Hi everyone here from SA.

[Baruch]

I would recommend any Bible you please.
There are 2 main translation versions which one is what we named the King James Version, and the other the newer translations such as the NIV.
both have the same contents but a few differences.
But you are welcome to talk about any Bible you want, they all are translated from ancient manuscripts in the language of Hebrew and Greek.

If you say there are hundreds of Bibles out there, all of them will have, for instance, the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus in them. It is not that they differ in the historical contents, where you would like to create an impression that there are 100 different Bibles, and they dont say the same thing at all. Such a thought is totally incorrect and smothered in bias.

English Bibles are OK, if tendentious (as any translation is ... there are built in theological biases by the translators).  You have to read the original languages, as originally intended ... but few can do that.

[Baruch]

I would recommend any Bible you please.
There are 2 main translation versions which one is what we named the King James Version, and the other the newer translations such as the NIV.
both have the same contents but a few differences.
But you are welcome to talk about any Bible you want, they all are translated from ancient manuscripts in the language of Hebrew and Greek.

If you say there are hundreds of Bibles out there, all of them will have, for instance, the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus in them. It is not that they differ in the historical contents, where you would like to create an impression that there are 100 different Bibles, and they dont say the same thing at all. Such a thought is totally incorrect and smothered in bias.

Your last point is true ... do all historians completely agree on history?  Was the British Empire correct or the Boers?  No agreement is to be had in history.  But if you accept scripture as traditional story-telling, then you don't have to worry about what really happened way back when.

[aitm]

Well I studied the Bible and measured it with science, History, Archaeology and whatever I could get my hands on, and today I am yet to find a contradiction with it and these sciences.

oy…..so…Jesus indeed rode a dinosaur? How quaint. And this place you learned "science"….did they have like ink or just crayon?

[Mike Cl]

I would recommend any Bible you please.
There are 2 main translation versions which one is what we named the King James Version, and the other the newer translations such as the NIV.
both have the same contents but a few differences.
But you are welcome to talk about any Bible you want, they all are translated from ancient manuscripts in the language of Hebrew and Greek.

If you say there are hundreds of Bibles out there, all of them will have, for instance, the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus in them. It is not that they differ in the historical contents, where you would like to create an impression that there are 100 different Bibles, and they dont say the same thing at all. Such a thought is totally incorrect and smothered in bias.

I see your point.  As I understand it God (your god) is the creator of all; perfect and beyond stain.  Yet he could not create a consistent Bible?  He reached out to only one small portion of earth?  He killed all of his own creation because he did not get it right (you know, the Flood--or do you believe in some parts of the bible and not others??)?  That is perfect?  He can't even communicate to his crowning glory?????  So, the hundreds of bibles point to a man created scripture and not god.  If it is your god, he is one sloppy god and ineffectual.  Didn't say all of each bible is different.  All bibles have similarities---and differences.  I find that odd, as I mentioned above.

Don't forget Aramaic since it was probably the original language  used to create the bible--at least the OT. 

[Hydra009]

If you say there are hundreds of Bibles out there, all of them will have, for instance, the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus in them. It is not that they differ in the historical contents, where you would like to create an impression that there are 100 different Bibles, and they dont say the same thing at all. Such a thought is totally incorrect and smothered in bias.

Let's test that claim.  And it'll be a super simple test, especially for such a learned bible scholar.

How did Judas die?

If you are correct, different Bibles will have more or less the same story.

[Mousetrap]

Let's test that claim.  And it'll be a super simple test, especially for such a learned bible scholar.

How did Judas die?

If you are correct, different Bibles will have more or less the same story.

This so called contradiction is an age old question.
I really think it can never disprove the Biblical narratives at all.
Actually, I find this so called contradiction answered over an over again, yet no Atheist accepts this explanation.
You can go and read one good explanation here.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

However, I would like to know from you; is this description between 2 witnesses really your evidence that there is no God?
Do you really think that the disciples of Jesus never read what the other compiled about the 3 years they spent with Jesus?
Would it not mean that if they perceived it as a contradiction, they would have redacted their writings wholesale?
Is this the reason why you deny the existence of God?
I do not think this will be sufficient for other atheists at all.
Anyhow,
Think about this,
This is the reason why I believe the Gospels to be true, the 4 witnesses DID NOT PRE-CORRUPT THEIR VIEWS.
And take into account that the 4 gospels was quoted by the "Church fathers" from 65 AD to 100 AD, when there were still living witnesses on the life of Jesus, they would have mentioned such redaction.

Anyhow, this will be a discussion for later.
 

[Baruch]

A literalist then?  Do you believe that Moby Dick literally happened, or is just an imaginative retelling based on actual events?  And some literature isn't based on any actual events ... just plausible human behavior patterns.

[PopeyesPappy]

As a matter of fact, your comments do not not really carry any well thought out educational bias.
Lets see, who said:
"Throughout my life I studied the Bible every day and could not find a single contradiction with the use of experimental and theoretical science."
I am sure a certain Newton, not sure which one, said this, or something similar than this.
Perhaps you can assist on whether science at the time of SIR ISAAC NEWTON was poor, or whether you believe SIR ISAAC NEWTON was a poofy scientist.
please elaborate.

Let's try this again then.

"Poofing shit into existence" According to the Bible god did this. An example of god poofing shit into existence would be the creation of Adam and Eve along with every other thing on this planet including the planet itself. Modern science, i.e. biology, geology and physics, contradicts this Biblical claim. In Issac Newton's time, late 17th - early 18th century, science that contradicted this Biblical claim was sparse. Were the scientific sources you claim you searched written in the late 17th to early 18th century? I am thinking they must have been because the current science says it didn't happen the way the Bible claims it did.

The same thing could be said about talking snakes, world wide floods, and living inside whales. These Biblical claims are contradicted by modern science yet you claim you can not find any contradictions between the Bible and science.

[PopeyesPappy]

LOL at Answers in Genesis. That explains a lot. Why don't you try some actual scientific sources as opposed to religious propaganda.

[Hydra009]

This so called contradiction is an age old question.
I really think it can never disprove the Biblical narratives at all.

Denial.  A very unexpected strategy from an avowed Christian when confronted with biblical discrepancies.  I am almost shocked.

You can go and read one good explanation here.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Thanks.  I needed a laugh.  Also, it really puts the lie to your "scholarly" self-image.

However, I would like to know from you; is this description between 2 witnesses really your evidence that there is no God?

Oh?  Is that my claim?  Or did I merely present that in response to your absurd claim of biblical consistency?

[Mike Cl]

Mousetrap, this is some of what I consider to be proof that your god does not and never did exist.  This is about the bible.  Is this not supposed to be the Word of God?  He either had it channeled or wrote it himself--right?  Study how the bible was constructed.  It was constructed from a huge mass or writings.  By men--not god; which is why there are so many versions of 'the bible'.  Most of the material not selected was destroyed by the honest and trustworthy men who constructed it.  None of those early bibles exist now--only bits and pieces of it and many of them contradict each other.  This is beyond careless for a god who professes to wish to communicate to all of his creation.  God could easily have created His Word with total perfection and then deposited it with all who populated the world at the time.  So, if one could go to Europe and South America, Australia, etc (anywhere in the world) and find ancient exact copies of this Word made in an indestructible form, this would be proof that your god does, indeed, exist.  Otherwise, the creation of the bible from man-made material that is not consistent simply demonstrates that your god is a man-made wishful entity.   

[Blackleaf]

This so called contradiction is an age old question.
I really think it can never disprove the Biblical narratives at all.
Actually, I find this so called contradiction answered over an over again, yet no Atheist accepts this explanation.
You can go and read one good explanation here.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

However, I would like to know from you; is this description between 2 witnesses really your evidence that there is no God?
Do you really think that the disciples of Jesus never read what the other compiled about the 3 years they spent with Jesus?
Would it not mean that if they perceived it as a contradiction, they would have redacted their writings wholesale?
Is this the reason why you deny the existence of God?
I do not think this will be sufficient for other atheists at all.
Anyhow,
Think about this,
This is the reason why I believe the Gospels to be true, the 4 witnesses DID NOT PRE-CORRUPT THEIR VIEWS.
And take into account that the 4 gospels was quoted by the "Church fathers" from 65 AD to 100 AD, when there were still living witnesses on the life of Jesus, they would have mentioned such redaction.

Anyhow, this will be a discussion for later.

Wow. This is one of the few contradictions that are easily explained, and you still got it wrong. They are not two viewpoints. First of all, one account says that Judas bought the land, the other said that the priests bought the land because Judas tossed them back the "blood money" they paid him, and they couldn't keep it. The first account doesn't say it was bought with Judas' money. It says he bought it. That's a contradiction.

Second, one account says that Judas' hung himself. The other says he was walking in the field when he tripped and fell onto a rock spilled his guts out. It doesn't say that he was bloated and fell from a tree, spilling out his guts after he was already dead. This just goes to show the lengths apologists will go to twist scripture to say whatever is convenient for them.

As I said, there is a legitimate way to explain away that contradiction. You won't find that explanation from the hacks at Answers in Genesis, however. Got a Bible with those notes in them? If so, look at the notes for the account in Acts.

[aitm]

Think about this,

Ohh nooes...not the "think about this" line....dagggnabit....well he got us on that one eh? If there is one thing we never do here as atheists is "think about things"

yessir...you got me.....you got "tater salad"...

[Baruch]

Wow. This is one of the few contradictions that are easily explained, and you still got it wrong. They are not two viewpoints. First of all, one account says that Judas bought the land, the other said that the priests bought the land because Judas tossed them back the "blood money" they paid him, and they couldn't keep it. The first account doesn't say it was bought with Judas' money. It says he bought it. That's a contradiction.

Second, one account says that Judas' hung himself. The other says he was walking in the field when he tripped and fell onto a rock spilled his guts out. It doesn't say that he was bloated and fell from a tree, spilling out his guts after he was already dead. This just goes to show the lengths apologists will go to twist scripture to say whatever is convenient for them.

As I said, there is a legitimate way to explain away that contradiction. You won't find that explanation from the hacks at Answers in Genesis, however. Got a Bible with those notes in them? If so, look at the notes for the account in Acts.

Come on ... be realistic.  Peter had a sword, and knew how to use it (he cut off the ear of the temple servant).  And he felt guilty for denying Jesus three times before the cock crowed.  Peter took care of Judas ... kind of like people who annoy the Mafia are found with nail gun wounds to the back of their heads ... careless that!  Peter founded the Jewish Mafia aka Detroit Mob aka Murder Inc.  Al Capone later hired them for a little wet work on St Valentine's Day in Chicago ... the Irish were unlucky because it wasn't St Patrick's Day yet.

[Draconic Aiur]

Welcome from South Texas. More North than your south. Here have a comic: