Theres no appropriate title

Arglaar,
Sorry, the post didn't come out like I wanted. I did answer your questions in there-they are just combined with yours.

 

You can send it if you want. If you do, however, I'm going to repost it here for everyone to read, because frankly, I'm tired of hearing "My paper, My paper, My paper" and "Ask me and I'll send it"

Just post it and let everyone read it. Don't make them ask you for it.

 

Emphasis Mine
That's an interesting point... I assume that when most people think of "his image" they think "He made us look like him", not "He made us Think like him"

 

Argy, I asked him not to post the entirety of it here as it is a rather substantial write-up.

 

It's a problem with the formatting. It won't come out where it's easy to follow. There is nothing more frustrating than trying to read something that is all broken up and doesn't flow easy. My writing is hard enough to follow-I don't need any help making it rougher reading for anyone =)

 

Then send it to me or hamma.. I'm sure one of us can upload it and post a link to download.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/babelfish.shtml

^^^ Yes I know.. real player is the devil.. but it's a great video.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060325...OGk4LgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5bGVna3NhBHNlYwNzc3JlbA--

Not to be joking about the whole thing, but one of the most insightful comments I have every heard in a movie comes from Men in Black:

Kay: 1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you "knew" that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow.

If you simply look at the past 100 years of human history and see the strides that have been made in our understanding of the world, the universe, and ourselves, it is simply remarkable. So assume that whoever wrote Genesis a few thousand years ago, knew everything, is a bit short sighted.

I know lots of Christians that believe the story of Adam and Eve is simply that, a story. It all depends how you structure your belief system. For many, there's nothing invalidated in Christianity because the story of creation is a lesson to learn from and not a literal account of what happened.

 

Interestly enough, both sides have websites

You can read all about the whole earth dating thing there.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

 

The paper was sent to me and I've uploaded it to www.nebbeh.8m.net

Look for two word documents that start "What Is The Truth" and an excel sheet (goes along with the word document) that starts "Prophecy". One of the word documents is the one that I commented on. I read through it, then went back through it and commented, in red, on the things that disgusted me most. Sorry, but reading these things really makes me wonder what's worng with people ='(.

The only part of the paper I agreed with was the part on how important morality is and what the ten commandments imply. However, you most certainly do NOT need religion for morality. Morality is about the only positive thing religion offers and that's is MAJORLY overshadowed by all the horrible things it's caused throughout history and is still causing today.

 

I also would like to throw down that thought that we may NOT be the most intelligent life on our planet! There is much in the sea that we do not know, and it is very possible that there are sea animals with the same level of thought as humans...they just have a different kind of world than us.

 

If you believe in that everything in the Bible is literally true, how do explain the many contridictions? How does it set well with your faith? Here are a few:

Acts 9:7 says that when Jesus called Paul to preach the gospel, the men who were with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. However, Acts 22:9 asserts that when Paul received his calling, the men who were with him saw a light but did not hear the voice that spoke to Paul.

At Ezekiel 18:20, the Lord states: "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father...." However, at Exodus 20:5, God says: "...I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

Genesis 1 tells us that the first man and the first woman were made at the same time and after the animals. However, Genesis 2 states that the order of creation was as follows: man, then the animals and then woman.

Genesis 1 sets forth six days of creation, but Genesis 2 speaks of the "day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."

Genesis 1 states that the fruit trees were created before man, but Genesis 2 indicates that the fruit trees were created after man.

Genesis 1:2-5 asserts that God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day, but Genesis 1:14-19 says that the sun, moon, and stars were not made until the fourth day.

Genesis 1:20 says that the fowl were created out of the waters, but Genesis 2:19 states that the fowl were created out of the ground.

Genesis 6:19-22 says that God ordered Noah to bring "of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort...into the ark." However, Genesis 7:2-3 states that the Lord ordered Noah to bring into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens and the unclean beasts by twos.

Genesis 8:4 states that, as the waters of the flood receded, Noah's ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month, but the very next verse asserts that the tops of the mountains could not even be seen until the tenth month.

Genesis 8:13 states that the earth was dry on the first day of the first month, but Genesis 8:14 reports that the earth was not dry until the twenty-seventh day of the second month.

At Jeremiah 7:22, God says that he did not give the Israelites any commands about animal sacrifices. In contrast, at Exodus 29:38-42 and many other places in the Pentateuch, God is clearly depicted as requiring the Israelites to offer animal sacrifices.

John 19:17 states that Jesus carried his own cross. In contrast, Mark 15:21-23 says that a man called Simon carried Jesus' cross to the crucifixion site.

Mark 16:2 says that on the day of the resurrection certain women arrived at the tomb at the rising of the sun, but John 20:1 states that they arrived when it was yet dark.

Luke 24:2 tells us that the tomb was open when the women arrived, but Matthew 28:1-2 indicates that it was closed.

Mark 16:5 states that the women saw a young man at the tomb, Luke 24:4 says that they saw two men, Matthew 28:2 alleges that they saw an angel and John 20:11-12 insists that they saw two angels.

Both genealogies list Jesus' father as being Joseph (which is curious, given that Mary was supposedly impregnated by the Holy Ghost), but Matthew states that the name of Joseph's father was Jacob, while Luke says that his name was Heli.

Matthew tells us that there were twenty-six generations between Jesus and King David, but Luke reports that the number of such generations was forty-one.

Matthew alleges that Jesus' line of descent was through David's son Solomon, but Luke asserts that it was through David's son Nathan.

Matthew 2:13-15 says that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt with the baby Jesus immediately after the wise men from the east had brought their gifts. However, Luke 2:22-40 indicates that, after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remained in Bethlehem for the time of Mary's purification (which was forty days, under the Mosaic law), then brought Jesus to Jerusalem "to present him to the Lord" and then returned to their home in Nazareth. Luke makes no mention of a journey into Egypt or a visit by wise men from the east.

Matthew 27:44 tells us that Jesus was taunted by both of the criminals who were being crucified with him. However, Luke 23:39-43 states that only one of the criminals taunted Jesus, that the other criminal rebuked the one who was doing the taunting, and that Jesus told the criminal who was defending him: "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 assert that Jesus cried with a loud voice: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Luke 23:46 says that Jesus' final words were: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." John 19:30 tells us that the last statement of the dying Jesus was: "It is finished."

Matthew 27:5 states that Judas took the money that he had obtained by betraying Jesus, threw it down in the temple and then "went and hanged himself." However, Acts 1:18 reports that Judas used the money to purchase a field and "falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst and all his bowels gushed out."

Proverbs 26:4 says "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself." while Proverbs 26:5 says "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."

II Samuel 24:1 says that the Lord caused David to take the census, but I Chronicles 21:1 tells us that David was incited by Satan to take the census.

These examples do not make the Bible untrue, I am just questioning the literal translation. Yes, you can say the Bible was written by God through man's hands, but our translations are not. The same version of the Bible can have totally different meanings in different printings as new interpretations are found all of the time. Different versions, for example King James, New Oxford or New Revised Standard, just to name three, have different meanings in their translation of the Bible. Which is real? How do you know what the truth really is?

This is why I believe that the message of the Bible is much deeper than simply believing the words printed.

 

I think your very correct Bretta,
It is very important to get a good translation. I don't know for sure, but I imagine that you copied that info from a website. It will take me a little bit to answer everyone of those if you wish for me to. I believe that God's word never contradicts itself. There are things that you must look at to understand what it is saying.
1. Who wrote/spoke the passage and to whom was it addressed?
2. What does the passage say?
3. Are there any words or phrases in the passage that need to be examined?
4. What is the immediate context?
5. What is the broader context in the chapter and book?
6. What are the related verses to the passage’s subject and how do they
affect the understanding of this passage?
7. What is the historical and cultural background?
8. What do I conclude about the passage?
9. Do my conclusions agree or disagree with related areas of scripture and
others who have studied the passage?
10. What have I learned and what must I apply to my life?

Did you read the paper???-not my notes but the last 15 pages or so?

This is truely evidence that the Bible is inspired by God. You can't deny those statistics. Yes, I do believe we can easily misunderstand it. That is why it is so important to learn from a discipled teacher. Just by reading the words we are missing so much of the deeper meaning that were intended for us. By sharing our thoughts with others can help sharpen the way we think.

 

Yes, I did get the info from a webpage. I don't have the time to look them up myself.

I printed out your paper but I haven't been able to finish reading it yet. I'll give a long looksee tomorrow when I'm not so tired.

 

First of all lets define the term we are using here: contradiction.
n 1: opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas 2: (logic) a statement that is necessarily false; "the statement `he is brave and he is not brave' is a contradiction" [syn: contradiction in terms] 3: the speech act of contradicting someone; "he spoke as if he thought his claims were immune to contradiction"

In the list of suggested contradictions in the Bible that you found Bretta, we can apply this definition and see if what you pointed out are in fact contradictions. I can attempt to deal with a few here. I won't talk to each one as this post would be overlong and very difficult to get through, but I do have an answer for each supposed contradiction. (I have personally studied every apparent contradiction you have listed here and have found them to in fact not be contradictions, as defined, once you understand the context in which they are written, etc, as Zab posted earlier):

Acts 9:7 says that when Jesus called Paul to preach the gospel, the men who were with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. However, Acts 22:9 asserts that when Paul received his calling, the men who were with him saw a light but did not hear the voice that spoke to Paul.
"Literally, that clause in 22:9 may be translated, “They did not hear the sound.” The NIV correctly translates the verse, because the verb “to hear” with the genitive case may mean “to hear a sound” and with the accusative case “to hear with understanding.” The genitive case is employed in 9:7, and the accusative is used in 22:9. So the travelers with Saul heard the sound (9:7) but did not understand what Christ said (22:9)." (Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.)

Thus in Acts 9:7, “hearing the voice,” the noun “voice” is in the partitive genitive case [i.e., hearing (something) of], whereas in 22:9, “they heard not the voice,” the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear). “The former denotes the sensational perception, the latter (the accusative case) the thing perceived” (Cremer). Vine, W. E., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell) 1981.


At Ezekiel 18:20, the Lord states: "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father...." However, at Exodus 20:5, God says: "...I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."
Exodus 20:5 is, of course, among the ten commandments. The Ten Commandments are arranged in covenant form. The Suzerain-Vassal treaty pattern of the ancient near east is followed in the Ten Commandments. This arrangement included an introduction of who was making the covenant (Exodus 20:2), what the covenant maker had done (20:2), laws (20:3-17), rewards (20:6,12), and punishments (20:5,7). Covenantally, when a father misleads his family, the effects of that misleading are often felt for generations. This is because the father is being covenantally unfaithful and God has stipulated that there are punishments to breaking the covenant with God. That is the case with these verses that deal with the sins visited upon the children. If a father rejects the covenant of God and takes his family into sin and rejects God, the children will suffer the consequences, often for several generations. Whether or not this is fair is not the issue. Sin is in the world consequences of sin effected many generations.
On the other hand, Deuteronomy 24:16 is dealing with legal matters as the context 24:6-19 shows. Ezekiel 18:20 is merely recounting the Law of the Pentateuch. Therefore, the context of second set of verses is dealing with the legality aspect within the Jewish court system. The previous set of verses deal with God visiting upon the descendents of the rebellious the consequences of the rebellious fathers' sins.
As a further note on this issue, there is a concept in the Bible called Federal Headship. This means that the male, the father, represents the family. We see this in the garden of Adam and Eve. She was the first one to eat of the fruit; she was the first one to sin. However, the Bible states that sin entered the world through Adam (Rom. 5), not Eve. This is because Adam was the Federal Head of all mankind. Furthermore we see in the Hebrews 7:7-10 the following:

"But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. 9And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him."

In the verses in Hebrews we see that Levi, who was a descendant of Abraham, paid tithes to Melchizedek while still in the loins, "seed," of his father Abraham, even though Levi was not yet alive. In other words, Abraham, the father, represented his descendants. As Abraham paid tithes, so also did Levi. Therefore, we can see the concept of Federal Headship represented in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. We can conclude that God will visit the inequities of the fathers upon the descendents because the fathers have failed to be covenantally faithful. Yet, we see in the other verses a declaration of legality in dealing with people.


Genesis 1 tells us that the first man and the first woman were made at the same time and after the animals. However, Genesis 2 states that the order of creation was as follows: man, then the animals and then woman.
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.


Genesis 1:2-5 asserts that God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day, but Genesis 1:14-19 says that the sun, moon, and stars were not made until the fourth day.
The light is not defined as coming from the sun, moon, and stars in the first part. It is typically understood that the light in the beginning was the glory of God, or even residual afterglow from the first creation of matter.



Matthew alleges that Jesus' line of descent was through David's son Solomon, but Luke asserts that it was through David's son Nathan.
Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).
There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.


Matthew 27:44 tells us that Jesus was taunted by both of the criminals who were being crucified with him. However, Luke 23:39-43 states that only one of the criminals taunted Jesus, that the other criminal rebuked the one who was doing the taunting, and that Jesus told the criminal who was defending him: "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."
I see this as a changed heart when he realized that just maybe Jesus was the Christ and decided to place his faith in Jesus as who He said He was. Sure, he probably started out cursing the Christ, but as the day wore on he witnessed that there was something different and changed his mind about thsi Person. Jesus Christ can forgive any living person anywhere.


Matthew 27:5 states that Judas took the money that he had obtained by betraying Jesus, threw it down in the temple and then "went and hanged himself." However, Acts 1:18 reports that Judas used the money to purchase a field and "falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst and all his bowels gushed out."
There is no contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another. In fact, what happened here is that Judas went and hung himself and then his body later fell down and split open. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke due to the weight and his body fell down and his bowels spilled out.
Also, notice that Matt. 27:3-8 tells us specifically how Judas died, by hanging. Acts 1:16-19 merely tells us that he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Acts does not tell us that this is the means of his death where Matthew does.

The original autographs were the inspired ones. What we have now are copies of that original set of manuscripts. True, there have been copying errors, but it is pretty well accepted by people who have studied it that the Scripture we have today is about 99.5% textually pure from the originals.

Please provide some specific examples of places where the meaning is different and we can then deal with them here.

These questions are irrelevant unless you have proven differences in the meanings. (You are using a straw man here.)

How can you believe the meaning is deeper if you don't even believe what is plainly written? By your list of supposed contradictions here I would assume you do not believe the Bible at all.

I have answered a number of these apparent contradictions. I hope this gives incentive to you to maybe study them for yourself and see whether they really do contradict themselves or whether they are just in need of a deeper look.

 

contradictions debunked

Bretta,
This is exactly one of the reasons I said it is so important to learn from a discipled teacher. As teachers and disciples, we must be able to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

 

Zab, stop stalking me.

 

please remove your comments from the paper

Rayzer-will you please remove your comments from the paper. I would like for whoever wants to read it, to form their own opinions without an outside influence.

At lease make a copy of it or something without your comments in it.
I don't mind your opinion on it at all-I just would like for everyone to form their own opinions. That's all.

Mani-Do you have a camera in my house???

Thank you,
Zab