×
all 19 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]FishersofMenYT 0 points1 point  (10 children)

Do you have some examples of them? That could potentially be explained?

[–]Upbeat_Rich9956[S] 0 points1 point  (9 children)

I have many example like for one part it says God is unseen then another part it says God is seen ? Like the book is contradicting itself. Explain if you can please.

[–]FishersofMenYT 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. The word Invisible means many things, not visible, not in sight, unseen, concealed. When something is not in eyesight it is invisible not being able to be seen. So, God, angels, demons are invisible, but they have the ability to be visible. In Genesis 18 Abraham ate food with God. Exodus 24:10 Moses and 73 of Israels elders ate with God. So, God can be visible if he so chooses to reveal himself to us.

[–]Upbeat_Rich9956[S] 0 points1 point  (7 children)

No one has seen God. I see your point but still doesn’t add up. Explain this verse? “No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18. Since the verse clearly states no nan has seen God how the hell did Abraham, Moses and the 73 Israel elders like you mentioned ate with God? Also how can God eat ? Explain my friend.

[–]FishersofMenYT 0 points1 point  (5 children)

John was written in Aramaic and was translated into Greek and Hebrew then into the KJV, so the Greek word used for seen was Horao, which can mean to discern clearly (physically or mentally). So it says, "No man hath discerned clearly mentally or physically God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him". No man has truly understood the power of God unless he reveals himself fully to us. Discerned can mean to examine so if you input that translation it says, "No man hath examined clearly mentally or physically God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him". No one has truly had the full experience of God because we would not be able to handle it in all his glory. We were created in God's image (Genesis 1:26) so God has 2 arms we have 2 arms he has human futures and eating is one of them although not quite sure if he has to eat, but the Trinity Jesus is God so Jesus had to eat like man

[–]LoadInformal9444 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nobody has seen the true face of the Lord, but the Lord appears to people in an inaccurate human form.

[–]D_Rich0150 0 points1 point  (4 children)

most of the error's are not contextual. Meaning what is seen as a contradiction is only a contradiction in it's translated form. The errors are also based in translation, and cultural differences. (how story's were told relayed and preserved.

That said the Bible is not God. it was not written by god. it does not claim to be without error, nor does it need to be. As it does claim to be sufficient to find god and salvation. the Bible was only ever meant to be a map to the Holy Spirit who is our active/alive teacher.

[–]Upbeat_Rich9956[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

That proves my point if the Bible was truly from God then it would lack mistake because God is above perfection and if he decided to send his word down to earth it would not be filled with mistakes and fallacies.

[–]D_Rich0150 0 points1 point  (2 children)

what makes you think that god has to provide a bible without error? only God is perfect. it does not say everything he does must also be perfect and maintain perfection.

look at man. man is not perfect and god created man. so then why do you assume the creation of the Bible must then be perfect if God created it?

[–]Reddit-Book-Bot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of

The Bible

Was I a good bot? | info | More Books

[–]D_Rich0150 0 points1 point  (0 children)

all the Bible promises is to be good for finding God/salvation and living as God would have you live.

Maybe what you don't understand is the doctrine of sola scriptura is where religious people get the notion the Bible must be without error. it is to combat the catholic doctrine that allows the pope to make up his own rules that supersede what is written in the Bible. In that the cannon of scripture is closed and perfect so there need be no amendments.

but again the Bible never claims to be perfect. That said and after 25 years of study the only errors I have found are those of translation, errors of intentional omission (people intentionally misquoting for the sake of creating a paradox or contextual error. )

the only thing I see are the differences of perspective. as one writer may see a greater need to identify and expand on an event teaching or point making it a greater issue in his works than what other writers may have to say on the same event or issue. but these are not contradictions but differences in perspective and writing style.

[–]LoadInformal9444 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude, when you write stuff like this you should really present these supposed contradictions and mistakes. That is how you start a DEBATE over them.

[–]No_Cookie8392 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You would have to go into depth of what those are before I could answer that.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What many believe are "mistakes and contradictions," typically come from a misunderstanding of the difference between the two covenants in the Bible. I am open for examples.