Bible Contradictions

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1081

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Leading me to ask, “If we can’t understand god, how can you call him loving, or all powerful, or all knowing, since any of these declarations mean you understand him well enough to say so?”[/quote]

You grow to understand God through the reading of his word in the Bible. And since you reject that book there is no hope for you understanding who God is. [/quote]

I don’t disagree that you get to know God through scriptures, but God is alive and well functioning in us and around us right now. You don’t need the bible to feel the touch of God. God is not the God of only the well educated and literate Christians. The impoverished, suffering and meek are the ones closest to him.

1082

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< God is charity. If you look at charity, it’s the freely given gift (money, housing, food, &c) to someone who freely accepts it (and usually needs it). >>>[/quote]Hmmmmm. The word charity as rendered by the KJV crew and the D.R. crew as well, but as love by the NAB guys and the ESV scholars as well as the Lockman team responsible for my personal favorite the NASB, derives from the Greek verb agapao and known famously to us as the feminine noun agape. It occurs over 200 times in it’s various forms in the New Testament and is used for a wide variety of generally positive things. Ranging from important feasts to the love of and for God Himself. It is not however to the best of my knowledge directly used in the way you are here professing.

The same word is used at least twice that I could find offhand in the account of Amnon’s incestuous rape of Tamar in the Septuagint rendering of 2nd Samuel 13 to describe Amnon’s attitude toward her. To say that “love” should be charity and means soup kitchens and financial aid is a purely Catholic invention.
[/quote]
I agree that charity is not an ample substitute for love, they are different thing and one is a function of the other.

1083

@Jakerz98 (and the rest of the Catholics)
Read this page from the USCCB’s (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) commented site on Romans 9 from the NAB. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans9.htm Here’s a couple samples from the notes.

[quote][14-18] The principle of divine election does not invite Christians to theoretical inquiry concerning the nonelected, nor does this principle mean that God is unfair in his dealings with humanity. The instruction concerning divine election is a part of the gospel and reveals that the gift of faith is the enactment of God’s mercy (Romans 9:16). God raised up Moses to display that mercy, and Pharaoh to display divine severity in punishing those who obstinately oppose their Creator.
[19-29] The apostle responds to the objection that if God rules over faith through the principle of divine election, God cannot then accuse unbelievers of sin (Romans 9:19). For Paul, this objection is in the last analysis a manifestation of human insolence, and his “answer” is less an explanation of God’s ways than the rejection of an argument that places humanity on a level with God. At the same time, Paul shows that God is far less arbitrary than appearances suggest, for God endures with much patience (Romans 9:22) a person like the Pharaoh of the Exodus.[/quote]I gotta tell ya’ll. That’s some right smart n sanctified biblical interpretation right there. Ya know why? Because there is no possible way to escape what Paul is saying. Just no way and I’ll tip my hat to these men for respecting the Word of God in this case. It’s too bad the church at Rome sides with fallen man when the apparent conflict starts and Jake I think you may actually understand what I mean by that. Cornelius Van Til is very helpful in that regard. Do what you will those PM’s that are sure to come your way if they haven’t already warning of my terrible treachery. I need more hours in a day I really do.

1084

[quote]pat wrote:<<< I agree that charity is not an ample substitute for love, they are different thing and one is a function of the other.[/quote]Pat, I hope yer sittin down. We actually agree on something. Yes, charitable works are a manifestation of both love for God and our fellow man, but they are not what is being conveyed in the last verse of the 13th chapter of 1st Corinthians or any other place where the word is used (I don’t think) and both Catholic and Protestant scholars recognize this. Hence the nearly universal modern rendering of “love”. Yes, this actually matters.

1085

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Leading me to ask, “If we can’t understand god, how can you call him loving, or all powerful, or all knowing, since any of these declarations mean you understand him well enough to say so?”[/quote]

You grow to understand God through the reading of his word in the Bible. And since you reject that book there is no hope for you understanding who God is. [/quote]

I don’t disagree that you get to know God through scriptures, but God is alive and well functioning in us and around us right now. You don’t need the bible to feel the touch of God. God is not the God of only the well educated and literate Christians. The impoverished, suffering and meek are the ones closest to him. [/quote]

Cap asked how he can get to know God better my answer is read the scriptures. Of course God is everywhere, needless to say.

1086

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Leading me to ask, “If we can’t understand god, how can you call him loving, or all powerful, or all knowing, since any of these declarations mean you understand him well enough to say so?”[/quote]

You grow to understand God through the reading of his word in the Bible. And since you reject that book there is no hope for you understanding who God is. [/quote]

Perhaps you’re unaquainted with your bible, but it’s THE main reason why most athiests are atheists. We reject the bible because it makes no sense, not the other way around.

1087

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Leading me to ask, “If we can’t understand god, how can you call him loving, or all powerful, or all knowing, since any of these declarations mean you understand him well enough to say so?”[/quote]

You grow to understand God through the reading of his word in the Bible. And since you reject that book there is no hope for you understanding who God is. [/quote]

Perhaps you’re unaquainted with your bible, but it’s THE main reason why most athiests are atheists. We reject the bible because it makes no sense, not the other way around. [/quote]

Yeah, I know, but that’s the irony. Cap asks how can someone get to know God. And of course the answer is the very thing that atheists reject. But God did plan it that way. “You must come to me as a little child…” And you guys can’t do that. And Why?

One of three reasons:

1-Intellectuals, too smart to believe. Must know all the answers now. Have to put God in a quantifiable box.

2-Pseudo intellectuals trying to be smart by trying to pick holes in the Bible (and it can’t be done)

3-Punk college kids who basically want to rebel. And have soaked up way too much of the professorial hubris which is a bad mix with your natural youthful hubris.

I won’t tell you which one you are as you already know the answer to that.

:slight_smile:

1088

[quote]ZEB wrote:<<< way too much of the professorial hubris which is a bad mix with your natural youthful hubris. >>>[/quote]Oh my Lord is there ever a lot in here. Sprayin gasoline on a fire.

1089

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:<<< way too much of the professorial hubris which is a bad mix with your natural youthful hubris. >>>[/quote]Oh my Lord is there ever a lot in here. Sprayin gasoline on a fire.
[/quote]

I didn’t know that having a penchant for the truth was a bad thing.

1090

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:<<< way too much of the professorial hubris which is a bad mix with your natural youthful hubris. >>>[/quote]Oh my Lord is there ever a lot in here. Sprayin gasoline on a fire.
[/quote]

I didn’t know that having a penchant for the truth was a bad thing.[/quote]I was agreeing with you =] The gasoline of academic hubris sprayed om the fire of the young know it all.

1091

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Leading me to ask, “If we can’t understand god, how can you call him loving, or all powerful, or all knowing, since any of these declarations mean you understand him well enough to say so?”[/quote]

You grow to understand God through the reading of his word in the Bible. And since you reject that book there is no hope for you understanding who God is. [/quote]

Perhaps you’re unaquainted with your bible, but it’s THE main reason why most athiests are atheists. We reject the bible because it makes no sense, not the other way around. [/quote]

Yeah, I know, but that’s the irony. Cap asks how can someone get to know God. [/quote]

That’s not what I was asking. I was pointing out the inconsistency in saying “We cannot understand God”, while attaching specific attributes to God (such as omnipotence, omnipresence, etc)

If we cannot understand god, you cant say god is all knowing, because that implies that you understand him well enough to declare him all knowing. Same with all powerful, same with all loving.

The only “evidence” of God I’ve ever heard of, or “answered prayers” are examples of confirmation bias. Someone gets sick, and they pray. If they get better, they take it as proof of god. If they don’t… they take it as different proof of god. All it proves is that they believe no matter what.

But this mentality applies to people of just about every faith, including atheism. So one persons revalation or experience doesn’t really mean anything to another, and its not a basis for truth.

1092

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
@Jakerz98 (and the rest of the Catholics)
Read this page from the USCCB’s (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) commented site on Romans 9 from the NAB. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans9.htm Here’s a couple samples from the notes.

[quote][14-18] The principle of divine election does not invite Christians to theoretical inquiry concerning the nonelected, nor does this principle mean that God is unfair in his dealings with humanity. The instruction concerning divine election is a part of the gospel and reveals that the gift of faith is the enactment of God’s mercy (Romans 9:16). God raised up Moses to display that mercy, and Pharaoh to display divine severity in punishing those who obstinately oppose their Creator.
[19-29] The apostle responds to the objection that if God rules over faith through the principle of divine election, God cannot then accuse unbelievers of sin (Romans 9:19). For Paul, this objection is in the last analysis a manifestation of human insolence, and his “answer” is less an explanation of God’s ways than the rejection of an argument that places humanity on a level with God. At the same time, Paul shows that God is far less arbitrary than appearances suggest, for God endures with much patience (Romans 9:22) a person like the Pharaoh of the Exodus.[/quote]I gotta tell ya’ll. That’s some right smart n sanctified biblical interpretation right there. Ya know why? Because there is no possible way to escape what Paul is saying. Just no way and I’ll tip my hat to these men for respecting the Word of God in this case. It’s too bad the church at Rome sides with fallen man when the apparent conflict starts and Jake I think you may actually understand what I mean by that. Cornelius Van Til is very helpful in that regard. Do what you will those PM’s that are sure to come your way if they haven’t already warning of my terrible treachery. I need more hours in a day I really do.[/quote]

“It’s too bad the church at Rome sides with fallen man” There you go again. Really? And your proof is?

Look you need to knock this stuff off if you cannot back it up. I can systematically dismantle the insanity that is neo-puritanism where God has predestined most of his creation to burn in eternal hell for no reason, that some are elect and beyond reproach no matter what they do, etc. These are real and fallacious problems. The Roman Catholic Church has one focus, God. It does not worship itself, it does not serve fallen man.
I want to know by what divine authority John Calvin made these changes and therefore lead people astray.
Pretty please, with sugar on top, testify to the evil of Catholicism. I am a big boy, I can take it.

1093

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< I agree that charity is not an ample substitute for love, they are different thing and one is a function of the other.[/quote]Pat, I hope yer sittin down. We actually agree on something. Yes, charitable works are a manifestation of both love for God and our fellow man, but they are not what is being conveyed in the last verse of the 13th chapter of 1st Corinthians or any other place where the word is used (I don’t think) and both Catholic and Protestant scholars recognize this. Hence the nearly universal modern rendering of “love”. Yes, this actually matters.
[/quote]

And perhaps we could have a decent conversation if you would stop insulting and leveling untrue accusations about my faith. I can go tit-for tat. Every time, you do that, I will fire back, every time. Don’t expect my silence.

1094

Read the link from above and tell me what you see.

1095

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Leading me to ask, “If we can’t understand god, how can you call him loving, or all powerful, or all knowing, since any of these declarations mean you understand him well enough to say so?”[/quote]

You grow to understand God through the reading of his word in the Bible. And since you reject that book there is no hope for you understanding who God is. [/quote]

Perhaps you’re unaquainted with your bible, but it’s THE main reason why most athiests are atheists. We reject the bible because it makes no sense, not the other way around. [/quote]

Yeah, I know, but that’s the irony. Cap asks how can someone get to know God. [/quote]

That’s not what I was asking. I was pointing out the inconsistency in saying “We cannot understand God”, while attaching specific attributes to God (such as omnipotence, omnipresence, etc)

If we cannot understand god, you cant say god is all knowing, because that implies that you understand him well enough to declare him all knowing. Same with all powerful, same with all loving.

The only “evidence” of God I’ve ever heard of, or “answered prayers” are examples of confirmation bias. Someone gets sick, and they pray. If they get better, they take it as proof of god. If they don’t… they take it as different proof of god. All it proves is that they believe no matter what.

But this mentality applies to people of just about every faith, including atheism. So one persons revalation or experience doesn’t really mean anything to another, and its not a basis for truth.

[/quote]

1-You can know that God is omnipotent and still not know the mind of God. And here is where fait comes in. How could a mere mortal actually understand the mind of God? Yet, some try to put him in a box and quantifiably measure and monitor him. It’s actually funny to me.

2-There are many religions of the world, but not all of them are correct. A person can have a spiritual experience, but it doesn’t mean that it is from God. The part that the non-believers don’t like (well, there are many parts they don’t like), is the fact that in our scenario someone is right and someone is wrong. You’re questioning the experience’s that those who do not know God have had. And I’m telling you that we can all have exceptional experiences, some are from God and some are from our own mind, and others are from the opposite of God.

1096

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:<<< way too much of the professorial hubris which is a bad mix with your natural youthful hubris. >>>[/quote]Oh my Lord is there ever a lot in here. Sprayin gasoline on a fire.
[/quote]

I didn’t know that having a penchant for the truth was a bad thing.[/quote]I was agreeing with you =] The gasoline of academic hubris sprayed om the fire of the young know it all.
[/quote]

Sorry my friend I read that wrong-

1097

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
@Jakerz98 (and the rest of the Catholics)
Read this page from the USCCB’s (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) commented site on Romans 9 from the NAB. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans9.htm Here’s a couple samples from the notes.

[quote][14-18] The principle of divine election does not invite Christians to theoretical inquiry concerning the nonelected, nor does this principle mean that God is unfair in his dealings with humanity. The instruction concerning divine election is a part of the gospel and reveals that the gift of faith is the enactment of God’s mercy (Romans 9:16). God raised up Moses to display that mercy, and Pharaoh to display divine severity in punishing those who obstinately oppose their Creator.
[19-29] The apostle responds to the objection that if God rules over faith through the principle of divine election, God cannot then accuse unbelievers of sin (Romans 9:19). For Paul, this objection is in the last analysis a manifestation of human insolence, and his “answer” is less an explanation of God’s ways than the rejection of an argument that places humanity on a level with God. At the same time, Paul shows that God is far less arbitrary than appearances suggest, for God endures with much patience (Romans 9:22) a person like the Pharaoh of the Exodus.[/quote]I gotta tell ya’ll. That’s some right smart n sanctified biblical interpretation right there. Ya know why? Because there is no possible way to escape what Paul is saying. Just no way and I’ll tip my hat to these men for respecting the Word of God in this case. It’s too bad the church at Rome sides with fallen man when the apparent conflict starts and Jake I think you may actually understand what I mean by that. Cornelius Van Til is very helpful in that regard. Do what you will those PM’s that are sure to come your way if they haven’t already warning of my terrible treachery. I need more hours in a day I really do.[/quote]

Maybe you should put on your glasses, “The principle of divine election does not invite Christians to theoretical inquiry concerning the nonelected…”

1098

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< God is charity. If you look at charity, it’s the freely given gift (money, housing, food, &c) to someone who freely accepts it (and usually needs it). >>>[/quote]Hmmmmm. The word charity as rendered by the KJV crew and the D.R. crew as well, but as love by the NAB guys and the ESV scholars as well as the Lockman team responsible for my personal favorite the NASB, derives from the Greek verb agapao and known famously to us as the feminine noun agape. It occurs over 200 times in it’s various forms in the New Testament and is used for a wide variety of generally positive things. Ranging from important feasts to the love of and for God Himself. It is not however to the best of my knowledge directly used in the way you are here professing.

The same word is used at least twice that I could find offhand in the account of Amnon’s incestuous rape of Tamar in the Septuagint rendering of 2nd Samuel 13 to describe Amnon’s attitude toward her. To say that “love” should be charity and means soup kitchens and financial aid is a purely Catholic invention.
[/quote]
I agree that charity is not an ample substitute for love, they are different thing and one is a function of the other.[/quote]

I suppose I could have reworded it better, but just that people’s idea of love is sometimes screwed up (think about how parents “love” their children). Anyway, Capped if you have any questions for me, you know where to get me.

1099

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< I agree that charity is not an ample substitute for love, they are different thing and one is a function of the other.[/quote]Pat, I hope yer sittin down. We actually agree on something. Yes, charitable works are a manifestation of both love for God and our fellow man, but they are not what is being conveyed in the last verse of the 13th chapter of 1st Corinthians or any other place where the word is used (I don’t think) and both Catholic and Protestant scholars recognize this. Hence the nearly universal modern rendering of “love”. Yes, this actually matters.
[/quote]

Tirib, you think that’s the direct place where the Catholic Church gets that idea? How about Matthew 25?

1100

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Leading me to ask, “If we can’t understand god, how can you call him loving, or all powerful, or all knowing, since any of these declarations mean you understand him well enough to say so?”[/quote]

You grow to understand God through the reading of his word in the Bible. And since you reject that book there is no hope for you understanding who God is. [/quote]

Perhaps you’re unaquainted with your bible, but it’s THE main reason why most athiests are atheists. We reject the bible because it makes no sense, not the other way around. [/quote]

Yeah, I know, but that’s the irony. Cap asks how can someone get to know God. [/quote]

That’s not what I was asking. I was pointing out the inconsistency in saying “We cannot understand God”, while attaching specific attributes to God (such as omnipotence, omnipresence, etc)

If we cannot understand god, you cant say god is all knowing, because that implies that you understand him well enough to declare him all knowing. Same with all powerful, same with all loving.

The only “evidence” of God I’ve ever heard of, or “answered prayers” are examples of confirmation bias. Someone gets sick, and they pray. If they get better, they take it as proof of god. If they don’t… they take it as different proof of god. All it proves is that they believe no matter what.

But this mentality applies to people of just about every faith, including atheism. So one persons revalation or experience doesn’t really mean anything to another, and its not a basis for truth.

[/quote]

Hocus pocus. I was raised a hard skeptic by my aunts and uncles, I like logic and I like hard proof. About six months ago I have ventured into mysticism as a deductive way of reaching God (nothing so far, report back if anything exciting happens). So, I understand where you’re coming from, I still ask the hard questions of people (some ministers won’t talk to me because of this). However, I made sure I had a knowledgeable people to talk to about these things. I want answers based on truth, appealed to logos and not trying to prove someone wrong or an answer based on pathos or ethos.

I don’t mind deductive reasoning (actually I love it), but merely hearing someone say, “I prayed and I felt something is hocus pocus to me.” I feel something when I walk up the stairs doesn’t mean the stairs are god.

Most of my experiences are private and they’ll stay that way until I die, but one I do not mind sharing with people is my dealings with St. Anthony. I had lost my glasses, I looked all over my room couldn’t find them (and I keep my room very organized, and my desk clear except for a phone, a pen stray and a few pieces of paper) I prayed to St. Anthony and I locked my room and went to the bathroom, when I unlocked the door and came back in to make a call, in the center of my desk was my glasses.

I recalled and recalled the events over and over in my head and there is no explanation except providence. I mean I just looked over at my desk, I didn’t even go near it to where I could have put my glasses on there (it’s just legs and a top so no reason to look in the desk) and when I walked over to the desk there they were.