 |
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Actually, I can. ( give you some bible contradictions. )
In Matthew 1:16, the father of Joseph(mary's husband) is listed as Jacob.
In Luke 3:23, the father of Joseph(mary's husband) is listed as Heli. |
And you know that these scriptures that appear to be contradictory (at least to many who are not sincere and unwilling to really study) have been answered by theologians? Theology is a science where ppl amongst other things really dig deep into the bible. You should really study the book and not come up with superficial stuff. That is if you're sincere and actually seeking truth...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Connorkimbo: Oh, that was difficult to predict. Here, i'll write a story about how the earth split in half, but I personally stuck it back together with magical scotch tape, i'll write that down in a book, and i prophesy that in 2000 years, people will not believe in it. Those damn unbelievers |
it's cool that you only reply to my sarcastic remarks and you ignore the rest of the stuff. Why don't you come and give some good comments instead of this off-topic stuff ?
quote:
In Matthew 1:16, the father of Joseph(mary's husband) is listed as Jacob.
In Luke 3:23, the father of Joseph(mary's husband) is listed as Heli. |
The most common explanation is easy,
Matthew gave his greek name, Luke gave his Hebrew name.
That's such an easy answer that it's not even funny anymore.
Why don't you come with an important contradiction,
something like that Jesus did indeed rise according to Luke, but not to Matthew ? There are allways those unimportant off-topic silly tiny contradictions with easy explanations......... that's so boring !
Take MarkL, he's so boring.
He posts some unfounded points, doesn't even bother to give some good arguments for it, and when we reply to it, he ignores it for eternity, to post the same stuff again in another thread. 
it's a hard life, being a theist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CB2034
|
|
Psalm115:1-8
2 people so far try to show contradictions in the bible, however, the first one i couldnt see anything near a contradiction and the next one Cyber very easily showed how it wasnt a contradiction. Now I ask again, I really dont believe there are any in such a work as great as the Bible, does anybody have a valid contradiciton?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Take MarkL, he's so boring.
He posts some unfounded points, doesn't even bother to give some good arguments for it, and when we reply to it, he ignores it for eternity, to post the same stuff again in another thread. |
God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
Which first--beasts or man?
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Righteous live?
Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."
Jesus' last words
Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Years of famine
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.
I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.
Tempts?
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)
Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)
Ascend to heaven
"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)
"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13)
etc
etc
etc
etc
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
 |
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
Hi guys! Sorry for haven't post in here before, but I just saw this thread now. I mean, around one hour ago, since I had to read it all. (BTW UR, did you miss me?  )
Anyway, the questions here are really interesting (despite the trolls we already know...  ), and so their answers. To highlight, I would like to point an interesting dillema. What was happening in the world in 2400 BC? Was there a deludge or the Pyramids were being built?
I must confess that I never worried much about Noah, since my studies on the Bible have pretty much been around the origins of life (and I'm a creationist, for those who don't know, and don't get me wrong, but I consider the Theory of Evolution the biggest scientific shame, but that's another story), the prophetic books of Isaiah and Daniel, and all the Greek Scriptures, including the book of Revelation. And since many of the prophecies in Isaiah and Daniel have already occured and are historical accurate, I give a lot of credit to the Bible.
Anyway, I have to go!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bosh
|
 |
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
"The most common explanation is easy,
Matthew gave his greek name, Luke gave his Hebrew name.
That's such an easy answer that it's not even funny anymore."
Um no, its not just Joseph's father that has a different name, the entire ancestry given in Matthew is COMPLETELY different from that given in Luke.
Matthew traces Joseph's ancestry through the entire line of David right up until Zorobabel, who is the last person of the Davidic line mentioned in the OT. He was active in early post-Exilic Judea was probably the subject of several of the Messianic prophesies found in the OT (ie contemporaries thought that he'd reestablish the Kingdom) but then he fades out of view and we hear no more about the Davidic line in the OT. Matthew then raddles off a long list of people that were supposedly Zorobabel's descendents, people that are mentioned nowhere in the OT.
Luke gives a seperate geneology for Jesus, the longest one in the Bible and which includes 75 people. This geneology disagrees COMPLETELY with Matthews. While Matthew traces it through Solomon and all of the Davidic kings, Luke claims that Joseph's ancestor was David's son Nathan, not Solomon (for Nathan being David's son se 2 Samuel 5:14). He then gives a whole bunch of names (of people no mentioned in the OT) as the supposed descendents of Nathan. This geneology then leads (by a route completely separate from the one in Matthew) to Zorobabel (Matthew has his grandfather be Jehoiachim who is mentioned in the OT and Luke has it be Neri, who isn't). Luke then connects Joseph to Zorobabel through a completely different list of ancestors, which don't connect at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bosh
|
|
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
"And since many of the prophecies in Isaiah and Daniel have already occured and are historical accurate, I give a lot of credit to the Bible."
Its very easy to predict things that have already happened. Isaiah was written by two (possibly three) seperate authors (not including editors small interpolations etc.). One lived during the last days of the Davidic Kingdom, the other(s) lived during/after the exile.
Daniel was probably written only shortly before the Macceabean revolt, which is about three hundred years after it claims to have been written. This can be seen in the fact that the Jews stuck it in the "Writings" section of their bible along with lots of later work instead of the earlier-written "prophet's section." Also half of the origonal was written in Aramean and the author seems to struggle with Hebrew, and Aramean only became the first language of Palestinian Jews comparitively late. And finally, the author is extremally hazy about the world in in which he supposedly lived, which would only make sense if he was writing a fictional accounts of events that took place hundreds of years before he wrote Daniel.
some examples:
1:1-2 he claims that Nebuchadrezzar beseiged and conquered Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign, when in fact he did so years later under the reign of Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin.
1:1 He calls Babylonia "Shinar" (ie Sumer), which is extremally anarchonistic.
2:2 He refers to Chaldeans as magicians, which was how the term "Chaldean" was used in the 2nd century BC and later, while in all texts that're really as old as Daniel claims to be Chaldean is simply the Babylonian nationality.
2:4 The Chaldean King has his Chaldean magicians talk to him in Aramean, which makes no sense except insofar as the author of Daniel is more fluent in that language.
5:1-2 he refers to Belshazzar as the king and son of Nebuchadrezzar, when it fact he was no relation and was never a king.
5:31 He claims that Darius the Median conquered Babylonia and was then followed by Cyrus the Persian. This is hopelessly muddled. There was no Median King named Darius and the Medians never conquered Babylonia. If he's talking about the Persian Darius then he not only gets his nationality wrong, but his father, and Darius came AFTER Cyrus in any case.
8:16 He mentions the angel Gabriel by name, and you don't find angels mentioned by name until very late in the development of Judaeism (ie not until after some Zoroastrianism rubbed off).
Also, the only mention of Daniel in the OT is as an ancient paragon of wisdom (Ezekiel 14:14 and 28:3 for example), while if you follow the cronological information in the book of Daniel, the fictional subject of the Book of Daniel was a younger contemporary of Daniel.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CB2034
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Smith
Bible? Guiness? LOTR?
The most widely published book in history is none of these.
What is it??? |
according to Guiness Book of World Records. The Bible is number one followed by The Guiness Book of World Records.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
|
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
1:1-2 he claims that Nebuchadrezzar beseiged and conquered Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign, when in fact he did so years later under the reign of Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin.
1:1 He calls Babylonia "Shinar" (ie Sumer), which is extremally anarchonistic.
2:2 He refers to Chaldeans as magicians, which was how the term "Chaldean" was used in the 2nd century BC and later, while in all texts that're really as old as Daniel claims to be Chaldean is simply the Babylonian nationality.
2:4 The Chaldean King has his Chaldean magicians talk to him in Aramean, which makes no sense except insofar as the author of Daniel is more fluent in that language.
5:1-2 he refers to Belshazzar as the king and son of Nebuchadrezzar, when it fact he was no relation and was never a king.
5:31 He claims that Darius the Median conquered Babylonia and was then followed by Cyrus the Persian. This is hopelessly muddled. There was no Median King named Darius and the Medians never conquered Babylonia. If he's talking about the Persian Darius then he not only gets his nationality wrong, but his father, and Darius came AFTER Cyrus in any case.
8:16 He mentions the angel Gabriel by name, and you don't find angels mentioned by name until very late in the development of Judaeism (ie not until after some Zoroastrianism rubbed off).
|
I'm going to refute each and everyone of your posted points. Because my source already refutes those acusations. They are quite old. I don't promise Internet links, but I'll try to be clear.
edit: I did a check on my schedule, and I realised that I probably will only have time to research friday night...
Last edited by Zealot on 09-01-2002 at 00:41
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-01-2002 01:32
|