Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

You're real big on this 'assertion' thing aren't you. Everybody else is guilty of making baseless assertions while you yourself are the poster-child for finger pointing and blatant hypocrisy.

The fact that you think others are guilty of also being irrational is not proper justification for your own irrationality.

I was a faithful member of a fundamental Baptist church for 18 years. I attended Bob Jones University for 2 years and I was instructed and tutored in Evangelism for one year.

And?

You yourself make the baseless assertion that I don't even have a basic working knowledge of Biblical theology.

It’s not a baseless assertion at all, it is quite strongly supported by the fact that you misrepresent what Christians believe and what the Bible teaches whenever the opportunity presents itself, so either you do not know what you are talking about or you are intentionally distorting your opponent’s position. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed it was the former.

Yes, but supposedly your god is not fallible and yet he can't seem to overcome the abundant typos and miss-translations.

You just proved my point above! Here you are, claiming that you’re some sort of expert on Christian doctrine and Holy Scripture, and yet you completely misrepresent and distort the Christian doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. The doctrine does not teach that the future translations of scripture are inerrant, but that the original inspired texts are. Perhaps you skipped class the day they covered Biblical inerrancy at Bob Jones University?

I studied this horse shit for well-over three decades and the plain truth is, one has to close his eyes and ears, and fight to accept the stupidity that is the Bible.

That just proves that studying doesn’t always lead to learning.

As for that ridiculous remark about me being rude (from the rudest people on these forums): I'll try being nicer if you try being smarter.

You’re the only person who claims that I am rude on this forum, so I am just thinking you’re a very sensitive person.

Typical of your type, Waldork. One xtian asshole gets something wrong and you have your lips surgically attached to his ass because he was one of you.

Wrong, Martyr and Luke both support this fact, and they are both historical sources from that time period. You never bothered to even reference your sources so for all I know you’re getting your information from the movie Gladiator, I’ll take the word of the historical figures on this one over yours. I also find it rather amusing that you object to using Christian sources but you seem to have no problem using anti-Christen sources, a little bit of special pleading sprinkled on top.

But you are just an asshole and hardly worth bothering about. For the atheist types... and other intelligent people here then...

Calling me names does nothing to support your position.

What Waldork knows about is xtian fairy tales. He doesn't know shit about the Roman colonial administrative system...and neither did that fuckhead Justin. In fact, the first praefect of Judaea was a man named Coponius. Coponius reported to Quirinius, the Imperial Legate in Syria. But I understand that Waldork doesn't want facts. Facts fuck up his fairy tales. So he can just shove jesus up his ass and leave the adults to discuss things he doesn't understand.

Again you conveniently reference no sources. It’s quite amusing that you assert that someone of Roman descent and who lived in 2nd Century Rome knew less about the Roman system than you do living nearly 2,000 years later. That’s cute. Quirinius was a procurator in Judea before he was Governor of Syria, we know this. You were just blowing smoke, and I called you out on it, time to move along.

Perhaps Rube Goldberg is more credit than it deserves. It hardly just different battles. It is the more recent writing did not know of the older writing OR if divinely inspired that the confusion over the two was desired.

How do you know they’re the same battle? Additionally, are you really trying to suggest that someone can kill 800 men but not have killed 300 men? That’s absurd. It’s not a contradiction, find something else.

For me, contradictions are one of the clearest reasons to consider the stories were originally considered some sort of fiction as those who were around when they were written could clearly see the same contradictions and did not even comment them nor attempt to correct them. The entire believer approach appears to be that it was only in the 19th c. people got smart enough to notice the contradictions.

What contradictions? To date you haven’t been able to present a single internal logical contradiction. You’re going to have to do better than merely asserting these alleged contradictions really exist. Find “’A’ and ‘Not A’ at the same time and in the same relationship” in Holy Scripture. You cannot do it.

When you have the equations which predict human behavior into the future we can apply them and see what people will do in the future.

You’re not getting off that easy; you asserted that you do not deal with the future because it is hypothetical. Now you are asserting you do not deal with the future only when it applies to human behavior. Which is it?

do you have any idea how ridiculous it sounds that you have to dig so deep to try and defend a book that is so illogical and contradictory?

You should look up the term logical contradiction, it’s obvious it doesn’t mean what you think it means.