|
Post by Superhappyjen on Jul 16, 2007 11:46:44 GMT -5
Just thought I'd jump in here. As someone who has worked for a magazine as a writer and a fact-checker, I can tell you that even APPARENT contradictions within a story cannot be tolerated. Certainly, apparent contradictions within a story, as you say, cannot be tolerated. However, that isn't what I'm talking about here. I'm referring to apparent contradictions that come to light after reading 4 entirely separate accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). It would be like an event reported in USA Today, the New York Times, and Democrat and Chronicle. Apparent contradictions can occur when more than one source reports an event. Again, I need to stress here that the resurrection of Christ is reported in 4 different accounts, not a single publication, and that is when the apparent contradictions surface. Okay, fair enough. But if you read the lists of contradictions in the first post you'll find that f,g,h,i, and m, are all examples of contradictions within the same publication.
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jul 16, 2007 12:48:04 GMT -5
Okay, fair enough. But if you read the lists of contradictions in the first post you'll find that f,g,h,i, and m, are all examples of contradictions within the same publication. You are referring to snafui's first list of contradictions, which I did not attempt to address. The other list (4th post in this thread), the one with apparent contradictions in the four gospels, was the one that we have been discussing. I do see your point though. By the way, thanks for your input.
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Jul 31, 2007 23:15:56 GMT -5
There is nothing "apparent" about them... they are contradictions. You have offered no evidence to support your claim of multiple groups of women. The fact is these are suppose to be inspired by God and if God cannot keep "apparent" contradictions out of "His" Bible then it is obviously in error... over and over and over again.
Adding to the Bible is no way to show that it is inerrant, period.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Aug 3, 2007 22:28:58 GMT -5
Gorillasaint
It is apparent that you do not understand Evolution or you would not be saying that we believe that we all just came to be. All we are are a collection of atoms that come together under Genetic Structure that has been pieced together over a few billion years through evolution. Again as I am sure some one has addressed this to you here, Evolution dose not mean we were created from Monkeys but that we and Chimps (our nearest Cousin) have a common ancestor. This Means that we evolved from a life form and then branched out into two groups. Before you start saying that this is bull you must understand that Science has shown Huge amounts of evidence supporting this Theory, (Just as there are Huge amounts supporting the Theory of Gravity) The burden of proof and evidence is no longer upon us, our claims have been justified so far under Science. Yours on the other hand have not been justified and the burden of proof still rests on your shoulders. It was once said that to make a Strong Claim one needs Strong evidence, you and your faith based believers have shown none.
As to the bible being correct and worthy, it is simply not. One it is not correct as if you believe it in its totality, (that is to say that it is not up to interpretation, and that you take it all literally). You are in effect stating that you believe that the world is no older than at most 8 thousand years old. This is a complete false hood. If instead you believe that it is open to interpretation (albeit by those who you believe have the credentials to interpret it ) then a statement as to its legitimacy is also just as false. One the omnipotent word of a God (based upon the rules for him that you all created) could never be interpreted by man) Two they were the word of God they would need no interpretation and should be perfect for all time. Even if God said this though man it should hold that he is capable of making them perfect in order not to lie to us all right?
Lastly all those questions you directed at us ending your statement could just as easily be pointed right back at you. Also I must have missed it, where did God (Creator of the universe, holy of holy, padre et phillie et spirit du sancte) come to you and revile his existence? Oh and when also? ~^!^~Thanks~^!^~
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Aug 4, 2007 4:47:20 GMT -5
Gorillasaint Before you start saying that this is bull you must understand that Science has shown Huge amounts of evidence supporting this Theory, (Just as there are Huge amounts supporting the Theory of Gravity) The burden of proof and evidence is no longer upon us, our claims have been justified so far under Science. Yours on the other hand have not been justified and the burden of proof still rests on your shoulders. It was once said that to make a Strong Claim one needs Strong evidence, you and your faith based believers have shown none. I've taken some time lately to read and view scientific information on evolution. In doing so I came accross this passage: Christians wish to bypass this process and go from a belief in their " theory" of creation straight to professing it as fact. This will not do. I bring this up because of dragon pointing out that there are huge amounts of evidence (I think he could have stated that their are mountains of evidence!) Creationism has none! Christians not only don't have any evidence for their belief they consistently lie trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory as evidence - this is a very poor argument on their part as I have yet to see a single argument from Christians that has not been refuted. For Christians to walk in to an argument of scientific theory and argue without any science backing their claim is akin to entering a boxing match without arms.
|
|