Religion (God)

Um, before I reply to your response, sheltie, could you tell me which version of the Bible you used (so I can refer to the one you used instead of others like NIV, NASB, etc.)?

Thanks.

Edit: What the heck. Couldn't wait.:rolleyes:

I've done some research based on my version of the Bible (New Revised Standard Ver.) as well as couple of others. I wish you had researched both sides of the argument thoroughly and, actually read the entire Bible before claiming - according your beliefs - that it's wrong. Here are the contradictions to your "contradictions":

1. How old was Ahaziah when he ruled...22 (2 Kings 8:26) or 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2)?

The two are correct. Why? I'd like to remind you that the FIRST Book of Kings focuses on the northern kingdom of Israel while the Book of Chronicles (2 Kings 8:23 - my Bible also refers to verses in Chronicles in this part) focuses on the southern kingdom of Judah.

Ahaziah's father, Jehoram, died at 40 (2 Kings 8:17), so Ahaziah became the ruler at 22 (2 Kings 8:26), under the eyes of his mother, Athaliah (2 Chronicles 22:3). Ahaziah's appointment coincided with 12th year reign of his uncle, King Joram (2 Kings 8:25).

Then what about the 11th year (2 Kings 9:29)? Doesn't that contradict 12th year of Joram's reign (2 Kings 8:25)? Not really. Again, both are right.

Joram ruled alone in the 11th year. In the 12th year, he ruled as regent on behalf of king Ahaziah who was injured (2 Kings 1:2) and died (2 Kings 1:17) a year later (compare 1 Kings 22:51 with 2 Kings 3:1).

Athaliah was the daughter (2 Kings 8:27) of the late king Ahab and the sister of king Joram. After 20 years of ruling under his wicked mother's supervision, Ahaziah, formed an alliance with king Joram against the king of Syria (2 Kings 8:28), this coincided his 42nd birthday (at this point the Chronicles considered him be ruling alone), a year later he was killed by Jehu (2 Kings 9:14).

2. How did Michal have kids (2 Sam. 21:8)? Doesn't that contradict 2 Sam. 6:23?

Nope. Let's look at 2 Sam. 21:8-9:

"But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell [all] seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first [days], in the beginning of barley harvest."

Do these verse seem to reinforce the contradiction that Michal somehow, miraculously conceived children? Yes... EXCEPT, the phrase "whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai."

The phrasing tells you that these sons are not Michal's in the normal sense of the term because she did not "bear" these children; i.e. these sons are "adopted children."

3 AND 4. 700 men contradicts 7,000 men? And 40,000 vs. 4,000? Is it the math?

I don't know what version you're using but mine states otherwise. Again, the Bible is not contradicting itself.

People have cited 1 Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" and 2 Chron. 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" as a contradiction. There is no contradiction. He had 40,000 stalls for horses yet only 4,000 stalls for the chariots. They had 10 men and 10 horses per chariot in case they got a "flat tire." See 2 Sam. 10:18 "And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians," and 1 Chron. 119:18 "But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots," to show the same point. The men of 700 chariots would be 7000 men. Also, the passage in Kings takes place before the temple is built while the passage in Chronicles takes place many years later. The parallel passage to 2 Chron. 9:25 is 1 Kings 10:26.

You could also borrow/buy (if you want) a book called, Errors in the King James Bible that gives other "contradictions" the author refutes.

5. 2 Kings vs. Jeremiah.

I don't know what kind of Bible you're using but mine says CAME in 2 Kings but ENTERED in Jeremiah. What does this mean? Well, there's a big difference between "came" and "entered." Nebuzaradan CAME on the 7th but did not ENTER until the 10th day (the day he slaughtered and demolished temple).

Also, if you read the Korean version of the Bible, it states that Nebuzradan and his men WAITED on the 7th (2 Kings) but CAME in the 10th (Jeremiah).

6. Saul's death? Himself or the Philistines?

Both! Again, you should not only read the scriptures thorougly but also think about what you read.

The Philistines did indeed killed Saul. How? Well, the king was fatally wounded but barely alive. So, in order preserve himself from the enemies, how did he die? By his own sword! Like many kings, Saul would rather die by his own sword rather than from those his enemies' - otherwise, his enemies would gloat over who killed Saul.

So, what does this mean? It means that the Bible isn't contradicting itself. Say, a man was stabbed by his best friend who coveted his riches; if he killed him (the man), he (best friend) will be able to change the will and take the wealth. So when he asked his son to stab him (the man), the boy refused. In order to save his riches, the man stabbed himself.

So, who's the murderer here? The man or his best friend? Think about it.

7. Why didn't Adam and Eve die (until later)?

The literal Hebrew says, "Dying you shall die," which does indicate a "progressive" death. However, even if it did not - as is the case with many cites where "death" and "die" is used in isolation - nothing needs to be said because the context says all that's needed. Common sense alone therefore supports the "spiritual death" interpretation, but there is more, and this is where we come back to the overall pervasiveness of figurative language in Hebrew, combined with an understanding of the Semitic theological mindset. The account in Genesis goes on to depict Adam and Eve as losing fellowship with God. To the Hebrew mind, loss of fellowship with God is a fate worse than death, for it was the loss of fellowship with the prime source of peace. Thus the word "death" - representing the most fearsome and irreversible fate in this life - was chosen to figuratively describe this loss of fellowship with God.

But, you'll probably say, "That's not what it says!!!" Of course - only because you're seeing it from a Western, literal perspective. To a Semitic whose language is a higher level of sophistication, on the other hand, the text mean everything.

8. Who's Joseph's father? Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23)?

Again, the answer is both. Matthew presents the legal line of Jesus through His adoptive father, Joseph, and Luke presents the natural line of Jesus through His mother, Mary. Jacob is his biological father while Heli is his legal father, or father-in-law.

Is this right? Of course. Matthew originally presented this gospel account to the Hebrews, this is obvious if one would criticize his style of writing, so, he presented to them that Jesus is legally in the line of succession of kingship through his parent Joseph up to Abraham. Luke, on the other hand, who was a traveling companion of Paul (the apostle) originally presented his gospel account to the Gentiles, by showing them that Jesus is the promised "seed of a woman" (Genesis 3:15) Messiah to the world and tracing his genealogy up to Adam. But did Luke present a valid Jewish genealogy by doing this? Sure.

Note that a son is often refers to son-in-law in the Bible and that a woman's husband is considered a son of his father-in-law if she is the only daughter (look up Ruth 1:11-12). Luke presented the natural line of Jesus but, at the same time, maintained the custom of displaying the genealogy through the lines of the fathers.

9. God tempted? Not tempted?

Gen. 22 refers tempt as testing. But is testing same thing as tempting? Let's say God wants to test someone's honesty and puts them in a room with a lost wallet. Is this tempting? No. To truly tempt, God would have to whisper, "Pick it up, keep it, no one will know, etc." No clear contradictions here.

10. 2 of every animals (6:19)? What about 7 of every clean (Gen. 7:2)?

Once again, you did not read the scriptures thorougly and saw this as a contradiction...

Noah was told to bring 2 kinds of all kinds right? And he was also suppose to bring 7 of the clean ones. Gen. 6:19 says "two" BUT it doesn't say "NO MORE THAN TWO." The two extras were used for food and sacrifice (Gen. 8:20). This is not an imprecision on the Bible’s part as much as an example of a way God teaches us. God makes sure we understand the general concept "two to replenish", and then adds a second concept "seven extra to sacrifice."

i'm with Capt. Canada & pianogirl. my beliefs significantly differ from those of most Christians, however, i still have faith in the general idea. i think sheltie probably is the closest to my opinion.

11. What were Jesus' last words?

Jesus could have said "It is finished; Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." It is just a matter of two different authors writing at different angles. Luke highlighted the humanity of Jesus while John highlighted the completion of God's plan of salvation to the finished work of Jesus thus the word, tetelestai in Greek which means, it is finished. Each is not a copy of the others work but a message as it was revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. This is no contradiction but complimentary giving us the full picture of what happened that faithful day.

12. Seeing God's face?

Again, the two verses DO NOT contradict.

The two verses indicate that God cannot be seen by men when in His FULL GLORY. God can be seen in lesser form, i.e. Jesus. Here are the verses that are not contradictions but paradoxes.

* Gen. 17:1, 26:2 - Although these are the first places where it is said that God appears before someone, there is very little that can actually be drawn from it. God "appears" - but in what form? It is perhaps important to note that in both cases, it is Yahweh who appears before Abe and Isaac - not Elohim, God's "majestic power" name. We'll get more into this shortly.
* Gen. 32:30 - Our next verse in this set is not really trouble to begin with, because it only reflects what Jacob thinks and says in the first place! Even so, we can draw something for this issue from it. First of all, the Hebrew term "face" has an idiomatic twist which refers to awareness and direct knowledge of presence, without the help or hindrance of a mediator - one might say today, it is a "close encounter" of a personal kind! Second, note that Jacob here says he sees not Yahweh, but Elohim. Finally, most important to note here is Jacob's reaction. He clearly knows that the fact that his life was preserved is something unexpected. What we see being set up here is not a contradiction, but a paradox. Jacob knows that God cannot be seen, or the result is death; but something has happened that overruled that normal constraint. His reaction presupposes knowledge that God cannot be seen, and so he is aware of the "contradiction," which should give us pause. What happened? Far be it for Jacob to know. But by the time of Exodus, someone gets a clue about an important distinction...
* Ex. 24:9-11 - Things are starting to develop here for our paradox. Once again, it seems that it was expected that something bad would happen (v. 11); and yet, there seems to be a sort of surprise that no harm came to the elders. But two factors now come to the fore. First, the Hebrew word here for see is chazah - and has the connotation of gazing at, with mental perception, or having a vision. The second factor is our key verse:
* Ex. 33:18-23 - This quote should actually be started as I have, at verse 18, for it is the keystone verse for my general "glory" explanation above. Note that Moses asks to see God's glory (v. 18) - this word having the meaning of a radiance. Now recall again the Hebrew idiomatic use of "face" - and connect this also with the face as the outward reaction ("radiance") of the inner person. And now it becomes clear why we have explained things as we have: Jacob had not seen God's "face" in this idiomatic sense; nor had anyone else so far. At the same time, the Hebrew word here is different: ra'ah. This carries a simpler connotation of seeing and discerning by sight; or, it carries the idea of "taking heed unto" or considering. It is a general word used almost 1500 times in the OT, and merely establishes awareness without establishing the means whereby awareness is made. Ra'ah is the word used in our first two Genesis quotes, and is the next quotes:
* Numbers 14:14 And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night.
* Amos 9:1 - Now here again, and in Numbers, note that it is Yahweh who is seen - not the majestic Elohim. Admittedly there are a couple of places where Elohim does appear to people (Gen. 35:9, 2 Chr. 1:7), but several things may be noted about this: 1) the rarity of the usage suggests that this is the result of the known process of scribes incorrectly substituting the divine name where it should not be, or else substituting Elohim intentionally as a form of "reverential evasion" associated with a hesitation to pronounce or write the divine name of Yahweh; 2) even without that, there is no indication that what was seen was God's glory, as opposed to some sort of other manifestation; 3) the general meaning of ra'ah can imply, but does not necessarily indicate, a physical appearance. Without further description of how the matters transpired, it is not possible to affirm that God has been "seen" in a way contrary to our verses above.
* John 1:18 - With the New Testament, the dichotomy between seeing Yahweh on the one hand, and not seeing Elohim on the other, remains. John, in mirroring the prologue of Genesis, clearly means to equate "God" here with the majestic Elohim. The Greek word here (and in John 6:46), incidentally, is horao, and is used in the sense of understanding, as in Matthew 18:10: "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven." And then there is this:
* John 14:7 - I am frankly surprised to see this verse ever brought up in the discussion. Here "seeing" (also horao) God is equated with knowing Jesus. One might roughly equate this with a famous baseball figure saying, "You're looking at the next Babe Ruth": Recall that in John 10:30, Jesus declares oneness in essence with the Father. This is not the same as saying that they are seeing God's literal glory.
* 1 Tim. 6:16 - And so this cite too is now quite clear. The One who dwells in unapproachable light (God's radiant glory) can refer only to the majestic Elohim of the OT. And that this is so is made more clear by the fact that the word here is eido - which, like ra'ah, is a "physical sight" word (cf. Matt. 2:12).

Makes sense? Good.

If you're going to contradict the bible, I suggest checking this site out first
http://www.seekfind.org/

I will need some time to research your "factual" errors - and already I see flaws in your factual errors.

For example: Hares chew cud?

Follow this [URL=http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con055.asp]link[/URL]

I'll be back :)

my NIV says that Ahazia was 22 on both occasions. Chronicles and Kings. Is this my translation or does sheltie simply have bad information?

I just wanted to say "Thank you" To AP Work R,
You did a much better, concise, efficient, and more comprehensive job than I ever could have. I might've been able to answer one or two of the simpler, but it's nice to know that I'm not alone here.

And to Sheltie, I reiterate, Yes, it is possible that God used evolution to create the universe, but it's not probable.
Why would He? I think the whole idea that He did is simply designed to take away from His divine power over everything. He CAN create an entire universe in six days. He is all-powerful. Not that I want to open up discussions on how He will not contradict His nature, but He can do anything.
In response to the sun thing about not measuring days, light existed before the fourth day. No, it wasn't the sun, you're right, but the very first thing God created was light. I guess that doesn't really have any baring on time, but I suppose you need to ask yourself, why would God use the term "day" as opposed to "millenia" when He wrote the Bible? (Remember He wrote the Bible by inspiring select humans) Did He merely want to confuse us? He's not a God of confusion, 1 Cor. 14:33, I tell you, these were the 24 hour time periods that we know as days. Why couldn't they be? You're just trying to make room for your own theory at this point.
What you're describing isn't Christianity, it's actually a very old heresy. God set the world in motion but left it alone...is kinda what I think you're saying. I forget what this belief system is called, I'll try to find it...but it is very old and in no way a new idea.

And finally to respond to your claim that it is simply an opinion that evolution saps human kind of hope and purpose, I'll explain.

Why did someone come up with the idea that we are accidents?
That's what evolution, you realize this, no?
Think about it. What other explanation is there? They are trying to take away from the power of God, or to say that since we are randomly arranged atoms. Do you see that this makes human beings, pointless amalgomations of matter? We have no purpose, and since we will simply deteriorate into the nothing from whence we came, we have no hope. This planet might last for another 50 million years, but after that, this entire solarsystem is history. And not even history, becuase there will be no one to record it. It will be oblivion. Hopeless and pointless existance is what is left.

PhoenixFire wrote:I think God does exist, but sometimes its hard to keep your faith in Him strong. I mean there's so many evil people in the world and they have so much and yet there are still many innocent people dying and starving everywhere, some are victims of these evil people. God is there because well I don't think the universe just popped up out of nowhere, but sometimes I question the divine justice thing. If he's truly up there, why doesn't he help those who need him most?

Ever seen the movie A Walk to Remember? In there one of the characters says "Without suffering there'd be no compassion." This is so true. Of course God loves us and wants the best for us. But we, as humans, are the ones who messed up. Yeah, technically it was just Adam and Eve that messed up, but as it says in Romans, all of fallen short of the glory of God. Simply put, we all mess up. It's not that He's punishing us in any way, but we brought this upon ourselves. Lack of faith is just satan's way of trying to steal our attention from the One True God. Sometimes bad things happen to teach us lessons. We go thru hard times, crap happens in our lives, we loose loved ones, etc. But thru it all, we learn lessons. And no matter how hard what we're going thru may be, it's nothing compared to seeing your only son die on a cross, in place of the mere humans we are who really deserved to be up there. That's anguish. That's pain. What we go thru are only rough patches. Bumpy parts of the road that God has set in place for a reason, so that we may depend on Him more and man less. I'll be praying for you.
Engraved in the Potter's Hands,
ShioKari Pass

Armando wrote:What do you think?

What is your view on the subject?
God exists The bible tells us that He is the one that created the heavens and the earth. All you have to do is simply look outside and know that he exists.
He Loves each and every one of us and wants a personal relationship with each of us. All we have to do is simply as for his son to come into our hearts and save us from our sins.:D

Whether God exists or not comes down to sheer faith. To argue over his existance is not only pointless, but it's outright stupid. There's the hope for Catholics/Christians (I was born into catholicism, but I'm not a practicing catholic) that we can convince others of God's glory. While the effort is a much needed one, to try to rule out his existance (or non-existance for that matter) is a complete waste of time.

With that rant out of the way.. I choose to believe in God not because of texts, scriptures, the bible, or anything of the sort, but because I want to. I don't know about anyone else, but having something to look forward to in the after life is a hell (pun intended lol) of a lot better than realizing you'll spend the remainder of your days buried six feet deep in a cemetery. Part of my belief originates from my parents, but there's also the buffer-zone factor. To try to explain the concoction of the universe is a tedious and extremely theoretical exercise. I choose to accept life as it is.

Now, with that aside, I don't agree with going to Church, being confirmed, or anything of the sort. Hence why I'm not an "active catholic". The only thing I truly took to heart out of teachings is this one little phrase, "God is everywhere". He exists because of my faith, so the need to gather and pray in a specific place sounds like the work of men; not God. Life's lessons should compensate for getting us ready for the after life, but I know that many would disagree with me on this.

Grr..Damnit. I have to go to lunch so I can't continue this. Oh well, this has certainly been an interesting thread.

I find it interesting that after AP's comprehensive explanation the arguments stopped. Perhaps out of wisdom, people realized their objections could, in fact, be reasonably answered. Perhaps they didn't want to take the time to do the research (which seems to be a consistent theme among the opposition), and decided to just drop it, believing what they wanted to believe without researching and discovering for themselves.

Or perhaps they just got fed up, realizing that arguing doesn't get anywhere without an openness to be wrong and learn. This cuts both ways, I was just making an observation that the dilligence seems to side with the Bible-believers on this one.

Hello :) I haven't read the thread in its entirety (mostly because there are only a couple posters I disagree with that use paragraphing) but here are a couple of statements that caught my eye. If I've missed something that has been said, then I beg an indulgence for you to repeat the statement.
I started by reading the last couple of pages, and then jumped to the first, so a specific person's posts may be scattered throughout this one :)

I start responding to you, Mr. Solarflare, more toward the second half of the post. However, I do request that you read all of it. Also, the forum says my post is too long, and thus I am dividing it into two.

Quote:So if you don't believe or refuse to believe, then that's your choice.

One could raise the argument that by setting up a mechanism to punish those who do not believe, God is unnecessarily tainting the decision making process of his creation. For instance, if I tell a person "You can either choose to like chocolate ice cream or vanilla, but if you choose vanilla, I'm going to pound your face in!", one might say that I am creating such a bias in their decision making process that the freedom of their choice is negated.

Furthermore, if God sends people to hell simply for nonbelief, it indicates that the major portion of a persons character derives not from their deeds or morality, but merely whether they endorse a specific statement or not. One could use this as evidence to say that such a God is immoral, as he does not judge based on the contents of a persons character but merely by whether they satisfy his own need for praise.

As well, one could say that God has not provided sufficent evidence for his existence, and given the number of competing Gods of various religions, it is not moral for God to expect you to essentially randomly choose him out of all these others and punish you with hell if you fail to do so.

Quote:This is slightly extreme but why do people who are atheists/agnostics/etc. get angry when Christians tell them that they would go to hell? Why should they get mad over going to a place they won't believe exists

First of all, it is not particularly relevant what a certain segment of the population believes or how they respond to some statement. The actual truth value of the statement is not affected by the emotionalism of those giving or fighting it. One cannot say: "Atheists get angry that I say they are going to hell, therefore hell exists", because that arguments sets up the condition for the objective existence of a thing on the subjective emotional states of various people. Thus, if I encounter an atheist that does not become angry, then both the statements "Hell exists" and "Hell does not exist" become true, resulting in a contradiction, indicating that the logic used is bad. One should limit ones argumentaton soley to the logical and factual support used, not to the specifics of the person in question.

Second, I imagine that many atheists get angry because hell is commonly thought of as a place for "bad people", and thus by telling them you are going to tell you are essentially saying they are bad people. It doesn't seem so unreasonable for a person to become at least somewhat angry at the accusation that they are a bad person.

Quote:He gives mankind the choice to ignore his existance, and that is their choice.

However, to say that one chooses to ignore his existence is to affirm the truth value of his existence in the first place. The truth value of the statement "God exists" has not been properly demonstrated yet, and thus it is improper to say that an atheist is choosing to *ignore* his existence.

Quote:Why do you say that Christians are judgmental? We're doing what we believe is right...so doesn't that make you judgmental...?

The actions of many Christians, in accordance with their belief in what is right, often tends to judge the moral worth of other individuals based on (what many consider) rather superfluous traits (homosexuality, atheism, etc).
In reality, all people are judgmental (in that they make determinations about the world) and thus any attack of judgementalism is somewhat misguided.

Quote:Now, with out further ado, words from Albert Einstein:

Two things:

1. As I said above, the words of any *specific* person do not matter: It is not the fact that X person said something that should give it strength, but rather the words themselves.
2. Albert Einstein was not religious in the traditional sense: Rather, his concept of God was essentially "the universe". He did not believe in a personal God that is present in Christianity, but rather believed in "God" as a term encompassing what he believed to be the beauty of science and nature. This is a rather atheistic worldview, and thus does not support in any way the existence of God (it wouldn't anyway, since that would be an appeal to authority, but...)

Quote:What about people who have faith in themselves...doesn't that count?

Actually, no. The difference between faith in religion and faith in morality is the difference between descriptive and normative statements.

Quote:I think for the same reason he gave man free will in the first place.

Whether man actually has free will, and to what extent, is open for much discussion.

Quote:1. Christianity is right, you believe, you go to heaven.
2. Christianity is right, you don't believe, you go to hell.
3. Christianity is wrong, you believe, you cease to exist, (having wasted your life believing a lie)
4. Christianity is wrong, you don't believe, you cease to exist, (having made the most of your existance here on earth.)

This looks like a verison of Pascal's Wager. However, this portrayel of all of the possibilities results in a false dichotomy: You are painting the picture as if it is either conservative Christianity or atheism. If the possible choices were Christianity or atheism, and God didn't mind if you didn't actually believe, then Christianity may be the rational choice (depending on whether Christian teachings conflict with ones moral system). However, it is not the case that the choice is between Christianity and atheism. Let us introduce several choices:

1. Liberal christianity
2. Conservative christianity
3. Atheism
4. Islam
5. Meism - the religion that *I* (as in, me, the person writing this) am God.

If you choose to believe in 1, then 2, 4, and 5 condemn you to hell.
If you choose 2, then 4 and five condemn you to hell.
If you choose 3, then 2, 4, and 5 condemn you to hell.
If you choose 4, then 2, and 5 condemn you to hell.
If you choose 5, then 2 and 4 condemn you to hell.

Since it is not possible to make multiple choices, in this instance, Pascal's Wager breaks: There is no choice that becomes the rational option.

As well, Pascal's Wager does not speak to the *truth* value of religion. If I were to say "If you believe 2+2=4, I'm going to pound your face in!", it may be rational for you to then tell me "2 plus two does not equal four", but that does not in any way change whether it, in fact, equals four.