 |
||||||
 |
||||||
 |
||||||
 |
 |
|||||
 |
NAVIGATION
HOMEFAQ BLOG (kinda) LINKS - HELP » THE OLD RELIGION??? »"WITCH" DEFINED » MATRIARCHY MYTH » BURNING TIMES BULL » SALEM WITCH TRIALS » JOAN OF ARC A WITCH?? » GOOD WITCH"S BIBLE??? » "CHRISTIAN" WICCA » WICCA ISN'T SATANISM » HUMAN SCARFICIES??? » NEOPAGAN HOLI-DAZE » DRUIDS » COMPARITIVE MORALITY » FAMOUS OCCULTISTS » SANTERIA » VOODOO » "HELP! I'M CURSED!" » THE GOLDEN DAWN »FREEMASONRY » ROSICRUCIANS » SATANISM FACTS » ENOCHIAN MAGIC » ALEISTER CROWLEY » NECRONOMICON » OCCULT CRIMES #1 » OCCULT CRIMES #2 » OCCULT CRIMES #3 » GNOSTICS » CABALA DEBUNKED » ISLAM » THEOSOPHY » SCIENTOLOGY » PSYCHIC SCAMS » MORMONISM » HITLER A CHRISTIAN ??? » DAVINCI DECODED » TWO BABYLONS BULL » BIBLE ERRORS ??? » THOSE AWFUL "XTIANS" » EVOLUTION IS O.K.! » KING JESUS » HEAVEN AND HELL » DEMONOLOGY » CELTIC CHRISTIANTY » MIRACLES                                   |
 |
Bible Contradictions...EXPLAINED!
Most of what is touted as "Bible Contradictions" are really misunderstandings. YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE BOOK "136 BIBLE CONTRADICITIONS...EXPLAINED" AS A ZIPPED .pdf FILE RIGHT NOW BY CLICKING HERE! There was a time when I was young I lost my faith in the Bible due to these so-called "errors". eventually, when I returned to christianity and actually took some seminary courses, I was amazed at how much of the Bible I only thought I knew all those years as an occultist. Many Bible errors can be figured out right off the bat if you remember a few simple rules. 1. Some things in the Bible are not meant to be taken literal. The Bible is filled from cover to cover with allegories, poetry, symbolism, and figuritive language! A favorite verse of Bible critics is: 2Ki 18:27 And the chief of the cupbearers said to them, Has my master sent me to your master and to you, to speak these words, and not to the men who sit on the wall, to eat their own dung and drink their own urine with you? (MKJV) One Neopagan recently emailed me with his toung jammed firmly in his cheek as he wrote " Is this some kind of religous ritual?" You have to realize the Bible is written with poetry and prose, figuritive language and allegory. Sometimes it even uses earthy language to get the point across. In this instance, what God is saying to these people is what extremities and miseries will come upon them if they don’t straighten up. It doesn’t have to neccesarilly mean they will literally eat their own waste (consequently, there's no mention they did). It's like telling someone they're up a certain well known creek without a paddle. No one believes they will literally be in a real river of feces! Niether was Jesus being literal when he said things like it was better to pluck out one's own eye than view something it shouldn't. Nor did he mean people should literally cut there hands off because of sin. No one in Christs time thought he was being literal, and certainly no Christian today believes it in a literal sense. And yet, I read arguments like this on the webpages of Bible skeptics who somehow don't get it. 2.We don't speak the same kind of English as they did in the King James Bible. Sometimes a verse can seem to say one thing, but really meant something different when it was written. Words like "prevent" "lead" and "perfect" can have different meannings than what they do now. The Lord's Prayer says "Lead Us Not Into Temptaion..." to which Bible critics will ask why God would ever lead people into temptation? The word "Lead" would better rendered as "steer" in our language. In other words, Jesus was saying "Don't allow us to wander into temptation steer us the right way instead..." There are many, many different Bible versions with updated English. The Third Melinium Bible and the Modern King James Bible are both good. Sometimes simply reading the Bible in more modern English will clear up any misgivings. 3. The New Covenant Fulfiled the Old Covenant This is why Christians no longer follow the dietary laws of the Old Testament or keep Saturday as the Sabbath. When Jesus came to Earth, the Mosaic Law was fulfilled. 4. There are many Hebrew and Middle Eastern customs and idioms which are not understood by Gentiles/Westerners. Here's a prime example: Matthew 12:40, about Jesus being in the grave 3 days and 3 nights, although he was only in the grave at best 3 days and 2 nights. I am familiar with the Wednesday/Saturday theory, but I feel Ralph Woodrow has thoroughly debunked it in his book which I highly recommend, Three Days and Three Nights Reconsidered In The Light Of Scriptures. This is from tektonics.org <snip> This is actually an instance in which we need to understand Jewish idiom, which understood "a day and a night" to include even the smallest part of a day and night. A Jewish source from after the time of the New Testament puts it this way: "A day and a night are an Onah ['a portion of time'] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it" [J.Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and b.Talmud, Pesahim 4a] Other examples of this kind of usage can be found throughout the Bible (Gen. 42:16, 1Kings 20:29, Esth. 4:16, Matt. 27:63). Jesus was in the tomb for only a small part of Friday and Sunday, but that counts according to Jewish idiom for the entire "day and night" for each of those days. The fuller cite from the Talmud reads: Weigh well that which is disputed in the tract Schabbath, concerning the uncleanness of a woman for three days; where many things are discussed by the Gemarists concerning the computation of this space of three days. Among other things, these words occur; "R. Ismael saith, Sometimes it contains four Onoth, sometimes five, sometimes six. But how much is the space of an Onah? R. Jochanon saith either a day or a night." And so also the Jerusalem Talmud; "R. Akiba fixed a day for an Onah, and a night for an Onah: but the tradition is, that R. Eliezar Ben Azariah said, A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as a whole." And a little after, R. Ismael computeth a part of the Onah for the whole. (p. 210, vol. 2, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica) As an aside, a strawman set up against this argues that because the reason for the discussion is a menstrual cycle, then this designation applies only for menstrual cycles. That is not the case. While the menstrual cycle was the "problem" causing the discussion, the resolution is completely independent of the problem and is not uniquely associated with it. In
addition, the online Jewish Encyclopedia says this about I also found an answer I like just as much in Pinchas Lapide's The Resurrection of Jesus (91-2). He takes the reference to the "third day" as alluding to various passages in the OT where the after a "third day" something happens in the "history of salvation," (Gen. 22:4, 42:18; Ex. 19:16; Jonah 1:17; Esther 5:1; Hos. 6:2) and thus "has nothing to do with the date or counting of time but contains for ears which are educated biblically a clear reference to God's mercy and grace which is revealed after two days of afflication and death by way of redemption." In other words, it is a literary device, and thus must be read as one. </snip> There are many, many other examples as well. So, before you go believeing every cockeyed claim made by some angry atheist with an angelfire page, just remember it's extremely unlikely they can read Greek and Hebrew, let alone have even made a cursory study of Middle Eastern cultures. It seems every Cliff Claven thinks they're smart enough to refute the Bible. 5.Some words may have gotten lost in the translation. In Greek (the language the new testament was written in) there are 5 different words for our one word "love". Tenses, voices, pluperfect participles...oi vay! Sometimes the translators did there best when they translated things. Sometimes they came across words they didn't have a definition for. Here's an example: Lev 11:6 And the hare, because he chews the cud but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you. Bible critics have a little smirk on their face when they point this verse out, thinking they've won. Hares don't chew cud, they point out. True, but they also don't have hoofs of any kind either. Hmmmm.... Let's investigate further... "Lev 11:6 - hare Hebrew, arnebeth, an unidentified animal, but certainly not a hare, possessing as it is said to, characteristics not possessed by the hare. The supposed error in the text is due entirely to the translators' assumption that the English hare and the ancient "arnebeth" were identical. " (Source: Scofield's Notes on the Bible) So there you have it. It wasn't what we call a "hare", it was an arnebeth. Chances are it's an animal that is now extinct. This brings me to my next point: 6.Many of these so-called Bible verses have been explained and resolved again, and again and again ad nauseuam if you just bother to look it up! Try reading books written by Bible scholars. Believe it or not, someone who has a PhD in Theology might actually know a little something about the Bible! I used to think I knew everything about the Bible too, when I was an occultist. Many years later I found out I didn't. I just mentioned Schofield's Notes. A Schofleild Bible may answer many questions you may have. You may also want to try “136 Bible Contradictions....Answered”, by Brad McCoy (available above as a download), “Encyclopedia of Old Testament Difficulties” Zondervan Press, and “Commentary on The Torah” by Richard Friedman Here are a few Bible "contradictions"...answered. Jdg 1:19 And Jehovah was with Judah. And he took possession of the mountain. But he could not drive out those who lived in the valley, because they had chariots of iron. This verse isn't always obvious to some people. The verse isn't saying God couldn't drive them out. It's saying JUDAH could not drive them out. The clue to this is the "he" is not capitalized in this verse, denoting God. It's obvious when read in the Latin Vulgate or the original Hebrew. <snip> Paul's attendants heard the miraculous voice, and stood speechless [Acts 9:7] Paul's attendants heard not the voice and were prostrate [Acts 26:14] Acts 26:14 And when they had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me... Acts 9:7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. While we are at it, let's add the other account... Acts 22:9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. Obviously, according to the NIV translation, there is no contradiction, as you can hear a sound, but not the recognize it as the voice of one speaking. So is this translation justified? Sure. The original Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message. Haley notes "The Greek "akouo", like our word "hear", has two distinct meanings, to perceive sound, and to understand". This distinction makes sense also in light of the context. Recall the differing levels of perception. While the men heard an unintelligible sound and saw a light, Paul heard the voice and saw the person speaking. In fact, this type of distinction occurs in another place: "Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again". The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him" [John 12:28-29]. Here is a clear-cut example where a voice speaks, but is heard by some as an unintelligible sound. As for the stance of Paul's companions, Haley notes "the word rendered 'stood' also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. Hense, the sense may be, not that they stood erect, but that they were rendered motionless, or fixed to the spot, by overpowering fear". It is also entirely plausible that when they first saw the great light, they "hit the dirt", then they could have got up off the ground and stood there motionless. The problem with the skeptic's approach is that it assumes these accounts are exhaustive, step by step, accounts where each detail is conveyed. They are not. It's not as if the author of Acts is saying "this is how it happened" three separate times. The author does this once, and the other two times he relays Paul speaking about it in two different contexts. Now given that the author wasn't on the road to Damascus, and given that Paul was speaking from memory, and given that none of these are meant to be some exhaustive, detailed, point by point description, it is indeed wise to fit them all together. Furthermore, the account in Acts 26 relays a speech that Paul gave to King Agrippa which was only a synopsis. Acts 26 simply relays the manner in which Paul chose to convey his points. Goliath was slain by Elhanan [2 Sam 21:19] note: was changed in translation to be correct -- original manuscript was incorrect. The brother of Goliath was slain by Elhanan [1 Chron 20:5] As conceded, the verse in 2 Sam was probably due to a copyist's mistake. This is an example of why skeptics and Bible critics love to use the King James Version The father of Joseph, Mary's husband was Jacob [Matt 1:16] seems to contradict [Luke 3:23] that says the father of Mary's husband was Heli. But Luke's account traces Jesus' lineage through Mary, and not Joseph. To because of the chauvinism of the time, Luke inserted Joseph's name in the place of Mary's. The evidence that validates this is Luke's birth narrative is told through the eyes of Mary, while Matthew's is told through the eyes of Joseph. Luke probably received his material through Mary herself, if not someone close, thus it is quite possible that he received her genealogy. Luke 3:23 reads, "Jesus...being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, etc." Luke certainly draws attention to the fact that Jesus wasn't Joseph's earthly son, so why would he then go to all the trouble in listing Joseph's genealogy? (3) After considering the Greek of Luke 3:23, Robert Gromacki believes it should be translated as follows: "being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli, of Matthat, etc." Gromaki states: "Since women did not appear in direct genealogical listings, Joseph stood in Mary's place, but Luke was careful to note that there was no physical connection between Joseph and either Jesus or Heli." In Luke's genealogy he lists Adam as being "the son of God." This would indicate that one would have no grounds for insisting that the term "son" meant only the direct, biological offspring. Thus, one could think of Jesus as the "son of Heli." (5) The writings of Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 100 AD) indicate that the early church thought that Mary was a Davidic descent. For example, he writes: "Under the Divine dispensation, Jesus Christ our God was conceived by Mary of the seed of David and of the spirit of God; He was born, and He submitted to baptism, so that by His Passion He might sanctify water." -- Ignatius to the Ephesians "Christ was of David's line. He was the son of Mary; He was verily and indeed born.." -- Ignatius to the Trallians Since Ignatius believed in the virgin birth, it clearly follows that he would believe that she was "of the seed of David." Other apocryphal gospels and Justin Martyr (ca. 150 AD) also believed Mary to have been a descendent of David. Objections to these claims are basically of two types: A. The Jews did not typically trace genealogies through women. This is true, but a virgin birth is not a typical birth. Thus standard practices would not be expected to hold. B. There is no explicit mention that the genealogy is Mary's. This is true again, but the reason for this is probably due to point A. The genealogy would lose all appeal if it was explicitly cited as Mary's. However, it does seem to be implied. Thus, one could discern this truth after they had converted and studied the text. This would account for the early church's belief about Mary's Davidic descent. Whatever one makes of such reasoning, it is certainly possible that the above explanation might be true, thus a contradiction has not been proved. <end snip> Also, there have been women's genealogies from this era that have used the same tactic as tracing the line through the husband. This was obviously the case with Christ's geanealogy. Christ First Sermon Christ preached his first sermon on the mount [Matt 5:1,2] or.... Christ preached his first sermon on the plain [Luke 6:17,20] Neither account says anything about this being his "first sermon." As MaryAnna notes: Probably two different sermons with similar content. Matt. doesn't say the sermon on the mount was His first sermon. Matt. doesn't seem too concerned about the sequence of events. Matt. 4:23 seems to indicate that before this the Lord already had done a lot of speaking. The one in Luke 6:17 was to the crowds, whereas the one in Matt. 5 was addressed to the disciples privately. Indeed. It is not at all uncommon for a preacher to preach similar sermons at different times and with different audiences, now is it? WHICH HOUR??? Christ was crucified at the third hour [Mark 15:25] Christ was not crucified until the sixth hour [John 19:14,15] At what hour was Jesus crucified? Mark 15:25 says it was in the third hour, 9:00 a.m. John 19:14-15 says that in the sixth hour (different clock). He was still not crucified yet but was being judged before Pilate. This was at about 6 a.m. So three hours later He had carried the cross up to Golgotha (with some help) and was crucified. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts use Hebrew time for their reckoning. John uses Roman time. Another example of this is in John 18:28 -- early morning refers to the fourth Roman watch, which was 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. "DOES SCIENCE PROVE THE BIBLE WRONG?" Some people are convinced that it does. They read in the Bible, for example, that the stars are fixed in the "roof" of the world like luminous ornaments, which is the way they appeared to the eyes of the author of Genesis. Moses was a bedouin who dwelt in the desert, not an astrophysicist. Later scientific knowledge proves that the stars are incandescent bodies moving in space. Although some are willing to acknowledge that God created the universe, these scientific minded folks refuse to believe the Biblical account in which apparently it all took place in six days. Also, they contend that the scientific evidences of evolution appear to contradict the Bible in this instance. As far as Christians are concerned, there can be no real conflict between scientific truth and religious truth. From the time of Moses down to the present day, science has opened the doors to many of the earth's physical secrets - including in our own time, the fantastic secret of atomic energy. There will be undoubtedly occur, in the unforseeable future, even more revolutionary discoveries. But the fact remains that science has yet to produce any evidence that discredits the basic truths of Holy Scripture. The Bible, to begin with, is a book of religion - not a scientific textbook. The Book of Genesis should be regarded therefore, not as a scientific explanation of the heavens and the earth, but as an exposition of certain divine truths. These include such matters as the creation of all things - the creation of man as the object of God's special providence - the unity of the human race - the loss of man's original state of blessedness through original sin - God's promise and plan of redemption. In writing of these things, the authors of the Old Testament were divinely protected against error. God did not, however, stand over them and dictate what they wrote. Their writings, therefore, while recording basic truths, are clothed in language forms common to their primitive time, and are influenced by cultural and scientific concepts far less enlightened than our own. A correct appraisal of the Book of Genesis, and the history of Creation, (as well as the rest of the Bible) requires an understanding of the meanings which the Old Testament authors intended to convey, and an appreciation of the language forms, philosophy and mores of their times. Did The Infant Jesus go into Egypt or not??? The infant Christ was taken into Egypt [Matt 2:14,15,19,21,23] ....or.... The infant Christ was not taken into Egypt [Luke 2:22, 39] Luke does not say that the infant was not taken into Egypt as neither account is exhaustive (those who look for contradictions often overlook the fact that Biblical accounts are rarely exhaustive in their scope). We can easily harmonize the accounts as follows: Journey of Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem; birth of the child; presentation in the Temple; return to Bethlehem; visit of the Magi; flight into Egypt; return to settle in Nazareth. THE JESUS SEMINAR...DEBUNKED!
YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE BOOK "136 BIBLE CONTRADICITIONS...EXPLAINED" AS A ZIPPED .pdf FILE RIGHT NOW BY CLICKING HERE! You'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader to Read it. It's also free.  DOWNLOAD YOUR
FREE COPY OF THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE (NET
BIBLE)! The NET
Bible is in modern English, making it easier to read and understand. It
also shows you see for yourself the Greek and Hebrew words that were
used in the translation, so there's no more speculation to what a word
might or might not mean. IT'S FREE!For more information on so-called Bible Contraditions and verses that seem hard to understand or absurd, visit this website: 
EXCERPTS FROM MERE CHRISTIANITY BY C.S.LEWIS You're probably familiar with C.S. Lewis.He's best remembered for the Chronicles of Narnia, which was inspired by the Gospel of Christ. Unlike LaVey, Lewis really did have a doctorate, and was a college professor to boot! Lewis lost his faith early in life and became an atheist, and later rediscovered Christianity through his friend J.R.Tolkien (of Lord of The Rings fame). Mere Christianity is perhaps is best non-fiction work. In it he presents a thinking person's Christianity, showing you don't have to ditch your brain to be a Christian!
YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE BOOK "136 BIBLE CONTRADICITIONS...EXPLAINED" AS A .pdf FILE RIGHT NOW BY CLICKING HERE! Is the
Bible really
a "mass of contradictions" as some critics claim? Or are these claims
simply unfounded? These booklet refutes 136 purported "contradictions"
of the Holy Bible. It's your absolutley FREE! Download it now.
Lewis was more than the author of The Chronicles of Narnia, he was also acollege professor, and Theologian. One of the things Lewis had to confront before he left atheism for Christianity was the problem ofpain. The classic problem of evil is usually stated: "If God weregood, He would wish to make His creatures perfectly happy, and if Godwere almighty He would be able to do what He wished. But the creaturesare not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both." Lewis answers by showingthat thosewho say this do not know what "almighty", "good", or "perfectly happy" really mean. This book is typical of Lewis, well written, wellthough-out, and relatively easy to follow.
BLINDSIDED: A JEWISH AGNOSTIC FINDS THE MESSIAH. Read Stephen Katz's sincere story of how he lost faith in the Judaism of his youth and became an agnostic. College is a place where some people lose their faith, but irnonically, it's where Stephen Katz found it! Read how he came to the conclusion Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews!
ARE THE CELTS SOME OF THE 10
LOST TRIBES OF ISRAEL?
Down load this free ebook and decide if the Devil is the Prince of Evil. It will answer many of your questions, such as if God created aDevil, and if the Devil is real, not merely a fable or a metaphor.
. . . .  Author
C.S.Lewis
(of the Chronicles of Narnia fame) once wrote that whilehe was
anatheist he was mad at God because he didn't exist. Many people
don'tunderstand how God can "allow" suffering. This book in .pdf format
will help answer your questions.. . |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share
The Richard Harvey story twists
through the halls of England ¡s finest academic institutions, turns
with
the author as he pursues nearly every religion under the sun and
dramatically takes off as he discovers the great transforming truth!
There is only one problem: That truth and his Jewish roots seem to
stand in conflict with one another.
