Does The Bible Contradict It's self?

He has no right to call it rabble unless he wishes to cite some of these researchers, historians and shcolars. In fact, the info on that site is in response to all the scholars who want to say that the census did not occur. Therefore, they have no right to call it rabble either, until they are able to disprove the facts presented there.

It is a very, very prominent website in the field of Christian apologetics. All the scholars that would disagree with these points of Christianity and that do research in these fields all know about that site, and they are constantly trying to refute what it says. It's not some isolated bunch of statements that are not open to criticism. These scholars have not been able to disprove what it says, and frankly until someone does, then it is their point of view that is "rabble."

it all ends up the same though, using scholars words to argue other scholars words, it leads to nowhere

He has no right to call it rabble unless he wishes to cite some of these researchers, historians and shcolars.

Originally posted by finti
actually he does, all he has to do is belive it to be rabble

I can believe that whales fly, but nobody is going to believe me until I take them out to the Atlantic and show them.

I can believe that whales fly, but nobody is going to believe me until I take them out to the Atlantic and show them.

Point is that to say and believe biblical scripture is rabble is more plausible than Newtons work. Unlike the biblical records at least Isaacs work, to a certain degree, can be visible proven

Originally posted by finti
some whales almost fly in Sea World 😄 .

Point is that to say and believe biblical scripture is rabble is more plausible than Newtons work. Unlike the biblical records at least Isaacs work, to a certain degree, can be visible proven

Just remember that we can prove a lot about ancient documents of all kinds through study. I've read a lot about it; some of the things they can do completely amaze me.

Something I just remembered, which I could be mistaken about (I am not sure on it but I am 90% I am correct) is that we are more sure about the gospels then we are about who wrote Shakespere's plays.

is that we are more sure about the gospels then we are about who wrote Shakespere's plays.

Yes they do lol.... it's easy to say that because SOME (not all by any means) of the measures they use in this matter are statistical. One example would be the accuracy of the manuscripts. You take all the ancient (or in Shakespere's case, really old) manuscripts availible of a writing and compare them to see how many differences they have from one another. Statistically, the NT would win in that category, of course their are many more important categories, that's just an easy on to explain.

Yes looking at some manuscripts can help as in the case of Josephus. I did look at his writings and it is impossible to come back and say that that one paragraph that mentions Jesus was not inserted at a later date. It breaks the flow of what he was previously conveying and then after the insertion, which was small by the way, goes back to his previous discussion. So, as a well known historian, Josephus didn't mention Jesus at all.

Objection: The passage is out of context. Josephus is discussing Jewish troubles, and the Testimonium is out of place. Without it the text of Josephus runs on in proper sequence. [Well.DidJ, 14; Well.JesL, 51; Drew.WH, 8-9]

This is a favorite objection, but it comes from people who obviously have not read very much of Josephus! As Thackery opined, Josephus was a "patchwork writer," one guilty of "inveterate sloppiness." [Meie.MarJ, 8] I can agree: As one with a background in language and literature, were I to give Josephus a grade for composition, it would be something around the level of a C-minus!

Even so, the "out of context" charge carries very little weight. An exposition by Mason will be helpful here. This is the outline of events under Pilate as given by Josephus [Maso.JosNT, 163-4 - using newer outline system for Josephus]:

18.35 Pilate arrives in Judea.
18.55-9 Pilate introduces imperial images in the Temple, causing a ruckus.
18.60-2 Pilate expropriates Temple funds to build an aqueduct.
18.63-4 The Testimonium appears.
18.65-80 An event set in Rome, not involving Pilate directly, having to do with the seduction of a follower of Isis in Rome.
18.81-4 An account of four Jewish scoundrels; also not directly involving Pilate.
18.85-7 An incident involving Pilate and some Samaritans.
18.88-9 Pilate gets the imperial boot.
As can be seen, this is by no means a set of connected events. Pilate has a role in all of them; but it is not even certain that Josephus is giving these events in chronological order.

Wells responds to the words of Thackery by noting that Josephus often uses phrases that indicate that he is aware that he is digressing:

"When a writer digresses, and confesses to doing so, this does not make him a 'patchwork' writer from whom we must expect any kind of irrelevancy."[Well.JesL, 51]
Wells is simply missing the point here. Confessions of digression indicate a "patchwork" writer who is conscious of his flaws in this regard. Nor may it be appropriately said that the reference to Jesus is "any kind of irrelevancy." If it was a significant event in the reign of Pilate, even in retrospect as it would be in this case, then it is quite relevant.

Josephus

The following is the order of creation according to Genesis 1, the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: sky; earth; light

Day 2: water

Day 3: plant life

Day 4: sun; moon; stars

Day 5: animal life

Day 6: Adam and Eve

Day 7: nothing

The following is the order of creation according to Genesis 2, the Yahwist tradition:

[list][*]earth; heavens

[*]Adam

[*]plant life

[*]animal life

[*]Eve[/list]

In Genesis 1, creation is orderly; God creates step-by-step. In Genesis 2, however, creation is not orderly; God modifies things as He goes, e.g. man is not satisfied with animals so God creates woman.

Furthermore, in Genesis 1, after each step of creation God is satisfied and says, "It is good." In Genesis 2, however, God goes back and makes changes to the things He created previously.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The following is the order of creation according to Genesis 1, the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: sky; earth; light

Day 2: water

Day 3: plant life

Day 4: sun; moon; stars

Day 5: animal life

Day 6: Adam and Eve

Day 7: nothing

The following is the order of creation according to Genesis 2, the Yahwist tradition:

[list][*]earth; heavens

[*]Adam

[*]plant life

[*]animal life

[*]Eve[/list]

In Genesis 1, creation is orderly; God creates step-by-step. In Genesis 2, however, creation is not orderly; God modifies things as He goes, e.g. man is not satisfied with animals so God creates woman.

Furthermore, in Genesis 1, after each step of creation God is satisfied and says, "It is good." In Genesis 2, however, God goes back and makes changes to the things He created previously.

That's an easy one 😉. One of the most commonly made errors.

Instead of just giving you something simple, here's the thorough answer

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The following is the order of creation according to Genesis 1, the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: sky; earth; light

Day 2: water

Day 3: plant life

Day 4: sun; moon; stars

Day 5: animal life

Day 6: Adam and Eve

Day 7: nothing

The following is the order of creation according to Genesis 2, the Yahwist tradition:

[list][*]earth; heavens

[*]Adam

[*]plant life

[*]animal life

[*]Eve[/list]

.

Look you were made on the 2nd day.
***************************************************

Also, why then was Irenias copy of Josephus work without that insertion?
It was and earlier copy....I think it was Irenias...Maybe it was Oregin. (sp?)

I never thought the word "rabble would stir so much trouble.I read the article and found it interesting.The only problem was,it was set as if this was a possibility without too much factual evidence.

Originally posted by Lazerlike42
The ONLY way to read the Bible is to study it in the original language. In fact, the only way to really read anything written in a foreign language is to read it in the original language. There are too many problems with translations.

The translators of the KJV in 1611 essentially had to reconstruct the ancient Greek language, because it had not been mostly forgotten for 1000 years as the Catholic church refused to allow any versions other than Latin. They not only made many mistakes in translating that modern scholars have and are correcting, but they also used an English which is very, very different from what we use todaty, and not only in that the grammar is more complicated.

In 1611, for instance:
"allege" meant what we mean today when we say "prove"
"conversation" meant "behavior" (!!)
"by and by" meant "immediately" (exactly the opposite of what it means now)

There are many examples. All those quotes in that post are from the KJV. Modern translations often correct those mistakes, such as that of saying "image" when it means "idol."

Actually, as many translational errors as there are, most "problems" in the Bible come from other reasons.... probably the biggest is just not reading the full passage. People LOVE to take little snippets and pair them to make contradictions.

I am just making these up, but to take the sentence, "Jesus likes fish," and the sentence "Jesus did not like fish that was overcooked," drop the "that was overcooked," and say it is a contradiction is a very popular thing to do.

I agree with you to an extent.The only problem was,it's not just modern day scholars who found inconsitincies in the Bible,but even Pagan philosophers like Celsus or even valintinus found things in the Bible that just didn't add up.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes looking at some manuscripts can help as in the case of Josephus. I did look at his writings and it is impossible to come back and say that that one paragraph that mentions Jesus was not inserted at a later date. It breaks the flow of what he was previously conveying and then after the insertion, which was small by the way, goes back to his previous discussion. So, as a well known historian, Josephus didn't mention Jesus at all.

In Pauls writings,(not the ones that the churched admitted where forged but the actual writings) he never mentions a historical Jesus.He says he met a figure of light.
The most convincing thing Paul says is "if Jesus would have been on Earth,he would have been a" (I can't remeber what the actual word was so i'll haft to look it up,but it was along the lines of Rabbi or Priest).

He never says,when Jesus was on earth.
He then goes on later to say the secret is Christ is within you

Originally posted by Lazerlike42
He has no right to call it rabble unless he wishes to cite some of these researchers, historians and shcolars. In fact, the info on that site is in response to all the scholars who want to say that the census did not occur. Therefore, they have no right to call it rabble either, until they are able to disprove the facts presented there.

It is a very, very prominent website in the field of Christian apologetics. All the scholars that would disagree with these points of Christianity and that do research in these fields all know about that site, and they are constantly trying to refute what it says. It's not some isolated bunch of statements that are not open to criticism. These scholars have not been able to disprove what it says, and frankly until someone does, then it is their point of view that is "rabble."

The only problem is,most these websites,books,etc are very biased.I didn't mean to offend you,I ment it realy as a joke.

ok, did the centurion ask jesus directly(Matt 8:5-9) to help his servant or did he send others(Luke 7:1-7) to ask for him.......which is it?

depend on which version you belive.Most hardcore Christians give the middle man reply,which tries to equal out between the two,but it never makes sense.

which version you belive?, should you differ between which of the gospel that is right? I can write books like that , just add an alternative so people can believe whatever they like.
" he flew down to them from the top of the hill" Finti 1:2-2
"He fell down from the hill" Phintius 2:1-2