every insider knows the story of Job. Now:

1) Any of us can anytime be an experiment rat for suffering as a result of a pesky bet between god and devil.

2) What kind of an omnipotent god is this that he falls into trap of devil immediately and at once agrees to a bet based on suffering of Job - a totally innocent sinless man. Devil can cheat him immediately with 1-2 sentences.

3) god claims that life is very valuable, but is not ashamed to take lives of Job's 10 children and don't remember around 1500 animals just for a pesky bet. Those 10 children are gone, they are not brought back, i.e. irreversible process.

4) Giving suffering to someone - let alone it to an innocent man like Job - is not an exam, test or lesson, it is just a sadistic torture. From an exam I understand that totally with our free will and liberty of decision we are occasionally offered two choices (good and bad), and choose one way and thus show him our deeds and honesty.

5) god claims of the day of judgement when everybody will be judged. Then why are you so restless to test the honesty of Job in this world, as long as Job would anyway be judged on the day of judgement? what's the point and logic?

6) If god was omnipotent and omniscient, he should have known whether Job was believing with deep honesty and wouldn't ever need his pesky bet with the devil. He should have also known the tolerance threshold of Job for all the suffering and after which point Job would start coming to borders of blasphemy.

7) What was then the reason of this bet? To prove what to whom? Did he at the end tell devil "Didn't I tell you? Didn't I tell you? I won, you lost!". 10 innocent children are gone as an instrument of that bet.

8) god is continuously restless about the question mark whether he is loved by every creature. You can't force anybody to love you (which has no association with being a good or bad person). Wait for the day of judgement (whose timing you decide anyway), then judge all of us and punish the ones who were not loving you sincerely, if this is a sin, but otherwise leave us in peace! And moreover god claims to exist on his own without the need for any other existence in this universe, but yet can't stay alone, needs his toys, i.e. us, probably for some bets when he gets bored.

9) All what god can give as answer to Job is nothing else than his famous megalomania and exaggerated praising: "Where were you, when I created the universe?". Who cares whether you create millions of universes or not, as long as you are not ashamed to give tears to the faces of innocent sufferers?

10) Instead of engaging yourself in pesky bets, be a real god and do your responsibility and protect the needy and oppressed ones and people in great difficulty!

that's just one example. From wherever you hold the bible, it gets sticky in your hands.

Perhaps "smite" would be a 'better' word.
An expression of anger and intolerance towards the actions of the merchants in the temple. Eviction from the temple, scolding of their practices, however you want to word it, He lost His temper with them.

When I was a kid, my friends and I would go to church by ourselves.
One Sunday, we arrived early and got bored. My friend had some dice in his pocket from playing Yahtzee earlier so we were throwing the dice and playing a game to pass time till Sunday School started.
The preacher saw us and kicked us all out of the church and told never to come back. Yet the church sponsored Bingo in the basement on Thursday nights? A contradiction.

The Beatitudes are eight blessings recounted by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew. Each is a proverb-like proclamation, without narrative. Four of the blessings also appear in the Sermon on the Plain in the Gospel of Luke, followed by four woes which mirror the blessings.

Nice example!


I think what BlakeIAM is trying to relate is that when specific words in the scriptures are grouped together they have meaning in and of themselves. The fact that they appear in the Bible and are separated by 'books' and 'numbers' makes them significant in themselves. Read as a lone quote they have few contradictions or none according to his view.
But people have reasonable intelligence.

Faith requires that you ignore the reasonable contradictions and take each passage as a separate meaning. Faith requires that each passage teaches a separate lesson.
Reasonable intelligence causes one to look at the collection as a whole. When that is done, contradictions arise that challenge the validity of the entire collection.
Couple that with contradictions of doctrine to actions and even more validity is lost.
Things stop making sense. Faith requires that you ignore that fact and believe without question that all scripture is valid.

Many times , we think of anger as a selfish , destructive emotion that we should eradicate from our lives altogether.

That being said , the fact that Jesus did sometimes become angry indicates that anger itself , as an emotion , is amoral.

Without contradiction within Scripture, but rather harmony with this topic Ephesians 4:26 instructs us " in your anger do not sin" and not let the sun go down on your anger.

The command is not to "avoid anger" (or suppress it or ignore it) but to deal with it properly, in a timely manner.

Great lesson for all of us to be learned here.
Once again no contradiction whatsoever.

Regarding the money changers at the Temple , Jesus had every right to be angry.

1. His anger had the proper motivation.
2.His anger had the proper focus.
3. His anger had the proper supplement.
4. His anger had the proper control.
5. His anger had the proper duration.
6. His anger had the proper result.

7. And no one was smitten.

As a father this is awesome teaching that can be applied to our children (when they are young and when they grow older).

Jesus didn't "lose" His temper. He was in control.
The money changers were in the wrong and needed to be corrected.

Faith has no requirements.

LOL, where did you get that idea?
Faith has nothing but requirements.

Okay, but did Jesus take them quietly to the side and explain to them how they were in error?
Who determines what 'proper' anger is and how it is 'properly' expressed?
Did he show love for his fellow man? Understanding? Patience?
Or...Did he roust them from their perch and kick them out of the temple for desecration?

And...On the topic of Jesus, While he was being hated and smitten in the streets dragging his cross to his death was he happy and filled with love or was he sad? In the desert when Satan offered Jesus the temptations how did Satan know which temptations to offer? Did he just pick random things or were they things that Jesus longed for in his heart? How did Satan know what Jesus needed that might tempt him and why didn't God just provide Jesus with what he needed so no temptation would be there in the first place? Why is it said that God feeds the animals but will not feed people in need and they are animals?
Don't kill but sacrifice a lamb to me. Don't kill but kill my son so you don't have to sacrifice anymore lambs. Contradictions, contradictions, contradictions...

No contradictions whatsoever.
No matter how one would want them there , they simply are not.

And the "examples" that you provide are faaaaarrrrr from any form of contradictions.

You are definitely missing the scope of the Scriptures.

Why not ask , can God make a rock so heavy even He cannot lift it???

Seriously

Eve was created out of a rib from Adam according to the Bible.
Gynaecology teaches us that every embryo is a woman the first 6 weeks of pregnancy. After 6 weeks the sex can change or not, but the first six weeks in the womb everyone is a woman.
So science / gynaecology teaches us that women precede men, while the Bible claims that men precede women.
Isn’t that a contradiction?
Genuinely curious how you declare this.

To answer your question the answer is no there is not a contradiction .

Why?

Because the sex of the baby doesn't develop until after six weeks.
This includes females.
Therefore it would be improper to state that females precede males because the baby isn't at the sexual development stage until after six weeks.

As far as Adam and the rib , God is in the "miracle " realm so He can make a female from a human male rib.
He is omnipotent after all.

Therefore no contradiction.

Us finite creatures must always keep in mind that we have a infinite creator God who's handiwork is involved in all of creation.

From mightymoe Which son of David did Jesus descended from?

Was it soloman? (Matthew 1:6)
Or was it Nathan? (Luke3:31)

Who was Josephs father, Mary's husband?

Was it Jacob? (Matthew 1:16)
Or was it Heli? (Luke 3:23)

Well, at least someone here knows how to follow instructions...



(CLV) Luke 3:31
of Melea, of Menna, of Mattathah, of Nathan, of David,

(CLV) Matt 1:6
now Jesse begets David the king. Now David begets Solomon of the wife of Uriah;

(CLV) 1Chronicles 3:17-19.17 The sons of Jeconiah as prisoner: Shealtiel his son,
18 Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah.
19 Pedaiah's sons: Zerubbabel and Shimei. Zerubbabel's sons: Meshullam, Hananiah and their sister Shelomith.

This is the royal lineage

This is the royal lineage of the Son of David as well as the title to the land granted to Abraham. In contrast to the genealogy given by Luke, we are given the actual physical descent by the male line to Joseph, the husband of Mary, the mother of our Lord. The three sections bring before us three distinct phases of rule and the failure of each. First we have the theocracy until David, which ended when the people clamored for a king (1Sam 8:6-22). Then comes the period of the kingdom, which was a series of failures, until the Babylonian exile. Since then the nations ruled Israel, until the birth of Messiah, when they were under the Roman yoke. It was a dismal descent, and proved conclusively that no male issue of this line would ever be competent to sit upon the throne of Messiah.

David was the greatest of the kings, yet his son Solomon was a living evidence of his terrible sin. And so degenerate did the line of his sons become that at the time of the exile Jechoniah drew down upon himself the curse of Jehovah:

“Thus saith the Lord,
'Write this man bereft,
A master who shall not prosper in his days:
For no man of his seed shall prosper,
Sitting on the throne of David
And ruling any more in Judah'.” (Jer 22:30)

Neither Joseph, nor any of his progenitors since the exile, were eligible the throne. If Christ were his natural son, He also would be debarred. The Messiah cannot be of the seed of Jechoniah. Hence the absolute necessity of the virgin birth. Being begotten by God, the sins of progenitors did not taint His blood, and the curse of Coniah had no claim on Him. Yet, as the Son of Joseph, He inherited the title to the throne and all the honors of the house of David.
A.E.K.




(CLV) Lk 3:23 And He, Jesus, when beginning, was about thirty years old, being a son (as to the law) of Joseph, of Eli,

This genealogy gives us the "Seed of the woman" (Gen 3:15) Who shall crush the serpent's head. Unlike Matthew's pedigree, it does not trace the physical male ancestry, but the legal line, through Mary back to Adam.

Christ is first proclaimed as the Son of God. Then He is shown to be the legal (not physical) son of Joseph. Joseph, also, is not the offspring of Heli, whose son he is said to be, for in Matthew we read that he was begotten by Jacob. He was, therefore, the son-in-law of Heli, by his marriage with Mary, Heli's daughter. As Heli had no son of his own his allotment passed to his daughter's husband (Num 27:8) and so Joseph is the legal son of Heli and the physical son of Jacob.
A.E.K.

(CLV) Matt 1:16 now Jacob begets Joseph, the husband of Mary o of whom was born Jesus, Who is termed "Christ."

Jehoiakim (or Shallum) is omitted from the list of kings because he refused Jeremiah's warnings, forsook the covenant, and turned to other gods (Jer 22:1-7). In Chronicles mention is made, not only of his abominations, or idolatry, but to “that which was found on him” (2Chr 36:8). He made cuttings or marks on his flesh as a sign of his allegiance to other gods (Lev 19:28). Hence he was denied human burial and his name is blotted out of the register of kings (Dt 29:18-20).

Jechoniah's name is shortened to Coniah (Jer 22:24) to show that Jehovah withdrew His support from him. He is not included in the line of kings. None of his seven sons (1Chr 3:17-18) succeeded to the throne. As no man of his seed can prosper, sitting on the throne of David, yet the regal rights are in his line, Messiah must be his Son, but not his seed.

17 In each group there are fourteen generations. From Abraham to, and including, David, are fourteen. From David to and including Josiah are fourteen. From Jechoniah to and including Christ are fourteen.
A.E.K.

I don't have any examples of this to relate to you because I am not interested in reading to find them. I'm sure many others can quote contradictory scripture if they have the imperative, I don't.

Perhaps "smite" would be a 'better' word.
An expression of anger and intolerance towards the actions of the merchants in the temple. Eviction from the temple, scolding of their practices, however you want to word it, He lost His temper with them.

Where I see the contradiction is the religious mindset verses practical application in reality. The religious mindset is often established thru scripture and sermon. The problem a lot of people have with religion is the tendancy to adopt the "Do what I say, not as I do" code of conduct.
This is a contradiction in the practical application of religion.

From mightymoe
all that is a little beyond my comprehension level, but thanks for writing it all down...

Oh, come on. You can do this. The answer to your question is in the first couple of sentences. There is an actual physical lineage, and there is a royal lineage. Not everyone is qualified to be king. Those who were disqualified from the royal lineage were not represented in this list.

Simple?

From mightymoe
Blake basically said the same thing, but I'm not buying it...just because a woman is married twice doesn't make the children from the second husband related to the first husband in any way...

So much of this royal line is tied together with Jewish Law from the OT. It can get pretty technical.

But suit yourself.

From mightymoe
well, I don't live in Israel, I live here... If you think my ex wife's husband's kid is somehow related to me, then you're just plain wrong...