ill try it later, my internets a bit slow atm

Oh no, it looks like you have gotten me... Not.

Because, you see, these examples you have given have been mistranslated, and apparently that site only likes to post the bare minimum. If you post the whole thing, the situation changes dramatically in most cases.

But also, keep in mind, the king james version of the bible is very, very old. Meanings to some words have changed, and altered, in the process of translation.

The bible is a little flawed, but it doesn't change the central meaning. You have proved nothing.

Side-note:

Actually, bigjon is thinking what I was thinking

This has actually been quite educational for me.

@wessle

Yes, it comes as a suprise to me that you, a self professed person who secretly laughes at religious people, uses his opinion to try and prove some religious people wrong. Well done. Actually, this whole arguement against my faith is opinion based. Huh, sounds like the wanking the faith cock is happening both ways, with your definition. But the same goes my my debunking. Some of it is oipinion based, but when opinion VS opinions, canceling out happens. But fine, go along with your bias. I will not reply to this thread again, unless it is on a different subject. It is no use argueing with somebody who you know you will not change their opinion, as they only make you waste your time. You have already exceeded my limit of wasted time.

/MASSIVELY EPIC DEBUNKING POST

HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!! I feel better now.

EDIT: AHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!This edit is in responce to  the Acts 10:34 accusation!!!!!

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:34;&version=78;

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=78&lang=2

Why is there a Christian section, then separate ones for different sections of Christianity?

I guess you can put my in the Christian section.

apatheist over here (also known as apathetic agnostic)

There is a theological term used call Illumination, it is the working of the holy spirit to show people the truth, you are spiritually dead, blind, to you the bible is nonsense and will always be, unless you allow God to work through you. God gives us a free will, and you have chosen to reject him, the Bible.

I see these arguments you give me, and really I wish it was funny, but it really makes me sad someone could be so blind. The "contridictions" you are finding in the Bible take me about 3 second to point out you are not reading it correctly. You cannot take a verse out of context, immediate or historical. I have taken classes where they have gone through and shredded all of the traditional arguments against the Bible, and usually it is a no brainer, occasion you have to go back to the greek or hebrew to get a firm answer. I have studied the Bible cover to cover, front and back, and even portion in the Ancient languages, and I can tell you this is nothing false or untrue in the Bible. Nothing, people have spent their entire live trying to find problems with the Bible, then they think they found one, only for a few years later the bible to be validated.

i could give tons of example, for 1. Belshazzar (spelling could be off) was said to have never existed becuase Herodidus (spelling?) said the last King of Babylon was Nabudidus, well the Bible says according to Daniel that Belshazzar was, so of course when all the Athiest heard this they went nuts, of course they are gonna believe a single great historion over the Bible right. Well, guess what. That found, I think it was a pillar they told the whole story you see. Belz was the Son of Nabudidus, there was trouble on the eastern front so Nab went to Ninevah, and he placed Belz as the regent of Babylon.. amazing, you would think if someone was making the story up.... they would have used Herodudus right, I might the fact Belz was ruling babylon was such an obscure thing it was forgotten... but somehow the Bible got it right... hmmm...

There are so many stories like this one too.

why, that's not disturbing :P

Christian

Gnostic

Let's look into something called original translation, as well as context. It seems your random copypasta lacks it.

So let's go into this:

Most of your verses concerning God not being a respector of persons occurred in the New Testament. The reason for the dissertations of Paul and Peter (the writers of all quoted NT text) used their context showing that God did not prefer Jews over Greeks. During Jesus' earthly ministry, he focused his works entirely within Palestine, with a few visits to Samaria, but did not do much work there. Because of this, some early converts to Jesus' ministry believed that God still prefered Jews over Greeks. This was certainly not the case, and Paul + Peter were refuting that.

Let's look at the occurances concerning God not respecting people (in context):

Det 10:17 - In this section, read in context with the very next verse shows that God is not partial to a specific socio-economic class, as in V18 God 'executes Judegement for the Fatherless, and widow, and loves the stranger by giving him food and/or clothing'. This is in agreement with the Psalms 138:6 verse which says that he 'gives respect for the lowly'. Chalk this verse up to totally destroying context.

2 Chr. 19:7 - Again an 'anti-respect' of persons. The original Hebraic translation uses the word משּׂא or 'partiality'. The context explains that God does not show partiality, so the Judges should not either. Again, context shows that it's also concerning the taking of bribes to show favoritism - and that it is wrong.

Acts 10:34 - A gentile, Cornelius was converted in this chapter. At that time, many Jewish converts to Christianity thought that gentiles were lower on the totem poll, but with the conversion of Cornelius, Peter realizes that God does not show favoritism. There are plenty of scriptures supporting this view outside of the ones you've given.

Romans 2:11 - Read in context. Paul is explaining to the Jewish converts of Rome that God does not show favoritism with gentiles or Jews.

Galatians 2:6 - Similar to Romans 2:11, Paul is discussing that just because one's self may be (externally) circumsized, that does not make someone a better Christian. The original greek word for person, πρόσωπον can also be translated as 'surface' - which may be more fiting for the contexual argument against circumcision. You could translate it as 'God does not respect someone for what is on their surface. What's on the inside, one's personal relationship is what matters'.

And on and on.

Ultimately, the contexual argument about favoritism is this: God shows favoritism on the righteous, internal qualities of a person. He does not, however, care about race, circumcision, or other external qualities of a person. The Bible shows this clearly. God accepted Able's sacrifice because Able gave what God wanted. Cain sacrificed what was easy.

Read the context of Leviticus 26. In this chapter (as well as the ones preceeding and following it), God is outlining His plan for the codification of rights and wrongs for the Israelites. When God commences the 'do's' of the law, he then outlines the blessings involved in such a belief. Again, the Bible is clear that when someone follows God's will, God favors them. All instances of favoritism and respect by God are always in the context of people following God's commandments and will.

If you have any more conflicting statements, feel free to post them. I am sure there are enough Christians out there that will mention the context or root wording of the 'conflicting' statements. Most of what your posting is totally out of context, and totally useless in an argument.