BBC Blog Network

User Profile

gettothepoint

Listed below are comments made by gettothepoint between Tuesday, 7th April 2009 and Sunday, 21st June 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Bible codes and gay genes 10:48am on 21 Jun 2009 well said dtnorth_cocteau, you have got straight to the point.
The historical Jesus 00:22am on 11 Apr 2009 O.T.

Thank you for your reply. i don't think I actually condemned you personally. If I gave you that impression i am sorry. I do accept that you tackled the question in good faith, in fact, I think you made a fairly good job with it ,but i really do feel there is a contradiction with Saul's death and speculating what may have happened is not good biblical practice, a bit like the 'how did Judas die' contradiction speculation.'

We probably have taken the Saul's death topic as far as we can go, except to say that according to a Jewish friend, the Jewish bible, the Tanakh, translates the word 'slain' as 'killed' in 2 Samuel 21:12.

On the topic of Archeology, you may be correct, i haven't research that subject yet, though i could give you a long list of striking geographical errors in the bible, but time does not permit at the moment.

Thanks for taking the time with me O.T. Best wishes
The historical Jesus 00:27am on 10 Apr 2009 O.T...Ref 91

I find it difficult to believe that a god intelligent enough to create our universe would leave us with a book that is full of contradictions. The fact that we are debating the minutiae of certain words is proof that biblical text is not clear in many instances. Why didn't God leave us with a book which is unequivocal, after all, its the only instruction book He left? The result has been confusion, even among Christians. This is why there are hundreds of different Christians denominations. Many fight and squabble among each other, resulting in animosity among some. Others barely tolerate each other. I have witnessed it on numerous occasions. Anyhow, to gettothepoint OT, if you have to make up an explanation/ theory to try to explain a contradiction, then the 'Sky's the limit' and you will always be able to explain away contradictions. If a verse in the bible said a certain man saw a black crow but in another it said the man saw a white crow, then, to use your method to solve the contradiction you would conclude that the man who saw the white crow must have lied. Or would it be the other way round? Stick to what is actually in the bible OT. It is not up to me to prove that something did not happen or could not happen, otherwise i could say to you, Jesus was married and had 15 children and it is up to you to prove that he hadn't. If the Amalakite had done what you said he may have done, then, why didn't God ensure this was recorded in His word. Wouldn't that have saved a lot of confusion?

Ref post 92 If I am wrong then I am willing to accept that, but i got the information from your colleagues at the Apologetics Press Org.

Have a nice day my friend.
The historical Jesus 9:06pm on 08 Apr 2009 Hi Romejellybean, re your comment 80. There is one glaring error in your comment. The three young Muslims you asked to write an account of their visit to you were not inspired by God. They were fallible humans and therefor subject to making mistakes. The four 'contradictory' versions of the gospels on the other hand are supposed to be the inspired word of God, written by 'Holy' men filled with the Holy Ghost. To use God's own words....'Every word of God is flawless' Proverbs 30:5. but as we can see from the four different accounts, they are full of flaws. Best Wishes
The historical Jesus 8:08pm on 08 Apr 2009 Hi O.T. I refer to your 69 comment. You say a suggested explanation for the contradiction in 2 Samuel 1 :8 to 10, is that the Amalekite was lying in order to win a reward from David. Apologists who come up with such remarks are in danger of God's wrath, according to the bible. The bible makes it clear that no one should add to God's word. Proverbs 30:6, or they 'will be 'reproved' by Him and found a liar' Nowhere in 2 Samuel does it indicate that the Amalekite lied or was seeking a reward. Stick to what is in the bible. Apologists will try anything in order to ameliorate contradictions. You say it is up to me to prove my point, but i just have O T. You have been unable to give me a satisfactory explanation for the contradictions. It is not up to me to prove the contradictions in the bible, the bible clearly reveals that itself. It is up to the apologists to prove the additional bits they wish to add or 'make up' and add to the bible. The explanation that the Amalekite must have lied has been doing the rounds on the Internet. The apologist who dreamt the above explanation up is, Gleason L Archer. He says, in his book, 'Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties' that we have to conclude that a lie was told by the Amalekite. He backs up his explanation by citing three other occasion in the bible where lies are told. What he glaringly fails to mention is that in the three examples he quotes, the bible makes it abundantly clear that lies are being told. In contrast, nowhere in the book of Samuel does it indicate or remotely suggest a lie is being told by the Amalekite.
I also refer to your penultimate paragraph on the subject when you say, ' it is suggested that an Amalakite later claimed to have killed Saul. ' The bible does NOT suggest this, it ACTUALLY STATES IT! Best Wishes
The historical Jesus 4:19pm on 07 Apr 2009 Hello my friends, I have just joined this site. I would like to pick up on a few points. First, Nick Page in his interview with William Crawley on Sunday morning said that, outside the bible his main evidence for an historicial Jesus was Tacitus. Nowhere in Tacitus's works can we even find the word Jesus. Tacitus refers to someone called 'Christus' and said his name derived from the people called Christians. But at that time, worshipers of the Sun-god 'Serapis' were also called Christians and had a large following in Rome, especially among the common people. There are many other reason which point to the fact that he was not referring to the so called Jesus of the bible. Tacitus wasn't even born until the year 55. He didn't start writting until about 80 years after the alleged death of Jesus. Can you imagine starting to write about someone who lived 80 years previous? Tacitus may well have repeated just what the legend said about Jesus. As far as Josephus is concerned, many theologians believe the few verses which he mentions are an interpolation, besides he was not a contemporary of Jesus either. He wasn't born until the year 38 and only started writting some 20 years after the death of the supposed Jesus. Futhermore, three short paragraphs are a meagre and derisory contribution to the history of someone considered to be the most important person who ever lived. Regarding the coments of 'gveale 'who refers to the errors in the bible as 'copyist's'errors and to 'Orthodox-Tradition' who wanted an example of an error, try to explain this one...How did King Saul die? 1 Samuel 31:4 says that Saul took a sword and fell upon it and killed himself. 2 Samuel 1:8 to 10 says an Amalekite killed him. 2 Samuel 21:12 says Philistines killed him. This is just one example of hundreds in the bible which cannot be put down to so called copyist errors. Lets hear an explanation for this contradiction.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

gettothepoint