Vanilla, you sneaky little thing! :eek: Revelation chapter 22 doesn’t have 22 verses. Caught ya!
thats exactly it.
We all must accept it in faith, not proving.
I do that a lot.
;0
Most folks don’t known how many verses are in each book.
Once, someone called up Bob Larson and gave him a verse which didn’t make sense.
Bob must’ve had a Bible right there, cause he said chapter so and so only has 13 verses.!
ha!
Re: the vinegar thing; it’s not a terribly clear example of contradiction; only Luke seems to specifically imply that death took place immediately following the quoted words and even that is a little vague - I’d be interested to know if the greek actually carries some meaning to the effect of ‘immediately following this’ that has not been carried over in translation.
Not that I’m insisting there aren’t any contradictions in the Bible or that this isn’t one, I think there must be better examples than this.
Vanilla: try getting someone to look up Hezekiah 14:2
I tend to refer people to the Book of Justifications…
Grim 
I’ve got a good one. How did Judas die? Compare:
Matthew 27:3-5
[ 3When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4"I have sinned," he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”
“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”
5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.]
Now look at Acts 1:18
18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.
Let me also point out that the Matthew account occurs BEFORE the cricifixion. The Acts acoount occurs AFTER the crucifixion.
So which is it? Did he hang himself before the crucifixion, or did he get his guts blowed out afterwards? It’s got to be one or the other, it can’t be both.
Oh, and one more thing, did he throw the money back into the temple or did he buy himself a field?
Good luck.
Fine, Diogenes.
What I’m getting out of this is that the failure of three different Greek creation myths to come to a conclusion as to who Zeus’s grandparents were is sufficient reason to avoid reading the Greek tragedies and perhaps learning something about human nature from the experience of reading them.
I don’t much care who all went to the tomb around dawn Sunday after the Passover, or how Judas shuffled off his mortal coil.
The key points to me are in the teachings of the man of whom four different biographers paint slightly varying but generally consistent portraits in the Gospels, the fact that he was willing to go to his death when there were (plain secular, never mind any supernatural) means of escaping it at hand, and apparently for the purpose of bringing God and Humankind into a new and reunited relationship through his death, and that something happened on that First Easter Sunday that defies human analysis but that catalyzed a bunch of dumb-as-dirt and cowardly followers of his into men willing to face death for what they called Good News.
This is why I despise literalism – because it claims that all these evidently contradictory stories are literally true, often without attempting to reconcile the contradictions (and with often-bizarre results when it does, such as the explanation I once read from a lunatic-fringer that Judas was resurrected from the hanging so that he could spill his guts in the field – which BTW was supposedly bought by Annas and Caiaphas as a pauper’s cemetary with the money Judas threw back).
There’s a key point to all these stories, and just as one need not swallow Geoffrey of Monmouth and Malory whole to establish what it is that the warlord Artorius came to mean to the British psyche and cultural self-image, the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth do not depend on works written before history-as-literally-true-narrative came to be. (See Tom~'s post above for incisive comments on this.)
I think we tend to agree, actually, but I used your nitpick post just prior to this one as a jumping-off-point to state my stance on the issue raised here.
I just thought that this would be a good http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html link for this thread…
Polycarp:
I don’t disagree with anything you said. my post was sort of addressed to mangetout who seemed to be requesting a more concrete example of Biblical self-contradiction. Also, I guess I was hoping to draw out H4E a little bit.
I agree with you that to get hung up on the historical literality of the Bible tends to degrade and distract from the MEANING of the stories. Jesus himself taught in parables that were not meant to be taken as literally true. I don’t think that much could be gained from a debate about whether the good samaritan really existed, and it would completely miss the POINT of the story.
I think that some people have a fear that letting go of a literal belief in the Bible would necessitate a loss of faith itself. It does not. It is possible to see the Bible as flawed (because it was written by humans) but still valuble, meaningful, important and spiritually truthful.
It’s the MORAL of the story that counts.
Personally, I’m moderately amused by people who believe in continuity between Hashem and Jesus, who recognize that Jesus taught in parables, and don’t consider the possibility that Hashem might also have so done.
Who was Hashem?
Hashem means “the name” in Hebrew and refers to God by attribution rather than using an actual name.
thanks tom
so it’s kind of like saying “G-d” ?
Debating is a little like a war of attrition. Whoever lasts the longest wins. That is not to say they are right. The paths are many, but the way is one – love.
Love
Leroy
It’s more or less exactly like saying G-d. It’s arguably a habit I’ve picked up from having a goodly number of religious discussions with Jews; I understand that there are other names for addressing or referring to their divine entity, but “Hashem” is the one most generally used in this sort of discussion.
Jumping in late but hats of to the “Christian Buddhits”. I’ve always believed that all religions based on compassion are equally valid, and that apparent contradictions are more a result of our limited understanding than being true contradictions. If we look hard enough we can find similarities(like the post a few pages back that mentioned that most major religions have their own version of the golden rule). “As you sew, so shall you reap” eventhough coming from the Bible is a beautiful way of stating the law of karma. Could it be that the cornerstone of modern Christianity -accepting Jesus as savior- was originally meant to mean that you should take his teachings to heart and his life as an example?
Native Spirituality
We are as much alive as we keep the earth alive. Chief Dan George
Baha’i Faith
Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you,
and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself.
Baha’u’llah, Gleanings
Buddhism
Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
The Buddha, Udana-Varga 5.1
Christianity
In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you;
for this is the law and the prophets. Jesus, Matthew 7:12
Confucianism
One word which sums up the basis of all good conduct…loving-kindness.
Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself. Confucius, Analects 15.23
Hinduism
This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517
Islam
Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others
what you wish for yourself.
The Prophet Muhammad, 13th of the 40 Hadiths of Nawawi
Jainism
One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated.
Mahavira, Sutrakritanga
Judaism
What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah;
all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it. Hillel, Talmud, Shabbath 31a
Sikhism
I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me.
Indeed, I am a friend to all. Guru Granth Sahib, pg. 1299
Taoism
Regard your neighbour’s gain as your own gain and your neighbour’s loss
as your own loss. Lao Tzu, T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien, 213-218
Unitarianism
We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence
of which we are a part. Unitarian principle
Zoroastrianism
Do not do unto others whatever is injurious to yourself.
Shayast-na-Shayast 13.29
Wicca: First, harm none. If it harms none, do as you will.
Yep…in part. But it means more than that, because His Spirit is with those who choose to follow Him, as a living and very real Presence (which, of course, can be ignored, with the usual results when one rejects good advice and does what one stubbornly insists on choosing to do 
).
But that is one very key point to choosing Him as one’s Savior and Lord. It’s an all-or-nothing choice; you agree to do your level best to follow His example and obey His teachings, and trust in His Spirit to guide you and strengthen you so that what you do is enough.