Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[Cato]

And if you asked one of these dwarves, "Which one are you? Happy, or sneezy?" What would it say?

"Neither, I'm Grumpy. Now piss off"

[spockrates]

[ElDinero]

I'd say that father does not always mean father and son does not always mean son. For example, please tell me: What does the word father mean in this passage of the Bible? Does the word mean a biological father, or something else?

“Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did."

(John 8:39)

Right, that's enough bullshit. In the CONTEXT (you guys love a bit of context), where both of those verses are in those long boring series of names that the Bible does over and over again where it lists a name and says they live so and so years and then beget some other name etc, presented in exactly the same way, it cannot be argued that this is supposed to be some symbolic reading of the word 'father'. How dare you be so disingenuous after I have had to lead you like a blind man point by point to these passages because of your laziness/evasiveness?

You've proven beyond a doubt that you will never acknowledge a contradiction even when it's staring you in the face. Go fuck yourself.

[Cato]

[spockrates]

I'd say that father does not always mean father and son does not always mean son. For example, please tell me: What does the word father mean in this passage of the Bible? Does the word mean a biological father, or something else?

“Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did."

(John 8:39)

Right, that's enough bullshit. In the CONTEXT (you guys love a bit of context), where both of those verses are in those long boring series of names that the Bible does over and over again where it lists a name and says they live so and so years and then beget some other name etc, presented in exactly the same way, it cannot be argued that this is supposed to be some symbolic reading of the word 'father'. How dare you be so disingenuous after I have had to lead you like a blind man point by point to these passages because of your laziness/evasiveness?

You've proven beyond a doubt that you will never acknowledge a contradiction even when it's staring you in the face. Go fuck yourself.

Please understand ElDinero that it is well known among Christian apologists that there are gaps in the genealogies of Luke and Matthew. This is not seen as a problem, because, to the ancient Jewish mind, the words, "son of," may mean descendant of. Elsewhere in Luke we read:


Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham."

(Luke 19:9)


Jesus was not saying the man he addressed was thousands of years old. He was saying the man was a true descendant of Abraham, for he was of the same mindset as his ancestor. I understand this is not the way modern thinkers speak, but the Bible was written by ancient people, using the expressions of ancient people. There might very well be genuine contradictions between biblical texts, but for the reasons given, I honestly don't believe the example you cited is one. It's more a matter of the text being ambiguous and unintentionally misleading.

I hope you won't mistake my playfulness for rudeness. If I have offended you by anything I said, please let me know. If it was my perceived ignorance that upset you, I hope my response will show you that, at least in this case, my inability to see the truth was not deliberate, nor real, but was merely apparent.

[Angrboda]

[spockrates]

FallenToReason:

I'd to take another look at your idea that Matthew contradicts Mark. Please forgive me for being so slow to see, but the two authors are saying the same thing about the fig tree, or so it seems to me. I'd appreciate it if you'd try to explain once more how Matthew is not only saying something contrary, but is also trying to correct some mistake of Mark having to do with Hosah. Maybe you'll cure me of my blind ignorance of the concept?

[Faith No More]

Those are not kiss gnomes. They are mini Kiss.

[spockrates]

Those are not kiss gnomes. They are mini Kiss.

If only those Kiss gnomes could shout it out loud! Just imagine what they'd sing! The questions I'd love to ask them, if only they could speak. As it is now, all you and I can do is put words in their mouths--words they might never say, were their tongues not still.

[Faith No More]

Just imagine what they'd sing!

Something sexual in its nature most likely.