No need to get nasty Yorick, proof was demanded and I provided. Nobody said I should put that proof in my own words. I chose to provide proof from a site I found a while back. Your sarcastic nastiness about my cut and paste job is unbecoming. Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it. ;)

I am unsure about what botch job you are refering too, maybe your just upset that more proof was provided than you imagined. Perhaps you mistook the format, each point of contradiction is accented by a "vs".

example-The first point illustrates how in several passages killing is condemed but in others killing is endorsed, even sanctioned by God. Clearly contradictions.

BTW- the author of the list of contradictions is a Preacher turned aethist.
You can follow the link to a list of his books and a personal Bio if you would like to check the credientials.

BTW-If it really upsets anyone I will happlity delete the post and assume that I am free to beleive the Bible has contradictions with-out demands for proof.

[ 08-12-2003, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

The above is meant to prove God's not omnipotent? Out of the entire Bible, out of the alleged THOUSANDS of contradictions, the only attempt at proving the bible contradicts re. omnipotence is where "Judah couldn't dislodge the enemy because they had iron chariots?"

Now, I can say God is with me, like he was with Judah. If I can't park in a carspace because someone else has parked there, how does that prove God is not omnipotent?

Bewildering to say the least.

It was a test of what was Abraham's 'God' for he had put having a child ahead of God's will before (by having Ishmael). Isaac was NOT killed. He lived and bore children himself. God did NOT require human sacrifice.


Ooh. Look at this comment in the translation notes of the bible -

22:29 The meaning of the Hebrew for this phrase is uncertain.

How I read it is it's a dedication. There is nothing in the bible anywhere that suggests the Hebrews killed their firstborn sons as an offering to God. I repeat, the bible must be taken as a WHOLE.

Had Jephthah studied Gods word he would have seen that that was an abomination. God did not require it. He had directly decreed not to do that. Jephthah cornered himself with his unthinking vow.

Bear in mind, the bible often simply records events without passing Judgement. ALL the Judges were flawed characters. Sampson, Ehud, Gideon, this guy Jepthah. One of the macro messages found by reading all Judges is that God can and does use flawed people. And he restores. He continually forgave Israel again and again. He continually used flawed people with flawed methods to rescue Israel from plights they only brought themselves on.

Jephthah could have just asked God for victory. He could have had the faith that God would have answered his prayer. Instead, he made an absolutist deal. Stupid mistake. We can learn many, many things from that single story. It doesn't show a contradiction however.

It quite clearly states that the Gibeonites (Israels enemies) killed these guys. David didn't offer them as a sacrifice at all. No contradiction.

How is God himself dying for all humanity a contradiction of an edict for humans not to sacrifice humans to God?

It's bizzarre.

The death and ressurection of Jesus Christ are what enable eternal life. It's God, as a perfect sinless human, taking the consequence of sin - death - upon himself.

Again, there is no contradiction.

No contradiction re. Omnipotence, Human sacrifice, and "do not murder".

Again, I'll post more later.

And have you read C.S.Lewis? The atheist professor turned literary 'preacher'?

The second elaborates on the first. I see no contradiction. He CREATED woman out of what he'd created man. Making them equal (even though equality is not mentioned in the first passage).

I see no contradiction.

And have you read C.S.Lewis? The atheist professor turned literary 'preacher'? </font>[/QUOTE]Oh yeah, The Chronicles of Narnia are some of my favorite books. I read them annually. Why?

1. Trinity. A triune God

2. Speaking about either trinity or angels. ANgels also knew good and evil, and it was in the matter of good and evil, that man was like "them". (Angels AND God)

3. Trinity. A triune God.

Whether or not Barker deeoms invoking the Trinity does nothing, these verses are part of the PROOF of the Trinity. Rather than the Trinity being used as a defense, these verses are key factors in providing the biblical concept of the Trinity.

To simply dismiss such arguing is ridiculous. A triune God makes perfect sense. Barker shows he never grasped the concept, and placed human limitations on the Creator. Consequently, throughout nature and in conceptuality, triunity, or biunity exists.

A (singular) couple (plural) is one such conceptual example of biunity.
A trio is an example of conceptual triunity.

Plainly obvious and not difficult to grasp whatsoever. Barker needs to revise his "freethought" methinks. ;)

And have you read C.S.Lewis? The atheist professor turned literary 'preacher'? </font>[/QUOTE]Oh yeah, The Chronicles of Narnia are some of my favorite books. I read them annually. Why? </font>[/QUOTE]Try "Mere Christianity".

I must say this is the most off topic I have ever seen a thread, and I have seen them taken way off topic before. We should get an award or something. :D

Seeing as God is both omnipresent and omniscient, God can live in both light and darkness at the same time. Remembering of course that God is outside time.

If he in fact has a physical form at all!!

Barker is again, attempting to prescribe human limitations on what God is. We don't know WHAT God is, we know WHO God is. Barker again shows his limited concepts of God. It's no wonder he became an atheist if this page of his is any indication of the limited entity he believed his God to be.

Again. Some "freethought" was required. ;)