| The last question was answered in just | 2 | minutes Let our thousands of members help! |
Welcome to Answerbag, a community of people sharing what they know. 
Top Answer out of 50 by jin jang on May 11, 2008 at 9:56 am Permalink
Comments
show all comments
jin jang May, 11 2008 at 10:11 AM
Thank you for your comment.There are closed minded trolls that are quick to D/R for they do not believe people should speak their mind.
- Sweet T -- Some Like It Hot FBB May, 11 2008 at 10:18 AM
They have not realized yet that people have different opinions, and that is okay, they dont have to agree. It is ironic, that they are opposing your answer, when you opposed this question, but arent big enough, or samrt enough, to have an intelligent response, as to why they disagree with you.LOL!
Special K Mar, 16 2009 at 01:01 AM
good answer and comments guys. keep up the good work!+++++
Answer 2 out of 50 by koldkanuck on May 11, 2008 at 9:52 am Permalink
Comments
show all comments
DudeLer May, 24 2008 at 07:13 PM
seal up the book of Daniel.
the time of the end must be in process. 
koldkanuck May, 24 2008 at 08:40 PM
Armand Gadden
DudeLer May, 24 2008 at 09:16 PM
Did you mean Arm and Hammer?
I cant find any reference to armand gadden anywhere. It must be an error. Oh No! Answer 3 out of 50 by Talimze wins the prize on May 16, 2008 at 9:10 pm Permalink
Comments
show all comments
DudeLer May, 18 2008 at 08:28 AM
dont be afraid.
Talimze wins the prize May, 18 2008 at 09:58 AM
Psh....yeah, okay.
DiSTurBiA Sep, 25 2008 at 02:08 PM
hahaha spot on Talim
Answer 4 out of 50 by Sheriff Raff -Answerhag on May 11, 2008 at 10:02 am Permalink
Comments
show all comments
Sheriff Raff -Answerhag May, 11 2008 at 10:30 AM
It's a combination of being old (almost 43) and knowing that you get further if you are not drawn into controversy but just state you case midly and then bow out if it gets "ugly". Sort of like shaking the dust from your sandals.
DudeLer May, 17 2008 at 08:40 PM
plead ignorance, it is the best excuse.
The Galaxy Hitchhiker Sep, 25 2009 at 11:35 AM
I agree Sheriff. I've been reading and studying the Bible for near 35 years and I'm not aware of any errors either.
Answer 5 out of 50 by Rude Bear Ready for Winter on May 17, 2008 at 8:57 pm Permalink
Comments
show all comments
Rude Bear Ready for Winter Oct, 28 2009 at 10:43 AM
sounds like rationalization to me.
"No matter how you slice it, it's still baloney". ~Milo Bloom 
eternal0void Oct, 29 2009 at 12:18 PM
Its rationalization. These aren't modern engineers with calculators and the ability to measure to hundredths. They had a piece of string.
. The Bible builders spoken of would look at 9.55 cubits and see 9 and ONE HALF cubits, and record it accordingly. They wouldn't be able to make the claim that "that rounds up to 10 cubits." . Secondly, rounding is great for things like currency. It SUCKS for physical objects, as a rounded number on a physical object results in an inaccurate finished object. What happens when the north wall of a cabin is 10.4 (rounds to 10) units long but the west wall is 9.55 (rounds to 10) and the east wall is 9.80 (rounds to 10)? You get a house which doesn't stay up. . Thirdly, it is the only time in the Bible where PI is recorded, so the Bible states that PI = 3.0.
eternal0void Oct, 29 2009 at 12:24 PM
The Galaxy Hitchhiker: "People, especially skeptics feel the need to take it upon themselves to read something into Scripture that, which isn't there."
. Of course, you have to read several things into Scripture "which isn't there." Is it listed in Scripture that length is rounded? No? Then the Bible apologist has added something to Scripture which isn't there. . Is it listed in Scripture that "round about" refers not to the brim, but rather to the "main body of the tank"? No? Then the Bible apologist has added something to Scripture which isn't there. . The hilarious bit, of course, is that skeptics aren't "reading into Scripture something which isn't there", they are reading what is IN Scripture. . Then a Bible apologist comes along, **reads something into Scripture which isn't there** in an attempt to "prove the Bible isn't wrong about X", then accuses the skeptic of doing what the apologist just did (while claiming not to have done what the apologist just did). Answer 6 out of 50 by rameystarman on May 11, 2008 at 12:42 pm Permalink
Comments
Anonymous Jun, 02 2008 at 06:48 PM
The reason they are diifferent is thatif you look closely at the 2 genealogies the difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.
rameystarman Jun, 03 2008 at 06:36 PM
Thanks. That is very interesting.
Texasescimo Feb, 10 2009 at 03:56 PM
I concur with Anonymous Jun,02 2008. Women were not mentioned in genealogies back then, hence no mention of Sarah or rebekah. Found an article in a Watchtower publication, but having problem pasting. In Mary's genealogy, Luke 3:23 mentions Jesus being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph. In Joseph's. Mathew 1:16 mentions Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.
Answer 7 out of 50 by Kevisaurus is a Carnotaurus today on May 11, 2008 at 10:00 am Permalink
Comments
(be the first to comment)
Answer 8 out of 50 by koldkanuck on May 11, 2008 at 10:44 am Permalink
Comments
Bizzibee May, 11 2008 at 01:13 PM
Ok Nancy Drew, I confess, Doc2000 is married to Bizzibee.
You want your prize now bigboy? Answer 9 out of 50 by lost on May 16, 2008 at 9:02 pm Permalink
Comments
show all comments
lost May, 21 2008 at 05:58 AM
I used to consider myself Christian. Key words: used to.
Dave2222 Sep, 26 2008 at 04:34 AM
it's said there are 200 versions of the bible. Tell me which one do you think is the correct one? If these are written by whoever and says what they think it should be how can there not be errors?
lost Oct, 03 2008 at 10:17 AM
I mentioned the KJV in my answer, did I not?
Answer 10 out of 50 by Wulfweard on Sep 25, 2008 at 1:46 pm Permalink
Comments
singwell-is off researching a lot Sep, 25 2008 at 02:21 PM
not true. If you look at textual transmission, which is a science, you will see the accuracy of the Bible. If, for example, you compare a medieval text of the Old Testament with the quite recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls (c 200 BC) you will see that there is virtually no difference. Most of the variants are spelling errors.
With the New Testament, over 5000 manuscripts exist from the first 4 centuries of CHristianity, including some from within a generation of the originals. These show an overwhelming attention to the details of copying, which had been laid down centuries before by the Jews (and involve counting all the words in a book, all the words in a paragraph, in a sentence and all the letters in a word. This was double checked at the end of each page by another scribe).
Important: Answerbag cannot guarantee the accuracy of answers submitted by members, and we recommend that you use common sense when following any advice found here. Read full disclaimer.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
