I guess it is simply “PARADOXES”
and there are paradoxes even in book of Acts in 2 accounts of Paul getting blinded on road to Damascus
written ostensibly BOTH by Luke as scholars have it –
the men with Paul in one account did NOT hear a voice but saw a light - several chapters later the account is given again, and this time the men with Paul heard the voice but didn’t see a light
I will find the references…
Acts ch 9
3: Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. 4: And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5: And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; 6: but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 7: The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
and a later account in Acts 22 - same AUTHOR (Luke) according to virtually all Bible Scholars
Act 22:6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
Act 22:7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Act 22:8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
Act 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
See? One instance they saw nothing but heard the voice, next time they heard no voice but saw the light.
Contradiction.
Discrepancy.
Paradox.
Doesn’t mean we throw away the Bible.
Just don’t get too “infallible” about things
Because in reality there were two separate Creations. God screwed up both of them, but was in a hurry to produce something (he was on a deadline to present his Science Project); so he duct taped together the working parts of both creations and hoped no one noticed the parts that didn’t match.
Thus, two separate Creation stories. And the platypus.
hence:
a “duct-billed platypus”
and the Documentary Hypothesis triumphs…
That could be explained away by suggesting that the different observers simply noticed different people (either Rashomon or simply different angles of view).
Naw, that is a completely different religion, they call them “koans”.
In my readings of the Bibles I read, Jesus is quoted of the woman who wanted help for her child, that he came ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel, Also according to John 10, he didn’t seem to think of himself anymore the son of God than any other person.
The Bible was written by many different people and over a large period of time, and many writings were discarded such as the works of Thomas, and why only 3 writers were considered his apostles, why were not the rest of the 12 included. Perhaps that is why there is so much contradictions in the various writings?
It’s really Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Be careful, because the fundies will be all over you for saying something in error. Of course, as soon as attention is directed back to the Bible, they will again have a blind spot about errors and internal contradictions. 
And that reminds me of an Onion “article” on Biblical Creation, a year or two ago.
In the middle of the Sumerian civilization’s domination of Mesopotamia, those folks were sorely upset and baffled over the sun, moon, etc., being created all over again. 
What observers?
No human observers as I see it, as far as “when the tomb was opened”. Only unconscious Roman soldiers and one or two angels (there go those discrepancies). Mary Magdalene may have been the first “observer” of the empty tomb later, but I don’t read where ANY human saw the tomb being opened.
And us Lutherans would never notice. Organized? Heck - we can barely tie our own shoelaces!
<rim shot>
Certainly not.
The world is not under 3 million years old.
And you’ve made my point.
The Bible isn’t a scientific document.
In principle, it can be seen to agree with today’s science IF you take into account the fact that it was written by men (and possibly women, if you know anything about the way the Old Testament was put together by gathering the stories of the Jewish people that had been handed down through the generations) some thousands of years ago.
I mean, just what IS a wheel within a wheel anyway?
I read the Bible to gain an insight to how I should live my life according to God’s plan. I take from it an understanding, a light if you will, to aid me in my journey forward as I pass through. There are some deep truths in the Bible. Some are on the surface and some are deeper. But all of them are worth checking out, IMHO.
Not everyone will agree with this, as I have said, and that’s okay. Science though, is also a choice, a belief system, if you will. It asks us to accept a conclusion based upon evidence and then tells us that our own thoughts are merely the result of chemicals that pass through our systems and sparks that ignite in our brains. Yes, I’m oversimplifying, but so are the people who are arguing against Christian belief systems.
These are complex issues that are worthy of lifelong study. To simply throw out Faith as a real and powerful force for good in peoples lives because it doesn’t accurately explain away the age of the earth or the existence of dinosaurs to the complete satisfaction of a nonbeliever is ludicrous. Faith heals. That’s a fact. It may be the only fact worth believing in when it comes to religion, but even if it is, I’d take it over science any day of the week. But you know what? I don’t have to because I happen to believe that science and faith can and do co-exist in absolute harmony.
I think many many Christians in the United States agree with this line of thinking, but the logic is not sound. You are saying you disregard science when it suits you, which is the exact opposite of scientific understanding.
Psychosomatic effects are fact, because of this any drug study needs control groups to get within shouting distance of calling itself scientific. But if you think your red pill is the real deal, by all means keep taking it.
If you accept that the parts of the Bible we can check are bogus, why do you think the other parts have anything to do with God’s plan? Why couldn’t the same people who made up the creation story out of whole cloth make up the moral guidance parts. You can accept them or reject them, just as if you were reading a self-help book, but why given them any special importance?
I assume also that you don’t take all parts of the Bible to heart. How do you decide which parts to follow and which parts to ignore?
It was that Mary didn’t recognize Jesus. She thought he was the gardener, and why anyone he knew would go to the tomb to anoint a body when Jesus told them he would resurrect in 3 days adds a lot of questions!
It is a proven fact that there is nothing written or taught that was not from another human. It is what we believe some human said about God, what God wants or does. One can believe the human but it is no proof of what God wants, according to the Psalmist, humans (or at least Jewish men) are gods and Jesus backs this up in John 10.
I was stumped at first, and kept recalling discrepancies and inconsistencies. The euphemism often used is (biblical) problems. That, and not paradoxes, is you “P” word.
I like the euphemism discrepancies best. It makes any huge, gaping hole in the Babble sound like some minor flaw in an accounting document which is easily rectifiable and, despite initial appearances, shows no dishonesty.
– But I have just looked up Josh McDowell, and he uses Tough Questions.
This site uses (Atheist’s) Complaint, apparently assuming that no Christians ever see contradictions. Beyond that, Jews will often point out problems in the so-called “New Testament” and Muslims believe the text Christians use is too corrupt to trust.
Yeah. PROBLEM.
Or discrepancy, Trans.
That’s a problem/discrepancy for sure, Monavis,
going to anoint a body when Jesus said he would rise again…
wow
I guess his disciples simply NEVER BELIEVED HIM ON THAT in the first place
This thread is an interesting social phenomenon. Was the original post really that stimulating? It describes a pretty simple sentiment I have heard many times before, and doesn’t introduce any evidence or new thought about it. The original poster joined SDMB only 4 days ago and his total post count is one.
What fuel is this conversation running on? Are we that easy to stir up?
Oh, you’re one of those.
It’s so fun when religious instruction makes up its own definitions just to make it harder for those taught it to converse with anyone outside their faith.
Didn’t Sweet dreamer learn of God by some human, or decide in his own mind what God is or did? No one can say in truth anything about God, God is unknowable! There are many ideas of what the Word God means, hence the many religions.