What's your religion?

[Feops]

I'd also just like to add in that the Bible does not contradict itself. I have never heard of or seen a passage in the Good Book that does.

[Costrin]

Costrin, what we are getting into now is errors in our translations. There are no errors in the original text.

Unfortunately, I can't read the originals, so I can't verify this.

Every seemingly contradiction has no effect whatsoever on the main doctrine. Also, some of those contradictions listed on that one the SAB are erroneous. The sections of the bible that they say contradict each other don't in any way.

Mmk.

In regards to some of the numerical "errors" there are mistypes in copies of the bible just like any other book. the difference between 10,000 and 100,000 is just a little dot on the paper. We could easily mistake an ink blot for that dot. We have copies from all over that we use to translate. Take a class on textual criticism and get back to me.

Mmk.

They copies are not inspired only the original. It's my belief that I could burn a bible and it wouldn't matter because it's not the inspired text.

I wish people who did these things would take a formal logic class or two because some of their arguments make no sense at all.

All I know, is that to me, these look like internal contradictions, contradictions with math science, dubious values, and stuff that is open to an extreme variety of interpretations, and just some silly stuff in general. When I read the bible, I don't feel anything, nothing that could be remotely described as God, or inspirations, or anything of the sort. When people assert that there are no contradictions, I just (mentally) roll my eyes. This website has a list of seeming contradictions, and arguments for why. If there are no contradictions, then one should be able to go through and counter every one of those. Maybe these contradictions don't exist in the originals. Well that doesn't help me at all, seeing how I can't read them, and I have no plans to learn how.

Of course, even if someone went through and disproved all claims of contradiction, it wouldn't convince me of the validity of the bible. I would need to see concrete evidence for me to believe.

[SillySapienne]

I am a philophile.

What can I say, I love me some love.

[Eagle]

So then it doesn't really matter what I say or how I say it. If you see it, it can't really be called faith. The latest website you linked to I would also disagree with. It doesn't take into account any of the philosophies that Christians have regarding God's behavior. Nor does it take into account the said reason why there are such differences between the old and new testaments. But, seeing as I can't convince you (not that I really ever was going to anyway) it's sorta pointless to go on. If someone else want's to take up the mantel I'll support them, but for now I'm just tired.

[FerventFox]

After reviewing both of the websites you provided, Costrin, I'm afraid that I agree with Eagle. A lot of the seeming contradictions listed are not actual contradictions. They are differences in the translation and/or added information. One book may contain further information on a topic while another book ends earlier leading to what would appear to be a contradiction but isn't. I could go through the contradictions and show you the truth in each of them, but as Eagle said, it doesn't matter. If you've already decided to disagree, nothing I say can change that.

[Owl]

hmmm...

I agree that most of the "contradictions" are not contradictions, but can you explain this one?

"On what day did the crucifixion take place?

On Passover Eve: John 13:1, 18:28, 19:14-15

On the first day of Passover: Mark 14:12-17"

(Taken from the Ebon Musings, the second website.)

[janey_girl]

Man created god in his own image methinks.... I don't believe - I am spiritual but not religious....

[Costrin]

So then it doesn't really matter what I say or how I say it. If you see it, it can't really be called faith. The latest website you linked to I would also disagree with. It doesn't take into account any of the philosophies that Christians have regarding God's behavior. Nor does it take into account the said reason why there are such differences between the old and new testaments. But, seeing as I can't convince you (not that I really ever was going to anyway) it's sorta pointless to go on. If someone else want's to take up the mantel I'll support them, but for now I'm just tired.

After reviewing both of the websites you provided, Costrin, I'm afraid that I agree with Eagle. A lot of the seeming contradictions listed are not actual contradictions. They are differences in the translation and/or added information. One book may contain further information on a topic while another book ends earlier leading to what would appear to be a contradiction but isn't. I could go through the contradictions and show you the truth in each of them, but as Eagle said, it doesn't matter. If you've already decided to disagree, nothing I say can change that.

Well, its not that I decided to disagree (technically, yes I did), but I just don't see any evidence for agreeing. So if you were to provide evidence than I would certainly review it and if convincing enough, I would become a believer. Otherwise, your right, nothing you say would change my position.

[Eagle]

I found this interesting, but it makes sense to me. Going by knowledge of Jewish tradition the day starts in the evening. John is going by the Roman Time System (Similar to what we have today), while Matthew, Mark, and Luke are written according to the Jewish Time System (sunset to sunset). John was written considerably later than the other three so it makes sense that the Roman Culture would have had a more significant impact on the writings.

If it's convincing.. Can anything be convincing enough? Do I waste my time. That depends. Also, if it's just based on the knowledge in your head where does faith enter the picture?

[Costrin]

I found this interesting, but it makes sense to me. Going by knowledge of Jewish tradition the day starts in the evening. John is going by the Roman Time System (Similar to what we have today), while Matthew, Mark, and Luke are written according to the Jewish Time System (sunset to sunset). John was written considerably later than the other three so it makes sense that the Roman Culture would have had a more significant impact on the writings.

If it's convincing.. Can anything be convincing enough? Do I waste my time. That depends. Also, if it's just based on the knowledge in your head where does faith enter the picture?

What would convince me. Well this site lists some good ones (because linking to stuff other people wrote is much easier). Basically, physical evidence. If God came and spoke to me, if a miracle was performed in front of my eyes. If significant prophecies were shown to have come true. If physical evidence or written documents (the bible doesn't count naturally, as that would be circular) that Jesus existed, and furthermore that he was divine, and did perform miracles and come back from the dead. If geological evidence was found for any of the catastrophic events mentioned in the bible. Anything along those lines.

Stuff that wont convince me are personal anecdotes, minor miracles (things like the virgin Mary appearing on a piece of bread), disproving evolution/abiogenesis/big bang (its not enough to disprove another theory, you have to have positive evidence of yours also), appeals to morality, appeals to authority, appeals to majority (etc, etc), pascals wager, and faith.

I have no faith, and find it difficult to contemplate the idea. Assuming the common definition of "belief without proof", its just anathema to how I work. Similiar thing with "spiritual experiences". I've honestly never experienced one of those, and from what I know of humans and how susceptible they are to suggestion, I would doubt what I experienced.