sorry, greek. i guess it was given in acts and not the gospels from wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Joseph#cite_note-9 "Joseph's profession is described in the Gospels as a τεκτων, a Greek word for a variety of skilled craftsmen, but Christian tradition has him as a "carpenter", although the modern English words "joiner" or "cabinet-maker" might fit the sense of the Greek better.[10]" ^ See Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3. τεκτων denotes primarily a skilled worker in wood, such as a carpenter or joiner, although in secular literature the term has been used also for other craftsmen and workmen. The canonical Gospel accounts do not go into detail on this point; but apocryphal sources and art portray Joseph as a carpenter.
I love how Christians point out something is "old testament" like that really means anything. A contradiction is a contradiction. With that said one can't pick and choose what to believe as literal. Either it all is or it all isn't.
Because they are not the result of your learning or analysis, and they come from places that do not do their homework. What is really relevent by any of these errors and contridictions? How can you understand the meaning without understanding the audience it is written for. The Old Testement is for the Jews, so is naturally written in a style to suit them It would not be a lie if you thought you had ten cars. It would be an error. What is important in the passage in question is not the exact number of horses. That is not what the writer is trying to convey. He is trying to tell the audience that the dude had a bunch of horses and soldiers. He may be off on the numbers, but he is making the point. That is your problem you are applying a literalistic interpretation to things not meant to be taken literally. You pretty much invalidate yourself from serious discussion here. And now its total.
That is just silly. Not all the books of the Bible are of the same genre. Some are allegorical and some are not. Not all of it is literalistic and study of the cultures involved plays a long way into understanding what is what.
Whatever. This wasn't meant as a discussion of underlying meaning. It was geared towards a fundamentalist who disagreed that there were any contradictions or errors in the bible. I was asked to produce this for Saltyone in another thread. Right, an error. I was listing errors. I know this. I was debunking a fundamentalist opinion. Ad hominem and insulting. Why is pointing out the contradictory depiction of god in the bible an invalid point? Because you can't explain it in any sort of logical way?
You can’t separate the two. What you have displayed is a contradictory statement on the surface, but understanding of the meaning behind the writing explains it. If I say a flower is blue, and then later say a flower is red that is an apparent contradiction, but I may have been talking about different flowers. Some of the stuff you posted fit the bill of this example. I was referring to your car analogy. The biblical account is not an error because the writer was not intending to produce a figure of horses. He was trying to convey a particular point which is unchanged by the numbers used. But you aren’t doing that. You are presenting hand picked verses out of their proper context. You are being intellectually dishonest. Your tone and language suggests that you are not interested in having rational discussion. You want to bash and belittle people of faith by asserting you have some clairvoyant knowledge that believers do not have. I understand you had a bad experience in a bad church growing up, but there is no reason to pretend to be interested in discussion when your only goal is to be inflammatory.
I'm just going to let supa's statements stand for me. Supa would tell you himself that he and I often disagree about matters of religion, but we're together here.... USMTiger....At least attempt to argue your position in a way that would allow you to be taken somewhat seriously.
Where did I claim "clairvoyant knowledge". Are you serious? I only wish you could see the delicious irony of this statement. Here, this should help you see the irony: Definition:Clairvoyant: Having the supposed power to see objects or events that cannot be perceived by the senses. Does this really sound like my position, or yours? Are you not claiming "clairvoyant knowledge" by asserting god exists? Prove it. You know you cannot. You can't offer a shred of proof. Who is being "clairvoyant" here? Just because my assertions contradict yours doesn't mean that I'm being irrational. Everything I have argued is straight from the Bible, no more, no less. Do you even read the Old Testament? How about you try reading it for what it actually says, not what you want it to say. There is no getting around that the Old Testament portrays god as a genocidal being. How about showing me where I am wrong with this opinion, rather than getting huffy about it.
Way to dismiss all discussion without offering any counterpoint or opinion of value. A great debating tactic for someone who has no answer. Ok, so here is a question that maybe even you might come down from your pedestal and find worthy of answering. Is the god of the Old Testament a loving god, or is he vengeful and genocidal? Is the god of the New Testament a loving god, or vengeful and genocidal? How do you explain the completely opposing depictions of god from the two parts of the bible? Would this be a philosophical contradiction in the bible? I'm not holding my breath for an answer.
