Okay...
You know, I think I'm just going to let that one stand. Not only did you once again avoid my main point, you also just provided a good example of you making my point for me in regards to lengths apologists have to go to in order to try to refute obvious Biblical contradictions, or to rescue God's rep as a "god of love."

As soon as I have the time, I'll see you in the "Extra-Biblical proof of Jesus' resurrection" thread.




I'm sorry, I must have missed your point if I did not reference it or respond to it "answer it"

Like I said, the bible and religion in general contradicts itself a stupid number of times


Also incorrect. Our feeble minds and language barrier through interpretations contradicts each other. Some of the words from the ancient Hebrew are actually not understood in the bible. But are transliterated the best man knows how into the English language using context of surrounding words. That may not be translated totally correctly, as again they were translated/transliterated by mortal minds.


Actually, there are many contradictions in the Bible. For instance:

2 Samuel 24:1

24 And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

1 Chronicles 21:1

21 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

You can look these passages up in an interlinear Bible and compare the Hebrew if you like. You will see that "satan"(*See footnote) is not found anywhere in the 2 Samuel passage.

There are many other examples as well. But, just for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Let's just say that all of the apparent contradictions are just that...apparent contradictions. And, these apparent contradictions are a result of "Our feeble minds and language barrier through interpretations contradicts each other. Some of the words from the ancient Hebrew are actually not understood in the bible. But are transliterated the best man knows how into the English language using context of surrounding words. That may not be translated totally correctly, as again they were translated/transliterated by mortal minds."

Wouldn't an all-knowing god, who ostensibly designed our brains, our system of communication, as well as all languages, have foreseen this problem and saw to it that his all-important words were accurately preserved in a single, easy to understand language?
I would certainly think so. But, then again, I expect God to act like a god.


*For the record:Yes, I know that the Hebrew word we translate "satan" is not a proper name, and doesn't apply to one single entity.Still, the word doesn't appear in the 2 Samuel passage at all. It's clear that that passage attributes the manipulation to Yahweh.


Problem: This passage reports the sin of David in numbering the people of Israel and Judah. Verse one affirms that God moved David to number the people. However, according to 1 Chronicles 21:1, it was Satan who moved David to number the people. Who was responsible for prompting David to act?

Solution: Both statements are true. Although it was Satan who immediately incited David, ultimately it was God who permitted Satan to carry out this provocation. Although it was Satan’s design to destroy David and the people of God, it was God’s purpose to humble David and the people and teach them a valuable spiritual lesson. This situation is quite similar to the first two chapters of Job in which both God and Satan are involved in the suffering of Job. Similarly, both God and Satan are involved in the crucifixion. Satan’s purpose was to destroy the Son of God (John 13:2; 1 Cor 2:8). God’s purpose was to redeem humankind by the death of His Son (Acts 2:14–39)

*can give the source if needed

but there wasn't a change "in" the covenant. The first covenant prophesied it's end and the start of a new when all the prophecies were fulfilled. There wasn't a "problem" in the first covenant, and one day you'll have to ask God why he chose to do it that way if you're that curious about it.

There has been much more obvious and straight forward contradictions in the bible. God loves us all equally. God hates gays. Granted the actual bible passages may differ but the message is the same.

Like I said, the bible and religion in general contradicts itself a stupid number of times


Also incorrect. Our feeble minds and language barrier through interpretations contradicts each other. Some of the words from the ancient Hebrew are actually not understood in the bible. But are transliterated the best man knows how into the English language using context of surrounding words. That may not be translated totally correctly, as again they were translated/transliterated by mortal minds.

This infant had committed no such crimes. He was killed by God in order to punish David. That is not fair.


It is unfair to an extent. This infant never faced disease, physical or emotional pain while the rest of us do.

And, yes, GOD killed the infant. You can toy with semantics and say that David killed the child all you want, but in the end, GOD did it.


Where does it state that God "killed" the infant? Again, yes he took the infants life. But that doesn't mean the infant lost that life. Again does not reference the infant being thrown into the lake of fire, so there is no reason to believe/suspect the infant isn't with God as we type these messages back and forth.

The point is the heinous nature of God killing an infant as a means of punishing someone else, who should have paid for his own crimes.


That was more punishment towards David then the infant.

As previously mentioned quite a few times that infant never had to face anything foul or negative in life. Got to spend it's entire existence with the LORD in the paradise.

Yet David never got raise the child, or enjoy any moments there with the child. So he in fact was paying for his crimes with the emotional distress of living forever with the regret of his blasphemy which caused this too happen, the regret of being responsible for his child never experiencing a life in this world.

Yes, we all need blood in one way or another, but the idea that animal or human sacrifice was necessary to appease God is ridiculous. Even in the case of life-saving blood transfusions, the donor isn't SLAUGHTERED. This is nothing but primitive superstition.


The sacrifices didn't "appease" God. But he allowed them as a way to fix a wrong doing by giving up something they direly needed to merely exist. Again, there were no shopping malls to run down to if they were hungry to get some food and such things as that.

Isaiah 1:11

11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

Jeremiah 6:20

20 To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.


Thus why the LORD came and sacrificed himself for us all. To rid the need or the desire of man to do these sacrifices in hopes to please God in giving up something to show their compassion and regret towards their actions.

Hebrews 13:16

16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

Thus why I assume the change in between the two covenants from sacrificing beasts, to having faith and believing in Jesus and his teachings.

The first thing that strikes me about your reply is that it is a good example of how secularism warps ones thinking. I can not imagine you speaking foul against someone or more specifically a judge that sentences someone to death for their crimes, even mass massacres or mass rapings, ect. Even life in prison would be just as similar as ones life being taken away, even more cruel at that. Not promoting the death penalty, just using this as a secular example for you.



Sir, no he did not. David killed that infant. It was a reaction/responsive judgement too David's actions. If David would never have blasphemed the Lord, the infants life would not have been taken away. And who's to say that infant isn't alive in Heaven with God right now? It never said the infant was sent to the lake of fire.



Again, please I beg of you too keep verses in context. This entire chapter is referencing relationships, divorce, remarriage, and the effects it has on the kids there of.

24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

24:17 Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge



Not "specifically" no. Everyone needs blood in one way or other, especially in that day and age when everyday was physical exertion through work and simply living. They needed the proteins contained in "blood" to have the strength too accomplish such a life. So in "sacrificing" such things as animals in a display of their grievance for their works, was a good display as again that was a very needed source of nutrients they would need to live displaying more so of their grievance in their mistakes.

What's essentially not loving about that? Yes the child's life was taken because of David's disobedience too the Lord, but that just means the child never had too feel or experience anything negative or foul through life, not even the feel of a paper cut. And please try to keep things in context, this is Old Testament, thus they were under the old covenant. Sins passed down if forgiveness had not be sought after. So therefore the child gave his life for David's sins. So with the taking of the child's life, the sin was forgiven. For sins are only forgiven through blood shed.


Hebrews 9:22

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.


Thus their many different laws/regulations on sacrificing beasts in the old testament for forgiveness of sins. With the LORD taking the life of the child, the child paid for the sins of his father along with David personally being punished for his sins with loosing his child. In the OT times/covenant we were punished here on Earth for our sins and wrong doings. David blasphemed the Lord


2 Samuel 12:14

14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life

?? Proof is only as valuable as one person wishes for it to have. A gun with finger prints of the person on it doesn't "prove" he shot the other person, but is accepted as proof. Yes the example is off topic from the thread entirely, but was mentioned to make a point that is boils down to perspective. So what does the statement "restored to life" infer if not a resurrection?

* Evidence from Tacitus

* Evidence from Pliny the Younger

* Evidence from Josephus
- About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared

* Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

* Evidence from Lucian

But as this sub discussion in this thread isn't specifically what the topic is about I did not include what evidences of Jesus' existence in all these references. Can further inform if requested.