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.

[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!

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.

I'm responding to one claim, and then you switch to a completely different incident. This means you understand perfectly what that verse says and means, but you want to keep it a contradiction. Fine, for you it is a contradiction, so please join the millions who see the Bible as contradicting, instead of the treasure in knowledge it possesses.

Sure God could have made a CD with detailed information, actual on the spot videos from different angles where you could get a 3-D view of everything and zoom in on any event at any given point, but then we would miss the best part of being created in Gods Image.

I see the Bible as a field I am passing by. I look, it's just another field not much different then the others. But every time I pass by this field I notice something interesting. Until one day as I pass by, I see something sparkling from under one of it's stones. I run there, get on my knees and start digging. What do I find? Treasure after precious treasure, .. so I give up everything I got, (my religion, family) and buy the field.

But before I get another Warning for preaching, I just want to note that this also is relevant to our debate, because there are so many different purposes/intents that people can have when tackling the Bible. Mvtech's is just one of those purposes/intents, to find contradictions, and just stand there and keep pointing at it. But maybe by what I said, he may start digging for more precious things than 'contradictions'. Thanks.

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.

Have you ever done puzzles? The piece you are holding is the exact shade of blue as the surrounding of the empty spot you are trying to put it in, but the shape just don't fit.
So what do you do? Take the box back to the store and tell them that there is a piece that is contradicting to the puzzle?

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.

Remember my 'field' example? So don't just stand there pointing; "Look, contradiction, I found a contradiction!" Instead, keep on digging because I tell you there is treasure to be found thar in that field. Or the puzzle example, take the piece; "hear but don't hear" and see if you don't have it upside down or something? I'm telling you it fits.

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.

"They hear, but they don't hear", .. makes sense to me, especially once you read a little more of who Jesus was referring to? Then I gave you examples of the first thing that would pop into my head when reading it. Then I gave you more examples, but of course you point out that these 'examples' of mine that clarifies what it may be saying are not in the Bible! LOL

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.

But the 'possibility' that it's true is there, won't you say?

Did you mean what you just said? Is it true? The only truth I can claim in what you just said was; that you said it. The rest I have to dig into my memory a little deeper, or read some of your previous posts.

You too could start by; "Where is this guy arian coming from? What angle is he using, what's his purpose, what does he want, who is he?" Yea, but that would be too much work, right? Too much digging so you leave my words just pass by you like rustling sounds of the wind. "Hearing they hear but don't hear".

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?

I honestly wish you were right, it would give me more reasons to start digging again.
Unfortunately that's not the case here. As I told you, that if the 38,000 different Christian denominations were the result of just ONE Bible contradiction each, .. that would be 38,000 Bible contradictions. But I know from experience that there are a lot more Biblical disagreements between denominations than that. If there were only TWO, this would mean there are at lest 76,000 contradictions in the Bible.

So what does this mean?

It means either that Bible scholars, Ministers dedicated to studying the Bible, Diviners with degrees in Divinating from the schools of Divinity, and Theology graduates from the Trinity College find the Bible so contradicting that they can't help but start tens of thousands of different churches based on these different contradictions, hoping that theirs is the right one,

Or

"hearing they don't hear, and seeing they just don't see?"

I for one am sticking with what my Lord Jesus said above.

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

The relevance of the quote?

To show you what my 'faith' is built on; 'evidence that has substance', not what the worlds faith is built on; "believing without evidence", .. or; faith built on and by their individual religious upbringing as in "blind faith".

[mwtech]

I'm responding to one claim, and then you switch to a completely different incident. This means you understand perfectly what that verse says and means, but you want to keep it a contradiction. Fine, for you it is a contradiction, so please join the millions who see the Bible as contradicting, instead of the treasure in knowledge it possesses.

Umm, no. If you will go back to pages 29 and 390 you will see that the issue being discussed is the contradiction in Acts. Wootah gave Matthew 13:13 as support that the words in Acts could mean understand instead of hear. I explained why it couldn't. Then you jumped in to try and explain why it could. This verse was only being discussed in the context of Acts. And Again, you are claiming that I don't actually believe what I'm saying and I'm just trying to make something up. Please, stop making these personal claims.

Have you ever done puzzles? The piece you are holding is the exact shade of blue as the surrounding of the empty spot you are trying to put it in, but the shape just don't fit.
So what do you do? Take the box back to the store and tell them that there is a piece that is contradicting to the puzzle?

This is a false analogy. It makes the Bible out to be a perfect picture that you just have to put together. As if if there were a piece that seemed to not fit, then it MUST be an error on the part of the one solving the puzzle. It couldn't possible be that the "puzzle" never actually fit together and the weird pieces are a manufacturing error.

Remember my 'field' example? So don't just stand there pointing; "Look, contradiction, I found a contradiction!" Instead, keep on digging because I tell you there is treasure to be found thar in that field. Or the puzzle example, take the piece; "hear but don't hear" and see if you don't have it upside down or something? I'm telling you it fits.

And do you remember my response to the last time you accused me of refusing to look for the answer. I have told you before, and it is demonstrated in my posts on this thread, I have put in a lot of time and study into this one contradiction. I have read the original language, I have looked up ever single occurance of the words in all three of the verses and compared the way they are used in all the cases. Just because I didn't find any treasure doesn't mean I haven't been digging. It might just mean the treasure isn't really there.

"They hear, but they don't hear", .. makes sense to me, especially once you read a little more of who Jesus was referring to? Then I gave you examples of the first thing that would pop into my head when reading it. Then I gave you more examples, but of course you point out that these 'examples' of mine that clarifies what it may be saying are not in the Bible! LOL

I'm concerned that you find this laughable. Your examples were not supportive of what the Bible actually says. They are supportive of what you say it means, which is contrary to what I think it means. Unless you can give reasons why you are right, examples just serve to clarify what you are saying it means. There is no confusion about what you believe it to mean. I don't think that is what it means. This is what makes your examples irrelevant.

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.

But the 'possibility' that it's true is there, won't you say?

There is a possibility that anything is true. That hold no bearing on the actual truth of a claim. The probability is an entirely different matter.

Did you mean what you just said? Is it true? The only truth I can claim in what you just said was; that you said it. The rest I have to dig into my memory a little deeper, or read some of your previous posts.

You too could start by; "Where is this guy arian coming from? What angle is he using, what's his purpose, what does he want, who is he?" Yea, but that would be too much work, right? Too much digging so you leave my words just pass by you like rustling sounds of the wind. "Hearing they hear but don't hear".

You really are attached to the idea that because I disagree with you I am just to lazy to find the truth and I'm really just ignoring you. But saying it doesn't make it true, it is just rude and incorrect.

I honestly wish you were right, it would give me more reasons to start digging again.
Unfortunately that's not the case here. As I told you, that if the 38,000 different Christian denominations were the result of just ONE Bible contradiction each, .. that would be 38,000 Bible contradictions. But I know from experience that there are a lot more Biblical disagreements between denominations than that. If there were only TWO, this would mean there are at lest 76,000 contradictions in the Bible.

So what does this mean?

It means either that Bible scholars, Ministers dedicated to studying the Bible, Diviners with degrees in Divinating from the schools of Divinity, and Theology graduates from the Trinity College find the Bible so contradicting that they can't help but start tens of thousands of different churches based on these different contradictions, hoping that theirs is the right one,

Or

"hearing they don't hear, and seeing they just don't see?"

I for one am sticking with what my Lord Jesus said above.

You seem to have missed the point I was making about your boasting that you out-debated one man. It doesn't help to support any of the claims you are making, and your winning that debate means nothing other than that it happened. If doesn't mean you are right in all debates. And it shouldn't be offered as a reason to believe you are correct. You also ignored where I said that denominational differences are rarely the results of contradictions, and how to interpret them.

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

The relevance of the quote?

To show you what my 'faith' is built on; 'evidence that has substance', not what the worlds faith is built on; "believing without evidence", .. or; faith built on and by their individual religious upbringing as in "blind faith".

Okay, but that verse doesn't say that your evidence has substance. It says that faith is the substance of the things you hope to be true. That isn't the same thing at all. And faith is the evidence of theings not seen. Faith is not actual evidence. If your evidence is just faith, you have no evidence. So I can't say this verse helps your case much.

[otseng]

But before I get another Warning for preaching, I just want to note that this also is relevant to our debate, because there are so many different purposes/intents that people can have when tackling the Bible. Mvtech's is just one of those purposes/intents, to find contradictions, and just stand there and keep pointing at it. But maybe by what I said, he may start digging for more precious things than 'contradictions'. Thanks.

Moderator Comment

That's good that you're trying to avoid preaching, but you also need to avoid making any comments about another poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[arian]

I'm responding to one claim, and then you switch to a completely different incident. This means you understand perfectly what that verse says and means, but you want to keep it a contradiction. Fine, for you it is a contradiction, so please join the millions who see the Bible as contradicting, instead of the treasure in knowledge it possesses.

Umm, no. If you will go back to pages 29 and 390 you will see that the issue being discussed is the contradiction in Acts. Wootah gave Matthew 13:13 as support that the words in Acts could mean understand instead of hear. I explained why it couldn't. Then you jumped in to try and explain why it could. This verse was only being discussed in the context of Acts.

And Again, you are claiming that I don't actually believe what I'm saying and I'm just trying to make something up. Please, stop making these personal claims.

I use the entire Bible as one mental picture, not just stick with Acts, just I explained a picture made into a puzzle.
Why?
Because the piece of the puzzle you are holding that seems to be the same color as the colors in Acts, may belong in Revelations somewhere. You will know because it will fit.

I also explained how many denominational contradictions there are in Christianity, all using the same (or very similar) Bible right? I just wanted to point out that you fall into the same pattern, and many times debating Christians I just point a few verses down, let them read it and the contradiction is gone. I did not mean it as a personal attack, and I am truly sorry if it seemed I did. I will be more careful how I phrase my comments next time. I get into trying to solve the problem so much, I tend to sound uncivil like. Sorry.

Have you ever done puzzles? The piece you are holding is the exact shade of blue as the surrounding of the empty spot you are trying to put it in, but the shape just don't fit.
So what do you do? Take the box back to the store and tell them that there is a piece that is contradicting to the puzzle?

This is a false analogy. It makes the Bible out to be a perfect picture that you just have to put together. As if if there were a piece that seemed to not fit, then it MUST be an error on the part of the one solving the puzzle. It couldn't possible be that the "puzzle" never actually fit together and the weird pieces are a manufacturing error.

So far as I understand, the Bible IS a 'perfect picture'. Now as I pointed out, there are added puzzle pieces (verses) in the box (Bible) and the Catholic church had to really twist these pieces to make them fit. After 1,700 years people got used to seeing it jammed in there like that, and simply accepted it. Not only does the pieces NOT fit, but if you look closer, you can see it has been painted over many time to try to make it look like it belongs there.

Remember my 'field' example? So don't just stand there pointing; "Look, contradiction, I found a contradiction!" Instead, keep on digging because I tell you there is treasure to be found thar in that field. Or the puzzle example, take the piece; "hear but don't hear" and see if you don't have it upside down or something? I'm telling you it fits.

And do you remember my response to the last time you accused me of refusing to look for the answer. I have told you before, and it is demonstrated in my posts on this thread, I have put in a lot of time and study into this one contradiction. I have read the original language, I have looked up ever single occurance of the words in all three of the verses and compared the way they are used in all the cases. Just because I didn't find any treasure doesn't mean I haven't been digging. It might just mean the treasure isn't really there.

OR, .. maybe it's not the treasure you were expecting?
Tell me, do you believe there is unimaginable riches to be found in the Bible?
If yes, .. keep digging.
If no, .. then why are you putting so much time in digging so hard?

The Jews at the time didn't find Jesus as a treasure, they even took offense to what he was teaching them. They did not see Him as the promised 'missing puzzle' that will complete their picture; the answer to the meaning of life; who are we, why are we here, and where are we going? Instead, they screamed: "Crucify Him!"

"They hear, but they don't hear", .. makes sense to me, especially once you read a little more of who Jesus was referring to? Then I gave you examples of the first thing that would pop into my head when reading it. Then I gave you more examples, but of course you point out that these 'examples' of mine that clarifies what it may be saying are not in the Bible! LOL

I'm concerned that you find this laughable. Your examples were not supportive of what the Bible actually says. They are supportive of what you say it means, which is contrary to what I think it means. Unless you can give reasons why you are right, examples just serve to clarify what you are saying it means. There is no confusion about what you believe it to mean. I don't think that is what it means. This is what makes your examples irrelevant.

Why, don't you find 38,000 versions of Christian Denominations laughable? I think it's hysterical.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus

I have given you many reasons why I believe I am right, and even gave many examples. As I said, what the Jews understood to mean "The King of the Jews who shall rule the earth with them" and what Jesus meant was very different, even today they find Jesus message irrelevant. So the possibility to deny truth is open to us. You found a contradiction, and you have the free will to hold on to that it's a contradiction no matter what I say. It didn't matter what Jesus said to the Jews, but does that mean what He said is really irrelevant?

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.

But the 'possibility' that it's true is there, won't you say?

There is a possibility that anything is true. That hold no bearing on the actual truth of a claim. The probability is an entirely different matter.

If there is a possibility that anything is true, then what do you use, or how do you determine what is 'actual truth'? Is there a foolproof way to determine if a thing is true or not that everyone could use?

Did you mean what you just said? Is it true? The only truth I can claim in what you just said was; that you said it. The rest I have to dig into my memory a little deeper, or read some of your previous posts.

You too could start by; "Where is this guy arian coming from? What angle is he using, what's his purpose, what does he want, who is he?" Yea, but that would be too much work, right? Too much digging so you leave my words just pass by you like rustling sounds of the wind. "Hearing they hear but don't hear".

You really are attached to the idea that because I disagree with you I am just to lazy to find the truth and I'm really just ignoring you. But saying it doesn't make it true, it is just rude and incorrect.

Oh man, again I am truly sorry. I see what you mean my friend. I meant it in a general sense. I know people who dig in the Bible for contradictions because they were unhappy with their Christian faith, so now they take it out on the Bible trying to find contradictions. Some dig into it's history and point out how evil God is by what evil He sometimes brings upon humanity, or pointing to all the evil "God allows" to happen to innocent people, especially children. They say: "If God is supposed to be all Good, then why does he do this, or why does he allow that to happen?" They keep digging just for those verses ignoring the rest of the Bible that explains why? Another word; Just because something is not explained in the Old Testament, doesn't mean Jesus didn't explain it in the New.

I honestly don't want you to agree with me just to agree with me. I feel that if everyone truly studied the Bible with the same intent, they wouldn't see all those things they point out, as contradictions.

So may I ask; when you 'dig' in the Bible, .. what exactly are you digging for?

I honestly wish you were right, it would give me more reasons to start digging again.
Unfortunately that's not the case here. As I told you, that if the 38,000 different Christian denominations were the result of just ONE Bible contradiction each, .. that would be 38,000 Bible contradictions. But I know from experience that there are a lot more Biblical disagreements between denominations than that. If there were only TWO, this would mean there are at lest 76,000 contradictions in the Bible.

So what does this mean?

It means either that Bible scholars, Ministers dedicated to studying the Bible, Diviners with degrees in Divinating from the schools of Divinity, and Theology graduates from the Trinity College find the Bible so contradicting that they can't help but start tens of thousands of different churches based on these different contradictions, hoping that theirs is the right one,

Or

"hearing they don't hear, and seeing they just don't see?"

I for one am sticking with what my Lord Jesus said above.

You seem to have missed the point I was making about your boasting that you out-debated one man. It doesn't help to support any of the claims you are making, and your winning that debate means nothing other than that it happened. If doesn't mean you are right in all debates. And it shouldn't be offered as a reason to believe you are correct.

Please show me where I boasted that I 'out debated' ONE man, and that I now want you to believe me because of that?

I pointed out that I have debated people with credentials, with doctorates in theology, 30 plus years in Ministry, who taught the Bible in seven different languages, yet none could justify to me their denominational differences. So I ask again:

So what does this mean?
It means either that Bible scholars, Ministers dedicated to studying the Bible, Diviners with degrees in Divinating from the schools of Divinity, and Theology graduates from the Trinity College find the Bible so contradicting that they can't help but start tens of thousands of different churches based on these different contradictions, hoping that theirs is the right one,
Or
"hearing they don't hear, and seeing they just don't see?"

It's NOT about ONE debate, it's about reality, the fact that there are tens of thousands of different denominations using the book called the 'Bible'.

You also ignored where I said that denominational differences are rarely the results of contradictions, and how to interpret them.

Please show me ONE denominational differences that does not contradict the teachings of the Bible?

If one justifies that the Sabbath is the only true day to worship, and the rest are NOT getting into Heaven because of it, THAT there is a Bible contradiction. If another claims that homosexual relationship is justifiable, that too is a Biblical contradiction. If another claims that God has a particular name, and if you call upon God by another name He will not acknowledge you, that too is a Biblical contradiction. If one denomination says that you cannot have a mustache to be a member of their Bible based church, that too is a Biblical contradiction. So please show me one denomination that does not contradict the teachings of the Bible?

So again, if anyone sees a Bible contradiction, it is very likely that it is because it's an extra puzzle piece that don't belong in the box, or someone is trying to put the piece in the wrong slot, or forced the piece in the wrong slot and tries to justify it.

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

The relevance of the quote?

To show you what my 'faith' is built on; 'evidence that has substance', not what the worlds faith is built on; "believing without evidence", .. or; faith built on and by their individual religious upbringing as in "blind faith".

Okay, but that verse doesn't say that your evidence has substance. It says that faith is the substance of the things you hope to be true. That isn't the same thing at all. And faith is the evidence of theings not seen. Faith is not actual evidence. If your evidence is just faith, you have no evidence. So I can't say this verse helps your case much.

It takes years to build up faith, where faith becomes both the substance and the evidence of things we haven't even seen yet. Here is one example of faith:

If you stand on the train track, and you see the train coming right at you. Now you never experienced this before, so what would you do?
Jump, .. right?
Why?
Because you have built up enough faith to believe that if you keep standing there the train will run you over, right?

Now if someone doesn't yet have their faith built up, like maybe a toddler, he could just crawl towards the train babbling: "OOOh choo choo train!"

Back to the contradiction, I don't see any. I consider all these also;

Matthew 13:13
Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Mark 4:12
so that ‘Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.’�

Luke 8:10
And He said, “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that ‘Seeing they may not see, And hearing they may not understand.’

[Zzyzx]

.

Here is one example of faith:

This is an outstanding example of misapplication of the term "faith."

If you stand on the train track, and you see the train coming right at you. Now you never experienced this before, so what would you do?
Jump, .. right?
Why?
Because you have built up enough faith to believe that if you keep standing there the train will run you over, right?

Humans have some ability to recognize danger even in situations that they have not previously experienced. That ability does not require "faith"

Now if someone doesn't yet have their faith built up, like maybe a toddler, he could just crawl towards the train babbling: "OOOh choo choo train!"

It would be more accurate to say that the toddler lacked knowledge, judgment and experience – instead of injecting "faith" to "understand" or "explain" the situation when "faith" has nothing to do with it.

Religionists are often enamored of the term "faith", perhaps because it is a "sacred" word for them – perhaps because many use "faith" themselves in place of knowledge, judgment and experience to make decisions.

"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." In other words, if one has limited tools (physical or mental / literal or figurative) they tend to use or overuse what they have readily available.

[mwtech]

I use the entire Bible as one mental picture, not just stick with Acts, just I explained a picture made into a puzzle.
Why?
Because the piece of the puzzle you are holding that seems to be the same color as the colors in Acts, may belong in Revelations somewhere. You will know because it will fit.

When the topic of discussion is a contradiction in Acts, I expect any rebuttal given to be a rubuttal to my proposed contradiction in Acts. It doesn't move the conversation forward to discuss something else that no one else is talking about. The topic was the contradiction in Acts.

I also explained how many denominational contradictions there are in Christianity, all using the same (or very similar) Bible right? I just wanted to point out that you fall into the same pattern, and many times debating Christians I just point a few verses down, let them read it and the contradiction is gone. I did not mean it as a personal attack, and I am truly sorry if it seemed I did. I will be more careful how I phrase my comments next time. I get into trying to solve the problem so much, I tend to sound uncivil like. Sorry.

You fall into the same pattern as well. I am well aware of the many different interpretations of the Bible. This is one of the reason I think it is an unreliable source of information, and should not be considered from a god. The fact that you think you have the correct interpretation of the bible doesn't mean you are not one of the 38,000 different viewpoints. It makes you number 38,001.

So far as I understand, the Bible IS a 'perfect picture'. Now as I pointed out, there are added puzzle pieces (verses) in the box (Bible) and the Catholic church had to really twist these pieces to make them fit. After 1,700 years people got used to seeing it jammed in there like that, and simply accepted it. Not only does the pieces NOT fit, but if you look closer, you can see it has been painted over many time to try to make it look like it belongs there.

I do not see the Bible as a perfect picture, and that has nothing to do with the catholic or any other church. The Bible, as it stands, is full of contradictions and absurdities. That is my opinion. If yours is that the Bible is perfect, we have differing opinions. But your opinion is not an argument against a contradiction in the Bible.

OR, .. maybe it's not the treasure you were expecting?
Tell me, do you believe there is unimaginable riches to be found in the Bible?
If yes, .. keep digging.
If no, .. then why are you putting so much time in digging so hard?

No. This question is asked a lot. If I don't believe in the Bible, why spend so much time talking about it. Well, it's because so many people let their opinion that the Bible is the perfect truth serve as justification for imposing their religion on other people. The fact that my parents and in laws and all of my relatives and all of my friends think the Bible is a perfect truth means that I can't let them know I don't believe it without it drastically affecting their opinon of me and them seeing me as immoral and idiotic. Some would go so far as to say I'm under the influence of Satan, or that I just "want to sin" so I pretend I don't believe it. People use their belief that the Bible is true to justify sexism, prejudice against LGBT individuals, and any other type of discrimination they want to do. Laws are influenced by the belief that the Bible is true. I am influenced by the belief that the Bible is true. And I don't want to be. My options are to lie down and take it, or try and explain why I think it isn't true. So no, I don't think there is any hidden treasure in the Bible. I see it as of equal value to any other myth.

The Jews at the time didn't find Jesus as a treasure, they even took offense to what he was teaching them. They did not see Him as the promised 'missing puzzle' that will complete their picture; the answer to the meaning of life; who are we, why are we here, and where are we going? Instead, they screamed: "Crucify Him!"

This point doesn't hold much weight with someone who isn't even convinced Jesus exists. And while I woudn't condone crucifying him if he did, I also don't think he is the answer to the meaning of life.

Why, don't you find 38,000 versions of Christian Denominations laughable? I think it's hysterical.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus

No I don't find it funny. I find it sad. Because each different view thinks it is the right one, and that everyone else is wrong. And so they become rivals. And they all bend over backwards trying to figure out exactly what their book means. I think it is sad to expend so much time and energy quibbling over the details of a book I see to be fictional. It simply doesn't matter. But because so many people think it matters, people like me have to waste our times learning about the Bible so we have a leg to stand on when the people we encounter try to convince us that their view is more special than the other 37,999.

I have given you many reasons why I believe I am right, and even gave many examples. As I said, what the Jews understood to mean "The King of the Jews who shall rule the earth with them" and what Jesus meant was very different, even today they find Jesus message irrelevant. So the possibility to deny truth is open to us. You found a contradiction, and you have the free will to hold on to that it's a contradiction no matter what I say. It didn't matter what Jesus said to the Jews, but does that mean what He said is really irrelevant?

This has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. And again, I don't even believe Jesus eas a real person, or that the stories in the Bible were true. So what he said is not only irrelevant. I don't think it ever happened. I don't know what this has to do with the contradiction in acts. You are just trying to appeal to Jesus's authority and compare me to the Jews that didn't listen to him. If you want to argue against the contradiction in Acts, please do so with actual evidence and relevant arguments.

If there is a possibility that anything is true, then what do you use, or how do you determine what is 'actual truth'? Is there a foolproof way to determine if a thing is true or not that everyone could use?

Again, irrelevant to the topic. But since you ask, we use evidence. Anybody can use logic and reasoning and the evidence they have available to examine the probablity of the truth of a statement. No, there is no foolproof way to know 100% if something is true.

Oh man, again I am truly sorry. I see what you mean my friend. I meant it in a general sense. I know people who dig in the Bible for contradictions because they were unhappy with their Christian faith, so now they take it out on the Bible trying to find contradictions. Some dig into it's history and point out how evil God is by what evil He sometimes brings upon humanity, or pointing to all the evil "God allows" to happen to innocent people, especially children. They say: "If God is supposed to be all Good, then why does he do this, or why does he allow that to happen?" They keep digging just for those verses ignoring the rest of the Bible that explains why? Another word; Just because something is not explained in the Old Testament, doesn't mean Jesus didn't explain it in the New.

I don't discredit the Bible because I don't like what God does in it. I discredit the Bible because there is a lack of evidence for it's credibility. If there was a God, he could be as awful and immoral as he wanted to be and it wouldn't make him not exist. I do find much of the behavior of God immoral and petty, but that is not a reason why I think there is probably not a God.

I honestly don't want you to agree with me just to agree with me. I feel that if everyone truly studied the Bible with the same intent, they wouldn't see all those things they point out, as contradictions.

So may I ask; when you 'dig' in the Bible, .. what exactly are you digging for?

I have already told you this. But your belief that if everyone read the Bible with an open mind they would see no contradictions is just that. A belief. I believe that if everyone read the Bible with no preconcieved notions about it, they would see how absurd it is. But there is no evidence for that and it doesn't carry any weight in an argument. It is just my belief. When I "dig" in the Bible, I am testing the validity of the claims people make about the Bible. I have been told that the Bible is free of contradiction. I see lots of contradiction. I dig to see whether I am right or they are right. My digging is an attempt to falsify my own claim so I don't post premature, ignorant responses on a public forum. I don't make claims that I haven't looked into yet. This requries digging.

Please show me where I boasted that I 'out debated' ONE man, and that I now want you to believe me because of that?

With pleasure. In a debate where I said there was a contradiction, and you were trying to provide evidence that there wasn't, you said this.

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.
"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.

I pointed out that I have debated people with credentials, with doctorates in theology, 30 plus years in Ministry, who taught the Bible in seven different languages, yet none could justify to me their denominational differences. So I ask again:

So what does this mean?
It means either that Bible scholars, Ministers dedicated to studying the Bible, Diviners with degrees in Divinating from the schools of Divinity, and Theology graduates from the Trinity College find the Bible so contradicting that they can't help but start tens of thousands of different churches based on these different contradictions, hoping that theirs is the right one,
Or
"hearing they don't hear, and seeing they just don't see?"

It's NOT about ONE debate, it's about reality, the fact that there are tens of thousands of different denominations using the book called the 'Bible'.

It means that you think it means one thing and they think it means another. Whoever you think you stumped is probably telling a story about how he stumped you because you never made him believe your side of the story. And again, your view of the Bible is just another view, like any of the 38,000 or more.

You also ignored where I said that denominational differences are rarely the results of contradictions, and how to interpret them.

Please show me ONE denominational differences that does not contradict the teachings of the Bible?

Now how am I supposed to do that if nobody agrees about what the Bible says? You show me one that does contradict the Bible says, and someone who believes they are right will just tell you it doesn't contradict what the Bible says. This doesn't support the claim that the Bible is perfect and without contradiction. It supports the Bible being so contradictiory that people can't decide which side of the contradiction they want to be on.

If one justifies that the Sabbath is the only true day to worship, and the rest are NOT getting into Heaven because of it, THAT there is a Bible contradiction. If another claims that homosexual relationship is justifiable, that too is a Biblical contradiction. If another claims that God has a particular name, and if you call upon God by another name He will not acknowledge you, that too is a Biblical contradiction. If one denomination says that you cannot have a mustache to be a member of their Bible based church, that too is a Biblical contradiction. So please show me one denomination that does not contradict the teachings of the Bible?

You are talking about external contradictions. I am talking about internal contradiction. The demoninational "contradictions" you are referring to are not based on internal biblical contradictions. They are based on personal preferances. Internal contradictions, like The one in Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9, do not cause splits in the chuch. The church ignores them alltogether.

So again, if anyone sees a Bible contradiction, it is very likely that it is because it's an extra puzzle piece that don't belong in the box, or someone is trying to put the piece in the wrong slot, or forced the piece in the wrong slot and tries to justify it.

You are talking about external contradictions. Internal contradictions are already in the box when you buy it.

It takes years to build up faith, where faith becomes both the substance and the evidence of things we haven't even seen yet. Here is one example of faith:

If you stand on the train track, and you see the train coming right at you. Now you never experienced this before, so what would you do?
Jump, .. right?
Why?
Because you have built up enough faith to believe that if you keep standing there the train will run you over, right?

No. Just no. This is in no way an example of faith. This is a deduction based on reason. An example of faith would be if someone stood on the tracks and expected The train not to hit you, when all evidence indicates that it will. Even if you have never been standing in front of a moving train, are you saying that there is nothing but faith to indicate that the train will keep doing what it's doing? The fact that you have never seen a high velocity object stop on a dime is enough evidence to assume the train will not suddenly do that. A proper example of faith would be if you were standing in the middle of the desert, with no train, no tracks, and no sound to indicate a train will be coming through there. And you jump out of the way of a train anyway. Using evidence to make accurate conclusions about a situation similar to situations you have experienced before invloves no faith.

Now if someone doesn't yet have their faith built up, like maybe a toddler, he could just crawl towards the train babbling: "OOOh choo choo train!"

Babies don't crawl toward danger because they have a lack of faith. They have a lack of knowledge and reasoning ability. This is just a completely flawed description of faith.

Back to the contradiction, I don't see any. I consider all these also;

Matthew 13:13
Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Mark 4:12
so that ‘Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.’�

Luke 8:10
And He said, “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that ‘Seeing they may not see, And hearing they may not understand.’

Okay, if you want to get back to the contradictions, I ask this of you. Make a seperate post and instead of just giving Bible verses, explain why they refute my claim that Acts contains a contradiction.

[arian]

.

Here is one example of faith:

This is an outstanding example of misapplication of the term "faith."

If you stand on the train track, and you see the train coming right at you. Now you never experienced this before, so what would you do?
Jump, .. right?
Why?
Because you have built up enough faith to believe that if you keep standing there the train will run you over, right?

Humans have some ability to recognize danger even in situations that they have not previously experienced. That ability does not require "faith"

How does one recognize danger without having experienced it previously?
"Look, an ant! I'll squash it with my finger. Ouch, it bit me and it hurts!"
Toddler learns to walk, 6 year old big brother is chasing 4 year old sister, and she runs into the toddler, .. the toddler learns to put her arms up in defense next time. As she grows up, she learns to jump from the track before the train hits her.

Now if someone doesn't yet have their faith built up, like maybe a toddler, he could just crawl towards the train babbling: "OOOh choo choo train!"

It would be more accurate to say that the toddler lacked knowledge, judgment and experience – instead of injecting "faith" to "understand" or "explain" the situation when "faith" has nothing to do with it.

Or, faith is built by knowledge, judgment and experience. Mine is, especially when it comes to worshipping some Deity, with the promise to live forever with this Deity who provides seventy virgins for me at all times, throughout eternity!?

Now I did grow up in a religion that worshipped plural Deities and survived many horrible years of it. I changed from that simple-faith, and grew up. Now my faith is built on evidence, and it has substance; 1 Corinthians 13:11 (KJV)
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Religionists are often enamored of the term "faith", perhaps because it is a "sacred" word for them – perhaps because many use "faith" themselves in place of knowledge, judgment and experience to make decisions.

"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." In other words, if one has limited tools (physical or mental / literal or figurative) they tend to use or overuse what they have readily available.

Yes I agree with you that religions are enamored by their version of blind faith, otherwise they would soon loose their followers. Each religions version of 'faith' is specially tailored, and it defines that religion. There is a huge difference between growing in faith in "God", and growing in faith in some religion;

Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits.

[mwtech]

.

Here is one example of faith:

This is an outstanding example of misapplication of the term "faith."

If you stand on the train track, and you see the train coming right at you. Now you never experienced this before, so what would you do?
Jump, .. right?
Why?
Because you have built up enough faith to believe that if you keep standing there the train will run you over, right?

Humans have some ability to recognize danger even in situations that they have not previously experienced. That ability does not require "faith"

How does one recognize danger without having experienced it previously?
"Look, an ant! I'll squash it with my finger. Ouch, it bit me and it hurts!"
Toddler learns to walk, 6 year old big brother is chasing 4 year old sister, and she runs into the toddler, .. the toddler learns to put her arms up in defense next time. As she grows up, she learns to jump from the track before the train hits her.

Now if someone doesn't yet have their faith built up, like maybe a toddler, he could just crawl towards the train babbling: "OOOh choo choo train!"

It would be more accurate to say that the toddler lacked knowledge, judgment and experience – instead of injecting "faith" to "understand" or "explain" the situation when "faith" has nothing to do with it.

Or, faith is built by knowledge, judgment and experience. Mine is, especially when it comes to worshipping some Deity, with the promise to live forever with this Deity who provides seventy virgins for me at all times, throughout eternity!?

Now I did grow up in a religion that worshipped plural Deities and survived many horrible years of it. I changed from that simple-faith, and grew up. Now my faith is built on evidence, and it has substance; 1 Corinthians 13:11 (KJV)
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Religionists are often enamored of the term "faith", perhaps because it is a "sacred" word for them – perhaps because many use "faith" themselves in place of knowledge, judgment and experience to make decisions.

"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." In other words, if one has limited tools (physical or mental / literal or figurative) they tend to use or overuse what they have readily available.

Yes I agree with you that religions are enamored by their version of blind faith, otherwise they would soon loose their followers. Each religions version of 'faith' is specially tailored, and it defines that religion. There is a huge difference between growing in faith in "God", and growing in faith in some religion;

Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits.

So basically what you have done here is completely redefined the word faith to make it seen like a rational and reliable epistemology. What you are calling faith, most people call rationality and deductive reasoning/critical thinking skill. This is not what Heinrich beliefs are based on.

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 315 by mwtech]
My last post was supposed to read "that's not what religious beliefs are based on"

[Strider324]

arian scribed:

How does one recognize danger without having experienced it previously?

By learning. A baby does not have to burn their hand on a hot stove in order to heed the warnings from its mother not to touch it and thereby understand that it represents a danger. As already shown, you are wildly misrepresenting the concept of faith. No one has 'faith' that the sun will rise in the morning. They have knowledge and understanding of the physics that cause the sun to appear in the east every morning. It's inaccurate to claim to have 'faith' that your car will start in the morning. You either have reason to expect it to start based on the fact that you keep it well maintained, or you have reason to put its chances of starting at less than 100% based on the fact that you have not maintained it. Faith has absolutely nothing to do with the thought process. It's a misuse of language to say "I have faith that my car will start", and that misuse applies to millions of other statements made by people every day.

I do note with some amusement that theists constantly claim to have 'faith' that their deity will take care of them - and yet they are extremely reluctant to test that faith, and in real world practice they live their lives in a manner that makes it clear they do NOT have faith. "My god will cure my cancer" - but they still go to the doctor. "My god will catch me if I fall from this building" - but they still don't jump. "My god says I can drink poison and live" - but they assiduously refuse to drink the poison.

Faith seems to be a lot about lip service and very little about walking the walk.