The bible doesn't contradict itself?
Uploader Comments (malignantpoodle)
Top Comments
-
@m my god is real 100% heres why: 1.archeology findings matching the bible. 2.jehova/jesus IS THE ONLY I I MEAN ONLY GOD THAT SAYS IT DOESN'T MATTER WHEATHER U BELIEVE IN HIM OR NOT IN THE END ALL KNEES SHALL BOW 3.HE DOESN'T REQUIRE UR PRAISE TREES AND ANIMALS GIVE HIM PRAISE 4. FOREIGN TOUNGUE SYNDROME IS PROOF OF HOLY SPIRT. NEED I SAY MORE PROOFS.
-
@m lol oh look at me am a atheist derrp i am so smart my name is richard dwakins and god doesn't exist. ok mr. dwakins what came before big bang and can u give modern examples of genitic surplus incrementations of new dna information of mutation : dwakins...20 minutes later--- derp good question I don't know i think aliens did it an maybe theres a 6 on scale if god exist lol. dwakins crack can kill.
All Comments (929)
-
@MegaGangstaparadise How are you calling anyone else a derp when you can't formulate a proper sentence? Your calling someone a derp when you can't even spell his name. It's no wonder you believe in God when your that much of an ignorant imbecile.
-
Ted Haggard was contradicting himself when he was doing meth and boning a gay hooker.
-
you'er taking it all out of context ...thats not what they really mean...its a metaphore ...you have to read it in the original hebrew...it was a different time back then ...god can do what he wants...'ll pray for you.
-
@cocoonbreach I agree. I'm a bible-believing christian and I don't feel intimidated by atheistic rhetorics. It's the hate that's alarming. Jesus was right about the last days about people chasing after "vain imaginations.." and those wanting to pursue their own lusts. God doesn't need to be defended from people who hate Him, it doesn't make Him less of a god nor does it diminish His power. God won't ever disappear just because Malignantpoodle thinks He isn't real. Good luck with that. :)
-
Cont...3) I'm aware that Malignantpoodle is making a postulation (that is flawed to begin with), and my referring him to Simon Greenleaf as a starting point for his career in refuting the Bible is by all means an undertaking any true scholar would take on as further proof of their infallibility particularly on this subject of the Bible's veracity and reliability. Let's quit the 'hate' arena and juvenile behavior and move to the productive plain of proper argumentation, shall we? Cheers!
-
Cont... 2) Greenleaf says that it "devolves upon the detractors (those who refute, disbelieve) to prove that the resurrection DIDN'T HAPPEN". We, as believers, don't have to prove anything at all. In my opinion, we don't even have to argue. If malignantpoodle is as athoritative as he portrays himself to be, let him refute Simon Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists, point by point, with equal substantiation that would stand in court, not just in a 'HATE' video. (Cont...)
-
1) Another one of those haters trying to look intellectual by showing a 'seemingly' good command of the argument whereas it is easy to point out that the verses he quoted for his arguments were taken out of context. Now how do you argue with that? The moment you step in, you're done for already coz the premise is already wrong to begin with. If Malignantpoodle can refute Simon Greenleaf, that would be a start coz this is what Greenleaf says about Jesus's resurrection (cont...)
-
I have seen all the standard arguments against the bible and Christianity. I used to avoid watching these sorts of videos, now they just make me sad for people. It is easy to find God, but it is also easy to miss Him. If anyone is earnestly looking for Him, they will find Him, if they don't want to find Him, they won't. He made it easy for us either way, your choice.
Cont... 2) Greenleaf says that it "devolves upon the detractors (those who refute, disbelieve) to prove that the resurrection DIDN'T HAPPEN". We, as believers, don't have to prove anything at all. In my opinion, we don't even have to argue. If malignantpoodle is as athoritative as he portrays himself to be, let him refute Simon Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists, point by point, with equal substantiation that would stand in court, not just in a 'HATE' video. (Cont...)
tuberobotto 1 month ago
@tuberobotto
The problem with your entire entry here is that it demands proof of a negative, and in the absence of that, defaulting to an unverified conclusion. In other words, "You can't disprove God. Therefore, he does not have to be proven because he can't be disproved".
That argument has already been shut down. Look up the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the tea cup of Saturn. Neither can those things be disproved so they have equal merit as Christianity.
malignantpoodle 1 month ago
The KJV is a good translation, but English really is a barbaric language, very crude. The TR is the inerrant word of God.
ἄνδρα -- noun, masculine; accusative singular of ἀνήρ man -- man
cocoonbreach 2 months ago
@cocoonbreach
English is light years ahead of ancient Greek with regard to abstract descriptions. Differentiating between "husband" and "man" is neither a Greek nor an English problem. The contradictions exist within both texts.
But, if you've gone to the tactic of pointing out the bible in wrong in order to defend the bible, you've already lost. You're done.
malignantpoodle 2 months ago
Mark 3:23 "being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph". This indicates that Joseph was not His biological father.. In Jeremiah 22:30 it even mentions Josephs ancestor; noting that none of his descendants will ever sit on a throne.
In Mathew we have this Greek word translated as "husband" ἄνδρα from the Textus Receptus. It does not mean husband, it means man. Chalk this one up to English guessing at the meaning. oops.
cocoonbreach 2 months ago
@cocoonbreach
Did you mean Luke 3:23?
And in Matthew, the original text is ἀνήρ which does in fact mean husband. Man is actually ἄνθρωπος
malignantpoodle 2 months ago