Denominations, what do you think those are? That's right, each one a slight contradiction to what the Bible really means to get across to us.

God is plural
God is One
Gods name is this
No, .. Gods name is that
We are to worship on Saturday
No, .. we are to worship on Sunday
No, we can worship ANY day
you can eat meat but not pork
No, .. you can eat pork too
No, you are to eat vegetables only
You are to wear hat, and the woman is to cover her head
No, the woman's hair is her covering, and the man wearing a covering is a shame
You are allowed to divorce,
No, you can never divorce
You are never to divorce "except" (Jesus actually responded to me in a dream regarding this one)

This is no case of twisting the words around, looking for them to mean something malevolent or faith breaking. This is a very apparent contradiction at face value, which has been looked into by studying the context, the original language, and every othor occurence of the same words. It is still a contradiction, no twisting necessary. And while it is quite the claim that you could make the best of Biblical scholars cry with the way you attack their book, I don't really think it to be valid. Just your (rather high) opinion.

I can make most Biblical scholars run too, not just cry because they realize they are stuck in a cult preaching their lies with seemingly no-way-out!? But not attacking their Bible (it's my Bible too) but their twisted interpretations of the Bible. Like their Trinity-doctrine with their plural-god. When I show them that the only plural being in the Bible is the demon Legion, they run.

This is not some high opinion, but the truth. And if you didn't have such high opinion of yourself, you would admit this.

I don't think not believing that you have the ability to make the most esteemed Biblical scholars and apologists run crying just because you listed a bunch of things that have been easily explained before and because you said so, means that I have a high opinion of myself, and it certainly doesn't mean that if I were a little meeker, I would admit it to be true. I don't claim things are true just because people say they are.

Ahh .. I have dealt with so many different 'claimed' contradictions over the years, but I haven't found even one that came from the Bible itself, or that wasn't added in there on purpose. Bible-contradictions are man-made, and they are mostly created to justify their man-made religious indoctrinations like the Trinity-doctrine, or it is to identify their particular denomination from all the others. Then they jump around the entire Bible trying to find at least a word to justify their religious claim.

Have you considered that maybe it is you hearing only what you want to hear? I looked all over the Bible trying to justify your claim and mine. I simply found my claim to be the valid one. However rare that may be, it happens. You are certainly welcome to hold your own opinion, but please realize that it is your opinion, and not everyone who disagrees with you is just plugging their ears and refusing to see reason.

"but please realize that it is your opinion." Yes, I have heard that too many times when I prove them wrong from the Bible they claim to be scholars of (one gentleman spoke and spread the Word in seven languages too! I can only speak 3)

You want to know what else he said?
No? Fine then.

... ooh I'm gona tell you anyways (I bet you already figured that, right?)

Really...

The gentleman said that; "In my 40 some years teaching, and spreading the Word of God throughout the world, speaking seven different languages, but I have never heard anyone interpret the Bible with the power/assuredness (or some word like that) that you do."

Unfortunately though, the most his religion would allow him to do was: "To agree to disagree!"
Which I explained to him was very un-Biblical. There is no agreeing with divinations, or 'disagreements'. I can only agree with revelations that prove to be absolute truth.

Is the fact that you have won a debate once proof that you are right and can beat everyone in debates? Because that's great.. I've one a debate once too, so that means I'm right, doesn't it?

Hebrew 11:11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The relevance of the quote?

[arian]

You see, here you go again 'seeing but not seeing, hearing but not hearing!'

And again, here we have you insisting that my disagreeing with you is simply an inability to comprehend what you are saying or refusing to see reason.

That's exactly why I used it. It is NOT meant to offend you, nor is this a personal attack, you understood what I meant here, why not the one written in the Bible?

"Read my lips" (pardon the word choice) but as I keep saying, that Christianity is a religion like the tens of thousands of other religions. Religions believe in gods they have created, or one special god from the many gods as in theism. These are theists, and then there are those who are atheists.

A theist is a person who believes in a superhuman, supernatural creator god. You don't get to change the definition so you can exclude yourself from the group and escape criticism.

So I kindly ask starting with you, every Moderator, and every reader reading this post; "Is This Fair"? Is this justice to force me to accept the "worlds" definition of god/gods, the world who can only understand 'gods' defined by religion, or one from the religiously created gods and NOT the God of the Bible "I Am", .. the difference which I extensively proven over and over again?

I have asked this so many times before; "Prove to me that my God, the God revealed in the Bible is a theistic divine being who lives in the supernatural realm"?

If you can't, then don't force me to accept YOUR religiously defined version of MY God of the Bible. If you want to talk about your religion, and your god or gods, fine, just don't try to define MY God of the Bible with your religion, .. please. It's only fare.

Now I don't care if you throw a fit and report me, or if I get kicked off this forum, I will never, and I repeat; never accept the term; superhuman, or supernatural creator god referring to the God of the Bible. Or that the Bible God, my God is one from or amongst the theistic gods you only understand.

I have explained this clearly, exhaustively, by pointing out dictionary definitions of god/gods and how it contradicts the definition of God taught in the Bible. I have explained the difference between god or gods created by religions through divinations, and the obvious difference of Spirit God of the Bible in logical, rational and reasonable ways, and JUST AS the subject on 'nothing', the world says: "Nothing is not nothing anymore, so arian, you better bow down to the worlds definition of nothing because we don't believe in absolutes, or an 'absolute nothing'. Besides, what is truth arian?
And this goes with your Bible God also, the world defines 'it' as a superhuman deity who lives on the clouds of the supernatural, and that is what you will accept!"

Then I have news for you, I am never bowing down to your religion and your religious views, definitions, fairytale stories you call science, demonic possession that you now call 'mental illness', or justify all human extermination by the term 'sustainable development' .. never.

So either you allow me to debate and be given the freedom to correct claims I see in error, or do what you believe is right in the worlds sight. But I will never bow down to divinations from no divine creature. I will gladly listen to your 'divine insights', but don't expect me to remain silent. I will comment on them, and by now that should be obvious.

I am honored to be on this Forum, and I truly respect and honor EVERY ONE OF YOU here. I KNOW, .. I KNOW that I seem to come on strong, but hey, .. look at the odds I'm against. By all means prove me wrong! I will gladly admit I was wrong, it is what keeps me going on to new heights.

So if you want to debate, debate, just don't try to tie me up with religious faulty definitions.

Thanks.

[Zzyzx]

.

I have asked this so many times before; "Prove to me that my God, the God revealed in the Bible is a theistic divine being who lives in the supernatural realm"?

Snip

So if you want to debate, debate, just don't try to tie me up with religious faulty definitions.

First: Do you agree or disagree with the OP theme that the bible contains numerous contradictions?

Second: If you wish to discuss your concept of God as separate from the God typically envisioned by Christians, that is worthy of a separate thread -- which could / should start with a description of the God you visualize.

[arian]

.

I have asked this so many times before; "Prove to me that my God, the God revealed in the Bible is a theistic divine being who lives in the supernatural realm"?

Snip

So if you want to debate, debate, just don't try to tie me up with religious faulty definitions.

First: Do you agree or disagree with the OP theme that the bible contains numerous contradictions?

No, .. not without the Catholic Trinitarian additions which obviously don't belong there.

Second: If you wish to discuss your concept of God as separate from the God typically envisioned by Christians, that is worthy of a separate thread -- which could / should start with a description of the God you visualize.

But this is one of the main reason people see contradictions in the Bible, because they search the Bible already with a religiously indoctrinated understanding. I can start a new thread, and clear up this misconception (and I did already once before), but seems like it never carries over to the other topics.

It remains; "You still are a theist who believes in a Deity who resides in the supernatural realm. What makes your God any better than the other gods?" So what should I do then? Redirect them to the thread explaining who Bible God is?

I guess that might work, .. OK, I will do that.

Thanks.

[dianaiad]

[quote="arian"]


...I can make most Biblical scholars run too, not just cry because they realize they are stuck in a cult preaching their lies with seemingly no-way-out!? But not attacking their Bible (it's my Bible too) but their twisted interpretations of the Bible. Like their Trinity-doctrine with their plural-god. When I show them that the only plural being in the Bible is the demon Legion, they run.

This is not some high opinion, but the truth. And if you didn't have such high opinion of yourself, you would admit this....



Moderator Warning


While boasting about your prowess in debate may be annoying and unproductive, it doesn't break any rules. Directly insulting another poster and making personal remarks does. Don't do that.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.