dr lazer blast

in turn why should anyone automatically assume definition #1 instead of definition 2,3,4 or 5. You automatically assuming definition #1 has just as much evidence and logic behind me assuming definition #2,3,4, or 5. Once again it seems to be ok for YOU to assume on definition, but not ok for me to assume another definition, which is hypocrisy at its finest.
Saying a literal reading of headlong means head first is totally ignoring the other definitions. Furthermore the definition of literal is as follows.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literal

If I were to say head long means: without delay; hastily. #2

It is in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.

So the fact that you said shows once your total ignorance of definitions, furthermore the burden of proof is on YOU to prove those scriptures as contradictions, yet you have not done so, your proof seems to boil down to 'my definition is better than your definitions' and 'my literal reading is better than your literal reading' which is not proof at all.

Deus Ex

I can not prove the Bible has contradictions to someone who is convinced that it does not. I am simply giving readers cause to have reasonable doubt in the claims of inerrancy.

Deus Ex

Mark 4:31

It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:

These are Jesus alleged words. Problem is the smallest seeds are from epiphytic orchids. If Jesus is God Incarnate, then why would he make a scientific mistake?

Apologists will say that Jesus was talking to a lay audience, and that the mustard seed would have been the smallest seed known to first century farmers. I guess Jesus was making a theological point, and was not concerned with scientific accuracy.

Did Jesus actually say this, or did the gospel writers just get it wrong?

dr lazer blast

there is no reasonable doubt Dues, if we took my evidence of why it isn't a contradiction and your evidence of why it is a contradiction then its obvious that beyond the shadow of a doubt it isn't a contradiction.

If we examine your evidence here's what we have.

First off the definition of contradiction isn't even on your side. Ignoring that fact, we have your definition of 'head long' which favors one definition in the face of 4 totally different definitions, so one most ignore the existence of the other 4 definitions and also most ignore the minute possibility the author could've favored the other 4 definitions. Secondly the definition of literal isn't even on your side, because your literal meaning of 'headlong' being defined as 'head first' has no more evidence, logic, or proof to be taken as more credible then the literal meaning of 'headlong' to mean hastily' i.e. you have no proof or evidence that the literal translation of 'headlong' means 'headfirst' and does not mean 'hastily' or any of the other definitions.

My evidence that it is not a contradiction:
The definition of a contradiction is on my side considering the fact that the 2 scriptures are not opposites, not in opposition, does not denies another or itself and is not logically incongruous. I have the possibility of 4 other definitions of the word 'headlong' and all of those definitions are plausible and fit with no exaggerations, logical leaps, or errors within the text, it harmonizes, further more I can say with just as much clout, evidence, logic and proof that the literal reading of headlong means hastily. I have content, context, and story on my side as well.

One also must consider the fact that the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is a contradiction as well.

You have no case dues, none at all.

Cege

Matthew 27:5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. (NIV)

The potter's field was called Field of Blood because it was purchased with blood money by the priests.

Acts 1:18 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

The field was called Field of Blood because Judas bought the field and there his bloody intestines spilled out.

The stories differ on how Judas died, on who bought the field, and why it came to be called Field of Blood.

Cege

Which is the most likely intended meaning of Acts 1:18, given the English translation "headlong"?

With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headfirst, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell without delay, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell without deliberation, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he undertook falling quickly and suddenly, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

According to Strong's the Greek word translated "headlong" is prhnhvß (prenes) (pray-nace') meaning "leaning, falling forward, i.e., head foremost".

WVIncagold

Isaiah 7:14, the prophet Isaiah declared, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel.

And who is the NT about? oh ya a guy named Jesus. Big inaccuracy if not a contradiction.

then the whole genealogy problem of Jebus the freindly flying super zombie jew

you can find more about what is below here http://isv.org/catacombs/genealogies.htm

One possible solution to the problem is taking the view that Matthew is recording Jesus' genealogy through Mary's husband Joseph. Keep in mind that Matthew, as a Levite knowledgeable of the Tanakh (the "Old" Testament"), would have known that the genealogical line of Joseph, Mary's husband, was ineligible to produce a king in Israel. That's because the line of David through Solomon was cursed by God in Jeconiah's day to the effect that no king would ever sit on the throne of David through Solomon anymore after Jeconiah. See Jeremiah 22:24-30, especially verse 30 of that chapter, for documentation concerning the exact wording of this curse from God to Jeconiah's descendants:

As surely as I live, declares the Lord, even if Coniah, the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah were a signet ring on my right hand, I would pull you off and give you to those seeking your life, to those you fear, to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and to the Chaldeans. I’ll hurl you and the mother who gave birth to you into another land where you were not born, and there you will die. As for the land to which you want to return, you won’t return there!

Is this man Coniah a despised and shattered jar,

a vessel no one wants?

Why were he and his descendants hurled and

thrown into a land that they didn’t know?

O land, land, land,

listen to the word of the Lord!

Thus says the Lord,

‘Write this man off as childless,

a man who does not prosper in his lifetime.

Nor shall any of his descendants succeed

in sitting on the throne of David,

or ever ruling in Judah again.’

This divine curse explains why Matthew shows Jesus descending through Solomon (Matthew 1:6, ISV) and why Jesus would not be eligible to be king over Israel as Messiah if Joseph had really been Jesus biological father. Matthew's genealogy may be considered to be serving as an apologetic defending the view that Jesus was not biologically related to Joseph; i.e., Joseph was a step-father to Jesus by virtue of having married Mary, whose pregnancy was caused directly by divine activity and not through sexual union with any man. Instead, Matthew notes that Mary "was discovered to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 1:18, ISV)

So if Joshua is born of man and his father is Joseph then he could not be the king predicted by Isaiah. as Yahweh cursed that line. If Joseph is not the father and the erroneous translated "virgin" birth is swallowed (hmmmmm maybe thats how she got pregnant? hey it could happen in make believe land!) then again Joshua is not of the proper lineage to be annointed as king as prophesied by Isaiah.

dr lazer blast

Your methods continue to astound me.
:rolling:
Now you have moved from contradictions, false definitions, bogus quotes and papers, to scientific inaccuracies.

First off less doesn't mean smallest, so what is your point? I could see if Jesus said The mustard seed is the smallest seed on the planet, however Jesus did not say that, so i fail to see how this is a scientific inaccuracy.

Amaleq13

Yes, in the appropriate context.

"He rushed headlong into the burning building."

In the context of a fall, however, the first definition is the most obviously appropriate. As you've shown that what is obvious to others is not necessarily obvious to you, can you produce one example of "headlong" being used as you suggest in reference to a fall?

One example of an author using the word "headlong" to only indicate a person fell without delay or deliberation and not the position of their body is all you need to support your claim.

Can you find one?

WVIncagold

Hey Dues Ex your doing fine all that needs bee shown is the inconstancy and or such as my posting with the mathematical figures to back up that ludicrous claims are indeed as stupid as one would expect the intelligence of a bronze age goat herder.
Those suffering from Cognitive dissonance are incapable to decipher what is true, what is fact, and what is truly evidence. But then again they already know the answer now don't they? All they need to do is twist and turn to make anything fit into their world view.
Reasonable doubt works with those on the sideline. Cognitive Dissonance does not allow for doubt let alone reason.><