Back to Bible Contradictions

Originally posted by divegeester
No grey areas?
Everything is crystal clear to you?

To God there are no gray areas. You just have to figure out those gray areas in your mind and then they will become black and white.

Example once I was in a group and someone asked is it OK to get tattoos. The response was oh that's just such a gray area.

Originally posted by RBHILL
To God there are no gray areas. You just have to figure out those gray areas in your mind and then they will become black and white.

Example once I was in a group and someone asked is it OK to get tattoos. The response was oh that's just such a gray area.

What a load of bollox.

Good grief, try to at least pull some level of cognitive cohesion please.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke

2. 'For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God'. Romans 3:23
'There was a man…who's name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright.' Job 1:1
Is this not a clear contradiction? If all are sinners, how did Job come to be perfect?

Job was comparatively more righteous then many of that generation. And God says so. Yet in the close of the book Job repents.

His whole argument with his three friends is that they simply do not understand. He is aware of nothing against his conscience. So he is righteous. After God appears to him, Job repents in disgust at himself, decides he better shut up, has nothing more to say in protest to God.

God still says He is better off than his three friends and requires Job to pray for their forgiveness.

So you are right that Job is pronounced righteous. But he repents. So more light upon his life left him speechless in repentence. He comes short of the glory of God.

" I had heard of You by the hearing of the ear, But now my eye has seen You;

Therefore I abhor myself, and I repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:5,6)

If Job was perfect as the Son of God, then Job certainly would not have abhored himself. But comparatively so, he was more right than other men on the earth.

Originally posted by sonship

2. 'For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God'. Romans 3:23
'There was a man…who's name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright.' Job 1:1
Is this not a clear contradiction? If all are sinners, how did Job come to be perfect?

[b]Job was comparatively more righteous then many of that generation. And God says so. ...[text shortened]... ave abhored himself. But comparatively so, he was more right than other men on the earth.[/b]

Okay, that's a pretty good explanation. 🙂

Originally posted by sonship
Over the past many years I have written several times probably that I do not believe that the Bible can be 100% systematized. Paradoxes, maybe even contradictions at least appear to exist.

Our growth in experience with God answers many of these.

And I do not believe all my interpretations are infallible.
Many of them are better than yours though, e ...[text shortened]... [b]"Us" and "We" mysteriously being applied to the ________s of the Father and Son.[/b]

One biggie, in the interpretation department: They analysed the Mary begat Joseph who begat Reggie who begat Margerie who begat Billy and so forth and based on that come up with a literal interpretation concluding Earth is 6000 years old. Regardles of vast evidence otherwise. Like, it's the 21st century if they haven't noticed and so there is now an entire science dissing industry vainly attempting to knock down the known dates of Earth, for instance, there is ice core data from Greenland and Antarctica miles deep showing weather cycles (they can read that into the ice, which leaves traces of atmosphere for them to analyse. Those numbers alone go back like a million years or so.

That right there refutes the stupid 6000 year date of the interpreters. Yet in spite of data like that from a dozen separate science disciplines all saying pretty much the same thing, like now, the age of Earth has been pegged at 4.5 billion years and the main fight now is ok, is it 4.501 billion years old or is it 4.499 billion years old. There is now zero doubt in the scientific world about that but the literalist set is spending literally millions of dollars in all kinds of legal and pseudoscientific nonsense trying to get around that and do stuff like force creationism to be taught as if it were an actual science, IN A SCIENCE CLASSROOM. That ain't gonna happen on MY watch. EVER. You want to learn or teach creationism, do it in a religion class not a science class and stop the anti science rants about this and the legal fights to force creationism into a science classroom, under the guise of 'freedom of expression' which is bullshyte, they want anything BUT freedom in this issue, they would in fact love to force evolution right out of the door and leave ONLY creationism. Not gonna happen EVER. That's a pretty big contradiction in my book.

Originally posted by sonhouse
One biggie, in the interpretation department: They analysed the Mary begat Joseph who begat Reggie who begat Margerie who begat Billy and so forth and based on that come up with a literal interpretation concluding Earth is 6000 years old. Regardles of vast evidence otherwise. Like, it's the 21st century if they haven't noticed and so there is now an entire ...[text shortened]... nd leave ONLY creationism. Not gonna happen EVER. That's a pretty big contradiction in my book.

Too bad you are not as thoughtful about all that fishy footage about NASA astronauts allegedly riding vehicles around on the moon.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Okay, that's a pretty good explanation. 🙂

I am for a search for truth. You could make more of a case of what I said.
For instance, how do I know that Job's abhorring of himself was really because of unrighteousness ?

This is something I am asking myself.

Originally posted by sonship
Too bad you are not as thoughtful about all that fishy footage about NASA astronauts allegedly riding vehicles around on the moon.

It's funny you bring that up. I recently viewed some video of the astronaut riding on the 'moon' with that rather large moon vehicle.

If you look at the size of the lunar module, it doesn't appear that vehicle would fit in there.

Originally posted by chaney3
It's funny you bring that up. I recently viewed some video of the astronaut riding on the 'moon' with that rather large moon vehicle.

If you look at the size of the lunar module, it doesn't appear that vehicle would fit in there.

Ha ha, you're back talking about the moon are you? Did you run away from the science thread? I am still waiting for that reference.

As for the lunar module and vehicle, rather than deliberately trying to spread malicious lies about it here, why don't you simply Google how it was transported. Its really not that hard.

Originally posted by sonship
I am for a search for truth. You could make more of a case of what I said.
For instance, how do I know that [b]Job's abhorring of himself was really because of unrighteousness ?

This is something I am asking myself.[/b]

In chess we call it a 'waiting move:'

'a move that does not appear to contribute to the player's immediate tactical objectives, but instead shifts the burden of action to the opponent.'

In this case, I responded meekly, allowing you to ask yourself the most probing question. So,..how do you know that Job's abhorring of himself was really because of unrighteousness?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Ha ha, you're back talking about the moon are you? Did you run away from the science thread? I am still waiting for that reference.

As for the lunar module and vehicle, rather than deliberately trying to spread malicious lies about it here, why don't you simply Google how it was transported. Its really not that hard.

Well, well, well....my good friend twhitehead.

I was merely noting that the moon vehicle looks much too large to fit into the lunar module for transport. Why do you view this as a "malicious lie"?

Originally posted by chaney3
Well, well, well....my good friend twhitehead.

I was merely noting that the moon vehicle looks much too large to fit into the lunar module for transport. Why do you view this as a "malicious lie"?

Context.

Now go read up on it before 'noting' any more things that obviously aren't true.

I am still waiting for that reference.
Its interesting that you have not once responded to my request for it. You haven't given an excuse to say you are too busy to look it up, you haven't admitted being wrong, you have just ignored the request. Why?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Ha ha, you're back talking about the moon are you? Did you run away from the science thread? I am still waiting for that reference.

As for the lunar module and vehicle, rather than deliberately trying to spread malicious lies about it here, why don't you simply Google how it was transported. Its really not that hard.

Maybe your mention of the science thread will have some believers here visit that thread, and do battle with the atheists?

Not that they need to, for I am clearly winning the discussion. 🙂

Originally posted by chaney3
Maybe your mention of the science thread will have some believers here visit that thread, and do battle with the atheists?

Not that they need to, for I am clearly winning the discussion. 🙂

Your assumption that scientific minded people are necessarily atheists is erroneous. (That means incorrect).

And in all seriousness, if you genuinely believe you are winning a discussion where your school boy assumptions have been totally ripped to pieces by posters who actually know what they are talking about, then you are beyond all hope. (Perhaps you were designed that way?)

Originally posted by chaney3
....for I am clearly winning the discussion. 🙂

That explains why you ran away and have been avoiding my request for a reference.