1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 20:
Line 20: + + + +
Counterexamples to the Bible (view source)
Revision as of 19:52, August 14, 2010
, 19:52, August 14, 2010I am trying to add more discrepancies to the Counterexamples to the Bible page in order to watch those liberals squirm in their liberal obfuscation.
::''Disproof'': There is no inconsistency.<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/lp/oddgenes.html Does Genesis 30:9 teach "magical genetics"?] from [[Tektonics]]</ref>
::''Disproof'': There is no inconsistency.<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/lp/oddgenes.html Does Genesis 30:9 teach "magical genetics"?] from [[Tektonics]]</ref>
(add to list)
(add to list)
*that there are extreme inconsistencies in the lineage of Jesus, as given by the Apostles Matthew and Luke in their respective gospels. Also, the prophecy that
Jesus would be descended from David was unfulfilled because of his so-called virgin birth. Lineages could only be traced through male parents in ancient Judea and Jesus did not
have one.
*that we have a non-existant prophecy in verse 23 (as seen above). Of course, Isaiah was speaking of events of his time, not of the future, as evidenced in Isaiah 9:6 with the use of, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given…” Not withstanding, the verse presented is transcribed incorrectly anayway. It was translated from the Greek text, and there the word “parthenos” is used, which does mean a virgin. However, the word in the original Hebrew, from which the Greek was taken, did not mean “virgin.” The word there is “almah,” which means simply a young woman. In the later Greek translation, the error was corrected, the proper Greek equivalent “neanis” being substituted. But it suited the purpose of the Church to leave in its “virgin” Greek, and so it has come down to us.
== See also ==
== See also ==