James Brown

It matters because it means the Bible is not reliable. If the Bible can't be relied upon to get its facts and figures, it places and dates correct, how could anyone possibly rely on it for anything else? There's nothing magical about something being in the Bible that makes it beyond scrutiny or completely trustworthy.

Are you conceding here? You first replied to show all of us how the Bible has no contradictions, and now you are saying that any contradictions there don't matter, you still believe. Congratulations! This is a terrific first step. Millions and millions of people are still Christians without insisting that the Bible is inerrant, so you don't have to give up your faith. Contradictions don't necessarily mean the Bible is a flawed book or a worthless book, it only means it is a human book, one that deals with the biggest issues of mankind--who are we, where did we come from, and where are we going. All great works explore these questions in one way or another, and kudos to the authors of the biblical books for dealing with these questions head on.

Of course, we might disagree on the answers the Bible has offered, or it's methodology, or its effectiveness in dealing with a modern society. But there's nothing to be afraid of in admitting that people who lived two to four thousand years ago didn't have all the answers.

You are avoiding the question. You said that God had to have his Hebrews wipe out the Amalekites because, "their wicked heritage would have gone gotten worse down through the ages." I want to know how you or anyone else gets this incredible foresight to be able to see the future.

Plenty of times. What does that have to do with the Amalekites?

Didymus

You are mistaken.

"God," like Freya, Apollo et al, is a proper noun, so it must be capitalized: "Abraham prayed to God," "I don't think God exists." (Whether or not God exists is irrelevant. After all, we capitalize "Santa Claus" and "Frodo.")

It need not be capitalized when it is used as a common noun. "The god of the Christians" and "Is there a god?" are correct usages.

As to the pronouns, you are right. Pious Christians often capitalize them, and that choice is often honored, but there is no grammatical basis for it. The Wikipedia Manual of Style does not accept such capitalization. It is not necessary for non-Christians to pander to Christians by capitalizing such pronouns. In fact, to do so is unnecessary, artificial, pompous and obsequious, like Americans referring to Queen Elizabeth as "her Royal Majesty."

Good thought, if not all that original. But you don't need to capitalize common nouns like "atheist." Like "homeowner" or "activist," "atheist" refers to a member of a class (non-believers), not to a member of an specific group, school, party or organization, e.g., Methodist or Democrat. This is a sometimes blurry area, but the status of "atheist" isn't in doubt. It's not capitalized.

(Wikipedia has another take on the subject, to wit: "Philosophies, doctrines, and systems of economic thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun: lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to a specific Republican Party [each party name being a proper noun]."

Works for me!

Some words, like "trinitarian" and "deist," can go both ways. If "trinitarian" is used to refer to a member of the sect of Trinitarians (as opposed, say, to Unitarians), it ought to be capitalized. If it merely refers to a person who believes in one deity with three properties, it should not be capitalized, contra the Wikipedia page on Trinitarianism, which doesn't seem to know the Style Manual.

The same applies to Deist and deist. Capitalized, it refers to a follower of Lord Herbert of Cherbury. (Once again, Wiki is all over the place. Apparently the pertinent section of the Wikipedia Style Manual is widely ignored.)

Sorry to go so far off topic. Actually, I doubt the subject will evoke much interest.

Didymus

Diogenes the Cynic

:banghead:

There are TWO DIFFERENT JACOBS in matthew's genealogy. One of them is the Ptraiarch. One of them is Joseph's literal father who "begat" him. (Notice how it says one Jacob was begat by Isaac and the other one was begat by Matthian?. Have you read it? Are you just jerking us around here? Are you really this obtuse?
That doesn't surprise me at all.
Neither do I. You DO understand that the Bible is not just one book, do you not? You DO realize that it's a bunch of different books by a bunch of different authors? And those authors don't always tell the same story. Like Matthew and Luke, for instance. If you want to study the Bible seriously or really learn anything about it, you have to study each book separately.
What matters is that you tried to argue that when Matthew's genealogy claims that "Matthan begat Jacob and Jacob begat Joseph," that this somehow amounts only to a figurative claim that Joseph was a '"son of" Jacob the Patriarch. That's baloney. "begat" in this context does not have a figurative meaning but is part of a formulaic recitation of a bloodline. It's really blindingly clear, not remotely ambiguous, and ludicrous for you to try to contest.
What unassailable logic.

The Bible ALSO tells you, in black and white, that Jesus was not born until ten years AFTER Herod's death (and there isn't any question about which Herod Matthew was talking about, nor would substituting any othe Herod fix the contradiction anyway). The Bible unequivocally claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod (who died in 4 BCE) and it ALSO claims, just as unequivocally, that he was born during the census of Quirinius (6 CE). There is a ten year gap between Herod's death and the Census. There was NO "King Herod" with any juridiction over Judea during the Census. The accounts of Matthew and Luke cannot both be correct. One or both of them have to be wrong.

Doug Shaver

It is in the Quran in black and white, so that is good enough for me.

aa5874

Yes, Joseph was the literal son of Jacob, see Genesis 30: 23-24, 'And she conceived, and bare a son; and said, God hath taken away my reproach;
And she called his name Joseph; and said, The Lord shall add to me another son'.

So, Joseph, with your analogy, would probably be 1000 years old when Jesus was born.


But Luke ch1-3 tells a completely different story to Matthew ch1-2..You have got to start reading your Bible carefully. I must remind you that the authors are unknown, there are no known writings from anyone known as Jesus the Christ, none his words can be confirmed.

jakejonesiv

So it is OK to kill fetuses and children as long as they belong to a group you don't like?

Psalm 137.
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thous has served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little one ones against the stones.

I wish a Christian would give me just one reason for why it is OK to dash any baby against a rock. Faithful, are you happy about killing babies?
And then you go condoning the ripping fetuses out of pregnant women's wombs (e.g. Hosea 13:16). Man, this is ABORTION of the most heinous sort and takes the life of both the mother and child.

Jake

Faithful

Ohoh - I've been - BUSTED.. :blush: (BTW it wasn't intentional.) In that case we 're back at square one, which still shows that there are no contraditions in the Bible.

65. The father of Joseph, Mary's husband was Jacob Matt 1:16
Matthew 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ
65.The father of Mary's husband was Heli Luke 3:23Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

This is from a Bible commentary - "It has been said, also, that Joseph was the legal son and heir of Heli, though the real son of Jacob, and thus the two lines terminated in him. This was the ancient explanation of most of the fathers, and on the whole is the most satisfactory. It was a law of the Jews, that if a man died without children, his brother should marry his widow. Thus the two lines might have been intermingled. According to this solution, which was first proposed by Africanus, Matthan, descended from Solomon, married Estha, of whom was born Jacob. After Matthan's death, Matthat being of the same tribe, but of another family, remarried his widow, and of this marriage Heli was born. Jacob and Heli were therefore children of the same mother. Hell dying without children, his brother Jacob married his widow, and begat Joseph, who was thus the legal son of Heli. This is agreeable to the account in the two evangelists. Matthew says that Jacob begat Joseph; Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli; that is, was his legal heir, or reckoned in law to be his son. "

Are we allowed to make personal attacks on this Board?? !!


Chapter and verse please.


Because that's what the Bible tells me about the sins of their fathers

Daniel 9:16 O Lord, in keeping with all your righteous acts, turn away your anger and your wrath from Jerusalem, your city, your holy hill. Our sins and the iniquities of our fathers have made Jerusalem and your people an object of scorn to all those around us.


Remember the end of the story? We see in Hosea 14 that they repented and were forgiven. The carnage never happened.

Hosea 14:1,2,4 Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God. Your sins have been your downfall! Take words with you and return to the LORD. Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips.
"I will heal their waywardness and love them freely, for my anger has turned away from them

James Brown

Quote:
from JamesABrownYou are avoiding the question. You said that God had to have his Hebrews wipe out the Amalekites because, "their wicked heritage would have gone gotten worse down through the ages." I want to know how you or anyone else gets this incredible foresight to be able to see the future


Which still isn't answering the question. Since everyone in the history of the world has a father, then this particular statement applies to all people at all times. Including the Israelites, according to your Daniel verse. So what does this have to do with the pre-emptive murder of the Amalekites? And who can I murder today for fear that their grandkids will be even worse?

It doesn't do you any good to say that one particular nation will be worse in the future (and thus deserve to be slaughtered today) when the standard that you are using can be applied to all people equally. It's as if you were saying, "I can kill people from Mexico without guilt because they have eyebrows."

Jack the Bodiless

Faithful:
You have been given them already:

Matthew 2:1 "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king..."

Luke 2:2 "This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria"

(Matthew 2:22 confirms that Herod the Great is meant: he was the father of Archelaus)

Are you saying that you don't believe Quirinius became governor a decade after Herod's death because THAT information isn't in the Bible?

Surely you don't believe that the Bible is the ONLY source of information regarding the ancient world? Julius Caesar isn't in the Bible either... so he never existed in your Universe?

By the way: John says Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, and apparently he didn't live in Nazareth either.

Sven

Apart from the fact that this is based on a strawman, I could equally well say: "If the bible is to be taken literally, Noah was several hundreds years old when his sons were born." Why this isn't a problem for you?

You mean, like:

It is in the Book of Mormon in black and white, so that is good enough for me.
It is in Koran in black and white, so that is good enough for me.
It is in the Vedas in black and white, so that is good enough for me.
It is in the Silmarillion in black and white, so that is good enough for me.

?

I already asked you this above (IIRC, in the post you entirely ignored, although you're answering others): If this is true, why wasn't Jesus sent directly to Adam & Eve after they've sinned? This would have saved billions upon billions of people from hell.