Biblical Contradictions

Originally Posted by DarkVaati

Let me provide an example for you Alter.

"Because you cannot prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn that lives in my basement does not exist, she must exist!"

Try to prove that statement wrong.

Still waiting, Alter.

Originally Posted by DarkVaati

I just Googled it Leviticus 24:16, and searched for some sites that seemed reasonably sensible. I'll see if I can find the ones I used.

EDIT: But anyway, that isn't the point. The point is, that Yahweh is the true name of the Abrahamic God.

Yahweh may be a name of God, but there is no "true name" of God. He has many names, for example: Almighty, I Am, Yahweh, Prince of Peace, Mighty Counselor, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and more (Such as hmmmm...the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.). If you think Yahweh is the "true name" of God, then you need to read the Bible a bit more. Also, blaspheming (Speaking irreverently of God.) does not mean we cannot say His name. We can't say His name in vain (One of the Twelve Commandments.).

Originally Posted by Soren 177

(One of the Twelve Commandments.).

Um, there's only ten commandments.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

Um, there's only ten commandments.

Hahahaha!!!!!!! It seems I had a brain fart (Thanks Sage of Earth.)! Sorry, but remember, I'm not perfect, but God is!

Also, DarkVaati, your statement is false because you are the only one believing in this "Invisible Pink Unicorn." The Bible is an awesome book that tells of God and how He is realistic but no one thinks of that because they have never TRIED Him. People continue to attempt at proving God nonexistent because they do not know what it is to be in a relationship with Him and if they have, to be blunt, it's their part of the relationship that fails because they did not have strong enough faith and let God down.

Another point, if the title of the thread is "Biblical Contradictions," then why do we have to defend the Bible if there are no contradictions directed toward God's word? You are the ones attempting to prove contradictions, we are not.

Originally Posted by Soren 177

Also, DarkVaati, your statement is false because you are the only one believing in this "Invisible Pink Unicorn." The Bible is an awesome book that tells of God and how He is realistic but no one thinks of that because they have never TRIED Him. People continue to attempt at proving God nonexistent because they do not know what it is to be in a relationship with Him and if they have, to be blunt, it's their part of the relationship that fails because they did not have strong enough faith and let God down.

None of that has anything to do with the burden of proof.

Another point, if the title of the thread is "Biblical Contradictions," then why do we have to defend the Bible if there are no contradictions directed toward God's word? You are the ones attempting to prove contradictions, we are not.

Indeed, and the rest of the thread has a few dozen of them, most of which were just ignored.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

None of that has anything to do with the burden of proof.

Yes it does. By trying it yourself, you have the experience of whether it is false or true. If you can't take our word, try it yourself. If you have let's say a DS and let's also say I had no idea you could draw pictures and send them to other DS users. If I didn't take your word for it, I could try it then I would have the experience to know, that aspect of the DS is in fact true.

Indeed, and the rest of the thread has a few dozen of them, most of which were just ignored.

Then please enlighten me by bringing these to the light. I prefer not to search for them seeing as though I have other things to do (ZU should be honored to have a king using his free time to post on their site! Jk!).

Well bring 'em on. Thank you Soren. You figured out how to word wht I was trying to say.
As both he and I said, It's the FAITH issue. You can't/won't know who God is or about Him until you are living in Him, and Him living in you.

Vertigo, I know of lots of scholars who would disagree with you. I'm just going to leave it at that.

I like what Soren used had in his sig; Try God- you'll like Him.

Originally Posted by Alter

Well bring 'em on. Thank you Soren. You figured out how to word wht I was trying to say.
As both he and I said, It's the FAITH issue. You can't/won't know who God is or about Him until you are living in Him, and Him living in you.

What you're saying is you can't believe in God unless you have faith. That's stating the obvious.

Yes it does. By trying it yourself, you have the experience of whether it is false or true. If you can't take our word, try it yourself. If you have let's say a DS and let's also say I had no idea you could draw pictures and send them to other DS users. If I didn't take your word for it, I could try it then I would have the experience to know, that aspect of the DS is in fact true.

Have you ever seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or felt God with your senses? COULD you see, hear, taste, smell, or feel God with your senses?

No. With the DS's writing function, it is possible to prove that by showing it to people. You can't show people proof of God, because your faith RELIES on the fact that there is no proof. That's the DEFINITION of faith, believing without proof. That's WHY you need faith, because it's impossible to believe in God otherwise.

There is an invisible pink unicorn on my shoulder. This post says so. That's the same as saying God exists because the Bible says so. The invisible pink unicorn is equally as valid as God is.

Originally Posted by Alter

Vertigo, I know of lots of scholars who would disagree with you. I'm just going to leave it at that.

Oh really?

I wager none of them are actually 'scholars,' not with the BS you just posted.

Here, I'll even be nice.

Go look in your public library for Bernard Lewis, the premiere Middle Eastern historian of our time.

Educate yourself before making a fool of yourself.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

What you're saying is you can't believe in God unless you have faith. That's stating the obvious.

Then I'm assuming this point doesn't need to be brought up again.

Have you ever seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or felt God with your senses? COULD you see, hear, taste, smell, or feel God with your senses?

No, and you know why we can't see, hear (Why would you taste him?), or feel God? Because we have sinned and fell short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). We don't deserve to see Him because we have defiled His sight with sinful things such as: stealing, immorality, fornication and many others.

There is an invisible pink unicorn on my shoulder. This post says so. That's the same as saying God exists because the Bible says so. The invisible pink unicorn is equally as valid as God is.

The information is coming from you and, to be blunt, you are imperfect. God is perfect and He would not lie. If anyone says that this information is coming from us, it is not. It's coming from the Bible which is God's word. If people would only just read the Bible, they wouldn't have to ask these questions.

Originally Posted by Soren 177

No, and you know why we can't see, hear (Why would you taste him?), or feel God? Because we have sinned and fell short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). We don't deserve to see Him because we have defiled His sight with sinful things such as: stealing, immorality, fornication and many others.

For all we know, some intelligent person could've questioned "How come we can't see God." And that is the easiest answer, "because we aren't worthy." It goes the same with the Joseph Smith story.

Originally Posted by Soren 177

No, and you know why we can't see, hear (Why would you taste him?), or feel God? Because we have sinned and fell short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). We don't deserve to see Him because we have defiled His sight with sinful things such as: stealing, immorality, fornication and many others.

You can quote the Bible all you like but that doesn't prove anything other than the fact that you will believe everything you're spoonfed if a man in a dog-collar tells you it. You don't question the information you given, you just accept it as true because you're too narrow-minded to think that maybe, just maybe, someone is lying to you.

The Bible does not prove anything in and of itself, and unless the validity of the Bible can be proved, refrain from quoting it until we get back to the topic of contradictions within the Bible (which you could easily find in the thread yourself. If you have enough time to reply to our posts, you have enough time to find and reply to those contradictions).

The information is coming from you and, to be blunt, you are imperfect. God is perfect and He would not lie. If anyone says that this information is coming from us, it is not. It's coming from the Bible which is God's word. If people would only just read the Bible, they wouldn't have to ask these questions.

Except they would, because the Bible does not prove itself. That's circular logic. You believe God is perfect because the Bible tells you he is perfect, but there is no basis for this claim at all. There is no reason to believe that God is perfect, and I'll tell you why - A perfect being is complete, and needs nothing more. It is perfect, and perfection is absolute. God created man because he wanted a relationship with them, but that means that he had a desire for this relationship. Meaning he was not complete. Meaning he was not perfect.

But that's not the only problem with the retardation inherent in believing such tripe.

God claims that he is perfect, you believe this claim without a second thought.

I claim that I am perfect, you won't believe me, and would probably give reasons why you won't believe me, but you won't apply the same reasoning to the Bible. You simply favourite the Bible because you know that if you did apply the same reasoning to it, it would fall apart.

God has someone else tell you this, who could easily be lying. God isn't telling you himself. Further, whatever this person wrote has been translated so many times that there are definitely inaccuracies in the translation, and so it's impossible to know what the original writings said without actually reading the original book itself. But you believe these inaccurate translations.

I am right here, and I am telling you personally, and I could easily be lying, but I'm telling you personally rather than through somebody else. But you will not believe me.

And yet, you'd rather believe the unreliable middle-man to me, just because of your own personal preference.

Originally Posted by Virtigo

Oh really?

I wager none of them are actually 'scholars,' not with the BS you just posted.

Here, I'll even be nice.

Go look in your public library for Bernard Lewis, the premiere Middle Eastern historian of our time.

Educate yourself before making a fool of yourself.

This should make it nice and easy. Why don't you look in your libary for Dr. Jimmy DeYoung?

And who says that Bernard Lewis is the premiere Middle Eastern historian of our time? He's probably a Muslim for all I know...

Originally Posted by Alter

And who says that Bernard Lewis is the premiere Middle Eastern historian of our time? He's probably a Muslim for all I know...

That is probably not relevant. In fact I'd call that bigotry, because if you won't believe what he's saying because he's a Muslim, but you will believe what someone else tells you because they're Christian, that's just bias.