funny thing is if i give him contradictions he can't say it's both true when they are supposed to describe the same event and doesn't fit together.

"

The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?

4. "There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

"

Well i got this site as well in my attack material :P
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
435 contradictions to prove a point.
It's a bit ironic that i don't have to answer his challenge to show that it's full of errors and that he cannot possible take the bible literally.

I got an answer from this guy now. Pretty useless tbh since he didn't adress anything i wrote and attacked a strawmen of me and 2 verses he see as not a contradiction of the 400+ i provided.

" Sir you are foolish. You give me sources that they themselves have not even read the whole Bible. The only reason they seem to contradict is because they fail to give the key parts that prove why each and every one of those does not contradict. Here is one. Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Jesus said the Father was greater than He not because Jesus is not God, but because Jesus was also a man and as a man he was in a lower position. He was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." (Heb. 2:9). Also in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ."

Jesus has two natures. Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was merely acknowledging the fact that He was also a man. Jesus is both God and man. As a man, he was in a lesser position than the Father. He had added to Himself human nature (Col. 2:9). He became a man to die for people.

A comparison can be found in the marriage relationship. Biblically, a husband is greater in position and authority than his wife. But, he is no different in nature and he is not better than she. They share the same nature, being human, and they work together by love.

So, Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was simply acknowledging that He was also a man and as a man, he was subject to the laws of God 5so that He might redeem those who were under the law; namely, sinners (Gal. 4:4-5).

Hmm lets look for another one to prove wrong. I am skipping some because there is no way that I am going to look through all of these. Pick the one that you like best and submit it to me. I will then work from there. Then once I prove that wrong work on from there. I don't have all the time in the world you know.

Another one: Hope you have time to read all this.
Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)

How did Judas Iscariot Die?

This one is pretty simple once all the facts
are understood, but until then, it's a little
confusing.

Judas was the apostle that just before Jesus
was crucified, Judas decided to turn in Jesus for
BLOOD MONEY. He made a deal with the high priests
where he would get paid 30 pieces of silver in
exchange for pointing out where and who Jesus was
so the soldiers could then take and arrest him.
Soon after Jesus was arrested, Jesus was deserted,
beaten, mutilated and then crucified.

Judas knew that they'd do this to Jesus, but he
was thinking of the money rather than what they'd
do to his good friend Jesus. In letting his greed
take him over, Judas ended up losing all his
mercy and kindness concerning him.

After Jesus died, Judas went back to the temple
and told the priests he didn't want the money
any more and tossed it back in the temple. Judas
then went and hanged himself and died. See Mat 27
for the entire account of this.

The high priests didn't want the money since it
was the "price of blood" or BLOOD MONEY. So since
they didn't want to put the money in treasury, they
decided to use it to buy the field that Judas would
be buried at.

What then causes people concern is that later in
Acts, Judas seems to be dying by a different manner,
specifically:

Ac 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must
needs have been fulfilled, which the
Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake
before concerning Judas, which was guide
to them that took Jesus.
17 For he was numbered with us, and had
obtained part of this ministry.
18 Now this man purchased a field with the
reward of iniquity; and falling headlong,
he burst asunder in the midst, and all
his bowels gushed out.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers
at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is
called in their proper tongue, Aceldama,
that is to say, The field of blood.

At first glance this verse set seems to be
saying that Judas fell and split open his guts
when he landed, turning the field to blood.

But when the verses were written was that what
they really meant?

No, it was not.

A couple of items concerning what's being said:

1. Falling was a common concept used to denote
"falling from God" or leaving God. Judas in
turning in Jesus, he's then rejected the
ARM OF GOD.

2. The "bowels" were where the Hebrews considered
the MERCY and KINDNESS to reside, similar to
our thinking of the heart as where mercy
kindness and tenderness resides: "broken heart",
"tender hearted", "heartless", etc... For the
Hebrews, those concepts were described with the
"bowels", not the heart.

Essentially, the verse set is saying in their
terms of the day, that Judas fell recklessly from
God, lost all his mercy and kindness and turned
in his good friend Jesus. His having done so, that
purchased the field he was buried at with said
BLOOD MONEY, the "price of blood" giving that
"field of blood".

For those not wanting to read the verse set this
way, they're then left with reconciling THREE physical
impossibilities:

1. Judas in hanging, he would be falling feet first
not head first.

2. If Judas is assumed to be falling head first,
he'd split open his head, not his guts.

3. Judas in falling from a tree he could hang himself
from, he'd not have enough impact to split open
his guts anyway.

In other words, the Acts verse set can't describe
an actual physical falling, but it can describe
Judas's falling from God... his SPIRITUAL falling
from God after losing all his mercy and kindness.

Therefore the two accounts do in fact align:

* Matthew describes how Judas PHYSICALLY died.
* Acts describes how Judas SPIRITUALLY fell from God.


I'm going to have to continue another time. You cannot judge the Word of God with sources that have clearly not even taken the time to read through it entirely. To say that the Bible has contradictions, you say that you know the Bible forwards and back, and you say you've read the whole thing. You obviously have not, and as far as I am concerned, you are foolish to think you can prove the Bible wrong with sources that (like you) fail miserably to read the Bible. To prove God and the Bible wrong you must in fact read it. Which you have failed on every level to do so."

 Notice i never claimed I've read the bible and that i know the bible forwards and back. ;)

His IQ must be declining, he's getting stupider and stupider everytime he writes...

"How was the Ark loaded? Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse."

Not a problem at all. Let me remind you that it took Noah 100 years to build the ark, your telling me that no animals could have possibly travelled that short distance in 100 years? I could walk the distance in under 2 years, and a fruit fly is definitely faster than my walking. Well they fly, lets see... even a turtle can get that far in under 100 years. Let me also remind you that back before the flood, the continents were united... never were they before separated by many many miles of ocean. Water is the most powerful substance known to man... and it separated the continents during the flood. Massive amounts of land was moved during the first 30 out of 365 days of the flood. Sorry about leaving some points unanswered, I really don't have time to do all this work, as I am leaving in 2 days for vacation. Regrettably I have to stop there. So I'll talk to you later."