Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
101 Contradictions in the Bible
#26

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-18-2021, 08:38 PM)Lion IRC Wrote: Human : I've seen the face of God. (Genesis 32:30)
God : No. You haven't. (John 1:18)
Human : ....but, but, I thought... (Deuteronomy 5:4)
God : Nope. (Exodus 33:23)

There's only one individual on this forum naive enough to be fooled by that piece of dishonest sophistry, which, by its extreme dishonesty, constitutes an insult to the intelligence of anyone it's directed to.  Coincidentally, the individual naive enough to be fooled by that rank clod of disingenuity routinely makes overt insults in nearly post, I suppose to make sure no one escapes being insulted.  In fact, making insults, it appears, seems to be the actual intent, rather than any kind of meaningful attempt at persuasion.
Reply
#27

101 Contradictions in the Bible
Quote:The only reason we we are absolutely certain you give a shit is because folks like you dedicate so much time trying to find alleged contradictions.

Takes no time at all, sonny.  If you'd get your head out of your ass you'd see them.


And I can't let the muslim nutjobs who come here think I have forgotten about them.

As far as I am concerned you are all fucking lunatics.


But this is an atheist board and if you think I'm going to stand by while you come in and shit on the carpet you are dead wrong.

Fuck you...and jesus.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#28

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-18-2021, 09:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: So Percie ... how did this thread work out for ya then ?
As you expected ?
Why is it you are unable to post a coherent comment on the CSBI.
Have you even read it ? They fucking deny evolution. Don't tell me you deny evolution ?

Just checking on you. Don't feel shunned.

The Percival Paradigm Book I, Chapter I, Verse I

For Percie looked upon the thread He had weaved and saw to his terrifying realisation, that His mortal hands, His very keystrokes had wrought His own destruction. 

And He vanished unto the blinding darkness. 

(Seriously though, he might be cooking up rebuttals, ya never know)
Reply
#29

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-18-2021, 08:38 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:
(05-18-2021, 02:21 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote:
(05-18-2021, 11:51 AM)Lion IRC Wrote: If I encountered a contradiction in the bible, I would abandon my faith in God's Word.

Quote: “… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30

“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18

What you christians do is twist things around so some passages are allegorical and some are not....

This isnt a question of allegory versus literal.

Human : I've seen the face of God. (Genesis 32:30)
God : No. You haven't. (John 1:18)
Human : ....but, but, I thought... (Deuteronomy 5:4)
God : Nope. (Exodus 33:23)

So. That takes care of that alleged contradiction.

Hand waving 101. Dodgy Surely you have something better. Then again...
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
Reply
#30

101 Contradictions in the Bible
Needed some better line editors.
god, ugh
Reply
#31

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-18-2021, 02:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: There is a series of volumes, 12 I believe, which actually does reflect the positions of almost all the (real) scholars in the mid 20th Century.  
https://www.amazon.com/Interpreters-Bibl...B000HTP248
Almost every word in every text is examined, and the translations addressed.
The authors and editors are actual scholars, and come from many universities, including very conservative institutions.

I'm at work, and the hospital no longer allows access to personal email here, following all the hacking and ransomware incidents.  
When I get home, I will post much more about this seminal work of scholarship, and why and how these people (150 of THE best scholars of the day),
REJECTED literal inerrancy. They all had a chance to review the writing of the others, before publication, (they all wrote on different topics), so we know that mainline Biblical scholarship REJECTED
literal inerrancy, and literal interpretation, in the 1950's ... going on 70 years ago.

As mentioned, here are the two essays I wrote long ago. Weeping

The so-called "virgin birth" is one of the PRIME examples where there is development of an off-the-wall notion, based on a translation, of a MIS-translation, of a translation, which is then taken out of context, and solidified as doctrine, and driven over the cliff.

a. Background :
Isaiah 7 talks about the history of King Ahaz, son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, who was king of Judah. At the time, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah, son of Remaliah, King of Israel, marched up to fight against Jerusalem, and the campaign was long and protracted. See the Syro-Ephraimite War, (Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Ephraimite_War ), and it happened in the 8th Century (734) BC. When Ahaz was loosing faith, Isaiah went to visit him, and told him to "buck up", keep the faith, and continue the war, and told him that the SIGN from god, that they were favored, was that one of his wives, (a "woman of marriageable age") would be found to be with child. The SIGN was the CHILD, (and NOT the manner of the birth). ...."And they shall name him Emmanuel" which means "god is with us". The CHILD was the SIGN.

b. The word "virgin" is a mistranslation, of a translation. So WE have a translation, of a mis-translation, of a translation. Matthew, writing in Greek about the "virgin birth" of Jesus, quotes the Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14-16, which uses the Greek word "παρθένος" (parthenos,), (we still use the term "parthenogenesis") while the original Hebrew text has "עלמה" (almah), which has the slightly wider meaning of an unmarried, betrothedor newly wed woman such as in the case of Ahaz' betrothed Abijah, daughter of Zechariah. He NEVER meant to imply that he was asserting "gynecological" claims, and THAT whole business was "off-the-wall", a mistranslation, taken to ridiculous extremes, by interpreters who missed the point. THE CHILD was the sign. The writer of matthew intended that the child (in the gospel) be seen as a "sign".

Also interesting that Matthew (1:25) only says that Joseph "knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son". It does NOT say she REMAINED a virgin. (??)

See also : Mother Goddess, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_goddess ) and Joseph Campbell, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddess ) and Courtly Love, ( http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dschwart/engl513...ourtly.htm ). The business of Mary, and her idealized state, was extremely important in the civilization/culture of the West, and in some circles remains very important today, (Lourdes & claims of "Marian" apparitions" etc., etc.)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The second one was the post about "The Interpreter Bible". Now, it's very expensive as a set, and tends to be locked up in libraries.

In 1952, a team was set in place by the world-famous, preeminent scholar, archaeologist and pioneer discoverer of Holy Land historical sites and documents, Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the professor of Semitic languages at the Johns Hopkins University. Their job was to write criticisms and scholarly work concerning all biblical texts. The team was composed of the most respected biblical scholars in the US and Europe, including Dr. John W. Bailey, Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Berkley Baptist Divinity School, Dr Albert E. Barnett, Professor Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Dr. Walter Russell Bowel, Professor, The Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Virginia, Dr. John Bright, Professor, Union Seminary and many others.

"The team of 124 clergymen and scholars came mostly from conservative, mainline universities and churches for the most part, the likes of whom will never be seen again in one place, whose names evoke the utmost and deepest respect, even if one completely disagrees with their religious views. They wrote the huge 12 volume set, now considered a valuable rare book, called "The Interpreters Bible". Today it is usually kept under lock and key in seminaries and libraries. This set includes an introduction to scholarship and looks at every single verse and word in the Bible, discusses their origins and possible meanings from various points of view. It has been updated in the 1990's, but the original scholarship is still the central fundamental summary of knowledge, which summarized scholarship from the Medieval period to the 1850's -1950's, and is therefore considered to be an interesting historical snapshot. It is also an assurance that these absolutely respected leading intellectuals from the 20th Century scholarship, of whom most were religious, have agreed to have each other's names associated with their own and that they felt comfortable with what each other were saying in an academic setting and commanded world-wide respect as conservative, careful, and sincere, life-long teachers, academics and scholars.

On page 15 of "The Interpreters Bible", Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the "truth" of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative Christian view of person-hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as "the Christ" in human history.

"The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand."

He then continues by discussing the details of what a "faith document" is and how it differs from what we would consider an historical text today. The next chapter, authored by Dr. Arthur Jeffrey, Professor of Semitic Languages at Columbia, deals with the formation of the Old Testament canon. He wrote what is seen as the fundamental insight in modern Biblical Study and summarized the central academic position of every mainline, respected, and credible center of Biblical scholarship in the world today :

"Historians can merely state that a canon of scripture is not something given, but something humanly devised. From the historical point of view, the canon is the result of human decision as to which among the religious writing existing in a community are those in which it recognizes the authentic voice of religious authority speaking to man."

This is affirmation that what ultimately is included in a Biblical text, is a subjective reflection of the experience of an already believing, religious community, meaning that it's purpose is to reassure them of what they already believe in. The content of the texts does not consist of "externally received" information. It is information they already possessed and the community accepted as a reflection of their prior experience, and belief."

Summary 5/18/21 :
Bottom up, (the communities decided which texts they found meaningful),
Not top down.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#32

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-18-2021, 08:46 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:
(05-18-2021, 04:06 PM)Minimalist Wrote: <yawn>  These two assholes must have mistaken us for people who give a shit what they think.

The only reason we we are absolutely certain you give a shit is because folks like you dedicate so much time trying to find alleged contradictions.

Your feigned disinterest was followed up (almost immediately) by a second unsolicited post in a thread you claimed you don't give a shit about. 

And don't use the word "us" when talking about your atheist buddies who are interested in posting in this thread.



(05-18-2021, 06:55 PM)Minimalist Wrote: The really funny thing is that muslims believe that god pissed in mo's ear and THOSE are the literal words of god.  Since the books are different, one is forced to wonder why god - like some third-rate criminal - can't keep his fucking story straight!



(05-18-2021, 08:46 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
folks like you dedicate so much time trying to find alleged contradictions.


LOL!  "Alleged"?  "Trying to find"?   It is well know that the bible has many, many contradictions.  As I posted before, you bible thumpers interpret the bible to make it mean what you want it to mean so you can get around all the contradictions.    "Oh, the bible doesn't really say what you think it says, it says this instead." 

Here you have a book that can be interpreted thousands of different ways.  This is a book that was specifically used to support slavery by the slave owners of the American South but  it was also used to oppose slavery by those who opposed slavery.   The bible is a useless book full of vague, easily twisted text.
                                                         T4618
The following 1 user Likes Dancefortwo's post:
  • Minimalist
Reply
#33

101 Contradictions in the Bible
Matty:  2.1

Quote:2 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king,


Luke:  2 1-6

Quote:2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born,


A mere 10 years separates the death of Herod the Great from the appointment of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius as governor of Syria but, WTF.  That's probably close enough for these bible-thumping assholes.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Dancefortwo
Reply
#34

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-19-2021, 12:04 AM)Minimalist Wrote: Matty:  2.1

Quote:2 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king,


Luke:  2 1-6

Quote:2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born,


A mere 10 years separates the death of Herod the Great from the appointment of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius as governor of Syria but, WTF.  That's probably close enough for these bible-thumping assholes.

That's easy.  The person who wrote the first one was mistaken, and the person who wrote the second one got it right.  See, no contradiction.  ALTERNATE BONUS EXPLANATION: The person who wrote the first one got it right, and the person who wrote the second one was mistaken.   Thumbs Up
Reply
#35

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-19-2021, 12:04 AM)Minimalist Wrote: Matty:  2.1

Quote:2 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king,


Luke:  2 1-6

Quote:2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born,


A mere 10 years separates the death of Herod the Great from the appointment of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius as governor of Syria but, WTF.  That's probably close enough for these bible-thumping assholes.
(05-19-2021, 12:04 AM)Minimalist Wrote:   Luke:  2 1-6   Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.

Like I said earlier. Mary had sex before marriage.  According to the bible (Deuteronomy 22:13-22) Mary should have been stoned.....and I'm not talking about the spotted mushroom kind of stoned, I'm talking about rocks being thrown at her until she was bludgeoned to death kind of stoned. So here we have another bible contradiction.   To be clear, Deuternomy doesn't have any exceptions to this situation.  It doesn't say, "Well gee wiz, if  god has sex with an unmarried girl it's ok, so don't stone her."   Nope.  There is no fine print in the bible about this god-sex with a virgin situation or it being an exception to the rule.   

I guess the old testament writers didn't forsee that the crazy Christians would write about Yahweh having sex with a 12 or 13 year old unmarried virgin.
                                                         T4618
Reply
#36

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-18-2021, 11:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(05-18-2021, 02:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: There is a series of volumes, 12 I believe, which actually does reflect the positions of almost all the (real) scholars in the mid 20th Century.  
https://www.amazon.com/Interpreters-Bibl...B000HTP248
Almost every word in every text is examined, and the translations addressed.
The authors and editors are actual scholars, and come from many universities, including very conservative institutions.

I'm at work, and the hospital no longer allows access to personal email here, following all the hacking and ransomware incidents.  
When I get home, I will post much more about this seminal work of scholarship, and why and how these people (150 of THE best scholars of the day),
REJECTED literal inerrancy. They all had a chance to review the writing of the others, before publication, (they all wrote on different topics), so we know that mainline Biblical scholarship REJECTED
literal inerrancy, and literal interpretation, in the 1950's ... going on 70 years ago.

As mentioned, here are the two essays I wrote long ago.  Weeping

The so-called "virgin birth" is one of the PRIME examples where there is development of an off-the-wall notion, based on a translation, of a MIS-translation, of a translation, which is then taken out of context, and solidified as doctrine, and driven over the cliff.

a. Background :
Isaiah 7 talks about the history of King Ahaz, son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, who was king of Judah. At the time, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah, son of Remaliah, King of Israel, marched up to fight against Jerusalem, and the campaign was long and protracted. See the Syro-Ephraimite War, (Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Ephraimite_War ), and it happened in the 8th Century (734) BC. When Ahaz was loosing faith, Isaiah went to visit him, and told him to "buck up", keep the faith, and continue the war, and told him that the SIGN from god, that they were favored, was that one of his wives, (a "woman of marriageable age") would be found to be with child. The SIGN was the CHILD, (and NOT the manner of the birth). ...."And they shall name him Emmanuel" which means "god is with us". The CHILD was the SIGN.

b. The word "virgin" is a mistranslation, of a translation. So WE have a translation, of a mis-translation, of a translation. Matthew, writing in Greek about the "virgin birth" of Jesus, quotes the Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14-16, which uses the Greek word "παρθένος" (parthenos,), (we still use the term "parthenogenesis") while the original Hebrew text has "עלמה" (almah), which has the slightly wider meaning of an unmarried, betrothedor newly wed woman such as in the case of Ahaz' betrothed Abijah, daughter of Zechariah. He NEVER meant to imply that he was asserting "gynecological" claims, and THAT whole business was "off-the-wall", a mistranslation, taken to ridiculous extremes, by interpreters who missed the point. THE CHILD was the sign. The writer of matthew intended that the child (in the gospel) be seen as a "sign".

Also interesting that Matthew (1:25) only says that Joseph "knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son". It does NOT say she REMAINED a virgin. (??)

See also : Mother Goddess, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_goddess ) and Joseph Campbell, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddess ) and Courtly Love, ( http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dschwart/engl513...ourtly.htm ). The business of Mary, and her idealized state, was extremely important in the civilization/culture of the West, and in some circles remains very important today, (Lourdes & claims of "Marian" apparitions" etc., etc.)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The second one was the post about "The Interpreter Bible". Now, it's very expensive as a set, and tends to be locked up in libraries.  

In 1952, a team was set in place by the world-famous, preeminent scholar, archaeologist and pioneer discoverer of Holy Land historical sites and documents, Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the professor of Semitic languages at the Johns Hopkins University. Their job was to write criticisms and scholarly work concerning all biblical texts. The team was composed of the most respected biblical scholars in the US and Europe, including Dr. John W. Bailey, Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Berkley Baptist Divinity School, Dr Albert E. Barnett, Professor Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Dr. Walter Russell Bowel, Professor, The Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Virginia, Dr. John Bright, Professor, Union Seminary and many others.

The team of 124 clergymen and scholars came mostly from conservative, mainline universities and churches for the most part, the likes of whom will never be seen again in one place, whose names evoke the utmost and deepest respect, even if one completely disagrees with their religious views. They wrote the huge 12 volume set, now considered a valuable rare book, called "The Interpreters Bible". Today it is usually kept under lock and key in seminaries and libraries. This set includes an introduction to scholarship and looks at every single verse and word in the Bible, discusses their origins and possible meanings from various points of view. It has been updated in the 1990's, but the original scholarship is still the central fundamental summary of knowledge, which summarized scholarship from the Medieval period to the 1850's -1950's, and is therefore considered to be an interesting historical snapshot. It is also an assurance that these absolutely respected leading intellectuals from the 20th Century scholarship, of whom most were religious, have agreed to have each other's names associated with their own and that they felt comfortable with what each other were saying in an academic setting and commanded world-wide respect as conservative, careful, and sincere, life-long teachers, academics and scholars.

On page 15 of "The Interpreters Bible", Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the "truth" of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative Christian view of person-hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as "the Christ" in human history.

"The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand."

He then continues by discussing the details of what a "faith document" is and how it differs from what we would consider an historical text today. The next chapter, authored by Dr. Arthur Jeffrey, Professor of Semitic Languages at Columbia, deals with the formation of the Old Testament canon. He wrote what is seen as the fundamental insight in modern Biblical Study and summarized the central academic position of every mainline, respected, and credible center of Biblical scholarship in the world today :

"Historians can merely state that a canon of scripture is not something given, but something humanly devised. From the historical point of view, the canon is the result of human decision as to which among the religious writing existing in a community are those in which it recognizes the authentic voice of religious authority speaking to man."

This is affirmation that what ultimately is included in a Biblical text, is a subjective reflection of the experience of an already believing, religious community, meaning that it's purpose is to reassure them of what they already believe in. The content of the texts does not consist of "externally received" information. It is information they already possessed and the community accepted as a reflection of their prior experience, and belief.

Summary 5/18/21 :
Bottom up, (the communities decided which texts they found meaningful),
Not top down.

I was reading a blog that is devoted to Ancient Greek translations of old texts from other old languages. This blog is not just about the translations from the Bible but from many different ancient Greek written works.  These were some really serious Greek scholars on this blog who were really into the history of Greek translations.    One of the discussions was  about  the "virgin birth" mistranslation in the Septuagint.   According to several of the Greek language scholars on this blog, when the Bible was translated into Greek during the Hellenistic period the 77 rabbis who did the Septuagint translation only did the first 5 books of the Old Testament and did a very good job.  This translation was requested and funded by Ptolemy II for the Library at Alexandria. 

The 77 rabbis did not translate the other books in the Bible at that time though.  This was done much later by a different group but there was no Ptolemy money to fund or pay for the best translators so the other books were translated in fits and starts by people who weren't as adept.  It was an unorganized process.    The book of Isaiah was all part of this mess which is why it and the other books are so badly translated.  This might account for the virgin birth fiasco. 

I wish I could find that blog again. They had some interesting things to say about Greek translations.
                                                         T4618
The following 2 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Phaedrus, Bucky Ball
Reply
#37

101 Contradictions in the Bible
The bible: a primitive form of telephone.
[Image: 8a487e2d72e959c458857f1b72271166.gif]
Reply
#38

101 Contradictions in the Bible
Quote:That's easy.  The person who wrote the first one was mistaken, and the person who wrote the second one got it right.  See, no contradiction.  ALTERNATE BONUS EXPLANATION: The person who wrote the first one got it right, and the person who wrote the second one was mistaken.


But, Jerry.  The damn thing is supposed to be INERRANT.  How could this god jerkoff make a mistake like that?
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#39

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-19-2021, 01:41 AM)Dancefortwo Wrote: I was reading a blog that is devoted to Ancient Greek translations of old texts from other old languages. This blog is not just about the translations from the Bible but from many different ancient Greek written works.  These were some really serious Greek scholars on this blog who were really into the history of Greek translations.    One of the discussions was  about  the "virgin birth" mistranslation in the Septuagint.   According to several of the Greek language scholars on this blog, when the Bible was translated into Greek during the Hellenistic period the 77 rabbis who did the Septuagint translation only did the first 5 books of the Old Testament and did a very good job.  This translation was requested and funded by Ptolemy II for the Library at Alexandria. 

The 77 rabbis did not translate the other books in the Bible at that time though.  This was done much later by a different group but there was no Ptolemy money to fund or pay for the best translators so the other books were translated in fits and starts by people who weren't as adept.  It was an unorganized process.    The book of Isaiah was all part of this mess which is why it and the other books are so badly translated.  This might account for the virgin birth fiasco. 

I wish I could find that blog again. They had some interesting things to say about Greek translations.

The 77 Rabbis.
A perfect name for a band.
Whistling
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • Dancefortwo
Reply
#40

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-19-2021, 01:50 AM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:That's easy.  The person who wrote the first one was mistaken, and the person who wrote the second one got it right.  See, no contradiction.  ALTERNATE BONUS EXPLANATION: The person who wrote the first one got it right, and the person who wrote the second one was mistaken.


But, Jerry.  The damn thing is supposed to be INERRANT.  How could this god jerkoff make a mistake like that?

It is inerrant!  Dude didn't see me!  He's lying!  I swear!  I was wearing a fake beard, he, uh, no wait, he was actually face to face with, uh, Santa Claus!  Yes, Santa was in town that weekend and human thought he was seeing me face to face but nope he was face to face with Santa.  I swear to me.  No contradictions.  None.

-Big G
Reply
#41

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-18-2021, 10:17 PM)Cypher44 Wrote:
(05-18-2021, 09:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: So Percie ... how did this thread work out for ya then ?
As you expected ?
Why is it you are unable to post a coherent comment on the CSBI.
Have you even read it ? They fucking deny evolution. Don't tell me you deny evolution ?

Just checking on you. Don't feel shunned.

The Percival Paradigm Book I, Chapter I, Verse I

For Percie looked upon the thread He had weaved and saw to his terrifying realisation, that His mortal hands, His very keystrokes had wrought His own destruction. 

And He vanished unto the blinding darkness. 

(Seriously though, he might be cooking up rebuttals, ya never know)

First, I have Bucky on ignore.

Second, I'm waiting for SYZ to come up with his top 5, as I said.

Red herring gets served a lot around here, but I don't have a taste for it.
Reply
#42

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-19-2021, 12:32 PM)Percie Wrote: First, I have Bucky on ignore.

Second, I'm waiting for SYZ to come up with his top 5, as I said.

Red herring gets served a lot around here, but I don't have a taste for it.

Well, it's of course your prerogative to put anybody on your ignore list.  None of
us care one way or the other that you choose to scold us like little schoolkids made
to stand in the "naughty corner".  And please feel free to add my name to your list
if you so desire.

I simply can't be bothered determining my "top 5" contradictions, nor could I be
bothered debating any of those 101 with a zealous religionist who blindly believes
as inerrant each and every claim, misrepresentation, or outright lie in his millennia-old
holy book.

And if you don't like salted fish, then I suggest
you dine at another restaurant that serves steak.     Tongue
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#43

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-09-2021, 08:56 AM)SYZ Wrote: It's of note that whenever Percie has been asked to respond to a specific biblical claim,
he seldom does.  I wonder why LOL.

I'd also like him to check out this site for a lengthy list of blatant contradictions in the
Christian bible—far too many for them to have been written inadvertently:

101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible.

I'm guessing he'll simply dismiss this list out of hand, without even considering a handful of
them—particularly as he's dull-witted enough to blindly accept all the fantasy, mythology,
misrepresentation, and blatant lies in his story book.

LOL - who won't even consider a handful of them?
Reply
#44

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-19-2021, 12:32 PM)Percie Wrote:
(05-18-2021, 10:17 PM)Cypher44 Wrote:
(05-18-2021, 09:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: So Percie ... how did this thread work out for ya then ?
As you expected ?
Why is it you are unable to post a coherent comment on the CSBI.
Have you even read it ? They fucking deny evolution. Don't tell me you deny evolution ?

Just checking on you. Don't feel shunned.

The Percival Paradigm Book I, Chapter I, Verse I

For Percie looked upon the thread He had weaved and saw to his terrifying realisation, that His mortal hands, His very keystrokes had wrought His own destruction. 

And He vanished unto the blinding darkness. 

(Seriously though, he might be cooking up rebuttals, ya never know)

First, I have Bucky on ignore.

Second, I'm waiting for SYZ to come up with his top 5, as I said.

Red herring gets served a lot around here, but I don't have a taste for it.

Of course you do. I would too, if I were you.
You are incapable of discussion with anyone who actually has any education on these matters.

It's hardly a "red herring". However what IS a red herring is your dishonest attempt to explain away anything that could possibly be seen as a contradiction.
In fact your starting this thread IS dishonest and a red herring, and you attempted to justify it with a statement form a bunch of idiotic Fundamentalist preachers, who also in the SAME document, denied evolution. That's about your level.

But I think you're lying.
https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid297632
The message you posted / sent me about how great you thought it was to watch Tom O'Neil (in your uninformed opinion) smack me down puts the lie to you, troll.
Whether you have me on ignore or not, the refutation of your idiocy remains here, and will continue, and the "ignore" is nothing but affirmation that you are unable to even begin to reply to my posts, and have not the first clue what you are on about, as is perfectly evident here, in this thread. You can't even defend you posting of that ridiculous nonsense of the Chicogo statement on inerrancy.

SXY didn't take the bate to go down your rabbit-hole. I doubt he will. Your 3rd Grade level of Apologetics is worthless, and not worth anyone's time.
Your dishonesty is noted. You preemptively tried to claim there were no contradictions.
The following 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • Alan V, SYZ
Reply
#45

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-19-2021, 12:32 PM)Percie Wrote:
(05-18-2021, 10:17 PM)Cypher44 Wrote:
(05-18-2021, 09:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: So Percie ... how did this thread work out for ya then ?
As you expected ?
Why is it you are unable to post a coherent comment on the CSBI.
Have you even read it ? They fucking deny evolution. Don't tell me you deny evolution ?

Just checking on you. Don't feel shunned.

The Percival Paradigm Book I, Chapter I, Verse I

For Percie looked upon the thread He had weaved and saw to his terrifying realisation, that His mortal hands, His very keystrokes had wrought His own destruction. 

And He vanished unto the blinding darkness. 

(Seriously though, he might be cooking up rebuttals, ya never know)

First, I have Bucky on ignore.

Second, I'm waiting for SYZ to come up with his top 5, as I said.

Red herring gets served a lot around here, but I don't have a taste for it.

There are not only contradictions in the bible, there are contradictions with known historical facts outside of the bible. 

The "kings of Edom" which mythical Moses allegedly writes about, were found by archaeologists to be listed in the wrong order.  And they were not "kings" but military generals of city-states, not kingdoms. 

The 40,000 chariot horse stables the bible claims Solomon had were found by archaeologists but there were only stables for, at most, 50 horses.  That goes beyond an exaggeration. That is an out and out lie.

In the book of Danial it claims that Darius the Mede conqured Babylon. Wrong.  It was Cyrus the Great and he was a Persian, not a Mede. 

It also claims that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar which is wrong.  Nabondius was the father of Belshazzar and this can be cross checked by reading Nabondius Cylinder, a clay cylinder made contemporary to the life of Nabondius.  

The bible claims that flying insects have 4 legs, not six.  

It claims that Pi is 3.0.  

For a book that is supposedly without error it sure does get many facts wrong and this doesn't even go into the hundreds of contradictions within the bible.
                                                         T4618
The following 6 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Minimalist, Bucky Ball, Dānu, Alan V, Szuchow, Gwaithmir
Reply
#46

101 Contradictions in the Bible
Like I said, a lot of red herring served up here.
Reply
#47

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-19-2021, 03:14 PM)Percie Wrote: Like I said, a lot of red herring served up here.

And what, *that* bullshit post is supposed to actually be an intelligent reply to the FACTS presented.
Easy to just squeak "red herring, red herring", I can't hear you, lalalalalalalala.
The little fool started a thread, and is totally incapable of even discussing what is presented.
Why not just admit you know nothing about the Bible, and go away.

The historical FACTS are not red herrings. Percie posted the BS of the Chicago statement on inerrancy ... inerrancy is inerrancy, whether it's a contradition, or historical inaccuracy.
So no. Clearly Percival has no background AT ALL in the history of the period, the cultures, the facts, or the Bible.

If there is a lot of red herring here, then why are YOU here ? You affirm our importance with you presence, as does your buddy 'Leon'.

It's funny, ... he made the bad judgement, because aruments like this are relegated to his 1st Grade Apologis level where he comes from,
he thought that would fly here. Oh well. Live and learn.
Reply
#48

101 Contradictions in the Bible
Red herring is superior to religitard tripe.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Phaedrus
Reply
#49

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-19-2021, 03:12 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote:
(05-19-2021, 12:32 PM)Percie Wrote:
(05-18-2021, 10:17 PM)Cypher44 Wrote: The Percival Paradigm Book I, Chapter I, Verse I

For Percie looked upon the thread He had weaved and saw to his terrifying realisation, that His mortal hands, His very keystrokes had wrought His own destruction. 

And He vanished unto the blinding darkness. 

(Seriously though, he might be cooking up rebuttals, ya never know)

First, I have Bucky on ignore.

Second, I'm waiting for SYZ to come up with his top 5, as I said.

Red herring gets served a lot around here, but I don't have a taste for it.

There are not only contradictions in the bible, there are contradictions with known historical facts outside of the bible. 

The "kings of Edom" which mythical Moses allegedly writes about, were found by archaeologists to be listed in the wrong order.  And they were not "kings" but military generals of city-states, not kingdoms. 

The 40,000 chariot horse stables the bible claims Solomon had were found by archaeologists but there were only stables for, at most, 50 horses.  That goes beyond an exaggeration. That is an out and out lie.

In the book of Danial it claims that Darius the Mede conqured Babylon. Wrong.  It was Cyrus the Great and he was a Persian, not a Mede. 

It also claims that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar which is wrong.  Nabondius was the father of Belshazzar and this can be cross checked by reading Nabondius Cylinder, a clay cylinder made contemporary to the life of Nabondius.  

The bible claims that flying insects have 4 legs, not six.  

It claims that Pi is 3.0.  

For a book that is supposedly without error it sure does get many facts wrong and this doesn't even go into the hundreds of contradictions within the bible.

There also is the business of "caravans" ... and the reputed "travel". Since camels were not domesticated until, at the earliest 1000 BCE, the comings and goings as presented in the Bible are impossible. Camels are *known*, but they appear archaeologically only on temples and royal residences ... so they were not commonly used, (and if they were bred for use, there would be archaeological remains of that).

We also know that Egypt militarily controlled the entire Near East/Levant at the time the Exodus is claimed.
Some of the correspondence between the garrisons occupying what is now known as Israel, and their Egyptian commanders, still exist.
Why would a group of Semites flee from Egypt and go to another locale where the same people (Egyptians) controlled the land ? Yeah. There was no Exodus. Archaeology knows that Semites continuously occupied the places they did in the Levant since long before any Exodus. They just made it up. What is curious though, is that they were supposedly fleeing from "forced labor". The very same term for the overlords as claimed in Exodus, the "Officers of the Missim", is the same term which was used in describing the one-month per year forced labor's (for young men) supervisors which the story of Solomon presents as going on at his time. If they escaped from Egypt to go to ssomewhere where the same forced labor was extant, ... it's not much different. The Bible presents two kingdoms, North and South ... that probably was never the case. And the Bible presents the impetus for the break-away of the North as due to the argument over the forced labor.
The following 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • Alan V, Dancefortwo
Reply
#50

101 Contradictions in the Bible
(05-19-2021, 02:42 PM)Percie Wrote:
(05-09-2021, 08:56 AM)SYZ Wrote: It's of note that whenever Percie has been asked to respond to a specific biblical claim,
he seldom does.  I wonder why LOL.

I'd also like him to check out this site for a lengthy list of blatant contradictions in the
Christian bible—far too many for them to have been written inadvertently:

101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible.

I'm guessing he'll simply dismiss this list out of hand, without even considering a handful of
them—particularly as he's dull-witted enough to blindly accept all the fantasy, mythology,
misrepresentation, and blatant lies in his story book.

LOL - who won't even consider a handful of them?

You were really hoping and expecting he would take your bate, weren't you ?
Facepalm
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • SYZ
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)