Please healing and the gift of healing is real, alive and active!
But the difference is the means of the healing.
Remember that it is either one is of God or against Him.
when of God, you perform miracles via God and When against him,
you perform miracles via the opposing Force -be careful and wise!
The word of God can not change because we refuse to acknowledge the truth.
The spirit of God in us and the law of God which has been boldly written in us help us to discern between good and bad.
so watch what is happening around you and be willing and ready to defend the truth irrespective of who is involved and the sign will continue to follow you whether you are called a pastor or not. Remain Blessed.

No wonder Karl Max said that religion is the opium of the masses.

Mintayo:

guy you are so funny.
Pls read what you post again,pls!
Dnt misinterprete something if u dnt understand and u are nt ready to understand!

What is so funny about what he said? He was correct and he did not misinterpret Mark 16:17-18. You are the one that does not understand the verses. In order to show you have faith you must be able to handle serpent, drink poison and be able to heal the sick. You must do the three deeds and you can't isolate the healing part from the other requirements as the OP attempted.

Any body that says that there is spiritual healing must look squarely at Mark 16:17-18 to see if if the so called healer has handled serpents like spitting cobra or drank poison without harm. If he can't do these according to Mark, he can't do the healing. In fact most Nigerian pastors are fake healers because I have not seen them drink otapiapia or handle rattlers.

omonuan:

What is so funny about what he said? He was correct and he did not misinterpret Mark 16:17-18. You are the one that does not understand the verses. In order to show you have faith you must be able to handle serpent, drink poison and be able to heal the sick. You must do the three deeds and you can't isolate the healing part from the other requirements as the OP attempted.

Any body that says that there is spiritual healing must look squarely at Mark 16:17-18 to see if if the so called healer has handled serpents like spitting cobra or drank poison without harm. If he can't do these according to Mark, he can't do the healing. In fact most Nigerian pastors are fake healers because I have not seen them drink otapiapia or handle rattlers.

sorry my broda, i never intended to edit or remove any part of Mark 16:17-18, but i had to type only the portion that directly involved the subject matter 'healing' because i was using phone hence the need to minimize typing, and i thank d ppl that have quoted the whole verses. Now pls my broda u have completly misundastand that Mark 16:17-18, what that portion of the bible means is 'if' any believer by mistake step on a snake or drink poison, such a believer will not be harmed, it did not say believers should go arround looking for poison to drink or snake to handle, bro, thats foolishness. Now, pls note, it says "these signs shall follow THEM THAT BELIEVE", it did not say 'church goers'. @shdemidemi, pls read that ur 1cor13 again, it says, shall cease and will end and NOT, has ceased orhas ended, now the question is, when shall the tongue ceased and when will healing end? The answer is right there still in that portion, WHEN THAT WHICH IS PERFECT SHALL COME. God bless.

nlMediator:

My brother, you contradict yourself big time. You say no christian can heal in the age of grace and then turn on to say that christians in Corinth may heal or receive healing. If no healing in the age of grace, there should be no exception to Corinthians or spiritual babes. You have to decide which one is it. Because if you make exceptions to Corinthians anad babes, you'll have to make exceptions to Nigerians and others under the age of grace. So make up your mind.

I never said christians in Corinth could heal, nothing of such was recorded. Like I said before of all the churches that Paul and his helpers, Barnabas, Silas, and whoever, dealt with, none were as carnal and filled with problems as this Corinthian Church.Paul said to them-
I Corinthians 3:1,2
"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able."

Corinth was probably the most immoral, wicked, corrupt city in the Roman empire. It was part and parcel of their religion to be involved in immoral practice with the prostitutes of the city. So now here comes Paul to that wicked city of Corinth with the Gospel of the Grace of God. You see, anything but Grace would have never succeeded, but it was only by Grace that God began to save these wicked Corinthians, but remember the spiritual life is a parallel with the physical. You do not get born into the family of God a full mature spiritual person. We all come into a salvation experience as "babes in Christ." Spiritual gifts of healing or tongues was never spoken about in the other churches the Apostle went, Contentment and patience in hope was the crux of Paul's message to the rather more spiritually matured churches.

Hebrews 6

King James Version (KJV)

6 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3 And this will we do, if God permit.

The only way we can get to perfection is by hearing, studying this apostle's doctrines, like it is written up there 'not even the principles of the doctrine of Christ's earthly ministry can take us to the point of perfection.

christemmbassey: sorry my broda, i never intended to edit or remove any part of Mark 16:17-18, but i had to type only the portion that directly involved the subject matter 'healing' because i was using phone hence the need to minimize typing, and i thank d ppl that have quoted the whole verses. Now pls my broda u have completly misundastand that Mark 16:17-18, what that portion of the bible means is 'if' any believer by mistake step on a snake or drink poison, such a believer will not be harmed, it did not say believers should go arround looking for poison to drink or snake to handle, bro, thats foolishness. Now, pls note, it says "these signs shall follow THEM THAT BELIEVE", it did not say 'church goers'. @shdemidemi, pls read that ur 1cor13 again, it says, shall cease and will end and NOT, has ceased orhas ended, now the question is, when shall the tongue ceased and when will healing end? The answer is right there still in that portion, WHEN THAT WHICH IS PERFECT SHALL COME. God bless.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Notice it says that which is in part ..the gifts in part are knowledge and prophesy(preaching).

shdemidemi:


I never said christians in Corinth could heal, nothing of such was recorded. Like I said before of all the churches that Paul and his helpers, Barnabas, Silas, and whoever, dealt with, none were as carnal and filled with problems as this Corinthian Church.Paul said to them-
I Corinthians 3:1,2
"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able."

Corinth was probably the most immoral, wicked, corrupt city in the Roman empire. It was part and parcel of their religion to be involved in immoral practice with the prostitutes of the city. So now here comes Paul to that wicked city of Corinth with the Gospel of the Grace of God. You see, anything but Grace would have never succeeded, but it was only by Grace that God began to save these wicked Corinthians, but remember the spiritual life is a parallel with the physical. You do not get born into the family of God a full mature spiritual person. We all come into a salvation experience as "babes in Christ." Spiritual gifts of healing or tongues was never spoken about in the other churches the Apostle went, Contentment and patience in hope was the crux of Paul's message to the rather more spiritually matured churches.

Hebrews 6

King James Version (KJV)

6 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3 And this will we do, if God permit.

The only way we can get to perfection is by hearing, studying this apostle's doctrines, like it is written up there 'not even the principles of the doctrine of Christ's earthly ministry can take us to the point of perfection.

Ok, maybe I misunderstood your position. So help me understand. Apart from referencing the carnality of the Corinthians, what is the relevance of the Books of Corinthians to a discussion on healing? Paul clearly stated there that there are gifts of healings and miracles. Did he mean that literally or was he speaking figuratively? What I understand you to be saying is that under the dispensation of grace, the gifts of healings have ceased. Did Paul make an exception for the carnal Corinthians or are you saying that the gifts of healings also did not apply to the Corinthians?

nlMediator:

Ok, maybe I misunderstood your position. So help me understand. Apart from referencing the carnality of the Corinthians, what is the relevance of the Books of Corinthians to a discussion on healing? Paul clearly stated there that there are gifts of healings and miracles. Did he mean that literally or was he speaking figuratively? What I understand you to be saying is that under the dispensation of grace, the gifts of healings have ceased. Did Paul make an exception for the carnal Corinthians or are you saying that the gifts of healings also did not apply to the Corinthians?

It is evident that gifts of healing and miracles were present earlier before and during Paul's ministry. These miracles and signs were mere directions and signs leading to the gospel of grace. Remember that Paul is writing to these weak, carnal, fleshly, believers that have just come out of abject immorality in Corinth. He's writing to correct them because they had so many problems. So the whole theme of I Corinthians is to correct problems, and this whole letter has to be studied in that light. A gradual renewal of mind was what the Apostle was doing here.

We know that even Paul himself exercised this gift in the Book of Acts as he performed miracles. But by the time you get to his later letters there's not a word about these kind of miracles, and he doesn't perform them himself. One of his best friends, and fellow laborers in the work was sick on the island of Miletus, and was close to death, but could Paul heal him? No. So what did he admonish the believers to do? The same as we do today; pray for him. And we know that Timothy evidently had a stomach ailment, and we know Paul didn't heal him, he gave him a remedy for it, but he didn't heal him. And it was the same way with many of his own catastrophes in his life experience. Did he get healed? No. The Lord brought him through them, but no sign of any miraculous healing. In this area of Scripture, remember, that it's only in the letter to this carnal Corinthian Church that he deals with these particular gifts.

So, when did the gospel of grace start? So we can subject your claims to factual analysis. It's not enough to say that Paul started writing letters. At what point in His ministry did he receive and start propagating this gospel of grace? So, what you're saying is that the Corinthian Church was pre-Grace? Yet, it's in the Letters to Corinth that we see a huge reflection and exposition of the message of grace. Paul not healing Timothy has nothing to do with anything. It's not everytime people fall sick that we call for prayers. If pain medication will do the job, many people reach for the medicine cabinet.

christemmbassey: sorry my broda, i never intended to edit or remove any part of Mark 16:17-18, but i had to type only the portion that directly involved the subject matter 'healing' because i was using phone hence the need to minimize typing, and i thank d ppl that have quoted the whole verses. Now pls my broda u have completly misundastand that Mark 16:17-18, what that portion of the bible means is 'if' any believer by mistake step on a snake or drink poison, such a believer will not be harmed, it did not say believers should go arround looking for poison to drink or snake to handle, bro, thats foolishness. Now, pls note, it says "these signs shall follow THEM THAT BELIEVE", it did not say 'church goers'. @shdemidemi, pls read that ur 1cor13 again, it says, shall cease and will end and NOT, has ceased orhas ended, now the question is, when shall the tongue ceased and when will healing end? The answer is right there still in that portion, WHEN THAT WHICH IS PERFECT SHALL COME. God bless.

You are being politely clever. Mark 16:17-18 is unambiguous and you are misinterpreting the verses to add your own thoughts and opinion. If you are a good Christian, you should not do that.

See Revelation 22:18-19:

" I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." See also Deuteronomy 4:2 ;Proverbs 30:5-6

I am a strict constructionist and when there is no ambiguity, the literal translation must take effect period.
You are probably one of those that point to literal interpretation when it suits you but look for allegory or figurative translation when the Bible does not quite fit your agenda. For me it is what it is!
Mark 16:17-18 is not a rhetorical trope.

Your subsequent attempt to fabricate to obfuscate what Mark said belies your assertion that your editing the original statement was not intentional. A lot of Christians have faith and they followed the literal translation. See the link to this story and you'll see that you are playing fast and loose with the facts.

AS you can see from Revelation 22, YOU SHOULD NEVER EDIT WHAT THE BIBLE SAID. If you don't have time to cut and paste Biblical quotes verbatim, don't even bother.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/veteran-snakehandling-pas_n_1559762.html

nlMediator: So, when did the gospel of grace start? So we can subject your claims to factual analysis. It's not enough to say that Paul started writing letters. At what point in His ministry did he receive and start propagating this gospel of grace? So, what you're saying is that the Corinthian Church was pre-Grace? Yet, it's in the Letters to Corinth that we see a huge reflection and exposition of the message of grace. Paul not healing Timothy has nothing to do with anything. It's not everytime people fall sick that we call for prayers. If pain medication will do the job, many people reach for the medicine cabinet.

I never made or insinuated the bolded. An example of what I am saying is, if I suddenly walk in to a white garment or catholic or any denomination's gathering. Based on my understanding of the church age gospel, I might find their ways a far cry from the gospel of Christ. I would not then get there to scream them down but I would see them as carnal believers that need a gradual renewal of mind. This was what the apostle did at the church in Corinth.

The scriptures says 'For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom'. Christ's primary reason for performing miracles was to convince the Jews that he is their king, he gave apostles and believers of the messiah similar powers too but something changed after Christ died. The gospel changed from 'believe Christ is the messiah' to 'believe Christ died, was buried and he resurrected for the propitiation of the sin of mankind'-

I believe putting a time to when miracle stopped is not the issue, the issue would rather be understanding that miracle , signs and wonders are not the gospel. They were only signs directing men to the gospel.

Thanks to @ Shidemidemi for bringing clarity and enlightenment into this issue. I have used same analogy to make a friend who worship with the posters Username church see reason that these gifts with respect to speaking in tongues was for a reason and no longer the main crux of the matter now. Thanks to the Spirit for always beign there to help us with discernments!

shdemidemi:

I never made or insinuated the bolded. An example of what I am saying is, if I suddenly walk in to a white garment or catholic or any denomination's gathering. Based on my understanding of the church age gospel, I might find their ways a far cry from the gospel of Christ. I would not then get there to scream them down but I would see them as carnal believers that need a gradual renewal of mind. This was what the apostle did at the church in Corinth.

The scriptures says 'For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom'. Christ's primary reason for performing miracles was to convince the Jews that he is their king, he gave apostles and believers of the messiah similar powers too but something changed after Christ died. The gospel changed from 'believe Christ is the messiah' to 'believe Christ died, was buried and he resurrected for the propitiation of the sin of mankind'-

I believe putting a time to when miracle stopped is not the issue, the issue would rather be understanding that miracle , signs and wonders are not the gospel. They were only signs directing men to the gospel.

Paul did more than point out carnality in the Corinthian Church. He took a whole passage to talk about spiritual gifts, including gifts of healing. The analogy with a white garment church is completely inapt. If you go to such a church and see they are carnal, you don't introduce a subject that you do not believe in or that you consider inapplicable to them or other christians. You need to do much better than this to explain away the gifts of healings and miracles. I thought your argument all along was that (1) healing does not apply in an age of grace and (b) Paul allowed healings to operate in Corinth because they were spiritual babes. Both of which make sense as a point of argument but are not based in Scripture. Now, you're moving to a different terriory. I'm unable to follow your train of thought this time.

I believe all have said is lucid enough, you don't have to agree with ♍ƺ right now but with time I am sure it will be clearer.

Ofcourse Paul made doctrinal statements about love in this book but the book is primarily a correctional book. If you study the book properly, you would surely understand the way the man writes.- I believe the book of ephesians would help as well, as regards doctrine of spiritual gifts.

shdemidemi:

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Notice it says that which is in part ..the gifts in part are knowledge and prophesy(preaching).

pls some help us explain the word 'SHALL'.

christemmbassey: pls some help us explain the word 'SHALL'.

I don't understand the question bro.

@ omonuan

permit me to shed more light here, i left the tread some days ago,

And speaking of Jesus temptation by the satan, the Bible had contradicting stories:

it seems that you are interested in what seems like error in the bible, but you need to take enough measures into consideration;

1, you are making a case of

satan took Jesus to the mountain first, then the temple. Both stories are inconsistent

.
the issue of where is reported to be 'first' here is uncalled for, the fact that areas captured in that event of jesus and satan is just enough for someone who is a true christian and not someone with prejudice or faultfinder.

if i may ask, a book completed some 2,500 yrs ago, where were you then? how many book has survived centuries like that, and even available in your own mother tongue and the most circulated, where were the modern sophistication we have now in report writing that you are faulting the bible writters with?

now you went on to analyse below

The chronology of events lends credence to the inconsistencies.


Thus we see the progression of events in these two passages. But most intriguing is the differences between the two! In Luke, Christ is said to be in the fortieth day of temptation when the devil begins the temptations given there. In Matthew, the tempter comes to Him, with no mention of how long this temptation has been proceeding. In Luke, we have the devil tempting him to turn one stone (singular) into bread (again singular,) whereas in Matthew the devil accelerates the temptation by urging Him to turn these stones (plural) into bread (again plural.)

before you jump exegical holes to conclude above, do you think that the bible writers need to follow a perceived and popular report writing to satisfy some educated individuals to have a so called credible report? NO!

see what you need to aknowledge first about some of the bible writters, an example is apostle peter, who is also one of jesus disciple, lets see his qualification;

Acts 4:13
(NIV)
13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that [size=14pt]they were unschooled, ordinary men[/size], they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.


maybe if some of these writters are educated or schooled, they might have satisfied your request!

but then,God used them to write, God choose not to use educated ones only like paul but he choose unschooled ones to diseminate his words,

see this below too;

Acts 4:13
For since, in God's wisdom,[size=14pt] the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached.[/size]

you may not be pleased with how these writters did not meet your requirement in report writting, but someone is pleased with what seems foolish to you;

God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached

i will discuss point (2) after your response, but note that all 40 writters of the bible never wrote 'their own mind' but the are 'God breath' or inspired, and they have to use their respective lingua-franca to the best usage or limit of their ability, while true-motivated persons are satisfied with the minimum report that testifies to the truth rather than typographical errors.

BERNIMOORE: @ omonuan

permit me to shed more light here, i left the tread some days ago,



it seems that you are interested in what seems like error in the bible, but you need to take enough measures into consideration;

1, you are making a case of
.
the issue of where is reported to be 'first' here is uncalled for, the fact that areas captured in that event of jesus and satan is just enough for someone who is a true christian and not someone with prejudice or faultfinder.

if i may ask, a book completed some 2,500 yrs ago, where were you then? how many book has survived centuries like that, and even available in your own mother tongue and the most circulated, where were the modern sophistication we have now in report writing that you are faulting the bible writters with?

now you went on to analyse below



before you jump exegical holes to conclude above, do you think that the bible writers need to follow a perceived and popular report writing to satisfy some educated individuals to have a so called credible report? NO!

see what you need to aknowledge first about some of the bible writters, an example is apostle peter, who is also one of jesus disciple, lets see his qualification;

Acts 4:13
(NIV)
13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that [size=14pt]they were unschooled, ordinary men[/size], they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.


maybe if some of these writters are educated or schooled, they might have satisfied your request!

but then,God used them to write, God choose not to use educated ones only like paul but he choose unschooled ones to diseminate his words,

see this below too;

Acts 4:13
For since, in God's wisdom,[size=14pt] the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached.[/size]

you may not be pleased with how these writters did not meet your requirement in report writting, but someone is pleased with what seems foolish to you;

God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached
i will discuss point (2) after your response, but note that all 40 writters of the bible never wrote 'their own mind' but the are 'God breath' or inspired, and they have to use their respective lingua-franca to the best usage or limit of their ability, while true-motivated persons are satisfied with the minimum report that testifies to the truth rather than typographical errors.

I m not really sure what you are trying to say. You are wrong to say that I was looking for errors in the Bible but now that you raise that, I thought the Bible is inerrant. Is it or is it not? that's the question:

Psalm 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure.

If there are are inconsistencies found in the Bible, now how do we iignore them when we were told that God's words are pure? The problem that many Christians who are zealots have is that they deny the obvious making them lose credibility. This is why atheist always defeat christians in an open debate because of this credibility gap. The Bible contains lot of good teachings but it also contains some things that will make you say hmmm. We must take care not to lose sight of this fact.

There is no gainsaying that Mark and Luke gave different chronology of the temptation of Christ. It is there and contrary to your assertion, I was not looking for it, it is just there.

omonuan:

I m not really sure what you are trying to say. You are wrong to say that I was looking for errors in the Bible but now that you raise that, I thought the Bible is inerrant. Is it or is it not? that's the question:

Psalm 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure.

If there are are inconsistencies found in the Bible, now how do we iignore them when we were told that God's words are pure? The problem that many Christians who are zealots have is that they deny the obvious making them lose credibility. This is why atheist always defeat christians in an open debate because of this credibility gap. The Bible contains lot of good teachings but it also contains some things that will make you say hmmm. We must take care not to lose sight of this fact.

There is no gainsaying that Mark and Luke gave different chronology of the temptation of Christ. It is there and contrary to your assertion, I was not looking for it, it is just there.

The bible does not contradict itself, it is infallible, It is you that needs to understand the scriptures by rightly dividing it. The gospel of Mark and Luke were accounts given based on perspectives and separate view point of each of the men. The crux of the matter is that the full story aligns.

shdemidemi: [/b]

The bible does not contradict itself, it is infallible, It is you that needs to understand the scriptures by rightly dividing it. The gospel of Mark and Luke were accounts given based on perspectives and separate view point of each of the men. The crux of the matter is that the full story aligns.

Obviously you have a grandiose opinion of your self. You really think the Bible is infallible? Aha! Even the Bible says not so fast:

Hebrews 8:6-7:

"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."

The deviation of Mathew and Luke in their stories are material enough to make a reasonable person say hmmmm whether you like it or not.

Did the devil first take him (Christ) to the mountain or the pinnacle of the temple? Both accounts of Luke and Mathew cannot be true when it comes to where Christ had gone first during the temptation. If Luke 4:9 is correct then Mathew 4:8 is wrong and vice versa because both cannot be accurate no matter how you spin the facts.

The conundrum then is which version is the truth. Don't tell me that both version are correct because that would not be true.

I rest my case!

@omonuan

If there are are inconsistencies found in the Bible, now how do we iignore them when we were told that God's words are pure?

because lazy people like you who breeze through points like the ones that i have discused above before will still come out with same question even when answered they cant see,but recycle questions, but for the sake of clarity, and for those who are following the tread, letme give the answer to that again;

Acts 4:13
(NIV)
13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that [size=14pt]they were unschooled, ordinary men,[/size] they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.


maybe if some of these writters are educated or schooled, they might have satisfied your request!

but then,God used them to write, God choose not to use educated ones only like paul but he choose unschooled ones to diseminate his words,

The problem that many Christians who are zealots have is that they deny the obvious making them lose credibility.

lose credibility before who? sorry, i cant even see the significance of those you are reffering to! what is the percentage of atheists? infinitestimal i think!

This is why atheist always defeat christians in an open debate because of this credibility gap.

now you are coming out to show who you really are! an atheist! but then, for you to say that atheist defeat christians in argument is a big lie, maybe a half baked christians, im unaware of,but i have handle many atheists, i have handled one 'ifeness' on this tread squarely, but in order not to derail this tread open another tread and let me engage you, or any of your atheist co-disciples,

The Bible contains lot of good teachings but it also contains some things that will make you say hmmm. We must take care not to lose sight of this fact.

bolded above is due to your inpatience! you know what? apostle paul under inspiration expose the virus that is affecting your knowledge, no wonder you and your co atheist hate gospels by paul, but sorry, lets see that virus that affects you guys,

colosians 2:8;

See to it that no one takes you captive [/b]through hollow and [b]deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition [/b]and the elemental spiritual forces of this world[b] rather than on Christ.

There is no gainsaying that Mark and Luke gave different chronology of the temptation of Christ.

according to your own opinion,and dont force it on others, chronology is not the issue here and irrelevant!reports written some 2,500 yrs ago, because if it is relevant God will not use some unschooled men to write at all! you need to see beyond that, and if you dont, you remain like those described as 'those who seek wisdom but do not know God through their wisdom' i dont expect you to understand, but to just aknowledge that your point is of no relevance!

BERNIMOORE: @omonuan



because lazy people like you who breeze through points like the ones that i have discused above before will still come out with same question even when answered they cant see,but recycle questions, but for the sake of clarity, and for those who are following the tread, letme give the answer to that again;

Acts 4:13
(NIV)
13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that [size=14pt]they were unschooled, ordinary men,[/size] they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.


maybe if some of these writters are educated or schooled, they might have satisfied your request!

but then,God used them to write, God choose not to use educated ones only like paul but he choose unschooled ones to diseminate his words,



lose credibility before who? sorry, i cant even see the significance of those you are reffering to! what is the percentage of atheists? infinitestimal i think!


now you are coming out to show who you really are! an atheist! but then, for you to say that atheist defeat christians in argument is a big lie, maybe a half baked christians, im unaware of,but i have handle many atheists, i have handled one 'ifeness' on this tread squarely, but in order not to derail this tread open another tread and let me engage you, or any of your atheist co-disciples,



bolded above is due to your inpatience! you know what? apostle paul under inspiration expose the virus that is affecting your knowledge, no wonder you and your co atheist hate gospels by paul, but sorry, lets see that virus that affects you guys,

colosians 2:8;

See to it that no one takes you captive [/b]through hollow and [b]deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition [/b]and the elemental spiritual forces of this world[b] rather than on Christ.




according to your own opinion,and dont force it on others, chronology is not the issue here and irrelevant!reports written some 2,500 yrs ago, because if it is relevant God will not use some unschooled men to write at all! you need to see beyond that, and if you dont, you remain like those described as 'those who seek wisdom but do not know God through their wisdom' i dont expect you to understand, but to just aknowledge that your point is of no relevance!

You can call me names if you like but you cannot change the truth as it stands. You may bring side issues to obfuscate the facts. However, you have failed to discredit the discrepancy of the chronology with any concrete evidence other than to alleged that the authors of Luke and Mathew were "unschooled." I am flabagasted that you would say this because you find it difficult to explain the contradiction. How come these people are schooled when it involves teachings you like?

I am not forcing my opinion on others, I use biblical verses to buttress my point unlike you. Show me any where in the Bible where it had been shown that Biblical authors of Gospel according to Mathew and Luke are "unschooled." And that unschooled authors are excused from or are incapable of telling consistent stories. While you are at it , show me where it was said that the Bible is a cipher that only zealots like you can decipher. I did not know that the Bible was written in secret codes for those who are schooled to interprete because the authors were unschooled 2500 years ago. If you can't show me these please chill.

Moreover, you don't have to be schooled to tell a consistent story. If two illiterates see someone go to the pinnacle of the temple, they should report the same thing in a consistent fashion. Now if one of them says that the person went to the mountain instead of the pinnacle of the temple, that person would be lying not because he is unschooled but because he might have an agenda or maybe amnesia but being unschooled? No! I had all these while thought that the Bible was inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) and here you are alleging that God inspired "unschooled" men. I guess you have a different teaching on whether God inspired the authors.

Illiterates like some okada riders, market women and even beggars in Nigeria witness crimes every day and they tell consistent stories. The biblical authors in my book are supposed to be inspired by God and therefore held to a higher standard.

Bible itself demands that we ask questions:

Proverbs 14:15
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

Proverbs 26:25
When he speaketh fair, believe him not: for there are seven abominations in his heart.
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

So it behooves you to provide proof of your assertions or forever hold thy peace. You don't know me but please be aware that I am very prudent and look at things critically. I like proofs as Thessalonians 5:21 suggests.

And I believe that you are the one that is "unschooled" in the doctrines of the Bible but I won't judge you. Moreover, don't be so quick to get angry. The truth is indestructible. If you have evidence that is supported by the truth provide it with citation not with diversionary tactics of name calling and conjectures based on unreasonable dogma.

I am Biblical scholar unlike some that have just been indoctrinated and brainwashed with facts that the pastors want to use to manipulate flocks. You are the lazy one because you allow others to provide you with a salad bar of information in the Bible they want you to buy hook, line and sinker.

Speaking of Paul here is what he said about his teachings:

Paul says:
1 Corinthians 7:25
"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful."

2 Corinthians 11:17
"That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting."

1 Corinthians 7:12
"To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her."


It appears that Paul freelanced without authority of The Lord by his own admission and he was honest about that. Some of his assertions were just his own opinions and desires like many of you zealots today. Unfortunately, many of you are not honest about your own hidden agenda unlike Paul. Many scholars consider Paul's teachings not to be on par with those who were "inspired." Some have even gone as far as calling him a liar. I personally think he was honest about his intentions and that has made him credible to me. With him you know what you are getting.

You called me atheist but some might allege after reading your post that you may have blasphemed by calling Biblical authors "unschooled." With Christians like you who needs atheists? It is zealots like you that make atheists salivate and green with envy because they don't usually know what stupid things you might say next.

omonuan:

Obviously you have a grandiose opinion of your self. You really think the Bible is infallible? Aha! Even the Bible says not so fast:

Hebrews 8:6-7:

"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."

The deviation of Mathew and Luke in their stories are material enough to make a reasonable person say hmmmm whether you like it or not.

Did the devil first take him (Christ) to the mountain or the pinnacle of the temple? Both accounts of Luke and Mathew cannot be true when it comes to where Christ had gone first during the temptation. If Luke 4:9 is correct then Mathew 4:8 is wrong and vice versa because both cannot be accurate no matter how you spin the facts.

The conundrum then is which version is the truth. Don't tell me that both version are correct because that would not be true.

I rest my case!

The issue here isn't the version or the way the story was delivered by Mathew and Mark, but your understanding. You are limited to what you know at any point in time. If anything in the bible is wrong or contradicts, we have no business believing the whole book. On the contrary, everything written in the bible is written for different reasons. Nothing got in there by mistake or by accident, it was all by providence and inspiration of God. The onus is on us to study by rightly dividing the word of God.

@omonuan

You can call me names if you like but you cannot change the truth as it stands.

what is the truth? your opinion on this issue cannot be reffered to as the truth! because indecisive people like you sit on the fence and spend the whole lifetime in indecisiveness because they refuse to search for the truth contained in the bible but to spend the whole lifetime finding fault, maybe you can point to another inpired book other than bible that is without few things that can be easily reconciled when motivated by the appreciation of Gods word;the bible.

You may bring side issues to obfuscate the facts. However, you have failed to discredit the discrepancy of the chronology with any concrete evidence other than to alleged that the authors of Luke and Mathew were "unschooled."

thank you for admitting 'an alledge evidence' "unschooled." of which you earlier jump over in my first post, i have started to discrediting the 'alledged' discrepancy (according to you) and will still continue here

I am flabagasted that you would say this because you find it difficult to explain the contradiction.

Difficult? you feel so important because many dont give you their time to go in details, if you are the type that recycle questions after suplying answers then i think that makes you feel that you are winning, a self styled complacency.

according to your analysis of a supposed 'first event followed by the next,' can we really conclude that there were contradictions?

now lets see;


Satan took Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple, then to the mountain top.

in Mathew

Matthew 4:5-8:

a, [size=14pt]Then[/size] the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple.

b, [size=14pt]Again[/size], the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

the bolded above 'then' starting the sentence [in (a)], and also 'Again' starting the sentence [in (b)] clearly gives no holes in accomodating what preceeds the other, which means this particular account of mathew can be relied upon regarding where jesus went and proceed to another, hence 'then,' 'again' shows a continous relationship as the story unfolds.

but not the same with luke;

in luke;

you alledge that Satan took Jesus to the mountain first, then the temple.(there is nothing to suggest where comes first before the other, other than mere mentioning of the places they(jesus and the Devil) went

lets see;


c, Luke 4:5-9: The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.

d, The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple.

there is no relationship or words whatsoever that suggest a conclusion of where comes first in c and d above, rather you forcefully attach or tag 'first' to c above before d, while the sentence was with holes that could be rearranged otherwise like a and b above without problem.

i think it is better for you to leave the sentence as it was without tagging 'first' or 'second' or rather stay glued to your opinion! and allow others to have their own opinion on that

And pls remain flabagasted because i have observed that you enjoy sitting on a fence indecisively not as a measure of caution but just because you enjoy living indecisively all day

How come these people are schooled when it involves teachings you like?

this is where you are getting in wrong, i personally compare what these writers wrote and accept them as Gods inspiration to us, so that 'the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work'.(2tim 3:17)

we revered the word of God in the bible without neccesarily hanging for all our lifetime sticking to what appears a seeming error while we have other verses in the bible that explain or shed more light on an issue,instead of personalising it, for example paul explain more details about an issue under inspiration and 'not his own opinion' (i will expanciate a bit)

Paul states clearly in other places, including the same letter in which this phrase is found, that the words he is writing are inspired by God.

Later in the same book(1 corinthians 14), he states very clearly: “If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s

Paul also told his disciple, Timothy that “All Scripture is God-breathed (1 tim 3:16)” This would include Paul’s words.

Even Peter alludes to Paul’s writings and refers to them as God inspired scripture3.(2 Peter 3:15-16)

Show me any where in the Bible where it had been shown that Biblical authors of Gospel according to Mathew and Luke are "unschooled." And that unschooled authors are excused from or are incapable of telling consistent stories. While you are at it , show me where it was said that the Bible is a cipher that only zealots like you can decipher.

i only gave 'one' of the many reasons, that bible writers are not all educated, and i have showed you peter's case confirm, reasons why mathew and luke's report are not detailed the same way is the fact that they receive the gospel differently, for example, luke was not an eye witness to the event, but also have to rely on those he reffered to as 'eyewitnesses and servants of the word' in Luke 1:2-3, and still remain inspired word of God

I did not know that the Bible was written in secret codes for those who are schooled to interprete because the authors were unschooled 2500 years ago.

diversionary, who is making case for codes here? you see why it is difficult for you to reason well on poits but rather you divert, or tag another meaning to it, anyway you dont need to agree pls.

Moreover, you don't have to be schooled to tell a consistent story. If two illiterates see someone go to the pinnacle of the temple, they should report the same thing in a consistent fashion.

you are ignorant of how the events were related to them, but then there is no inconsistencies i maintain.

Now if one of them says that the person went to the mountain instead of the pinnacle of the temple, that person would be lying

none of the writers ever denied that jesus went to both the mountain and the pinnacle of the temple, but rather the one lying here is one Omonuan who chose to present a case of 'instead of' whereas both mountain and temple were all contained in both reports of mathew and luke.

you see now that you have tried changed the whole issue in that verse, have an agenda? yes you have an agenda, and thats misleading!

(2 Timothy 3:16) and here you are alleging that God inspired "unschooled" men. I guess you have a different teaching on whether God inspired the authors.

even plain scriptures cannot be understood in its context again by you? what a virus infection!

Illiterates like some okada riders, market women and even beggars in Nigeria witness crimes every day and they tell consistent stories. The biblical authors in my book are supposed to be inspired by God and therefore held to a higher standard.

see yourself, do you know how God inspire them?

Bible itself demands that we ask questions:

Proverbs 14:15
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

Proverbs 26:25
When he speaketh fair, believe him not: for there are seven abominations in his heart.
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

the bible does not say that you remain indecisive all your life, but as a measure to confirm the truth and make a good decision and not sit on the fence
unreasonable dogma.

I am Biblical scholar unlike some that have just been indoctrinated and brainwashed with facts that the pastors want to use to manipulate flocks. You are the lazy one because you allow others to provide you with a salad bar of information in the Bible they want you to buy hook, line and sinker.

it is sad that you are a Biblical scholar, yet you doubt it as Gods word, pls kindly show me a better book of bibles age and i will rest my case, im waiting pls!

Speaking of Paul here is what he said about his teachings:

Paul says:
1 Corinthians 7:25
"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful."

2 Corinthians 11:17
"That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting."

1 Corinthians 7:12
"To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her."

So why did Paul use the phrase “I, not the Lord?” Simply because he was explaining something that had not already been covered by “the Lord” (Jesus) while He was on earth. In this section of scripture Paul provides us with a beautiful example of how important it was for the Apostles to preserve and not to alter the words of Jesus.
in all the bible doesnt contradict itself, but only honest ones will search and embrace the truth in it
but lazy ones dont, note that few will be chosen by God, so it is not by force that the bible appeals to you, ok?

@Bernimoore

Oh well, you spent a long space writing without really saying much regarding the issue. Your diatribe is nothing but gibberish and I can't believe that you tried to justify your calling Biblical writers "unschooled." I asked you to provide evidence and you have none but your own spin of what you want people to swallow in the Bible like the Big fish swallowed Jonah. Saying that the Bible does not have contradictions is simply mendacious. You can charge that I am sitting on the fence for all I care, this won't change what is written. The Bible speaks for itself in simple understandable terms. It is zealots like you that want it shrouded and spun like it is a cipher

I don't know you from Adam and I have no doubt that you may be a good man. If you look at my footprint here on Naira land, I recently started commenting on religious issues after being here for more than three years, Previously, I had just thought that religion is a personal thing and brings out the raw emotions people have.Lately, I have seen that Religious zealots are threatening to turn this world into hell. After watching Adegboloja and his cohort butcher a human being in London in full view of others with religion as the incentive, I decided to be more proactive because as Edmund Burke said evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

And Webber, a Nobel prize physicist stated: without religion good people would do good things and bad people would do bad things. However, it is only religion that would make good men do bad things. And boy was he right, Look at the world and tell me if you like the conflagration that religion has wrought. I must admit that religion has done some good but in recent times we've lost our humanity due mostly to religion.

I will simply leave you by discrediting your assertion that the Bible had no contradictions with few more assertive and clearly obvious contradictions, your long thesis can be summarize as:There is no such thing as contradiction in the bible. Holy spirit is needed to read it if you feel there are contradictions

Arent't there? Really?

How does the Holy Spirit explain these:

1. How many Gods are there?
(GEN 1:26) God said "LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE ACCORDING TO OUR LIKENESS",
(GEN 3:22) God said "MAN HAS BECOME LIKE ONE OF US."
(DEUT 6:4) God is one God

2. When was God first called Jehovah?
(Genesis 4:26) long before Moses, men began to call on the name of the Lord, "Jehovah",
(Genesis 22:14) Abraham named a place Jehovah-jireh. "The Lord will provide."
(Exodus 6:2-3) God informed Moses that previously His name (Jehovah) had been unknown even to the patriarchs such as Abraham Isaac and Jacob

3. When did the Nephilim live?
(Genesis 6:4) The Nephilim (giants) lived on earth prior to the Flood
(Genesis 7:23) Only Noah and his family, and the animals on the Ark, survived the Flood.
(Numbers 13:33) Long after the Flood, the Nephilim (Giants) still lived.

4. Does God repent?
(Genesis 6:6) God does repent.
(Numbers 23:19) God does not repent
(I Samuel 15:11,35) God does repent.

Math quiz: How long was the flood?
(GEN 7:17, 8:6) The flood was on the Earth 40 days and nights
(GEN 7:24, 8:3) The flood was on the Earth 150 days CONTRADICTS
(GEN 7:11) the flood began during the 600th year, 2nd month, 17th day of Noah's life and finally dried up
(GEN 8:13) during the 601st year, 1st month, 1st day of Noah's life (1 solar year from the date given in Gen7:11).

Where was Jacob buried?
(Genesis 50:13) Jacob was buried in Canaan. in a cave which Abraham had purchased from Ephron the Hittite.
(Acts 7:15-16) Jacob was buried in Sychem. in a sepulchre which Abraham had purchased from Emmor.

How does God feel about selling one's daughter?
(EX 21:7) conditions are set up for selling one's daughters.
(Lev 19:29) It is forbidden to sell a daughter

Should we judge others?
(Leviticus 19:15) You must judge your neighbor in righteousness
(Matthew 7:1) Judge not or you will be judged.


Or maybe the Holy Spirit can explain whether or not God tempts people, as the Bible is not so clear

James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
Genesis 22:1
God did tempt Abraham.
2 Samuel 24:1
And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go number Israel and Judah.
Matthew 6:13
And lead us not into temptation.

Also addressing the contradictions of the Judas story

Matthew 27: 5 " And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."

Acts 1: 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."

How about Christ bearing witness to himself?

John 5:31 "If I bear witness to myself my testamony is NOT true."
John 8:14 "..."Even if i do bear witness to myself, my testamony IS true."
Hmmm well IS it or IS IT NOT??
To be or not to be that is the question my friends.

Then how many sons does God have?
Exodus 4:22 called Jacob the First son of God. Psalm 2:7 called David another son of God. Genesis 6:1-2 revealed several other sons of God. Then, which one among them was truly the only begotten son of God?


The Holy Spirit has his work cut out because he has a lot more explanations to do:

a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;

(b) Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign;

(c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:, 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:, 3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);

(d) There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;

(e) There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs of the officers that bare the rule over the people;

(f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;

(g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);

(h) Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);

(i) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);

(j) Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000 (1 Kings 7:26), 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:5) baths;

(k) The workers on the Temple had 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16), 3,600 (2 Chron. 2:18) overseers;

(l) The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth forever;

The truth lasts forever and does not change with time contrary to some zealots.

omonuan:
If you look at my footprint here on Naira land, I recently started commenting on religious issues after being here for more than three years, Previously, I had just thought that religion is a personal thing and brings out the raw emotions people have.[b]Lately, I have seen that Religious zealots are threatening to turn this world into hell. [/b]After watching Adegboloja and his cohort butcher a human being in London in full view of others with religion as the incentive, I decided to be more proactive because as Edmund Burke said evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

You are in for one hell of a ride. I dont need to warn you of the emotions that comes along with religion as you seem well aware of that. However, I must inform you that Nairaland puts religuous zealousness unto a whole new level and I see you have been actively engaged. After a while, I assure you, you will be forced to revert to your earlier stance and leave people to their delusions.

omonuan:
If you look at my footprint here on Naira land, I recently started commenting on religious issues after being here for more than three years, Previously, I had just thought that religion is a personal thing and brings out the raw emotions people have.Lately, I have seen that Religious zealots are threatening to turn this world into hell.
After watching Adegboloja and his cohort butcher a human being in London in full view of others with religion as the incentive, I decided to be more proactive because as Edmund Burke said evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

You are in for one hell of a ride. I dont need to warn you of the emotions that comes along with religion as you seem well aware of that. However, I must inform you that Nairaland puts religuous zealousness unto a whole new level of madness and I see you have been actively engaged. After a while, I assure you, you will be forced to revert to your earlier stance and leave people to their delusions.

dare2think:

You are in for one hell of a ride. I dont need to warn you of the emotions that comes along with religion as you seem well aware of that. However, I must inform you that Nairaland puts religuous zealousness unto a whole new level and I see you have been actively engaged. After a while, I assure you, you will be forced to revert to your earlier stance and leave people to their delusions.

I feel you bro but if I can get one person restrained from adding fuel to the fire of zealotry then my actions would not be in vain. So far, I have been able to show the zealots that they are nothing but delusional with citations from the Bible I might add.

shdemidemi:
The issue here isn't the version or the way the story was delivered by Mathew and Mark, but your understanding. You are limited to what you know at any point in time. If anything in the bible is wrong or contradicts, we have no business believing the whole book. On the contrary, everything written in the bible is written for different reasons. Nothing got in there by mistake or by accident, it was all by providence and inspiration of God. The onus is on us to study by rightly dividing the word of God.

The bolded is the biggest fear of you and other over zealous Christians like Bernimoore. Yep, you said it,"If anything in the bible is wrong or contradicts, we have no business believing the whole book." . I guess you are unto something with that statement but is your fear justified? I don't know but I do know that it is a logical deduction. Because you don't want the whole book to be discredited, you won't accept obvious contradictions. This is the conundrum some of you zealots have and it is an albatross for you all.

The beauty of over zealous Christians is that you never know what dumb things they are going to say next. From Bernimoore calling Biblical authors "unschooled" to you shdemidemi expressing the irrational fear of the fallibility of the Bible. All this just to avoid accepting that the Bible is not really immutable or inerrant after all. Haha, I love you guys!

Since I know this fear, it makes me see ab initio that many of you zealots are incredible as a matter of fact when it comes to the Bible. You pick and choose what you want to believe because of the fear that the whole Bible would be rendered useless if a lie is shown. But I personally would say not so fast pal, the Bible contains a lot of good teachings even if there are unpalatable things in there too.

I will leave you to your convictions. Most of the things you wrote there that I know about are not contradictions but they seem like that due to your lack of understanding.

shdemidemi: I will leave you to your convictions. Most of the things you wrote there that I know about are not contradictions but they seem like that due to your lack of understanding.

Yep, I already knew it, I need Holy Ghost to interpret what is obvious or may be you and Bernimoore to brainwash me. Give me a break! Seriously, are you really saying that I somehow have the power to turn issues that were not originally contradictory into some contradictions in the Bible because of my lack of understanding? I leave that up to readers to decide.

I use to think that you have a grandiose opinion of yourself only. Now you've got me thinking that you also have too high an opinion of me too. This is typical of those who are in religious delirium. They dish out grandiosity as a trophy. First to God, then to prophets and all sorts of characters.

some things you think are contradictory are actually not, they are possible because of God's divine nature, some are due to change of names of people and places amongst others. I understand you must have copied it from some where, seat and check contexts at which words were used, compare with other translations or check the hebrew meanings and all other factors that might make things look contradictory. THE BIBLE DOES NOT CONTRADICT