15 Oct 09
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.
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by 667joeI'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.
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.
(1) The bible is the Truth.
(2) If any error are found then (1) still applies.
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by 667joehave 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.
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.
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn 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!
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.
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by 667joesorry 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?
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!
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOne 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!
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?
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou 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?
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?
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.
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by 667joehow about you substantiate your claims with quotes from the bible first and then we will talk some more?
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!
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by 667joeWhat robbie said.
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.
Why did you title this thread "Another Biblical Error"?
You should have said "Another attempt to find a Biblical Error".
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
15 Oct 09
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.
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by BadwaterThere 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.
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.
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.
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasUnless 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.
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.
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 Oct 09
Originally posted by galveston75Why don't you just admit that there are errors in the bible and take it from there?
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.