So I'm guessing you never even took a science class in high school right? Judging by the absolute lack of knowledge you actually have about it.

Which did God make first? Man or Beast. Whichever you choose, the other of these verses directly contradicts it, which means there is a false line in the bible so you can disregard the whole thing.

I find this fasanaticing none the less that. zesus, allah etc are the same god. Zesus was what your religion was founded on, but yet you cast out the other gods. Sooner or later though i have a feeling that this will be just traditional myths like past religions.

I really don't see where there is a contradiction. Genesis 1:24-27 plainly indicates that man was created after the animals.

Genesis 1:24-27 (New King James Version)

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the complimentary nature of the subject—distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism.

Genesis 1-2 can be summarized in the following chart.

Genesis 1
Chronological Order
Outline
Creating Animals


Genesis 2
Topical Order
Details
Naming Animals


The fact is, “Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of God’s work of creation as set forth in chapter 1.... Chapter 2 is built on the foundation of chapter 1 and represents no different tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of the order of creation”. In short, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are harmonious in every way. What may seem as a contradiction at first glance is essentially a more detailed account of chapter one. The text of Genesis 2:19 says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology, but merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man.

Of course if a person chooses not to believe then that is their choice.

seeing as you make ignorant statements i can see that you have never read the Qur'an. the Qur'an directly confirms the bible and adds revelations from God.
i am speaking from an agnostic point of view. The christian holy bible states that the world was created approximately 3000 years ago. carbon dating can prove that there are MANY things that are MUCH older than 3000 years old. another process in which this has been disproven with is stratification and uniformitarianism in layers of the earth's crust.

another disproven fact in the bible is the earth flooding after 40 days and 40 nights of raining. If you took every drop of water from all bodies of water, clouds, ice caps, snow and air himidity, there is STILL not enough water to flood the earth, making the story of noah's arch false. the other thing is that you are probably reading an englih bible. the bible was not originally written in english... there are so many words lost in translation that even you should be able to see that an english bible is not the word of your god verbatim... if you pick up any 2 different versions of the bible in english and go to the same point in any story. you will see words being different.

sir your whole argument has fallen apart...

If you wish to interpret it that way, fine.

Don't worry, I have a long list of contradictions that also need to be explained:

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Is he a man of war or peace?



MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Which one is Joseph's dad? Jacob or Heli?



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.

Equal to his father, or less than his father?

I will look into this later. I used all my time on another post. Look for an answer this evening when I get home from work. Peace.

I quote from the Bible:

"Now go and attack Amalek, and
utterly destroy all that they have,
and do not spare them. But kill
both man and woman, infant and
nursing child, ox and sheep, camel
and donkey." (1 Samuel 15:3)

"Their children also will be dashed
to pieces before their eyes."
(Isaiah 13:16)

"They shall fall by the sword, their
infants shall be dashed in pieces,
and their women with child ripped
open." (Hosea 13:16)

Explain oh peaceful ones. *Gosh the irony*

This post was edited by MysticHeroes on Mar 16 2011 12:57pm

That would be the correct interpretation.

I guess you have a list somewhere you found online but I will do this for fun . However, I would like to only address one at a time in the coming post.

Is God a God of war or peace?

The Exodus was a time when God advanced on behalf of Israel for conquest -- it is certainly appropriate that this hymn of praise to Him extolled that virtue and practice. Romans 15:33 is the salutation of a letter, when blessings are offered. The "genre gap" here is vast, to say nothing of the historical contexts! A contradiction would only exist if God were described as being of war and peace at the same time and performing the same action. That simply isn't the case here. Being warlike and peaceful are not permanently, mutually contradictory states, for they each involve complexes of interaction with persons and actions that are encountered over time.

Which one is Joseph's dad? Jacob or Heli?

No contradicion here but this one has been around for awhile now. Read on grasshopper.

When one places the two genealogical lists side by side, several factors become immediately apparent that combine to dispel the appearance of conflict.

First, Matthew reported the lineage of Christ only back to Abraham; Luke traced it all the way back to Adam. Second, Matthew used the expression “begat;” Luke used the expression “son of,” which results in his list being a complete reversal of Matthew’s. Third, the two genealogical lines parallel each other from Abraham to David. Fourth, beginning with David, Matthew traced the paternal line of descent through Solomon; Luke traced the maternal line through Solomon’s brother, Nathan.

A fifth factor that must be recognized is that the two lines (paternal and maternal) link together in the intermarriage of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. But the linkage separates again in the two sons of Zerubbabel—Rhesa and Abiud. Sixth, the two lines come together once again for a final time in the marriage of Joseph and Mary. Joseph was the end of the paternal line, while Mary was the last of the maternal line as the daughter of Heli.

The reason Joseph is said to be the “son” of Heli (Mary’s father) brings forth a seventh consideration: the Jewish use of “son.” Hebrews used the word in at least five distinct senses: (1) in the sense used today of a one-generation offspring; (2) in the sense of a descendant, whether a grandson or a more remote descendant many generations previous, e.g., Matthew 1:1; 21:9; 22:42 (“begat” had this same flexibility in application); (3) as a son-in-law (the Jews had no word to express this concept and so just used “son”—e.g., 1 Samuel 24:16; 26:17); (4) in accordance with the Levirate marriage law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; cf. Matthew 22:24-26), a deceased man would have a son through a surrogate father who legally married the deceased man’s widow (e.g., Ruth 2:20; 3:9,12; 4:3-5); and (5) in the sense of a step-son who took on the legal status of his step-father—the relationship sustained by Jesus to Joseph (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 3:23; 4:22; John 6:42).

Notice carefully that Joseph was a direct-line, blood descendant of David and, therefore, of David’s throne. Here is the precise purpose of Matthew’s genealogy: it demonstrated Jesus’ legal right to inherit the throne of David—a necessary prerequisite to authenticating His Messianic claim. However, an equally critical credential was His blood/physical descent from David—a point that could not be established through Joseph since “after His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18, emp. added). This feature of Christ’s Messiahship was established through His mother Mary, who was also a blood descendant of David (Luke 1:30-32). Both the blood of David and the throne of David were necessary variables to qualify and authenticate Jesus as the Messiah.

Once again, the Bible’s intricate complexities shine forth to dispel the critic’s accusations, while simultaneously demonstrating its own infallible representations. The more one delves into its intricacies and plummets its intriguing depths, the more one is driven to the inescapable conclusion that the Bible is, indeed, the Book of books—the inspired Word of God.



Equal to his father, or less than his father?

This is not even close to being a contradition. You simply do not understand.

Jesus submitted to the Father’s will and obeyed His commands (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 8:29; 14:31). How then could they be equal? Both are equally God, yet according to the divine order, each has a different rank or position in the hierarchy of God (See I Corinthians 11:3). Just as man and woman are equal (Galatians 3:28), so are the Father and the Son (John 10:30). The different rank a woman has does not make her any less of a Christian (or human for that matter). Neither does the different rank of Christ make Him any less Deity. The different rank that each person holds simply means that there are different roles and responsibilities that each one fulfills ( Ephesians 5:22-33; Philippians 2:8). All three persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) represent Deity, though each person of the Godhead is distinguishable from the other. Each person of God is distinct in the sense that each one has a different role that each one fulfills (e.g., Hebrews 12:9; Ephesians 5:23; John 16:13).

Jesus, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are just as much God as the Father is! “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30). Jesus “thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (Philippians 2:6). The equality of the Father and Son is seen in the salutations of most New Testament epistles (Romans 1:7; Galatians 1:3; II John 3). Each person of the triune God is emphasized equally in prayer in 1 Corinthians 13:14.

Joseph's two dads were gay married. No contradiction there.