A Real and Significant Biblical Contradiction?

[Cato]

I try to be polite; however, I have grown tired of this Biblical self-contradictory conversation. Why should anyone care if The Bible is self-contradicotry when it violates laws of nature and rapes the reasoning mind of man?

Spockrates, God lied when he gave Moses the cure for leprosy. Kililng one of two captured birds in an earthen vessel over running water is factually incapable of curing leprosy. You may now claim that Moses was just one of a long line of deceived prophets. Is this the inspred word of God? Or is it an example of the ignorant mindless drippings from a leader of a superstitious ignorant tribe inhabiting a small parcell of land over 2000 years ago in the Eastern Mediterranean?

[Lion IRC]

What cure for leprosy?

---

Please dont say you're talking about this...

Levitucus 14:3-4 (NIV)
“The priest is to go outside the camp and examine him. If the person has been healed of his infectious skin disease the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the one to be cleansed”


Note that the ….”if the person has BEEN healed” part comes before the ritual cleansing done - after a person has ALREADY deemed cured.

So its not the ritual which cures the leprosy.

Heres the KJV
“And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper; Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop.”

Note that the priestly sacrifice (thanks giving) and ritual cleansing AFTER the person’s leprosy had already left them, also includes washing the persons’ CLOTHES.

You understand that clothing never died of leprosy dont you?

[Cato]

What cure for leprosy?

---

Please dont say you're talking about this...

Levitucus 14:3-4 (NIV)
“The priest is to go outside the camp and examine him. If the person has been healed of his infectious skin disease the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the one to be cleansed”


Note that the ….”if the person has BEEN healed” part comes before the ritual cleansing done - after a person has ALREADY deemed cured.

So its not the ritual which cures the leprosy.

Heres the KJV
“And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper; Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop.”

Note that the priestly sacrifice (thanks giving) and ritual cleansing AFTER the person’s leprosy had already left them, also includes washing the persons’ CLOTHES.

You understand that clothing never died of leprosy dont you?

You're a fucking dolt. Instead of assuming that I have never read the Bible and endeavor to 'catch' me in some sort of ignorance...why don't you go read the entirety of Leviticus 14. For your stupid retort to have any meaning you now have to convince me that the priests must only carry out the ridiculous sacrifice for those found 'clean' of leprosy. So much for the germ theory of disease; apparently your God didn't know of this back in the day.

I understand that clothing never died of leprosy, but here's a little bit of trivia for you and your sky-cunt...nobody dies from leprosy!!!!

[spockrates]

Don't shoot the one who sent the messenger!

Actually it's "don't shoot the messenger" The implication being if you must shoot someone,shoot the author of the message,it is he who is responsible. The messenger is "only obeying orders' (aka the Nuremberg defence)

ME? I say shoot 'em both.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDRAhiBtOrQ

I was being facetious. Hence, the wink!

---

@ Spockrates, ok let's look at both situations, you have connected the verse in Ezekiel to two different verses in the NT. Both NT verses relate to God's righteousness and this is what needs to match up to the verses in Ezekiel. I thought we agreed that when the word deceived was used in this verse that God was not lying and I pointed out that God did not tempt the prophet, the prophet already had the lie in his heart, God did not put it there, God did not tempt the prophet to sin. If God had done one He would have done the other, the translations would not matter. Also God would be working against Himself if he had done either after giving Ezekiel the true prophecy. As Christ said that a house divided can not stand, so why would Christ say this in th future if God had done such a thing in the past.

Yes, we agree God is the standard for goodness, justice, mercy and wisdom. After all, if anyone can surpass him in any of these, that one deserves to claim the title of God!

We agree God does not lie, for that is what the writer of Hebrews clearly says, and we have no good reason yet to doubt him (though if the contradiction we have discovered turns out to be real, rather than apparent, we might have reason to doubt). But do we agree that all deception is immoral, sinful, or just wrong?

We agree God does not tempt anyone to sin, for that is what James says, and we don't yet have good reason to doubt his word. But do we agree that enticing someone is the same as tempting him? One might entice someone to do good, instead of evil.

We agree that the false prophet chose to begin to sin and was, perhaps self-deceived. But do we agree God did not deceive, or entice him in any way?

My guess is that we are facing a monstrous challenge. But if God is for us, what beast can prevail against us? He who did not spare his son for our sakes, will he not rescue us even now? We have nothing to fear from the truth. We have nothing to lose but our ignorance!

The beast of a hydra is strong, but God is stronger. We cut off its head of deception and it grows two heads of enticing. But God will make you a Hercules with a mighty sword of the Spirit to keep chopping off those serpent heads. I'll stand by your side with my torch, searing the bloody stumps so the heads won't grow back twice as strong to bite us. Together, with divine help, we shall prevail.

But don't turn a blind eye to the danger. Call the beast what it is--a monster of a supposed contradiction that we must take down, or die trying! Be strong and courageous, GC. For without risk, there is no need for faith! Are you with me? If so, let me know, and I'll suggest some ways to best this monstrosity of a contradiction.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh ffs, first we immerse ourselves in this ghostly fantasy and now we imagine ourselves to be demi-gods fighting a hydra.

You should both look into playing a quality MMO, it'll engage the same parts of you that the narrative is clearly appealing to without all the nasty side effects.

[spockrates]

Oh ffs, first we immerse ourselves in this ghostly fantasy and now we imagine ourselves to be demi-gods fighting a hydra.

You should both look into playing a quality MMO, it'll engage the same parts of you that the narrative is clearly appealing to without all the nasty side effects.

STAY THIRSTY, MY FRIEND!



Actually, Iolaus was Hercules' nephew, but he was not a demigod. Guess the moral of that tale is that even a superhero sometimes needs the help of a normal person. Hercules likely could not have slayed the Lernaean Hydra without the help of his friend. How d'ya like that IP?

:p

---

I can't believe that the flies are still circling this particular turd of a thread.

Beelzebub must be proud!





Now you did it! I'm craving a pulled-pork sandwich, and it's still two hours till lunch. (If only my ship would come in--I'd have Dinosaur BBQ catered every day.)

---

I try to be polite; however, I have grown tired of this Biblical self-contradictory conversation. Why should anyone care if The Bible is self-contradicotry when it violates laws of nature and rapes the reasoning mind of man?

Spockrates, God lied when he gave Moses the cure for leprosy. Kililng one of two captured birds in an earthen vessel over running water is factually incapable of curing leprosy. You may now claim that Moses was just one of a long line of deceived prophets. Is this the inspred word of God? Or is it an example of the ignorant mindless drippings from a leader of a superstitious ignorant tribe inhabiting a small parcell of land over 2000 years ago in the Eastern Mediterranean?

Thanks for your opinion, Cato. I don't find your remark impolite at all! Glad you spoke up.



Does Moses say killing a bird is a cure for leprosy, or does he say killing a bird, cooking it and eating it was a ritual to seek the forgiveness of God before asking God to cure the leprosy? But if you want to prove Moses a false prophet, there is a way to do it many Christians would find acceptable: Prove that one of his predictions of the future never came true. According to Moses, this is the litmus test to determine who is a genuine prophet and who is not.


17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.”

21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

(Deuteronomy 18)


The reasoning seems to be that only a God who is omniscient (or perhaps exists in) the future knows the future. There are many hundreds of predictions of the future made by Old Testament prophets. Nearly every ancient city within a thousand-mile radius of Jerusalem had its history predicted by these men who claimed to be God's spokespersons. All you have to do is prove one false to show the prophet who uttered it had no business saying God spoke to him.

[Lion IRC]

What cure for leprosy?

---

Please dont say you're talking about this...

Levitucus 14:3-4 (NIV)
“The priest is to go outside the camp and examine him. If the person has been healed of his infectious skin disease the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the one to be cleansed”


Note that the ….”if the person has BEEN healed” part comes before the ritual cleansing done - after a person has ALREADY deemed cured.

So its not the ritual which cures the leprosy.

Heres the KJV
“And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper; Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop.”

Note that the priestly sacrifice (thanks giving) and ritual cleansing AFTER the person’s leprosy had already left them, also includes washing the persons’ CLOTHES.

You understand that clothing never died of leprosy dont you?

You're a fucking dolt. Instead of assuming that I have never read the Bible and endeavor to 'catch' me in some sort of ignorance...why don't you go read the entirety of Leviticus 14. For your stupid retort to have any meaning you now have to convince me that the priests must only carry out the ridiculous sacrifice for those found 'clean' of leprosy. So much for the germ theory of disease; apparently your God didn't know of this back in the day.

I understand that clothing never died of leprosy, but here's a little bit of trivia for you and your sky-cunt...nobody dies from leprosy!!!!

Excuse me?

Whatever made you think I was trying to catch you in some sort of ignorance?

You seem very defensive.

Anyway, I went and read Leviticus as you instructed. Thanks.

ITS AMAZING! hock:

How did they know so much about sanitation and control of infectious disease? They didnt have microscopes.

CLEANSING OF RESIDENCE:
The house or home of the infected person needs to be cleaned thoroughly (Leviticus 14:33-53).

DWELLINGS:
Wash everything, especially to cleanse from the presence of any contagions or if a diseased person has been present (Leviticus 14:8-9).

EXPOSURE:
Wash your whole body and your clothing if you have been around anyone with a disease of a bodliy issue, discharge, or sneezing (Leviticus 15:1-12).

UTENSILS:
Wash your cooking instruments, pots, and tools after every use--and don't mix equipment used on raw meat with other foods without washing them first (Leviticus 6:28).

CONTAINMENT, ISOLATION, QUARANTINE:
One of the best lines of biological defense is to contain the disease by isolating those who are infected from those who are not. (Leviticus 13:4-5, 26, 31).

I think you've been duped by a Hitchens canard about the Children of Israel not possessing a germ theory of disease - when in fact they were doing stuff thousands of years ahead of their time.

Mr Hitchens once stood up in front of a big audience in Australia and mocked the Patriarch Abraham as an illiterate goat hearder.

And he got a lot of laughs from the "some sort of ignorance" crowd.

But the only people laughing were folk who were ignorant of the fact that Abraham and is family were from - perhaps the largest city in the world at that time - Ur in Mesopotamia.

...where writing was invented!

[Anomalocaris]

What's amazing is your infantile impressionability. Even some Christians are less infantile than you.

[Lion IRC]

Now watch how I do it cato123.

See how I dont leap up and assume this post is at me.
Because when someone walks in the room posts something like this,

What's amazing is your infantile impressionability. Even some Christians are less infantile than you.

...you can easily let it slide.

If you instantly jump into the thread and blurt out....''HEY are you calling me "some sort of ignorant...blah blah blah"

....you are electing to associate yourself with that vague slur. It's like apologizing when you didnt do anything.

If you just let it go and dont respond, nothing bad happens.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@lion.

Just curious; why are you using [pagan] 'the hanged man' ,a major arcana card of the tarot,as your avatar?

Modern versions of the tarot deck depict a man hanging upside-down by one foot. The figure is most often suspended from a wooden beam (as in a cross or gallows) or a tree. Ambiguity results from the fact that the card itself may be viewed inverted.

In his book The Pictorial Key to the Tarot, A. E. Waite, the designer of the Rider-Waite tarot deck, wrote of the symbol:

The gallows from which he is suspended forms a Tau cross, while the figure—from the position of the legs—forms a fylfot cross. There is a nimbus about the head of the seeming martyr. It should be noted (1) that the tree of sacrifice is living wood, with leaves thereon; (2) that the face expresses deep entrancement, not suffering; (3) that the figure, as a whole, suggests life in suspension, but life and not death. [...] It has been called falsely a card of martyrdom, a card a of prudence, a card of the Great Work, a card of duty [...] I will say very simply on my own part that it expresses the relation, in one of its aspects, between the Divine and the Universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hanged_...ot_card%29