Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I still haven't seen anyone give any type of answer to the following:
IF THE BIBLE IS SO IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL TO LIFE, GOD WOULD HAVE MADE EVERYONE LITERATE AND MADE SURE EVERYONE GOT A COPY.
Considering there have been billions who have lived on this earth and never learned to read, never saw a bible, or both, HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO LEARN ABOUT GOD? DID GOD HAVE A REASON FOR THEM NOT TO HAVE A BIBLE?
If Romans 1:19 explains it (the only answer that is ever given to that question that I have heard), it is saying that anyone who doesn't have a bible should know everything about God that is in the bible. Why is it that people without a bible are always having to be told what is in the bible? Romans 1 says they already know according to people who use that to explain why its okay that so many are illiterate and live where bibles are never or rarely seen.
These people aren't looking for answers but pride-driven debate.
I went to church for 30 years and read the bible regularly, accepted Christ, was baptized, and spent many years praying and reading the bible. There were so many parts of it that made me feel like something was wrong, and anytime I mentioned those parts, people from church or family would get an uneasy look but then go on to explain that for some reason it was right.
My search for answers has not been well received by most though, so if I seem testy in my threads, its not meant to be testy. The simple matter is this. If the bible is what religion has said it is for so long, there should be some concrete answers to a lot of the issues in it. I was at one point hopeful that those concrete answers were out there, I just hadn't found them yet. Now I'm doubtful that they are out there, because instead of concrete answers, the answers are more like warm taffy that can be stretched and kneaded and pressed to whatever form one wants it to be, and the answers even vary between different scholars. If scholarly Christians even have disagreements about different stories and verses, we can conclude that the bible wasn't ever meant to be inerrant, or we can conclude that if it was meant to be inerrant, it failed. I don't think God fails, so I am believing that the bible was never meant to be inerrant.
Right Mike! Sadly people are always trying to discredit the Bible, but it can't be done. It is error free and there are no contradictions, I have yet to see anyone prove there is.
Yes. And while there are variations in the manuscript copies and errors of a minor nature such as misspellings, they in no way have caused any point of doctrine to be lost. We can be sure that we have what was taught in the original autographs.
And where does it give any of your explanations in the bible? It doesn't. Which is my point. The bible is full of things like this where things contradict in the written words. Then there is this long explanation which requires the knowledge of ancient culture, language, tradition, and also usually relies on one or several of the following:
It is meant literally here
It is not meant literally here
This was a parable
This was symbolic
This was from the writer's viewpoint
That is a transcription error
This is a copyist error
This is a translation error
This makes sense if you apply verse x, y, and z, and consider the culture, traditions, etc.
Using one or a combination of the above tactics, people have made the bible say almost anything they want it to say.
If God wanted to give us a book that is inerrant and infallible for us to base our lives on, it wouldn't require such verbal contortion and acrobatics. It would be straightforward and understandable by all. IF THE BIBLE WAS SO IMPORTANT, GOD WOULD HAVE MADE EVERYONE LITERATE AND MADE SURE EVERYONE GOT A COPY. Considering there have been billions who have lived who never learned to read, never saw a bible, or both, HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO LEARN ABOUT GOD? DID GOD HAVE A REASON FOR THEM NOT TO HAVE A BIBLE?
I don't see how any part of what you just said relates in any way to Exodus 32. Moses doesn't pray or beg or ask for mercy at all in Exodus 32. Lets look again:
I am not sure where any of that applies to Exodus chapter 32.
Moses tells God to turn from his burning anger. And then he tells God what the Egyptians will say about God having evil intent. He doesn't tell God they have changed, are changing, or will change. And they DIDN'T change at all. The story continues with Moses going down to the camp AFTER he talked God out of destroying the people, and thats when Moses broke the tablets in his own anger because they were still doing the same thing that had made God mad to begin with.
Then Moses (after gathering the sons of Levi) instructed them that God commands them to go from gate to gate in the camp and every man KILL HIS BROTHER, KILL HIS FRIEND, KILL HIS NEIGHBOR. So God directs the people to go kill their brother, friend, and neighbor immediately after Moses talked God out of killing them first. God wanted to kill all of them for worshiping a golden calf, but since Moses talked him out of it, the command that Moses says comes from God is to go kill 3,000 brothers, friends, and neighbors.
It was only after going down, breaking the tablets in anger, then instructing the men who came forward to go on a killing spree (3,000 killed) that Moses went back up (the next day) to ask God for atonement for their sin. Then God said that those who had sinned against him would be blotted out of his book and in the last verse of chapter 32, God still smote the people who worshiped the golden calf.
Again, the point is to read Exodus chapter 32 and ask the question, does this story make sense? Does this sound like the nature of God? Moses didn't tell God anyone would change, and in fact, the chapter goes on to say very clearly that they didn't. And in the end, God chose to go ahead and kill them anyway.
My guess is that nothing that is said to you will make any difference to you. I have shown you quite clearly how your two examples of apparent contradictions are merely a lack of understanding on your part. You don't want to accept that. Believe what you wish. When a person has turned from the truth it is next to impossible to bring them back to a recognition of the truth.
Mike, I just repped you on another thread, and I agree with a lot of what you say. This I do not agree with. You're dancing to try and make something not a contradiction.
It was no longer Judas' silver. He gave it back, and the priests bought the field. Then scripture flat out says Judas bought the field, then went and hung himself (or fell, which, btw, I can see how him falling and insides spilling out could happen after hanging himself, so no contradiction there). That's a contradiction.
No where does it say it was bought in Judas' name. That only comes from man, to try and make scripture fit.
People don't try to discredit the bible, it does it on its own. It is full of error and contradictions, but people like you and Mike want so badly to believe it's not, that you'll come up with anything you can to make it not.
Even people on the internet, who have sites devoted to proving there are no contradictions, will even admit there are errors. There are way too many numerical errors in the OT. So, they blame it on "copyist error". Just one of the many things txboomerang mentioned.
There is no contradiction. Judas may not have purchased the field himself, but it was the money that Judas received for betraying Jesus that purchased the field. And that is all that is meant when it says that Judas bought the Potter's field. The chief priests could not use the money because it was blood money, and so bought the field in Judas' name.
But if you wish to see a contradiction there, then you will see one despite the fact that there is none.
As for the variations in the manuscripts, and the copyist errors in those copies, they do nothing to change any point of doctrine, nor have they resulted in the loss of any doctrine. What we have in our Bible today (not withstanding the obviously bad translations) accurately presents what was in the original autographs.
Last edited by Michael Way; 02-07-2012 at 12:47 AM..
Not a problem, Tex. Witnesses to a crime often have small discrepancies in their testimonies. In fact, it is precisely the LACK of lock-step uniformity that suggests to detectives that the witnesses have not consulted with one another about the event that they witnessed. Only rehearsed stories are uniform in all detail.
The authors of the New Testament, inspired by the Holy Spirit, were real witnesses and REAL authors (not merely secretaries taking dictation) - so their writings are not uniform but reflect their individual perspectives.
Now see, at least this I can respect more than just the flat out "there are no contradictions or errors". However, if a detective was taking notes from witnesses, and one witness said, "the white man bought the stolen car from her" and another said, "the black man bought the stolen car from her"...the detective would conclude that was a contradiction, not just a "small discrepancy". Who bought the field is not a small discrepancy either, but a contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee9786
These people aren't looking for answers but pride-driven debate.
I used to say the same thing too when people would ask questions I didn't like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I LOVE NORTH CAROLINA
I believe God is certainly capable to keeping His Word error free. The devil tries to make people think it has contractions, he just loves doing that. I don't have to defend the Bible, it stands on it's own and never returns void, Isaiah 40:8
And it's ok that you believe that. That is your prerogative. Man is fallible, and definitely have their own agendas. It's my prerogative to believe that, and to ask questions.
You go ahead and keep turning your blind eye. I'll go ahead and keep asking questions.
There is no contradiction. Judas may not have purchased the field himself, but it was the money that Judas received for betraying Jesus that purchased the field. And that is all that is meant when it says that Judas bought the Potter's field. The chief priests could not use the money because it was blood money, and so bought the field in Judas' name.
But if you wish to see a contradiction there, then you will see one despite the fact that there is none.
As for the variations in the manuscripts, and the copyist errors in those copies, they do nothing to change any point of doctrine, nor have they resulted in the loss of any doctrine. What we have in our Bible today (not withstanding the obviously bad translations) accurately presents what was in the original autographs.
There is no contradiction to you, because you've twisted it until you've believed what it says. Buying it in Judas' name is totally man's thinking, not what the bible says.
At least you'll admit there are variations and errors. I appreciate that. No one can read the bible and say there are none. Yes, you can find ways out of (what others see as) contradictions, but you can't say there are no errors without being downright blind. Thank you for that.
I'm sorry if the thread has turned to just the contradictions and errors in the bible, instead of what you originally asked.
I don't know why God didn't make everyone literate, and make sure they had a copy of the bible. That is one reason we are told to go out into the world and spread the gospel. However, you're right, it would have been easier if the former applied.
TX Boomerang. So I'll ask you a few questions, and since you've rejected the whole thing, I'd be interested in your answers. If it is not divinely inspired. How are the following possible?
Jesus predicts that his words will never pass away, and spread over the whole world. 2000 years later, it happens.
The Bible prophecies that Babylon will never be rebuilt.( Remember that Babylon was a great city. Its the equivalent of saying New York would be destroyed and never rebuilt)
That 1000 years before Jesus crucifixion, before the Roman form of crucifixion was ever invented, before Rome was even settled as a city, David could accurately describe Jesus experience of crucifixion as he does in Psalm 22.
Well, give it some thought,
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right Mike! Sadly people are always trying to discredit the Bible, but it can't be done. It is error free and there are no contradictions, I have yet to see anyone prove there is.
The Word of God does not equal "the written Bible".... That is such a misconception. No wonder people think that God plays favourites.
