/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>597129

Biblical mistakes are ehhhh, many of them can be explained.

My problem is: why men can have orgasm in the butt? From what I understand sodomy is a sin even for heterosexual marriages, so why is that there?

>>597133

>ehhhh

What do you mean?

>>597133

MODS, WHY DO YOU ALLOW FAGGOTS TO FLOOD THIS BOARD BUT DELETE EVERY THREAD IN WHICH I MENTION THE TRUTH OF OUR HOLY BIBLE?

>>597129

I listen to this deceased man of God or other people that have profoundly researched and understood the Holy Bible.

>>597136

I mean that they don't shake my faith.

>>597137

I am not a homosexual. It doesn't even shake my faith that men can orgasm in that way, it's just a bit of interesting to me. But I'll admit I used to watch femdom several years ago and I still have these urges which I have to suppress.

Why are there mistakes at all?

>>597149

>STOP WATCHING PORN

I already stopped. That's why I said "several years ago".

>>597152

>>597133

if your talking about a prostate orgasm. it could be done because of a health issue.

>>597143

>I'm not a fag….. but I will admit…..

Lo ok bud

>>597171

>conveniently leaving out what I said after that

What was that about bearing false witness?

How do Bible literalists explain the grammatical errors in New Testament?

OP here

Can anybody stay on topic and answer my question?

>>597133

That's just where the gland is.

It just happens to be able to be stimulated that way, it's not the intended use.

>>597221

Perhaps you could site some of the perceived mistakes?

>>597237

Just take Genesis and Noah. It gives different numbers of animals and different lengths of time for how long the rain lasted. It's internally inconsistent.

>>597252

Whoah, dude! You just like totally ended theology for good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CY-jX9juoQ

>>597221

Didn't you see embed related or what?

>>597252

Skip to 11:10 in embed related. The flood never flooded the whole world, only Mesopotamia. The Bible is never inconsistent with science and secular history, but always complementary.

>>597221

From a Catholic perspective, the Bible is infallible on matters of faith and morals. Since also the Bible can be read in at least four ways simultaneously (literally, allegorically, anagogically, and morally), this also reveals the endless profundity to the Word of God, and gives credence to its divine reliability.

For its historical/literal content, we trust that it is eminently reliable, but which means that we shouldn't get hung up on austistic details like "how many men did King David have? Is it 234,087 or 384,037? Christardz btfo!" because it isn't essential to salvation. Such stuff like >>597252 for example.

>>597295

Exactly. If someone is coming at you with stuff like that then it just means they are trying not to be convinced.

>>597279

The flood Is obviously parable.

What I'm saying is that INTERNALLY, the scripture gives different details that are self-contradictory.

>>597283

>>597295

>>597300

>You don't believe enough

What's to stop a Muslim from saying the same thing when you point out Quranic errors?

> bible, a collection of books in a foreign language

> has inconsistencies

Well don't believe the entire bible then

> news, a collection of facts from the most technologically advanced society ever

> have inconsistencies today

Well don't believe reality then

Rationalizing, a popular contemporary hobby, yields accurate results when all implications cover all conceivable exceptions. For complex situations this tends to be impossible.

Example, god says nineveh will burn, it doesn't. Does that means that god is not omniscient or does it means that god can alter destiny?

Example, Joshuas say "sun, stahp pls", does it mean eliocentric copernicus is wrong, or relativistic einstein is right?

Also, you do recall that the bible is not an instruction manual because the concept did not exist? When written documents appeared, they retained symbolism from the oral way of transmitting knowledge.

Also, would a completely accurate document prove a god? what about a hypothetical time traveller? It can publish a completely accurate book with accurate predictions and he is not god.

OTOH collecting multiple different accounts is a good strategy to make the reader tolerate inconsistencies that are bound to surface anyway.

>>597221

>>597349

Ok first off there are no errors in the actual Bible. You haven't found one. Secondly, the spirit of deceit and lying is the only reason you need, to know why the islam or any other system that can't handle criticism without using deceit is morally wrong. Taqiyya, tawriya, kitman etc are all contrary to the truth. People saying you can't tell the difference are just propagating their excuse. This is of great convenience in the face of some facts that have to be answered, that's why the progressives will tolerate and promote any religion but the truth, because they're so hungry for alternatives they'll take anything, they will do anything. But there is no comparison between reality and deceit, Jesus Christ literally is alive right now, there is no other explanation you can give.

>>597227

You're getting dangerously close to saying that the gland was not intentionally placed where it is.

>>597133

Wat

>>597129

Some are not really necessary inconsistencies. The two deaths of Judas eg. The key thing is he didn't repent and turn back to Christ.

>>597399

>Wat

I was asking why a man can have anal orgasm even though it is a sin even in normal hetero marriages(woman pegging a man).

>>597252

Could you name the exact verses that contain these supposed contradictions? I just read through the section about Noah and I didn't notice any contradictions. Maybe I'm missing something.

>>597407

>If it's physically possible, how can it be bad?

You can also stimulate orgasm by cracking open your skull and applying pressure/electrical stimulation to a particular part of your brain, that doesn't mean you were meant to. Your body works the way it works, that's why using it improperly is called perversion and not impossibility

>>597407

Please spare us this reasoning. It's the same reason a man could enjoy any sin. You might ask why someone can enjoy anything that's wicked and sinful. It's still lust, lusts of the flesh to be specific. It's still sin, even if it satisfies lust. So please spare us this talk.

>>597379

Muslims telling lies to defend their faith has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made. I said people refuse to believe the Quran is true because it has mistakes. So if the Bible has mistakes can't people do the same thing with The Bible?

>>597412

It says the number of animals that God commands Noah to take is 2. Then it says 7 of the clean animals and only 2 of the unclean animals. It says the rain went on for 40 days but also says it went on for 150 days.

>>597442

Genesis 6:19

>From every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.

Genesis 7:2

>You shall also bring with you into the ark the clean cattle by sevens, male and female; and the unclean cattle by twos, male and female

Notice the word also? That means in addition to the animals he had already brought into the ark in chapter six.

Genesis 7:17

>Now the flood was on the earth forty days and forty nights. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.

Genesis 8:3

>And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.

Chapter 7, verse 17 is talking about how long the waters "increased on the earth", as it says in verse 18, and chapter 8, verse 3 is talking about how long it took for all the water left from the flood to recede.

>>597450

You still don't understand.

A person could read Islamic Scripture IN ISOLATION from other Muslims practicing Taqiyya and still conclude it's wrong.

It's not about Muslims, it's about the scripture. If there were NO MUSLIMS IN THE WORLD, the scripture would still be false due to mistakes.

This same logic can be applied to The Bible.

>>597450

And instead of relying on /pol/ memes, why not look up Taqiyya?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

It means pretending not to be a Muslim under persecution by non-Muslims. Not lying about the contents of scripture.

>>597453

>>From every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every kind

>You shall also bring with you into the ark the clean cattle by sevens

So clean cattle is not a "living thing"?

>the flood was on the earth forty days

This means there's no more flood on the 41st day. Except:

>At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.

It then says the flood carried on from the 41st to the 150th day.

>>597454

>A person could read Islamic Scripture IN ISOLATION from other Muslims practicing Taqiyya and still conclude it's wrong.

Taqiyya is part of their scripture. You have to include all of it. You're probably right that there are errors to find, I just never bothered doing so.

>This same logic can be applied to The Bible.

Let's see you find something. Unlike people who practice deceit, I actually do claim to be consistent.

Also your contradiction in Genesis 7 and 8 is very easy. The forty days are the actual period of rain, the 150 days are equal to five months when Noah was 600 years, 2 months, 17 days old (Genesis 7:11) until he was 600 years, 7 months, 17 days old (Genesis 8:4). So the remaining 110 days were how long it took for the waters to abate after it stopped raining.

>>597456

Did I not also mention tawriya and kitman? Also, can you really trust them to explain taqiyya to you without them engaging in taqiyya? Just something to consider.

>>597462

>taqiyya

You keep using that word incorrectly. I gave you the definition which means denying you're a Muslim as a means of saving your life from persecution. It doesn't mean "lying to defend the religion" which is what you keep saying.

Divine revelation can be right or wrong. If it's right, it could potentially be divine. If it's wrong it can't be divine.

If there's mistakes in a text that claims to be divinely revealed, it means that scripture can't actually be divinely revealed since an all powerful God can't make basic errors.

>>597465

>I gave you the definition which means denying you're a Muslim as a means of saving your life from persecution.

And I'm saying that's their taqiyya-based deceitful explanation of what taqiyya is.

>If there's mistakes in a text that claims to be divinely revealed, it means that scripture can't actually be divinely revealed since an all powerful God can't make basic errors.

This is obvious. I welcome anyone's attempt to find a flaw.

>>597458

>So clean cattle is not a "living thing"?

God told Noah to bring two of every kind of living thing into the Ark. Noah did this. Afterwards God told Noah to bring an additional cattle into the Ark, this does not mean that Noah didn't bring a pair of cattle into the Ark beforehand.

>>597458

>>the flood was on the earth forty days

>This means there's no more flood on the 41st day. Except:

>>At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.

>It then says the flood carried on from the 41st to the 150th day.

Is English not your first language? A flood means an overwhelming increase of water. Once the water stops rising, and especially once it begins to recede, the body of water is no longer a flood. This why when an area gets his by a flood and there's still water from it in the area it's called a flooded area. Past tense. As in there was flooding in that area but not anymore because the water stopped rising.

>>597469

>I'm saying that's their taqiyya-based deceitful explanation of what taqiyya is.

So it's just circular logic then? Taqiyya is lying and went it's pointed out that's not the case, that itself is a lie? How about you could be wrong?

>>597470

>from EVERY living thing

The condition God gives is EVERY. Which is then contradicted later when it's not EVERY animal but the unclean animals.

>>597470

How can the flood stop being on Earth after 40 days if the waters only decreased after 150 days? It's obviously self-refuting.

>>597476

>The condition God gives is EVERY. Which is then contradicted later when it's not EVERY animal but the unclean animals.

It says "From every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.", meaning two of each kind of animal, one male and one female.

>How can the flood stop being on Earth after 40 days if the waters only decreased after 150 days?

You still don't seem to understand what the word "flood" means. The waters increased for 40 days, then after those forty days it began to decrease another 150 days. Seriously, is English your first language or not? I'm not trying to insult you here. No one with a solid grasp of the English language should be unable to understand this.

>>597349

>The flood Is obviously parable

Have you even watched embed related or are you just here to bait around? The Bible has no errors, yet there are many (un)intentional mistranslations. If there is anything incosistent or ridiculous in The Bible, then look up which words are used in Hebrew/Greek, because the synonymous definitions you'll find that it makes a whole lot more sense than anything than the corrupted translations and teachings in the Church. The Quran is, be it Arabic or a translation, inherently corrupted because it is rooted in Talmudic mysticism and was founded by very mighty and influential Jews in the Arab country. The difference between The Bible and the Quran is that the former has been corrupted after it was written. while the latter was based off the Talmud.

>>597539

No offense but this CI doctrine you're posting is, it's another brand of judaizing. Galatians 3:28-29 exists. Ephesians 2:11-13 exists. The book of Romans exists. The book of Hebrews exists. 1 Peter 2:9-10 exists. Acts exists.

>>597209

They can't, we figured out how to read and write before learning how to think.

So we add new ideas into old stories or use our knowledge to underatand old stories. For example my friend didn't understand why oral tradition was a thing or why people needed to read the scriptures to people. As if they were literate like today.

Koine Greek was like a lingua franca, sure a native Greek could tell you who exactly that relative is, but going from an Afro-Asiatic language to PIE is asking for trouble especially in times before the internet. I wonder how many wordplays and implications were lost from Aramahic to Greek. Nothing important obviously, the translation is pretty much spot on.

Greek was like Russian in the USSR, sure not everyone was a master of it but they knew enough to get by greedy officers and to trade.

>>597379

>Ok first off there are no errors in the actual Bible

I think we all have to admit that the Catholics and their church did an excellent job of compiling it.

>>597545

These verses only undermine what I am saying. The whole New Testament addresses the lost sheep aka the dispersed tribes of Israel that spread around 722 BC when the northern kingdom was destroyed. This is why Christ came in the first place, because the dispersed Israelites spread among the heathen nations; and the supposed "gentiles" in Ephesians 2:11 comes from the Greek word "ethne", which means "nations", nothing more and nothing less. Galatians 3:28-29 is very interesting because in the beginning it specifically refers to only Jews and Greeks. Have you asked yourself why is there not a more general term if supposedly every nation/race can be saved through Christ? Jews, as descendants of the tribe of Judah, or of the Kingdom of Judah, yet existed during this time period, as well as the Greeks, of course. Why does Jesus specifically say to not make a difference between them? Because during that period, many of the Kingdom of Israel have spread and multiplied throughout Greece, and Jesus knew that. Now, take a look at 1st Maccabees 12:20-21 - which is conveniently taken out of the Tanakh as well as the OT of most, or if not all Protestant Bibles - that clearly says that Spartans are of the seed of Abraham, hence relatives to those of the tribe of Judah:

>20 King Arius of the Spartans. To the high priest Onias. Greetings!

>21 It has been discovered in a written record that the Spartans and the Jews are relatives and are both of the family of Abraham.

Jesus' mission was it to spread his missage to the lost sheep of Israel, this is why it is not unjust or anything in the like that not every race/nation heard or will hear of him, because his sacrifice and ministry weren't directed to those who are not of the Israelitic bloodline.

>CI doctrine

What is that?

>>597551

>What is that?

The guy you linked was a Christian Identity minister and attorney. They are basically a form of judaizers who tend to reject or ignore the majority of the NT, and to reinterpret/redefine words at will in favor of "we wuz" theories. That's why they like to say that anything which is being ignored by them is "corrupted."

>These verses only undermine what I am saying.

I know.

>the dispersed Israelites spread among the heathen nations; and the supposed "gentiles" in Ephesians 2:11 comes from the Greek word "ethne", which means "nations", nothing more and nothing less.

Ok then why is the same exact word used in Acts 15:17, which is a quote of Amos 9:12 where the word for "heathen" is used in the place where "ethne" is written in the NT? Because the "nations" meant the same thing as both heathen and Gentile. And this doesn't mean the Greeks, Scythians or barbarians weren't men, just because they were gentiles. Romans 11:25-26 and 1 Peter 2:9-10 clearly shows that we're talking about Gentiles becoming part of Israel who were previously not and all the blind of the jews being cut off from our nation in wickedness.

You, and they, are both placing too much emphasis on physical descent when the birth "of the Spirit" is what matters for the kingdom of God, according to John 3:5-6. A people who were in times past NOT a people (1 Peter 2:10), became the people of God.

>Why does Jesus specifically say to not make a difference between them?

Jesus specifically said told a Samaritan and a Canaanite women that they weren't part of the nation at the time, and they were literally adjacent to Judea. Yet the Samaritans were by far the closest remnant of the northern kingdom which you're speaking of. Of course, as soon as the veil of the temple was rent during the crucifixion, this distinction become irrelevant for the purposes of receiving the Holy Spirit and grace of God.

>this is why it is not unjust or anything in the like that not every race/nation heard or will hear of him,

I never said it was unjust if that were to happen.

>because his sacrifice and ministry weren't directed to those who are not of the Israelitic bloodline.

You mean Adam's bloodline. You recall how many times the Lord called Himself the Son of Man? He is not only the Root and Offspring of David but also the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15, the seed of the woman.

1 Timothy 4:10

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

>>597557

>They are basically a form of judaizers who tend to reject or ignore the majority of the NT, and to reinterpret/redefine words at will in favor of "we wuz" theories. That's why they like to say that anything which is being ignored by them is "corrupted."

As far as I've listened he always gave an elaborate reason why something is corrupted, so his "we wuz" theories, so far, are well underpinned.

>I know

I meant "underpin", I unintentionally mixed it with my mother-tongue.

>Because the "nations" meant the same thing as both heathen and Gentile

No, it didn't. The Greek term for "heathen", or rather, "those who are not of Greek descent" was "varvaros" aka "barbarian", and "gentilis" aka "gentile" comes from Latin, which means "those who are not of Roman descent" as well as "nation/tribe/people/family"; the verses might as well refer to nations - "natio", also coming from Latin, which also means lineage, tribe, people" - who do not walk with God, this is the case, yet nowhere says that they are non-Israelites, only in translations where "goyim/gentilis/ethne" have been deliberately interchanged.

Don't put words into my mouth. I put great emphasis to the physical lineage, as well as the spiritual (re)birth, but the latter is only meant for a specific people, as it is several times referred to in The Bible.

>as soon as the veil of the temple was rent during the crucifixion, this distinction become irrelevant

And where did you get that from? Also, you dodged my question. Plus, your examples don't pull much because Judea was heavily mongrelized/bastardized during the centuries of sieges of foreign kingdoms. This is why the Nothern Kingdom is so important, because the surviving Israelites dispersed into many nations before their lineage could be possibly tainted.

>I never said it was unjust if that were to happen

Indeed, you never did, this was my mistake, pardon.

>You mean Adam's bloodline

Nay, not completely, to say the least. You have to exclude everyone of Cains lineage, this is why I specified the Israelites. But yes, you are correct, Jesus is the Son of Man, and the personified enmity between her and his (Satan's) seed.

>1 Timothy 4:10

Yet I say it refers to the men of Adam's offspring, except Cains, because a lot of scripture supports that only a specific lineage is addressed with his ministry.

>>597458

>>From every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every kind

>You shall also bring with you into the ark the clean cattle by sevens

>So clean cattle is not a "living thing"?

>the flood was on the earth forty days

>This means there's no more flood on the 41st day. Except:

>At the end of the hundred and fifty days

Can you into logic and ancient grammar? You sound a lot like a protestant who struggle with understanding ancient texts because they don't read like modern ones. The texts will often state an incomplete picture and then add on and finish that picture later on (or not). For example Paul will say we are justified by Faith. Protestants think because he only said faith that this means faith alone. However we receive a fuller picture in James who says we are justified by faith and works. Do they contradict each other? No. Paul did not state the exclusivity of faith but omitted works, which James filled in.

Mary did not have sex until she birthed Jesus. Some Protestants take this to mean she had sex afterwards. However in Greek, until does not imply a reversal but actually is used to specify what did or what didn't happen up to a certain point but not specify if anything changed afterwards. It is an incomplete picture. Jesus is called firstborn. That must mean there were siblings then? No it literally just means he was the first born which all the theological significance of that without mentioning whether or not he was followed by siblings.

It's the same grammatical logic with Noah. God said to bring 2 of every kind of living thing, and then said to bring 7 of the cattle, which is perfectly logical as humans delineate between wild animals and livestock.

Saying the flood was on the earth for forty days does not imply a reversal on the 41st, unless it had said it was only on the earth for 40 days.

Basically if it does not specify something exclusively you shouldn't assume it to be so. Of course the issue is that you read the bible from the premise that it is wrong and you are smarter than it, so when there are conflicts between it and your intellect you will automatically conclude the bible is wrong rather than yourself

http://www.contradictingbiblecontradictions.com/?p=4288

You welcome.

>>597569

Not bad, but it has several errors, like this:

>Psalm 82:6 is not to be taken for human beings, but for spiritual ones.

Really? Jesus quotes this in John 10 regarding humans to pharisees and they still write this stupidity? When will this retarded meme end?