Surface Level Bible Contradictions (People Still Hate The Bible Even When You Clarify)October 29, 2010
The genealogies of Jesus
“Why are the number of generations explained in the gospels of Matthew and Luke tracing the lineage between King David and Jesus not the same? Or even the same # of generations? How would Jesus be a descendant anyway if he was born of a virgin? Its hilarious”
“Mathew traces it through Joseph’s line by 3 groups of 14, which numerically = the name of David in Hebrew. Luke does so thru Mary, or Mary’s father Heli, who may not have had sons – which defaults it to Mary. Jesus is both an earthly descendant and a heavenly one. Lineages are abridged even in the OT (1 Chro 6, Ezra 7).”
“This is just how you or your preacher would interpret it. Others come to other conclusions. The Bible makes history’s most far-fetched claims with no irrefutable physical evidence, and you prescribe your entire existence to its teachings? Scripture that has been translated many times, that makes outrageous and outdated claims, is “proof” in your mind? You see no problem with this? We must move on from this ancient way of thinking. It is of great detriment to society’s progress.”
“If the interpretation is possible there’s no contradiction. Only a seemingly contradiction due to a surface level reading of the Bible, which atheists are good at. Which interpretation is the best is a whole other matter b/c that takes into account many things. Lol, you don’t even know what you’re talking about. A translation only happens once, but there are many transmissions. There are more for the NT then any work from antiquity! Ancient or modern, who cares. What is truth?”
The Bible says Pi = 3, and says bats are birds
“God says pi = 3 (1 Kings 7:23)
God says bats are birds (Leviticus 11:13-19)
Dust and missing ribs (Do I need a verse for this? Haven’t you heard the creation story?)”
“The context wasn’t to give the exact number of pi but to give a description of what the objects in the temple looked like. Modern science is more specific w/ its classes, the ancients weren’t. It depends on HOW we/they classify “bird”. If something flies (ancient), or more specific criterion (modern). God (prior life) makes dust life. Naturalism makes star dust (non living) life, ~ Discovery channel
“The context wasn’t to give the exact number of pi… It depends on HOW we/they classify “bird”
Typical. Tap-dancing around the falsehoods in your precious 2000 year old tome. It says what it says, don’t try to deny it. Pi is not 3. Bats are not birds. We are not made of dirt and ribs. The Bible is stupid. Get over it.
“Naturalism makes star dust (non living) life,”
Naturalism is the position that the natural world is all that exists. It has nothing to say about stardust.”
“So if you write a book we get to ignore context thus read it at a surface level. If not, that’s a double standard. But looking at what it says v.26 says the rim was like a lilly thus would have stuck out further thus the rims circum would’ve been about 31.4, while the base could still be 30. The Heb word “owph” can mean “winged animal”. It’s translators who use the word “bird”. Again, surface level contradictions which all the more make me believe it, a fulfillment of Rom 1:18-20.”
(I was actually incorrect here. I mean to rather say from rim to rim (which stuck out beyond the base) it was 10 in diameter. The circumference of the base (below the rim) was 30. The diameter of the base (not the rim) being less then 10 would have been closer to Pi, but the text itself isn’t trying to achieve Pi anyways.)
“v.26 says the rim was like a lilly thus would have stuck out further”
No, it says it was like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lillies.
“The Heb word “owph” can mean “winged animal”.”
Actually, no. It means “fowl,” which is the word that’s used in the book.
“Either way, both world views include dust of some sort.”
You have absolutely no understanding of what star dust is. Please don’t straw man science just because you can’t actually refute it.
“lol, ur a KJV onlyist?! The proper meaning of the Heb word is “winged animal” and can include a fowl. Get a lexicon and put down your King Jimmy, which when written we may not have had the classification of “mammal” yet. The modern texts and more word for word translations say “like a lilly” not “with lillies”. Science depends on refutation to advance. YOU don’t have the true scientist spirit. You’re fallacy is also that science = “naturalism”. I refuted the latter with your same logic”
“Heb word is “winged animal” and can include a fowl”
Okay. Let’s assume you’re right. If that’s what it means, how come EVERY SINGLE OTHER CREATURE named in those few verses is an actual bird? I could see where you were coming from if it mentioned some insects too, but bats are the only non-birds it mentions. The person who wrote that verse genuinely believed that bats are birds.
“Science depends on refutation to advance”
When did I say anything to the contrary?
“It doesn’t matter how many animals which we modernly classify as birds or not is in the list. The original proper meaning of “owph” is winged animal. Classifications can change thus discredit something which never consulted such classifications! You’re Biblical fallacy is with the English interpretation, not he original Hebrew, which makes it a surface level contradiction which you can’t throw around carelessly now! Sorry.”
“Yes, it does. It differentiates between insects and birds, why shouldn’t it differentiate between bats and birds? You’re so convinced that your book is infallible that you do these mental gymnastics to convince yourself you’re right.
Oh well, I suppose I shouldn’t have expected someone who believes in a talking snake to be rational.”
“Looking at the original Hebrew is NOT mental gymnastics! lol, it’s bible study 101, which you’re bias against because it strips you of your silly surface level contradictions which you can no longer throw around, and must now search hard for better ones. This is a fulfillment of Rom 1:18-20, which makes be believe Scripture more, and shows you’re not interested in truth, just anti-Christ polemics. And with “naturalism” there’s no reason there could not be a talking snake! It could evolve too”
“You really think your bible is infallible? Go to skepticsannotatedbible(dot)com and see your precious book for what it is: a 2000 year old tome written by a roving band of brinze age thugs. It contains such an extraordinary amount of scientific and historical inaccuracies as well as bad morality it’s hard to believe it was even written by sane people.
Oh, so a book says that people will doubt its veracity, and that’s proof of its veracity? You are the paragon of intelligence.
“The modern texts and more word for word translations say “like a lilly” not “with lillies”.”
Let’s assume the translation you’re using is somehow more valid. The book still says the “molten sea” is circular, ten cubits wide, and thirty cubits around. It doesn’t have any qualifying verses where the diameter is measured to the outsides of the rim and the circumference is measured on the inside. The bible says Pi is 3.
“Even if the Bible says it’s 3 that still doesn’t assume it means it’s ONLY 3. Even if it said it was 3.14 that would still be wrong by your standard b/c it’s not just 3.14 but more accurately 3.1415926, etc. From rim to rim it was 10 cubits, and it (the sea) was 30 cubits. That’s what it says. And Erasmus only had a few late Byzantine texts when translating the KJV. What we have now is far more critical and accurate. Nice try again. Sorry you’ll have to get better arguments :(“
“From rim to rim it was 10 cubits, and it (the sea) was 30 cubits. That’s what it says.”
Exactly. You just proved yourself wrong. You’re a moron.
“If you mean “natural” in the sense of “what is” n not “what should be”, then it can’t account for logic.”
What the fuck are you even talking about? What does this have to do with ANYTHING?
You know what? I’m done. I’ve heard enough of your nonsensical, illogical, asinine “arguments.” You’re obviously wrong and can’t even admit it.
“My clarification was that the SEA is 30 cubits (perhaps roughly) in circum, NOT that the sea’s rim’s circum is, there’s a difference between those two. You prove God’s existence when you act like I “should” be logical! In your confusion, you all the more prove my point b/c you act like I “should be rational”, where nothing in “nature” accounts for “what should be the case”, only “what is”. If we’re created from star dust, how does it account for what “should be”?”
(Allow me to clarify this point again: Imagine a container that has a rim that sticks out further then the rest of the body of the container. Let’s say the circumference of the body is 30. If the diameter of the body is 10, then yes pi = 3 which would be inaccurate, unless there was rounding taking place and we were speaking in general terms, which according to those who !!HATE!! the Bible, the Bible isn’t allowed to do. If we needed to get Pi, then the diameter would have to be about 9.55. Yet in 1 Kings 7:26, it’s possible that the rim sticks out beyond the body, thus having a diameter of 10, which then would probably make the bodies diameter less than 10. Again, just looking strictly at the text this could absolutely be the case! It simply says in verse 23, “From rim to rim it was 10 cubits, and it (the sea) was 30 cubits”.)
Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar nor ever king
“The book of Daniel describes events that supposedly happened during the Babylonian captivity of the Jews. The fifth chapter states that Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king, was succeeded on the throne by his son Belshazzar. But historians tell us Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar and was never king.”
“with Belshazzar, in Hebrew thought a “father” can refer to someone you’re descended from. Hence how Abraham is a father to all the Jews, really the remnant (both Gentiles and Jews who have true faith in Christ, Rom 2,9). And the Hebrew word for “king” can refer to governing and Bel is historically referred to as a crown prince. All your other “issues” are that “but history doesn’t show us this”. You could discredit most of history from antiquity with that standard. Another bias.”
“there is no historical evidence other than the bible for jesus as well..
there is nothing.. you keep talking about science and proof.. but you cant have proof without history or science.. all of which you have none.. and you defy your god saying you can prove god exists.. if u have proof u dont need faith.. simple logic you dont have and never said i beleived in the big bang”
“The Bible is better evidence for Jesus, hence the NT is contemporaneous, then anything for anyone from antiquity. Thus, there’s far more evidence Jesus existed then Alexander the great who has no contemporaneous writings of him. Even the most liberal scholars like Bart Ehrman believe Jesus historically existed, and do so based on the Bible. Take it up with them! Proof = inference, which always requires faith. YOU r proof of God b/c you’re using what only he can supply, logic
Acts 9:7 says the men heard a noise, Acts 22:9 says they didn’t
*It says the men heard a sound, NOT that they comprehended what was said.
*Greek – “akountes” (heard) has a participle mood. Usually when “akou” has this mood something is only physically heard, not necessarily understood.
*Greek – “ouk akousan” (not heard) has an indicative mood. When “akou” has this mood it usually isn’t understood or comprehended.
Hence, Mat 13:13 “upon hearing (akouantes – participle mood) they do not hear (ouk akouousin – indicative mood).