Prophecy of Isaiah: Emperor Cyrus

[NAGATO UZUMAKl]

Rumblestiltskin

IVovacane

Rumblestiltskin

IVovacane

LoveLoud837

IVovacane

Y
The point was two people said something different= Contradiction

Not necessarily.
If I took my baby cousin to the zoo, I'd tell my grandmother that I went to the zoo with landen and had fun. Landen would say we went to the zoo and saw giraffes and lions and meerkats and we share a favorite animal (hippo) and went to the concession stand and got lots of treats and the gift shop where I got Legos and had a blast!

That isn't a contradiction.

I got bread and meat and put it all together, toasted it for 3 minutes, put some sauce on the sandwich and ate it, and saying I made a sandwich isn't a contradiction.

It wasnt a contradiction because "Landen" clarified what was so fun about the trip to the zoo. If he said you guys went to a houseparty with alcohol, then that would be a contradiction.

Anyway there are Bible verses people would claim is a contradiction because two seperate information. For example Judas' demise. Many think its a contradiction because Matthew said he went to hang himself and Luke (I think) said he fell from a great height and his body exploded and his guts spilled. But really Judas hung himself and died then his body fell after a long time in the hot sun, which made his corpse easily to explode from impact.

Actually, one verse says he hung himself (which is the version where he returned the money), and the other says he fell headlong while tending to his field and his guts spilled out (which is the version where he kept the money and bought the field). It's actually a contradiction as well, one that I've heard apologists try to defend with the same line you used.

It doesnt say he was tending to his field. Also, what do you think he fell from?

It doesn't, however, the verse immediately goes from his purchase of the field, to his death, which context would imply that he was working on at the time...though, I obviously can't say that that is definitely what the verse is saying, so you have a point there.

And to your other question....his feet. If you're going to point out the "it doesn't say he was tending his field" argument, I can turn that around and say that "it doesn't say he fell after hanging himself"...In fact, that he would fall after hanging himself seems like it'd be an important note to make...and the verse doesn't make it.

...So except for falling after hanging himself, you'll take that he fell headlong from his feet and somehow his intestines spilled? Thats a pretty scary thing to happen don't you think?

[Sugarbeary]

Rumblestiltskin

IVovacane

LoveLoud837

IVovacane

LoveLoud837

Rumblestiltskin

I pointed out the biblical example IN THAT VERY SAME POST! For ******** sake, how dishonest are you!?!

I'm looking for a biblical example where someone said they had a conversation, and then another source explicitly states they did not have a conversation.

Y
The point was two people said something different= Contradiction

Not necessarily.
If I took my baby cousin to the zoo, I'd tell my grandmother that I went to the zoo with landen and had fun. Landen would say we went to the zoo and saw giraffes and lions and meerkats and we share a favorite animal (hippo) and went to the concession stand and got lots of treats and the gift shop where I got Legos and had a blast!

That isn't a contradiction.

I got bread and meat and put it all together, toasted it for 3 minutes, put some sauce on the sandwich and ate it, and saying I made a sandwich isn't a contradiction.

It wasnt a contradiction because "Landen" clarified what was so fun about the trip to the zoo. If he said you guys went to a houseparty with alcohol, then that would be a contradiction.

Anyway there are Bible verses people would claim is a contradiction because two seperate information. For example Judas' demise. Many think its a contradiction because Matthew said he went to hang himself and Luke (I think) said he fell from a great height and his body exploded and his guts spilled. But really Judas hung himself and died then his body fell after a long time in the hot sun, which made his corpse easily to explode from impact.

Actually, one verse says he hung himself (which is the version where he returned the money), and the other says he fell headlong while tending to his field and his guts spilled out (which is the version where he kept the money and bought the field). It's actually a contradiction as well, one that I've heard apologists try to defend with the same line you used.

One person stated that when Judas died, notice of his death would have been spread around the town. That would prompt others to buy the field and make it a cemetery. So Judas may not have bought the field outright but it could have been bought in his name. Of course I wouldn't know if that's the exact case but I know the word is inerrant, so there is a way it ties together perfectly.

[Rumblestiltskin]

LoveLoud837

You can't say I don't like the answer if it's the right answer.

We've demonstrated that it ISN'T the right answer.

Quote:

Jesus talked in parables that made perfect sense but to others it made no sense.

Arguable, but he made analogies to fit what he was talking about. Your arguments DON'T....they ignore the fact that, again, we aren't talking about two different perspectives of the same event, but two contradictory statements, both of which you would have us take from a book you claim to be inerrant. I've also pointed out a contradiction, an example of which you SPECIFICALLY asked for, and you've not even responded to it.

Also, comparing yourself to Jesus is hilarious...you've got a real ego there, kiddo. And ego and stupidity go horrible together.

[Rumblestiltskin]

IVovacane

Rumblestiltskin

IVovacane

Rumblestiltskin

IVovacane

It wasnt a contradiction because "Landen" clarified what was so fun about the trip to the zoo. If he said you guys went to a houseparty with alcohol, then that would be a contradiction.

Anyway there are Bible verses people would claim is a contradiction because two seperate information. For example Judas' demise. Many think its a contradiction because Matthew said he went to hang himself and Luke (I think) said he fell from a great height and his body exploded and his guts spilled. But really Judas hung himself and died then his body fell after a long time in the hot sun, which made his corpse easily to explode from impact.

Actually, one verse says he hung himself (which is the version where he returned the money), and the other says he fell headlong while tending to his field and his guts spilled out (which is the version where he kept the money and bought the field). It's actually a contradiction as well, one that I've heard apologists try to defend with the same line you used.

It doesnt say he was tending to his field. Also, what do you think he fell from?

It doesn't, however, the verse immediately goes from his purchase of the field, to his death, which context would imply that he was working on at the time...though, I obviously can't say that that is definitely what the verse is saying, so you have a point there.

And to your other question....his feet. If you're going to point out the "it doesn't say he was tending his field" argument, I can turn that around and say that "it doesn't say he fell after hanging himself"...In fact, that he would fall after hanging himself seems like it'd be an important note to make...and the verse doesn't make it.

...So except for falling after hanging himself, you'll take that he fell headlong from his feet and somehow his intestines spilled? Thats a pretty scary thing to happen don't you think?

I've always interpreted it to be divine punishment for betraying Jesus...so with a book with talking snakes, child-killing bears, people turning into salt pillars, guys getting superpowers from their, etc. etc...the idea of someone falling over and having their guts spilled out doesn't seem that bizarre to me.

[Sugarbeary]

Rumblestiltskin

LoveLoud837

refer to the Romans Road
These are the verses that you are talking about.

Which, by the way, IS NOT EVIDENCE. The bible is the CLAIM. The claim does not provide evidence for itself.

Also, nothing about what I'm about to respond to actually responds to what I've said. In fact, it's like you went out of your way to make your religion even more immoral...Are we sure he's not a poe?

Quote:

Everyone is a sinner. Nobody is good.

Oh, really, well, tell me what babies who die shortly after birth have done to deserve eternal torment/reward. And if you're going to point back to original sin, please indicate the morality of punishing someone based on someone else's wrong doings (I could also ask for verification that the account of genesis even happened, but I have a strong feeling you'll just point to the bible again, or to an apologetics site, which both are equally terrible when it comes to proving claims, so I'll oblige you for a bit).

Quote:

The wages of sin is death,

Which is a punishment not fitting the crime...

Quote:

but the free gift of God is eternity through Jesus Christ.

Which raises a few questions. First, do you believe that JC was god? Because if you do, that means god sacrificed himself to himself as a loophole to rules he created when he could have just changed it to begin with. Do you not believe JC was god? Not much better. Now god's having someone killed for a loophole to rules he created that he could have just changed to begin with. Also, if god is all-knowing, how come he didn't know well beforehand that people weren't going to obey him, and so he'd have to create a loophole to rules he created that he could have just changed to begin with? Are these rules that much more powerful than god? Is god, then, not all-powerful? In fact, with the amount of times, according to the bible, that he's gotten so angry that he's decided to do something drastic to try and fix the rules he created that he apparently cannot change, god comes off as a massive ******** idiot....no wonder you worship him.

Quote:

God showed his love for us when we were yet sinners by dying for us

You mean by threatening to eternally torture us forever unless we believe him? Yeah, that's not love. A loving god wouldn't create an eternal torture pit for his creations...but you know who would? A psychopath...

Quote:

For it is believing with your heart that made you right with God,

And, getting back to the actual topic that started this conversation, works! Which you both are and are not justified by! Thanks bible for clearing that s**t up.

Bible: No problem, Rumble.........Actually, that's a problem, Rumble.

Consistent in his inconsistency as always.

Quote:

and it is confessing with your mouth that you are saved

You mean, from the eternal torture pit god created out of "love" which you are automatically sent to to begin with, unless you profess a belief (and maybe or maybe not do works...it's unclear)....again, this system is immoral.

Quote:

For being right with God, we have peace because of what Jesus has done for us

Refer back to the questions. Also, I could point out again that you haven't demonstrated any of the claims, and that I could ask for your evidence, however, with your track record, it's probably best to not force you to embarrass yourself any further.

Quote:

So there is no condemnation for those who believe in Christ Jesus

And eternal torture for those who don't, even if they did more to benefit humanity than Jesus may have (cause we don't even know if he actually existed, or if the stories about him, even the non-supernatural ones, are true)...again, this system is immoral.

Quote:

Nothing can separate us from His love

Except iron, apparently...

So after reading this tripe, it's apparent that you no longer have an argument, and just want to preach...However, ignoring the arguments to spout bible verses doesn't make the evidence we've provided go away, and you just end up looking foolish in the long run. Also, why you're preaching to a bunch of atheists who clearly know your book better than you do and expecting some kind of beneficial results is almost beyond me....I think all of us have mentioned that we were former christians at one point in this thread or another, so it's not like we haven't heard this line of indoctrination before....

2 things.
Jesus died, but He was perfect and death could not hold Him. Blood in the old testament was necessary to be shed for sacrifices and forgiveness of sins. Jesus came as a permanent sacrifice. We no longer need rituals and sacrifices because Jesus shed his blood.

Also on Iron, the Lord was with the people who fought against the iron. Iron did not separate the Lord from them. The people with the iron never believed.

[Sugarbeary]

Rumblestiltskin

LoveLoud837

You can't say I don't like the answer if it's the right answer.

We've demonstrated that it ISN'T the right answer.

Quote:

Jesus talked in parables that made perfect sense but to others it made no sense.

Arguable, but he made analogies to fit what he was talking about. Your arguments DON'T....they ignore the fact that, again, we aren't talking about two different perspectives of the same event, but two contradictory statements, both of which you would have us take from a book you claim to be inerrant. I've also pointed out a contradiction, an example of which you SPECIFICALLY asked for, and you've not even responded to it.

Also, comparing yourself to Jesus is hilarious...you've got a real ego there, kiddo. And ego and stupidity go horrible together.

Seriously, 3 personal attacks earlier and I lost where you were referencing your hatred and I don't understand still where it's coming from. Most of the other guy's discrepancies came from issues he thought were contradictions when there would be different passages dealing with the same thing that had different perspectives, such as genesis 1-2. I mean, do you take the time to understand or are you just eager to shove me down?

[Rumblestiltskin]

LoveLoud837

One person stated that when Judas died, notice of his death would have been spread around the town. That would prompt others to buy the field and make it a cemetery. So Judas may not have bought the field outright but it could have been bought in his name.

The verse is clearly talking about Judas buying the field. It was not bought "in his name." Some versions of the text say he specifically bought it. Others refer to him buying it...but either way, it is clear that Judas bought the field in one version, and returned the money in another.

Quote:

Of course I wouldn't know if that's the exact case but I know the word is inerrant, so there is a way it ties together perfectly.

When you start with a conclusion, it's easy to pick evidence that supports it while ignoring everything that contradicts it...however, that doesn't make your claims valid at all. In fact, you are referring to the ******** claim itself to try and prove the claim, and that doesn't make it valid either. And, regardless, it's still verses that contradict each other...so it's STILL a contradiction.

[Rumblestiltskin]

LoveLoud837

2 things.
Jesus died, but He was perfect and death could not hold Him. Blood in the old testament was necessary to be shed for sacrifices and forgiveness of sins. Jesus came as a permanent sacrifice. We no longer need rituals and sacrifices because Jesus shed his blood.

Which does nothing to refute anything of what I just said. It's still a loophole for rules that god created when he could have just changed them to begin with, or NOT MADE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Quote:

Also on Iron, the Lord was with the people who fought against the iron. Iron did not separate the Lord from them. The people with the iron never believed.

First off, that statement was in jest. Secondly, it doesn't matter that god wasn't with the people who had iron...the verse states that the iron was what kept god from doing what he wanted to do...your objection is as idiotic as the rest of the statements you've been making...(no real shock there).

[Sugarbeary]

Rumblestiltskin

LoveLoud837

One person stated that when Judas died, notice of his death would have been spread around the town. That would prompt others to buy the field and make it a cemetery. So Judas may not have bought the field outright but it could have been bought in his name.

The verse is clearly talking about Judas buying the field. It was not bought "in his name." Some versions of the text say he specifically bought it. Others refer to him buying it...but either way, it is clear that Judas bought the field in one version, and returned the money in another.

Quote:

Of course I wouldn't know if that's the exact case but I know the word is inerrant, so there is a way it ties together perfectly.

When you start with a conclusion, it's easy to pick evidence that supports it while ignoring everything that contradicts it...however, that doesn't make your claims valid at all. In fact, you are referring to the ******** claim itself to try and prove the claim, and that doesn't make it valid either. And, regardless, it's still verses that contradict each other...so it's STILL a contradiction.

Judas buys the field/the priest buys the field with Judas' money in his name.

[NAGATO UZUMAKl]

Rumblestiltskin

IVovacane

Rumblestiltskin

IVovacane

Rumblestiltskin

IVovacane

It wasnt a contradiction because "Landen" clarified what was so fun about the trip to the zoo. If he said you guys went to a houseparty with alcohol, then that would be a contradiction.

Anyway there are Bible verses people would claim is a contradiction because two seperate information. For example Judas' demise. Many think its a contradiction because Matthew said he went to hang himself and Luke (I think) said he fell from a great height and his body exploded and his guts spilled. But really Judas hung himself and died then his body fell after a long time in the hot sun, which made his corpse easily to explode from impact.

Actually, one verse says he hung himself (which is the version where he returned the money), and the other says he fell headlong while tending to his field and his guts spilled out (which is the version where he kept the money and bought the field). It's actually a contradiction as well, one that I've heard apologists try to defend with the same line you used.

It doesnt say he was tending to his field. Also, what do you think he fell from?

It doesn't, however, the verse immediately goes from his purchase of the field, to his death, which context would imply that he was working on at the time...though, I obviously can't say that that is definitely what the verse is saying, so you have a point there.

And to your other question....his feet. If you're going to point out the "it doesn't say he was tending his field" argument, I can turn that around and say that "it doesn't say he fell after hanging himself"...In fact, that he would fall after hanging himself seems like it'd be an important note to make...and the verse doesn't make it.

...So except for falling after hanging himself, you'll take that he fell headlong from his feet and somehow his intestines spilled? Thats a pretty scary thing to happen don't you think?

I've always interpreted it to be divine punishment for betraying Jesus...so with a book with talking snakes, child-killing bears, people turning into salt pillars, guys getting superpowers from their, etc. etc...the idea of someone falling over and having their guts spilled out doesn't seem that bizarre to me.

Hmm...That's true but still I think he fell after hanging himself

[NAGATO UZUMAKl]

LoveLoud837

Rumblestiltskin

LoveLoud837

You can't say I don't like the answer if it's the right answer.

We've demonstrated that it ISN'T the right answer.

Quote:

Jesus talked in parables that made perfect sense but to others it made no sense.

Arguable, but he made analogies to fit what he was talking about. Your arguments DON'T....they ignore the fact that, again, we aren't talking about two different perspectives of the same event, but two contradictory statements, both of which you would have us take from a book you claim to be inerrant. I've also pointed out a contradiction, an example of which you SPECIFICALLY asked for, and you've not even responded to it.

Also, comparing yourself to Jesus is hilarious...you've got a real ego there, kiddo. And ego and stupidity go horrible together.

Seriously, 3 personal attacks earlier and I lost where you were referencing your hatred and I don't understand still where it's coming from. Most of the other guy's discrepancies came from issues he thought were contradictions when there would be different passages dealing with the same thing that had different perspectives, such as genesis 1-2. I mean, do you take the time to understand or are you just eager to shove me down?

I didn't say judas' demise was a contradiction

[Rumblestiltskin]

LoveLoud837

Seriously, 3 personal attacks earlier

You've lost any ability to play the victim when you accused other people of plagiarizing, then did it yourself, and have issued no apology to the people you've insulted. Also, while we have insulted you, we haven't left it at just insults, as we've demonstrated why we have been criticizing your lack of intelligence and honesty. You want that to change? Stop being dishonest, and get a ******** clue. Hell, even a smidgen of an iota of piece of a portion of a clue would be better than the bullshit you've been spouting for 15 pages now...

Quote:

and I lost where you were referencing your hatred

You mean the part where I specifically stated that I'm not responding out of hate, but because you're wrong....yeah, leaving at what you said isn't at all misconstruing what I stated earlier. /sarcasm

Quote:

and I don't understand still where it's coming from.

As I already stated, it's because you're wrong...and more than that, you're also dishonest. So implying, repeatedly, that I hate you when I've specifically stated that wasn't the case is not only wrong, it's dishonest as you are attempting to dismiss all the evidence brought to you that you clearly cannot counter. Stop handwaving and stick to the ******** topic.

Quote:

Most of the other guy's discrepancies came from issues he thought were contradictions when there would be different passages dealing with the same thing that had different perspectives,

No...they weren't different perspectives. They were contradictory versions. We've shown you that that is the case...your ridiculous assertions to the contrary have been duly noted, but nothing of what you can or will say is going to change the fact that these are contradictions.

Quote:

such as genesis 1-2.

FINISH A ******** THOUGHT...

Quote:

I mean, do you take the time to understand or are you just eager to shove me down?

Neither. I read what you write, I respond to what you write, and I do so in a time that allows me to collect and organize my thoughts and evidence BEFORE I respond. Now, stop with all this red herring "pity me" bullshit and stick to the ******** topic!

[Rumblestiltskin]

LoveLoud837

Rumblestiltskin

LoveLoud837

One person stated that when Judas died, notice of his death would have been spread around the town. That would prompt others to buy the field and make it a cemetery. So Judas may not have bought the field outright but it could have been bought in his name.

The verse is clearly talking about Judas buying the field. It was not bought "in his name." Some versions of the text say he specifically bought it. Others refer to him buying it...but either way, it is clear that Judas bought the field in one version, and returned the money in another.

Quote:

Of course I wouldn't know if that's the exact case but I know the word is inerrant, so there is a way it ties together perfectly.

When you start with a conclusion, it's easy to pick evidence that supports it while ignoring everything that contradicts it...however, that doesn't make your claims valid at all. In fact, you are referring to the ******** claim itself to try and prove the claim, and that doesn't make it valid either. And, regardless, it's still verses that contradict each other...so it's STILL a contradiction.

Judas buys the field/the priest buys the field with Judas' money in his name.

WHICH IS A CONTRADICTION. In one version IT CLEARLY STATES THAT HE BOUGHT THE FIELD WITH THE MONEY HE KEPT FROM BETRAYING JESUS. In another, IT CLEARLY STATES THAT HE RETURNED THE MONEY. Both scenarios cannot have happened, so either one, or both, are wrong. Either way, it is an error in the bible, meaning the bible is not inerrant, meaning, after 15 pages, you're done. Your argument is defeated, no matter how much you assert it otherwise.

[Rumblestiltskin]

IVovacane

Rumblestiltskin

IVovacane

Rumblestiltskin

IVovacane

It doesnt say he was tending to his field. Also, what do you think he fell from?

It doesn't, however, the verse immediately goes from his purchase of the field, to his death, which context would imply that he was working on at the time...though, I obviously can't say that that is definitely what the verse is saying, so you have a point there.

And to your other question....his feet. If you're going to point out the "it doesn't say he was tending his field" argument, I can turn that around and say that "it doesn't say he fell after hanging himself"...In fact, that he would fall after hanging himself seems like it'd be an important note to make...and the verse doesn't make it.

...So except for falling after hanging himself, you'll take that he fell headlong from his feet and somehow his intestines spilled? Thats a pretty scary thing to happen don't you think?

I've always interpreted it to be divine punishment for betraying Jesus...so with a book with talking snakes, child-killing bears, people turning into salt pillars, guys getting superpowers from their, etc. etc...the idea of someone falling over and having their guts spilled out doesn't seem that bizarre to me.

Hmm...That's true but still I think he fell after hanging himself

You can think it, but that's not what the text says, and, again, it also ties along with Judas both returning the money to the Pharisees, and keeping the money to buy a field. Both cannot happen, so either one version is wrong, or they both are, and it will still be a contradiction.

[NAGATO UZUMAKl]

Rumblestiltskin

IVovacane

Rumblestiltskin

IVovacane

Rumblestiltskin

IVovacane

It doesnt say he was tending to his field. Also, what do you think he fell from?

It doesn't, however, the verse immediately goes from his purchase of the field, to his death, which context would imply that he was working on at the time...though, I obviously can't say that that is definitely what the verse is saying, so you have a point there.

And to your other question....his feet. If you're going to point out the "it doesn't say he was tending his field" argument, I can turn that around and say that "it doesn't say he fell after hanging himself"...In fact, that he would fall after hanging himself seems like it'd be an important note to make...and the verse doesn't make it.

...So except for falling after hanging himself, you'll take that he fell headlong from his feet and somehow his intestines spilled? Thats a pretty scary thing to happen don't you think?

I've always interpreted it to be divine punishment for betraying Jesus...so with a book with talking snakes, child-killing bears, people turning into salt pillars, guys getting superpowers from their, etc. etc...the idea of someone falling over and having their guts spilled out doesn't seem that bizarre to me.

Hmm...That's true but still I think he fell after hanging himself

You can think it, but that's not what the text says, and, again, it also ties along with Judas both returning the money to the Pharisees, and keeping the money to buy a field. Both cannot happen, so either one version is wrong, or they both are, and it will still be a contradiction.

The text also doesn't say Judas fell from his feet and somehow his intestines gushed out.
The Jewish authorities bought the field of blood.

Once Judas realized what he had done by betraying Jesus, he threw the money back at the priests. Not wanting blood money to be used within temple purposes, they bought a "Potters Field."

Judas' return of the money allowed it to be used in any way the priests saw fit.
A few people have made donations to our church.
Those specific donations were used to purchase Bibles.
Indirectly, the donors bought the Bibles, in much the same way that Judas supplied the money for "Blood Field.".