Can you prove the Bible has fallacies?

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: jadinolf
Ask Brutuskend. He was around in the old days.

:brokenheart:

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Nik
Well why did you start this thread, then? There are a myriad of websites on the 'net with their opinion of how the Bible contradicts itself.

Look, I admitted my wrong, changed the OP around, and won't "play stupid." I really [sic] wasn't trying to insite anything even if my initial post sounded that way. Can you just move over it?

 

[iwearnosox]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Nik
Well why did you start this thread, then? There are a myriad of websites on the 'net with their opinion of how the Bible contradicts itself.

Look, I admitted my wrong, changed the OP around, and won't "play stupid." I really [sic] wasn't trying to insite anything even if my initial post sounded that way. Can you just move over it?

What this thread requires is Moses the moderator.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Nik
Well why did you start this thread, then? There are a myriad of websites on the 'net with their opinion of how the Bible contradicts itself.

Look, I admitted my wrong, changed the OP around, and won't "play stupid." I really [sic] wasn't trying to insite anything even if my initial post sounded that way. Can you just move over it?

I'm over it. Now answer the damn question. Why did you start this thread?

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
...Basically, I want anyone to try to give me solid, undeniable evidence that the Bible has fallacies, and I, in turn, will try to give you evidence of the contrary.

 

[Kev]

this should be entertaining tomorrow at work

 

[ballmode]

p&n

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RCN
Obviously the hanhing did but not the gut split? :roll: The rest of the account doesn't really match either.

Neither jive with the account of Papias or evidence he didn't die at all.......

I'm not sure if you're understanding what I'm saying. Judas was killed when he hung himself (Matt. 27:5). The fall (Acts 1:18) occured post-mortem (after death) and split his stomach open. The fall was the result of the earth quake that happened at that very time.

Matthew 27:51 (King James Version)

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

That's pretty accurate. Judas hung himself on a tree. If you go to the historic sites where they believe Judas hung himself, there are many trees growing around the cliff located above the field that is referred to here. It's not a stretch to imagine Judas hanging himself on a tree, and then the branch or rope breaking, causing his body to fall into the field below.

These are not contradictions. Every single one of the contradictions given over and over again are just omissions in one recording... NOT contradictions.

For example, it's not a contradiction if you write that a billboard you saw read "$9.99 for unlimited internet" and I write that the same billboard read "Netscape offers fast internet." The sign very well may say both things. This is the case where critics says the sign on the cross of Jesus is a contradiction, because different books record it differently.

Sorry. Doesn't fly. Matthew says he threw the money away and hung himself.

Acts says he bought a field, fell and spilled his guts.

Papias accounts seems to say he suffered from something that caused him to grow very large and his gut split.

At the time all were considered reliable accounts of his death not versions of the same story.......

 

[kitkat22]

I've found that knowing a little history of the Bible helps.

The Bible was written usually by prophets, but apostles are scattered throughout. When books were written by the prophets they added to the previous books in succesion and passed down through the ages. For example, Isaiah added his own text to Moses, Jeremiah added his own to Isaiah and Moses, etc. It is interesting to point out there is about 200-300 years between Malachi and the book of Matthew. It is generally believed there was a falling away of the "church" organization, which led up to the hypocritical teachings of the scribes and pharisees. The scribes and pharisees "faithfully" transcribed the Old Testament texts, but some were lazy or corrupt. This partly explains why some numbers are off or verses don't match, etc.

The New Testament is composed of the Four Gospels, Acts, the writings of Paul and other Apostles as well. We don't know who kept record of what each written, but we have the writings none the less. Because of the unknown of who kept the writings it is unclear if the individuals were pro-Christ or opposite. Beginning in 325 AD, Constantinople began collecting the various teachers of Christianity (Catholicism at the time) and began discussing the doctrines of the church. The doctrine of the God being one was finalized here and basically the Bible as well. The various priests essentially voted on what was going to be in the Bible versus not. Some books, such as revelations made it by a single vote. The books were then organized, not necessarily in chronological order (Revelations was actually written before St. John). The books of Moses were lumped together and the prophets were essentially ordered from greatest to least.

Orginally the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. The Bible was then translated into Latin, the "pure" language, in about 400AD. Translation beyond Latin was strictly forbidden, which explains why Catholicism preached in Latin for many years. It wasn't until John Wycliffe, in 1300 that English was ever considered for translation, but English was still a very rudimentary and crude language. It was considered sacrilege to translate to English and Wycliffe, after his death, was exhumed and his bones burned. 1455 brought the invention of the printing press to the West by Gutenberg. The Bible was essentially the first book printed. William Tyndale, a literary and lingual scholar began a direct translation from the Hebrew and Greek Bible. It is estimated that 80% of these translations ended up as the King James Version of the Bible.

The question then stands, are there mistakes? Yes, translation is not easy and anyone who speaks more than one language will tell you there are sometimes when a direct translation is impossible. In the King James Version these words are typically italicized. Is the Bible correct?

Sorry, for the history lesson, but I think the Bible's history is one of the more cool histories you can learn.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RCN
I want you to read these and tell me again there is not a contradiction:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a11.htm
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08b23.htm

There is not a contradiction. Both references say the same thing that I quoted.

Two different men?

11 And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had: Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonite, the chief of the captains; he lifted up his spear against three hundred and slew them at one time.

12 And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo, the Ahohite, who was one of the three mighty men.


8 These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb-basshebeth a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite; [he lifted up his spear] against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

9 And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo the son of an Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they jeoparded their lives against the Philistines that were there gathered together to battle, and the men of Israel were gone away;

 

[Nocturnal]

Originally posted by: DaShen
In before the...

And you don't

/thread

This used to be a bannable offense.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
...Basically, I want anyone to try to give me solid, undeniable evidence that the Bible has fallacies, and I, in turn, will try to give you evidence of the contrary.

Not possible for them and not possible for you. Considering how well versed (haha) you've shown yourself to be, I'm surprised you don't already know this.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
...Basically, I want anyone to try to give me solid, undeniable evidence that the Bible has fallacies, and I, in turn, will try to give you evidence of the contrary.

Not possible for them and not possible for you. Considering how well versed (haha) you've shown yourself to be, I'm surprised you don't already know this.

Surprisingly, I am not well versed at all. I have to read the passages for myself and figure it out before posting. I know very little about Bible history and the Bible in general compared to others out there. Believe it or not, but there have been many times when I've been unable to answer contradictory questions pertaining to the Bible. That's why I posted here. I'm up for the challenge of trying to disprove any so-called fallacies I can.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RCN
I want you to read these and tell me again there is not a contradiction:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a11.htm
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08b23.htm

There is not a contradiction. Both references say the same thing that I quoted.

Two different men?

11 And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had: Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonite, the chief of the captains; he lifted up his spear against three hundred and slew them at one time.

12 And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo, the Ahohite, who was one of the three mighty men.


8 These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb-basshebeth a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite; [he lifted up his spear] against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

9 And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo the son of an Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they jeoparded their lives against the Philistines that were there gathered together to battle, and the men of Israel were gone away;

I don't understand what you're trying to point out. Could you elaborate a little more please?

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RCN
Obviously the hanhing did but not the gut split? :roll: The rest of the account doesn't really match either.

Neither jive with the account of Papias or evidence he didn't die at all.......

I'm not sure if you're understanding what I'm saying. Judas was killed when he hung himself (Matt. 27:5). The fall (Acts 1:18) occured post-mortem (after death) and split his stomach open. The fall was the result of the earth quake that happened at that very time.

Matthew 27:51 (King James Version)

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

That's pretty accurate. Judas hung himself on a tree. If you go to the historic sites where they believe Judas hung himself, there are many trees growing around the cliff located above the field that is referred to here. It's not a stretch to imagine Judas hanging himself on a tree, and then the branch or rope breaking, causing his body to fall into the field below.

These are not contradictions. Every single one of the contradictions given over and over again are just omissions in one recording... NOT contradictions.

For example, it's not a contradiction if you write that a billboard you saw read "$9.99 for unlimited internet" and I write that the same billboard read "Netscape offers fast internet." The sign very well may say both things. This is the case where critics says the sign on the cross of Jesus is a contradiction, because different books record it differently.

Sorry. Doesn't fly. Matthew says he threw the money away and hung himself.

Acts says he bought a field, fell and spilled his guts.

Papias accounts seems to say he suffered from something that caused him to grow very large and his gut split.

At the time all were considered reliable accounts of his death not versions of the same story.......

What I'm saying is that Judas hung himself first, and then fell and spilled his guts post-mortem. That is definitely possible without contradicting.

 

[Rayden]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Many others have stated the facts.
To add to the list.

It's been translated from one language to another then to another etc. Translations are not perfect.
Over time, the same language changes and some words gain new meanings. Even if the translations were perfect, english now is different from what It was then.

At the very least, it's different from when it was originally written.
It's also being interpred differently from when it was first translated into English.

If you knew anything about the documents you would be aware that compared to every single other historical document of a similar age, the number of errors that have crept into the Bible are magnitudes lower. There have been extremely few errors in copying manuscripts. As far as translations, what else can you do? All of the good English translations are from the "original" text. What more do you want?

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: jonessoda
Yes, you are, at least the flamebaiting part.

Have you heard the Invisible Pink Unicorn hypothesis?

Basically, IPUists state that the world was created by an invisible, intangible pink unicorn that still walks among us. Why can't you see it? It's invisible. Why can't we feel it or otherwise sense it? It's intangible. How does one know it's pink? Take it as faith. How is it provable? Well, disprove it. There you go, IPUism is therefore exactly as valid as any other religion.

Wikipedia: Invisible Pink Unicorn

See also Last-Thursdayism.

I was going to use the flying spaghetti monster as an example about how ridiculous the OP's question is, but the above post pretty much covered it.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RCN
I want you to read these and tell me again there is not a contradiction:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a11.htm
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08b23.htm

There is not a contradiction. Both references say the same thing that I quoted.

Two different men?

11 And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had: Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonite, the chief of the captains; he lifted up his spear against three hundred and slew them at one time.

12 And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo, the Ahohite, who was one of the three mighty men.


8 These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb-basshebeth a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite; [he lifted up his spear] against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

9 And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo the son of an Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they jeoparded their lives against the Philistines that were there gathered together to battle, and the men of Israel were gone away;

I don't understand what you're trying to point out. Could you elaborate a little more please?

I'm pointing out what most Biblical scholars admit to being a fvck up/ textual corruption. Yet you still want to defend it.

The bolded part shows who is 'next on the list'. Why would everything else be the same except for the top guy in the story?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
...Basically, I want anyone to try to give me solid, undeniable evidence that the Bible has fallacies, and I, in turn, will try to give you evidence of the contrary.

Not possible for them and not possible for you. Considering how well versed (haha) you've shown yourself to be, I'm surprised you don't already know this.

Surprisingly, I am not well versed at all. I have to read the passages for myself and figure it out before posting. I know very little about Bible history and the Bible in general compared to others out there. Believe it or not, but there have been many times when I've been unable to answer contradictory questions pertaining to the Bible. That's why I posted here. I'm up for the challenge of trying to disprove any so-called fallacies I can.

You've come to the wrong place and you're going about it all wrong. Just move on with your life.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RCN
Obviously the hanhing did but not the gut split? :roll: The rest of the account doesn't really match either.

Neither jive with the account of Papias or evidence he didn't die at all.......

I'm not sure if you're understanding what I'm saying. Judas was killed when he hung himself (Matt. 27:5). The fall (Acts 1:18) occured post-mortem (after death) and split his stomach open. The fall was the result of the earth quake that happened at that very time.

Matthew 27:51 (King James Version)

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

That's pretty accurate. Judas hung himself on a tree. If you go to the historic sites where they believe Judas hung himself, there are many trees growing around the cliff located above the field that is referred to here. It's not a stretch to imagine Judas hanging himself on a tree, and then the branch or rope breaking, causing his body to fall into the field below.

These are not contradictions. Every single one of the contradictions given over and over again are just omissions in one recording... NOT contradictions.

For example, it's not a contradiction if you write that a billboard you saw read "$9.99 for unlimited internet" and I write that the same billboard read "Netscape offers fast internet." The sign very well may say both things. This is the case where critics says the sign on the cross of Jesus is a contradiction, because different books record it differently.

Sorry. Doesn't fly. Matthew says he threw the money away and hung himself.

Acts says he bought a field, fell and spilled his guts.

Papias accounts seems to say he suffered from something that caused him to grow very large and his gut split.

At the time all were considered reliable accounts of his death not versions of the same story.......

What I'm saying is that Judas hung himself first, and then fell and spilled his guts post-mortem. That is definitely possible without contradicting.

Read the two acounts. They are exactly that. Two accounts. Not the same story with added / missing pieces.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: RCN
I'm pointing out what most Biblical scholars admit to being a fvck up/ textual corruption. Yet you still want to defend it.

The bolded part shows who is 'next on the list'. Why would everything else be the same except for the top guy in the story?

What you're quoting isn't a contradiction. It's that simple.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: RCN
I'm pointing out what most Biblical scholars admit to being a fvck up/ textual corruption. Yet you still want to defend it.

The bolded part shows who is 'next on the list'. Why would everything else be the same except for the top guy in the story?

What you're quoting isn't a contradiction. It's that simple.

What would you call it?

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RCN
I want you to read these and tell me again there is not a contradiction:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a11.htm
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08b23.htm

There is not a contradiction. Both references say the same thing that I quoted.

Two different men?

11 And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had: Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonite, the chief of the captains; he lifted up his spear against three hundred and slew them at one time.

12 And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo, the Ahohite, who was one of the three mighty men.


8 These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb-basshebeth a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite; [he lifted up his spear] against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

9 And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo the son of an Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they jeoparded their lives against the Philistines that were there gathered together to battle, and the men of Israel were gone away;

I don't understand what you're trying to point out. Could you elaborate a little more please?

I'm pointing out what most Biblical scholars admit to being a fvck up/ textual corruption. Yet you still want to defend it.

The bolded part shows who is 'next on the list'. Why would everything else be the same except for the top guy in the story?

What I don't get is how it contradicts. "After" doesn't necessarily mean "immediate successor," it can also mean "later in line." Is that what you're saying, because I see no other possible contradiction.

 

[DaveCSparty]

The bible is a book, it's not up to us to disprove it. If you want others to believe it, it's your responsibility to prove that it's true.

For the rest of us, it's as good as a Aesop's fables

 

[HardcoreRobot]

i will if you prove lord of the rings is false