Seeing people gloss over the whole light on the first day but then we get the sun and stars later while instead focusing on whether beasts came before or after man is the kind of thing that I think makes my point.

Come on Draginol, this is really a lame point. Maybe you are refering to another thread but saying that you have a point when both HC and I talked about the first two contradictions (mine was due to lack of time). So if you are refering to another thread please disregard this.

I have a few minutes so I will give you a quick answer.

My guess is in your thinking that without the sun or the stars there would be no light? Look at it from the otherside. Light existed but was not contained in a body (some kind of mass). He made the sun and stars etc. later as luminous bodies. If you look at the Hebrew you will find that Day 1 (Genesis 1:3) the word is owr meaning illumination. In Genesis 1:14 the word there is Ma'owr which is luminous body. The light existed first then the body in which to hold it was later created. Light cannot be seen UNTIL it is reflected off of something. That's my start I need to run. Have a great weekend.

Peace and Blessings,

AD

Adventure-Dude that so such a stretch as to be meaningless.  So basically you're going to argue that "magic" is going to be your answer.

Yea, everything's a "lame" point if you're going to just brush it off and essentially say "wizards". Light doesn't come from nothing. Lights have to have a source. You don't create a body and put light into it. 

Fine. Then let's skip to the Judas issue and the final words of Jesus.  Those are clear contradictions without wiggle room. 

Furry Canary
--In that case, here are some other things that 'don't exist at all' - atoms, molecules, consciousness, the solar system, DNA, magnetism, gravity. So unless we know a priori that something exists, it doesn't?

Well obviosly if we found all of these things, and didn't find God it makes my point very clear. We are still asking the question, and the answer is still the same old lame NO.

ok Draginol let's go with Judas and the seeming contradiction you see there. Yes I agree, when you first look at those two they do seem to be contradictory. But they actually do fit together quite nicely. Judas was very inept even in his trying to comitt suicide.

As always...you have to take all the scriptures and put together. It all works together. First Judas conspired with the Pharisees to bring Jesus to them in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. Judas, a zealot against the opression of Rome most likely was trying to force Jesus' hand to bring in the kingdom right there and now. He had no intention of seeing him killed. That's why he comitted suicide.....didn't quite work out as planned. In Matt 27:3 it says:


"Then Judas which had betrayed him when he saw that he was condemned repented himself and brought againt the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders. Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us?"

He goes on to throw the money down, tries to hang himself, the rope breaks and he falls headlong into the ravine below. The priests took the "blood money" and purchased that field and it was known as the field of blood even to this day...Matt 27:8-10.

No contradiction.

Now to go a bit further than you did. I want to show you something else. If you go to Zechariah 11:12-13 you see this whole thing was predicted 555 years before the event even happened.

"And I said to them If you think good, give me my price and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me, Cast it unto the potter a goodly price that I was prised at of them and I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord.

Not only does it all fit but it was not unexpected. It was prophecy fulfilled.

It really comes down Draginol to those who have ears......let him hear.

You're right Draginol....all you have to do is show me one contradiction and I will be wrong about the bible. I know tho that I can show you every supposed contradiction and give you the answer and you will not believe. why? Because unbelief is never satisfied. Never. Unless God opens your eyes. Who knows.....maybe God is trying to speak to you thru us. That's usually how it happens. God always uses man to do his work.

Just to add to what Dude and HC already said about creation I have another thought. The first chapter as was stated by HC is a chronological detailed account in the creation of the world. The second chapter is the geneology of mankind. Chap 2:4 says...."These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. "

It then goes on to describe the geneology of man with the focus being topical not chronological.

No contradiction.

Draginol (yes again)

You said: I don't sit around and reinvent the wheel. If there is already a resource that is better than anything I could quickly put together, then I make use of that instead. Productivity is the path to business success. Hence, the links to the sites.

So what you're saying is.....you are taking someone else's word for this? If so....why not take ours? Actually I usually tell people not to take my word for anything I say but to check it out for themselves.

On the apparent light contradiction. Have you considered how many light years it takes for light to reach earth? If you noticed, God created everything with age including light being instantaneous. That in itself is amazing.

The reason for the light before the constellations were created is easy in my book. God is light. He is much brighter than even the the brightest star....the sun. In Revelation at the end when He comes back it says...."And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon to shine in it for the glory of God did lighten it and the Lamb is the light thereof.

So just like in the beginning......the ending will be the same. The Glory of God is all the light that will be necessary.

Paul says that Satan is the imitator of this light. His name was Lucifer (bright one) and is called the "Angel of Light."

KFC, but clearly you are a lost cause in terms of having an intelligent conversation.  You make all kinds of assumptions -- arrogant ones which are amusing at first but eventually get pretty old. You keep making these broad assumptions. You earlier assumed I didn't know the background on Tolkien. You later assumed that I hadn't read the bible. You've made countless other assumptions about people that are based on ingorance. It's arrogant and obnoxious.

I doubt I will put as much time into future responses since your reading comprehension is so poor and your assumptions so vast that it's like talking to a stone.  You are very representative of why an increasing number of people have such low opinions of devout Christians.  Ignroance combined with arrogance is a lethal combination. Probably the most obnoxious assumption you make is that "unbelievers" (as you seem call anyone who doesn't hold your exact beliefs) somehow just haven't been exposed to the gospel and the obvoius truth (in your eyes anyway) of it. The realitiy is that most people in the United States, myself included, have had ample experience with Christianity. There are few agnostic children in the US. Like most people in the US, I started out Christian. I know my bible. People who know me (which you don't) know I know the bible very well. I'm not anti-Christian.

You, however, are full of assumptions and express your beliefs with such arrogance that any effectiveness you would like to have is lost. I know something on arrogance since I am arrogant. The difference is that I don't go around trying to shove my beliefs down people's throat. Because if I were trying to convince people of my point of view, I would certainly convey my beliefs in a different tone. Most of your most glaring problems comes from the fact that you consider the bible to be a source unto itself. That is, you can use one part of the bible to "prove" another part of the bible. And that is utter nonsense.

I'll put these as simply as I possibly can so that perhaps even you will grasp it:

1) You have claimed that the bible can be taken literally.

2) You have claimed the bible has no contradictions

Regarding Judas it says very clearly in 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.

Here is where you violate #1 in order to try to get out of admitting #2:

Matthew 27: 5 through 10 (so we get the entire context):
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. 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." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the "Field of Blood" to this day. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled. They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field as the Lord commanded me.

In other words, you just ADDED your own little bit:

He goes on to throw the money down, tries to hang himself, the rope breaks and he falls headlong into the ravine below. The priests took the "blood money" and purchased that field and it was known as the field of blood even to this day...Matt 27:8-10.

There is nothing here about Judas falling into a ravine (not to mention that makes no sense whatsoever).   The bible has two accounts of how Judas died that are not only different but imply very different feelings within Judas. One account has him feeling guilty, the other has him feeling no remorse but instead dying of an accident. The former is the classic story of feeling remorse and the latter is the classic story telling device of the villain having a just deserved death. Moreover, Acts clearly states that JUDAS, not preists, bought that field.  It is a contradiction. There is no wiggle room here.

You're right Draginol....all you have to do is show me one contradiction and I will be wrong about the bible. I know tho that I can show you every supposed contradiction and give you the answer and you will not believe. why? Because unbelief is never satisfied. Never. Unless God opens your eyes. Who knows.....maybe God is trying to speak to you thru us. That's usually how it happens. God always uses man to do his work.

That is totally nonsense. Only the brainwashed say things like this.  Unlike you, I have an open mind.  I am willing to believe anything that has a reasonable level of evidence and makes logical sense to me.  You are the one who closes their eyes to other points of view.   Unlike you, I do not close my eyes to other possibilities. I don't cling to dogma because I fear any other explainations for things I don't understand. 

You said: I don't sit around and reinvent the wheel. If there is already a resource that is better than anything I could quickly put together, then I make use of that instead. Productivity is the path to business success. Hence, the links to the sites. So what you're saying is.....you are taking someone else's word for this? If so....why not take ours? Actually I usually tell people not to take my word for anything I say but to check it out for themselves.

This is the funniest thing I think I've seen you say.  Here is someone who dogmatically asserts that every written word in a particular book is true without displaying any sort of independent thought. 

Take your word for what? Your unsubstantiated claim that the bible is literally true in every way? Where your proof of its accuracy is itself?  

Read these words carefully, sound them out if you need to:
I have read the bible.  Over the years, as I became more educated, many things in the bible started to look questionable.  Over time, I became more aware of the various contradictions, the various areas that had to be..interpreted in order to make sense. And eventually the stretching point went beyond what I could tolerate and at that point I was open to looking at other possibilities.  And when people like yourself are put into a corner, you start to rely on hysterical sounding explanations that boils down to "magic". 

I can no more disprove the bible than you can disprove that the universe wasn't created 6 seconds ago by 17 green munchkins who gave us all these memories.  All I can do is present facts from the physical world that would lead a reasonable person to reach their own conclusions.

People who use websites, books, and other resources to look up information are not doing so because they're "taking their word".  They do it for convenience.  For contradictions, I'm not taking the word of "some guy" on the net.  I am making use of a resource that has cataloged many of the contradictions I have known of.  But I don't want to have to sit there and type them all out when I can simply refer someone to a given site.

But I've given you a list of just a handful of contradictions that are in the bible.  In response, I've received nothing but lame reinterpretations and in your case an outright (and ridiculous) new addition to the bible in order to cover up a pretty blatant contradiction.

So by all means, you can sit there spouting scripcture from the book.  But you are not convincing anyone.  It has nothing to do with unbelievers not willing to believe.  The problem is with you personally.  You are not compelling because you come across as an ignorant fool with unearned arrogance.  It's not the message that is at fault, it's the messenger.

 

Well, well, well, I guess I hit a nerve here? Let's see, I've been called, arrogant, uneducated, obnoxious etc. Why is that? Because I answered one of your apparent contradictions? That's what I get? Also how can I be shoving my Christianity down your throat when you are coming onto my site to debate me on what I wrote? Maybe it's the other way around?

I can answer each and one of you contradictions but why bother? You are not going to listen anyway and from the sounds of what you just wrote you just get angry. I will leave you with this:

Unbelief sets false standards
Unbelief always wants more evidence
Unbelief always does biased research
Unbelief rejects facts
Unbelief is totally egocentric

Objectivity starts with nothing and the evidence brings the conclusion
Subjectivity starts with a preclusion then finds evidence to support it.

Judas did buy the field....or rather it was with his money even tho the priests did it for him after his death. They used his money. The same could be said if you died and your money was used by a family member to buy you a burial plot......one that you will need soon after your coronary.

You're right Draginol....all you have to do is show me one contradiction and I will be wrong about the bible. I know tho that I can show you every supposed contradiction and give you the answer and you will not believe. why? Because unbelief is never satisfied. Never. Unless God opens your eyes. Who knows.....maybe God is trying to speak to you thru us. That's usually how it happens. God always uses man to do his work.

This quote above is illustrative of why people don't like you. It encapsulates your, for lack of a better word, sins.  Incredible pride without justification.

1) You demonstrate that you have a closed mind while at the same time accusing me of having a closed mind.  You have the nerve to say "I can show you every supposed contradiction and give you teh answer and you will not believe. why? Because unbelief is never satisfied."

You asked Jilluser if she's ever wrong. She said yes and asked the same of you, you never answered.  SImilarly, your arrogant assertion can be turned around on you.  I can show you contradiction after contradiction and you will never accept it? Why? Because blind dogmatic belief is never broken.  No matter how obvious the contradiction is, I have no doubt that you will come up with some sort of excuse that will still violate one of your tenets but that you will simply refuse to acknowledge.

2) You have so much pride that you actually think God himself speaks to me THROUGH you? That is a logical impossibility because your words are empty.  They carry no weight of persuassion because you repeatedly demonstrate that you know nothing outside your basic programming. You repeat what you've been told by others.  Now that you are fully programmed, all other belief possibilities are closed to you.  No, I think it unlikely that God, if he exists, would choose you as a vessel.

I'm not going to participate on this discussion here with you any more.  I was truly expecting that you would either concede the point on this contradiction (at least the Judas one) or offer some sort of rational explanation.  You have done neither.

Well, well, well, I guess I hit a nerve here? Let's see, I've been called, arrogant, uneducated, obnoxious etc. Why is that? Because I answered one of your apparent contradictions? That's what I get? Also how can I be shoving my Christianity down your throat when you are coming onto my site to debate me on what I wrote? Maybe it's the other way around?

You didn't hit a nerve.  I say you are arrogant, uneducated, obnoxious and ignorant (you forgot that part) because you are arrogant, uneducated, obnoxious and ignorant.

I don't care what you believe.  As for your site, no, it's your blog. It's MY site.

Ok you're right......about the blog/site thing. I'll concede that ok?

This anger you have towards me has more to do with the other blog than anything else said here. Admit it. You came here with preconceived ideas about me from that other blog. You came here not to discuss but to argue and push your point at me.

It's ok to agree to disagree without resorting to name calling. I have yet to call you or any other blogger on JU a name.

I don't care what you believe. As for your site, no, it's your blog. It's MY site

And this is a nice thing to say? Have I said that to you? Who's prideful here?

You asked Jilluser if she's ever wrong. She said yes and asked the same of you, you never answered

I did answer that and many times but what what's being done here is you're parroting what some of the others have said. I said many many times.....I don't have the answers but I know who does.

If you have an issue, then fine that's ok but don't take out on me what was said between me and another person on JU and use that to attack when it had nothing to do with you in the first place. This was a new blog with a whole different topic. What happened elsewhere should be left there and not carried over here.

The problem is, God didn't give us the Bible. The Bible is a collection of texts written over thousands of years, collected in the 1600's into the form we know now as the King James Version. The choices of the Christian canon were chosen based upon how they jived with what people believed about God.

That's the cart pushing the horse. That is like deciding what happened in history based upon the current accepted story, and then collecting historical texts that back it up and rejecting those that don't. We can see how ineffective the practice is based on how it works in historical study.

The ancient city of Troy was found because of a mythological, highly fictionalized description of it. Similarly, just because the Bible is man-made doesn't disprove the existence of God. We need God to have written OUR Bible to validate that we have the true version of the way things happened and other religions don't. This makes us so biased that we have for 500 or so years built this myth of the 'infallible' Bible.

Proving God exists by pointing to a book written by people who believed God exists isn't proof, and it doesn't serve the argument. It makes us seem idolatrous and mindless as Christians, believing blindly paper and ink.

Adventure-Dude that so such a stretch as to be meaningless. So basically you're going to argue that "magic" is going to be your answer. Yea, everything's a "lame" point if you're going to just brush it off and essentially say "wizards". Light doesn't come from nothing. Lights have to have a source. You don't create a body and put light into it.

Draginol,

Sorry my reference to 'lame point' was in regards to your previous statment that something was true because no one had discussed it. When you said,

Seeing people gloss over the whole light on the first day but then we get the sun and stars later while instead focusing on whether beasts came before or after man is the kind of thing that I think makes my point.

Not that you were making a lame point with contradictions. I apologize for any misunderstanding. As for your contradictions THOSE I see as being very valid and worth an answer.

Further discussion on light:
The sun and the stars don't create anything. In a nut shell they are just energy converters. They are converting gases into light. Where did this energy come from? What caused these bundles of energy to start converting energy into light? Have you ever seen a piece of wood start producing light? A piece of wood starts producing light when it is lit by fire from an outside source. That piece of wood is now producing light but is it the origination of light? Draginol what is your explanation of how light started?

The last 20 or so comments are illustrative of the reason I'm not arguing with born again christians any more. It's painful for me to even watch this go on because I get angry....so I'm removing myself from this cycle of samsara and will go seek enlightenment elsewhere.

Dharma,

I can empathize with you. Many 'Christians' can be very disrespectful and are so focused on shoving the Bible in your throat. It has been proven over and over that beating the Bible on someones head does not magically convert someone. But yet over and over you see this practice. They are so closed minded and worried about hitting you on the precise spot on the head (so it seems) that have forgotten/neglected your emotions. All of this stems out of arrogance and arrogance negates respect for one another (and "love your neighbor as yourself" found in multiplaces in scripture so not to be over looked?). Dharma do you agree?