What is the biggest bible contradiction?

I believe in respecting people equally, but not doctrines. There is a reason why the religion which I consider to have an absolute lock on the truth is the same as that I which I embrace as my own. It is impossible for me to embrace equally opposing views, and really without purpose.I am not insulting any scriptures and interpretations that have any authority, but those which have been proven to have no authority whatsoever, and are a purposeful misrepresentation of the text. If I tell you 'in the beginning was the clam' do I have some authority?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone is sinful, no exceptions!We all need Christ's sacrifice to save us from our own fallen nature. But fallen 'nature' means that we are sinful by 'nature' even before we have personally sinned. We are born guilty of the sin of Adam and Eve.I am sure you are right about how you said it, but again, I think Baptist doctrine on original sin is a little different from the Catholic.

OK. Yes, but just as often they neglect their own faith and don't even study what it teaches before they go and decide it doesn't make sense. That's a lot there. I could study the Bible and christian history for a lifetime and still not know everything, so I could not possibly leave my beliefs open-ended till I was finished. When it comes to faith, there may not be an 'educated' guess.What I was trying to say, though, is that there are groups of 'christians' who have not made an honest theological attempt at reconciling conflicting scriptures. They have openly changed the text of the scriptures, or proposed doctrines (like polytheism) that only lead to contradictions elsewhere. Since a main tenet of christianity is that considers the Bible the ultimate and final Word on the subject, such groups as Mormons and JW's stand out even to denominations that otherwise would oppose each other.

Not to mention that there are many precursors of Antichrist, just as there were many prophets who paved the way for Christ.

I used Equinox's word 'authority' in my post. I meant to ask him the same question.The interpretations that I have mentioned being 'purposeful misrepresentations' are specifically 'The Translator's New Testament' and 'The New Testament in an Improved Version' both Jehova's Witness publications, and I would not hesitate to include all JW Bibles. There are also situations where the Oneness Pentecostals have altered the gospels and presented a false translation in an effort to 'prove' their theology.I can provide more specifics if needed.

Which is where the contradiction lies.[/qs]There is a contradiction, Ringo, But there is only one Biblical way to reconcile it, and that is the Trinity doctrine. It may seen flawed, but anything else is impossible to maintain through reason or textual analysis.

No, I am using the Universal description of Christianity to decide who is a heretic.

I don't find the Trinity a contradiction, Scottness. It is an harmonious reconciliation of apparent Biblical contradiction. I can't even say I find the Bible contradictory, because I understand Trinity. But at face value, the passages about Jesus being human, and then, about His divinity, appear contradictory, and they can not be resolved without some sort of extra-biblical theology.And by extra-biblical, I mean; the Bible does not expressly mention a Trinity.

We don't need a new thread, Ringo. The universal description of christianity is a monotheistic Trinitarian view.It is not that hard to decide who has departed from this.

Because many of us take the Bible more seriously than that? And we believe there is an intention in the contradiction that is worthy of discovery?

I have not defined heresy, I have defined christianity. Do you have a definition for either that is better?

The above paragraph is what elicited my initial response. I was not sure myself about Equinox' criteria for 'authority' but I understood his meaning clearly enough.Equinox had the impression that I was insulting interpretations of scriptures which are opposed to my own denominational view. I believe he means to say that all interpretations have equal authority, since they are all nothing more than one possible conjecture among many.To an extent I agree; it takes an extremely in-depth analysis of scripture to determine which doctrine best reflects the intentions of the whole, and apologetics for any denomination can be greatly convincing.However, the specific denominations which have been mentioned for their opposition to the Trinity were; Mormon's, Jehova's Witnesses, and the Oneness Pentecostals.The sole intent of my post was to point out that these denominations have not used the Bible in the way inerrantists do. Instead, they use personal revelation, or 'God showed me what the Bible should have said' or 'God only tells an elite group what the bible means'. Any conclusions reached via this means can not be regarded to be equal in authority to those which are based on what the Bible actually says. So, criteria;1. as accurate a translation (contradictions included) as possible
2. a scholarly translation, not a 'revealed' one
3. an interpretation based on accurate translation; even if it were blatantly paraphrased or geared toward a specific population it should reflect the meaning of the originalHope that answers your question!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surely you do not think I am so stubborn or dull as to ignore all previous posts and research? I know there are no originals!This knowledge does not stop people saying 'the original Greek' or the 'original Hebrew' text means this...So, nevermind the translation part. Let's say you , Nemesis and arach are looking at the same exact Hebrew document. As often happens, you disagree on what the words mean, but not on what they are.Then, party x comes up with a meaning that can only make sense after you discover that he has added to or changed the words that the rest of you are studying.Will the interpretation of x carry as much 'authority' as the other three?Consider further that x has absolutely no source or reason to feel that his changes were part of the intent of the author, other than 'godtoldme'. How would his interpretation be viewed now?That scenerio is similar to what the JW's have done.The Pentecoastals are more like; 'this passage says one thing, this one says another, and they contradict, so...let's pick which one we like better and change the other one because obviously the two were meant to agree'.Mormon's? Well... I guess they don't have to worry about it too much because they have The Book of Mormon to tell them which one is right!

Is an artist the opposite of his masterpiece? Except for the physical stuff which it is made of, a painting is closer to being the artist, than being his opposite.Logic tells me that if the most talented artist in history were to painstakingly portay every trait that he considered alien to himself, the result would reveal still more of him than it would obscure.In Christian thinking, it appears, man can not possibly be God's opposite, since he is inferior to begin with. If pantheism says that God=all of creation, and yet there is One God, it is not so hard to say that God=man and is yet one God.Anyway, what I really want to say is; Wow! That was a spine-tingling post there Nemesis! Got me in the Christmas spirit, for sure. Anyone can pick apart a prophecy. The nature of prophecy is such that it can not force belief, so there is no surprise in finding a double-meaning.
Maybe the best case for the messianic prophecies is that they mean the difference between a pulse-quickening, ongoing understanding, and an antiquated collection of stories on a dusty shelf.I know that's just an opinion, but hey, even if it's all a fairy-tale, I like a little magic.

I like to further my analogy in personal reflection by wondering if the above would be true of a divine painter. Maybe a divine paniter could reproduce himself so perfectly that he actually exists in the new medium.But I will refrain from boring you with that.You are right, though.
No man can be a God, and those who try are usually pretty funny. But, hey, God could become a man, which I think is why the Bible says 'the Word became flesh' and not 'flesh became the Word'.
Btw, my analogy was only meant to show that God and man are not opposites, nothing more.