JonA

Huh? Sorry, but that is not possible. Why not simply read the text for what it actually says instead of reading the text to be... [insert predetermined agenda here]?

The 'Bible' isn't consistent.

You can't read it as such without misreading it.

It's that simple.

rhutchin

Fine, but that is just your opinion. We read with a mind to context. If you do not maintain context in reading, then it should be much easier to find inconsistencies in the text which probably explains why some people want to isolate verses in the Bible from everything the Bible says for in doing this, it is easier to devise inconsistencies that otherwise would not exist.

rhutchin

I don't see that Jude 1:9 says anything about the resurrection of Moses. Can you explain how you get this from the verse?

I am not sure that Moses had to be resurrected to appear with Jesus at the transfiguration. That may depend on your definition of the term, "resurrected." What is your definition?

When the reporter says, "According to the word of the LORD," he is saying that the Bible tells us this. I would not believe this until reading that the Bible actually says this.

Only if it is clear that the prophesy you cite actually says that which you claim. So, what prophecy do you have in mind?

There is the presumption that the Biblical authors are telling us the truth.

rhutchin

It is clear that we have a verse that says that Terah was 70 when he begot Abraham and a second verse within the context of the first verse telling us that Abraham was only 75 after the death of Terah who died at age 205. I don't see you disputing that which we read in those verses.

What do we conclude from this? We conclude that, whatever the first verse was telling us, it was not telling us that Abraham was born to Terah when Terah was 70.

Fine, given what the text says about Terah and Abraham as I noted above, what do you reasonably conclude the text to be telling us regarding the age of Terah when he begot Abraham? Just going by what the text says, what do you conclude from this information?

The only contradiction I can see is between that which the Bible says and that which you claim the Bible to say. There is no contradiction within the Bible in what it says. At least, you cannot explain it without depending on what you claim the Bible to say which claim is made in order to create the contradiction in the first place.

Why not? We read the Iliad in context building on the information that it gives so that it is a whole and we understand what has been written. We don't read every fifth page and expect to understand what the Iliad is all about. Do you normally read books in context with what the book actually says?

We are not even to the point of determining whether the Bible is true. We are still trying to figure out what the Bible says. Once we figure out what the Bible says, we can then address the issue of its truthfulness.

JonA

First, what 'Bible' are you talking about?

Second, how much of it do you consider to be 'context'? Genesis 1 is no more of a context for Genesis 2 than Moby Dick is a context for Huckleberry Fin.

Finally, understanding a story requires context; simply reading the words for what they say doesn't so much.

Jon

Gullwind

No, I don't.

And this is where you start assuming. You assume that this account had one source, thus the two passages cannot be in conflict. You assume that the text has been faithfully translated and copied. You assume that if the text says something contradictory, there is some way to twist it to solve the problem. Of course there is. The question is whether that makes more sense than a simple error.

I wouldn't conclude anything. The two passages appear to contradict. From what I know of these things, when more than one name is mentioned, they are generally listed in order of birth because of the importance of birthright. If anything, I would lean towards a copyist error somewhere along the line, since that seems the simplest explanation.

I certainly wouldn't extrapolate this example into a justification that every age givin in the biblical geneologies can be ignored to inflate the age of the earth to what I want it to be.

Despite the fact that you summarized the contradiction above. You may believe there is an explanation, but that doesn't remove the fact that the two passages contradict each other.

You have admitted the contradiction exists. You quoted it above.

Mo, but I don't read them as literal truth either. Yet you seem to grant the bible special dispensation. You assume itd right, even when it appears to contradict. You assume that somehow its right after all.

It says that Abram was 75 and 135 at the same points in his life in two different passages. You are the one assuming that somehow it doesn't mean what it says and is right after all. All I'm asking for is some evidence for that claim. So far, all you've put forth is might-be's and could-have-been's.

JonA

I looked Genesis 1 and 2 over; up and down. I cannot find mention of this Abraham fella folk keep going on about.

Where is he and what does he have to do with the creation accounts given in the first two chapters of Genesis?

Jon

Lunawalk

Jude 1:9 has Michael the archangel fighting with Satan over the body of Moses. His resurrection is must be the reason for the fight. I see this verse is vague so I take it off the table.

My definition is the state of being dead and returning to life. I think it hard for jesus to talk to a dead person. Why does he not have to be resurrected to appear with Jesus? Is this because of the verse that the dead are face to face with the Lord. Acorrding to Eccesiastes 9:5-6 the dead have no reward or know anything. Eccesiastes 9:5-6So this verse and your view of the state of the dead differs.

this.Anybody can say those words, just because somebody made that claim does not mean it 's true. So desite evidence to the contray why do you think it still true?



That not an prophecy I was wondering if the bible said JFK still lives on earth why you would think it was true.
Why, even what it claims are not true? Like a body of water over the sky according to Genesis 1:6. Just these writing make a claim does not mean it's true

Gullwind

This is funny. rhutchin told me that "We are not even to the point of determining whether the Bible is true." Yet here he is stating his presumption that the biblical authors are telling the truth.

That is exactly my point, rhutchin. You are presuming that the bible is true, so therefore any contradictions must have an explanation that removes the problem. You aren't even considering the possibility of errors, embellishments, mistakes, legends, or just plain myths.

I'm not making that presumption, so I'm sure you can see how your arguments are less than persuasive. I am looking at what the text says, without any preconceptions and without ruling out any explanations. You are the one looking at it from a specific standpoint, dismissing many explanations out of hand simply because you assume the writers are telling the truth.

See the difference?

dockeen

Hmmm, King Saul was able to talk to a dead Samuel, was he not?