Let's have a biblical contradictions thread.

I'm saying that over eons, according to macroevolution, animals are in a constant state of change. It's like water in the ocean. Taking a scoop and seeing the exact same pattern that you saw somewhere else. It's impossible. You would never be able to find two tyrannosaurus rexes. The chances are nearly impossible.

They have many t rex fossils and can kind of say that they had subspecies, as far as I know.

>become other species
Tbh, line is not quite clear cut as is. Taxonomy is people putting animals in neat folders, yet for example polar bear and grizzly can mix and have fertile offspring, they are genetically close enough despite taxonomy separating them under these categories.

The difference between an amoeba and a human being is a vast. If macroevolution was true, you would find just as much in between every species that led to human beings as you would find sharks. You don't. You just find sharks. You find gorillas. You find human beings. It's only very rare that you find something that can be identified as possibly a link between two species. And in all of those cases it is a stretch.

I don't believe it's reasonable to say the fluidity is that affected by rarity of conditions. In just modern human times which is a sliver of animal life on the planet, We have thousands of circumstances where a person was preserved in such a capacity. Pompeii for example. How many other Pompeiis happened around the planet in it's supposed billions of years of existence? The necessary circumstances would be happening all the time.There is no reason our sampling of the fossil record would be segmented while the fossil record itself is not, either.

I disagree on the very idea presented. There’s a shit ton of this kind of stuff, especially for humans

And don’t start claiming there isn’t, I’ve seen it. I’m into these things

They have many t rex fossils and can kind of say that they had subspecies, as far as I know.

It’s a shorthand term for small changes vs. larger and more impactful changes.

It’s a perfect insight into their cognitive deficiencies. He just cannot conceptualize gradual changes being more dramatic over larger periods of time

>become other species
Tbh, line is not quite clear cut as is. Taxonomy is people putting animals in neat folders, yet for example polar bear and grizzly can mix and have fertile offspring, they are genetically close enough despite taxonomy separating them under these categories.

What do you believe in today, then? Do you believe in ANY holy scripture?

What would this mean for the Afterlife? Also, do you believe the Quran is a better source of God's word, then?

And yes I think there's an afterlife, of sorts. For all I know we just get stuck in time and consciousness exists there and something alternate than time. Incomprehensiveness. Who knows. But I do know plenty of doors were left open for me that we're seemingly impossible looking back. Where if they were not open to me, I do not want to think about the alternatives. I believe God speaks to us in these ways. I don't know what realm he is of, but I do believe our consciousness is preserved in some way.

>Life appears to be a trial
That trial is survival of the fittest. Pretty simple

>Empathy exists for a reason
yes…because it was selected for…..as it helps foster cooperation…and success………

empathy is just one of many emotions that helps cooperative animals survive. You would not survive without empathy. You would be an outcast. There is no point to life but to ensure the survival of genes

Or the need to survive is a dynamic in place to test our empathy. If there was no struggle for territory and survival, there would be no need to test empathy. I understand your perspective, but I believe you are ignoring laws written on your heart by God in order to arrive there.

Your misunderstanding what I'm saying. Territorialism is just as much an emotion as empathy. One is not more legitimate than the other. And I am not saying that just because children do not want to kill an animal that animals should not be killed. I'm just illustrating that they are born with the inclination of empathy. They are also born with the inclination of territorialism. I don't dispute this. What I'm suggesting is that you have no reason to believe one of these emotions is in place to justify the other. I don't either, other than what I believe to be the laws written on my heart. I can't prove this to you, simply explaining what I've concluded. I think you know morality is more than just a dynamic to spread genes more efficiently.

If these dynamics are so vital to a species surviving, then how come animals have not developed codes of morality to the point we have? They have no problem with murder and theft. They did not evolve any such code to prevent such things.

Also, how come animals don't have empathy?

>Animals can have empathy for various reasons,
I can guarantee you a child would not eat and kill his brother because he didn't want him around. You are mistaking empathy for say, communal resources.

Empathy in humans prevents such activities whereas this is not the case for animals. You are saying empathy is developed because it helps more efficiently propagate the species. Let's talk about the level of empathy as I'm illustrating here. Animals do not have it. Why do they not have it if it's so important to propagation of the species?

God didn't give them thumbs. They likely didn't need them. Thumbs aren't intrinsically important to a species' propagation. But you said empathy is. Why do they only have some remedial "maybe" expression of what could possibly be interpreted as empathy if it's so important?

Also, if theft is developed simply because it helps us spread our genes further to cooperate in such a manner, how come no other animal worries about theft?

>The word "some" obliterates most defenses of it.
How exactly, anon? It literally means what it says. Only some of them saw the Transfiguration. Is this too hard to grasp for you?

I don't know if you understanding what I'm saying. He talks about how he will be coming with his rewards and that some and that crowd will not taste of death until they see him doing so. To then turn around and sneak three of his apostles up a mountain to only give them a vision of this kingdom would have been complete deception on his part. I understand you won't be changing your mind.

>He talks about how he will be coming with his rewards
What verse is this?

>and that some and that crowd will not taste of death until they see him doing so.
He says, "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

>For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
>Matthew 16:27
Ah, that's talking about later. We were talking about Matthew 16:28 I thought (which is the prophecy quoted here

Well, according to the Bible, Jesus said that he would come back during the lifetimes of some of those alive back then to establish his kingdom, fulfilling the second half of the Messiah prophecy. And he never did.

>Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.'
Matthew 16:28

), not Matthew 16:27.

Although I should still say, it is true that this prophecy is coming. As it says in Revelation 22, "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be."

The part in verse 28 is the actual part that would happen and some would see it before they tasted death. I don't find it deceptive in the least, and I love this prophecy because of the truth it shows.

Basically, the Transfiguration was His kingdom coming with power.

>Jesus was being deceptive.
I don't accuse the Lord of being deceptive. He told them plainly what would happen and later we saw the results and fulfillment. This is true in every case. But those whose hearts were hardened chose to misinterpret His sayings and reject them, such as the crowd in John 6, when He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6:53) where it afterward says:

"Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
But there are some of you that believe not."
- John 6:60-64

Recall what Christ said to the unbelievers in John 8:45, "And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not."

There will always be some who reject the clear and objective truth of the statements of God. There were those who refused to believe Christ after all of the signs He showed, and yet here I am believing them even though I never saw them. So there you go. It's definitely not a biblical contradiction what Christ was referring to in those three passages (Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27). In fact, it happened soon afterward. If I misunderstand something at first and later am told the correct answer, my reaction is not one of getting upset over me being wrong and angrily contending there is a biblical contradiction, because I can't possibly be wrong in my initial assumptions - I am much more glad to be right now.

Romans 2:
"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the israelite first, and also of the Gentile;
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the israelite first, and also to the Gentile:
For there is no respect of persons with God."

>Jesus is clearly referring to him coming with his rewards. He's referring to the end days as described in Revelation with him establishing his kingdom on earth after the tribulation and after he has smited the workers of iniquity.
You're sure this isn't referring to Matthew 24:34, et. al.? Because that's a separate passage that people have trouble with, but for different reasons.

>Why would only some of his disciples experience what Romans 2 is talking about.
Not sure what you mean.
>And why would only some of them experience such a thing in their lifetimes?
Because to them it was given to see that blessed sight. It says in John 3:27, "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven."

>The Day of wrath did not happen in their lifetimes
Don't forget what it says in 1 Thessalonians,

"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Thess. 5:9)

>It hasn't happened yet.
Yeah, I know, but it says in Revelation, "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." (Rev. 22:12).

>But again, the trip up is that Jesus used the word "some".
That's not a trip-up, anon. Matthew 16:28 is referring to the Transfiguration like I said before!

>There would be no point to Jesus telling the crowd such a thing if what he really meant was he was going to do this secretly immediately afterwards.
I disagree, because it's recorded for us today. Everything happens for a reason, including everything that ever happened in Scripture. And it's not deceptive in the least, you would need the reading comprehension of a child to understand that particular connection. So that's not a contradiction of God's truth in the slightest bit.

>That's not a trip-up, anon. Matthew 16:28 is referring to the Transfiguration like I said before!
Well, the transfiguration solution is not tripped up by the word "some", true. It's tripped up by the fact that Jesus would have been deceiving the crowd with his statements if what he really meant was that he was going to turn around and sneak three of his apostles up a mountain to give them a vision of the kingdom. He would have left that entire crowd thinking they had a chance in their lifetimes to see him coming in his kingdom, giving the rewards. There would be no point to Jesus telling the crowd such a thing if what he really meant was he was going to do this secretly immediately afterwards. It would have been very deceptive. So that can't be true.

It's clear to me that Jesus was giving a more detailed continuation of the statements he just made to his disciples. Giving his three closest apostles a further illustration of the kingdom. Something special for them. But a continuation of the same story, nonetheless.

This

All the disciples were clear on being saved through faith in Christ. There whole faith was not contigent on "witnessing" the Kingdom of God. So whether they were taking to the transfiguration or not is besides the point. You're whole "he gave them false hope so he deceived them" theory is very far fetched. A contradiction is a serious claim. You should check out Fr Seraphim Rose:

Examples of how elaborate the bible is:
Joseph - His people (family/canaanites) betrayed him
Jesus - israelites betrayed him (plotted to kill him)
Joseph - He was put in the earth by his brothers, thrown in a pit
Jesus - He was burried in the earth
Joseph - His brothers thought they got rid of him, killed him. but he rose from the pit
Jesus - The israelites thought they got rid of him, killed him. But he rose from the grave
Joseph - He joined the "gentiles"/Egypt and was exalted, became pharaoh
Jesus - Gentiles embraced Christ and he was exalted, became their Lord
Joseph - Saved mankind (israelite and gentile) from the 14 year long famine by distributing grain to all nations
Jesus - Saved mankind (israelite and gentile) from death by redeeming us from sin and death and opening a path to eternal life

Videos:
Hyperlinked book - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPO1cUXZ8Dk
Sam Shamoun Messianic prophecies - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfZdqIDmsCE

Books:
-Nihilism
-Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future
-Genesis, Creation and Early man

gtg for real now.

Not only some of his disciples, all saints witness heaven here on earth. This is the standard Orthodox position. The Church is an image of heaven on earth.

The Orthodox Way - Kalistos ware
>Betjeman draws attention here to much that an Orthodox holds precious: the value of symbolic gestures such as the lighting of a candle; the role of ikons in conveying a sense of the local church as ‘heaven on earth’

Orthodox priest explaining how those who hate God are already in hell

I can send more sources if you are unconvinced that this is not a fabrication, but the standard position.

Okay, cool allegation. But the orthodox position, unless you can prove otherwise. Is that heaven starts here on earth. That the Divine Energies can be experienced here on earth. This is in perfect continuity with scripture, since the Divine was experienced here on earth during the transfiguration and other events.
And there is no allegorization. In the OT and NT, the Divine were witnessed and interacted with physically in a literal sense. All we are saying, is that these literal interactions with the God continue today.
Whole article explaining this: https://orthochristian.com/146768.html
Even if that wasn't our doctrine, the possibility of this being a viable interpetation, destroys your argument of there being a necessary logical contradiction.
>Just accept my interpretation and my model of what christianity entails and then it's a contradiction
The arrogant posturing and the confidence that comes with it too. Cool it down bro.

>You have a motivation to interpret it as such
I can say you have a motivation to interpret it the way you are. Stop using fallacies and making implications and using arrogance as your front.
The most "obvious" translation of God's Kingdom is heaven. Where he reigns. In contrast, we know from the scriptures that the earth is the kingdom of Satan.
>John 14:30 - "I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me. "

I will ignore the long paragraph at the start. Since it has no weight on this discussion

>You are suggesting that he is talking about heaven.
Yes.
>And I'm just wondering why only some of his disciples that day would live to see heaven.
Some is vague and can imply any quantity from a whole. Some saw the transfiguration, and some could have "tasted" or "witnessed" heaven before dying. Others might have witnessed heaven only after death. All these possibilities consistent.
>It doesn't make any sense since the Bible says no man has been to heaven.
Going to heaven, i.e. dying and being resurrected is different than "witnessing" it. Does the passage say, some of you will visit heaven and come back before dying? No it doesn't.

>And why would any of them see heaven before judgment Day?
Because we believe that you can experience/witness heaven or hell starting here on earth before you even die.
https://orthochristian.com/146768.html
This is the orthodox position.

>I can't really make sense of your interpretation, really.
Sorry but that's a you problem. And even if you can't accept that interpretation. It existing, means that this verse is not necessarily logically contradictory.

I gtg so probs won't reply unless this thread is up tomorrow.

I explained how "some" in that sense also makes sense. The number of people there is not certain, if it was only the disciples or others. But even if it was just the disciples, it is not problematic for "some" of them to witness His Kingdom, be it some witnessing the transfiguration or some witnessing "heaven on earth"

>The Church gives birth to and interprets the bible
Wrong, also RIP your soul.

>uhhh he was talking about the ahistorical celestial kingdom, duh!
>that's everyone before Augustine was anticipating the literal kingdom of Heaven established on Earth in history by the second coming of Jesus!

I'm not Christian, or any sort of Deist for that matter, lol.

>Also, this verse refers to all those who witness the Kingdom of Christ before death
Why would only some of his disciples witness his kingdom before death? What are you suggesting he meant by his kingdom? In verse 27 he is describing it as when he comes with his rewards. Which is exactly the description of end days. Which hasn't happened yet.

>the transfiguration.
Ok. Well I'd refer you to these posts about the transfiguration rationale

>Basically, the Transfiguration was His kingdom coming with power.
Ahh ok, well I see that rationale as implying Jesus was being deceptive. Which could not be possible since Jesus would never deceive. He would have left that crowd thinking they have a chance at seeing his kingdom before they died. If he "really" just meant he was going to sneak three of his apostles of a mountain to give them a vision of the kingdom, he would have been intentionally deceiving that crowd.

>God's Kingdom means heaven.
How come only some of his disciples would live to see heaven? The Bible says no man has gone to heaven. Judgment day hasn't happened yet. Who in that crowd saw heaven before they died? Are you trying to refer to the transfiguration that Jesus goes into, in the next few verses? Are he snuck three of his closest apostles about mountain to give them a vision of the kingdom?

If that's what he meant when he was addressing the crowd of his disciples, I would have been very deceptive. He would have left them all thinking that they might be able to see his kingdom if they lived long enough. And since no deception has come from Jesus's mouth, he could not have meant that.

bro i literally just pointed out the most severe contradiction between the depicted messiah in the ot vs the nt. in the old testament the messiah is meant to bring peace to the entire world, but jesus in the new testament says how he will make families fight each other n' shit. if i'm not understanding something then spell it out, stop coping

who cares how i type, i'll type however i want. you're just being intellectually dishonest and ignoring the subject of matter. trolling is not allowed outside of /b/

he was supposed to bring worldwide peace 2000 years ago you doofus, nothing in the old testament indicates that the messiah would come once and then return later

Now, how does that differ from the earlier alleged quotation?

1. God will come with the angels and reward each according to his work at the resurrection
2. Some will get to witness this reality at the transifugration before it happens.
Everyone will live that reality, but only some will have a preview of it at the transfiguration.
>It's a contradiction bro.
>Just accept my interpretation and it's a contradiction