76

Re: Peasant Guild

Well Fireborn I commend you on at least attempting to address the issues I have brought up, however; your arguments are more flawed than science.

I wouldn't say that entirely. Back in the day on the other board you guys posted a site with bible contradictions.. I am wondering if you still know the site or have it? The funny thing about the bible is that many times it can be fairly vague. The vagueness of it will have people interpret different things and then claim contradictions. It is well known that English was not the language the Bible was written in. The bible has seen many translations from one language to the next, making it impossible to know exactly what the real bible had said. You might find vague contradictions in the bible, but only because they were misinterpreted, or a bad translation. I agree that the Bible has been changed and edited Mold. Direct translations are impossible, and it was translated by man. Who, as you can tell by looking at the world today, are far from perfect. My beliefs in the bible don't lie in the words of the bible, it lies in the message of the bible.

Why would an all powerful god leave such a vitaly important document open for interpretation. To err is human, god should know this, so why is the word of god entrusted to mankind as opposed to instilled in their very being? (God also allegedly created all of the different languages (Tower of Babel) did this all powerful being not understand the effect of such a deed?)

If I had a child, then left the child before the child was born, entrusted the rest of mankind to lead the child to me, wouldn't that be a bit foolish? The bible does have a message, but that message is mankind's own message, not the word of god. That message is the same message about Santa Clause, only a more extreme version.

Science has said that you can't create something out of nothing. That in my eyes and many other Christian’s eyes can prove there is a God.

What kind of proof is this? If this is true, then it only serves to disprove god because now the question becomes:

"Then what or who created god, after all god is something, and you can't get something out of nothing, remember?"

If god could be proven then faith would not exist, only knowledge. Religion is faith based because god can't be proven, ask your preacher if god exists, he will tell you it's all about faith, if he doesn't you should be wary of his teachings, or you'll end up commiting suicide the next time a comet rolls around.

If science is so flawed, then how is it that we have advanced so far technologically? It is the best model we have for seeking truth and knowledge of the unknown. This model, flawed as you say it is, has brought us remarkable technological advancements. Sure most theories when they first come about are flawed, but just because something is flawed we don't abandon it, we reuse it and apply a different approach in order to improve it. If we just abandoned science when we discovered the first flawed theory, where would mankind be right now?

No matter how you try to prove god's existence, you can't. Science tells us that if this scientist performs experiment A and this other scientist performs experiment A and gets the same results, it is fact. The bible tells us just the opposite, that only certain ones are entrusted with the word of god, and each account or story is different.

77

Re: Peasant Guild

After we are done debating Religion and such.. We should sooo move over to the Trash Heap and debate Truman's decision on dropping the Bomb on Japan =p because I know Crov likes to argue about that one big_smile Hopefully if we start full out Debates again they don't get as heated as some of the political debates we use to have had gotten. viva la lameboard!

Long story short, if the politicians/officers etc. had listened to the scientists involved (a lot of whom were protesting the use of the bomb) we might have been spared a lot of tragedy. It is eerie how back then, in 1945 they already predicted things such as the cold war and our terrorism problems/fears.

Anyhow, it is generally agreed upon that Japan would have surrendered anyway. In fact, they already wanted to surrender... (and the US knew this from the decrypted transmissions they had). They just didn't want to unconditionally surrender, they were trying to get some things such as no occupation force, disarming themselves and remaining imperial in an armistice. They also would have probably surrendered on short notice because of the Russian invasion. Anyhow, I think it is probably characterizing that the General MacArthur (highest officer of the Pacific Theatre) was not consulted beforehand.

Of course there are also many arguments in favour, by ending the war early lives have also been saved. etc. etc.

But personally I still think it was a mistake. If you do start a thread on this on the Trash Heap I guess we could go into this further, ugh. But I'm tired of discussing on message boards for today.

"We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice."

78

Re: Peasant Guild

Science tells us that if this scientist performs experiment A and this other scientist performs experiment A and gets the same results, it is fact.

So,
C14 dating is flawed yet taught as definitive.
Evolution is a theory yet is taught as fact.
Paleontology is subjective yet taught as evidential.
DNA studies have changed more times that Oprah's weight yet it is taught as indisputable.

All I was saying is that people take this stuff as absolute truth when there are questions as to the amount of truth involved. Thus making Evolution a belief system that is comparable to many religions.

79

Re: Peasant Guild

Intelligent design is a real theory, so is evolution, in its own way. Most of what we believe scientifically is indeed correct. However, there are holes in the web, and no one is quite sure where the patch is located.

Just remember, A. It is impossible to prove God does not exist,
2. Who is to say he/she/it is the one who made us, and III. The laws of physics can and will be broken by more simplistic versions of themselves.

And for Axle- I know this sounds stupid, but remember, god was younger back then than he is now. Younger people make mistakes, and to err is human, so yes, if you believe god created us, we were made in his image.

I'm not neccesarily saying he did err when he made different languages, but it did cause much disaster, and the fall of ancient civilizations probably quite advanced.

And there is always the 'time god' theory. This theory is quite simple, a future time traveler goes back in time, and play acts as god, thus making the world believe in him. I personally think this is hilarious.

But there is so much to speculate on, and I have a headache, and Crovax is probably going to come along and say I made a boo-boo in line 13, so to hell with it.(irony)

It is high time I put something intelligent here.

80

Re: Peasant Guild

Nah, I'm just gonna let the Vatican do that for me And actually it is line 1 I take issue with, your valuation of Intelligent Design as a real theory.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/storie … 600273.htm

See? Even they agree that Intelligent Design is bogus. smile

"We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice."

81

Re: Peasant Guild

Science tells us that if this scientist performs experiment A and this other scientist performs experiment A and gets the same results, it is fact.

So,
C14 dating is flawed yet taught as definitive.
Evolution is a theory yet is taught as fact.
Paleontology is subjective yet taught as evidential.
DNA studies have changed more times that Oprah's weight yet it is taught as indisputable.

All I was saying is that people take this stuff as absolute truth when there are questions as to the amount of truth involved. Thus making Evolution a belief system that is comparable to many religions.

You take the bible as absolute truth, yet you weren't around when it was written, and you don't know have any first hand knowledge about the character of the men who wrote it.

Scientist are here, now. You can meet them you can ask them questions and they can show you how they arrived at the conclusions they did. All scientific data is presented with a margin of error.

I don't know where you went to school, but where I attended, evolution was taught as theory, hence "The Theory of Evolution".

If DNA is so inaccurate, please explain the recent success in stem cell research and cloning.

Oman: It is impossible to prove god doesn't exist, as much as it is impossible to prove god does exist. This is the basis of my entire argument, I don't deny the possiblility that god exists, yet I don't deny the possibility that god doesn't exist. There is no way to prove either case, as the bible is the work and word of man not god, and therefore is not acceptable as viable proof of god's existence. I invite you to prove the bible is the word of god, call your witnesses, bring forth your evidence.

As far as god being "younger" and subject to err:
One can not be all powerful, all knowing, yet still be susceptible to error. To suggest this is a contradiction of the bible, the alleged word of god. Also, quite illogical.

82

Re: Peasant Guild

You take the bible as absolute truth, yet you weren't around when it was written, and you don't know have any first hand knowledge about the character of the men who wrote it.

That is the point in a nutshell.
My belief in the Bible is base on evidence that lead to faith.
I admit that I have faith in the Bible.

The issues I introduced about science reveals that a person
who believes those three scientific issues are in fact relying
on a measure of faith that surpasses evidence. They don't admit
that they believe based on faith.

And as I stated before, I questioned these issues way before
I believed in God. They did not jive. My quest for more data
had sent me on a quest for the knowledge of God, without my
realizing the end of the quest lead to God.

God is the First Cause that has no cause.
The Bible has been proven based on Archiology,
Literary and Historical data. Sources outside of
the Bible point to the validity of the Bible.

The argument seems to be that if I believe the Bible
to be true, I must be too stupid and bias to understand
all of the data presented reguarding science.

The contrary is true. I am in fact more open to delving in
to information and I am a sceptic who must have data
to draw a conclusion.

I bring up problems in evolution dealing with DNA.
The subject is changed to bone fragment and I deal with that.
The subject is again changed to C14 and I deal with that.

Site a topic and stic with it. You want to debate science?
Or would you rather debate the Bible?
How about a debate discussing the Quaran?
You pick the topic and I will stick to it.

83

Re: Peasant Guild

I wish i was a super cool kid like GOD, Maybe if i eat his crap i will be like him, if only he would cover my face in bodily fluids.

Sure if you want

The owner of everything, even you.

84

Re: Peasant Guild

I wish i was a super cool kid like GOD, Maybe if i eat his crap i will be like him, if only he would cover my face in bodily fluids.

Strange, I was just thinking that.

Modern cyberspace is a deadly festering swamp, teeming with dangerous programs such as''licensed Microsoft software'' that can take over your computer and render it useless.

85

Re: Peasant Guild

My belief in the Bible is base on evidence that lead to faith.

And what evidence would that be?

The issues I introduced about science reveals that a person
who believes those three scientific issues are in fact relying
on a measure of faith that surpasses evidence. They don't admit
that they believe based on faith.

Scientists base their facts and theories based on statistical probability. The fact that we live in a world were nothing is perfect means that it is impossible to not encounter some margin of error when performing scientific experiments. This does not mean you totally dismiss the data.

The argument seems to be that if I believe the Bible
to be true, I must be too stupid and bias to understand
all of the data presented reguarding science.

The contrary is true. I am in fact more open to delving in
to information and I am a sceptic who must have data
to draw a conclusion.

If you believe the bible to be the true word of god, then you have faith in the bible being the word of god, which is your right. It doesn't prove anything. You claim you delve for more data yet totally dismiss anything other than what is presented in the bible.

God is the First Cause that has no cause.
The Bible has been proven based on Archiology,
Literary and Historical data. Sources outside of
the Bible point to the validity of the Bible.

Please list these sources if you expect your claim to have any merit. I will refer to the great flood as far as inaccuracies. Talk about not jiving and inaccuracies, how's this for inaccuracies:


Contradictions
--If there is any area in which the Bible's imperfections and errancy is most apparent, it is that of inconsistencies and contradictions. The book is a veritable miasma of contradictory assertions and obvious disagreements, which is to be expected in any writing formulated over approximately 1,500 years by 40 or 50 different writers, few of whom seemed to be precisely concerned with what the others had penned. Moreover, the highly repetitive nature of the Bible accounts for many of the conflicts. It would have been far better for those attempting to defend the Book if, for example Deuteronomy had not repeated so much of Exodus, Chronicles had not repeated so much of Samuel and Kings, and the gospels had not been so repetitious. But they do repeat and, thus, problems exist. Yet, despite all historical, mathematical, ethical, philosophical, geographical, and chronological difficulties contained therein, some die-hard fundamentalists carry their hopelessly doomed resistance to the bitter end. As incredible as it may seem, there are some individuals who still say, "The Bible is perfect and inerrant. There are no inaccuracies." So, for the benefit of these holdouts, I am going to provide a list of some simple, straight-forward problems that even some well-known spokesmen for the fundamentalist position grudgingly concede:
(a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;
(b) Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign;
(c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:8), 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:8), 3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);
(d) There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;
(e) There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs of the officers that bare the rule over the people;
(f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;
(g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);
(h) Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);
(i) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);
(j) Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000 (1 Kings 7:26), 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:5) baths;
(k) The workers on the Temple had 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16), 3,600 (2 Chron. 2:18) overseers;
(l) The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth forever;
(m) If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true (John 8:14), is not true (John 5:31);
(n) Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 35:24);
(o) Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:28) days;
(p) Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh (2 Kings 25:8), tenth (Jer. 52:12) day of the fifth month.

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart12.html

Last but not least, all of these topics were already in discussion when I joined this debate, so technically I am sticking with the topics.

86

Re: Peasant Guild

I wish i was a super cool kid like GOD, Maybe if i eat his crap i will be like him, if only he would cover my face in bodily fluids.

Sure if you want

This person is an IDIOT!

87

Re: Peasant Guild

I wish i was a super cool kid like GOD, Maybe if i eat his crap i will be like him, if only he would cover my face in bodily fluids.

Strange, I was just thinking that.


This person is an IDIOT!

88

Re: Peasant Guild

Okay I will address the Bible issue.
Not like it will do any good.
I assume that any information given will
be promtly rejected. If you have already
made up your mind, No amount of TRUTH
will enter.

Here it goes. Hang on tight.

Q: (a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;
A: Did you Read this in the Bible? What version?
From the KJV
(2 Sam. 8:4) And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.
(1 Chron. 18:4) And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.
No Dif.


Q: (b) Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign;
A: The Hebrew text of 2 Chronicles 22:2 literally describes Ahaziah as a “son of forty-two years.” Some scholars have argued that this phrase does not mean that he, as an individual, was forty-two years old when he came to the throne. Rather, they suggest that the expression depicts the sum of years that had passed since the founding of the dynasty of Omri, the father of Ahab (note the phrase “house of Ahab” – v. 3), from whom Ahaziah was descended through his mother (v. 2b). From the time of Omri, to that of Ahaziah, was some forty-two years.

Q: (c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);
A: Those who read and understand how the kings of Judah and the kings of Israel deal with their royal family affairs (like in the line of successions) are aware that joint reigns are common to ensure seamless transitions especially when the king has more than one wife. Thus Jehoiachin was only eight years of age when he was made regent under the supervision of his mother (2 Kings 24:12; Jeremiah 13:11) for his father was already taken captive in Babylon. Then It was only at the 18th year when he reigned alone.
and As for how long the Jehoiachin reigned both passage are true: Jehoiachin reigned for three months and ten days (or as 2 Kings 24:8 put it in round figure: three months).
If I asked you how old you are and you said 32 would you be lieing? Should you have said 23 years, 1 month, 1 week and 2 days?

Q: (d) There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;
A: The solution to the difference in counts for Israel seems to be answered in the Hebrew word for "valiant," which is "chayil" found in 2 Samuel 24:9.  It means, "men of valor, army, host, etc."   It seems to mean that the men numbered in 2 Samuel 24:9 were those with battle experience where the men of 1 Chronicles 21:5 were not.  It was most probably true that there were an additional 300,000 men ready for battle who had not yet experienced it.  Therefore, 2 Sam. 24:9 numbers only the experienced men, where 1 Chronicles 21:5 numbers all men of battle ready age.
and
The solution seems to provided for us in the following verse six which says, "But he did not number Levi and Benjamin among them, for the king's command was abhorrent to Joab," (NASB).  Verse six states that the numbering process had not yet been completed since the tribes of Levi and Benjamin had not been numbered.

Q: (e) There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs of the officers that bare the rule over the people;
A: These two numbers represent two different groups of people.

Q: (f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;
A: They where adopted children, from Merab, Saul's daughter (1 Samuel 18:19), the wife of Adriel, the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

Q: (g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);
A: Nephew. Lot was of the seed of Abraham's brother.

Q: (h) Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);
A: The term "Ishamelite" was synomous with the term "Midianites." Also identified as a confederation of tribes that roamed far beyond this ancestral homeland.

Q: (i) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);
A:  1 Samuel 31:4 gives what actually happened while 2 Samuel 1:8-10 only gives what the Amalekite said happened.  Most probably, the Amalekite took the opportunity to benefit from the King's death, gathered his crown and bracelet and then brought them to David.  Unfortunately for the Amalekite, David said in 2 Samuel 1:13-16, "And David said to the young man who told him, "Where are you from?" And he answered, "I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite." 14Then David said to him, "How is it you were not afraid to stretch out your hand to destroy the Lord's anointed?" 15And David called one of the young men and said, "Go, cut him down." So he struck him and he died. 16And David said to him, "Your blood is on your head, for your mouth has testified against you, saying, "I have killed the Lord's anointed.'" The Amalekite probably thought he'd benefit from bringing the King's possessions to David, but his plan backfired.

Q: (j) Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000 (1 Kings 7:26), 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:5) baths;
A:It was not full in Kings. It had more capacity then 2000, that of 3000 and then it was drained down to 2000 so it would not spill over or birds would not drink out of it and defile it.

Q: (k) The workers on the Temple had 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16), 3,600 (2 Chron. 2:1 overseers;
A: There were two classes of workers.If the people are being counted differently, it is interesting to note that the total number of supervisors is the same when we add the numbers from 1 Kings 5:16 and 1 Kings 9:23 together and also add 2 Chronicles 2:2 and 2 Chronicles 8:10 together.

Q: (l) The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth forever;
A:  The context of the Ecclesiastes passage is revealed in the previous verse (3) which says,
"What advantage does man have in all his work which he does under the sun?"  In other words, the perspective of Ecclesiastes is from a completely human standpoint.  The same is occurring in the Psalms passage, a description from a human perspective.  Therefore, the writers will see the earth abiding forever because that is exactly how it appears.  But, in Isaiah 65:17 and 2 Peter 3:10 the contexts are altogether different.  They are speaking of the time in the future when the new heavens and new earth will be made. 
Take a look at 2 Peter.    "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells."
(2 Peter 3:10-12).
     Since sin is in the world, the earth and all its works will be destroyed and cleansed and a new heavens and new earth will replace them.

Q: (m) If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true (John 8:14), is not true (John 5:31);
A:  In John 5:31, the context is Jesus speaking about how He depends upon the Father and how He is seeking the will of the Father.  John 5:30-32 says, "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 31"If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true. 32"There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the testimony which He bears of Me is true."  The word "alone" is not in the Greek but is included in the NASB translation, though not the NIV, the KJV.  Contextually, Jesus is not speaking as one alone, but as one dependent on the Father and that His judgments are true because He does the will of the Father.  Jesus is reflecting on the Old Testament law that didn't allow the testimony of one person to condemn another to death.  Two witnesses were needed to establish the fact: 
    "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established," (Deut. 19:15).   and Matthew 8:16 says, ". . . in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."  See also 2 Cor. 13:1; Heb. 10:28. 
     In John 8:14, Jesus says, "IF" (kan, in the Greek) I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true.  But He was speaking of being the light of the word, v. 12, and the Pharisees accused Him of bearing witness of Himself.  Jesus was simply telling the truth that if He did, it would be true.

Q: (n) Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 35:24);
A:  (1) Josiah was wounded fatally at Megiddo; (2) his body was rushed away to Jerusalem after he commanded his servants to take him away; and (3) he died sometime after he gave that command. The text is not clear as to the exact location of death. He could have passed away in Megiddo, or on his way to Jerusalem, or even in Jerusalem for that matter. However, the latter is not likely to have occurred since Jerusalem was over fifty miles from Megiddo (probably no less than a two-hour chariot ride). Neither account clearly defines the location of death, only that the location of the fatal injury occurred in Meggido. From the KJV.

Q: (o) Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:2 days;
A: Luke 9:28 is an approximation evidenced by it saying "about eight days after . . ."  Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2 are more precise.  They say "after six days."  Logically, eight days is after six days, so there is no logical contradiction.  But, the key lies in Luke saying "about eight days later."  Luke was giving an approximation.  Matthew and Mark were more precise.

Q: (p) Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh (2 Kings 25:, tenth (Jer. 52:12) day of the fifth month.
A: He came twice. Once to persuade Jerusalem to surrender (the 7th day) and the second time to wage war (the 10th day).

89

Re: Peasant Guild

I wish i was a super cool kid like GOD, Maybe if i eat his crap i will be like him, if only he would cover my face in bodily fluids.

Sure if you want

This person is an IDIOT!

I wish i was a super cool kid like GOD, Maybe if i eat his crap i will be like him, if only he would cover my face in bodily fluids.

Strange, I was just thinking that.


This person is an IDIOT!

Stating the obvious are we? Lol, just ignore them, they are not really part of this discussion. Their words have no value, not to this debate, not to any of us and not in life.

"We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice."

90

Re: Peasant Guild

What are you talking about Ronnie? I value their onions!

91

Re: Peasant Guild

Meh, only the outer rings (when baked) =p

"We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice."

92

Re: Peasant Guild

Q

: (a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;
A: Did you Read this in the Bible? What version?
From the KJV
I'm only going to address a few of these as I feel it is all that is needed to prove my point.

(2 Sam. 8:4) And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.
(1 Chron. 18:4) And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.
No Dif.

No difference? seven hundred horsemen is a lot different from seven thousand horsemen.

As far as Jesiah's death, it can's get any clearer than "Josiah died at Megiddo" or "Jesiah died at Jerusalem "

Q: (o) Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:2 days;
A: Luke 9:28 is an approximation evidenced by it saying "about eight days after . . ." Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2 are more precise. They say "after six days." Logically, eight days is after six days, so there is no logical contradiction. But, the key lies in Luke saying "about eight days later." Luke was giving an approximation. Matthew and Mark were more precise.

If the bible is the word of god (god was their source as so claimed) there should not be any discrepencies what so ever. Discrepencies only serve to prove that this is their version (vision) of the events that transpired in that era, as told by them, not by god.

My question to you is did you even follow that link I posted in my last post? Doubt it.

Here's my take on the bible. It has moral value. It has important lessons about the nature of mankind. It is not the word of god, nor is it proof god exists.

If you choose to believe the bible is the word of god you certainly have that right. Does it mean you are stupid? Absolutely not. Does it mean you don't use logic to determine your beliefs? Most likely.

93

Re: Peasant Guild

No difference? seven hundred horsemen is a lot different from seven thousand horsemen.

The King James Version shows No difference. Like I said before.
Did you look in a Bible or did you just quote from a website?
I quoted the Bible word for word in my answer and there was No difference.

As far as Josiah’s death, it can's get any clearer than "Josiah died at Megiddo" or "Josiah died at Jerusalem "

Semantics


If the bible is the word of god (god was their source as so claimed) there should not be any discrepancies what so ever. Discrepancies only serve to prove that this is their version (vision) of the events that transpired in that era, as told by them, not by god.

The fact that people who don't have a grasp on how to read that Bible are the ones saying aha! A discrepancy, does not invalidate it. Disciplined Bible study is necessary. All of the issues were answered in full and they were very easy to answer when applied with Hermeneutics.
-------------------------------
The following guide will help to address any contradiction that is assumed.
Hermeneutics
1) The rule of authorial intent
No reader has the right to impose his own ideas on the text. Scripture itself clearly teaches that the only meaning of a text is what the Holy Spirit intended when He inspired the human writer (2 Pet. 1:20-1). It follows that every text has only one correct interpretation. If two readers disagree on what it means, at least one of them is necessarily wrong. Perhaps both are wrong. How do we discover the one correct interpretation? We must consult the author Himself, the Holy Spirit. We must allow Him to teach us.

2) The rule of univocal meaning
The basic sense of a passage is the single sense evident to any reader who allows the words their ordinary meanings and who expects the grammar and syntax to shape and combine these meanings in a normal fashion. (This rule should not be applied indiscriminately, without recognition that Biblical writers may sometimes propound a riddle or engage in word play. In either instance the words may bear more than one basic meaning.)

3) The rule of context
The context of a passage may supply clues to the correct interpretation. Such clues may even clarify a passage that otherwise would be obscure. An example is the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt. 13:31-2). Only by comparing it with the other parables in the same chapter (especially the first two, the Parable of the Sower and the Parable of the Wheat and Tares) do we discover that it describes the future of the church. Its prediction that the church in its final stages would be corrupt comes to light only if we notice that the growth of the mustard plant parallels the spread of leaven in the next parable (in Scripture, leaven always represents sin), and only if we notice that the birds in the first parable of the series, the Parable of the Sower, represent workers of Satan (vs. 4, 19).

4) The rule that Scripture explains itself
How do we know that leaven represents sin? We draw this conclusion from a comprehensive look at all the references to leaven in Scripture. In obedience to this fourth rule, we rely on Scripture to explain itself. That is to say, in the places where leaven is a symbol with obvious meaning, we expect that the meaning will be the same, and that this meaning will help us interpret the other texts referring to leaven.

In consequence of this investigation, we find that Scripture consistently associates leaven with evil. Before celebrating Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the people of Israel were required to go through their houses and remove every trace of leaven (Ex. 12:15). This ritual depicted their need to remove sin from their lives before they sought fellowship with God. Paul explicitly identifies leaven as a symbol of malice and wickedness (1 Cor. 5:6-8; Gal. 5:7-9).

In general, the New Testament explains the Old. Without the New, we could not be confident that the Old contains types and allegories, and we would scarcely know how to interpret them.

A type is a person or event that pictures a person or event in the future. The New Testament informs us that Melchizedek is a type of Christ (Heb. 6:20-7:3). That Joshua the high priest is a symbol of the Branch—that is, Christ—is made plain even in the Old Testament (Zech. 3:8; "wondered at" can be translated "of symbol"), but only from the perspective of the New Testament do we understand the significance of his name, Joshua (that is, Jesus). Other Old Testament figures who seem to be deliberate types of Christ are Joseph, Joshua (Moses' successor), and Hosea. Such figures as Pharaoh, Haman, and Antiochus Epiphanes (foreshadowed in Dan. 11:21-35) appear to be forerunners of the Antichrist. The New Testament teaches that the rites of Mosaic religion furnish types of Christ's redemptive work (Heb. 9:8-9).

A story in which each element represents something beyond itself is a common species of allegory. Israel's escape from Egypt is an allegory of Christian experience (1 Cor. 10:1-6), and the struggle within Abraham's family between Hagar and Sarah is an allegory of the conflict between law and grace (Gal. 4:21-31). Another type of allegory hides spiritual truth in a plain statement about something else. Paul encourages us to see allegories in minor provisions of the Mosaic law (1 Cor. 9:9-10).

The question that has always vexed expositors is this: Just how much liberty do we have to discover allegories? Some church fathers and many commentators during the Middle Ages carried allegorizing to extremes, even so far as to neglect the plain meaning of Scripture. To a modern student of the Bible, many of the allegories that they drew from Scripture seem far-fetched and arbitrary. In reaction against allegorizing, most Bible-believing expositors since Reformation times decline to look for any allegories besides those Scripture itself identifies—with one major exception. The Song of Solomon has traditionally been read as an allegory of Christ's love for the church.

5) The rule of literalism.
The Bible is to be taken literally unless it is using symbols or a figure of speech.

94

Re: Peasant Guild

You're 34? Hmm..

Yeah, And So?

You are 34, you call the game great, yet you refuse to pay for the game.
I don't get it.

No worries, you never do.

95

Re: Peasant Guild

I wish i was a super cool kid like GOD, Maybe if i eat his crap i will be like him, if only he would cover my face in bodily fluids.

Strange, I was just thinking that.


This person is an IDIOT!

Your an idiot for thinking that me or soad would ever care what the hell you thought smile


aside from that matter, your also an idiot for letting yourself beeing brainwashed by a religion.

How can someone in this day and age still belive in religion, blind faith is stupid.  Science is far more probable and believable than a bunch of old tales and unverifed statemens.

Anyone who belives in religion is a retard, if you belive in christianity you also belive in adam and eve, and if u believe in adam and eve then you belive we are all inbred.

I dont think people should waste their whole life on a global form of brainwashing, i think its weak that you have to conform to something like religion.  Science has proven itself time and time again against religion.

The owner of everything, even you.

96

Re: Peasant Guild

I cant remember who said it, i think fireborn, that darwain said that evolution would supply a steady stream of changes and this has not been found but if you think about evolution in terms of natural selection then surely evolution would be sped up by certain events in the earths history. EG: When an Ice age occurs animals with little fur of way of keeping warm would die and the most hairy mates will be chosen by the females to give there offspring the greatest chance of survial in this case you would see within 5 or 6 generations of animals much different examples of the spiecies whereas in cases where there is no need for improvment the species stays mostly the same, alligators crocs and sharks are examples which also show that some of the oldest types of animal live (at least partially) in water and darwain did say that nearly all aminals in our era evolved from sea creatures. When talking about monkeys being related to us bear in mind that they are cousins to us in genetic terms as one branch of some sort of money evolved into us the other into modern day animals so there is (most probably) millions of years of evolution between us.


If what worshiploud said is true which i have no reason to think hes lieing and interpretation of the bible is wrong then the catholics, prodistants, mormans basicly any dirivitive of christianity should be shut down because they are always argueing over the meaning of things in the bible, otherwise thered be one religion called christianity.


Also im a atheist.

97

Re: Peasant Guild

If what worshiploud said is true which i have no reason to think hes lieing and interpretation of the bible is wrong then the catholics, prodistants, mormans basicly any dirivitive of christianity should be shut down because they are always argueing over the meaning of things in the bible, otherwise thered be one religion called christianity.

catholics, prodistants, Denominations of Christianity.

mormans, Not a denomination because they have their own
Scriptures.

98

Re: Peasant Guild

I cant remember who said it, i think fireborn, that darwain said that evolution would supply a steady stream of changes and this has not been found but if you think about evolution in terms of natural selection then surely evolution would be sped up by certain events in the earths history. EG: When an Ice age occurs animals with little fur of way of keeping warm would die and the most hairy mates will be chosen by the females to give there offspring the greatest chance of survial in this case you would see within 5 or 6 generations of animals much different examples of the spiecies whereas in cases where there is no need for improvment the species stays mostly the same, alligators crocs and sharks are examples which also show that some of the oldest types of animal live (at least partially) in water and darwain did say that nearly all aminals in our era evolved from sea creatures.

The concept of micro-evolution - or diversification of species - is a fact of nature. Species do vary and change, but only on a small scale.
Darwin then extrapolated his explanation for the origin of life forms from a common ancestor, or "macro-evolution." He used the evidence from the first half of his book on micro-evolution to suggest that the same mechanism could produce all life forms. However, this concept of macro-evolution is not supported by modern scientific evidence. Although we can explain and understand the mechanism behind micro-evolution, we still can only theorize about possible explanations for macro-evolution - since it has no scientifically valid occurrences.

99

Re: Peasant Guild

catholics, prodistants, Denominations of Christianity.

mormans, Not a denomination because they have their own
Scriptures.


Didnt know that...


The concept of micro-evolution - or diversification of species - is a fact of nature. Species do vary and change, but only on a small scale.
Darwin then extrapolated his explanation for the origin of life forms from a common ancestor, or "macro-evolution."

At one point i think you said science says that somthing cant be created out of nothing, i will point out you are wrong there if the big bang theory is correct which given that its the only good working theory other than beleiveing the bible is a reasonable assumsion for a scientist to make.

Also given that everything came from nothing it that theory the next logical step is that organic material combined and eventually became counsious (sentient) thus drawing the conclusion that everything evolved from an original creature most probably a single cell amoeba.

100

Re: Peasant Guild

well lets put it this way which is more beliveable:

A: God created the world in 7 days, all the billions of different kinds of bugs, plants, organisims, sea creatures, land animals, mammals, the way they evolve, how the weather works, what the weather does, absolutly everything.

or...

B: It's all a matter of science and  earth is created from billions of particles of matter and slowly the world forms and later creates an atmosphere which later on creates an environment for species of plants, animals, mammals and organisims to coincide and live on earth. Which later on these creatures evolve through millions of years of exsisting on this planet and adapting to its surroundings. 

You would have to be a fool to prefer the first.

The owner of everything, even you.