Biblical Contradictions Answered (As best as possible) For Rook and Hammydammit

ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Biblical Contradictions Answered (As best as possible) For Rook and Hammydammit

Ok so Rook posted this long list of contradictions for all of you members to GAWK at and point and say OOOOHHHH the BIBLE has a lot of contradictions. I figured I could do like a lot of people and just post up links to answers, but I decided since I am a CHRISTIAN, I would defend my faith through study and research. It took me just over two weeks to find all of the answers to the first section of Rook's Biblical errancy section. I notice that something that Rook does is that he puts up alot of information hoping probably that you don't read it and notice that half of his accusations are not correct. I simply took the first 16 verses and to my dismay, I noticed that several of the answers were so simple I didn't have to even search that hard. I also noticed that a few passages weren't even parallel which totally violates the accusation of BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION. And I also noted that some of the passages weren't even correct. They were close in proximity but not the correct verses.

Note to Rook: You seem to be an "intelligent" man who for some reason has gone off on this Free thinking tangent: yes it is a tangent. I don't know what happended or whom influenced you, but you seem to have a knack for reading and studying. The problem seems to be you give a lot of information and all of it isn't relevant and/or consistent. You spent a lot of the first paragraph naming the same contradiction over and over again. As another observation and this goes for Hammydammit too, STOP USING STRONGS CONCORDANCE AND THE KING JAMES BIBLE AS YOUR SOURCE FOR DISCOVERING BIBLICAL ERRORS. You seem to forget that their are other more scholarly sources out their and I always read about you kats and your trusty Strong's dictionary. Go get a Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, a New American Standard Dictionary of the Hebrew language and Dictionary of Biblical Langauages and then holla at me. Also invest in another version of the Bible. If you had read another version, several of your contradictions would not have made the list. (See no.'s 6 and 7)

Here are the first 16 scriptures with answers. You'll probably try, wait let me rephrase that, you will all make up some new rule or theory and then say my answers don't make sense or they are not correct. So I anxiously await your responses. Come at me right or don't come at all. I wont answer for the next week as I am preparing the next 15 or so verses. Well maybe I'll wait for these responses first. All my Christians let me hear you say YEEEEAAAHHHH!!!!

 

1. (a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;

The Hebrew word used for 700 horsemen can be also translated COMPANIES. (Strongs Number H505 as well as Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament) According to the custom of the time, There were 10 men to every company. Which means that 2 Samuel maybe referring to the properly translated 700 Companies which would equal 7000 men, uhm, as in the 7000 men mentioned in 1 Chronicles. Much like the English language, the adjectives describes the noun in the sentence however it seems that even though the word horsemen was used in both passages, the actual translation could be determined by the number used. With 700 being used in 2 Samuel then the Hebrew word parash would be translated 700 companies of horsemen which would equal 7000 men as mentioned in 1 Chronicles 18:4

2. (b) Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign;

This answer is lengthy however I found a source that illustrates the answer much better than I can articulate it. Essentially the answer is historical in nature. You may want to considering reading the Nelson’s Illustrated Manners and Customs book. It would give you insight into the times of the Bible vs. today’s society.

This link also discovered something’s that I had uncovered as of yet.

http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP4.htm

3. (c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:Cool, 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:Cool, 3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);

The answer for this is historical in nature. Jehoiachin was 18 when he reigned according to 2 Kings. The Chronicles account is a little more detailed. The solution, hinges on the phrase 8 years old from 2 Chronicles 36:9. The 8 years does not refer to the actual age of Jehoiachin but is a time marker pointing to an event: the first invasion of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. In 605 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar invaded the Mediterranean countries including Judah. It was during this first invasion when Daniel and many others were taken to Babylon in what was to be the first of 3 deportations. The second was in 598-597 B.C. with the taking of Jehoiachin’s father Jehoiakim. The Babylonians left Jehoiachin in power as a sort of puppet regent, but only for 3 months (2 Chron. 36:9 gives the exact figure of 3 months, 10 days). Like his father, Jehoiachin rebelled and the Babylonians returned to have him removed. They took him back to Babylon, and left his brother Zedekiah as king. Jehoiachin's appointment as king was 8 years after Nebuchadnezzar came to power and invaded Judah. This is the reason 2 Chronicles 36:9 has “8 years old.” Second Kings 24:12 affirms this solution where it states, “and the king of Babylon took him (Jehoiachin) in the 8th year of his (Nebuchadnezzar) reign.”

On some occasions the biblical writers will count chronological dates from significant events. We reckon chronology in similar ways in our modern world. For all Americans, the 11th day of the 9th month of the year 2001 will forever be a significant date. In fact our society speaks of a pre-9/11 world and a post 9/11 world. This is the case here with Jehoiachin. The writer of Chronicles is reckoning his kingly appointment and his eventual capture from the time Nebuchadnezzar came to rule Babylon. Ezekiel, for example, does this in his book. He reckons dates and years from the captivity of Judah, (Ez. 1:7, 33:21, 40:1). Another example is found in 2 Chronicles 16:1 where the 36th year spoken of Asa may refer to the number of years after the division of the kingdom in 930 B.C., rather than his actual years as king.

(Sources: Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties)

4. (d) There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;

The answer lays in the translation. The first passage states that Joab gave the census to David and the number was 800,000 while the second passage says that their were 1,100,000 men who drew the sword. The word VALIANT is the key. There were a total of 1,100,000 men however only 800,000 were valiant. The other 300,000 were reserves. There is a classification between one who draws the sword and a valiant man who draws the sword. An example would be a military ranking such as a sergeant vs. a general. Both would be in their respects services but have significantly different rankings.

As for the 500,000 vs. 6 states that Joab had not finished the census because of David’s conviction of sin. He did not include Levi or Benjamin. So the 470,000 would have been and accurate number at that time.

5. (e) There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs of the officers that bare the rule over the people;

You have to read 4 different passages to get the answer. First there are two passages that give you two numbers in 2 Kings. 1 Kings 5:16 says that there were 3300 chief officers. And then 1 Kings 9:23 says that there were 550 chief officers. This is a total of 3850 officers to watch over the project. In 2 Chronicles 2:18 we find that the Chronicler says that there are 3600 officers. In 2 Chronicles 8:10 we hear that there are 250 officers which once again gives us the number of 3850. Both passages are in harmony as different classifications are made in the different accounts.

6. (f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;

See this is how you get people thinking you have a valid argument. Unless this is a misprint, these verses don’t have anything to do with each other. Now vs. 8 would be the correct verse. And here is the answer. The original Hebrew word in 2 Sam. 6:23 is H4324 which is translated Michal. The original Hebrew word for the name in 2 Sam. 21:6 is H4764 which is translated Merab. They aren’t even the same people.

7. (g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);

The term "brother" used in Genesis 14:14 is the same term used for "relative" which is how the verse is translated in other versions. The King James Bible, from which is the reference here, does not use the term "relative" once in the Bible. The word, however, in the Hebrew is 'ach, which is a primary root meaning close relative or even someone that bears a close resemblance. It generally indicates kindred, however. It is used over 600 times in the Bible and is translated in a variety of ways depending on context. Lot is Haran's son which makes him Abraham's nephew and relative.

8. (h) Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);

According the Hebrew history, Abraham had a son by Hagar the Egyptian maiden and his name was Ishmael. Then Abraham had five more sons by Keturah which would have made these five people Ishmael’s brothers. Being that Abrahams son, MIDIAN, is where the Midianites came from and Ishmael was his brother Ishmaelites came from the same source. The Midianites were those related to Midian and the Ishmaelites were those related to Ishmael. It would seem that sense they had the same father, they would be related. Judges 8 confirms the interchangeability of names. In short the Midianites were the Ishmaelites.

9. (i) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);

It is a well known fact that Saul was struck down by the Philistines Archers. He was wounded beyond being able to continue to fight. He then asked his armour bearer to kill him and he refused and he fell on his own sword. His armour bearer did the same. This is the accurate account of 1 Sam 31:4. All commentaries and theologians or anyone who has answered this question will tell you that the Amalekite not only lied about the story, but historically had his arms and legs cut off for lying and he was hanged on a wall. In the last passage the Philistine archers wounded Saul so bad, he would have died anyway. The fact that the Philistines had killed Saul’s sons and that is the battle at which Saul died, would have afforded them the credit for killing Saul, however it was Saul’s own sword that killed him.

10. (j) Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000 (1 Kings 7:26), 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:5) baths;

The Hebrew verb rendered "contained" and "held" is different from that translated "received"; and the meaning may be that the sea ordinarily contained 2,000 baths. But when filled to its utmost capacity it received and held 3,000 baths. Thus the chronicler simply mentions the amount of water that would make the sea like a flowing spring rather than a still pool. This informs us that 3,000 gallons of water were required to completely fill the sea which usually held 2,000 gallons. This is identical to any swimming pool that is not filled to the brim but can hold a few thousand more gallons of water, however it is not necessary.

11. (k) The workers on the Temple had 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16), 3,600 (2 Chron. 2:18) overseers;

Answered this already in number 5.

12. (l) The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth forever;

These are not even parallel passages. Now you are reaching. The Eccl passage is wisdom literature. The example made here is that in mans knowledge would lend us to believe that mans knowledge will lead them to think that this present world (earth) will last forever. You must pick scriptures and their entire context. 2 Peter assures us the Heaven and Earth will pass away as well the works within the earth. This is what all believers adhere to. You are comparing poetry and wisdom vs. prophecy.

13. (m) If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true (John 8:14), is not true (John 5:31);

Jesus here is speaking of the unity of the Father and the Son. The first passage testifies to the oneness of the Father and the Son. Jesus says His testimony is true, if and only if according to vs. 16 that the Father testifies to Jesus’ testimony. In the second passage, Jesus says the exact same thing. He states, that if I testify by myself, alone, meaning with any other backing His testimony, then His testimony is false. He then says that there is another who testifies with and for me. Both passages are in complete agreement.

14. (n) Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 35:24);

Both passages state that Josiah was buried in Jerusalem. This is similar to the Saul passage. Josiah was so mortally wounded at Megiddo, that the credit to the death would have been Megiddo. We must note that in 2 Chr passage after being wounded by the archers almost fatally, Josiah commands that his body be taken to Jerusalem, so the account would allow for his last breath to quite possibly attributed to the battle of Megiddo even though his passing may have been in Jerusalem

15. (o) Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:28) days;

(Luke 9:28-29) - "And some eight days after these sayings, it came about that He took along Peter and John and James, and went up to the mountain to pray. 29And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming."

In the Greek in both Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2, it says, "And after six days..." The word "after" in Greek is "meta." According to the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon "meta" means, "with, after, or behind." In Luke 9:28, it says something different. It says "And some eight days after these sayings . . ." (NASB). The Greek word "some" is "hosei" which means "about" or "nearly." Other translations render it the same way.

* "About eight days after Jesus said this . . ." (Luke 9:28, NIV).

* ". . .about an eight days after these sayings . . ." (Luke 9:28, KJV).

* ". . .about eight days after these sayings . . ." (Luke 9:28, NKJV).

* "Now about eight days after these sayings . . ." (Luke 9:28, RSV).

* ". . . about eight days after these sayings . . ." (Luke 9:28, 1901 AS)

Luke 9:28 is an approximation evidenced by it saying "about eight days after . . ." Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2 are more precise. They say "after six days." Logically, eight days is after six days, so there is no logical contradiction. But, the key lies in Luke saying "about eight days later." Luke was giving an approximation. Matthew and Mark were more precise. Remember Luke was not an eyewitness as Matthew and Mark were. So he would have been afforded the opportunity to give an approximation.

16. (p) Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh (2 Kings 25:Cool, tenth (Jer. 52:12) day of the fifth month.

2 Kings says he came "unto" Jerusalem and Jeremiah states he came "into" Jerusalem. His arrival at and entry into Jerusalem were therefore different days. This is indicating the army was encamped about Jerusalem for three days before they entered and destroyed it. He came twice; once to persuade Jerusalem to surrender (the 7th day) and the second time to wage war (the 10th day). Upon his arrival the army resided there for three days before destroying it.

End of Pt. 1

I gotta believe that you guys are smarter than this. Please on the next go around, read the entire passage first and then introduce them as contradictions. Also please stop tyring to compare what customs you live by in this age to the Bible times. They are 2000 years apart and entirely different cultures.

Yours In CHRIST, THE PREACHERMAN


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:


Quote:


What difference does this make? The jews yet do not have their country back!



Um...then what is Israel? I'm confused. Isnt' that why Israel was re-formed in 1948, so that the Jews could have a homeland?
I am referring to the 70 years Jeffrey conveniently subtracted from 430 to get 360

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I am referring to

Quote:

I am referring to the 70 years Jeffrey conveniently subtracted from 430 to get 360

Oops, sorry, my bad Sticking out tongue .  Guess I'd better read it more carefully next time.

Quote:

If the Biblical rapture happened (one of the biggest prophecies in the Bible), would you believe in the Bible? 

no, because i would assume that there was a much more realistic, and considerably less silly, explanation for the events that occured

Then this whole forum is hopeless.  If you're not going to believe in the Bible if the single biggest prophecy actually ocurred, what will it take?  You can't get much more evidence than that.

Quote:

Why do christians always think someone is going to come back? Your great-grandchildren's great-grandchildren will probably be awaiting the second coming of the original poster.

He'd better be back.  I still want answers to my three questions about Jesus being qualified.  If he doesn't give me answers to them, then we can assume that the Bible is false.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Quote:

I am referring to the 70 years Jeffrey conveniently subtracted from 430 to get 360

Oops, sorry, my bad Sticking out tongue . Guess I'd better read it more carefully next time.

Quote:

If the Biblical rapture happened (one of the biggest prophecies in the Bible), would you believe in the Bible?

no, because i would assume that there was a much more realistic, and considerably less silly, explanation for the events that occured

Then this whole forum is hopeless. If you're not going to believe in the Bible if the single biggest prophecy actually ocurred, what will it take? You can't get much more evidence than that.

Quote:

Why do christians always think someone is going to come back? Your great-grandchildren's great-grandchildren will probably be awaiting the second coming of the original poster.

He'd better be back. I still want answers to my three questions about Jesus being qualified. If he doesn't give me answers to them, then we can assume that the Bible is false.

 

Just becuase he doesn't come back doesn't mean the answers don't exist. Also if you post your three questions, I'll see if I know the answers to them. (I didn't see them anywhere in this post) 


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
yeah, it's a little easy to

yeah, it's a little easy to get off topic.  conversations naturally take a life of their own sometimes.  i guess it's hard to deal with on point at a time, it would be like trying to learn all the knowledge of the world within one scientific study.  yet if each field did not take have it's own explorations, some of the questions in others might not have been answered.

i look forward to the next set of answers.... YEEEEAAAHHHH!!!!

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Quote:

What part of the bible do they find to be the most inerrant, the part where a guy puts two of every animal on the planet into one boat and god floods the world or the part where a guy dies and returns to life three days later? It’s a fucking joke. That people take it as seriously as our friend here does only makes it that much more amusing.

What about the Bible's prophecies? They've been inerrant. Besides, the Bible has predicted a lot of stuff, and all of it has come true so far ... check out this link for a list of prophecies in the Bible that have been fullfilled or are being fullfilled ... http://www.100prophecies.org/ Check it out, it has some good evidence. Can any of you provide any prophecies in the Bible that have been proven false?

It's easy to fulfill prophecies when you're working backwards.

The Christ character, for example, was written to fit the prophecies so it had no choice but to fulfill them. Even then it failed - no one is worshipping Manny the Messiah (Emmanuel). They're worshiping this Jesus guy.  

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15734
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
djneibarger wrote: Master

djneibarger wrote:
Master Jedi Dan wrote:

If the Biblical rapture happened (one of the biggest prophecies in the Bible), would you believe in the Bible?

no, because i would assume that there was a much more realistic, and considerably less silly, explanation for the events that occured.

Right. If humans manage to shoot of nukes and wipe out modern life as we know it, I am not going to blame a comic book fictional hero in the sky. But I am damn sure going to be hard pressed not to blame the morons who fight and kill over such fiction.

You want something to happen badly enough you are going to seek ways to make it happen. Fundy Christians and fundy Muslims froth at the mouth over the immage of "defeating the enemy" in a final conflict. Caught in the middle are theists and atheists alike that do see the stupid and needless division and dangerous attitude these idiots have.

I'd prefure any moron who wants to "defend" or "kill" in the name of their deity, no matter what name they call it, pick a plot of land and have at it. You want your pathetic dick mesuring contest, be my guest, just leave the rest of humanity out of it and dont take us out with you cause daddy said you could. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Just becuase he

Quote:

Just becuase he doesn't come back doesn't mean the answers don't exist. Also if you post your three questions, I'll see if I know the answers to them. (I didn't see them anywhere in this post)

Here they are...they're from Rook's long list of Biblical contradictions.  Out of the entire list, they seem to be the ones that undermine Christianity the most.

Quote:
 

  1. (3) Jesus is a descendant of Coniah (Jeconiah, Jeconias) as the genealogy in MATT. 1:11 ("Jeconias begat Salathiel" ) through MATT. 1:16 ("And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" ) shows. In JER. 22:28-30 ("Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vassal wherein is no pleasure? why are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? Thus said the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah" ) God said Coniah would never have a descendant who sat on David's throne. Yet, many prophecies, such as that found in LUKE 1:32 ("He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David" ), show that Jesus must sit on David's throne eventually.
  2. (4) We have already seen that Jesus is a descendant of Coniah. FIRST CHRONICLES 3:16 ("And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah {Coniah--Ed.} his son...." ) shows that Coniah is a son of Jehoiakim. So Jesus is a descendant of Jehoiakim too. But JER. 36:30 ("Therefore thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David" ) says Jehoiakim would never have a descendant upon the throne of David. So, again, we see that Jesus is disqualified since he must sit upon the throne of David. God's commands given through Jeremiah that neither Jehoiakim nor his son Jeconiah (Coniah--Ed.) could have any progeny who would sit on David's throne exclude Jesus.
  3. (5) Jesus couldn't be the Messiah because LUKE 3:31 ("...which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David {in the genealogy of Jesus--Ed.}" ) shows Nathan is an ancestor of Jesus and Nathan was excluded from any claim to the throne of David because his brother, Solomon, was chosen to head the Davidic line instead: 1 CHRON. 29:1 ("Furthermore David the king said unto all the congregation, Solomon my son, whom alone God hath chosen...." ), 1 CHRON. 28:5 ("And of all my sons, for the Lord hath given me many sons, he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the Kingdom of the Lord over Israel" ), and 1 CHRON. 29:24 ("And all the princes, and the mighty men, and all the sons likewise of King David, submitted themselves unto Solomon the king&quotEye-wink

 

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15734
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Just becuase he

Quote:
Just becuase he doesn't come back doesn't mean the answers don't exist. 

What a suprise, he hasn't come back. Well, it may suprise you that the answere is here stairing you right in the face in your own words. There IS an answer. But it is YOU that doesnt want to face it.

The answer to why he doesnt come back is quite simple. Magic does not exist. There is no such thing as spirits knocking up girls. And human flesh does not survive rigor mortis.

That IS THE answer that stares you in the face that you dont want to see. You'd rather cling to an ancient myth rather than consider that it is a myth. We cant force you physically to face reality. But you are correct. There is an answer. But it is one YOU dont want to face. Untill you want help facing facts, we cant help you. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan wrote: I'm

Master Jedi Dan wrote:
I'm just curious, so I'm going to throw this out there for all the atheists (I'm still undecided).  If the Biblical rapture happened (one of the biggest prophecies in the Bible), would you believe in the Bible?

I might believe it, but I woulds still say this god is a disgusting egomaniacal evil pervert:

Deuteronomy 28 15:68

15 However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

 16 You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.

 17 Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.

 18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.

 19 You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out.

 20 The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him. [a] 21 The LORD will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. 22 The LORD will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish. 23 The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron. 24 The LORD will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed.

 25 The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will come at them from one direction but flee from them in seven, and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth. 26 Your carcasses will be food for all the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away. 27 The LORD will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. 28 The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. 29 At midday you will grope about like a blind man in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you.

 30 You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and ravish her. You will build a house, but you will not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not even begin to enjoy its fruit. 31 Your ox will be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will eat none of it. Your donkey will be forcibly taken from you and will not be returned. Your sheep will be given to your enemies, and no one will rescue them. 32 Your sons and daughters will be given to another nation, and you will wear out your eyes watching for them day after day, powerless to lift a hand. 33 A people that you do not know will eat what your land and labor produce, and you will have nothing but cruel oppression all your days. 34 The sights you see will drive you mad. 35 The LORD will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head.

 36 The LORD will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your fathers. There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone. 37 You will become a thing of horror and an object of scorn and ridicule to all the nations where the LORD will drive you.

 38 You will sow much seed in the field but you will harvest little, because locusts will devour it. 39 You will plant vineyards and cultivate them but you will not drink the wine or gather the grapes, because worms will eat them. 40 You will have olive trees throughout your country but you will not use the oil, because the olives will drop off. 41 You will have sons and daughters but you will not keep them, because they will go into captivity. 42 Swarms of locusts will take over all your trees and the crops of your land.

 43 The alien who lives among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower. 44 He will lend to you, but you will not lend to him. He will be the head, but you will be the tail.

 45 All these curses will come upon you. They will pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the LORD your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you. 46 They will be a sign and a wonder to you and your descendants forever. 47 Because you did not serve the LORD your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity, 48 therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies the LORD sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you.

 49 The LORD will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand, 50 a fierce-looking nation without respect for the old or pity for the young. 51 They will devour the young of your livestock and the crops of your land until you are destroyed. They will leave you no grain, new wine or oil, nor any calves of your herds or lambs of your flocks until you are ruined. 52 They will lay siege to all the cities throughout your land until the high fortified walls in which you trust fall down. They will besiege all the cities throughout the land the LORD your God is giving you.

 53 Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your God has given you. 54 Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, 55 and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. 56 The most gentle and sensitive woman among you—so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot—will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter 57 the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For she intends to eat them secretly during the siege and in the distress that your enemy will inflict on you in your cities.

 58 If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the LORD your God- 59 the LORD will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. 60 He will bring upon you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you. 61 The LORD will also bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not recorded in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed. 62 You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the LORD your God. 63 Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess.

 64 Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods—gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known. 65 Among those nations you will find no repose, no resting place for the sole of your foot. There the LORD will give you an anxious mind, eyes weary with longing, and a despairing heart. 66 You will live in constant suspense, filled with dread both night and day, never sure of your life. 67 In the morning you will say, "If only it were evening!" and in the evening, "If only it were morning!"-because of the terror that will fill your hearts and the sights that your eyes will see. 68 The LORD will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you.


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
OK So rook is really busy & he said it would take him a while...

I will be finished with the next set of supposed contradicitons soon and post them in another forum.  So in the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Master Jedi Dan....

I'll Be Back 

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Quote:

If the Biblical rapture happened (one of the biggest prophecies in the Bible), would you believe in the Bible?

no, because i would assume that there was a much more realistic, and considerably less silly, explanation for the events that occured

Then this whole forum is hopeless. If you're not going to believe in the Bible if the single biggest prophecy actually ocurred, what will it take? You can't get much more evidence than that.

Quote:

this forum is only hopeless if your goal here is to prompt some kind of confession of secret faith or belief. some of us might still be open to the possibility of an actual god, but others like myself have declared that notion dead and buried. religion is man-made. no event, regardless of how spectacular or awe inspiring, would cause me to jump to conclusion that it was biblical. there's always a better answer.

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Master

jcgadfly wrote:
Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Quote:

What part of the bible do they find to be the most inerrant, the part where a guy puts two of every animal on the planet into one boat and god floods the world or the part where a guy dies and returns to life three days later? It’s a fucking joke. That people take it as seriously as our friend here does only makes it that much more amusing.

What about the Bible's prophecies? They've been inerrant. Besides, the Bible has predicted a lot of stuff, and all of it has come true so far ... check out this link for a list of prophecies in the Bible that have been fullfilled or are being fullfilled ... http://www.100prophecies.org/ Check it out, it has some good evidence. Can any of you provide any prophecies in the Bible that have been proven false?

It's easy to fulfill prophecies when you're working backwards.

The Christ character, for example, was written to fit the prophecies so it had no choice but to fulfill them. Even then it failed - no one is worshipping Manny the Messiah (Emmanuel). They're worshiping this Jesus guy.

Of course it is interesting that these Jewish guys skipped over all the prophecies that every Jewish person that ever existed believed the messiah would fulfill (We Christians of course claim he will fulfill these with his second comming). Also note Emmanuel is not a name, it is something that someone will be called. The verse more accurately reads he will be called "God with us". It is in fact said of Jesus that he is God and dwelt amoung us. So Jesus is called Emmanuel.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: djneibarger

Brian37 wrote:
djneibarger wrote:
Master Jedi Dan wrote:

If the Biblical rapture happened (one of the biggest prophecies in the Bible), would you believe in the Bible?

no, because i would assume that there was a much more realistic, and considerably less silly, explanation for the events that occured.

Right. If humans manage to shoot of nukes and wipe out modern life as we know it, I am not going to blame a comic book fictional hero in the sky. But I am damn sure going to be hard pressed not to blame the morons who fight and kill over such fiction.

You want something to happen badly enough you are going to seek ways to make it happen. Fundy Christians and fundy Muslims froth at the mouth over the immage of "defeating the enemy" in a final conflict. Caught in the middle are theists and atheists alike that do see the stupid and needless division and dangerous attitude these idiots have.

I'd prefure any moron who wants to "defend" or "kill" in the name of their deity, no matter what name they call it, pick a plot of land and have at it. You want your pathetic dick mesuring contest, be my guest, just leave the rest of humanity out of it and dont take us out with you cause daddy said you could.

You should study Christianity more carefully. Any Christian who believes in the rapture, also believes that Christians won't be around for Earth's final war. (Though we might be comming back to help stop everyone else from destroying the Earth). Christians object to war, except for in defensive situations and certain wars like WWII. Although there are some Christians who object to war in all circumstances. There is no Christian group which would claim that it is for war, and this is not what the bible teaches.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: Brian37

Gauche wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
No, I personally dont expect you to use kid gloves. Others may lengauge you in the long deconstrution you seem to need. I cut to the chase and call magic magic and call a duck a duck and call fiction fiction.


Thank you! This website is ridiculous at times. Someone will say that the bible is inerrant and other people will act like it’s a serious argument. What part of the bible do they find to be the most inerrant, the part where a guy puts two of every animal on the planet into one boat and god floods the world or the part where a guy dies and returns to life three days later? It’s a fucking joke. That people take it as seriously as our friend here does only makes it that much more amusing.

It would be helpful if you quote the bible correctly. No where does it say every animal on earth was placed into a boat. Also if Evolution is as true as you folks say it is, then maybe there was only a couple animals to begin with and few animals went into the ark. Perhaps all the other animals evolved after the flood.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: Master Jedi

AiiA wrote:
Master Jedi Dan wrote:


Quote:


What difference does this make? The jews yet do not have their country back!



Um...then what is Israel? I'm confused. Isnt' that why Israel was re-formed in 1948, so that the Jews could have a homeland?
I am referring to the 70 years Jeffrey conveniently subtracted from 430 to get 360

 

 

 

 

JEFFREY DID NOT CONVENIENTLY SUBTRACT 70 YEARS TO GET 360. JEDI'S POST IS CORRECT.

 

Quote:

Ezekiel predicted when Israel would be re-established
Bible passage: Ezekiel 4:3-6
Written: between 593-571 BC
Fulfilled: 1948
   In Ezekiel 4:3-6, the prophet said the Jews, who had lost control of their homeland, would be punished for 430 years. This prophecy, according to Bible scholar Grant Jeffrey, pinpointed the 1948 rebirth of Israel. Here's a summary of Jeffrey's theory:

1. Ezekiel said the Jews were to be punished for 430 years because they had turned away from God. As part of the punishment, the Jews lost control of their homeland to Babylon. Many Jews were taken as captives to Babylon.

2. Babylon was later conquered by Cyrus in 539 BC. Cyrus allowed the Jews to leave Babylon and to return to their homeland. But, only a small number returned. The return had taken place sometime around 536 BC, about 70 years after Judah lost independence to Babylon.

NOTICE THAT 70 YEARS PASSED BEFORE THE JEWS REFUSED TO RETURN TO THEIR HOMELAND, THEREFORE ONLY THE REMAINDER OF THE TIME WAS MULTIPLIED BY 7.

Quote:
 

3. Because most of the exiles chose to stay in pagan Babylon rather than return to the Holy Land, the remaining 360 years of their punishment was multiplied by 7. The reason is explained in Bible's book of Leviticus. (Leviticus 26:18, 26:21, 26:24 and 26:28). In Leviticus, it says that if the people did not repent while being punished, the punishment would be multiplied by 7. And, by staying in pagan Babylon, most exiles were refusing to repent.

4. So, if you take the remaining 360 years of punishment and multiply by 7, you get 2,520 years. But, Jeffrey says those years are based on an ancient 360-day lunar calendar. If those years are adjusted to the modern solar calendar, the result is 2,484 years.

5. And, there were exactly 2,484 years from 536 BC to 1948, which is the year that Israel regained independence.

 


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Master Jedi Dan wrote:



5. And, there were exactly 2,484 years from 536 BC to 1948, which is the year that Israel regained independence.

The only problem being that, as there is no year zero, there were only 2,483 years between 536 BC and 1948 AD.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Quote:

What part of the bible do they find to be the most inerrant, the part where a guy puts two of every animal on the planet into one boat and god floods the world or the part where a guy dies and returns to life three days later? It’s a fucking joke. That people take it as seriously as our friend here does only makes it that much more amusing.

What about the Bible's prophecies? They've been inerrant. Besides, the Bible has predicted a lot of stuff, and all of it has come true so far ... check out this link for a list of prophecies in the Bible that have been fullfilled or are being fullfilled ... http://www.100prophecies.org/ Check it out, it has some good evidence. Can any of you provide any prophecies in the Bible that have been proven false?

It's easy to fulfill prophecies when you're working backwards.

The Christ character, for example, was written to fit the prophecies so it had no choice but to fulfill them. Even then it failed - no one is worshipping Manny the Messiah (Emmanuel). They're worshiping this Jesus guy.

Of course it is interesting that these Jewish guys skipped over all the prophecies that every Jewish person that ever existed believed the messiah would fulfill (We Christians of course claim he will fulfill these with his second comming). Also note Emmanuel is not a name, it is something that someone will be called. The verse more accurately reads he will be called "God with us". It is in fact said of Jesus that he is God and dwelt amoung us. So Jesus is called Emmanuel.

That's where the salesmanship comes in.

They worked backwards to make sure the Christ character fulfilled the prophecies. Then they tell the faithful that he'll fulfill the other prophecies because he did so well on the first ones. It's hard to not get a winner when you rig the game.

As far as "Emmanuel" is concerned, you did the exact amount of goalpost moving I expected you to. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It would be helpful

Quote:
It would be helpful if you quote the bible correctly. No where does it say every animal on earth was placed into a boat. Also if Evolution is as true as you folks say it is, then maybe there was only a couple animals to begin with and few animals went into the ark. Perhaps all the other animals evolved after the flood.

 

I don’t really want to debate the details of an ancient story with you. It would be a pointless waste of time because you are not actually arguing that these stories are not fantastic. Are you? You are arguing that they are fantastic but they are also true. And I think this is where people cross the line between just trying to argue a position and being delusional.

You obviously don’t accept evolution but if I wanted to try to make a case to you for evolution I could make an argument that the concept is not incredible. I would not say evolution contradicts many things that we know to be correct but it is true anyway because unexplainable evolutionary forces that we cannot see or detect in any way make these things happen. Do you see the difference?

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:

JEFFREY DID NOT CONVENIENTLY SUBTRACT 70 YEARS TO GET 360. JEDI'S POST IS CORRECT.

NOTICE THAT 70 YEARS PASSED BEFORE THE JEWS REFUSED TO RETURN TO THEIR HOMELAND, THEREFORE ONLY THE REMAINDER OF THE TIME WAS MULTIPLIED BY 7.

"Ezekiel said the Jews were to be punished for 430 years..."

"Lev 26:18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins."

"The return had taken place sometime around 536 BC, about 70 years after Judah lost independence to Babylon."


What difference did it make if it was 70 years after Judah lost independence to Babylon?
That 70 years does not conveniently get subtracted from the 430 years.

430 X 7 = 3010

 

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: simple

jcgadfly wrote:
simple theist wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Quote:

What part of the bible do they find to be the most inerrant, the part where a guy puts two of every animal on the planet into one boat and god floods the world or the part where a guy dies and returns to life three days later? It’s a fucking joke. That people take it as seriously as our friend here does only makes it that much more amusing.

What about the Bible's prophecies? They've been inerrant. Besides, the Bible has predicted a lot of stuff, and all of it has come true so far ... check out this link for a list of prophecies in the Bible that have been fullfilled or are being fullfilled ... http://www.100prophecies.org/ Check it out, it has some good evidence. Can any of you provide any prophecies in the Bible that have been proven false?

It's easy to fulfill prophecies when you're working backwards.

The Christ character, for example, was written to fit the prophecies so it had no choice but to fulfill them. Even then it failed - no one is worshipping Manny the Messiah (Emmanuel). They're worshiping this Jesus guy.

Of course it is interesting that these Jewish guys skipped over all the prophecies that every Jewish person that ever existed believed the messiah would fulfill (We Christians of course claim he will fulfill these with his second comming). Also note Emmanuel is not a name, it is something that someone will be called. The verse more accurately reads he will be called "God with us". It is in fact said of Jesus that he is God and dwelt amoung us. So Jesus is called Emmanuel.

That's where the salesmanship comes in.

They worked backwards to make sure the Christ character fulfilled the prophecies. Then they tell the faithful that he'll fulfill the other prophecies because he did so well on the first ones. It's hard to not get a winner when you rig the game.

As far as "Emmanuel" is concerned, you did the exact amount of goalpost moving I expected you to.

The disciples still missed all the big ones. My statement about Emmanuel is still correct and you are the one trying to do something tricky.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Fish wrote: Master Jedi

Fish wrote:
Master Jedi Dan wrote:



5. And, there were exactly 2,484 years from 536 BC to 1948, which is the year that Israel regained independence.

The only problem being that, as there is no year zero, there were only 2,483 years between 536 BC and 1948 AD.

I concede that it appears Jeffrey made an error here. It is however only one year off and I believe the war that lead to Israel being reborn did end  in 1947. One year off is not much of a problem when other possibilities exist to account for this year. (Perhaps 536 B.C. should be 537 B.C.)


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: simple theist

AiiA wrote:
simple theist wrote:

JEFFREY DID NOT CONVENIENTLY SUBTRACT 70 YEARS TO GET 360. JEDI'S POST IS CORRECT.

NOTICE THAT 70 YEARS PASSED BEFORE THE JEWS REFUSED TO RETURN TO THEIR HOMELAND, THEREFORE ONLY THE REMAINDER OF THE TIME WAS MULTIPLIED BY 7.

"Ezekiel said the Jews were to be punished for 430 years..."

"Lev 26:18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins."

"The return had taken place sometime around 536 BC, about 70 years after Judah lost independence to Babylon."


What difference did it make if it was 70 years after Judah lost independence to Babylon?
That 70 years does not conveniently get subtracted from the 430 years.

430 X 7 = 3010

 

 

The punishment started when the Jews lost their independance. 70 years then passed before the Jews refused to return. Hence the remainer of the punishment is 430-70. 


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: Quote: It

Gauche wrote:

Quote:
It would be helpful if you quote the bible correctly. No where does it say every animal on earth was placed into a boat. Also if Evolution is as true as you folks say it is, then maybe there was only a couple animals to begin with and few animals went into the ark. Perhaps all the other animals evolved after the flood.

 

I don’t really want to debate the details of an ancient story with you. It would be a pointless waste of time because you are not actually arguing that these stories are not fantastic. Are you? You are arguing that they are fantastic but they are also true. And I think this is where people cross the line between just trying to argue a position and being delusional.

You obviously don’t accept evolution but if I wanted to try to make a case to you for evolution I could make an argument that the concept is not incredible. I would not say evolution contradicts many things that we know to be correct but it is true anyway because unexplainable evolutionary forces that we cannot see or detect in any way make these things happen. Do you see the difference?

 

I actually only deny Macroevolution. I believe microevolution is scientific. THe bible directly claims humans were not part of Evolution since they were made by God. The bible also says that some animals were made on land. This denies that land animals came from the sea, however still leaves open the possibility of only some animals and the rest evolving into existence as evolution states.

Also for Noah's boat, I was granting you that evolution could explain how Noah got so many animals on his boat. Also the currect number was two of every unclean animal and seven of every clean animal (I think thats right). This produces a lot less then every animal in the world comming into the boat. The boat was also extremely large. 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote:

simple theist wrote:

Also for Noah's boat, I was granting you that evolution could explain how Noah got so many animals on his boat. .

That can't work simple theist. Man is part of modern biological diversity, there is not significantly less animals in Noah's time compared to now, it would be roughly the same numbers of species; evolution doesn't work quite that fast.

Only Geography can make Noahs Ark an historical story, and it would be told from perspective. But that's a good thing because when you allow for that there are many other corroborating grandpa stories around the globe that help to make Noah's case albeit it that, in that case, the global significance of Noahs operation is ever so slightly embellished in the telling, it's at least true enough in the smaller world that was.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
simple theist wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Quote:

What part of the bible do they find to be the most inerrant, the part where a guy puts two of every animal on the planet into one boat and god floods the world or the part where a guy dies and returns to life three days later? It’s a fucking joke. That people take it as seriously as our friend here does only makes it that much more amusing.

What about the Bible's prophecies? They've been inerrant. Besides, the Bible has predicted a lot of stuff, and all of it has come true so far ... check out this link for a list of prophecies in the Bible that have been fullfilled or are being fullfilled ... http://www.100prophecies.org/ Check it out, it has some good evidence. Can any of you provide any prophecies in the Bible that have been proven false?

It's easy to fulfill prophecies when you're working backwards.

The Christ character, for example, was written to fit the prophecies so it had no choice but to fulfill them. Even then it failed - no one is worshipping Manny the Messiah (Emmanuel). They're worshiping this Jesus guy.

Of course it is interesting that these Jewish guys skipped over all the prophecies that every Jewish person that ever existed believed the messiah would fulfill (We Christians of course claim he will fulfill these with his second comming). Also note Emmanuel is not a name, it is something that someone will be called. The verse more accurately reads he will be called "God with us". It is in fact said of Jesus that he is God and dwelt amoung us. So Jesus is called Emmanuel.

That's where the salesmanship comes in.

They worked backwards to make sure the Christ character fulfilled the prophecies. Then they tell the faithful that he'll fulfill the other prophecies because he did so well on the first ones. It's hard to not get a winner when you rig the game.

As far as "Emmanuel" is concerned, you did the exact amount of goalpost moving I expected you to.

The disciples still missed all the big ones. My statement about Emmanuel is still correct and you are the one trying to do something tricky.

First of all, I'm talking about the authors of the NT - I've seen no proof they and the disciples were the same people 

They didn't miss them - they had to keep some open as selling points. If fulfilled all the prophecies they'd lose a recruiting tool. People are motivated by hopes or threats. The "second coming" prophecies provide both.

The only trickery I did was to use Isaiah 7:14. You're the one who did what the authors of the NT did. They had a Jesus character and they wrote him to fit the messianic prophecies. They made the evidence fit their conclusion instead of drawing a conclusion based on the evidence.  

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
One thing you are going to

One thing you are going to have to get used to in this forum is that there is NOT the desire for truth - simply the desire to bash theism. 

It is good that you had two weeks to refute his work but let me show you something:  After asking for Rook's credentials which he refuses to give and then having several people say - "just look at what he has written and debate that" and people who attacked me for simply asking:  I took just one of his contradictions and destroyed it.  Here is the post from Rook concerning (g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14):

You're right, and in Greek, in the LXX, it has been translated to be adelphos. The word is metaphorical or general. There is a variant of the Hebrew word used which would have meant brother, literally, however it is not that variant. So you are correct. I wonder then why the translaters of some of the versions used "brother" instead of "kin"? Perhaps by using the LXX they determined that in order to keep good with the theme in the Greek NT, they decided to keep it "brother", but that doesn't seem to jive well with the Hebrew, or the intentions of the seventy scholars.  This is why I am not a fan of english versions, because I don't like how they alter or paraphrase a word or sentence in Greek into english.

But either way, you're correct.  I should go through and update my list. 

This was posted on May 18, 2007 - of course here we are the 28th of June and there has been no removal of this.  This is simply a place to bash the Bible - not seek the truth contained within it.  I then dealt with this issue.

Rook wrote this is another inconsistency:  (i) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12)

We have already established that Genesis 12:12 and 14 was a non-contradiction so lets look at this "inconsistency" that Rook wrote about.  We will see this is not an inconsistency either.

The story of Saul's death is told in the last chapter of 1 Samuel 31.  Saul, his sons, and the men of Israel are fighting against the Philistines.  The Philistines kill three of Saul's sons and scripture then states in verse 3, "The battle pressed hard against Saul, and the archers found him, and he was badly wounded by the archers."  In other words, Saul had been over taken and he had been shot by the archers.  There was no escape.  He was already mortally wounded and he would certainly die.  This is very clear in the story by the fact that Saul turns to his armor-bearer and tells him, "Draw your sword and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through and mistreat me."  Saul's armor-bearer is is afraid and he will not do it, therefore; Saul took his own sword and fell upon it. 

So the question is . . . out of this first account of the story,  "Who is responsible for the death of Saul?" 

#1 - Some may simply say, "Saul did it.  He killed himself."  They would be right.  

#2 - Some would say, "The Philistines are responsible for the death of Saul.  They killed him"  They would ALSO be right.

That should take care of Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), AND by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12).

BUT WHAT ABOUT a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10)

Rook is not exactly honest when he says that there is an inconsitency here.  The Bible DOES NOT say that a young Amalekite killed Saul.  The Bible says that a young Amalekite SAID that he killed Saul.  The Amalekite was simply lying.  This is a narrative and the story regarding the Amalekite as recorded in 2 Samuel 1:5-10 says this: 

5Then David said to the young man who told him, "How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?" 6And the young man who told him said, "By chance I happened to be on Mount Gilboa, and there was Saul leaning on his spear, and behold, the chariots and the horsemen were close upon him. 7And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called to me. And I answered, 'Here I am.' 8And he said to me, 'Who are you?' I answered him, 'I am an Amalekite.' 9And he said to me 'Stand beside me and kill me, for anguish has seized me, and yet my life still lingers.' 10So I stood beside him and killed him, because I was sure that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown that was on his head and the armlet that was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord."

Well, here is another "inconsistency" that needs to be taken off the list.  By the way, I checked and the Genesis 12 issue is still there.  Come on, let's update this website.  I wonder which "inconsistency" will be next to fall.

Of course neither he nor anyone has responded.  I did not continue with the rest because no one ever responded to the second one that was debunked.  You are also seeing all the same things that I saw.  Such as:  "Well if your God is Omni . . . then why the confusion in the text?"  "Why didn't God make the Bible easier to understand?"  All the same questions . . . and yet never a true yearning for the truth of God. 

Even with all the proof you have given, you will not see anyone questioning Rook's integrity.  They will simply question the truth of God's word and they question your ability and even when proven wrong their response to you was, "well prove other things wrong." 

You and I have both shown Rook's "inconsistencies" to be false and yet people will still follow him and sign up for his classes and sit under him has a teacher who has YET to produce any credentials . . . and they call theists delusional. YIKES.  Again, great work preacherman.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Ok, I did my own

Ok, I did my own research...and came up with some answers for my questions.

  1. (1) Jesus is a descendant of Coniah (Jeconiah, Jeconias) as the genealogy in MATT. 1:11 ("Jeconias begat Salathiel" ) through MATT. 1:16 ("And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" ) shows. In JER. 22:28-30 ("Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vassal wherein is no pleasure? why are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? Thus said the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah" ) God said Coniah would never have a descendant who sat on David's throne. Yet, many prophecies, such as that found in LUKE 1:32 ("He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David" ), show that Jesus must sit on David's throne eventually.
  2. (2) We have already seen that Jesus is a descendant of Coniah. FIRST CHRONICLES 3:16 ("And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah {Coniah--Ed.} his son...." ) shows that Coniah is a son of Jehoiakim. So Jesus is a descendant of Jehoiakim too. But JER. 36:30 ("Therefore thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David" ) says Jehoiakim would never have a descendant upon the throne of David. So, again, we see that Jesus is disqualified since he must sit upon the throne of David. God's commands given through Jeremiah that neither Jehoiakim nor his son Jeconiah (Coniah--Ed.) could have any progeny who would sit on David's throne exclude Jesus.
  3. (3) Jesus couldn't be the Messiah because LUKE 3:31 ("...which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David {in the genealogy of Jesus--Ed.}" ) shows Nathan is an ancestor of Jesus and Nathan was excluded from any claim to the throne of David because his brother, Solomon, was chosen to head the Davidic line instead: 1 CHRON. 29:1 ("Furthermore David the king said unto all the congregation, Solomon my son, whom alone God hath chosen...." ), 1 CHRON. 28:5 ("And of all my sons, for the Lord hath given me many sons, he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the Kingdom of the Lord over Israel" ), and 1 CHRON. 29:24 ("And all the princes, and the mighty men, and all the sons likewise of King David, submitted themselves unto Solomon the king&quotEye-wink

1. Jesus is not a physical descendant of Coniah/Jeconiah. Coniah/Jeconiah is an ancestor of Joseph, not Mary. Though Coniah's/Jeconiah's sons didn't inherit the throne of Israel, they still carried the line of David. If Jesus was a physical descendant of Coniah/Jeconiah, he wouldn't have been able to inherit the throne of David. However, Joseph, who was a descendant of Solomon, was Jesus legal father, thus passing on the right to the throne to Jesus.

2. Once again, with Jehoiakim, same with Coniah/Jeconiah. Jesus was not his physical descendant either, still giving him the right to the throne.

3. Luke's genealogy differs from Matthew's genealogy. What is the significance of Luke's genealogy then, if it has already been shown that Jesus is a descendant of the royal line of David? Two explanations exist: 1. Some interpreters argue that Luke was giving the genealogy of Mary, showing that she also was in the line of David and that therefore Jesus was qualified as the Messiah not only through Joseph (since he was the oldest legal heir) but also through Mary. 2. Luke was tracing the actual line of Joseph. This view maintains that the legal line and the actual line of David through which Jesus came met at Joseph, the non-biological (but still legal) father of Jesus. In this view, Jacob (mentioned as the one who brought up Joseph in Matthew 1), Joseph's uncle, would have died childless and therefore Joseph would have been the closest living heir. Thus Joseph and Jesus would have been brought into the royal line. In my opinion, the answer is probably the first one, but what do I know, I'm just another human being.

There. Happy everyone? Laughing out loud As a side note, I'd like to show you all what a real prophecy that is proven false is - check out this site http://www.truebiblecode.com/. These guys must have the record for unfulfilled prophecies. It's amazing the way that they try to twist the Bible's words to predict things.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Great work, Master Dan.  I

Great work, Master Dan.  I had previously taught on that subject in church, but due to my hectic schedule I was unable to properly post the answers.  I am glad that you were able to find the correct answer and hope that you find more truth in your studies.  

The next set of contradictions will be ready for post on Tuesday and I anticipate your responses. Please let it be known that in three weeks NONE of the Rational Responders have replied to the dismantling of the alleged Bible Contradictions. Would someone please contact, Rook or Sapient and tell them that WE, the THEISTS, are patiently waiting for a response.

 Thank You

In HIS SERVICE,

Preacherman 

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: simple

Eloise wrote:
simple theist wrote:

Also for Noah's boat, I was granting you that evolution could explain how Noah got so many animals on his boat. .

That can't work simple theist. Man is part of modern biological diversity, there is not significantly less animals in Noah's time compared to now, it would be roughly the same numbers of species; evolution doesn't work quite that fast.

Only Geography can make Noahs Ark an historical story, and it would be told from perspective. But that's a good thing because when you allow for that there are many other corroborating grandpa stories around the globe that help to make Noah's case albeit it that, in that case, the global significance of Noahs operation is ever so slightly embellished in the telling, it's at least true enough in the smaller world that was.

You still can't prove evolution (which is why its called a theory and not a law). YOu should say...evolution doesn't work that fast without God. With God, all things are possible. Second exactly how long ago did the whole Noah event happen? You have to be able to give me a date before you can say that evolution wouldn't have time to do anything...perhaps evolution did have time to do something. Also I did have to make evolution agree with Genisis. I still maintain however that Macroevolution is 100% false, and not true science.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
Eloise wrote:
simple theist wrote:

Also for Noah's boat, I was granting you that evolution could explain how Noah got so many animals on his boat. .

That can't work simple theist. Man is part of modern biological diversity, there is not significantly less animals in Noah's time compared to now, it would be roughly the same numbers of species; evolution doesn't work quite that fast.

Only Geography can make Noahs Ark an historical story, and it would be told from perspective. But that's a good thing because when you allow for that there are many other corroborating grandpa stories around the globe that help to make Noah's case albeit it that, in that case, the global significance of Noahs operation is ever so slightly embellished in the telling, it's at least true enough in the smaller world that was.

You still can't prove evolution (which is why its called a theory and not a law). YOu should say...evolution doesn't work that fast without God. With God, all things are possible. Second exactly how long ago did the whole Noah event happen? You have to be able to give me a date before you can say that evolution wouldn't have time to do anything...perhaps evolution did have time to do something. Also I did have to make evolution agree with Genisis. I still maintain however that Macroevolution is 100% false, and not true science.

The only answer in terms that don't go outside evolution is that Noah is a man, that makes him modern in terms of evolutionary biology.

Otherwise, yes anything is possible with God and you're entitled to your skepticisms about macroevolution or abiogenesis, that is exactly how scientists approach the ideas anyway. If they can prove themselves then we can assume veracity. The same applies with God and I don't think it shouldn't as he made us that way for one, and for two theology openly defies us to approach in that exact position: If it doesn't beget itself, do not believe it, or in other words John 10:37/1Thess 5:21.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


neon
neon's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
That's funny.

Exactly. If "the Bible" is perfect, do you mean the "Old" Testament, which is Jewish, or the "New," which was written by missionaries in the East, separated by a vast amount of time and in a different language? There is no "Bible." What readers have today is an amalgam stuck together by first-century cultists. And that doesn't even touch on the vast catalog of the so-called apocryphal texts, which are still in use in Egypt, Ethiopia and many other countries. She should go get a copy of the Nag Hammadi books; they're longer than the current Christian Bible.

The books the apostles were referring to in their letters were the Old Testament. Period. That's all that existed at the time.

Come on. The Bible is folklore, at best. It was written by people, for people, who today wouldn't be able to pass a "what I did on my summer vacation" assignment. It is riddled with inaccuracies. Christians are taught to pick out the passages that make them feel good. Good luck finding a minister who's going to preach about stoning to death people who wear more than two types of thread in the same shirt.

Oh, and you're still not supposed to boil a baby goat in its mother's milk.


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
neon wrote: Exactly. If

neon wrote:

Exactly. If "the Bible" is perfect, do you mean the "Old" Testament, which is Jewish, or the "New," which was written by missionaries in the East, separated by a vast amount of time and in a different language? There is no "Bible." What readers have today is an amalgam stuck together by first-century cultists. And that doesn't even touch on the vast catalog of the so-called apocryphal texts, which are still in use in Egypt, Ethiopia and many other countries. She should go get a copy of the Nag Hammadi books; they're longer than the current Christian Bible.

The books the apostles were referring to in their letters were the Old Testament. Period. That's all that existed at the time.

Come on. The Bible is folklore, at best. It was written by people, for people, who today wouldn't be able to pass a "what I did on my summer vacation" assignment. It is riddled with inaccuracies. Christians are taught to pick out the passages that make them feel good. Good luck finding a minister who's going to preach about stoning to death people who wear more than two types of thread in the same shirt.

Oh, and you're still not supposed to boil a baby goat in its mother's milk.

Cmon dude.  This is a forum directed at bringing information that can be verified through study.  We have no time for opinions.  Please either read the topic and stick to it and bring information to refute my CORRECTIONS to YOUR BIBLICAL ERRANCY LIST or keep off the post.  The so called inaccuracies listed by Rook are being addressed through study.  So please bring facts or at least an attempt at facts or "keep it moving."  We Christians don't adhere to the apocrypha.  We adhere to the Canon of text which is the 66 Books that are inerrant.  If you don't believe so then present me with a list of inaccuracies and contradictions that cannot be disputed then I'll believe your viewpoint.  UP UNTIL THEN, KEEP IT MOVING!!!!

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
So, who decides what books

So, who decides what books are inerrant, and what books are not?


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST wrote: Cmon

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

Cmon dude. This is a forum directed at bringing information that can be verified through study. We have no time for opinions. Please either read the topic and stick to it and bring information to refute my CORRECTIONS to YOUR BIBLICAL ERRANCY LIST or keep off the post. 

. . .

UP UNTIL THEN, KEEP IT MOVING!!!!

Opinions are certainly within the rules of the forum.  Just because you started a thread does not give you the authority to dictate all content.

At this point, consider this a "soft" warning rather than an official warning against attacking another poster instead of offering an opinion or position.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: ILOVECHRIST

Susan wrote:
ILOVECHRIST wrote:

Cmon dude. This is a forum directed at bringing information that can be verified through study. We have no time for opinions. Please either read the topic and stick to it and bring information to refute my CORRECTIONS to YOUR BIBLICAL ERRANCY LIST or keep off the post.

. . .

UP UNTIL THEN, KEEP IT MOVING!!!!

Opinions are certainly within the rules of the forum. Just because you started a thread does not give you the authority to dictate all content.

Never said that it did. But you kats on this site base your arguements on study so I reply and try to present my arguement in the same manner. However in retrospect, I started the post with factual information and this is how I addressed Rook. So I can make a request to stick to the facts and not cloud the post with opinions that will not get to the heart of the matter (Biblical Contradictions) This is certainly within the guidelines of the rules as well.

From the rules section...

Quote:
Please do not derail threads more than strictly necessary and get back on topic ASAP unless it has pretty much been "running its course" at that point anyway.

Susan wrote:
At this point, consider this a "soft" warning rather than an official warning against attacking another poster instead of offering an opinion or position.

And uhm where did I attack anyone? Did you read the INITIAL Post? I have made a stance. My badge name says theist so you know where I stand. I created the post so if you read it then you know where I stand. The title of this post was to correct the list of biblical contradictions with information. Rook presented a list of some Biblical contradictions and then I countered with equal information. Up until now we have not gotten any response from a legitimate source to say that my posts was or is wrong. The point of making the post was to get to the facts and after watching a great deal of the responders reply with OPINIONS this is not helping the TOPIC which is BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS. So before you make "soft" warnings, please read through the pages and find out where we are at. I in NO WAY made any type of attack towards anybody. Get the facts straight....uhm...this what this post is designated for.

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST wrote: We have

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
We have no time for opinions. . . .  or keep off the post.

I reiterate. 

Opinions are acceptable.  If you disagree, you are free to do so. You are also free to ignore the comment.

It is not within your rights to say "keep off the post" to another member. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, don't mess with Susan

Yeah, don't mess with Susan - she'll whip your ass.Yell


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST wrote:neon

Quote:
Cmon dude.  This is a forum directed at bringing information that can be verified through study.  We have no time for opinions. 

All the "study" in the world is for naught if it's based on a faulty presupposition.  Both Mormons and Scientologists, alike, for eg., have vast libraries of "study" based on absurdity, much like your own, desperate to make "truth" conform to their opinion rather than allow their opinions conform to "truth".  If the "study" of these ideologies have little to no basis in fact, then how can they be categorized as anything else but "opinion"?  Are there not thousands of adherents within these organizations trying to rationalize an absurd ideology at this moment ? Have they furthered truth or simply catered to their own misguided opinions ?

You've offered multiple rationalizations for bible contradictions.  In your own words you're attempting to show that the bible is "inerrant", but you want to confine the conversation to the small list of contradictions and steer clear of the many absurdities, plagiarisms and atrocities contained in the pages of your supposed holy book.  Maybe you might have considered this before you stepped outside the topic "small list of contradictions" and made the "inerrant" claim.  It's not exactly fair for you to have it both ways is it ?  The contradictions listed in this thread are but a very small part of bible irrationality, which are a very small part of christian irrationality, which in turn are a very small part of religious irrationality overall.

While you're patting yourself on the back for your many rationalizations, you can just as easily answer questions re: the rationality of unicorns, satyrs, talking snakes, the raping of women, the slaughtering of children and the torture and dismemberment of those poor unfortuantes who happen to pick up sticks on the sabbath.  After all your holy book is "inerrant".  

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle, You sir are

AmericanIdle, You sir are completely missing the point. The Whole topic was based on Rook's original POST ENTITLED A SMALL LIST OF BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS. He used what he calls study to come up with these irrationalizations and says that he derived them straight from the Bible. Now here is where we get down to the nitty gritty. A majority of Rook's so called contradictions are not even valid. Let us take for instance the verse that says that Michal had 5 sons and then the corresponding verse says she had to children. Well upon doing a simple study we find that the BIBLE does not say that. One scripture say Michal and the other one says Merab. As a matter of fact a great deal of ROOK's arguement themselves are not true. It doesn't take a theist to understand this as your claim to fame here on the website is rational thinking. Then the question is why put up something on a site that isn't true and use this at one of your main components to justify your viewpoints?.

Imagine if you were reading the Bible and you take it as false. Fine I'll take your viewpoint, however I cannot take the viewpoint that you find the Bible false and then you completely misquote it and use YOUR OWN MISQUOTATIONS AS A MEANS TO EXTEND or VALIDATE YOUR VIEWPOINT. Especially if you call yourself an ANCIENT TEXT EXPERT. If we (the theists) tackle on every Biblical Contradiction and prove you (the athiests) completely wrong then you would have to agree that your stance on the Biblical Contradiction part of your stance or belief has now been debunked. Then we move on to the next part of your arguement, which you listed as the following, (which I will refute right now to save you the time of arguing)

the rationality of unicorns, (There are no unicorns in the Bible. The Hebrew word in Deutoronomy is WILD OX or BUFFALO ) - Refuted
Source: a REAL HEBREW DICTIONARY (not opinion)

satyrs, (The Hebrew word in Isaiah is shaggy goat not mythological animal)

- Refuted

talking snakes, (the word is serpent not snake which is an animal or beasts. I guess this would be hard to swallow because we don't have any other animals that can speak. Except for the parrot. So in a sense this is far fetched, but if a parrot can speak and has been around since the time of the turn of the century, it would not be far beyond the realm of possibilty that this animal could speak. You do believe in parrots dont you?) I wont call this one Refuted

the raping of women, (Just today an olympic star from Trinidad and Tobago admitted to raping four women (STORY HERE)) Nothing too far stretched from Todays world.
- Refuted

the slaughtering of children (Ever heard of the Haulocast? or how about slavery. Hundreds of thousands of kids were killed in these instances and they are real events) - Refuted

and the torture and dismemberment of those poor unfortuantes who happen to pick up sticks on the sabbath (Today it is still illegal for people to openly practice Christianity in certain third world countries or you can be put to death. In the middle east if you steal they cut off a limb. Remember Michael Fay? He commits vandalism and gets caned. Same thing) - Refuted

Now we (the theists) have dissassembled two of your theories; the first section of contradictions of the Bible and the absurdities of events so unrealistic that these possibly cant be true even though, with the exception of the talking serpent, still happen today.

Pt. two will be up tomorrow.

Keep em coming.

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

AmericanIdle, You sir are completely missing the point. The Whole topic was based on Rook's original POST ENTITLED A SMALL LIST OF BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS. He used what he calls study to come up with these irrationalizations and says that he derived them straight from the Bible. Now here is where we get down to the nitty gritty. A majority of Rook's so called contradictions are not even valid. Let us take for instance the verse that says that Michal had 5 sons and then the corresponding verse says she had to children. Well upon doing a simple study we find that the BIBLE does not say that. One scripture say Michal and the other one says Merab. As a matter of fact a great deal of ROOK's arguement themselves are not true. It doesn't take a theist to understand this as your claim to fame here on the website is rational thinking. Then the question is why put up something on a site that isn't true and use this at one of your main components to justify your viewpoints?.

Imagine if you were reading the Bible and you take it as false. Fine I'll take your viewpoint, however I cannot take the viewpoint that you find the Bible false and then you completely misquote it and use YOUR OWN MISQUOTATIONS AS A MEANS TO EXTEND or VALIDATE YOUR VIEWPOINT. Especially if you call yourself an ANCIENT TEXT EXPERT. If we (the theists) tackle on every Biblical Contradiction and prove you (the athiests) completely wrong then you would have to agree that your stance on the Biblical Contradiction part of your stance or belief has now been debunked. Then we move on to the next part of your arguement, which you listed as the following, (which I will refute right now to save you the time of arguing)

the rationality of unicorns, (There are no unicorns in the Bible. The Hebrew word in Deutoronomy is WILD OX or BUFFALO ) - Refuted
Source: a REAL HEBREW DICTIONARY (not opinion)

satyrs, (The Hebrew word in Isaiah is shaggy goat not mythological animal)

- Refuted

talking snakes, (the word is serpent not snake which is an animal or beasts. I guess this would be hard to swallow because we don't have any other animals that can speak. Except for the parrot. So in a sense this is far fetched, but if a parrot can speak and has been around since the time of the turn of the century, it would not be far beyond the realm of possibilty that this animal could speak. You do believe in parrots dont you?) I wont call this one Refuted

the raping of women, (Just today an olympic star from Trinidad and Tobago admitted to raping four women (STORY HERE)) Nothing too far stretched from Todays world.
- Refuted

the slaughtering of children (Ever heard of the Haulocast? or how about slavery. Hundreds of thousands of kids were killed in these instances and they are real events) - Refuted

and the torture and dismemberment of those poor unfortuantes who happen to pick up sticks on the sabbath (Today it is still illegal for people to openly practice Christianity in certain third world countries or you can be put to death. In the middle east if you steal they cut off a limb. Remember Michael Fay? He commits vandalism and gets caned. Same thing) - Refuted

Now we (the theists) have dissassembled two of your theories; the first section of contradictions of the Bible and the absurdities of events so unrealistic that these possibly cant be true even though, with the exception of the talking serpent, still happen today.

Pt. two will be up tomorrow.

Keep em coming.

And you believe these are actually refutations ?

If for nothing else, I at least now understand why Rook might not even bother to respond to you, so Thanks at least for that. 

If this is what passes as credibility I see no reason why anyone should bother to read anything else you post. 

Best of luck to you and the shaggy goat !

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle

** double post **


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle

AmericanIdle wrote:
ILOVECHRIST wrote:

AmericanIdle, You sir are completely missing the point. The Whole topic was based on Rook's original POST ENTITLED A SMALL LIST OF BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS. He used what he calls study to come up with these irrationalizations and says that he derived them straight from the Bible. Now here is where we get down to the nitty gritty. A majority of Rook's so called contradictions are not even valid. Let us take for instance the verse that says that Michal had 5 sons and then the corresponding verse says she had to children. Well upon doing a simple study we find that the BIBLE does not say that. One scripture say Michal and the other one says Merab. As a matter of fact a great deal of ROOK's arguement themselves are not true. It doesn't take a theist to understand this as your claim to fame here on the website is rational thinking. Then the question is why put up something on a site that isn't true and use this at one of your main components to justify your viewpoints?.

Imagine if you were reading the Bible and you take it as false. Fine I'll take your viewpoint, however I cannot take the viewpoint that you find the Bible false and then you completely misquote it and use YOUR OWN MISQUOTATIONS AS A MEANS TO EXTEND or VALIDATE YOUR VIEWPOINT. Especially if you call yourself an ANCIENT TEXT EXPERT. If we (the theists) tackle on every Biblical Contradiction and prove you (the athiests) completely wrong then you would have to agree that your stance on the Biblical Contradiction part of your stance or belief has now been debunked. Then we move on to the next part of your arguement, which you listed as the following, (which I will refute right now to save you the time of arguing)

the rationality of unicorns, (There are no unicorns in the Bible. The Hebrew word in Deutoronomy is WILD OX or BUFFALO ) - Refuted
Source: a REAL HEBREW DICTIONARY (not opinion)

satyrs, (The Hebrew word in Isaiah is shaggy goat not mythological animal)

- Refuted

talking snakes, (the word is serpent not snake which is an animal or beasts. I guess this would be hard to swallow because we don't have any other animals that can speak. Except for the parrot. So in a sense this is far fetched, but if a parrot can speak and has been around since the time of the turn of the century, it would not be far beyond the realm of possibilty that this animal could speak. You do believe in parrots dont you?) I wont call this one Refuted

the raping of women, (Just today an olympic star from Trinidad and Tobago admitted to raping four women (STORY HERE)) Nothing too far stretched from Todays world.
- Refuted

the slaughtering of children (Ever heard of the Haulocast? or how about slavery. Hundreds of thousands of kids were killed in these instances and they are real events) - Refuted

and the torture and dismemberment of those poor unfortuantes who happen to pick up sticks on the sabbath (Today it is still illegal for people to openly practice Christianity in certain third world countries or you can be put to death. In the middle east if you steal they cut off a limb. Remember Michael Fay? He commits vandalism and gets caned. Same thing) - Refuted

Now we (the theists) have dissassembled two of your theories; the first section of contradictions of the Bible and the absurdities of events so unrealistic that these possibly cant be true even though, with the exception of the talking serpent, still happen today.

Pt. two will be up tomorrow.

Keep em coming.

And you believe these are actually refutations ?

If for nothing else, I at least now understand why Rook might not even bother to respond to you, so Thanks at least for that.

If this is what passes as credibility I see no reason why anyone should bother to read anything else you post.

Best of luck to you and the shaggy goat !

 

Of course Rook not responding to ILOVECHRIST's explanations, lowers Rook's crediabilit. No response means ILOVECHRIST's explanations are probably correct, and if they are, it means Rook didn't do enough reasurch before posting his claims. I find it more likely that Rook has not responded because he can't refute the claims. If Rook did enough reasurch to begin with, he should be able to refute the claims or go ahead and concede that he can't.

I think the whole purpose of this webiste is to make me, the theist start to think my belifs are irrational. If Rook can't refute ILOVECHRIST's claims, or chooses not to for whatever reason, I am left to believe his claims (as well as my own) are unrefutable by you. 


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Part Two is now up.  Check

Part Two is now up.  Check the forum. I will be dismantling the next set and have them ready next Tuesday.

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: Of

simple theist wrote:

Of course Rook not responding to ILOVECHRIST's explanations, lowers Rook's crediabilit. No response means ILOVECHRIST's explanations are probably correct, and if they are, it means Rook didn't do enough reasurch before posting his claims. I find it more likely that Rook has not responded because he can't refute the claims. If Rook did enough reasurch to begin with, he should be able to refute the claims or go ahead and concede that he can't.

I think the whole purpose of this webiste is to make me, the theist start to think my belifs are irrational. If Rook can't refute ILOVECHRIST's claims, or chooses not to for whatever reason, I am left to believe his claims (as well as my own) are unrefutable by you.

 

How about the sole fact that he's extreamly busy? Have you seen him post in any forum on here in a while? 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST wrote:

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
Part Two is now up. Check the forum. I will be dismantling the next set and have them ready next Tuesday.

Still waiting for you to refute Part One.

I read a lot of "translation error" excuses and a good amount of "It's OK that the writers couldn't get their stories straight" dodges (in various forms) but I've seen no refutations, let alone a dismantling. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
Part Two is now up. Check the forum. I will be dismantling the next set and have them ready next Tuesday.

Still waiting for you to refute Part One.

I read a lot of "translation error" excuses and a good amount of "It's OK that the writers couldn't get their stories straight" dodges (in various forms) but I've seen no refutations, let alone a dismantling.

I'm sorry... and who are you? I dont remember you posting any pertinent information to this arguement. The so called "translation errors" were brought to light being that Rook has the title "Ancient Text Expert".  Being that he is an expert, it would seem that several of the Contradictions listed would have not even made the list.  I see that you didn't read the post because no where does any of my study include a "we couldn't get our story straight" answer.  They were all researched and not only are agreed upon by other theologians but several answers are historical in their explanantion and can be verified out side of Scriptual reference.  For the sake of watsing anymore key strokes, holla at me when you bring something meaniful to the table.

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
Part Two is now up. Check the forum. I will be dismantling the next set and have them ready next Tuesday.

Still waiting for you to refute Part One.

I read a lot of "translation error" excuses and a good amount of "It's OK that the writers couldn't get their stories straight" dodges (in various forms) but I've seen no refutations, let alone a dismantling.

I'm sorry... and who are you? I dont remember you posting any pertinent information to this arguement. The so called "translation errors" were brought to light being that Rook has the title "Ancient Text Expert". Being that he is an expert, it would seem that several of the Contradictions listed would have not even made the list. I see that you didn't read the post because no where does any of my study include a "we couldn't get our story straight" answer. They were all researched and not only are agreed upon by other theologians but several answers are historical in their explanantion and can be verified out side of Scriptual reference. For the sake of watsing anymore key strokes, holla at me when you bring something meaniful to the table.

I'm about the same level of nobody in particular as you. You bring your opinions, I bring mine.

My problem is you use "translation error" as so many other apologists do - you look through a bunch of books and find where someone wrote "X (the word in dispute) could mean (the meaning the apologist is looking for)" and that meaning instantly becomes THE meaning and the other possibilities are automatically incorrect.

The points you brought up about in your opening about how some writers date from certain events while others don't and that really doesn't matter is essentially absolving them and the God who supposedly inspired their writing from having their stuff together and being able to write one coherent story.

Feel free to dismiss this as not meaningful to the topic (I'm sure you will) but it doesn't change what is - you haven't refuted anything.

By the way, thank you for this quote,

"They are 2000 years apart and entirely different cultures."

That tells me that no one should ever bother living by the Bible because what's in it is obsolete and doesn't apply to modern culture.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:
ILOVECHRIST wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
Part Two is now up. Check the forum. I will be dismantling the next set and have them ready next Tuesday.

Still waiting for you to refute Part One.

I read a lot of "translation error" excuses and a good amount of "It's OK that the writers couldn't get their stories straight" dodges (in various forms) but I've seen no refutations, let alone a dismantling.

I'm sorry... and who are you? I dont remember you posting any pertinent information to this arguement. The so called "translation errors" were brought to light being that Rook has the title "Ancient Text Expert". Being that he is an expert, it would seem that several of the Contradictions listed would have not even made the list. I see that you didn't read the post because no where does any of my study include a "we couldn't get our story straight" answer. They were all researched and not only are agreed upon by other theologians but several answers are historical in their explanantion and can be verified out side of Scriptual reference. For the sake of watsing anymore key strokes, holla at me when you bring something meaniful to the table.

I'm about the same level of nobody in particular as you. You bring your opinions, I bring mine.

My problem is you use "translation error" as so many other apologists do - you look through a bunch of books and find where someone wrote "X (the word in dispute) could mean (the meaning the apologist is looking for)" and that meaning instantly becomes THE meaning and the other possibilities are automatically incorrect.

The points you brought up about in your opening about how some writers date from certain events while others don't and that really doesn't matter is essentially absolving them and the God who supposedly inspired their writing from having their stuff together and being able to write one coherent story.

Feel free to dismiss this as not meaningful to the topic (I'm sure you will) but it doesn't change what is - you haven't refuted anything.

By the way, thank you for this quote,

"They are 2000 years apart and entirely different cultures."

That tells me that no one should ever bother living by the Bible because what's in it is obsolete and doesn't apply to modern culture.

Look son, you are missing the point, the biggest and most astute representative for this SITE put up a bunch of claims...and guess what....most of the claims are inaccurate and irrational.(that's new...uhm...not really) So you taking my posts out of context is something I have gotten use to.  Lets keep it simple Rook List Contradictions.  Where does he get them?  The Bible. I counter with INFORMATION not opinions as all sources are CITED and you can look them up yourself.  As a matter of fact I guarantee, that if you had a Bible that you could look up several of Rook's contradictions and find that MANY of his CLAIMS are not even accurate.  I'll give you an example.  Rook says that the Bible says in Lev. 19:19 that A BAT is a BIRD and here is Lev. 19:19:

 19Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Do you see the word bat in this verse? A refutation to this is not opinion, its a fact that Rook is wrong.  None of my answers have any opinion, you and others just see them as opinions when you have NOTHING to counter with. Take some time and read the post. Rook started with INFO.  I countered with INFO and got what in return? Nothing yet because Rook is SOOOOO busy...even though we can watch and listen to him screw around on the stikam on the front page.  If you were an ancient text expert then you could look at my post and tell if I had any real information or if I just made them up.  Several of the rational response members have already agreed, that upon looking at the information and verifying the sources the Rook's list needs to be revised.  You should do the same. This wont make you a Christian, just a person using RATIONAL thinking as this is what your claim to fame is.

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote:Of

simple theist wrote:

 

Of course Rook not responding to ILOVECHRIST's explanations, lowers Rook's crediabilit. No response means ILOVECHRIST's explanations are probably correct, and if they are, it means Rook didn't do enough reasurch before posting his claims. I find it more likely that Rook has not responded because he can't refute the claims. If Rook did enough reasurch to begin with, he should be able to refute the claims or go ahead and concede that he can't.

I think the whole purpose of this webiste is to make me, the theist start to think my belifs are irrational. If Rook can't refute ILOVECHRIST's claims, or chooses not to for whatever reason, I am left to believe his claims (as well as my own) are unrefutable by you.

That's irrational for two reasons.

1) Rook is busy, he's not posting anywhere. To take Rook's lack of participation as evidence of his inability to respond is an unsupported leap.

2) YOU have an epistemic duty to examine YOUR OWN beliefs.  You can't simply hold to a belief just because an atheist has not refuted it for you.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/what_are_epistemic_rights_a_basic_primer_in_critical_thinking

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
ILOVECHRIST wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
Part Two is now up. Check the forum. I will be dismantling the next set and have them ready next Tuesday.

Still waiting for you to refute Part One.

I read a lot of "translation error" excuses and a good amount of "It's OK that the writers couldn't get their stories straight" dodges (in various forms) but I've seen no refutations, let alone a dismantling.

I'm sorry... and who are you? I dont remember you posting any pertinent information to this arguement. The so called "translation errors" were brought to light being that Rook has the title "Ancient Text Expert". Being that he is an expert, it would seem that several of the Contradictions listed would have not even made the list. I see that you didn't read the post because no where does any of my study include a "we couldn't get our story straight" answer. They were all researched and not only are agreed upon by other theologians but several answers are historical in their explanantion and can be verified out side of Scriptual reference. For the sake of watsing anymore key strokes, holla at me when you bring something meaniful to the table.

I'm about the same level of nobody in particular as you. You bring your opinions, I bring mine.

My problem is you use "translation error" as so many other apologists do - you look through a bunch of books and find where someone wrote "X (the word in dispute) could mean (the meaning the apologist is looking for)" and that meaning instantly becomes THE meaning and the other possibilities are automatically incorrect.

The points you brought up about in your opening about how some writers date from certain events while others don't and that really doesn't matter is essentially absolving them and the God who supposedly inspired their writing from having their stuff together and being able to write one coherent story.

Feel free to dismiss this as not meaningful to the topic (I'm sure you will) but it doesn't change what is - you haven't refuted anything.

By the way, thank you for this quote,

"They are 2000 years apart and entirely different cultures."

That tells me that no one should ever bother living by the Bible because what's in it is obsolete and doesn't apply to modern culture.

Look son, you are missing the point, the biggest and most astute representative for this SITE put up a bunch of claims...and guess what....most of the claims are inaccurate and irrational.(that's new...uhm...not really) 

This claim is false. It's your responses that are irrational. You've  done little else than cry 'translation error' and 'out of context', the same old tired theistic responses to bible contradictions.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'