(May 12, 2011 at 4:59 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Or, if you go back to the original Aramaic, there were two definitions of the number 300. One means just 300, and the other means 300 plus 500 more. It's obvious which definition they used here.

AND since all bibles are sold with volumes of ancient hebrew greek and aramaic translations - these "suttle" differences are easily spotted and explained.

(May 12, 2011 at 4:59 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Or, if you go back to the original Aramaic, there were two definitions of the number 300. One means just 300, and the other means 300 plus 500 more. It's obvious which definition they used here.

Don't you ever wonder why the experts who do the translations never seem to know as much as ignorant fundies about what ancient languages mean? It kind of bucks the odds, no?

I wasn't aware we were disagreeing Fr0ds.

Do I think God rested. Yes, do I think it was a sleepy, I'm tired rest no. That's the connotation that is being put on it from the atheist side. Rest could also simply mean "to be at ease; have tranquillity or peace." (from the dictionary) Which is what I think the Lord was doing.

Jesus used many parables and lots of imagery and told us to view death as rest (noun not verb) like "refreshing ease or inactivity after exertion or labor". I think that ties beautifully in with the Hebrew tradition of Sabbath and using it to both rest from a long week and reflect on God's creation and gain some tranquility and peace from the world we live in.

Isaiah was talking about the noun version of it.. does God ever sleep, no I don't think an omnipresent deity would sleep, doesn't logically make sense. So I agree with both and see no contradiction, no do I see where we are in disagreement.

(May 9, 2011 at 1:12 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

(May 9, 2011 at 3:19 am)Hunted By A Freak Wrote: The Hebrew word used for "kill" is ratsach, which refers more to the act of murder.

There's a significant difference in the meaning of these two words/passages. One passage refers to the act of killing in battle, while the other prohibits the shedding of innocent blood. This is no different than asking a Marine not to murder anyone, yet asking him to kill in battle, there is no contradiction.

Skeptics consistently refer to the KJV in demonstrating some of these points. The KJV doesn't always select the most appropriate word for conveying the meaning of a passage. I don't think I've ever seen an example were the KJV wasn't the primary source of reference, though I'm sure there are some.

Another reason for these apparent contradictions is the limited number of words/letters used in the Hebrew language. A significant part of translating Hebrew words is based on context, like the two passages used above. It's clear on context alone what is being stated and this again is easily demonstrated in are own modern day vernacular.

"I'm going to kill my daughters boyfriend if he doesn't bring her home before midnight!"

They tell us that "the bible is the perfect word of god", then when we start pointing out contradictions we are told "That is a translation error..the original language..blah blah blah.."

I stop it right then and there. If someone needs to understand the original languages, then 99.999% of the believers are believing their religion off of a faulty manuscript. I rest my case. thanks for agreeing with me that this book is faulty.

Any other faults...er..."mistranslations" that I need to be aware of?

So why all these contradictions in scripture if the bible is indeed the Word of God? For one thing men wrote the bible being inspired by the Holy Spirit, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." These men had varying perspectives and motivations for writing what they did, but it was all based on how God moved them to write. Why would one expect the same cookie cutter responses when comparing similar events, particularly in the Gospels. That would be collusion and would show the scriptures to be false.

So why four Gospel messages? The reason being is that it's the most important message found in the bible, so it's stated four times. It's like a Hebrew idiom. Instead of saying "it's very cold outside", in Hebrew one would say "it's cold cold outside." Jewish writers use these idioms to convey the importance of a subject. An example found in scripture would be, "Truly truly I say to you" or "Holy holy holy is the Lord God Almighty". The more the word is repeated the more important it becomes. Why four Gospels? Because it's message is of the upmost importance.

If the Gospels have all these apparent contradictions, then why does each one convey a different aspect of Jesus Christ's character, while telling the same Gospel message found way back in Genesis? It'd be great if someone could answer that question. The only explanation is that the Gospel writers were inspired. One God, One Mind, One Author.

Quote:The only explanation is that the Gospel writers were inspired. One God, One Mind, One Author.

Bullshit.

They were written by different authors, directed at different audiences and conveying different interpretations of mythology.

(May 13, 2011 at 12:44 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:The only explanation is that the Gospel writers were inspired. One God, One Mind, One Author.

Bullshit.

They were written by different authors, directed at different audiences and conveying different interpretations of mythology.

Cowdung.

They were written by different authors, directed at different audiences and conveying different interpretations of Christology. Ah damn were so close to agreeing on all points, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Yeah and I'm still disagreeing Tack What I think is actually being said, trying to get the original meaning rather than understand the translation, is that this is like a manager starting a company, and then sitting at the helm running it when it's up and running. That's what sabbath is too. Never a day off/ a day to do nothing, more a day to run the show rather than build it. You build the computer, set it up, then get on with the task of using it for what it was intended.

Rests = sabat : ceasing

Rest = engagement of normal activities.

In Genesis this is the culmination of God setting up his temple, and then taking his place at the controls. Otherwise we have a deist scenario where God makes everything and then leaves it alone, which is theologically problematic.

(May 12, 2011 at 3:41 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: OK then, what about simple contradictions like this one?

How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?

2 Samuel 23:8
These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

1 Chronicles 11:11
And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.

So what was it, 800 or 300? I know a simple numerical error doesn't really amount to much, but if you claim there are no contradictions whatsoever in the bible, how are you going to spin this one?

I know, let me guess... they're not contradictory, because one verse is just expanding on the other, right? 1 Chronicles says that 300 men were killed, and the 2 Samuel is just expanding on that by mentioning those, plus 500 others that Chronicles didn't mention, correct?

It could be both, the two stories could be separate occasions, in the older manuscripts of Greek and Hebrew Adino the Eznite could be a different person from Jashobeam, also there's no real agreement on a Hacmonite and a Tachmonite being considered the same people. Just giving other explanations without playing with the numbers.

@Fr0ds- Coudln't the culmination of all your fervent computer building ending in it's use be a time of tranquility ad peace at a job well done?

Yes I think that's part of it Tack.