1. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    111396
    15 Oct '09 10:50
    The bible says Jesus descended from King David. It also says Joseph descended from David thus establishing Jesus in the line of David. But then the Bible states Jesus was born from the Virgin Mary claiming that Joseph had nothing to do with it. Obviously the bible is contradicting itself again, that is to say, the perfect book made another error.
  2. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    15 Oct '09 10:52
    Originally posted by 667joe
    The bible says Jesus descended from King David. It also says Joseph descended from David thus establishing Jesus in the line of David. But then the Bible states Jesus was born from the Virgin Mary claiming that Joseph had nothing to do with it. Obviously the bible is contradicting itself again, that is to say, the perfect book made another error.
    I've stated this error earlier, but the christians doesn't seem to have any problem with this. Some still say that this error isn't really an error, but should be read symbolically.

    (1) The bible is the Truth.
    (2) If any error are found then (1) still applies.
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    15 Oct '09 11:02
    Originally posted by 667joe
    The bible says Jesus descended from King David. It also says Joseph descended from David thus establishing Jesus in the line of David. But then the Bible states Jesus was born from the Virgin Mary claiming that Joseph had nothing to do with it. Obviously the bible is contradicting itself again, that is to say, the perfect book made another error.
    have you ever even considered the possibility that Christ could also have been decended from David through his mother as well, obviously not, otherwise you would not have uttered such a thoroughly ignorant statement.
  4. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    111396
    15 Oct '09 11:59
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    have you ever even considered the possibility that Christ could also have been decended from David through his mother as well, obviously not, otherwise you would not have uttered such a thoroughly ignorant statement.
    In fact sir, you have displayed your ignorance, because part of the bible says Jesus descended from Joseph, and part of the bible says he descended from Mary. Once again the bible is speaking out of both sides of its mouth because both statements can't be right unless you leave out the virgin birth. The bible is speaking out of 3 sides of its mouth. Perhaps god is doing this as a test to see who he forgot to pass out brains to!
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    15 Oct '09 12:06
    Originally posted by 667joe
    In fact sir, you have displayed your ignorance, because part of the bible says Jesus descended from Joseph, and part of the bible says he descended from Mary. Once again the bible is speaking out of both sides of its mouth because both statements can't be right unless you leave out the virgin birth. The bible is speaking out of 3 sides of its mouth. Perhaps god is doing this as a test to see who he forgot to pass out brains to!
    sorry what are you talking about? both Christ's parents were descended from David, therefore your argument, based on the idea that somehow, because his mother was Mary, therefore he could not be descended from David, is, to put it lightly, utter bum! its is well understood that Joseph, who is also considered to have been descended from David, was Christ's adoptive father, its not so hard to understand, is it?
  6. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    111396
    15 Oct '09 12:18
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    sorry what are you talking about? both Christ's parents were descended from David, therefore your argument, based on the idea that somehow, because his mother was Mary, therefore he could not be descended from David, is, to put it lightly, utter bum! its is well understood that Joseph, who is also considered to have been descended from David, was Christ's adoptive father, its not so hard to understand, is it?
    One part of the bible says Jesus descended from Joseph and another part says it was a virgin birth. Both sections cannot be right. Mary is merely a 3rd complication and many scholars agree that the claim that she descended from David was falsly made up to try to compensate for having to leave Joseph out the the picture. If you believe in virgin birth, however, I wouldn't boast about it because it tells me you believe almost anything!
  7. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    15 Oct '09 12:22
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    sorry what are you talking about? both Christ's parents were descended from David, therefore your argument, based on the idea that somehow, because his mother was Mary, therefore he could not be descended from David, is, to put it lightly, utter bum! its is well understood that Joseph, who is also considered to have been descended from David, was Christ's adoptive father, its not so hard to understand, is it?
    You want it to be that way, don't you? Therefore you try to find a way for it to be the way you want, don't you?

    Jesus wasn't the biological father of Jesus. If you think otherwise, then show me your source. The bible is in front of you. Just tell me the book, chapter and verse.
  8. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    15 Oct '09 12:43
    Originally posted by 667joe
    One part of the bible says Jesus descended from Joseph and another part says it was a virgin birth. Both sections cannot be right. Mary is merely a 3rd complication and many scholars agree that the claim that she descended from David was falsly made up to try to compensate for having to leave Joseph out the the picture. If you believe in virgin birth, however, I wouldn't boast about it because it tells me you believe almost anything!
    how about you substantiate your claims with quotes from the bible first and then we will talk some more?
  9. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    111396
    15 Oct '09 12:46
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    how about you substantiate your claims with quotes from the bible first and then we will talk some more?
    Google it.
  10. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    15 Oct '09 12:58
    Originally posted by 667joe
    The bible says Jesus descended from King David. It also says Joseph descended from David thus establishing Jesus in the line of David. But then the Bible states Jesus was born from the Virgin Mary claiming that Joseph had nothing to do with it. Obviously the bible is contradicting itself again, that is to say, the perfect book made another error.
    What robbie said.

    Why did you title this thread "Another Biblical Error"?

    You should have said "Another attempt to find a Biblical Error".
  11. Joined
    07 Jan '08
    Moves
    34575
    15 Oct '09 13:33
    The Bible is neither written as, not intended to be, a historical document of fact.

    Those who would look to historical facts in the Bible and consider the words in the Bible inerrant are on a fool's mission and don't get it.

    Those whose only mission is to point out the contradictions and absence of fact in the Bible are on a fool's mission and don't get it.
  12. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    15 Oct '09 15:13
    Originally posted by Badwater
    The Bible is neither written as, not intended to be, a historical document of fact.

    Those who would look to historical facts in the Bible and consider the words in the Bible inerrant are on a fool's mission and don't get it.

    Those whose only mission is to point out the contradictions and absence of fact in the Bible are on a fool's mission and don't get it.
    There are two possibilities: (1) The bible is true to the letter, as intended by god, and no error can be found, and (2) there are errors in the bible.

    Many dogmatic fundamentalistic christians go for possibility (1). They have to be shown that it's actually (2) that is valid. It seems that (2) makes them feel cheated, as their whole existance are at stake. They are very sensitive about this.

    But as the bible is written with a pen in a mans hand, there must be errors. As soon they realize this, then they can be saved.
  13. Joined
    07 Jan '08
    Moves
    34575
    15 Oct '09 16:26
    Originally posted by Badwater
    The Bible is neither written as, not intended to be, a historical document of fact.

    ...

    Those whose only mission is to point out the contradictions and absence of fact in the Bible are on a fool's mission and don't get it.
  14. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    15 Oct '09 16:27
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    There are two possibilities: (1) The bible is true to the letter, as intended by god, and no error can be found, and (2) there are errors in the bible.

    Many dogmatic fundamentalistic christians go for possibility (1). They have to be shown that it's actually (2) that is valid. It seems that (2) makes them feel cheated, as their whole existance are at s ...[text shortened]... a pen in a mans hand, there must be errors. As soon they realize this, then they can be saved.
    Unless you ever grasp the fact that the Bible was inspired by God and was pinned by men as a secretary would write what was told by their superior, you'll never get it.
    So what you think is a contradiction is not if you would do more research and not simply react.
    But if your looking to discredit the Bible then you'll come up with something no matter what anyone says.
  15. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    15 Oct '09 16:29
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Unless you ever grasp the fact that the Bible was inspired by God and was pinned by men as a secretary would write what was told by their superior, you'll never get it.
    So what you think is a contradiction is not if you would do more research and not simply react.
    But if your looking to discredit the Bible then you'll come up with something no matter what anyone says.
    Why don't you just admit that there are errors in the bible and take it from there?
Back to Top