Contradictions in the Bible?

[ahinton]

Especially some religious debate ones from the pre pianistimo era. 

Was there such an era? That's useful to know...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

dear ramseytheii,

mark 15:25 is when the actual crucifixion took place.  john 19: 14 - they were simply telling the crowd that Jesus deserved to be crucified.  it is only until verse 18 - after Jesus was made to carry his cross a long distance (until simone of cyrene took it) that took THREE HOURS!  why would it take that long?  he had been beaten viciously.  so much that chunks of his flesh were gone.

john 19:13 'when pilate heard these words (you would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above...'), he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgement seat at a place called The Pavement,but in Hebrew Gabbatha.'
verse 16 tells about delivering Him to be crucified - and finally - about Jesus carrying his cross in verse 17 to the place called the 'place of the skull' or in hebrew  golgotha.  now i don't know how far that was - but if Jesus was already beaten - it probably would have been a torturous journey to be taunted for several hours carrying a cross- and then also the time it took to nail him to the stake or cross.

and yet, after all that pain - Jesus was not bitter or angry and still had in mind redemption of the entire world.  the thief on the cross - for believing - was told that 'this day (your day of death - and sudden ressurrection at the second coming) you will be with me in paradise.'  what i understand that to mean is that when we are dead - we are unconcious.  it is like 'sleep.'  many times the bible refers to this close proximity to God as a sort of sleep - and only He can rouse us for brief periods of time if He wants.  God is so powerful that He holds all our souls/spirits whether we are buried in the body or out of the body (cremated).  ezekiel makes it plain that the 'valley of dry bones' is a literal occurance that will happen at the second coming.  that literally - people will be ressurrected (and if they did not follow Christ during their lifetime) to their own bodies again.  it even talks about sinews and flesh added to this bone.  that is because JEsus Christ is coming back as KING of the earth.  the saints - already ressurrected at his coming and changed - will also, imo, be able to translate themselves from spirit to flesh to spirit (as Jesus did after his ressurrection).  that is why He promised 'it does not appear what we shall be...but (after the ressurrection) we shall be like Him.'

what will all these people from ezekiel 37 be doing on the earth?  if there is a king - there has to be a kingdom.  the saints are promised 'cities.'  cities of what?  just houses?  no - a kingdom of God!  a literal government based on the perfection of God's ways.

also, in terms of what happens after death - read revelations.  it says 'the second death shall have no power over them...'  over the saints.  why?  because the second death is dying a second time (after being judged).  how will they die?  lake of fire.  it is said that there is no crossover then - as mentioned by the parable in matthew of lazarus and the rich man.

[pianistimo]

we know the geneologies are consistent because they both mention zerubbabel  - and yet joseph was not God.  Jesus - if not born of flesh (spiritually conceived) - had no ancestry.  this was only proving that he was 'heir to the promise' not only physically but spiritually by God.  zerubbabel and abraham are the two important peoples in this geneology (even if a few people are skipped in luke - they are consistent the farther back you take it).  he is traced back to David and Issac - but in luke he is traced all the way back to the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of adam, the SON OF GOD.  that is an encouragement that all of us are made in HIS image - that we have the same hope of ressurrection.  that He is the 'firstborn of many brethren.'

[pianistimo]

zech. 4:6 'this is the word of the Lord to zerubbabel saying 'not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts.  WHat are you, O great mountain?  before Zerubbabel you will become a plain; and he will bring forth the top stone with shouts of 'grace, grace to it!  the hands of zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house, and HIS HANDS WILL FINISH IT.  then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you.'

zerubbabel helped to build the temple after the first destruction.  but, Jesus Christ is the melchisedek that is the high priest to build a spiritual temple.  hebrews 7:14 'for it is evident that our Lord was descended from judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests...for it is witnessed of Him *Jesus Christ 'Thou art a priest forever according to the order of melchizedek...'  so we see that in TRUE spiritual genology - he has no beginning nor end!  heb 7:3 'without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he abides a priest perpetually....'  Christ is the same one Abraham made tithes to inthe OT.

[prometheus]

The geneologies from Lord of the Rings are also consistent.

[prometheus]

Joseph didn't have sex with Maria. She was a virig. So Josheph wasn't the father. So he is not related to King David and Abraham.

So he can't be the messiah.

Just look at Jesuses last words and see how there are 3 versions in four different accounts.

[pianistimo]

God didn't want to shame mary - so He allowed her to be married to joseph.  people assumed - until Jesus Christ was ressurrected - that he was the son of Joseph.  now, we see - that actually he was the son of God.  so,the geneology is for people who wanted to know the line of PROMISE.  the kings of the bible were through the davidic line (and promise thru abraham earlier) and so it continues down to this day.  the queen of england is descended from the line of David.  the 'stone of destiny' is the same stone that was placed under the throne - although now moved back to scotland?  - and the same stone that jacob called his 'pillar stone' - the one he had the dream that his descendants would fill the earth and be 'blessed.'

also, if you read about jeremiah and baruch - they took a descendent of the line of judah (kingly line) - to ireland (500 bc?) and she married an irish king.  i think her name was tea-tephi.  anyways - if you believe the lore - which i think is truth - the line of David is still here.  why else all the symbols of judah. the lion, for instance.  also, there are symbolisms in the british crown.  the twelve stones - for twelve tribes.  not all the tribes were judah.  they were also israel as a whole.  mannasah and ephraim could well be literal peoples that emigrated to many parts of the world.  after all - the jews are the only part of israel left in the nation of israel - whereas before - there were 12 tribes.

[pianistimo]

so as not to get more confusing - i don't think we're after physical geneology.  after all, if gentiles are 'grafted in' - it's more important who is written in the 'book of life.'  they will not just live on genetically - but spiritually.

[pianowolfi]

dear ramseytheii,

mark 15:25 is when the actual crucifixion took place.  john 19: 14 - they were simply telling the crowd that Jesus deserved to be crucified.  it is only until verse 18 - after Jesus was made to carry his cross a long distance (until simone of cyrene took it) that took THREE HOURS!  why would it take that long?  he had been beaten viciously.  so much that chunks of his flesh were gone.

I think you are right at this point.

[pianistimo]

john 19:14 could best be placed after john 19:21-22 - 'and so the chief priests of the jews were saying to pilate, 'do not write, 'the king of the jews'; but write 'i am king of the jews.'  pilate answered, 'what i have written i have written.'

then in verse 23-24 -lots are cast (obviously in light)

and verse 14 'now it was the day of preparation for the passover; it was about the sixth hour.  and he said to the jews (after Christ had no clothes on) 'Behold, your King!'  what gives the context of this passage away is 'the sixth hour.'

suddenly the entire land was dark (at the sixth hour) according to the entire account in mark.  that would be noon.  and continued to be dark until Christ died. 

[timothy42b]

pianistimo,
you are too certain of your position.  Some of these contradictions really are impossible, and more modern Christians understand why, and their faith is not threatened.  Instead they are left with a greater responsibility to understand the will of God, knowing that inspiration is just as available to us as to the writers of the scriptures. 

Let me give you an example.  When is the last time you drank poison or were bitten by a snake?  Mark says very clearly that you can do this and will suffer no harm.  A number of Christian denominations use these verses in their worship practices. 

Do you believe it?  It is in the Bible, in black and white, with no interpretation called for.

Or, on the other hand, maybe not.  We have older versions of fragments of Mark available, and these verses do not show up until about 415 AD.   (I don't recall the exact date, I was very young then.) 

So, you have a dilemma, I would think.  If you believe the Bible is inerrant, you must drink poison, or at least believe you can without harm.  If you doubt those verses, based on the evidence they were inserted later, you have to doubt the inerrancy of the whole Bible.  (Unless those who did the insertion were "inspired."  But the canon was supposed to be closed at some point, no reason given for why.) 

[pianowolfi]

knowing that inspiration is just as available to us as to the writers of the scriptures

Yes I find this very important! 

[ahinton]

pianistimo,
you are too certain of your position.

Unquestionably so!

Some of these contradictions really are impossible, and more modern Christians understand why, and their faith is not threatened.  Instead they are left with a greater responsibility to understand the will of God, knowing that inspiration is just as available to us as to the writers of the scriptures.

Also very true - and that last bit naturally strikes a particular chord (sorry!) for me as a composer...

Let me give you an example.  When is the last time you drank poison or were bitten by a snake?  Mark says very clearly that you can do this and will suffer no harm.  A number of Christian denominations use these verses in their worship practices. 

Do you believe it?  It is in the Bible, in black and white, with no interpretation called for.

Or, on the other hand, maybe not.  We have older versions of fragments of Mark available, and these verses do not show up until about 415 AD.   (I don't recall the exact date, I was very young then.)

Whatever age you were then, you must be exceedingly old now if you were actually around in those days!

So, you have a dilemma, I would think.

Pianistimo doesn't (for the reason you describe at the beginning of this post); the rest of us do, however.

If you believe the Bible is inerrant, you must drink poison, or at least believe you can without harm.  If you doubt those verses, based on the evidence they were inserted later, you have to doubt the inerrancy of the whole Bible.  (Unless those who did the insertion were "inspired."  But the canon was supposed to be closed at some point, no reason given for why.) 

Thank you for those welcome nuggets of wisdom from Timothy, Chapter 42, Verse b...

Best,

Alistair

[ramseytheii]

we know the geneologies are consistent because they both mention zerubbabel  - and yet joseph was not God.  Jesus - if not born of flesh (spiritually conceived) - had no ancestry.  this was only proving that he was 'heir to the promise' not only physically but spiritually by God.  zerubbabel and abraham are the two important peoples in this geneology (even if a few people are skipped in luke - they are consistent the farther back you take it).  he is traced back to David and Issac - but in luke he is traced all the way back to the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of adam, the SON OF GOD.  that is an encouragement that all of us are made in HIS image - that we have the same hope of ressurrection.  that He is the 'firstborn of many brethren.'

So let me get this straight: since the genealogies are not meant to be physical ones, it doesn't matter if they are different?  So what you would be saying then is, the contradiction exists, but it doesn't matter.  Just want to understand fully.  You seem to blow off a list of about 42 names by saying "a few people are skipped," but the fact is the lists barely resemble each other at all.  Anyways, since Joseph can't have two geneaological fathers, it's not "skipping" if one passage says his father was Heli, and the other says his father was Jacob.  Perhaps you mean that the important parts were right, but the non-important parts were wrong?

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

dear ramseytheii,

mark 15:25 is when the actual crucifixion took place.  john 19: 14 - they were simply telling the crowd that Jesus deserved to be crucified.  it is only until verse 18 - after Jesus was made to carry his cross a long distance (until simone of cyrene took it) that took THREE HOURS!  why would it take that long?  he had been beaten viciously.  so much that chunks of his flesh were gone.

Now I am more confused.  Mark said it was at the 3rd hour, John says Pilate handed Jesus over at the 6th hour.  So by your calculation, if it took 3 hours to cavalry, it would have happened at the 9th hour, since hours don't move backwards....

And about the "chunks" thing, did you just pull that out of Mel Gibson or what?! 

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

i think it is you that has the onus of reading your bible correctly and 'searching' scripture.  i cannot simply repeat mark since there are three other gospels to corroborate it.  all mark seems to say is that in the sixth hour (ie noon) that darkness fell over the land.  it was after he had been nailed to the cross. 

now, how could he have been carrying the cross and nailed to it at the same time.  you have to put things into order.  if a scribe got a scripture out of context it doesn't mean that the bible is inaccurate.  the sixth hour was meant to indicate and help the context.  the sixth hour is corroborated with the darkness and AFTEr the casting of lots for his clothing.

i don't wish to argue semantics and go ahead and believe what you want about added verses. i'm not sure which ones were added in mark - could you say which they are?  susan

ps i do see in my translation (new american standard) that verse 28 was added 'and the scripture was fulfilled which says, 'and he was numbered with transgressors.'  i find this interesting that a prophecy way back in isaiah would know this exact thing would happen to Him. 

to me that proves the authenticy of the bible.  how could a man or men predict with such accuracy.  isaiah 53:12 '...and He will divide the booty with the strong; because He poured Himself out to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet He Himself bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors. 

ps i'm glad you brought this scripture that was added to my attention!  it doesn't counter any of the other scriptures.

[pianistimo]

we don't have to look to mel gibson's movie to know that the romans used very crude torture methods.  basically a whip with prongs on it (if i remember right) and also, the crown of thorns.  anything that would dig into the flesh.  isaiah 53: 5 '...He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.'

mark 15:15 '...pilate released barabas for them, and after having Jesus scourged, he delivered Him to be crucified.' 

there's a place in psalms where David is moved to a psalm about the messiah, too, and something about 'all my bones stare at me...'  that he could see his own bones through his flesh.

also, isaiah 52:14 '... so His appearance was marred more than any man.'

something else i find interesting in the psalms of david is that david knew that Jesus Christ would be an 'intercessor' for our sins and therefore had to be of a priestly line.  psalm 110:4 'The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of melchizedek. THe Lord is at Thy right hand; He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath.  He will judge among the nations....'

[maul]

The book was written 2,000 years ago by a bunch of dudes. Of course it has contradictions. Contradictions in itself, and to the rest of the frickin universe. The fact that people are disputing this is not only sickening, but extremely sad. This disease needs to be cured.

[pianowolfi]

The book was written 2,000 years ago by a bunch of dudes. Of course it has contradictions. Contradictions in itself, and to the rest of the frickin universe. The fact that people are disputing this is not only sickening, but extremely sad. This disease needs to be cured.

Yeah yeah go on. You're not far from claiming all religious people were sick, aren't you?

[prometheus]

Maybe they aren't all sick, but they are all infected.

[pianowolfi]

Maybe they aren't all sick, but they are all infected.

Because they have a different opinion than your's or what?

[prometheus]

Because they have delusions. They have ideas that cannot be questioned. And they follow them without thinking. Actually, they follow them even if there is evidence against them. The more evidence there is against their beliefs the more faith they need. And the more faith they express the more virtuous they are according to their own religion.

So actually the more wrong their delusions are the more fanatic they cling to their delusion.

This way of thinking is very dangerous. It's not that they have a different opinion. I don't really like Mozart. But I don't care if other people do. Actually, I do. Great if they like him. I know Mozart is a great composer.

But when a person claims Mozart was born on Mars and that he was also Shakespeare then I am not so happy. So when I argue with them about their delusion and they refuse to listen and make up non-sense to explain errors I am not so happy.

Then when more people start to believe Mozart was born on Mars, etc and when they brainwash their children with this idea I am even more pissed of. It is child abuse.

Then when they claim that those that don't believe that Mozart as an alien from Mars are so irrational that it can only be the work of the evil force called Bach, who is from Venus, and that all of them need to be killed/converted/etc I am really unhappy.

Even when then there is some more reason and some more tolerance, thanks to those that don't believe in Mozart the alien and most Mozartianists stop killing people I am just as unhappy as before because I know that it will take only a little bit for those Mozartianists to start all over.

Also, when these people start to claim thet Mozart, the alien from Mars created all atoms in the universe personally and controls every atom in the universe personally every micro-second and that Mozart the alien resides in every atom in the universe at the same time I am getting more angry because the idea is getting bigger and contradicting more and more of reality.

Such an idea is a virus. It infects people's minds and it is very hard to get rid off. It disrupts critical thinking and logical thinking. If you teach your children to believe stupid things you cannot teach them to use their brains properly. Only when a person is really intelligent they can do both at the same time, it is very rare.

So I really oppose theism because it is followed by so many people and because it has such far-reaching delusions.

But another problem is that they promote bronze-age morality and bronze-age word views. Those people were cruel and primitive barbarians.

[thalbergmad]

Splendid post Prom.

Very well put.

Thal

[prometheus]

Ok, do let me make it clear that eventhough a person has a delusion that doesn't mean they aren't nice persons.

Like everyone I have been in love. And I think it is a mental disorder. Just like clinical depression is. Being in love seems a think similar to religion and useful to me to understand how religious people think.

When I was in love I was perfectly aware of the fact that I had delusions. Eventhough the person of my affenction was a nice person my ideas about her were not worn out of reality.

When I was in love I was still a nice person as well. It it just that religion itself has more negative effects than possitive ones. I think the majority of people will be better people without religion.
Sure, religion can do good things. But in the end it has more negative sides.

And some religious people are crazy. Some religious people are both crazy and violent. Most aren't. But that doesn't mean religion is a good thing.

Also, I have seen some comments of religious people about Pianistimo and about how everyone must think most religious people are like her. I don't. I know they aren't. I know they aren't even in the US. Yes, I live in one of the most secular countries with a christian history.

[pianistimo]

the census that took place at the time of Jesus birth along with astrological signs makes it impossible for scientists to ignore certain facts that the bible places in the exact time it happened. 

for instance:  luke 3 'for in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Ceasar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was Tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrach of the region of Iturarea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrach of Abilene, in the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John...'

so we have a lot of historical stuff going on.  the census which mary and joseph went to is mentioned in luke 2:2 as 'the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria (and  verse 1 says the decree came from Ceasar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth) that was also an historical event.

if you wish to see archeology as a non-science - go right ahead.  i say you are as blind as the dumb.  www.bibletopics.com/BIBLESTUDY/22.htm  mentions archeological evidence for the reigns of various peoples mentioned and also evidence of pontius pilate from inscriptions of his name.  how to explain truth?  it is truth!  it doesn't need elaborate methods.

[pianowolfi]

Ok, do let me make it clear that eventhough a person has a delusion that doesn't mean they aren't nice persons.

Like everyone I have been in love. And I think it is a mental disorder. Just like clinical depression is.

Ouch that hurts. For me being in love is a state that belongs to the normal human live.

Being in love seems a think similar to religion and useful to me to understand how religious people think.

When I was in love I was perfectly aware of the fact that I had delusions.

but can't you be also be in love and aware that you have no delusions? That rather the person you are in love with is really beautiful and nice and intelligent?

Eventhough the person of my affenction was a nice person my ideas about her were not worn out of reality.

So you had actually no delusions!

When I was in love I was still a nice person as well.

Good for you. So be nice to us religious persons here as well!


P.S AAArgh i'm so in love with some pieces of music i just need to say it here!!! Like Chopin's third sonata. Do I have delusions then and therefore am infected?

[pianistimo]

also, Herod the king (of judah) at the time caused mary and joseph to flee after Christ was born to Egypt - until Herod's death.  it appears that he died shortly after - so this would help in actually dating the time when Jesus was under 2 years of age. 

now, Archelaus was reigning over judea in place of his father Herod - when Jesus and his family returned - so they went to nazareth instead.  i have been to bethlehem, the sea of galilee, and nazareth.  they are quaint places - but LITERAL locations. 

how do you both explain this?  and not with criticism without thought.

[thalbergmad]

the census that took place at the time of Jesus birth along with astrological signs makes it impossible for scientists to ignore certain facts that the bible places in the exact time it happened. 

Do not understand, please explain.

[thalbergmad]

also, Herod the king (of judah) at the time caused mary and joseph to flee after Christ was born to Egypt - until Herod's death.  it appears that he died shortly after - so this would help in actually dating the time when Jesus was under 2 years of age. 

now, Archelaus was reigning over judea in place of his father Herod - when Jesus and his family returned - so they went to nazareth instead.  i have been to bethlehem, the sea of galilee, and nazareth.  they are quaint places - but LITERAL locations. 

how do you both explain this?  and not with criticism without thought.

Yes, they exist, the Sea of Galilee is still there.

What is your point??

[thalbergmad]

The works of Josephus mentions Christ in the Year AD46, which is many years after he was supposedly Crucified.

You believe what you want to believe.

[prometheus]

Ouch that hurts. For me being in love is a state that belongs to the normal human live.

It is something that belongs in the normal human life. It is caused by chemicals. Not by other people.

but can't you be also be in love and aware that you have no delusions?

Being in love is a delusion. You obsess over one person. Maybe there is some confusion because the English language has only one word for love any my native language has a word for this particular kind of love. I don't mean love itself. I mean being in love, having a crush, obsessing over one person.

It doesn't mean having a healthy deep relationship with another person.

That rather the person you are in love with is really beautiful and nice and intelligent? So you had actually no delusions!

If you are in love with a person you will think that they are the most beautiful, smartest, nicest person on earth. But they are not. Even if they are extraordinary nice, you can't say they are nicer than the second nicest person on earth. Or the second most beautiful
person on earth. This is because these concepts aren't hard things and because they are subjective.

Good for you. So be nice to us religious persons here as well!

No. First off, I am not talking about persons. I am talking about religion. If one of my friends is in love and they want to talk to me about this being nice for me means trying to talk some sense in them.

In the same sense being nice to other people for me means to attack their religion.

Second, I will judge by myself what kind of behavior people deserve from me. The fact that most people are nice doesn't mean I should be nice to all people.

Also, I don't think you can be nice or mean using the medium of the internet. It is too impersonal.

[pianistimo]

ok.  if you get the 'companion bible' it explains the 'course of abijah' as an actual 'course' of the priesthood and therefore very accurately dated by the jews themselves.

now we have archeological evidence for the rulers that actually ruled judea.  and so we have a corroboration from the jews and from the romans.

the astrological stuff would be kept somewhere's in iraq.  babylon is where the three magi came from - possibly and it is said that they were possibly jews who remained in babylon (daniel and his friends - genealogy) that were aware of biblical prophecy and tied it to the astrological signs of the birth of Christ.  they saw a 'star' that was not like any other and they knew it signified something.  how they knew this and what star it was is debated - but it must have been a supernatural event - and perhaps only one that they saw - and that led them to where Christ was.

another view is that the 'wise men' followed the zoroaster tradition.  a site for this is:
www.farsinet.com/wisemen/magi.html

but, don't you think that if the magi had NOT left the gifts they are said to have left with Jesus - that it would be not included in history of the bible.  also, i believe that such a great earthquake happened at the death of Christ - it is why we have the current calendar today  BC and AD  2006.  even the Romans knew this was truly God.

[thalbergmad]

Pianistimo has proved the Bible is correct, coz it mentions the Sea fo Galilee and that sea is still there.

THIS IS PROOF

[prometheus]

In Lord of the Rings, there is a sky.

The sky exists! We also have a sky. It's the same sky. Yes.

See, everything that happened in LotR is true, it happens. This is the absolute proof.

[pianistimo]

face it.  you cannot disprove it.  therefore you ridicule it.  i cannot save you.  it's a choice.  you have to make it for yourself based on the evidence.  if you see none- then that is your right.  i don't argue that.  but, why do you not argue as you do with science with archeology.  it is just as scientific.  and have you been to some of these sights and seen the churches that are built and the people that come to visit.  they must come for a reason.  just because you do not believe - does not mean that history is undocumented.  you have to want to see it.

btw, i tend to believe faith is like love.  if you see something in a pure fashion - it will open like a flower and be just as you wished it would be.  if you see nothing - it shrivels and dies.

[prometheus]

Of course I don't disprove it. Doesn't matter. You can't disprove things. You can only refute claims.

Your logic is flawed, therefore I make fun out of it.

[pianistimo]

prometheus, i know you are just like me (not fully understanding science) because if you saw the archeological evidence for the bible - it would overwhelm you.  you do not want to see it.  therefore you say it does not exist. 

[thalbergmad]

prometheus, i know you are just like me (not fully understanding science) because if you saw the archeological evidence for the bible - it would overwhelm you.  you do not want to see it.  therefore you say it does not exist. 

Why have you suddenly got a bee in your bonnet about archeological evidence?

There is much evidence for places mentioned in the Bible, but you talk of evidence FOR the Bible.

What are you trying to prove??

[prometheus]

I know a lot of archeology. I know a lot of old stories. Archeology in near-east(that's how they name it in the scholarly world) started off with archeology of the bible. They wanted to discover things that were mentioned in the bible. Not because civilisation originated from Iraq. No.

I know that a lot of stories and places in the bible exist. But that doesn't matter. It doesn't prove the story is true.

It's just stupid. Let's take a very similar example. The Illiad, the story of Troy. Do you believe that everything in this story actually happened? That Athena came down from mount olympiad to help Achillis? I don't.

But at the same time there is all this archeological evidence. We have the city of Troy itself. We have the town of King Agamemnon, Mycenae.

Now, I know all these cities existed. But I don't know to what extent the story of the Illiad is true. There probably was a war between the greeks and the people living on the coast of present-day Turkey. There were probably many wars, involving many sieges.

You don't believe that the events of the Illiad are historical truth either. But if you apply the same logic you should. But you don't. You just cherry pick archeological facts, use fallacies to try to support your faith. And you know it. That is dishonest.

You don't care about archeological evidence at all. You already have your faith. Archelogy will not change it. If you find evidence in support of your faith you will slap it around our ears. But evidence against the bible you will just ignore. You can't use it to protect your delusion. Therefore it is of no use.

So even if the evidence is true, that's just abuse. Evidence should be use to find out the truth. Not to defend myth.

The question is: how likely is it that [thing X] in the bible is historical fact? You can not prove it. You can provide evidence that make it very probable, or nearly impossible.

[thalbergmad]

In the "Best public houses in Kent" the Coopers Arms is given a good write up.

I have been there myself, which proves the book true.

In fact, it is to the Coopers Arms i will go, as i feel like a drink.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Hmm, no posts for almost 30 minutes.

The holy one must be doing some investigation.

Perhaps she is looking at her Atlas to see if Mt Ararat is still there, which would prove the Bible is true.

[steve_m]

v

[maul]

The sad thing is, Pianistimo has injected this disease into her offspring as well - spreading the virus for centuries to come. Good work.

[thalbergmad]

The sad thing is, Pianistimo has injected this disease into her offspring as well - spreading the virus for centuries to come. Good work.

I was injected when i was young by my mother who was also injected when she was young. And so it goes on. However, i am sure the dosage i recieved was considerably less than some others might receive.

I do still believe in God and the existence of Jesus, but some of the crazy ramblings on here do not help.

Thal

[asyncopated]

What if God created reality and our universe and our science to make it seem like he couldn't possibly exist. In the laws of our universe and science, the thought that God could exist, and Jesus could perform miracles seems to make no sense. It seems to be impossible, but really God did this on purpose to separate the people who have real faith from the people who just use the argument that "The whole thing is impossible.

 People with real faith can get passed that science goes against the Bible.

Atheists, think, what if the reality that you know is really just a test set up by God to weed out people like you who use science and logic to just say that it "Makes no sense," but in God's reality the whole thing makes perfect sense.

I'm not saying i neccessarily believe this. I'm really still deciding. It's just an interesting theory I had.

By your beautiful theory, god is
a) a liar
b) a charlatan
c) just playing a prank on human beings
d) all of the above.

Luv your theory. 

If you would like to know more, i suggest you start with occam's razor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

and the flying spaghetti monster

https://www.venganza.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Science does NOT i repeat NOT go against the bible.  Science does not care about the bible.  It's people who read the bible who are scared of science and go all out just to piss poor scientist, who really just want to be left alone, off.

I would go further to say that after Russell, which is really more of a philisophic work, the Dawkins phenomenon is really a backlash response and in my opinion a very timely, well conceived and approriate one -- less you think that we should be brought back to the middle ages, burning witches.

[pianistimo]

i don't think it's a theory.  why did Christ speak in parables?  so everyone could understand.  no.  only those who stayed afterwards and asked questions.

now, i should really do more question asking with science.  but, fair is fair.  if i step forward and read more about this mr. stephen hawking blah blah - then you should all go and read your bibles.

i say we go and read for ten days and then attempt to prove the other's side.  you, of course, would have to argue my side.

[asyncopated]

i don't think it's a theory.  why did Christ speak in parables?  so everyone could understand.  no.  only those who stayed afterwards and asked questions.

My best hypothesis on this (assuming that god exists)  is that perhaps the bible wasn't really christ's original words/thoughts but the word of a man, who within his limited capacity living 2000 years ago, trying to translate/express the divine will of god.

Obviously he would get it wrong!  There is no way that a man has the kind of experience to translate what is god's will.  If someone where tasked with translating the will of god today, he would  most probably not do a good job of it, even with modern understanding, let alone 2000 years ago. 

Here is a somewhat more modern (last year) translation of the will of god by the pope (who unlike all other men is in theory, or more accurately can be if he so chooses, infallable).

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1897480,00.html
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2387589,00.html

The concept of original sin is an interesting one.  Unfortunately, if babies don't burn in hell, probably neither will aliens.

[pianistimo]

if it's always been a 'theological hypothesis' then limbo made the other popes fallable.

[steve_m]

g

[asyncopated]

Okay it wasn't a good theory. It was just one of those "what ifs."

I find it hard that an atheist could be completely certain that there is no God. No matter how certain you think you are, I think it's impossible to never question yourself and ask "What if I'm wrong?" Does the thought never cross your mind? Are you not frightned by the fact that if you happen to be incorrect, you'd spend eternity suffering?

If you have some time have a look at this video by Richard Dawkins.  He makes some kind of attempt to answer your "what if" question.  I'm not saying he is right.  I'm just saying that his arguments are sound and worth thinking about, whether you believe in any god(s) or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M&mode=related&search=

if it's always been a 'theological hypothesis' then limbo made the other popes fallable.

Ype, that has always been a problem within the catholic church.  I'm not sure about the ins and outs of the theological decision making process at the vatican.  The next time I'm there I'll make sure to ask pape.