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.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Danmark --
I am not surprised I quote from the UB.
The Bible is silent on the contradictions.

No it's not. It curses those who would add or take away from what is written there. That's a backhanded admission that it's possible to do so. And if it's possible, how often has it been done?

But God isn't the problem, it's the men who claimed divine revelation and authority for what they wrote. Why would God trust mortal men, having free will, with It's word, knowing some of them would become corrupted. If God wanted to tell us something, God would do it directly. We're here to pursue the Truth for ourselves, as our own reward.

[Danmark]

Danmark --
I am not surprised I quote from the UB.
The Bible is silent on the contradictions.

No it's not. It curses those who would add or take away from what is written there. That's a backhanded admission that it's possible to do so. And if it's possible, how often has it been done?

But God isn't the problem, it's the men who claimed divine revelation and authority for what they wrote. Why would God trust mortal men, having free will, with It's word, knowing some of them would become corrupted. If God wanted to tell us something, God would do it directly. We're here to pursue the Truth for ourselves, as our own reward.

I don't see how this wacky book, the UB, has any greater claim on reality than the Bible does. I operate on the principle of Occam's Razor. Why complicate things unnecessarily with flights of fancy that involve gods and beings and imagined aliens? To quote from the NT, let's let today's troubles be enough for today and not invent characters and planets and systems we have no evidence of.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Danmark --
I am not surprised I quote from the UB.
The Bible is silent on the contradictions.

No it's not. It curses those who would add or take away from what is written there. That's a backhanded admission that it's possible to do so. And if it's possible, how often has it been done?

But God isn't the problem, it's the men who claimed divine revelation and authority for what they wrote. Why would God trust mortal men, having free will, with It's word, knowing some of them would become corrupted. If God wanted to tell us something, God would do it directly. We're here to pursue the Truth for ourselves, as our own reward.

I don't see how this wacky book, the UB, has any greater claim on reality than the Bible does. I operate on the principle of Occam's Razor. Why complicate things unnecessarily with flights of fancy that involve gods and beings and imagined aliens? To quote from the NT, let's let today's troubles be enough for today and not invent characters and planets and systems we have no evidence of.

The minute there's more than one translation of anything, it reveals the erroneous and/or corrupted involvement of men. Appeals to "that passage/word was mistranslated, what it really says is..." means, what God really said was.....

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 263 by KenRU]

Yes but saying things at two different points in time is not a contradiction. This is a thread to look at contradictions.

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 263 by KenRU]

Yes but saying things at two different points in time is not a contradiction. This is a thread to look at contradictions.

Yes, and the last contradiction discussed was never resolved. The topic changed about page 23. There was never a rebuttal to post 230.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 222 by mwtech]
Apparently 'not hear' can mean 'not understand'.They could hear but not understand what was being said.
More detail: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcont ... rticle=731

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 222 by mwtech]
Apparently 'not hear' can mean 'not understand'.They could hear but not understand what was being said.
More detail: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcont ... rticle=731

If you read post 230, that was what my argument was against. I will restate the argument for you.

While I agree that assuming "hear" means understand in one verse and not the other would be convienient, I can't in good concience decide for sure that's what it means just for convenience's sake.

The word used in Acts 9:7 is ἀκο�οντες (akouontes). It is used 15 times in the Bible, including Luke 8:10 "he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’" So this supports the word 'hear' in Acts 9:7 meaning the physical act of viration hitting eardrums.

The word for 'hear' in Acts 22:9 is ἤκουσαν (ēkousan), which comes from the same root as akouontes (akouó: to hear, listen) and both are listed under the same definition in Strong's concordance (Strong's Greek 191). The word used in Acts 22:9 is also used in John 4:1, 9:40 and 7:32. All these verses talk about pharisees hearing things, and we know the pharisees are often called out for not properly understanding the word of God. John 9:40 actually talks about the pharisees hearing and misunderstanding something Jesus said. "Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?""The word in blue here is the same word, ēkousan, used in Acts 22:9 which you claim means to understand. But the pharisees heard (vibrations hit their eardrums) but did not understand what Jesus said, as he had to explain himself to them in the following verse. "Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains." And John 10:6 spells it out for us as plainly as it can be. "This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them." The word understand is translated from egn�san, which is not the same as the word for hear. So if we are going off other verses to find the true meaning of Acts 22:9, I would have to conclude that hear does not equate to understand.

Linking to an apologetics webpage does not a rebuttal make. I disagree when they say it just like when anyone else says it. All the verses in the article used to support the meaning "understand" do not actually use the word Ä“kousan, just a word from the same root. That is like arguing that "i jumoed rope" and "I wore a jumper" are the same word because they come from jump. There are two different words because there are two different meanings.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 266 by earl]


I am sorry that you find logic funny. Your god just happened to choose the most illogical way to preserve a message given that he has all knowledge of past present and future human capabilities. Choosing paper(highly sensitive to decomposition) as a means of transmitting his message right before the beginning of the dark ages(vast amounts of information were lost) is probably the worst decision anyone who had said knowledge could make.

My reasoning for discounting the Urantia book wasn't primarily its age if you re-read my post the first reason I listed is it does not match up to the bible in any significant way(i.e. the inspiration was not anything related to the abrahamic god other than in name only) The reference to its age was to point out that its origins can easily be traced and seeing as we have all information regarding it we can make logical assertions on its validity. Given the authorship and circumstances of its creation screams of fraud/scam to me. Also as others have mentioned it also has no scientific validity in many of its claims.

I find it incredibly funny that supposed divine revelations never accurately reflect what we can observe of this universe. You would think if one was receiving divine information from a divine source that it would at the bare minimum accurately reflect the universe and its accuracy would be timeless.

[earl]

Danielthedragon,


I appreciate your hopefully honest reply and did re read your previous post thus after reading your post Ill continue with a short comment.

On the subject of you mentioning the internet .
You do have an interesting but distant point which Ill draw together.
1935 -The 4th part of the UB was in progress.
1955 Man eventually matured enough to agree to a International Copyright Law and placed it in effect that year.
This was a good thing that if God were to rectify Biblical confusion this would be the year to proceed with a document or message that was to be hopefully preserved in the hands of man without another man destroying it or violating it's message.
The Bible had no such preservation or even a copyright.
This enables man to participate in this message preservation and keep it inviolate form.
This also would be perfect timing in that a replacement message would not be necessary as long as man kept it guarded with a copyright.
1969 --1980's The upcoming internet .
Now days an electronic message can now go global in seconds and before the copyright ran out the UB did just that also.
Enough originals were produced that they remain as the standard if man begins to fail to preserve it as he did with the Bible.
God is known not to be forceful of his will on us therefore up until this age a time of patience with man until man matured enough to consider a clarification.
I know you posted more here but this is in reply to your 1st paragraph.

[earl]

Danielthedragon,
1955 was the first year the UB went into publication.
The previous post above is an assemblage of thought as to why the clarification come late.
The ,as I previously stated,beginning of confusion was the "war in heaven" which also when God did not force his will upon anyone where as he could have immediately and if necessary prior to the rebellion exterminated anyone involved but he apparently did not.
The UB would not have been necessary if no rebellion occurred.
Believing it is not required but there are those who do.