King James Bible
King James Version (KJV)


Viewing page: 625 of 639
< Previous Discussion Page Next Discussion Page >
615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Matt: 24 and Luke: 17 are just a retelling of Mark: 13. That is why these Gospels are called the synoptic Gospels, because they are seen together. The majority of Luke and Matthew are from the Gospel of Mark. These Gospels are attributed to these disciples, but were NOT written by them.
Luke: 17 is BEFORE Luke: 21, so the description of "end times" events preceded the declaration by Jesus that “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled".
This proclamation did not take place. The "generation" did pass away.
How can this logically be explained?
If we are to believe this creation account, why do they differ? Don’t you and I deserve the truth?
Genesis 1 says that BOTH Man and Woman were created simultaneously.
Genesis 2 says that Woman was "created" by God from Adams rib because "but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him".
All I am asking is why? Why is this a contradiction? We have 2 different accounts. If one is true then the other must be false. Since one must be false, then we have a issue with any claim of inerrancy.
The author's of the Gospel of Luke and Matthew (hint, they were not disciples) birth narratives contradict.
Why is that? Maybe if the authors of the Gospels could keep their stories from contradicting there wouldn't be doubters.
Thanks, Joe
So how can it be inerrant if a scribe (or someone) added text to this Gospel?
The Shepherds appear in Luke and in Matthew it’s the Magi. Which is story correct?
In Matthew, Joseph takes his family to Egypt and in Luke they go to Jerusalem and then return to Galilee. Which story is correct?
Matthew and Luke are the only Gospels with the birth narrative. They do not agree. Why would that be?
Isn’t the Bible supposed to be inerrant?
where in the new testment where any one call Jesus( Emmanue)l? it tell us in 23 this was to be his name. and after the angle of the lord came to josph and told him what the child name will be called why in 25 he went on to call him Jesus? (jesus is a greek name right?)
ps i'am not asking the meaning of Immanuel.
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Now, I don't think a contradiction of this magnitude somehow just slipped by the countless revisions, clarifications, translations etc. It's clear that a distinction exists between the male and female versions of Man in chapter 1 and Man & Woman, Husband & Wife in chapter 2.
Also, the first appearance of the names "Adam" and "Eve" aren't consistent across translations, some chapter 1, others chapter two, but their usage is peculiar regardless of translation.
I think these discrepancies indicate a period of time, an age or procession maybe, or possibly an entire cycle of man, evolving from the primitive to the impressive, to the over-inflated ego having, vile pollution emitting, truth impaired, soul-less, thieving drones that God takes pleasure in obliterating. Y uh-know... that kind of cycle.
It's a theory that is consistent with Genesis already, just adding a couple more periods that Topper didn't feel like going into, so he just left a couple hints. I think Adam may refer to a genetic distinction or new breed of man, hence the reason he had no Eve at first. Another theory is that there are two different entities (different in depth of consciousness, abilities, potential etc.) both occupying the Earth, both assigned fleshy vehicles that are the body of man, constructed in the likeness of the gods or in the image of God if you prefer.
What do you think? Or do you....
The prophesy did not happen! I know the apologists can twist this around, but the fact remains (as written in Luke 21) that this prophetic event did not take place. So, if Jesus did not know, what does that tell you?
Think about it.
Gen 7:2-3 says clean beasts & fowl are to be taken by sevens. Gen 6:19 says to take two of everything.
Which is it? Even if this is true, both can't be right.
AND
Why is there another creation story in Gen 2:4-25. These accounts are not in the same order.
Honestly answer these questions. Why are there two different accounts of the same event? Why two accounts in the first place?
Even if you believe, that makes one of these accounts wrong. Therefore the Bible in not inerrant.
So, what else could be in error?
The problem here is the same problem that has existed since the time of Christ.
The Bible tells us that it is the actual Word of God, yes written by human writers, but inspired and breathed out by God Himself. How do we know this to be true? For those of us who are truly christians, we have a personal relationship with God, through the Lord Jesus Christ.
No-one can tell me that this is a figment of my imagination, because it is a daily living experience and reality for me. Furthermore, no-one can tell me that the Bible is false, because I know the one who authored it and have proved it to be true in my daily life.
Of course, those who do not have this relationship with God will always mock and doubt, because they do not have the same personal experience. Sadly, the Bible says unless such individuals repent and turn to God now, they will have chosen to spend eternity away from God, in a place of hell.
Some will read this and laugh - doesn't matter to me, some will agree - it all depends of course where you stand before God. See John chapter 3 verse 16.
If one claims to be a Christian, does that mean you take the teachings of Jesus over the old testament? Or can you pick and choose parts of the bible to affirm your point of view while discarding the rest.
If Jesus walked among us today, would he be on Wall Street or with Occupy Wall Street?
going to and fro?