The Bible contradiction thread

[hobelim]

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

The bible is full of contradictions. It is absurd to claim that its not.

That being said, it was no mistake or accident.

Any contradiction in the bible is like a giant X on a treasure map that marks the specific place where something of great value was buried and hidden.

 

[G.T.]

 

[Faun]

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

 

[MedfordMan]

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

I need a little more information.

The "contradiction" appears to arise from your belief that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant.

Why do you believe that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant?

The Abrahamic covenant established the Jewish people as God's people.

The covenant Jesus made with the apostles, at the last supper, established a new form of relationship between God and believers both Jewish and gentile, but it did not render God 's promise to the Jewish people null and void.

Through my belief in Jesus, I can come boldly before God's throne of grace.

Still, my direct relationship to God does not mean that the Jews are no longer God's people.

If the Jews are no longer God's chosen people then what is the purpose of period of time when God will reconnect with his chosen people immediately after the rupture, in the book of Revelation?

Secondly, God did give the Land of Caanan to the Jewish people. The Jews were taken from that land because they weakened themselves by turning away from God, but the land (spiritually) still belonged to them.

Jews have lived in the land for thousands of years, but the Jewish people were able to re-establish the state of Istael, miraculously in 1948.

To the extent the Jews don't control the land God gave them, it is because they given parts of it away to buy peace with their neighbors.

I'm sorry I don't see the contradiction here either.

 

[Faun]

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

I need a little more information.

The "contradiction" appears to arise from your belief that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant.

Why do you believe that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant?

The Abrahamic covenant established the Jewish people as God's people.

The covenant Jesus made with the apostles, at the last supper, established a new form of relationship between God and believers both Jewish and gentile, but it did not render God 's promise to the Jewish people null and void.

Through my belief in Jesus, I can come boldly before God's throne of grace.

Still, my direct relationship to God does not mean that the Jews are no longer God's people.

If the Jews are no longer God's chosen people then what is the purpose of period of time when God will reconnect with his chosen people immediately after the rupture, in the book of Revelation?

Secondly, God did give the Land of Caanan to the Jewish people. The Jews were taken from that land because they weakened themselves by turning away from God, but the land (spiritually) still belonged to them.

Jews have lived in the land for thousands of years, but the Jewish people were able to re-establish the state of Istael, miraculously in 1948.

To the extent the Jews don't control the land God gave them, it is because they given parts of it away to buy peace with their neighbors.

I'm sorry I don't see the contradiction here either.

I don’t believe G-d’s “everlasting covenant” was replaced with the New Testament. Christians believe that. That’s why I pointed out the contradiction between G-d’s covenant with Jews versus the New Testament. The New Testament is a farce.

 

[ding]

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

I need a little more information.

The "contradiction" appears to arise from your belief that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant.

Why do you believe that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant?

The Abrahamic covenant established the Jewish people as God's people.

The covenant Jesus made with the apostles, at the last supper, established a new form of relationship between God and believers both Jewish and gentile, but it did not render God 's promise to the Jewish people null and void.

Through my belief in Jesus, I can come boldly before God's throne of grace.

Still, my direct relationship to God does not mean that the Jews are no longer God's people.

If the Jews are no longer God's chosen people then what is the purpose of period of time when God will reconnect with his chosen people immediately after the rupture, in the book of Revelation?

Secondly, God did give the Land of Caanan to the Jewish people. The Jews were taken from that land because they weakened themselves by turning away from God, but the land (spiritually) still belonged to them.

Jews have lived in the land for thousands of years, but the Jewish people were able to re-establish the state of Istael, miraculously in 1948.

To the extent the Jews don't control the land God gave them, it is because they given parts of it away to buy peace with their neighbors.

I'm sorry I don't see the contradiction here either.

I agree with this mostly.

What is it that you believe they were chosen for?

 

[MedfordMan]

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

I need a little more information.

The "contradiction" appears to arise from your belief that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant.

Why do you believe that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant?

The Abrahamic covenant established the Jewish people as God's people.

The covenant Jesus made with the apostles, at the last supper, established a new form of relationship between God and believers both Jewish and gentile, but it did not render God 's promise to the Jewish people null and void.

Through my belief in Jesus, I can come boldly before God's throne of grace.

Still, my direct relationship to God does not mean that the Jews are no longer God's people.

If the Jews are no longer God's chosen people then what is the purpose of period of time when God will reconnect with his chosen people immediately after the rupture, in the book of Revelation?

Secondly, God did give the Land of Caanan to the Jewish people. The Jews were taken from that land because they weakened themselves by turning away from God, but the land (spiritually) still belonged to them.

Jews have lived in the land for thousands of years, but the Jewish people were able to re-establish the state of Istael, miraculously in 1948.

To the extent the Jews don't control the land God gave them, it is because they given parts of it away to buy peace with their neighbors.

I'm sorry I don't see the contradiction here either.

I don’t believe G-d’s “everlasting covenant” was replaced with the New Testament. Christians believe that. That’s why I pointed out the contradiction between G-d’s covenant with Jews versus the New Testament.

See below

 

[MedfordMan]

I'm old and my tablet has a mind of its own.

this didn't post correctly (I must have hit quote instead of reply), so I am reposting it.

All Christians believe that the covenant Jesus made with the disciples at the last supper applies to all Christian believers.

Most Christians believe that the Jewish people have access to this covenant, but embracing it would mark their conversion from Jew to Christian.

A few Christians believe that this covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant making Christians, not Jews, God's chosen people.

This erroneous view is called replacement theology.

Replacement theology is not internally consistent with the scriptures, so I and most Christians do not believe in it.

 

[hobelim]

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

I need a little more information.

The "contradiction" appears to arise from your belief that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant.

Why do you believe that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant?

The Abrahamic covenant established the Jewish people as God's people.

The covenant Jesus made with the apostles, at the last supper, established a new form of relationship between God and believers both Jewish and gentile, but it did not render God 's promise to the Jewish people null and void.

Through my belief in Jesus, I can come boldly before God's throne of grace.

Still, my direct relationship to God does not mean that the Jews are no longer God's people.

If the Jews are no longer God's chosen people then what is the purpose of period of time when God will reconnect with his chosen people immediately after the rupture, in the book of Revelation?

Secondly, God did give the Land of Caanan to the Jewish people. The Jews were taken from that land because they weakened themselves by turning away from God, but the land (spiritually) still belonged to them.

Jews have lived in the land for thousands of years, but the Jewish people were able to re-establish the state of Istael, miraculously in 1948.

To the extent the Jews don't control the land God gave them, it is because they given parts of it away to buy peace with their neighbors.

I'm sorry I don't see the contradiction here either.

I don’t believe G-d’s “everlasting covenant” was replaced with the New Testament. Christians believe that. That’s why I pointed out the contradiction between G-d’s covenant with Jews versus the New Testament. The New Testament is a farce.

Moses said that the people would turn aside from the way he taught to follow the law after he died. They rebelled against him while he was living according to your own book. That was a very long time ago.

Jesus did not make any new covenant. He taught people how to understand and conform to the laws demands that had been lost to time ever since Moses died.

The only thing that became obsolete after the revelation of Jesus came into the world was the wrong way to follow the law. The law was renewed, not replaced.

 

[Faun]

I'm old and my tablet has a mind of its own.

this didn't post correctly (I must have hit quote instead of reply), so I am reposting it.

All Christians believe that the covenant Jesus made with the disciples at the last supper applies to all Christian believers.

Most Christians believe that the Jewish people have access to this covenant, but embracing it would mark their conversion from Jew to Christian.

A few Christians believe that this covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant making Christians, not Jews, God's chosen people.

This erroneous view is called replacement theology.

Replacement theology is not internally consistent with the scriptures, so I and most Christians do not believe in it.

I’ve yet to meet a Christian who believes a Jew will get into Heaven unless they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

 

[Faun]

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

I need a little more information.

The "contradiction" appears to arise from your belief that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant.

Why do you believe that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant?

The Abrahamic covenant established the Jewish people as God's people.

The covenant Jesus made with the apostles, at the last supper, established a new form of relationship between God and believers both Jewish and gentile, but it did not render God 's promise to the Jewish people null and void.

Through my belief in Jesus, I can come boldly before God's throne of grace.

Still, my direct relationship to God does not mean that the Jews are no longer God's people.

If the Jews are no longer God's chosen people then what is the purpose of period of time when God will reconnect with his chosen people immediately after the rupture, in the book of Revelation?

Secondly, God did give the Land of Caanan to the Jewish people. The Jews were taken from that land because they weakened themselves by turning away from God, but the land (spiritually) still belonged to them.

Jews have lived in the land for thousands of years, but the Jewish people were able to re-establish the state of Istael, miraculously in 1948.

To the extent the Jews don't control the land God gave them, it is because they given parts of it away to buy peace with their neighbors.

I'm sorry I don't see the contradiction here either.

I don’t believe G-d’s “everlasting covenant” was replaced with the New Testament. Christians believe that. That’s why I pointed out the contradiction between G-d’s covenant with Jews versus the New Testament. The New Testament is a farce.

Moses said that the people would turn aside from the way he taught to follow the law after he died. They rebelled against him while he was living according to your own book. That was a very long time ago.

Jesus did not make any new covenant. He taught people how to understand and conform to the laws demands that had been lost to time ever since Moses died.

The only thing that became obsolete after the revelation of Jesus came into the world was the wrong way to follow the law. The law was renewed, not replaced.

Have someone explain the meaning of “everlasting” to ya.

 

[Faun]

Jesus did not make any new covenant.

Nonsense.

Luke 22:20, NIV. "In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you."

 

[hobelim]

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

I need a little more information.

The "contradiction" appears to arise from your belief that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant.

Why do you believe that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant?

The Abrahamic covenant established the Jewish people as God's people.

The covenant Jesus made with the apostles, at the last supper, established a new form of relationship between God and believers both Jewish and gentile, but it did not render God 's promise to the Jewish people null and void.

Through my belief in Jesus, I can come boldly before God's throne of grace.

Still, my direct relationship to God does not mean that the Jews are no longer God's people.

If the Jews are no longer God's chosen people then what is the purpose of period of time when God will reconnect with his chosen people immediately after the rupture, in the book of Revelation?

Secondly, God did give the Land of Caanan to the Jewish people. The Jews were taken from that land because they weakened themselves by turning away from God, but the land (spiritually) still belonged to them.

Jews have lived in the land for thousands of years, but the Jewish people were able to re-establish the state of Istael, miraculously in 1948.

To the extent the Jews don't control the land God gave them, it is because they given parts of it away to buy peace with their neighbors.

I'm sorry I don't see the contradiction here either.

I don’t believe G-d’s “everlasting covenant” was replaced with the New Testament. Christians believe that. That’s why I pointed out the contradiction between G-d’s covenant with Jews versus the New Testament. The New Testament is a farce.

Moses said that the people would turn aside from the way he taught to follow the law after he died. They rebelled against him while he was living according to your own book. That was a very long time ago.

Jesus did not make any new covenant. He taught people how to understand and conform to the laws demands that had been lost to time ever since Moses died.

The only thing that became obsolete after the revelation of Jesus came into the world was the wrong way to follow the law. The law was renewed, not replaced.

Have someone explain the meaning of “everlasting” to ya.

Everlasting is just that. Everlasting. A choice between life and death.

If the people turned aside from the way that Moses taught to follow the law that fulfills the promise of everlasting life then doing something else or not doing anything at all will always fulfill the promise of death.

If you do not fulfill the laws demands you cannot have the life promised for compliance to the law in you.

If you read kosher law make great errors in your speculations and come to the belief that you have to be concerned about your diet when in fact the hidden subject of the instruction is to stand guard over the purity of your own mind by distinguishing between the clean or unclean teaching of one lower beast or another, a not so subtle derogatory reference to other types of people in the world, then you will be under the everlasting condemnation of God even if you never ate a pork chop in your entire life.

Thats how the burden of the law, death, was removed by Jesus by him revealing the figurative language and hidden subjects in the law.

 

[hobelim]

Jesus did not make any new covenant.

Nonsense.

Luke 22:20, NIV. "In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you."

"I have not come to bring peace but a sword" (Jesus H. Christ)


"Take from my hand this cup of fiery wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them." Jeremiah 25:15 NEB

"From his mouth there went a sharp sword with which to smite the nations" Revelation 19:15

"Take this cup of wine and drink it, all of you. This is a cup of my blood, the blood of the covenant."

"Just art thou, in these thy judgments, thou Holy One who art and wast; for they shed the blood of thy people and of thy prophets and thou hast given them blood to drink." revelation 16:6

 

[RodISHI]

In another thread a poster wrote, "but there are way too many contradictions to take it (the Bible) literally and even the figurative passages are too wide ranging (I read inconsistent) as to preclude a coherent philosophy."

Needless to say I disagree with what was said above, so I've started this thread to clear up confusion about the Bible and address this widespread, but unfounded claim.

This is not my idea. In the prior thread I had said my piece and had left the thread, but the Holy Spirit has been after me to respond, so I am doing so.

The disclaimer:

I am one guy, who has a very busy full time job and a family. I will try to answer any honest question, but I will focus on large issues that make a border point in the interpretation of many similar verses.

If you have a personal question, which you don't feel comfortable asking on the forum, I have set up a personal e-mail of [email protected] for this purpose. If you think I'm an idiot or don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to leave the thread. I don't need your angry e-mails on the personal e-mail, but I will pray for you personally before I delete them.

The ground rules:

If you have a scripture that you feel represents a contradiction, post the whole chapter (all the verses in that chapter) so we can see the context of the verse.

Please also do the same with the verse you claim it contradicts.

I'll post the contextual verses in my response.

I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible verses from the Blue Letter Bible and you can do so too for free.

I prefer the King James version, post your verses from that translation.

I will only comment on verses found in the (non Catholic) Bible. I will not comment or address scripture from the Apocrypha, the Gnostic bible, the Talmud or Mishna, the book of Morman and other texts or Gospels some are claiming should be part of or which some claim were part of some version of the Bible, at one time.

I'm not interested in a cut and paste of articles or other posts on this subject. If your not willing to do the work yourself, this thread isn't for you.

The purpose:

The purpose of this thread is not to prove that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible (spoiler alert - there are)

OR

that there aren't figurative passages or concepts that are difficult to understand.

The purpose is to show that the Bible is consistent when read in the proper context and that you don't have to have a PHD in religion to read and understand it.

People say it’s wrong to be gay but I read that two women could be laying in bed grinding and one would go to heaven and the other not. So being gay won’t send you to hell as long as you believe. The one who believed went to heaven the one who didn’t didnt go to heaven.

This isn't a biblical contradiction, but a misunderstanding of the meaning of the text.

In this story, the two women are grinding at a mill, which is not a sexual act.

You've got the wrong (too modern) definition of "grinding".

Feel free to google, "grinding at a mill."

Two grinding at the mill is telling you that you have two portions in you. The flesh portion and the son portion. The flesh returns to dust and the spirit of the son within is taken or kept. new wine skins being new containers for the spirit of you the son of God (being that portion created in the image of the only begotten son). Its really a very simple concept.

Nonsense. It means that when Jesus comes back and starts yapping again, where there are any two people standing around or working together and hear of it, "one will be taken, the other will be left behind," just means that one will understand, the other will not, exactly like the first time.

Its about the parting of the sheep from the goats.

Can't handle the truth or understand some things can you. It means that son of perdition/ beastly portion in you gets left behind.

 

[badger2]

OP's problematic rules begin with the first one, because claiming to represent what context is, OP will define its boundaries by chapters thus taking out of context of the entire bible, precisely that chapter, because if there is a contradictory verse, it may be in another chapter, thus forcing the prisoner to post (that [italics]) entire chapter so as to not take the verse out of context, ad infinitum. Nuts. OP's rules contradiction is evidence of an addiction, an addiction to the mechanism of the disjunctive syllogism.

 

[Faun]

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

Sure.... Genesis 17 versus the New Testament.

In Genesis 17, the Bible states G-d made an ”everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his descendants. Including an “everlasting possession” of all the land of Canaan.

But then the New Testament is about a new covenant, replacing the old one. And of course, Abraham’s descendants lost Canaan, regaining only some of it after some 1900 years.

I need a little more information.

The "contradiction" appears to arise from your belief that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant.

Why do you believe that the new covenant replaced the Abrahamic covenant?

The Abrahamic covenant established the Jewish people as God's people.

The covenant Jesus made with the apostles, at the last supper, established a new form of relationship between God and believers both Jewish and gentile, but it did not render God 's promise to the Jewish people null and void.

Through my belief in Jesus, I can come boldly before God's throne of grace.

Still, my direct relationship to God does not mean that the Jews are no longer God's people.

If the Jews are no longer God's chosen people then what is the purpose of period of time when God will reconnect with his chosen people immediately after the rupture, in the book of Revelation?

Secondly, God did give the Land of Caanan to the Jewish people. The Jews were taken from that land because they weakened themselves by turning away from God, but the land (spiritually) still belonged to them.

Jews have lived in the land for thousands of years, but the Jewish people were able to re-establish the state of Istael, miraculously in 1948.

To the extent the Jews don't control the land God gave them, it is because they given parts of it away to buy peace with their neighbors.

I'm sorry I don't see the contradiction here either.

I don’t believe G-d’s “everlasting covenant” was replaced with the New Testament. Christians believe that. That’s why I pointed out the contradiction between G-d’s covenant with Jews versus the New Testament. The New Testament is a farce.

Moses said that the people would turn aside from the way he taught to follow the law after he died. They rebelled against him while he was living according to your own book. That was a very long time ago.

Jesus did not make any new covenant. He taught people how to understand and conform to the laws demands that had been lost to time ever since Moses died.

The only thing that became obsolete after the revelation of Jesus came into the world was the wrong way to follow the law. The law was renewed, not replaced.

Have someone explain the meaning of “everlasting” to ya.

Everlasting is just that. Everlasting. A choice between life and death.

If the people turned aside from the way that Moses taught to follow the law that fulfills the promise of everlasting life then doing something else or not doing anything at all will always fulfill the promise of death.

If you do not fulfill the laws demands you cannot have the life promised for compliance to the law in you.

If you read kosher law make great errors in your speculations and come to the belief that you have to be concerned about your diet when in fact the hidden subject of the instruction is to stand guard over the purity of your own mind by distinguishing between the clean or unclean teaching of one lower beast or another, a not so subtle derogatory reference to other types of people in the world, then you will be under the everlasting condemnation of God even if you never ate a pork chop in your entire life.

Thats how the burden of the law, death, was removed by Jesus by him revealing the figurative language and hidden subjects in the law.

The everlasting covenant offered by G-d came long before Moses and had only one requirement .... that males be circumcised.

 

[Faun]

Jesus did not make any new covenant.

Nonsense.

Luke 22:20, NIV. "In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you."

"I have not come to bring peace but a sword" (Jesus H. Christ)


"Take from my hand this cup of fiery wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them." Jeremiah 25:15 NEB

"From his mouth there went a sharp sword with which to smite the nations" Revelation 19:15

"Take this cup of wine and drink it, all of you. This is a cup of my blood, the blood of the covenant."

"Just art thou, in these thy judgments, thou Holy One who art and wast; for they shed the blood of thy people and of thy prophets and thou hast given them blood to drink." revelation 16:6

I'm not sure what you think those prove? Jesus still said his blood pouring is a "new covenant."

 

[Marion Morrison]

Welcome usfan.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Jesus did not make any new covenant.

Nonsense.

Luke 22:20, NIV. "In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you."

"I have not come to bring peace but a sword" (Jesus H. Christ)


"Take from my hand this cup of fiery wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them." Jeremiah 25:15 NEB

"From his mouth there went a sharp sword with which to smite the nations" Revelation 19:15

"Take this cup of wine and drink it, all of you. This is a cup of my blood, the blood of the covenant."

"Just art thou, in these thy judgments, thou Holy One who art and wast; for they shed the blood of thy people and of thy prophets and thou hast given them blood to drink." revelation 16:6

I'm not sure what you think those prove? Jesus still said his blood pouring is a "new covenant."

And it is. Something that is not widely known: When the soldier stuck the spear in Jesus's side, and the ground and temple curtain was torn in two, the ground split so Jesus's blood could drip onto to the Ark of the Covenant and complete God's sacrifice to man. The ark was stashed there in caves underneath Golgotha a century or 2 prior. No one knew why, but that's how it was.