Are there contradictions in the bible?

Sand

@Dee

You call names because you have no morals.

Dee

@Sand

You say ....You call names because you have no morals

My reply ....Ahhh you’re getting all upset because you said slavery was immoral and now you’re sulking because you condemned your god as immoral .......

You admitted your god was immoral because he sanctioned  slavery,   I’m against,  so by implication you admit I’m more moral than your god ......Ouch beaten again buddy 

Sand

@Dee

I am just asking for your proof. You the one throwing out insults, which shows your morals.

Dee

@Sand


You call names because you have no morals or proof.

My reply .....Ahhhh still crying are you , you admitted slavery was immoral , you admitted your god was immoral therefore I’m against slavery you admit I’m more moral than your god .........Ouch 

By the way you accepted my proof regarding slavery or do you want to change your mind and say it’s moral now? It’s ok you’re getting good at lying 

Sand

@Dee

I am just asking for your proof. You the one throwing out insults, which shows your morals.

Dee

@Sand




You call names because you have no morals or proof.




My reply .....You accepted my proof you you admitted slavery was wrong 



My reply .....Ahhhh still crying are you , you admitted slavery was immoral , you admitted your god was immoral therefore I’m against slavery you admit I’m more moral than your god .........Ouch 

By the way you accepted my proof regarding slavery or do you want to change your mind and say it’s moral now? It’s ok you’re getting good at lying 

Sand

@Dee

More insults....and misrepresentation of my statements.

So I admitted my God was immoral or an assumption on your part.

I did not admit slavery was immoral, I always have held that modern slavery is immoral.

Biblical slavery is not immoral.

You have made very broad statements.

I asked for your support for your statements, you could not produce them, so I denoted your statements were unfounded and asked is this comparable to lying. You then call me a .

You are the main person who throws out insults, which gives proof to atheists lacking morals.

Dee

@Sand

You say .....More insults....and misrepresentation of my statements. 

My reply .....I have not insulted you I’ve pointed out you admitted owning people as property is immoral and I have witnesses , so why do you continue to lie?

Here you go your own words ......

@PlaffelvohfenAsked you ........will you answer my question? Do you think that owning people as commodities is moral?

Your reply ......No I do not.

You agreed that owning people as property was not moral do you want to lie again?

You say ......So I admitted my God was immoral or an assumption on your part.

My reply .....No assumption, your words stated that you agree it’s immoral therefore your god is immoral as he gives the law regards slavery 

You say .....I did not admit slavery was immoral, 

My reply .....You did your words confirm this 

You say ......I always have held that modern slavery is immoral.

Biblical slavery is not immoral. 

My reply .....You truly are dense you admitted owning people as property is immoral , now it’s not .....Are you on drugs or drunk?

You say ......You have made very broad statements. 

I asked for your support for your statements, you could not produce them, so I denoted your statements were unfounded and asked is this comparable to lying. You then call me a . 

My reply ......I’ve proved you’re a compulsive , don’t blame me your words confirm this 

You say ......You are the main person who throws out insults, which gives proof to atheists lacking morals.

My reply ......But I’m not insulting you I’m calling you a I’ve just proved my point 

Sand

@Dee

You have no proof.

I stated that modern slavery is immoral, but Biblical slavery is moral.

I have not lied in anyway, my points are very clear.

>>>Owning people is only immoral now because of what has occured with the treatment of people.

My words!

Now you have taken my statements out of context, when you clearly left out my previous words.

Saying I stated that Biblical slavery is not moral, then go ahead, nevertheless that would be a lie.

Where is my statement that God is immoral? That is a lie.

>>>My reply ......But I’m not insulting you I’m calling you a I’ve just proved my point 

That is a lie

You hurl out insults many times and I am not the only one who has called you on it.

Calling people , compulsive , idiots, saying they attended KKK meetings, these are insults.

You have stated that you do not believe the Bible is an accurate textbook.

You cannot use the information against itself if you do not believe it is accurate. (unless you are only trying to prove fallacies)

I asked for your proof outside of the Bible or any proof that goes against the Bible's information.

Dee

@Sand

You say .....I stated that modern slavery is immoral, but Biblical slavery is moral

My reply .....So your latest take on slavery is that’s it’s moral  to own people but also immoral to own people ......Oooookayyyyyy 

Sand

@Dee

I know it is hard to understand.

Its ok you feel differently. 

Dee

@Sand

You say ......I know it is hard to understand.

My reply ......Yes it is for me how you think buying and selling humans like animals was moral in biblical times ......

The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock

.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

You say ......Its ok you feel differently. 

My reply ....Yes I don’t agree with selling my daughters under any circumstances yet you do as it was done in biblical times ......

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

I also feel differently to Christians like you  who think beating people is fine  because you own them ......

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

But it’s not all bad as you and fellow Christians call me immoral for criticising biblical slavery as yous think it was wonderfully moral to own people as property in biblical times as you admitted right?

ethang5

@Sand

>@ Dee - You hurl out insults many times and I am not the only one who has called you on it.

You aren't Sand. That is pretty much all Dee does. She has even been warned by the Mod.

But as you implied, the first person to break out in insults proves they have run out of intelligent things to say.

>Calling people , compulsive , idiots, saying they attended KKK meetings, these are insults.

Not only are they insults, they are lies, and Dee knows she's lying. 

It's the price we pay for a free debate board. Good arguments Sand.

Dee

@ethang5

So typical Ethang jumps to the defence of a guy who claims owning people as property is immoral but not if god sanctions it , as it wasn’t really slavery to buy and sell women and children in biblical times .....Hilarious.

You on the other hand are just a bible thumping rabid racist who rarely says anything remotely intelligent .....it’s obviously genetic  

ethang5

@Dee

>So typical Ethang jumps to the defence of a guy who claims owning people as property is immoral but not if god sanctions it , as it wasn’t really slavery to buy and sell women and children in biblical times .....Hilarious.

Stop being . That is not what Sand said. Do you think we can't read what he said? How dumb do you take members here to be?

>You on the other hand are just a bible thumping rabid racist who rarely says anything remotely intelligent .....it’s obviously genetic

And there you go. Stop lying Dee Dee. Stop spinning what people say. If you don't, you will continue to be treated like the troll you are

This is a debate board, not a boxing ring. Anger and bile cannot substitute for intelligence and reasoning.

If you try your brain, you might find that it works. But you have to try it.

Dee

@ethang5

Typical hate filled rant from ET. Incidentally that’s exactly what Sand said and admitted then said “oh it is wrong to own people as property but the Bible’s form of slavery was ......a good thing “ .....takes a nut to know one that’s why you’re defending him.


Incidentally the stupidity is with you and Sand.

You are so you have to lie in an attempt to cover what you and your buddy cannot defend , let’s revisit here is what @Sand  actually said .......

I stated that modern slavery is immoral, but Biblical slavery is moral.

I have not lied in anyway, my points are very clear.

There you go Doofus .......Owning people as property is and was moral in biblical times his words not mine .......You really are offensively  

ethang5

@Dee

>Typical hate filled rant from ET. Incidentally that’s exactly what Sand said and admitted then said “oh it is wrong to own people as property but the Bible’s form of slavery was ......a good thing “

Because the slavery mentioned in the bible was not owning people but owning their services.

Sand agreed that owning people was immoral, he disagreed that that is what the bible is talking about. You can try to lie as you always do, but we can scroll to his comments.

>.....takes a nut to know one that’s why you’re defending him.

He needs no defense. You just insult and twist people's words. I've seen Sand debate, you aren't a threat to him.

>Incidentally the stupidity is with you and Sand.

If this were true, you wouldn't need insults. And if you've already decided, before any debate, that Sands position cannot be defended, what are you doing here?

>You are so you have to lie in an attempt to cover what you and your buddy cannot defend,

The only one who lied was you, when you claimed that Sand said God was immoral.

>let’s revisit here is what @Sand  actually said .......

Sand said - I stated that modern slavery is immoral, but Biblical slavery is moral.

I have not lied in anyway, my points are very clear.

>There you go Doofus .......Owning people as property is and was moral in biblical times his words not mine

He said nothing about "owning people". He said "slavery", and there are different meanings of slavery. "owning people" are your words, not his.

 >.......You really are offensively

At least I can read.

Dee

@ethang5

You say ......Because the slavery mentioned in the bible was not owning people but owning their services.

My reply .....What a throughly comment , let’s continue Sand and your education regarding what the Bible says a book neither of yous have read ........

4Your male and female salves shall come from the nations around you;from them-you may purchase slaves .45You may also purchase them from the foreigners residing among you or their clans living among you who are born in your land. These may become your property.…

See that Doofus? Owning people as property .....All in the “good book” 

You say ......Sand agreed that owning people was immoral

My reply ....Owning people as property is slavery you read above

You say ......he disagreed that that is what the bible is talking about

My reply .....But you and he are wrong the Bible agrees with me but you’s deny what’s written in the Bible 

You  say ......You can try to lie as you always do, but we can scroll to his comments.

My reply .....Wrong again dummy read it and weep ......

4Your male and female slaves  shall come from the nations around you;from them-you may purchases-slaves.45You may also purchase them from the foreigners residing among you or their clans living among you who are born in your land. These may become your property.…

You say .....He needs no defense. 

My reply .....I know because he had none I beat him like you soundly 

You say ......

You just insult and twist people's words

My reply .....The only ones twisting words are you and Sand as in denying what’s written in the Bible leaving your only option left ......lying 

You say ......I've seen Sand debate, you aren't a threat to him.

My reply ....You and him are Dumb and Dumber 

You say .......If this were true, you wouldn't need insults. 

My reply .....I’m not insulting you and him your every posts prove you’re idiots 

You say .....And if you've already decided, before any debate, that Sands position cannot be defended, what are you doing here?

My reply .....Says you who jumps in to defend a  nut  because I thrashed him .....what are you doing here?

You say .....The only one who lied was you, when you claimed that Sand said God was immoral.

My reply .....He said owning people as property is immoral , the word of god actually supports owning people as property Sand admits that’s immoral so therefore god is immoral .....Sand agrees as I’m sure you do now you’ve been schooled 

You say ......Sand said - I stated that modern slavery is immoral....

but Biblical slavery is moral.

I have not lied in anyway, my points are very clear.

My reply .......There you go Doofus .......Owning people as property is and was moral in biblical times his words not mine

You say .....He said nothing about "owning people". He said "slavery", and there are different meanings of slavery. "

My reply .....Different meanings of slavery Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha.....What’s the Bible say .....45You may also purchase them from the foreigners residing among you or their clans living among you who are born in your land. These may become your property.…

There ya go dummy owning people as property all from your Bible ....oh dear 

You say .....owning people" are your words, not his.

My reply .....They’re not , they’re straight from the book you need to read the Bible 

 You say .....At least I can read.

My reply .....You cannot as you don’t even know what it says in the Bible 

You’ve been schooled again Doofus 

ethang5

@Dee

Because the slavery mentioned in the bible was not owning people but owning their services.

>What a throughly comment, let’s continue Sand and your education regarding what the Bible says a book neither of yous have read .......

4Your male and female salves shall come from the nations around you;from them-you may purchase slaves .45You may also purchase them from the foreigners residing among you or their clans living among you who are born in your land. These may become your property.…

Words have more than one meaning genius. In the bible, people who were bankrupt or had  debt they couldn't pay, offered to become indentured servants to pay off the debt. They were not owned, their services were.

>See that Doofus? Owning people as property .....All in the “good book” 

I see your stupidity and your need to keep the context hidden. The slavery mentioned in the bible was never involuntary.

Sand agreed that owning people was immoral

>Owning people as property is slavery you read above

Owning people as property is only one type of slavery. Turn your brain on for a minute.

He disagreed that that is what the bible is talking about

>But you and he are wrong the Bible agrees with me but you’s deny what’s written in the Bible 

Read the bible about how people became slaves. Several accounts are there. The bible forbids kidnap and/or taking a man into slavery by force. You are just ignorant.

You can try to lie as you always do, but we can scroll to his comments.

>Wrong again dummy read it and weep ....

You are just ignorant. Even today, we talk about pro athletes and entertainers the same way. They are bought and sold between the clubs and labels, but sane people know it is their services bought, not them themselves. You think you have to be an for your argument to seem reasonable. 

Sands needs no defense. 

>I know because he had none I beat him like you soundly 

Lol. Did you crown yourself champion too?

You just insult and twist people's words...

>The only ones twisting words are you and Sand as in denying what’s written in the Bible leaving your only option left ......lying

We deny what you say it means doofus. You're the one who cannot explain verses which contradict you. Try these...

Exodus 21:16 - Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 24:7 - If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.

Thinking will not harm you dee dee, there is no need to be afraid of it.

I've seen Sand debate, you aren't a threat to him.

>You and him are Dumb and Dumber 

That leaves dumbest open for you.

>I’m not insulting you and him your every posts prove...

If this were true, you wouldn't need insults.

And if you've already decided, before any debate, that Sands position cannot be defended, what are you doing here?

>Says you who jumps in to defend a  nut  because I thrashed him .....what are you doing here?

Beating you.

The only one who lied was you, when you claimed that Sand said God was immoral.

>He said owning people as property is immoral , the word of god actually supports owning people as property 

It doesn't. In fact, besides the two verses above, the bible says it is God who owns every human being, a man cannot own another man. You are lying because your lame argument needs it.

>Sand admits that’s immoral so therefore god is immoral .....Sand agrees as I’m sure you do now you’ve been schooled 

Your word "that's" above is fakery. Sand does not agree that the bible's account is immoral slavery. You do. Saying he agrees with you is a lie.

(For the Gentle Reader: I call this militant anti-theist trick, "atheist with article". They will use words like " it, that, them, those" equivocally to pretend they are talking about the same thing as a theist. Watch an atheist's use of articles closely)

Sand said - I stated that modern slavery is immoral....

but Biblical slavery is moral.

I have not lied in anyway, my points are very clear

>There you go Doofus .......Owning people as property is and was moral in biblical times his words not mine

He said nothing about "owning people". He said "slavery", and there are different meanings of slavery. "

Different meanings of slavery Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha....

Your stupidity is not my concern. That you don't know that words can have different meanings is your shortcoming, not mine.

>There ya go dummy owning people as property all from your Bible ....oh dear

If the bible forbids taking a person by force, how would you enslave him? If a verse forbids selling people as slaves, perhaps what is bought here is not the person but his services?

You are ignorant of what you condemn. You are ignorant of biblical history.

Owning people" are your words, not his.

>They’re not , they’re straight from the book you need to read the Bible 

The bible says owning people is a sin. The verses are above. Your bias has caused you to be .

>You cannot [read] as you don’t even know what it says in the Bible 

I showed you that even today, pro athletes and entertainers are referred to as the property of clubs or labels, yet the word "property" does not mean immoral ownership.

I showed you two verses showing that God forbids the taking by force, and the selling of a person, for the purpose of slavery.

I've shown you that the bible says God is the sole owner of human beings.

What have you shown? A silly insistence that the word "property" must have only your meaning.

>You’ve been schooled again Doofus 

That you think what you did is "schooling" makes us understand the lack of logic in your post.

jesusisGod777

No.

This is where people's feelings get hurt.

1. Not everyone is capable of logical assessment.

2 .The Bible is not chronological as Hebrew thought was more focused on writing down important information than the chrological presentation of information.

READ THE HEADERS of EACH CHAPTER, events and timelines intersect with situations in each chapter.

3. A lack of understanding determines personal confusion.

Most people are not readers of a thesaurus, or dictionary or know about how the Bible records information.

As a result they assume too many things.

Also there are two John's. John the
Baptist,
did not write the book of john. There were two John's.

Dee

@jesusisGod777

Here are 10 to start ........

1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

• God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
• Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?

• Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
• One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?

• Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
• Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?

• Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
• Three (I Chronicles 21:12)

5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

• Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
• Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)

6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?

• Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
• Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)

7. How long did he rule over Jerusalem?

• Three months (2 Kings 24:8)
• Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)

8. The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?

• Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)
• Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)

9. When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?

• After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
• Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)

10. How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?

• Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
• Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)

jesusisGod777

I swear you people don't read...

1.hroughout the Bible, God’s allowance of something to take place often is described by the sacred writers as having been done by the Lord.

2.difference in classification of rank.please Look up the word valiant.

3. Please look at answer 2


4.The seven years is the combination of the four prior years of famine and the possible future addition of three years. Prior to this incident, in 2 Samuel 21:1

Five I had to look up,

1. Young Jehoshaphat and young Athaliah of Israel engage in an illicit affair for political reasons during the reign of Asa.
   
2. Jehoshaphat and Athaliah give birth to Ahaziah, perhaps out of wedlock.
3. Jehoshaphat and his true wife, a woman of Judah, give birth to Jehoram.
4. Jehoshaphat becomes king of Judah after Asa's death.
   
5. By virtue of his relationship to Athaliah, Jehoshaphat king of Judah is given some jurisdiction over Israel and is considered also "king of Israel".
   
6. Ahaziah, being Jehoshaphat's son, shares Jehoshaphat's limited jurisdiction over Israel and becomes co-regent of Israel with Ahab at age 22.
7. Despite being co-regent of Israel by virtue of his father Jehoshaphat's authority, Ahaziah cannot succeed the throne of Israel at Ahab's death because Ahab has his own sons.
   
8. Before Jehoshaphat died, he appointed his younger son Jehoram a pure prince of Judah to become king of Judah, bypassing Ahaziah's right to the throne.
9. Jehoshaphat dies.
   
10. Jehoram becomes king of Judah after Jehoshaphat's death.
11. Jehoram takes Athaliah as his wife.
12. Ahaziah legally becomes the son of Jehoram, despite being older than Jehoram.
13. Ahaziah becomes king of Judah at age 42 after Jehoram's death

8.recording real, historical events.
The more men slain, the more the list increases. Remember I said the Bible is not a chronological book.

9.the Ark was moved twice, please check the details.

10. Apparently no one reads...

2  Of every clean H2889 beast H929thou shalt take H3947 to thee by sevens H7651 H7651, the male H376and his female H802: and of beastsH929 that are not clean H2889 H1931by two H8147, the male H376 and his female H802. 

Please reread Genesis 7

jesusisGod777

David Captured 700 Horsemen: 2 Samuel 8:4
David Captured 7,000 Horsemen: 1 Chronicles 18:4

You do realize a battle was taking place.......

jesusisGod777

I'm not trying to be mean but...

You guys are not logical at all.

You have sacrificed all of the details within the text and jumped to conclusions.

Please understand in situations where

1. a battle is taking place

2.specific details illustrate a separate event or situation determine that the reference is referring to an additional details in the timeline

3.that other verses in the Bible make sense of a contradiction,

You don't understand what you're reading....... Because your not reading......so please read.......

Dee

@jesusisGod777

You’re making no sense at all

Dee

@jesusisGod777

I have not a clue of what you’re trying to say as what you typed is utter nonsense 

Dee

@jesusisGod777

Whats that got to do with the contradiction?

jesusisGod777

No what I said makes perfect sense. Your a moron. I thought there might actually be smart people here, obviously not.

Dee

You say .......No what I said makes perfect sense.

My reply .....It doesn’t typing a pile of nonsense just makes look what you are 

You say ..... Your a moron.

My reply ......Says a clown who cannot spell

You say ......I  there might actually be smart people here, obviously not.

My reply ......There are , obviously you’re not in a position to judge 

jesusisGod777

No apparently you don't realize the simple use of words for instance when David counted the men of Israel, do you know what a foot soldier is and what reserve units are? 

You'd make for a shitty general.

The verses are indicating a difference between when David initial counted 800 thousand combat ready footsoldiers

And when David counted the whole unit under command.

In one instance it uses the word valiant as people who aren't bitchs who are combat ready and then in the other verse the total amount of soldiers in the unit. The fact your too dumb to understand this when a qualifying word is used is remarkable. It means your .

You can't even identify the context of what your reading. You Dee are a complete moron.

If I said I have 800 combat ready soldiers but I have a total of 100k soldiers both statements are true I'm simply describing a difference between two considerations.

jesusisGod777

I can't even talk to you. Basic addition, and math are outside of your ability.

Also the prophet was stating that three years of famine had already taken place, or were going to so what does 4 plus 3 add up to? 

Do you understand the basics of syntax, context, addition, and sentence structure?

jesusisGod777

What grades did you get in school or are you still in 3rd grade? Am I even talking to an adult?

Dee

@jesusisGod777

Hilarious nonsense , when you learn to count get back to me 

Dee

@jesusisGod777

Whatever you take  that makes you is working beautifully 

Dee

@jesusisGod777

You’re not very good at being a “Christian “ I think you need to work on it 

ethang5

@jesusisGod777

>What grades did you get in school or are you still in 3rd grade? Am I even talking to an adult?

We all wonder jesusisGod777, we all wonder.

GeoLibCogScientist

Of course there are. This seems like a trap-topic. It's not a debateable topic really. I mean, I'm quite anti-theistic, but I would appreciate people to start debates that are actually... well debateable. This isn't a debateable topic.

Any person defending the bible can't possibly win. You should have changed the topic to "Do the contradictions in the bible suggest it was not written by the Abrahamic god?"
Now: That's framing it in a way that is actually debateable. To argue for something that is verifiable, established fact isn't a debate at all. Anyone who carefully studies the bible will absolutely see dozens, if not hundreds, of contradictions. 

For these reasons, I have ranked your topic as irrelevant. It's like as if you'd have asked "Is the sky blue?".  Now, I'd understand if we were arguing this from a philosophical standpoint. I mean, I'm a subjectivist, so it's possible to argue your topic from that standpoint: as in arguing it's impossible to prove those contradictions exist, or even the bible, or even this debate itself. Which it is. I am relying on my senses to determine this debate exists, that the bible does, and those contradictions. I can't prove my senses to be accurate though without using my senses themselves. Every means of doing that: relying on others to confirm my senses are correct(this requires that I'm sensing those others correctly), measuring things(again, requires that I'm sensing those measurements correctly or that my senses are correct that those tools of measurment are accurate, etc).

This topic here is only debateable on that sort of metaphysical level, but you didn't frame this from a metaphysical perspective, so it's not at all debateable otherwise.

Sand

@GeoLibCogScientist
 I am so glad an anti-theistic person pointed this out, because I think this would  biased if someone who believed the Bible spoke against Bible.

It's amazing the contradictions located in history books. This does not take from the trueness of the event.

ethang5

I've been online for more than 25 years. I keep seeing people insist there are contradictions in the bible. But when asked to show any, they invariably post this wall of text.

But as we show them one by one to not be contradictions, the claimant simply moves to the next half-baked claim.

In the main time, some other yokel who thinks he's "discovered" contradictions in the bible, starts yet another thread and posts the same wall of text as the first yokel.

Debunk too many of their supposed contradictions and they become angry and insulting.

The bible contradiction claim is akin to calling someone a homosexual. The accuser is not interested at all in proving his accusation, he just needs to make it so that the insinuation is out there.

All the accusers have to do is show one contradiction for their claim to be correct. So why do all of them always post a jumble of scatterbrained charges?

Where is the atheist who will list one supposed contradiction, and debate it sensibly to a logical conclusion?

One who will not jump to whataboutism as soon as he is about to lose his original point?

Where is he?

Dee

@ethang5

Your denial of contradictions is typically you as it leaves you in a position you love as in to rabidly attack anyone who disagrees with you , watch now as my little taster drives you into your usual rage.

Remember also you tell everyone “ Read the text as written without your spin on it “ can you do so with this clear biblical contradiction? Bet you start spinning right away .......

Which came first: Adam or the vegetation?

The vegetation!Genesis 1:11-27: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so […] And the evening and the morning were the third day […] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them […] And the evening and the morning were the sixth day

Adam!Genesis 2:5-9: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground […] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food Will you make to here without spin?

YeshuaBought

Can anyone give me an example? I am asking for book, chapter, and verse, please.

jesusisGod777

@Dee

You can't spin what's stated.

Youve never heard of authorial intent.

Nor do you understand simple contextual imperitives.

If I said someone ate food.

And then I said someone ate good food while eating  food.

And the circumstances between me making reference to two different things, the statement is a matter of making references between  distinct situations.

• Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
• One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

9  And Joab H3097 gave up H5414the sum H4557 of the number H4662of the people H5971 unto the kingH4428: and there were in Israel H3478eight H8083 hundred H3967 thousandH505 valiant H2428 men H376 H381that drew H8025 the sword H2719; and the men H376 of Judah H3063were five H2568 hundred H3967thousand H505 men H376.

5  And Joab H3097 gave H5414 the sum H4557 of the number H4662 of the people H5971 unto David H1732. And all they of Israel H3478 were a thousand H505 thousand H505 and an hundred H3967 thousand H505 menH376 that drew H8025 sword H2719: and Judah H3063 was four H702hundred H3967 threescore and tenH7657 thousand H505 men H376 that drew H8025 sword H2719.

Apparently you don't understand context.

It says in Samuel: eight hundred thousand valiant men

It says in Chronicles:and all they of Israel

These are two different descriptions entirely concerning what's being discribed.

It's not a constradiction it's a statement that is taking into account two tottttttttalllllyyyy different things.

Jesus is God.

Not only are the verses stating something different entirely but they are stating a contextual imperitives particular to the verse.

They are talking about a total number that drew the sword

And talking about a classification of people who drew the sword

If I said seventy seven brave men drew their swords in combat

And I said 500 men drew their swords in combat both statements are true, the statement however is qualifying a difference of context! 

Context

Context

Context

Verbs

Adverbs

jesusisGod777

Conjunction junction what's your function!

jesusisGod777

I'm going to answer every question in this retarted thread.

jesusisGod777

All of these have already been answered by other people who Jesus gave wisdom to, praise Jesus.Ezra 2Nehemiah 7Difference5 the sons of Arah, 77510 the sons of Arah, 6521236 the sons of Pahath-moab of the sons of Jeshua and Joab, 2,81211 the sons of Pahath-moab of the sons of Jeshua and Joab, 2,81868 the sons of Zattu, 94513 the sons of Zattu, 84510010 the sons of Bani, 64215 the sons of Binnui, 648611 the sons of Bebai, 62316 the sons of Bebai, 628512 the sons of Azgad, 1,22217 the sons of Azgad, 2,3221,10013 the sons of Adonikam, 66618 the sons of Adonikam, 667114 the sons of Bigvai, 2,05619 the sons of Bigvai, 2,0671115 the sons of Adin, 45420 the sons of Adin, 65520117 the sons of Bezai, 32323 the sons of Bezai, 324128 the men of Bethel and Ai, 22332 the men of Bethel and Ai, 12310033 the sons of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, 72537 the sons of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, 721435 the sons of Senaah, 3,630.38 the sons of Senaah, 3,930.30041 The singers: the sons of Asaph, 12844 The singers: the sons of Asaph, 1482042 The sons of the gatekeepers: the sons of Shallum, the sons of Ater, the sons of Talmon, the sons of Akkub, the sons of Hatita, the sons of Shobai, in all 13945 The gatekeepers: the sons of Shallum, the sons of Ater, the sons of Talmon, the sons of Akkub, the sons of Hatita, the sons of Shobai, 138159 and 60 list several names with one total of 65261 and 62 list numerous names with one total of 6421065 besides their male and female servants, who numbered 7,337; and they had 200 singing men and women.67 besides their male and their female servants, of whom there were 7,337; and they had 245 male and female singers.45 (singers)17 discrepanciesIt is obvious from the above table, that there were many statistical differences between Ezra and Nehemiah. Though most of them are identical, some do not match. Why? The answer is simple.Ezra was written no later than 450 B.C.1 Nehemiah should be dated during the reign of Artexerxes 1 (464-423 B.C.).2 According to the book, "Talk Thru the Bible," Ezra was written about 538-516 B.C.3where Nehemiah was written around 444-425 B.C.4Therefore, the dates of writing are different and the statistical differences can easily be accounted for by considering that during the difference of years, people died, families grew, etc.Search 12,909 resourcesArticlesSermonsTopicsBooksPodcastsFILTER RESOURCES BYAsk Pastor JohnQuestions and answers with John PiperLook at the BookInteractive Bible study with John PiperSolid JoysDaily devotional with John PiperMost people in the world have no experience of lasting joy in their lives. We’re on a mission to change that. All of our resources exist to guide you toward everlasting joy in Jesus Christ.ABOUTDONATENOVEMBER 18, 1997Who Was Jesus' Grandfather?Article by John PiperFounder & Teacher, desiringGod.orgDoubts about God's word can arise when we find apparent contradictions and don't see immediate solutions. For example, who was Jesus's grandfather? We know that, although Jesus was supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:34f), his earthly, legal father was Joseph. But Luke says that Joseph is the son of Heli (3:23), while Matthew says that he was the son of Jacob (1:16).One of the best treatments of this problem is The Virgin Birth of Christ by J. Gresham Machen (New York: Harper Brothers, 1930). The solution Machen argues for is that "while the Matthean genealogy traces the successive heirs to the throne of David from David to Joseph, the Lucan genealogy traces the ancestors of Joseph back to David." (p. 206).He explains, "The Lucan genealogy, in other words, starts with the question, 'Who was Josheph's "father"?' the answer to that question is, 'Heli.' . . . In the Matthean genealogy, on the other hand, we start with the question, 'Who was the heir to David's throne?' The answer is, "Solomon,' and so on down to Joseph." (p. 207).You can see the signal that something like this is happening by comparing how the genealogies are the same from Abraham to king David, and then they diverge. For example, in Luke 3:31 it says that Nathan is David's son, while in Matthew 1:6 it says that David was the father of Solomon. Now we know from 2 Samuel 5:14 that Nathan and Solomon were both sons of David. But only Solomon was the heir of the throne (1 Kings 1:13).So the possible solution to why the genealogies are different from David down to Joseph is that Luke is giving the physical ancestors (or in one or two cases a very close adoptive relation), while Matthew is most interested in showing that the father of Jesus is the legal heir to the throne of David.The correctness of this view of the purpose and the meaning of each genealogy is confirmed by the fact that the genealogy in Luke begins at the end and works backward, whereas the genealogy in Matthew begins at the beginning. Where the point was to trace the actual descent of Joseph back to David that could be done by recording the tradition of the family as to his actual father, Heli, and the actual father of Heli, and so on up to Nathan the son of David. But where the point was to mention the successive heirs of the Davidic throne, it was natural to begin with David and work down. (p. 207).What then actually happened in the generations just before Jesus? Here is one possible scenario. And that is all we can do is offer plausible solutions since the actual facts are hidden from us.Matthew's genealogyLuke's genealogyEleazarMatthanJacobJosephLeviMatthatHeliJosephSuppose that Eleazar, the legal heir of David's throne died without widow or son. Customarily a more or less close relative would be counted as his legal descendent and be said to have been "begotten" by him. Suppose also that Matthan is that relative and is the same person as Matthat (in Luke) with an alternative spelling. That would mean that Jacob and Heli are brothers. Then suppose that Jacob dies before he has sons. According to the custom of Levirate marriage (see Matthew 22:25) the brother of the deceased man is to marry and raise up descendants for the sake of the name of the dead brother. Thus Heli marries Jacob's wife and they give birth to Joseph, Jesus' father. In this way Joseph is the legal heir through Jacob's line, but the actual physical son of Heli.Perhaps the best lesson from this complicated hypothetical case is simply that apparent contradictions in the Bible do have plausible and possible solutions and we should be slow to throw out a book that has proved itself over and over for thousands of years as the mighty, saving, transforming word of God.Pastor JohnJohn Piper (@JohnPiper) is founder and teacher of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. For 33 years, he served as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is author of more than 50 books, including Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonistand most recently Why I Love the Apostle Paul: 30 Reasons. SERIES: TASTE & SEE ARTICLESGet Desiring God in Your InboxA nightly brief of new resources, and peeks behind the scenes from our editorial teamSubscribeARTICLEThe Masterpiece of All PromisesIf you want to commit to memory one promise of God whose depth you will never exhaust, focus on these five simple words: “I will be your God.”Marshall Segal2.1KARTICLEStay Awake to Spiritual DangerSatan is trying to lull you into spiritual sleep with feelings of comfort and safety. Stay awake to the ways he is attacking you again today.Jon Bloom2.8KGod is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in himLearn more about Desiring God DESIRING GODJOHN PIPEREMAIL UPDATESSign up for notifications about new content:New Daily ContentAsk Pastor JohnLook at the BookSolid JoysNews & UpdatesSubscribePermissions PrivacyDonateSearch 12,909 resourcesArticlesSermonsTopicsBooksPodcastsFILTER RESOURCES BYAsk Pastor JohnQuestions and answers with John PiperLook at the BookInteractive Bible study with John PiperSolid JoysDaily devotional with John PiperMost people in the world have no experience of lasting joy in their lives. We’re on a mission to change that. All of our resources exist to guide you toward everlaWho Was Jesus' gDoubts about God's word can arise when we find apparent contradictions and don't see immediate solutions. For example, who was Jesus's grandfather? We know that, although Jesus was supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:34f), his earthly, legal father was Joseph. But Luke says that Joseph is the son of Heli (3:23), while Matthew says that he was the son of Jacob (1:16).One of the best treatments of this problem is The Virgin Birth of Christ by J. Gresham Machen (New York: Harper Brothers, 1930). The solution Machen argues for is that "while the Matthean genealogy traces the successive heirs to the throne of David from David to Joseph, the Lucan genealogy traces the ancestors of Joseph back to David." (p. 206)., "The Lucan genealogy, in other words, starts with the question, 'Who was Josheph's "father"?' the answer to that question is, 'Heli.' . . . In the Matthean genealogy, on the other hand, we start with the question, 'Who was the heir to David's throne?' The answer is, "Solomon,' and so on down to Joseph." (p. 207).You can see the signal that something like this is happening by comparing how the genealogies are the same from Abraham to king David, and then they diverge. For example, in Luke 3:31 it says that Nathan is David's son, while in Matthew 1:6 it says that David was the father of Solomon. Now we know from 2 Samuel 5:14 that Nathan and Solomon were both sons of David. But only Solomon was the heir of the throne (1 Kings 1:13).

@Zombieguy1987
Straight up not a contradiction.

Genesis account of creation.

Verses are not based on a timeline.

Verses are statements.

Verse 19 is a contextual statement and is separated by a colon: please look up what cocolons us fof

jesusisGod777

Genesis 32

 John

Men have not seen God

Men have seen God.

God is a plural noun.

It describes three people who are DESCRIBED as GOD. Each is individually reffered to as God as a result.

Man has seen God Jesus the Christ.

Man has not seen God either as
1. All three
2. The other two who are God the Father Yahweh or God the holy spirit of Jesus Christ.

Man is righteous

Man is not righteous

This is a DOCTRINE 

Man can not be righteous without faith.

The writer is making statements regarding faith in Jesus Christ.

Man by himself can not be righteous.

Man can be righteous only when God dwells spiritually in man.

It's a matter of influence.

God's spirit.

Man's sinful nature.

jesusisGod777

• Matthew 27: The last words of Christ: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?".
• Luke 23: The last words of Christ: "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit".
• John 19: The last words of Christ: "It is finished".

I seriously think Jesus has made you all on account of your arrogance and disbeilief.

Bible says God does that.

I want you to read the word,

words.

Words, is plural. It means words spoken.

It doesn't mean all words spoken.

However considering all of them mentioned it those we're all of the words spoken.

The writers , are stating what they remembered Jesus said ,second let's actually look at all the verses.

All three are correct.

Upon looking at the verses we see there are a few devil's in this thread because in Matthew 27 it says <span></span>

46  And G1161 about G4012 the ninthG1766 hour G5610 Jesus G2424 criedG310 with a loud G3173 voice G5456, saying G3004, Eli G2241, Eli G2241, lama G2982 sabachthani G4518? thatG5123 is to say, My G3450 GodG2316, my G3450 God G2316, whyG2444 hast thou forsaken G1459 meG3165?

 47  Some of them G5100 that stoodG2476 there G1563, when they heardG191 that, said G3004 G3754, ThisG3778 man calleth for G5455 EliasG2243.

 48  And G2532 straightway G2112one G1520 of G1537 them G846 ranG5143, and G2532 took G2983 a spunge G4699, and G5037 filledG4130 it with vinegar G3690, andG2532 put it on G4060 a reed G2563, and gave G4222 him G846 to drinkG4222.

So it doesn't say those we're Jesus last words in Matthew 27.

46  And G2532 when Jesus G2424had cried G5455 with a loud G3173voice G5456, he said G2036, FatherG3962, into G1519 thy G4675 handsG5495 I commend G3908 my G3450spirit G4151: and G2532 having saidG2036 thus G5023, he gave up the ghost G1606.

30  When G3753 Jesus G2424therefore G3767 had received G2983the vinegar G3690, he said G2036, It is finished G5055: and G2532 he bowedG2827 his head G2776, and gave upG3860 the ghost G4151.

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

“About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” 47 And some of those who were standing there, when they heard it, began saying, “This man is calling for Elijah.” 48 Immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink. 49 But the rest of them said, “Let us see whether Elijah will come to save Him.” 50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.” (Matthew 20:18-19)

Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.

“And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.” Having said this, He breathed His last.” (Luke 23:46)

It is finished.

“Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.” (John 19:30)

(All Scriptural quotation comes from the New American Standard Bible)

Here’s a closer look at whether or not there is a contradiction:

1. When dealing with skeptics’ claim of Bible contradictions it seems one can never be reminded enough of what exactly is a contradiction.  A contradiction occurs when two or more claims conflict with one another so that they cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense and at the same time.  To put it another way, a Bible contradiction exists when there are claims within the Bible that are mutually exclusive in the same sense and at the same time.
2. None of the three verses recording Jesus’ final words contradict one another.  Jesus could have said all three phrases as part of the last few words He uttered before His death.  In order for there to be a logical contradiction one or more verses have to say “Jesus’ only last words were ___.”  But none of the three verses states that.  Only when a passage exclude any other last words recorded by the other Gospels in the Bible would we have a contradiction.  And again this simply is not the case.
3. To validate the skeptic’s claim that Jesus’ last words were “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” the Skeptic Annotated Bible referenced Matthew 27:46-50.  These words from Jesus are specifically found in verse 46.  But note what verse 50 states: “And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.”  While verse 50 does not record what it was specifically that Jesus cried out it could have been “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit” that Luke 23:46 record or “It is finished!” that John 19:30 record.  It can even be both phrases that Jesus cried out.  The point here is that Matthew 27:50 itself indicates that after Jesus said “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Matthew was aware that further last words were said.  So Matthew 27:46-50 doesn’t show a Bible contradiction but rather suggests strongly that Jesus spoke other words.
4. Remember just because different Gospels record different sayings of Jesus’ last few words while other Gospels are silent about it does not mean that there is a Bible contradiction.  We see even in secular history how some sources quote certain facts and other sources omit them but does mean the omission is a denial of those facts. 

jesusisGod777

@21CenturyIconoclast

First of all, who are you ?

And what version of retard do you speak. I challenge you to a debate. Open a thread. Just so I can show you how EMBARRISING it is that your a moron.

Dee

@jesusisGod777

Thank you for that pile of nonsense that flies from one excuse to another demonstrating if their is a god he’s incredibly as he cannot make his intentions crystal clear leaving idiots like you to put your spin on the nonsense in the Bible  

ethang5

Post deleted