tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8183229727224995292..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: ORFans and the Theory That (Never) Predicted ThemUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger146125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57689194343327938032010-06-07T06:03:29.418-07:002010-06-07T06:03:29.418-07:00By a fiction of law the money was still considered...<b><br />By a fiction of law the money was still considered to be Judas'...<br /></b><br /><br />Interesting indeed. But irrelevant. It is simply not what the Bible passages say. One says Judas bought the field, the other says the priests bought it. Also, you have not explained the discrepancy between Judas hanging himself in one version and splattering on the ground from a fall in the other.<br /><br /><b><br />The armies were watching from a distance...<br /></b><br /><br />I do wonder which version of the Bible you are using. Because it does sound to have shaved the edges off some of these Biblical contradictions. I am using the King James Version, in which, 1 Samuel 17:51 says David 'took his sword out of the sheath thereof, and slew him.' Blatantly contradicting the preceeding verse and your interpretation.<br /><br /><b><br />You keep on showing me my apparent contradictions and I'd just keep explainaing them...<br /></b><br /><br />But your explanations are all paper thin! No offence, but your attempts to explain away these Biblical contradictions really do not stand up to scrutiny at all. They don't really explain anything, they just cover up the problem, like putting wallpaper over enormous cracks in the walls. They make it easy for you to pretend the problem has gone away, but it hasn't. I am not at all surprised you said you saw no flaws or contradictions of consequence in the Bible - you simply refuse to acknowledge them as such.<br /><br /><b><br />But I wonder what you think about Jesus being in Hell<br /></b><br /><br />Well frankly I think it was said for purposes of dramatic tension. It is just a story, after all. And if Jesus had spent three days (or however long, since he died late afternoon on the Friday and had risen by the Sunday morning, but whatever) in Heaven chilling with his dad and the angels, the resurrection probably would have sounded like a downer (literally) from Jesus' point of view. But to overcome the Great Adversary and defeat Hell itself? That sounds nice and triumphant. A worthy victory for the Son of God, perhaps...?<br /><br /><b><br />Well it's been fun debating you two but it's time to move on.<br /></b><br /><br />As you wish. Odd, I get the feeling many threads don't end so civily. But yes, I'm sure I'll be seeing you around. But consider my invitation to email me privately and continue our conversation there indefinitely open.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27478156992547545912010-06-06T19:39:48.232-07:002010-06-06T19:39:48.232-07:00Fil: "Well it's been fun debating you two...Fil: "Well it's been fun debating you two but it's time to move on. You can keep on showing me apparent contradictions and I'd just keep explaining them."<br /><br />It was fun...and interesting to think you think you've explained the contradictions. But I'm guessing you didn't become a Christian through reason, so it's unlikely you will stop being one through reason either. I would encourage you to read some of the books and articles by Hector Avalos...he knows more about the BIble than any of us here, and has some interesting things to say (particularly about the whole issue of OT atrocities). Good luck!TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50470948281933764572010-06-06T19:27:13.506-07:002010-06-06T19:27:13.506-07:00Some interesting info.
Dr. A. Edersheim pointed o...Some interesting info.<br /><br />Dr. A. Edersheim pointed out: “It was not lawful to take into the Temple-treasury, for the purchase of sacred things, money that had been unlawfully gained. In such cases the Jewish Law provided that the money was to be restored to the donor, and, if he insisted on giving it, that he should be induced to spend it for something for the public weal [well-being]. . . . By a fiction of law the money was still considered to be Judas’, and to have been applied by him in the purchase of the well-known ‘potter’s field.’” (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1906, Vol. II, p. 575)<br /><br />1 Samuel 17:50,51<br />" 50 So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him. <br /><br /> 51 David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword. <br /> When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran.<br /><br />The armies were watching from a distance. The stone from Davids sling definitely killed him. All the armies would see is Goliath falling down. However, when he ran up and took Goliaths sword then cut off his head, that would be pretty conclusive even from a distance. Then the Philistines ran, realizing Goliath was dead.<br /><br />"you do at least seem to have met my ill-worded challenge."<br /><br />Oh well, I mispoke(miswrote?) a few times too. But I wonder what you think about Jesus being in hell, however briefly.<br /><br />Well it's been fun debating you two but it's time to move on. You can keep on showing me apparent contradictions and I'd just keep explaining them. Then you would say I was interpreting it that way. And I'd say yes, but I believe it's the correct interpretation, etc etc etc.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9903854945127395552010-06-06T17:09:21.197-07:002010-06-06T17:09:21.197-07:00(cont)
But if you find these unsatifactory, let m...(cont)<br /><br />But if you find these unsatifactory, let me also supply you with what I think are two even more blatant contradictions in the Bible. Firstly, the circumstances of Judas Iscariot's death? Matthew 27:5-7 says Judas cast his thirty pieces of silver into a temple and went and hanged himself. Whereupon the priests took the silver and bought the potter's field. Whereas Acts 1:18 says Judas himself purchased a field and then went and fell headlong and burst his guts out. Nice. Again, as clear a contradiction as you could hope to find.<br /><br />Secondly, how did David kill Goliath? This is a particularly interesting one since the contradictions appear only a single verse apart. 1 Samuel 17:49-50 says David 'slew' him with a sling and 'there was no sword in the hand of David'. Then in the very next verse it says David then 'took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him'. So David killed Goliath twice? And before you ask, the same word for 'slew - muwth is used in both verses, and it has no meaning other than to kill/slay.<br /><br /><b><br />(On Santa Claus) Yes, of course we can. He is the motivating factor in so many peoples lives. And everyone believes he exists. Ritchie, I know you can do better than that. <br /></b><br /><br />Many children believe in him. You made the point that you apparently find it incredulous that Jesus could have such an influence if he did not really exist. I made this point to demonstrate that other fictional characters also have a great deal of influence. It seems to me my point is indeed valid.<br /><br /><b><br />You said SHOW ME A VERSE in the bible…..will 3 suffice? I’m not even saying this to convince you hellfire doesn’t exist, it shows you were obviously unaware of these scriptures or you would not have said the above. It just shows Ritchie you do not know as much about the Bible as you think you do. Sorry if that sounded harsh. <br /></b><br /><br />I found this frank (of which I apporve) rather than rude (of which I do not) and took no offence. Nevertheless, I will admit I do seem to have boxed myself in, here. I don't think you've made a strong case for your interpretation of damnation, but you do at least seem to have met my ill-worded challenge.<br /><br />But if your point is to discredit me as a Biblical authority, then that is simply a flawed tactic. Do you believe in Hinduism? If not, I could simply claim you do not understand it enough. And I can ALWAYS make that claim, no matter what your level of expertise is. Are my objections invalid until a pass a certain extremely high standard of familiarity with the Bible? Are the contradictions I point out somehow NOT contradictions simply because I am not inerrant on my Biblical criticisms? Surely not? Surely that is a ridiculous position? Though it seems it would serve well as a useful tactic for those trying to defend a subjective and vague document - does someone disagree with your interpretation? No problem. They just don't UNDERSTAND it properly (perhaps evidenced by the fact that they don't agree with you). Surely no-one who understood it PROPERLY could hold any interpretation other than yours...?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83766675063948191632010-06-06T17:08:34.659-07:002010-06-06T17:08:34.659-07:00Fil -
Salvation. I read all the scriptures. The...Fil - <br /><br /><b><br />Salvation. I read all the scriptures. There is no contradiction. Faith follows knowledge. Works follow faith. Both are essential.<br /></b><br /><br />If you'll forgive me, there is a contradiction. You conclude that faith AND good works are both essential. That is simply not what the passages I quoted say. In fact, the one from Titus specifically says salvation is not to be found through good deeds: "<b>Not by works of righteousness</b> which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Ephesians 2:8-9 and Acts 16:30-31 simply back up this claim. What brings us to salvation? Faith in Jesus. This cannot be considered as anything other than a direct contradiction to Matthew 16:27, John 5:29 and Romans 2:6,7 which state that we shall be judged according to our deeds. You are simply trying to reconcile contradictory verses by claiming that they all are correct. But this will not wash since it is not what either groups are saying. <br /><br />And that is ignoring the baptism and predestination options entirely.<br /><br /><b><br />Perfect, absolutely sinless men? Only Adam before he chose to sin and Jesus.<br /></b><br /><br />The Bible says otherwise. Job 1:1 describes Job as 'perfect and upright'. Also Genesis 7:1 calls Noah righteous, and Peter 2:7-8 calls Lot righteous too. Yet Romans 3:10 says clearly: "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." As plain a contradiction as you can find.<br /><br /><b><br />(on Mark 1:2) He actually quotes from Malachi 3:1 AND Isaiah 40:3. Very weak Ritchie.<br /></b><br /><br />You think so? The verse that comes from Isiah (40:3) is Mark 1:3, not Mark 1:2. This may explain the author's confusion and the reason he mixed up his prophets. Again, not a problem if you do not consider the Bible inerrant. If you do, however, then Mark 1:2 is not a quote from Isiah, even though it claims to be. That, then, is a mistake. If he deliberately quoted from two prophets, why does he only mention one?<br /><br />I find your logic regarding Mark 2:26 bizarre too. Which versions use the phrase '<i>in the account about Abiathar the chief priest.</i>'? And why does it refer to him as the chief priest in referring to days when he was not? Isn't that like referring to the First World War as being 'in the days of President Theodore Roosevelt'? The First World War may have occurred in his lifetime, but not in the time when he was President. If you meant the former, surely you would remove the word 'President'?<br /><br />Also, on the issue of copying Biblical manuscripts, Bart Erhman is very eloquent about the problems there. Firstly, when there is a discrepancy between various copies of a verse, we cannot simply look to the most common. Say, for example, one copy says 'Jesus loved him' and another says 'Jesus hated him' (I'm making these up), we cannot simply assume the more common version is the original one. The changed version could well have simply been copied more times. Worse still, (and this is, I feel, the more important point here) copists sometimes 'corrected' books (or did what they considered correcting) as they copied them. So when we are faced with a discrepancy, it is the more difficult passage which is more likely to be the original. It is easy to imagine a scribe changing a problematic verse to make it more palatable, but hard to imagine why they would make a palatable verse problematic. It is easy to imagine someone noticing the error and changing it to say 'in the account about Abiathar' so that it makes sense. But less easy to imagine why it would be changed the other way around. This is speculative, I grant you, but it does follow, and it is apparently standard practice to favour the more difficult verse as more likely to be the original, all other things being equal.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42988467100475903462010-06-06T14:07:10.267-07:002010-06-06T14:07:10.267-07:00Fil: "Salvation. I read all the scriptures. T...Fil: "Salvation. I read all the scriptures. There is no contradiction. Faith follows knowledge."<br /><br />I think you are obviously very sincere, and obviously very intelligent too. You read the scriptures and as best you can you interpret them the best way you can. Another group of people comes along, also equally sincere and equally intelligent and they come to an entirely different conclusion.<br /><br />And again we are not talking about minor inconsistencies here, but differences in major doctrines. You don't believe in hellfire. I don't blame you - who wants to worship a God that condemns people to an eternity of needless suffering? But in the churches I used to attend (all mainstream denominational churches) your views would have been considered quite heretical. Some churches would have had you leave, because your views violated their statement of belief. Others would have at least not let you teach. <br /><br />So you see - there's a problem. Some people read the Bible and invent Seventh Day Adventism, some read it and invent Jehovah Witnesses, some read it and come up with Mormonism. <br /><br />Some Christians believe in the Trinity, some Christians believe that Jesus was half-man, half-god, some fully divine, some fully human. In fact in the first few centuries of Christ, people fought each other these things and some people even died! And remember too your modern ideas of Christianity owe much more to culture than scripture...many early Christians did not believe in the Trinity, and most certainly did not allow women the role that many now enjoy in the church. But on the other hand we are supposed to believe that God and truth are constant. Not so...Christianity blows with the wind, influencing and being influenced by culture as it goes. It's never the same from one era to another. <br /><br />You can blame us, you can blame bad translations, bad copying, bad editing. But in the end whatever you say, you must say that God has seemingly allowed this to happen. He could have quite easily prevented it. He could have given us a book (and it didn't have to be "perfect") with clearly laid out consistent doctrines. As I've said before, the reason why not, is that the Bible is a man-made set of books, and trying to derive watertight doctrine from it is as futile an effort as building doctrine from the American IRS Tax laws. It clearly wasn't designed for that purpose. <br /><br />So I have to admit that when you quote scripture verses to me, my eyes rather glaze over. Unless I can be convinced that the Bible is the authoritative word of God, I don't put much weight into what one verse says over another. I know from experience that for every verse you quote making your case, another believer can just as easily quote another contradicting yours (a good example of this is the issue as to whether believers can or cannot lose their faith - the Bible is hopelessly muddled on this critical issue (as it is of course on many modern ethical and moral issues). <br /><br />So in the end, your argument is basically a circular one. The Bible is the word of God because it says so!<br /><br />As to your other comment about faith following knowledge, I think that's a rarity. Maybe that happened in your case, but I've known literally hundreds of Christians and read many testimonies. It's rare for somebody to intellectually approach the Bible and conclude that this is truly the word of God. I think the more usual process is that somebody comes to Christ through a spiritual crisis, or an emotional need. It's only afterwards do most Christians then really learn about their faith, the history of their religion. It's also at that point too that they embark on post-hoc explanations for the "difficult" bits such as the extreme violence and genocide in the OT (and this is partly why theological explanations for OT genocide make so little sense to outsiders, because they are so obviously post-hoc rationalizations). I'm not saying that was your case, but I think it's common.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5744109851109172672010-06-06T11:06:59.057-07:002010-06-06T11:06:59.057-07:00Lastly. A point you ignored Ritchie.
Ritchie said...Lastly. A point you ignored Ritchie.<br /><br />Ritchie said, “Show me a verse in the Bible where it says people ever LEAVE Hell once the suffering they have inflicted on others has been repaid (or ever) and I will bow down to you. This idea is simply not Biblical. People go to either Heaven or Hell, and they stay there, in everlasting agony or everlasting paradise.”<br /><br />I wrote, “And one of the most important groups of scriptures…<br />Prophecy:<br />Psalm 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.<br />Quoted by Peter:<br />Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.<br />Fulfillment:<br />Acts 2:31,32 31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. “<br /><br />‘will not leave my soul in hell’<br />“his soul was not left in hell”<br /><br />You said SHOW ME A VERSE in the bible…..will 3 suffice? I’m not even saying this to convince you hellfire doesn’t exist, it shows you were obviously unaware of these scriptures or you would not have said the above. It just shows Ritchie you do not know as much about the Bible as you think you do. Sorry if that sounded harsh.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36642745897712637602010-06-06T11:06:29.271-07:002010-06-06T11:06:29.271-07:00Mark 1:2,3 says 2It is written in Isaiah the proph...Mark 1:2,3 says 2It is written in Isaiah the prophet: <br /> "I will send my messenger ahead of you, <br /> who will prepare your way"— <br /> 3"a voice of one calling in the desert, <br /> 'Prepare the way for the Lord, <br /> make straight paths for him.' "<br /><br />He actually quotes from Malachi 3:1 AND Isaiah 40:3. Very weak Ritchie.<br /><br />Next. At Mark 2:26 most translations have Jesus saying that David went into the house of God and ate the showbread “when Abiathar was high priest.” Since Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech, was the high priest when that event took place, such translation would result in a historical error. It is noteworthy that a number of early manuscripts omit the above phrase, and it is not found in the corresponding passages at Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4. However, a similar Greek structure occurs at Mark 12:26 and Luke 20:37, and here many translations use the phrase “in the passage about.” (RS; AT; JB) So, it appears that Mark 2:26 properly allows for the translation given in the New World Translation, which reads: “How he entered into the house of God, in the account about Abiathar the chief priest.” Since the account of the first exploits of Abiathar begins immediately following the record of David’s entering the house of God to eat the showbread, and since Abiathar did later become Israel’s high priest in David’s reign, this translation maintains the historical accuracy of the record.<br /><br />The others are the same and can be reconciled. You will say it’s just my interpretation and that’s your prerogative.<br /><br />“We do not have the original manuscripts for the books of the Bible. Not one. We have early copies, but no way of knowing how far removed they are from the originals (are they direct copies of the originals, or are they copies of copies of copies of copies - and so on - of the originals?) and they are often fragmentary.”<br /><br />That is correct of course. I don’t know why I said originals. That was stupid. <br />However, about 6,000 handwritten Hebrew manuscripts attest to the contents of the Hebrew Scriptures. A few of these date back to the pre-Christian era. At least 19 extant manuscripts of the complete Hebrew Scriptures date to the period before the invention of printing from movable type. In addition, from that same period, there exist translations that were made into 28 other languages.<br /> For the Christian Greek Scriptures, about 5,000 manuscripts in Greek have been cataloged. One of these has been dated as before 125 C.E., thus just a few years after the time of original writing. And some fragments are thought to date considerably earlier. For 22 of the 27 inspired books, there are from 10 to 19 complete uncial manuscripts. The smallest number of complete uncial manuscripts for any of the books in this part of the Bible is three—for Revelation. One manuscript of the complete Christian Greek Scriptures dates back to the fourth century C.E.<br /> No other ancient literature is confirmed by such a flood of ancient documentary evidence.<br /><br />“Perhaps we could say the same about Santa Claus?”<br /><br />Yes, of course we can. He is the motivating factor in so many peoples lives. And everyone believes he exists. Ritchie, I know you can do better than that.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1618241899505618622010-06-06T11:05:22.208-07:002010-06-06T11:05:22.208-07:00Janfeld:
“That's a rather subjective saying a...Janfeld:<br /><br />“That's a rather subjective saying and not exactly much of a rebuttal”<br /><br />It wasn’t a rebuttal, just an interesting quote I read once. The author is unknown so it’s not even attributed to any important historical figure.<br /><br />“Do you think Buddha and Muhammed lived too?”<br /><br />Of course I do. Jesus too.<br /><br />“Muslims don't think Jesus is all that special either”<br /><br />Actually muslims view Jesus as a prophet, just not the Son of God. That’s still special.<br /><br />“Ghandi's insights and quotes, IMHO, are as profound (if not more so) than Jesus's.<br /><br />Did Ghandi think his teachings were more profound than Jesus’? Funny that he would say that about the Sermon on the Mount then.<br /><br />“why should I believe your faith over any other?”<br /><br />I don’t expect you to. Just telling you what I believe.<br /><br />“But I suspect you're not really interested in evidence all that much”<br /><br />Now you are moving away from being polite into personal attacks.<br /><br />“The question is do you value faith over knowledge and truth.”<br /><br />Those are not mutually exclusive.<br /><br />“All that really means is that they are subjectively interpreting the book - just as you are.”<br /><br />Like I said, I’m ok with that. Some people still think smoking is ok for your health and junk food is fine. I’m not on a campaign to save the world. I hold my beliefs based on what I read. So do they. <br /><br />“But we do not get to decide what is true.”<br /><br />I agree with that. Me believing in God or not has no bearing on whether he actually exists. If he doesn’t my belief won’t make it so. Either there is a hellfire or there isn’t. Either we have an immortal soul or we don’t. That doesn’t mean I believe in something to MAKE it true. I belief it because I think it’s true.<br /><br />Salvation. I read all the scriptures. There is no contradiction. Faith follows knowledge. Works follow faith. Both are essential. Works do not save. And if someone sits on their butt all day saying they have faith but never show it then where is their faith? It’s like a man telling his wife he loves her but never showing it. In fact, despite anything we do we can not earn eternal life. We can’t pay for it with anything. Really, how much dollar-wise would 1000 years be worth to you? That’s why it’s Gods gift. Those who believe, and prove their belief with actions will gain Gods favor and he will gift them with it. No contradiction.<br /><br />Perfect, absolutely sinless men? Only Adam before he chose to sin and Jesus. But there are blameless, righteous and holy people mentioned. You don’t need to be literally perfect. For example, I put you next to Hitler and I’m sure I would call you perfect! You may have flaws but are so far better than him morally that saying that would be reasonable. Those men you mentioned we so far above their contemporaries in morality and obedience to God that they were described that way.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77897651336848584362010-06-06T02:21:53.115-07:002010-06-06T02:21:53.115-07:00(cont)
When you look at original bible manuscrip...(cont)<br /><br /><b><br />When you look at original bible manuscripts the variations are GENERALLY minor and non-doctrinal<br /></b><br /><br />We do not have the original manuscripts for the books of the Bible. Not one. We have early copies, but no way of knowing how far removed they are from the originals (are they direct copies of the originals, or are they copies of copies of copies of copies - and so on - of the originals?) and they are often fragmentary.<br /><br /><b><br />"All the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully."<br /><br />How astonishing for a man who never lived. <br /></b><br /><br />Perhaps we could say the same about Santa Claus? There is a mythical figure who has inspired and been a figure of magic and fascination to billions of children worldwide. That doesn't mean he is real.<br /><br />As evidence that Jesus existed, it seems flimsy to say the least. No-one is arguing that the Christianity has not had a massive affect on humanity. But that does not make the stories on which it is based more likely to be true. Jesus really lived or he didn't. The fact is not altered by the number of people who believe it/find his story inspiring. The question of his actual existence can only be sensibly addressed by studying the evidence for it, which is unaccountably and bizarrely rare, and wafter-thin at best.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74250261202983087852010-06-06T02:21:18.788-07:002010-06-06T02:21:18.788-07:00Fil -
Crikey, that's a lot of quotes. But yo...Fil - <br /><br />Crikey, that's a lot of quotes. But you're still not really addressing the issue of interpretation in general. All you are doing is backing up the particular interpretation you have arbitrarily chosen to believe - a feat which practically anyone could do. Every denomination of Christianity from the Catholics to the Protestants to the Baptists to the Pentecostals to the Seventh Day Advantists to the Mornons to the Quakers to the Jehovah's Witnesses to the Methodists, etc, all have a slightly different slant on the Bible and they all can back up their interpretations with a selection of Bible quotes. All that really means is that they are subjectively interpreting the book - just as you are.<br /><br /><b><br />I know I am in the minority in this. Many who call themselves Christians would continue to believe in hellfire despite this proof. I’m ok with that. We all decide what to believe. This is one confirmation for me though that the bible is not contradictory or written by mere superstitious men as you claim. <br /></b><br /><br />We may get to decide what we believe. But we do not get to decide what is true. When you are discussing matters of fact, you are either right or wrong (okay, there is a LITTLE grey area, but my point is the truth is not a matter of personal belief).<br /><br />As for evidence that the Bible is contradictory, there is more than I can shake a stick at. Again with the issue of salvation:<br /><br />Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5 and Acts 16:30-31 say faith alone is enough. John 3:5 seems to say baptism too is necessary. 2 Corinthians 5:10, Matthew 16:27, John 5:29 and Romans 2:6,7 say salvation is earned through good deeds, whilst Romans 9:14-24 seems to say salvation is simply predestined.<br /><br />Others contentious questions include - have there ever been any perfectly, sinless people? Common Christian thought says no, backed up by such verses as Romans 3:10, Romans 3:23, Ecclesiastes 7:20, and Psalms 14:3. But Job 1:1, Genesis 7:1 and Peter 2:7-8 describe Job, Noah and Lot as being just that. What will happen to the Jews on Judgement Day? Matthew 8:12 says they will be damned, whilst Romans 11:26 says they will be saved. Does God's anger last forever? Jeremiah 3:12 says no whilst Jeremiah 17:4 says yes. The contrast is all the more marked for appearing in the same book!<br /><br />There are even passages where the Bible gets the Bible wrong. Mark 1:2 quotes a passage and attributes it to the book of Isiah. But the passage is not found in Isiah. An extremely similar passage is found in the book of Malachi (Malachi 3:1), inferring that the author of Mark simply mixed up his prophets. Also, Mark 2:26, quotes Jesus as asserting David broke the Sabbath traditions by eating shewbread in the days of Abiathar the high priest. But, according to 1 Samuel 21:1-6, it was Abiathar's father, Ahimelech, who was high priest at the time. Whose mistake is this? Jesus'? Matthew also messes up in 27:9, when he cites a verse he claims comes from Jeremiah. But it actually comes from Zachariah (11:13).<br /><br />Again, this is just a small sample. The contradictions in the Bible are legion. It is unclear and inconsistent - or sometimes even silent - on what would appear to be vital matters of salvation, and in other places cannot even quote itself correctly. Again, this is understandable if the Bible is the flawed product of fallible humans, but not if it is the inerrant and perfect work of God.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36965010503864143382010-06-05T21:24:26.735-07:002010-06-05T21:24:26.735-07:00il: ""All the armies that ever marched, ...il: ""All the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully."<br /><br />That's a rather subjective saying and not exactly much of a rebuttal, albeit a poetic and pretty quote, but it is of course purely subjective. And of course it has absolutely no meaning to two-thirds of the people on the planet today (unless of course you are talking about Buddha, or Muhammed perhaps). But Muhammed has also affected the lives of billions of people and so has Buddha (and many say that the philosophy of Buddhism is deeper and more life-changing than Christianity, and I think there is something to that). Do you think Buddha and Muhammed lived too? Do you not think they have had a profound impact on peoples lives. You may not agree with the impact, but then Muslims don't think Jesus is all that special either (so much for Jesus's profound teaching here). But you either think they are false prophets or did not live. The truth is several billion of the world have got it wrong, why should I believe your faith over any other? <br /><br />As CH likes to say, in the end we have to follow the evidence. Sadly, for you, the evidence is just not that good. But I suspect you're not really interested in evidence all that much - if you're like my Christian friends, you like being a believer. You like thinking you are especially chosen in the Universe, that you have been singled out for a purpose. It makes you feel like you are here for a reason - and you're going to do your best to keep that illusion alive. The question is do you value faith over knowledge and truth<br /><br />Of course we could also argue that Christianity and the church has also brought profound misery to the world too, but of course Christianity is not alone among religions in that aspect.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58885062648345414602010-06-05T21:17:26.361-07:002010-06-05T21:17:26.361-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21348911835542889732010-06-05T20:22:16.790-07:002010-06-05T20:22:16.790-07:00I respectfully disagree. I will address some of wh...I respectfully disagree. I will address some of what you said tommorrow but my wife is complaning im not in bed yet lol. One quote from an unknown writer to leave you with, speaking about Jesus.<br /><br />"All the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully."<br /><br />How astonishing for a man who never lived.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32838838909367542562010-06-05T20:14:26.284-07:002010-06-05T20:14:26.284-07:00Fil: "Nope, that's due to the translation...Fil: "Nope, that's due to the translation. But really is there any value in yes,no,yes,no?"<br /><br />So basically you're telling me that Almighty God, who created the entire Universe, the Earth and all that we see - could not engineer it so that an accurate and true copy of His word could be passed down to us? So instead...Christians and others spend countless hours bickering and arguing over what God's word means? Is God really that powerless and inept? Again, if this was Communications 101, I would give God a Big Fat "F". Or perhaps He enjoys all of his people squabbling over His word - disagreeing, splintering, forming new churches because they disagree on some arcane piece of theology that God could have straightened out in a nano-second. The Bible looks 100% man-made to me - can you even consider the possibility that it really just might be that?TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28527111855712804112010-06-05T20:10:46.648-07:002010-06-05T20:10:46.648-07:00Fil: "What happened?"
I read the Bible ...Fil: "What happened?"<br /><br />I read the Bible with an open mind as if for the first time. I studied the origins of the Bible (e.g., who wrote it - and guess what, we don't even know most of the time). I studied how it was put together (the formation of the canon - a most decidedly unholy event driven by power and politics). I studied the early Church (their Christianity would probably be heretical today - because Christianity is ALWAYS reinventing itself). I studied the historical contemporary evidence for Jesus (there is none). I honestly reviewed whether Christianity truly change peoples lives other than what can be expected by any belief system (it does no better than other religions - and the honest truth is many Christians are pretty miserable creatures if they are really honest). I looked at prayer - and nothing fails like prayer! I realized science contradicts the Bible. I realized that much of the OT is really myth and has no basis in history. I realized that the BIble has copied myths and legends from other sources. I could go on...etc.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71094700089708549892010-06-05T20:06:32.231-07:002010-06-05T20:06:32.231-07:00"Except for: hellfire, how to be saved, the n..."Except for: hellfire, how to be saved, the nature of heaven and hell, the role of women in the church, celibacy, whether a person can lose their salvation, what happens to people who are not saved, what happens to people who were born before Christ. Sure...yes, all the differences and unanswered questions are really quite minor.. "<br /><br />Nope, that's due to the translation. But really is there any value in yes,no,yes,no?<br /><br />I'm sure we'd both agree there isn't.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46768125252294494502010-06-05T20:05:20.807-07:002010-06-05T20:05:20.807-07:00"Instead of the "glorious church" g..."Instead of the "glorious church" going forth into the world preaching the gospel."<br /><br />Actually I do this more than I argue over the Bible. This is my first time online in this kind of forum/debate.<br /><br />"(actually it's not, it happened to me and was the very thing that enabled to truly start living!)"<br /><br />What happened? If it's private and you don;t want to mention it here or to a stranger no worries, I'd understand.<br /><br />"You cannot contemplate what to those of us "outside" of your faith, that your holy book is simply a rather random collection of man-made, inconsistent, and contradictory writings."<br /><br />I know of many who were 'outside' our faith and now accept the bible. It works both ways. As for me I didn't take it seriously until I was 19.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13750337905298803152010-06-05T20:04:17.760-07:002010-06-05T20:04:17.760-07:00Fil: "When you look at original bible manuscr...Fil: "When you look at original bible manuscripts the variations are GENERALLY minor and non-doctrinal"<br /><br />Except for: hellfire, how to be saved, the nature of heaven and hell, the role of women in the church, celibacy, whether a person can lose their salvation, what happens to people who are not saved, what happens to people who were born before Christ. Sure...yes, all the differences and unanswered questions are really quite minor..TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57903042744542841792010-06-05T20:02:24.177-07:002010-06-05T20:02:24.177-07:00Fil: "Ghandi's quotes are interesting and...Fil: "Ghandi's quotes are interesting and he wasn't a Christian."<br /><br />Yes, and more than interesting. Ghandi's insights and quotes, IMHO, are as profound (if not more so) than Jesus's. Same with Buddha and any number of spiritual techers. Jesus most certainly did not have the monopoly on spirituality, and some would say his teachings are quite shallow compared to many religious disciplines. I would agree.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2151860540357298822010-06-05T20:00:36.491-07:002010-06-05T20:00:36.491-07:00Replace the sentence above with " When you lo...Replace the sentence above with " When you look at original bible manuscripts the variations are GENERALLY minor and non-doctrinal"<br /><br />There are some manuscripts that showed changes but these have been shown to be changed after the fact or have had things added in.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1070878057178187832010-06-05T20:00:16.379-07:002010-06-05T20:00:16.379-07:00Fil: "I believe the fault is our own, not his...Fil: "I believe the fault is our own, not his. When you look at original bible manuscripts the variations are minor and non-doctrinal. When you look at the way people have translated them you can get all sorts of ideas. We humans are experts at miscommunication sadly.... just ask my wife sometimes lol."<br /><br />Of course you believe this. You cannot contemplate what to those of us "outside" of your faith, that your holy book is simply a rather random collection of man-made, inconsistent, and contradictory writings. You will do anything, believe anything to preserve your faith - because, yikes, losing your faith is probably the worse thing that could happen to you! (actually it's not, it happened to me and was the very thing that enabled to truly start living!). <br /><br />But seriously when it comes to heaven and hell, live and death, don't you think God has at least some responsibility to reliably communicate these things to us? Can't you see what a bloody mess He's made of it. Instead of the "glorious church" going forth into the world preaching the gospel, you spend most of your time arguing over what the Bible means; if you were really, really honest with yourself, you'd admit that it really doesn't make much sense. Take a step back, pretend you're not a Christian for a moment, and approach your holy book for the first time (pretend it's a Hindu or a Muslim book) - you're going to have a very different perspective which might shock the heck out of you...TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77935723209842929162010-06-05T19:55:08.146-07:002010-06-05T19:55:08.146-07:00Also, would you say the majority of Christians liv...Also, would you say the majority of Christians live as Christ did and follow what he taught?<br /><br />Ghandi's quotes are interesting and he wasn't a Christian.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71461896805036531122010-06-05T19:52:42.939-07:002010-06-05T19:52:42.939-07:00"your God is basically a God of Miscommunicat..."your God is basically a God of Miscommunication"<br /><br />I believe the fault is our own, not his. When you look at original bible manuscripts the variations are minor and non-doctrinal. When you look at the way people have translated them you can get all sorts of ideas. We humans are experts at miscommunication sadly.... just ask my wife sometimes lol.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46591904842609178342010-06-05T19:42:12.703-07:002010-06-05T19:42:12.703-07:00Fil: "I know I am in the minority in this. Ma...Fil: "I know I am in the minority in this. Many who call themselves Christians would continue to believe in hellfire despite this proof. I’m ok with that. We all decide what to believe. This is one confirmation for me though that the bible is not contradictory or written by mere superstitious men as you claim."<br /><br />I don't think I would say it is a "proof" Fil. You've missed the point that other Christians (and again, the MAJORITY of Christians) interpret the scriptures differently from you and can make just as plausible case for their view point as yours. You haven't addressed this - your God is basically a God of Miscommunication and you don't seem to see this. <br /><br />If two people can interpret the scripture in two very different ways and are both very sincere and honest about it, what does that tell you?<br /><br />Of course if we were discussing the Koran you would get this immediately!TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.com