The Bible has no contradictions

PERCIPIANT greek mythology follows the bible myth closely...our eve picking the apple from the forbidden tree and making us aware of pain,hate ,etc...is their pandora opening the box and letting these same feelings and emotions out...i would point out that when pandora got the box closed ,it was only one thing left in it and that was "HOPE"now here in where i see the biggest diff. in the two...in greek you had a god for everything..land,water,harvest,etc....lets say for example you had a bad crop...well you must have done something to anger that god..in ours..it's only one god for everything and if something goes wrong then it is his will.in greek the gods made you responsible for your actions..meaningthat if you disrespected them or didn't pay homage to them...they made you pay.in ours...you bare no responsibility..god is a forgiven god.even if you don't pay homage or worship him..[This message has been edited by ME2, 03-11-2003]

quote:

---

What qualities do the Biblical accounts possess that differentiates them from the myths of other cultures? These would have to be differences that somehow indicate that the events of the Bible actually happened and that those of other myths are fictional.

---

I had a feeling this question would be asked. The answer is typically considered to be subjective, as well as much of the rest of answers brought up in historical debates.I recently read a good article pertaining to this. It's from an apologetics site, and it brings up a lot of good points about myths:http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/creationmythl.htm(Being the admin of the evcforum, and seeing as how you have CARM listed in the reference library, you've probably already seen this site.)------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

So you are claiming that because Genesis looks like a history book, therefore it must be a 100% accurate account of history, bollocks! I could use the same arguments to support the distortions of history made by Holocaust deniers and communists.

Only point 2 even attempts to address the question - and it is of rather questionable accuracy (to say the least) .Isn't the whole Flood story a rather obvious myth ? What about Babel ? What about the lifespan attributed to Adam, Eve and their descendants ? The claim that it is eye-witness history simply does not stand up to scrutiny at all.So no, it is not a good answer at all.

As others have already noted, that's not much of a reply. Perhaps we're missing something. What was it about that link that seemed convincing to you?The link also doesn't address the issue we were discussing. Here's the relevant exchange again: --Percy

In the accounts of the crucifiction in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus is crucified after Passover, and he and the apostles celebrate the Passover meal together, commonly called the "last supper."However, in John, Jesus is crucified before Passover.[Fixed bold/italic word. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 03-12-2003][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-12-2003]

Well, one of my favourites, because it's good for a laugh. I'm sure there are some good explanations out there but I haven't heard one.For his ride into Jerusalem, Matthew describes how Jesus tells his disciples to fetch an ass and a colt, to fulfill an Old Testament prophecy: But the prophecy that Matthew quoted only refers to one animal: The word ‘and’ in this sense means ‘even’, which is how it is used elsewhere in the Old Testament and how it is translated in other bible versions - the second phrase is an interpretation of the first.Matthew misunderstood the OT prophecy and thought that Jesus was to sit astride two animals as he rode into town. It’s comical, but it isn’t the infallible word of God. Or is it?(The other three gospel writers only have one animal.)------------------
o--greyline--o

Gracias...I looked up the verse in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the Hebrew word is "lamed, yud, lamed, yud, tau" -- or LITITH. The Brown-Driver-Briggs hebrew lexicon gives the meaning as "n.f. Lilith; name of a female night-demon haunting desolate Edom."This doesn't quite make her Adam's first wife but she does make an appearance.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I was referring to your point in this debate. That was weak.

---

hmmm.... Brian Johnson's post 25 started this and was a simple reference to Jewish tradition. So how exactly is pointing a finger at the primary repository of Jewish tradition weak? My point-- my only point-- was that this inclusion in the Talmud ought to qualify Lilith as part of Jewish tradition, just as, say, the idea of a horned red devil is part of Christian tradition whatever the scriptural validity of that tradition.

quote:

---

1) Lilith was a late addition.

---

Perhaps... I said as much in my post. However, you should consider what you are calling a late addition. You mention that this myth was an addition aquired during the captivity under Nimrod. Jewish and Islamic tradition puts this contemporary with Abraham. Vlg vaping i stedet for cigaretter - Mob StartPage not found - aish.com

quote:

---

2) The Talmud does not equal OT scripture, nor is it God's defining word. (Which is irrelevant to you, but relevant to me and my beliefs.)

---

I understand that, Satcomm. The issue really isn't about your beliefs though, but about Jewish tradition.

quote:

---

Your point is equivalent to equating the New Testament with the Catechism and sacred traditions of the Catholic church.

---

Nope. I am putting both into the category of tradition, not claiming equal weight for each. I'd say Christmas is part of Christian tradition too though most of the details are not in the NT.

quote:

---

I say stick with the scriptures and stick to Jesus Christ. There are no other absolutes.

---

Something I have realized is that the OT isn't as cut and dried as Christians think. The OT was written over several hundred years and other traditions arose right along side it, influencing, altering and even creating it.

quote:

---

I admit, this is a fascinating theory among the "comparitive religion" types, but it's not what I believe. Just seems to me that secular education is trying to redefine history to fit their equation.

---

Sorry??? Trying to piece together history from the evidence is 'redefining history'? I can't accept that.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I may have this wrong, but Satcomm may be trying to draw a distinction between holy canon, which is the word of God and therefore inerrant, and written religious traditions, which are only the words of men and thereby fallible.--Percy

2. you didn't answer of why the two creations of "MAN"...WHAT YOU ANSWERD WAS ABOUT THE ANIMALS..there is a difference..Humans = animals.4.MY PARENTS A NO LONGER WITH ME...SO I WILL APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD KEEP THEM OUT OF YOUR MOUTH AND BOARD DISCUSSIONS...THERE IS NO NEED OR PLACE FOR IT....Ok. I apologize.And as for Jesus riding in on two donkeys....Both animals were involved in Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem. There is no mistake in the accounts because Mark and Luke mention just the colt (polos), and Matthew refers to the colt (polos, 21:5) and its mother. The passage in Matthew is pointing out the literal fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9 which states, "Behold your king is coming to you. . . humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey." The Greek version of the OT uses the same word for colt (polos) as the NT passages. Matthew literally states that once the disciples placed their garments on the donkeys, Jesus sat on them, that is, on their garments. Matthew does not say that Jesus rode on both the mother and the colt. It merely states that Jesus sat on the garments that the disciples had placed on the donkeys. Perhaps they placed some garments on the mother and others on the colt, and Jesus sat on those garments which were placed on the colt. The fact is the text of Matthew simply does not say on which donkey Jesus sat. Mark and Luke focus on the colt which Jesus rode, while Matthew mentions the presence of the colt's mother. Her presence may have been necessary because the colt was so young. Mark 11:12 states that no one had ridden on the colt, and that the colt would be taking a passenger through a noisy crowd (Mark 11:9). Perhaps the mother was brought along in order to be a claiming influence upon her young.

Humans = animals.sorry...you are going to have to explain this one to me and show me where the bible it has classified them as such...also..it said man and animal...if this was the case...why hae two classificationshere..check this out001:021 And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their
kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that
it was good.001:022 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the
earth.001:023 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.001:024 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the
earth after his kind: and it was so.001:025 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth.001:027 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.man and animal are not the same...vague interpretation won't work here..so you will have to explain.this clearly shows two diff.creations from god..

This is the part I have a problem with. This prophecy clearly states one animal. The other three gospel writers read it as such. It seems to me that Matthew misinterpreted the prophecy and thought there were two animals.The issue here isn't really how silly Jesus looked riding two animals - I'm sure Matthew didn't mean to imply that (it's just fun to poke fun); it's whether Matthew misinterpreted the prophecy. Considering the similarity of his wording and that in Zechariah, it seems that he did.------------------
o--greyline--o

ME2, the Bible may not define humans as animals, but WE do. Here: we = mammals and mammals = animals. Mammals are animals so WE are animals.

Hi Conspirator!We have no doubt that you can produce interpretations and explanations for every Biblical "problem" to explain away the contradictions. The problem for you is demonstrating that your interpretation is the correct one. In the case of the donkey accounts, your interpretation of Matthew is merely an unlikely rationalization and hardly as credible as the possibility of misinterpretation of prophecy by Matthew.--Percy