Bible contradictions or am I just uninformed?

Originally posted by Nellinator
People simply don't understand what inclusive and exclusive cases are. That or they don't research and check the original text and rely on crappy translations like the NIV.

The NIV is more of a study Bible not a teaching Bible, I have both King James and NIV. The problem is that people don't understand or comprehend what the Bible teaches, and people mistranslated the Bible for there own use and interpretation, because they don't like it for telling the truth, that man are wicked and sinful. That's why we have so many false religions claiming to be the true word of God, not knowing that there own false Bible contradicts itself.

Originally posted by the Darkone
That's why we have so many false religions claiming to be the true word of God, not knowing that there own false Bible contradicts itself.

None more false than another.

Originally posted by Alliance
Hell, Genesis 1 and 2 don't even mesh. Your don't need to really read that far.

Capt Fantastic has been snapping and bitching at me 2, don't take it personally lol

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yeah, they do. I think we've been over this.

Try me. The first one you're going to say is that the plants of the field hadn't sprouted yet, right?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, Abraham really didn't have true faith, so god helped him gain full faith?

Abraham's faith was true but not yet proven to him.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Try me. The first one you're going to say is that the plants of the field hadn't sprouted yet, right?

My issue is the order of creation.

Not a real contradiction, but the bible says "Does not nature teach you that it is a shame for a man, but an honour for a woman to wear long hair?" Yet, in almost every picture of Jesus and other Saints, they all have long hair. hmm

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Not a real contradiction, but the bible says "Does not nature teach you that it is a shame for a man, but an honour for a woman to wear long hair?" Yet, in almost every picture of Jesus and other Saints, they all have long hair. hmm

The paintings of Jesus are taken from images in the very early church. However, those images are not of Jesus, but of Zeus. Jesus had short hair and was was a Jew. The paintings of Jesus today are of a long haired Greek man.

The first picture of Jesus with long hair showed up in the 6th century.The church of Constatinoble claimed they found a cloth Jesus wiped his face on.In response,the Roman Church said they found a painting that an angel had created that was a portrait of Jesus.Both depicted him with long hair and a beard.Painting in the Roman catacombs from the fourth to fifth century depict Jesus with short hair rasing Lazarus from the dead with a magic wand!These paintings also show jesus turing water into wine with a magic wand.

Originally posted by mr.smiley
The first picture of Jesus with long hair showed up in the 6th century.The church of Constatinoble claimed they found a cloth Jesus wiped his face on.In response,the Roman Church said they found a painting that an angel had created that was a portrait of Jesus.Both depicted him with long hair and a beard.Painting in the Roman catacombs from the fourth to fifth century depict Jesus with short hair rasing Lazarus from the dead with a magic wand!These paintings also show jesus turing water into wine with a magic wand.

Zeus

Jesus

That's also identical to depections of Dionysus who wore a crown of Ivy.He had a beard and long black hair.He was also god of wine.

Originally posted by mr.smiley
That's also identical to depections of Dionysus who wore a crown of Ivy.He had a beard and long black hair.He was also god of wine.

Dionysus was also said to have been fathered by the king of heaven, been born of a virgin, to have transformed water into wine, been the liberator of mankind, and to have returned from the dead.

The Dionysus myth also contains a great deal of cannibalism, similar to the Christian Eucharist.

Dionysus was also distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Dionysus was also said to have been fathered by the king of heaven, been born of a virgin, to have transformed water into wine, been the liberator of mankind, and to have returned from the dead.

The Dionysus myth also contains a great deal of cannibalism, similar to the Christian Eucharist.

Dionysus was also distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers.

"Christian Eucharist?" There is no such animal as a "Christian Eucharist." The "Eucharist" is a "Roman Catholic" term. Cannibalism is defined as "eating human flesh" by another human being. Christians do no eat human flesh.

Main Entry: can·ni·bal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈka-nə-bə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1796
1 : the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being

2 : the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind

3 : an act of cannibalizing something
— can·ni·bal·is·tic \ˌka-nə-bə-ˈlis-tik\ adjective

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
"Christian Eucharist?" There is no such animal as a "Christian Eucharist." The "Eucharist" is a "Roman Catholic" term. Cannibalism is defined as "eating human flesh" by another human being. Christians do no eat human flesh.

Main Entry: [B]can·ni·bal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈka-nə-bə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1796
1 : the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being

2 : the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind

3 : an act of cannibalizing something
— can·ni·bal·is·tic \ˌka-nə-bə-ˈlis-tik\ adjective [/B]

Christians do practice symbolic cannibalism.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Christians do practice symbolic cannibalism.

Symbolic cannibalism is not cannibalism.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Symbolic cannibalism is not cannibalism.

The difference is significant, but it is still disgusting.

It was one of the Reasons Romans disliked Christianity...that and they met at secret meetings at night and sat amlost completely naked on top of poles all day.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The difference is significant, but it is still disgusting.

You are right, the difference between symbolic cannibalism and actual cannibalsim is significant.

What is disgusting about something that is symbolic and representative of spiritual Truth?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What is disgusting about something that is symbolic and representative of spiritual Truth?[/COLOR]

It invokes cannibalism.

...and its not truth. and if you ever capitalize "truth" again I will hunt you down and cut out that capital "T"