Re: 09-09-09
 

You are accusing me of purposely being dishonest in this? You claim I KNOW there is a contradiction, and am playing with words and ignoring postings in order to circumvent that? Call me a liar, but I have not dealt with your words in the manner you describe. I did not ACT confused. If you listed these things earlier I did not read them. So I asked you to show me. I did not pretend to be confused either.

Matt 28 says, and you quote....

Nothing says the women witnessed the rolling of the stone. It simply says the earth quaked while the women were on their way. It does not say they saw it roll away. This took place before the women arrived. Where do we read they arrived?

In Matt 28:2 we read THERE WAS a great earthquake. It recounts the events that occured in order to set the stage for what the women saw as recorded in the Luke 24.

You call THAT a contradiction? You claim Matt 28 says the women SAW the stone rolled away? That is as ridiculous as saying the law about a girl claiming rape who did not cry is abusive of women with no regard for the obvious difference of judgment regarding a proved rape when a girl did cry out. It is LOOKING for fault in the bible.

It is one thing to have black and white and hispanic churches, but another thing for each of those churches to look down on the idea of one of the other ethnic backgrounds attending and being member in its congregation.

But if you disagree, then until there are no bin Ladins amongst Islam, then Islam has wicked murderers in its religion.

I do not consider a racist to be apostolic. Yes, they can have congregations based on ethnicity without being racist. But if they are racist, then they are not apostolic, so they are not amongst my circle.

[quote]Still hedging. Your Koran states that true Christians are not to be disregarded. How are you to obey this koranic ruling if you cannot tell which Christians are true?

Re: 09-09-09
 

Your answer

Re: 09-09-09
 

Not at all.

You are saying Paul's teachings are questionable on this Christian forum?

2 Samuel 24:1 KJV And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

1 Chronicles 21:1 KJV And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Everything that occurs is permitted by God. Isaiah 10 shows us that Assyria's attack against Jerusalem was God's attack on them. We read where God asked spirits what to do to Ahab, and a spirit "on the left" said it'd be a false prophesying spirit, and God gave the okay. So, what did it? God or the evil spirit? 1 Ki 22:22.

No contradiction.

2 Samuel 24:9 KJV And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

1 Chronicles 21:5 KJV And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.

Adam Clarke noted:

[Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king.] The amount here stated, compared with <1 Chr. 21:5>, gives a difference of 300,000. The discrepancy is only apparent, and admits of an easy reconciliation; thus (see <1 Chr. 27>) there were twelve divisions of generals, who commanded monthly, and whose duty was to keep guard on the royal person, each having a body of troops consisting of 24,000 men, which together formed an army of 288,000; and as a separate detachment of 12,000 was attendant on the twelve princes of the twelve tribes mentioned in the same chapter, so both are equal to 300,000. These were not reckoned in this book, because they were in the actual service of the king as a regular militia. But <1 Chr. 21:5> joins them to the rest, saying, `all those of Israel were 1,100,000;' whereas the author of Samuel, who reckons only the 800,000, does not say, `all those of Israel, ' but barely, `and Israel were, ' etc. It must also be observed that, exclusive of the troops before mentioned, there was an army of observation the frontiers of the Philistines' country, composed of 30,000 men, as appears by <2 Sam. 6:1>; which, it seems, were included the number of 500,000 of the people of Judah by the author of Samuel: but the author of Chronicles, who mentions only 470,000, gives the number of that tribe exclusive of those 30,000 men, because they were not all of the tribe of Judah, and therefore does not say, `all those of Judah, ' as he had said, `all those of Israel, ' but only, "and those of Judah." Thus, both accounts may be reconciled (Davidson)

Seems you use the same info as provided by an anti-bible website that is Islamic: http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/dawah/0009.htm

Anyway, John Gill reminds us:

there had been three years of famine already on account of the sin of Saul, 2Sa_21:1; and in the current year, through the rains not falling in the proper time, the land was barren and unfruitful; or through the penury of the preceding years the famine would be continued at least until the harvest; and then three years more now proposed made seven years;

Many times slight differences in copying the manuscripts occurred:

it seems best to acknowledge a mistake of the copier, which might easily be made through a similarity of the numeral letters, מב, forty two, for כב, twenty two

Notice the similarity of numbers in Hebrew.

Often in Israel's history a mother took actual rule when a child was pronounced king when very young, until he came to age to do so, himself. I believe one account shows one and the other the other. This is why his mother's name is mentioned in 2 King 24:8.

JOHN GILL:

...there were two battles, in which this officer was engaged; at one of them he slew eight hundred, and at the other three hundred; for so what is omitted in the books of Samuel, and of the Kings, is frequently supplied in the books of Chronicles, as what one evangelist in the New Testament omits, another records.

Howso?

2 Samuel 5:17 KJV But when the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israel, all the Philistines came up to seek David; and David heard of it, and went down to the hold.


??????? How so?

Re 2 Sam 8:4, JOHN GILL said:

here the chief officers are meant, there all the chariots and horsemen that were under their command are mentioned, which together made up that large number; or else here are meant the ranks and companies of horse David took, which were seven hundred; and these having ten in a company or rank, made seven thousand; and there the complement of soldiers in those companies and ranks are intended:

continued...

Re: 09-09-09
 

These are ridiculous examples. There are so many reasons why there is no contradiction. Here the writer numbers the "stalls", which were forty thousand, and there the "stables", which were four thousand, there being ten stalls in each. The word there has the letter "yod" in it more than here, which is the numerical letter for "ten", and may point thereunto; or here the writer speaks of all the stalls for horses Solomon had throughout the kingdom, there of those only he had in Jerusalem.

The same goes with the rest of your copied and pasted examples that involve so many of the examples of variance in numbers.

Maachah must have been, not his daughter, but his grand-daughter. Her father was Uriel of Gibeah whom, therefore, Tamar married. Maachah took her name from her great-grandmother 2 Sam 3:3.

Daughters and grandaughters were both considered daughters in Hebrew culture.

The KING was conquered in Josh 10 in war where four other kings were conquered.

Jewish culture also noted Mary's lineage in Luke 3 to be that of Joseph's, her husband.

Jesus descended from Solomon in Matthew 1 and from Nathan in Luke 3

ADAM CLARKE:

As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, bishop Pearce has fully shown, νομιζεσθαι bears, in a variety of places - Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli. The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob, Mat_1:16; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias: 1Ch_3:17, and Mat_1:12. This remark alone is sufficient to remove every difficulty.

I can deal with each and every allegation you make if you really wish. But time is not allowing this for now.

However, let me spare time and deal with your "best".

[quote]
Exodus 7:20-22 KJV And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood. (21) And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river; and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt. (22) And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.

This is answered the easiest!

Exodus 7:24 KJV And all the Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river.

So much for your best. ;)

:thumbsup.

Re: 09-09-09
 

Yeah, but it wasn't much of a departure, IMO. You mentioned something that makes a self-proclaimed Apostolic a non-Apostolic. Just wondered if there were others. You answered that there were: "everything the bible says is wrong". Guess I should have left it there? Shouldn't have asked if "sin" is what you meant? Don't want to go there, for some reason? Okie dokie. :thumbsup

Re: 09-09-09
 

You have a keen way of twisting someone's intentions. As if I do not want to go there. No, it is rather the list would be too long to show what disqualifies one from being apostolic. It's not that I do not want to go there. Please..... lol

Re: 09-09-09
 

I never asked for a list.

I asked if you meant "sin" is what disqualifies one from being Apostolic.

Re: 09-09-09
 

You can make fun all you want. Most of the explanations are reasonable and I guess understand the numbers and confusion in translation and possibly the way the lineages were recorded- any comment on the gospels or accounts of the conversion of Paul?

Noticed earlier your challenge to me on the teachings of Paul. My answer to you is that I have seen no church ever practice all of the teachings of Paul. Do you or your church practice ALL of Paul's teachings then? If so, I have a couple that I would like to ask about.

Re: 09-09-09
 

Sin disqualifies one from being apostolic if that sin is intentionally done with no desire to repent, and one does not repent, in hopes of abusing God's grace without regard of God's displeasure.

Re: 09-09-09
 

I already explained my thoughts on the gospel accounts. Each provided details the other did not provide in order for us to put all the details together and realize they are not contradictions but they fill in the gaps the other accounts never gave.

I have to see what you said about Paul's conversion to answer you.

You are veering from the issue. Do you or do you not agree with all Paul taught? We can discuss more later if you wish. First things first.

You avoid direct answers to my questions, while you ask me many direct questions I am answering. So, was the Koran right in saying anyone who differs with you on the deity of Jesus should be accursed?