Mr. Neil Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 This one is for the inerrancy buffoons. If you believe that everything in the Bible is true, then you got your work cut out for you. I think the Skeptic's Annotated Bible outlines this discrepency pretty well, so I'm just going to quote from them. Here [Nehemiah 7] we find the same long, boring list that is given in the second chapter of Ezra. The only interesting thing about these two lists is that they directly contradict one another. For instance, Neh.7:10 says that 652 children of Arah returned from captivity in Babylon, while Ezra 2:5 says that 775 of them returned. There are 15 similar contradictions between the two accounts. Nehemiah 7:10 The children of Arah, six hundred fifty and two. Ezra 2:5 The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five. If you think these can be harmonized, knock yourself out. I triple-dog-dare you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Ghost Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 The difference between 775 and 652 is an astonishing 123. 1 = The Father 2 = The Son 3 = Me, The Holy Ghost I see no contradiction. There is plainly a divine message there. Somewhere. I think. Keep looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpooky Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 What does that have to do with the fact that 775 is not equal to 652? If you're going to interpret problems away, that's perfectly fine. But you are only exchanging contradictions in literal Biblical interpretation for arbitrary claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MQTA Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/math.html More Math issues in the ByeBull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted October 24, 2005 Author Share Posted October 24, 2005 Yeah, those are nice, but I was particularly amused by this one. After watching Jason Gastrich attempt a harmonization, I became rather curious as to how other Christians try to resolve such an obvious discrepency. What does that have to do with the fact that 775 is not equal to 652? If you're going to interpret problems away, that's perfectly fine. But you are only exchanging contradictions in literal Biblical interpretation for arbitrary claims. I think he was kidding, Spook. At least, I hope he was kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sokudo Ningyou Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Well, we all know Muslims had the math thing down better than the Christians, who took the Special Ed class. Maybe we should ask a Muslim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Ghost Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 What does that have to do with the fact that 775 is not equal to 652? I’ve already explained it. Like I said, there is a divine truth there to be had. Seriously, I can’t make it any plainer than that. If you're going to interpret problems away, that's perfectly fine. But you are only exchanging contradictions in literal Biblical interpretation for arbitrary claims. Look, buddy, I didn’t ask for this job, but it’s mine nonetheless. I am The Holy Ghost, and God Myself has put me in charge of indwelling the believers and helping them to come up with new and exciting ways to interpret scripture regardless of how literal or arbitrary the explanations may be. We gotta keep the Word alive you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Ghost Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 I think he was kidding, Spook. Thinking is good. At least, I hope he was kidding. Now we're getting somewhere! 'Hope' is one of my fruits you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_1012 Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Thinking is good. Now we're getting somewhere! 'Hope' is one of my fruits you know. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You know, Ghost, even in the Lion's Den... having two accounts can get you banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Ghost Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 You know, Ghost, even in the Lion's Den... having two accounts can get you banned. Would be a strange practice indeed, considering that even unregistered humans can post in here. Why not give it a shot at addressing Mr. Neil's post, daniel_1012. Come on, let's see what we can do. I'll help you out in much the same way as I help all true believers to discern the truth. Just start typing, and I'll do the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Ghost Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 You know, Ghost, even in the Lion's Den... having two accounts can get you banned. Daniel_1012, it would be wise of you to thoroughly read the forum rules before we post any further. From our level of comprehension, which is much greater then yours, it would seem to us that you are in danger of being banned more than someone who choses to have multiple accounts. Take heed of this Wisdom, my child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_1012 Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Daniel_1012, it would be wise of you to thoroughly read the forum rules before we post any further. From our level of comprehension, which is much greater then yours, it would seem to us that you are in danger of being banned more than someone who choses to have multiple accounts. Take heed of this Wisdom, my child. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh yeah... because if you aren't an atheist, agnostic, or somehow otherwise one who opposes Christianity quite adamently... you're in danger of being banned for no other appearent reason. I haven't done anything wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_1012 Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Would be a strange practice indeed, considering that even unregistered humans can post in here. Why not give it a shot at addressing Mr. Neil's post, daniel_1012. Come on, let's see what we can do. I'll help you out in much the same way as I help all true believers to discern the truth. Just start typing, and I'll do the rest. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why should I respond to Neil's post? He didn't direct it to me. I've already given my opinion of the Bible, and though I believe it is very much the God's written Word... it is inescapably written by men. I know there are Christians who believe it is infallible... but I believe it is fallible, but God's gift of salvation in Christ is not fallible. I do not worry over minor inaccuracies in transcriptions. Especially when most of the time there are very many very good explainations to most of the so called contridictions... I don't believe we will find it without error in cases like these. Actually, it gives me hope... because even I can make a mistake. However... when a man is transcribing, "Jesus Christ rose from the dead," that's a little different than, and harder to mistake then saying, "2381 sons" of some tribe voyaged out of egypt, of many many different tribes of similar numbers. I wouldn't even care if they rounded. As I currently believe, it is as it is... written by men who knew God and loved Him, who knew Christ as their savior. If all the Bible said was, "God will judge the world, these are His commandments... God sent Jesus Christ, who died for the sins of the world in our stead... because the wages of sin is death," I think that would be Bible enough to save many men. However, as it is... it is quite beneficial to have so many of the things Jesus said while He was on earth recorded, and I am very thankful to have it. Some number of guys of some tribe coming out of a gate... perhaps it is just a recording error, and it is interesting to me as well. Even without a Bible, a missionary can preach the gospel, and men can/will be saved by faith, and faith in hearing the Word of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted October 24, 2005 Author Share Posted October 24, 2005 Why should I respond to Neil's post? He didn't direct it to me.But you are responding to it. You're just choosing not to follow the topic. Now, are you going to hijack my thread? Don't do that, Daniel. I'm a bitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixoverme Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Even without a Bible, a missionary can preach the gospel, and men can/will be saved by faith, and faith in hearing the Word of God. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thats just too funny.. ...hell...i dont even know what to say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgaris Prime Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Oh yeah... because if you aren't an atheist, agnostic, or somehow otherwise one who opposes Christianity quite adamently... you're in danger of being banned for no other appearent reason. I haven't done anything wrong. Except that's a load of shit and you know it, you whiny dodging liar. Usotsuki! Usotsuki! Zuban no kaji!* ¡Mentiroso! ¡Mentiroso! ¡Pantalones en fuego!* Menteur! Menteur! Pantalon en feu!* (*Roughly translated, these all mean "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 So anyway, anyone else care to take a shot at the thread's challenge? Danny apparently has taken the tack of 'it doesn't matter'. I say apparently because I have Danny Boy on 'Ignore', and I guessed his response from the rest of the thread. The answer to the OP is, of course, obvious to any child. Someone made a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad_Gerbil Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 So anyway, anyone else care to take a shot at the thread's challenge? Danny apparently has taken the tack of 'it doesn't matter'. I say apparently because I have Danny Boy on 'Ignore', and I guessed his response from the rest of the thread. The answer to the OP is, of course, obvious to any child. Someone made a mistake. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I've not looked into what any experts have said on the topic. I'd guess the following: 1: Scribal Error 2: Counts occurred at different points in the return. 3: Different family members were included in one count but not another, perhaps based on age or something. Again, I don't know for sure either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 I find it kind of humorous, and I roll my eyes when uninformed christians start talking about "eyewitness" accounts. Especially Matthew. If Matthew was an eyewitness, he sure relied on Mark an awful lot. Out of the 661 verses in Mark, 607 of them show up in Matthew. And what is really funny is all of the mistakes that Mark makes that have to be corrected or eliminated by Matthew: Mark 7:10 vs. Matthew 15:4. Mark says "Moses said, honor your father and your mother". Any respectable jew would have attributed the saying to God. As Matthew does in 15:4. Mark 5:22 talks about "one of the rulers of the synagogue". Matthew drops the phrase in 9:18, since Palestinian Synagogues had only one ruler. Mark 14:13 says "when you meet a man carrying a pitcher of water". Matthew leaves this out, because jewish men did not do women's work. Mark 15:42 - Mark's account makes it apparent that he didn't know that the jewish day began at evening. Matthew has to correct this in chapter 27. The NIV deceptively changes the wording in Mark, to hide the error. They say "as evening approached" instead of "when evening had come" Mark 15:46 has Joseph of Arimathea buying a linen cloth on the sabbath. Buying or selling anything was prohibited on the sabbath. Mark wrongly ascribes Malachi 3:1 to Isaiah. Matthew 3:3 fixes the error. Mark 2:7 "who can forgive sins but God alone"? Jews didn't think that. Jews did believe that God could give man authority to forgive sins. Matthew 9:3 leaves this mistake out of his account. Mark 2:26 Mistakenly talks about "Abiathar" the high priest. Matthew leaves this mistake out in his account. Mark 10:19 misquotes the 10 commandments. Matthew 19:18-20 fixes it. Mark 10:12 talks about women divorcing their husbands. Not possible at that time. Mark 6:48 talks about the "fourth watch of the night". Jews only had three watches of the night. So much for biblical innerancy and eyewitness accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixoverme Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 mythra...great post...where do you get your info? id love to read more on the subject...oh and for anyone who cares...jimmy swaggart and crew are still alive and well on the radio these days...i try and listen on my lunch break...today they were proclaiming the asinine(sp?) doctrine that the original manuscripts were innerrant...and i would like to say to them...PROVE IT!!! PULL AN ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT OUT OF YOUR ASS AND SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" by Robert Price. A book I highly recommend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MQTA Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 http://www.christianforums.com/t2246128-do...ml#post19426290 I posted this for the GA experts. Will let you know if anyone has an answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 That will be interesting to see. Of course, they will do their usual apologetic jumping-jacks. Presenting arguments that skirt the issue, without ever having to truly internalize the discrepancies in their life manual. Anything to prevent a crack from forming in the foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MQTA Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 or it'll be deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pug Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 or it'll be deleted <{POST_SNAPBACK}> or ignored Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts