> Why God's Book Cannot Contain Error

[SilverLJ]

[QUOTE=Acid;6743]Again you have first resorted to acting as If I am taking things out of context while in your post which is SUPPOSED to provide some answers to these contradictions. You provided no context at all. This is absolutely hillarious.

Silver - I agree it is hilarious, YOU began the thread by quoting three verses but look as hard as can I cannot see you offering or even knowing what their contexts where - your own words condemn you

You have only tried to provide meanings to words by twisting things and more importantly without any references. Well thats what Christians often do when they just want to write anything , isnt? anyway..

All I tried to do was show what the original Greek words mean and I used a respectable dictionary to do that as you will see if you study my post. One cannot obviously look these words up in a modern dictionary and to be precise we need to go back to the Greek. You use the KJV and that translation is dated 1604 and so the words 400 years ago might just have slightly different connotations.

Before I tell you the usage about hte word Peirazo, I want to make it clear that the meaning of it makes NO DIFFERENCE. There is a clear contradiction as was stated originally in my post. What you does doesnt makes a shread of sense. I anyone put the twisted meanings you quoted than the entire verse would even then say the same thing.

Silver Comment - I cannot follow this argument, I look up a meaning of a word in its original context by using a Greek dictionary of ancient words and you say I am 'twisting' things yet you just look up the word somewhere or other and assume its correct. Would you allow this for the Qu'ran, I take a translation, I find a verse and look up a key word in the Oxford Shorter dictionary and say that is what it means so the Qu'ran is contradictory? I think its time we had a little honesty from you.

If there is any deliberate twisting of the facts its you that us doing it because all you ever do is tell what us someone else wrote and then mostly from questionable websites

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by Acid

Your first and most repeated point is smoked here.

The claim of Biblical inerrancy puts the Christian in the position of not just claiming that the original Bible was free of error (and, remember, none of the original autograph manuscripts exist) but that their modern version of the Bible is the end result of an error-free history of copying and translation beginning with the originals. Such a position is so specific that it allows one to falsify it simply by reference to the Bible itself. For example, Gen 32:30 states, "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." However, John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..." Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version) is falsified. A typical defense used here is to look up the meaning of the original Hebrew / Greek, read that one of the words can have multiple meanings, and then pick the meaning that seems to break the contradiction. For example, the Christian might argue that "seen" or "face" means one thing in the first scripture, and something completely different in the second. The logical flaw in this approach is that it amounts to saying that the translator should have chosen to use a different word in one of the two scriptures in order to avoid the resulting logical contradiction that now appears in English—that is, the translator made an error. If no translation error occurred, then an error of fact exists in at least one of the two scriptures. Appeals to "context" are irrelevant in cases like this where simple declarative statements are involved such as "no one has seen God" and "I have seen God." Simply put, no "context" makes a contradiction or a false statement, like 2 = 3, true.

Same old stuff 100% plagiarised from FreeThought Debated - you don't know anything do you? You have no thoughts or your own, you have not examined any of the claims made here, you have done nothing.

This is worthless if all you can do is copy other people work, often without clear attribution. You have shown yourself frankly more like a charlatan than a humble seeker after truth.

[Assad]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

Silver - I agree it is hilarious, YOU began the thread by quoting three verses but look as hard as can I cannot see you offering or even knowing what their contexts where - your own words condemn you

The verses I quoted were clear. The contradictions are clear. You were supposed to give me a context, and I believe you were for some reason afraid to provide it. I did not demand any context from you but you were offering it yourself. My context is clear from my post i.e. contradiction in the bible. But you dont have anything else to back up your unsubstantiated claim so you are again just writing. You havent solved any contradictions.

[Assad]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

This is worthless if all you can do is copy other people work, often without clear attribution. You have shown yourself frankly more like a charlatan than a humble seeker after truth.

I have already smoked this argument in my posts above. It is clear who is lack of argument here and who is a charlatan. I left it for readers to decide rather than to take your word for it..

[salman]

@Silver

again, you're resorting to logical fallacies and attacking acid with "ad homium" instead of answering the arguments. To be fair, I don't support plagiarism but even so it doesn't matter where the argument comes from. If you can answer the arguments and you know they are "weak" arguments against your faith, it shouldn't matter to you where it comes from. So, why don't you address the points? And if you can't I'm sure as a professor you know there's no shame in saying "I don't know".

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by salman

@Silver
Again, you're resorting to logical fallacies and attacking acid with "ad homium" instead of answering the arguments. To be fair, I don't support plagiarism but even so it doesn't matter where the argument comes from. If you can answer the arguments and you know they are "weak" arguments against your faith, it shouldn't matter to you where it comes from. So, why don't you address the points? And if you can't I'm sure as a professor you know there's no shame in saying "I don't know".

I don't think I was attacking his person but his methods and sadly that does reflect on character as well in this case. There is some value in what you say but I think it is reasonable to expect someone who uses the discussion board to know something about what he is talking about and Acid for whatever reason tends to copy chunks of stuff and so in my view he is not preparing anything or thinking about what he is saying. Even you must agree one cannot have a discussion on a topic if the other person knows nothing.

I am prepared to attempt to answer his queries but let's be reasonable, in one place he copies about 50 supposed contradictions but it is hardly acceptable in a discussion board to ask for a refutation of 50 examples especially when the person involved has put no thought into it at all as demonstrated by his usual practice and dismissal out of hand of any answers. I can easily find web pages which list 100s of contradictions as found in the Qu'ran but to just copy them into the board without thought is not something I could even contemplate.

You talk about logical fallacies but I am not aware that I was creating any and you give no examples from my posting, none of us is perfect so I may have gone beyond the bounds of acceptable logic.

PS I was a University lecturer and new rose to the dizzy hight of a chair and elected, if that is the right word to go into the management streams although I have published many times.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by Acid

The verses I quoted were clear. The contradictions are clear. You were supposed to give me a context, and I believe you were for some reason afraid to provide it. I did not demand any context from you but you were offering it yourself. My context is clear from my post i.e. contradiction in the bible. But you dont have anything else to back up your unsubstantiated claim so you are again just writing. You havent solved any contradictions.

I agree the verses were clear in as much as I can read them and they are accurate copies from the KJV. But it is YOU are claiming contradictions and I think a reader has a right to demand and it is only reasonable that you examine the contexts yourself before publishing them. To do anything less is to be a person that will accept anything they are told as long as it fits in with their world view.

Why should I do all the work. I know from many of you other posting you make a lot of noise when the Qu'ran is quoted and demand the context but obviously you don't see any need to do that yourself.

I cannot be certain of course but I seriously doubt you got you Bible and commentaries out and studied those passages - only you know what is true here.

[Assad]

I assume that you have some certification in mind-reading or either your holy ghost is working too good. You illegitimately accused me of bringing article with references from other websites and discussing it here and saying that I dont know anything. I wonder If It is me who havent read it or is it you?

There are some contradictions from the Bible which I posted, and you said that you said that it should be viewed in its context and I demanded it from you and later you didnt provide it to me! So simply, I assume you had no answer! If you have the context which will remove these contradictions than provide it rather then making comparisons with Noble Quran and trying to kiddishly blame me for palgarism..

Regards

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by Acid

I assume that you have some certification in mind-reading or either your holy ghost is working too good. You illegitimately accused me of bringing article with references from other websites and discussing it here and saying that I dont know anything. I wonder If It is me who havent read it or is it you?

There are some contradictions from the Bible which I posted, and you said that you said that it should be viewed in its context and I demanded it from you and later you didnt provide it to me! So simply, I assume you had no answer! If you have the context which will remove these contradictions than provide it rather then making comparisons with Noble Quran and trying to kiddishly blame me for palgarism..

Regards

You unquestionably copied from web sites and on any reasonable meaning of plagiarism that is what you did. But no matter here is my challenge.

If I refer to your copied article with dozens of supposed Biblical contradictions it is clearly not even reasonable in a discussion forum such as this for me or anyone to refute so many because the post would be huge. If you want to discuss them one at a time then fine, post one supposed contradiction and explain your reasoning and I will if I can respond.

[Assad]

You unquestionably copied from web sites and on any reasonable meaning of plagiarism that is what you did. But no matter here is my challenge.

As I said, I wouldnt let you roam around this.I bet you know it but you want to keep roaming at the same point to stay away from other "questions".

If I refer to your copied article with dozens of supposed Biblical contradictions it is clearly not even reasonable in a discussion forum such as this for me or anyone to refute so many because the post would be huge. If you want to discuss them one at a time then fine, post one supposed contradiction and explain your reasoning and I will if I can respond.

If you dont have this much time or courage or whatever It is to supposedly refute the contradictions in bible, then why is it necessary for you to say that these are/are not contradictions. That means you are saying something which is unsubstantiated. In anyway, You are dazzled to see quite much contradictions and you didnt even "refute" one!.

Let me clarify, I dont want you to refute these contradictions, a single or all of them. I just quoted them to show you on your demand the differing accounts/contradictions.