The Bible

[chatpilot]

Frodo here is one contradiction from the Old Testament and one from the New please explain to me what they mean since in your opinion there are no contradictions in the bible.

Exodus 20:13
13.Thou shalt not kill.

Numbers 31:17
17.Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

The first one is in the ten commandments but when the Hebrews went to battle to steal land from other nations who inhabited those lands,that same god would give them the second command.So,I guess it's okay to kill and break Gods commandments every once in awhile with his permission.

Mark 15:34
34.And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Luke 23:46
46.And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.


I am confused,what exactly were the last words of Christ?You know why no one really knows?Because his story is a work of fiction and these words were put into his mouth by the authors of that fiction.

[fr0d0]

Kill - take life for your own reason. Kill for God... take life not for your own reason.

What's wrong with having different versions of the event? Three people telling it how they remembered it. You'd remember what was important to you. None of the versions conflict??

[Sam]

Kill - take life for your own reason. Kill for God... take life not for your own reason.

What's wrong with having different versions of the event? Three people telling it how they remembered it. You'd remember what was important to you. None of the versions conflict??

Yes ... Yes ...

I see now, God says;

"To kill for your own reasons is wrong BUT to kill under the commandment of me (or one of my popes, priests, prophets or any other passing fucknugget who claims association with me) is completely okay ..."

Is that about right?

Sam

[chatpilot]

See frodo you are not playing fair,you asked for contradictions and then you act like you dont see them.Secondly those three people are remembering oral traditions because any biblical scholar worth his salt can tell you that there is not a single book in the N.T. that is written from an eyewitness account.And yes all three versions conflict and there is a fourth one that I left out on purpose since I thought these three would be enough.

So you are telling me that it's okay to break all of Gods commandments as long as he authorizes it?That does not make any sense,God being a father figure should lead by example and stick to his word.Oh I forgot he actually did,God is the biggest mass murderer in history.Also,frodo by saying that you agree that it's okay to kill under Gods command is telling me that you agree with the Salem witch hunts,the various catholic and protestant inquisitions,the crusades hell the list goes on.They all believed they were defending the faith in name of the Lord.So tell me frodo does the Lords command have to be an audible voice from heaven or a vision in the sky how does one determine that they are killing in gods will?

[fr0d0]

Those aren't contradictions chatpilot. I know of a couple of exapmles that come close, but those of yours I don't need to look up I know them so well/ can answer them without trying, as they're so obviously NOT contradictions. If this is what you think is overwhelming proof of contradiction then I think your case is extremely weak.

I'm quite aware that much of the Bible was first aurally recounted and put in writing later. I'm also fully aware that the NT wasn't written until many years after the event. To say none were eye witness accounts is untrue. They weren't written at the time but they were aurally repeated as was the norm at the time, and put to text later. The 7 last sayings of Christ are well known. It's unimportant that there weren't identical accounts.

Following God's will isn't breaking his commandments. I explained this already. God isn't human and doesn't need to follow the commandments. Where does it say God must follow these commandments? You're assuming that God is doing bad when killing. You can't know that, but we can know that God is essentially good.

Looking back at the Salem Witch Hunts we conclude that this was people committing evil acts. Anti Christian acts if you like. Many people claim to be following divine instruction to perpetrate crime. Society judges these to be crimes and not people acting out the will of God. People can get it horribly wrong. People are only people after all. There's no guarantee that they'll do the right thing. Even though various points in history are said to be heavily influenced by Christianity, the opposite was actually evidently happening. Religion is easily corrupted to the ends of greed and power. Some of the worst atrocities in history have been committed by supposed religious types. Studying those cases though shows that it's religion that is used to that end.

[Giff]

Following God's will isn't breaking his commandments. I explained this already. God isn't human and doesn't need to follow the commandments. Where does it say God must follow these commandments? You're assuming that God is doing bad when killing. You can't know that, but we can know that God is essentially good.

God is killing? When and how?

God isn't human? Who have said he even existed.

Also the bible is just a simple book, nothing more special then Harry Potter or the Lord of the rings. Also it's ridicilous if people think that the commandments is something that a god have made up. It's values people allready have and decided to write down. They added god to scare people to follow them

[chatpilot]

Frodo as usual you are incorrect regarding the gospels as eyewitness accounts.They are as you said before oral traditions,that does not make them eyewitness accounts.

[fr0d0]

Sorry chatpilot, go check your facts. The gospel of Luke, for example, is the record passed down aurally of an eyewitness account. Prove to me that it isn't.

[Tiberius]

fr0d0, suppose I see something and then tell a friend about it. This friend then writes down what I told him. Is what my friend writes down an eye-witness account? No, for some very good reasons:

1) My friend was not there.
2) My friend could have misheard me or only remembered part of the story.
3) I myself could have forgotten parts of the story (eye-witness accounts don't count for much in courts these days).
4) Either myself or my friend could have lied.

People tend to exaggerate stories, especially when they are passed down aurally.

On that point, I don't see why you are telling chatpilot to check his facts, when you agree with him. He said "They are as you said before oral traditions", and you said "the record passed down aurally". I fail to see how you are not talking about the same thing...

[fr0d0]

I think you're both blurring the facts though. Like you say, I agree that this was aurally passed down, and the possible inaccuracies that introduces. What was passed down though, was an eyewitness account, & not a 3rd party account. This is an important distinction. They remain 'eyewitness accounts', independent of the method of reproduction. chatpilot seeks to remove the fact that the account wasn't of first person origin, which is grossly misleading factually.