If You Knew There Was God, A "god", Etc...

[Canada 0]

All of those "discrepencies" are not discrepencies at all, in that doctrine is not affected, and it actually lends more credibility to the Bible, meaning that A, it was written by many different people and B, they all gave an account of what they saw, as God told them to do so, and C, it was done accurately enough as to leave no question that it was in fact inspired by God.

Let me see. You say there are no contradictions. I give you a list and you say 'Oh they are not contradictions but discrepencies'. Look at the definition of the word contradiction again1- a The act of contradicting. - b The state of being contradicted. 2 A denial. 3 Inconsistency; discrepancy. 4 Something that contains contradictory elements. Give me a break! I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were looking for blue contradictions not red ones.Now excuse me for being literal, I mean I was sure that was what you wanted. I wonder what would give me that idea?

As far as not treating the bible as literally true I have no idea what you are talking about- I do so to the point of self condemnation

I use you as a case in point, because there are Christians everywhere that believe that the Bible is word for word correct because it is divinely inspired. I have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not the case.At least DonkSlayer had the courtesy to concede/agree my point that the Bible is obviously written by man and that it is full of mistakes. However we disagree on the definition of 'divine inspiration' DS - Do you want to address the points I made about God being a bit more inspirational and more importantly, influential, than a pretty tree?Now as to your response. All you are doing is what all weak debators with untenable positions do, You collect up all the opposing points in one sweeping genralisation and dismiss them.So let's revisit them:The books of Ezra and Nehemiah are discrepancies as you point out. Thank you for you making my point. Same goes for 1Chr.18 vs 2Sam.8However we have:EcclesiastesQoh.1[4] One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.2 Peter 3[10] But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.Ecclesiastes is saying the earth will be here forever and Peter is saying the earth shall be burned up. That is not a discrepancy. It is a blatant disagreement. If I said to you "The earth will be here for ever" and you countered "The earth will be burned up" we are taking opposing points. You are calling me a liar, just as Peter is of Ecclesiastes.It even gets more direct with Jacob and JohnGen.32[30] And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.John.1[18] No man hath seen God at any timeI think you put Jacob and John in a room and they might argue.Moving on to the whole resurection mess. Your point is that multiple retellings of the story make it more believable. This is absolute rubbish. How does a court of law or an investigator show that multiple accounts of the same event are fabrications. They look for contradictions. If a story is made up then repeated by multiple authors there will be differences, and guess what? If these made up stories are written in seprate times and locations and then brought back together, you can't change them to align with each other unless you destroy the originals... Therefore you have to take them as is and hope that people will be blinded enough by need to ignore the contradictions. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the New TestamentSo getting back on track we have the single most important event in the history of the universe. An event that is a little more significant than watching you bake a cake. Everything in history has been rushing to this one focal point where the creator proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that He exists, and what happens?Interviewing John:Who went to the sepulchre?MaryWhen?Before dawnWas it openYesDid she see an angel?Well after getting Peter & that other disciple they returned. But Peter and the other guy left and then Mary saw 2 angels!!Not one?No 2!And where were they?Inside the sepulchre.What were they doing?Sitting were the body had been.And did she see Jesus?Well yes, but it was like a ghost of Jesus.And who told her to go tell the Disciples?That Jesus ghost thingy.What did he say?Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou?Mary. Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.Marks turnWho went to the sepulchre?Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and SalomeWhen?Early morningWas it openYesDid they see an angel?Well not an angel but a young man dressed in whiteAnd where was he?Inside the sepulchre.What was he doing?Sitting on the right.And did they see Jesus?No.And who told them to go tell the Disciples?The young manWhat did he say?Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto youLukes turnWho went to the sepulchre?The womenWhen?Early morningWas it openYesDid they see an angel?Yes they saw 2!!And where were they?They appeared next to them when they were standing around confusedSo they weren't there when they first went in?Nope.And did they see Jesus?No.And who told them to go tell the Disciples?The angelsWhat did they say?Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in GalileeLets see if we can get Matt to agreeWho went to the sepulchre?The womenWhen?DawnWas it openNo - but and angel descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. He made a really big earthquake tooDid they see an angel?Yes I just said that didn't I?Just one?YepAnd where was heSitting on the stone that was the door, you know, out the frontAnd did they see Jesus?No.And who told them to go tell the Disciples?The angelWhat did he say?Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.You know that bit about the eathquake and the rolling stoneYeahWell John, Mark and Luke said it happened differentOh, well I added that bit to make it sound better.You know God said not to add bits and that you could go to Hell?Yeah, I knowAren't you scared?Well not really.Why not?Well 'cause we made him up didn't we?Hmmm, no reasonable person from a non-biased POV could even think those stories are consistent, but hey OJ and Michael jackson got away with it, why not the authors of the Bible?

Still haven't proven that doctrine and the way Jesus brought is affected by mubers differing in counting the people, or if it was dark or not.

See this is my point, you like to refute the little points that you think you can easily do and then put it forward as an answer to the whole argument. When you finish baking you cake do you sweep the crumbs under the rug then too?So have a go at answering all my points1) There are contradictions in the bible1a) There are discrepancies where one author says things different to another1b) There are statements made by one author that are denied by others1c) Eyewitness accounts of the same event (Mary's telling of the resurrection) are significantly inconsistant2) Obviously therefore God has not inspired the contents directly - it comes from the hand and minds of man and is therefore full of mistakes2a) This leads to the obvious point that if it's not the direct word of God ie God is not making the author write the words then it is man's knowledge in the Bible alone and the whole 'Science in the Bible' point disappears in a cloud of logic3) There was no flood

There is actually no evidence against the flood, just an overall belief that it is improbable- that, in and of itself does not make it so.

You say there is no gap in Eqyption history, yet you fail to address the worhip of Ra (the Egyptian Sun God) being reinstated by Noah's offspring. This is Circumstantial evidenceYou also, as per usual, ignore completely the continuos recorded history of China. This is Direct evidence of a lack of a flood.For you to say there is no evidence is incorrect4) The Bible defies common senseThe only way that you or any person of faith can make your beliefs work is to pick and choose the scriptures you want. You get all soap-boxy on your Baptist arguments stating that the Bible must be taken literally, but go soft on the above points I have made along with different ones from other postersSo go ahead, give us your generalised answer, or your selective dismisal or your 'I've answered this all before' or better yet your 'You need Faith'As a tip to those that wish to debate with theists: When after pushing logic consistently and directly you back them into a corner. They are left with only one option. To directly argue your logic requires either lies or stupidity so they are left with only one out.You know when your point has been conceded when they play the faith card.DonkSlayer Multiple accounts of the same event, however their inconsistencies, lend me more faithgobears It does cause a problem then - which parts are "true" and which parts are not. It really comes down to faith.Loismustdie See why it still comes diown to faith?Interestingly it also seems that Lois finds faith a weak get-out-of-jail-free card as well

True story- I have been going back and forth with baptist based ministers since I was like 16, but one time in particular was great- I sat down with my then girlfriends 2 pastors at the request of her parents and proceeded to poke holes in baptist doctrine, which is a cakewalk- they hemmed and hawwedand tried to twist things but I pounded the points I knew they could not biblically prove. You know what they told me? " We cant answer that with the bible, you just have to have faith. "

Now I have always stated that every one is entitled to their beliefs, just as I am entitled to state why Christianity flys in the face of reason and common sense, but don't tell me that the Bible is consistent or that there is scientific evidence in the Bible, because then you are lying to me.

[DonkSlayer 1]

At least DonkSlayer had the courtesy to concede/agree my point that the Bible is obviously written by man and that it is full of mistakes. However we disagree on the definition of 'divine inspiration' DS - Do you want to address the points I made about God being a bit more inspirational and more importantly, influential, than a pretty tree?

Yes. A lot of super-fundies you your train of thought: "If the Bible was divinely inspired, it must be perfect; why would God inspire something imperfect?"I would make an analogy with an adult parent trying to teach a 3-year old to speak. Parent says "water." Kid says "wawa."Get me?We're not perfect beings so I don't really think we could get what God was inspiring exactly right.Really, what parts of the Bible can you take absolutely literally? Even the dreams of the prophets...dreams are often metaphoric. I believe Jesus existed. There is both biblical and secular historical proof to back that up. I believe in His message. I do believe he was crucified, and I believe a miracle occurred at the sepulchre.Most everything else should be a personal thing for Christians, how much they're going to take stock in it.

[Canada 0]

Yes. A lot of super-fundies you your train of thought: "If the Bible was divinely inspired, it must be perfect; why would God inspire something imperfect?"I would make an analogy with an adult parent trying to teach a 3-year old to speak. Parent says "water." Kid says "wawa."Get me?We're not perfect beings so I don't really think we could get what God was inspiring exactly right.

I understand what you are saying and I think we agree Biblical Literalists like all good fundies are well.... mistaken

Really, what parts of the Bible can you take absolutely literally? I believe Jesus existed. There is ... biblical ... proof to back that up.

Don't these 2 contradict each other?

I believe in His message. I do believe he was crucified, and I believe a miracle occurred at the sepulchre.Most everything else should be a personal thing for Christians, how much they're going to take stock in it.

What can I say? I'm happy for you.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Don't these 2 contradict each other?

No. Believing He existed is different from believing what happened according to 4 recording artists like Mark is what truly did occur.

[Canada 0]

No. Believing He existed is different from believing what happened according to 4 recording artists like Mark is what truly did occur.

I was questioning the word 'proof'

[DonkSlayer 1]

I was questioning the word 'proof'

Fair enough. Evidence.

[Loismustdie 0]

Canada, you failed to address how doctrine is affected, and how the discrepancies that are so important to focus on don't actually give credence to the fact that the bible was written by different men and not a misleading collaboration. Do you mean to tell me that if the numbers came out correct or if both authors managed to get there story exactly the same you would believe? THAT is holding you back? Hell, no, and you know it. It's just an excuse, albeit a lame one.

[crowTrobot 2]

I believe Jesus existed. There is both biblical and secular historical proof to back that up.

as has been pointed out there is no such proof in the scientific sense, or even any really compelling evidence (which would be something like confirmed multiple corroborating references to him made during his life). there is only stuff written well after his supposed life/death - enough where most secular scholars think he was probably an actual historical figure. but probably is the key word, since there IS the possiblity that everything written about jesus is potentially based on tradition/fable/legend or whatever. the biblical gospels obviously were in large part, if not completely.

I believe in His message. I do believe he was crucified, and I believe a miracle occurred at the sepulchre.

by faith you do, but not by historical proof.

Do you mean to tell me that if the numbers came out correct or if both authors managed to get there story exactly the same you would believe?

nice attempt to deflect the issue.

[Loismustdie 0]

as has been pointed out there is no such proof in the scientific sense, or even any really compelling evidence (which would be something like confirmed multiple corroborating references to him made during his life). there is only stuff written well after his supposed life/death - enough where most secular scholars think he was probably an actual historical figure. but probably is the key word, since there IS the possiblity that everything written about jesus is potentially based on tradition/fable/legend or whatever. the biblical gospels obviously were in large part, if not completely.by faith you do, but not by historical proof.nice attempt to deflect the issue.

Not really, it's just putting it back in to perspective. 2 accounts of the same thing that differ in the details but still get the story across proves no collaboration, and affects nothing. These things that you guys love to hold on to don't amount to squat- good god, if you were that hard on scientific "evidence" you would never believe a thing.

[brvheart 1,759]

it's not just about belief, it's also about whether you would be able to love/worship a specific deity if he existed. if the christian god is described accurately in the bible i wouldn't be able to love/worship him no matter what (unless he brainwashed me to do so lol).how do you know you aren't crazy (or at least mentally deluded when it comes to christianity) RIGHT NOW?how can you love god if that's all you think we are to him? pretty much my point - if there really was a creator who needed us for some kind of a fulfilling personal relationship with him he would logically be handling things much differently than the christian god supposedly is.

Have you ever read the Bible? Why did everyone other than the Jewish heirarchy love Jesus? Because he was cruel? Get a clue. Jesus was wonderful and loving and most importantly, he was God.To the OP, of course, if God or whoever revealed himself to me I would follow him/her/it.

[Canada 0]

Canada, you failed to address how doctrine is affected, and how the discrepancies that are so important to focus on don't actually give credence to the fact that the bible was written by different men and not a misleading collaboration. Do you mean to tell me that if the numbers came out correct or if both authors managed to get there story exactly the same you would believe? THAT is holding you back? Hell, no, and you know it. It's just an excuse, albeit a lame one.

No I've demonstrated through simple, logical steps that seem to be beyond you that...The Bible is written by Men who were not inspired by God any more than Donks 'nice tree by a stream'It is full of mistakes ie It is not the literal word of God, God has not 'dicated' any of it.Therefore Bible literalists are wrong.Therefore if it is the work of man and full of mistakes, your claims that God has put scientific evidence in the Bible unknown to man at the time are groundless. (Not to mention the fact that the ones you have put forward in the past are rubbish)I've also pointed out where 1 author has denied another's account I've also demonstrated that the stories of the resurection are more consistent with a retelling of a constructed story rather than witnessing of a life's ambitionI've also shown that Genisis defies common sense and logic - as demonstrated by the responses to Donk's OPI've also tabled evidence that the flood couldn't have happened when it was supposed to and that if it did, the events involved during and after said flood would have given a completely different world to the one we live in.All this is only scratching the surface of the flaws in Christianity yet it logically shows that you have to pick and choose which stories in the Bible you believe to be true.In short the Bible is a DIY guide to your own self delusionYour response?'This is lame'Game Set and Match to Canada

[Petoria 0]

You know Paul Bunyan was a real person too. He did exist, he wasnt 30 ft. tall and he didnt have a massive blue ox either. Blasphemy.

[crowTrobot 2]

Have you ever read the Bible? Why did everyone other than the Jewish heirarchy love Jesus? Because he was cruel? Get a clue. Jesus was wonderful and loving and most importantly, he was God.

seriously have you read the bible? overall the christian god is portrayed as one mean, exclusivist, vengeful sob.and i don't recall any text biblical or otherwise that says "everyone but the jewish heirarchy" loved jesus - just his immediate followers and those that wanted to be healed. certainly the roman government and roman upper class wouldn't have been crazy about him either (assuming he existed at all).

[Loismustdie 0]

No I've demonstrated through simple, logical steps that seem to be beyond you that...The Bible is written by Men who were not inspired by God any more than Donks 'nice tree by a stream'It is full of mistakes ie It is not the literal word of God, God has not 'dicated' any of it.Therefore Bible literalists are wrong.Therefore if it is the work of man and full of mistakes, your claims that God has put scientific evidence in the Bible unknown to man at the time are groundless. (Not to mention the fact that the ones you have put forward in the past are rubbish)I've also pointed out where 1 author has denied another's account I've also demonstrated that the stories of the resurection are more consistent with a retelling of a constructed story rather than witnessing of a life's ambitionI've also shown that Genisis defies common sense and logic - as demonstrated by the responses to Donk's OPI've also tabled evidence that the flood couldn't have happened when it was supposed to and that if it did, the events involved during and after said flood would have given a completely different world to the one we live in.All this is only scratching the surface of the flaws in Christianity yet it logically shows that you have to pick and choose which stories in the Bible you believe to be true.In short the Bible is a DIY guide to your own self delusionYour response?'This is lame'Game Set and Match to Canada

Who said the Bible was dictated by God? Inspired by and dictated by are 2 different things. In no way have you proven anything, what you have proven is that if your looking for a reason, you will find one. Those differences make no difference, and you know it, and prove nothing of which you claim.

[BuffDan 0]

Who said the Bible was dictated by God? Inspired by and dictated by are 2 different things. In no way have you proven anything, what you have proven is that if your looking for a reason, you will find one. Those differences make no difference, and you know it, and prove nothing of which you claim.

You asked for contradictions and Canada went out and found a bunch of them. Then you say these contradictions don't count. So he finds more, ones that seem to be of a more fundamental nature. These apparently don't count either. So what kind of contradiction would count? Incidently Lois, you commented in an earlier post that I was "out of my league" here, which of course I am, at least when it comes to the bible, but thankfully Canada sat down, read the Bible, and found some pretty specific contradictions; surely he is not out of his league here, and despite your claims to the contrary, his contradictions sure seem, at least to this out-of-his-league poster, to be about fairly important matters.

[Loismustdie 0]

You asked for contradictions and Canada went out and found a bunch of them. Then you say these contradictions don't count. So he finds more, ones that seem to be of a more fundamental nature. These apparently don't count either. So what kind of contradiction would count? Incidently Lois, you commented in an earlier post that I was "out of my league" here, which of course I am, at least when it comes to the bible, but thankfully Canada sat down, read the Bible, and found some pretty specific contradictions; surely he is not out of his league here, and despite your claims to the contrary, his contradictions sure seem, at least to this out-of-his-league poster, to be about fairly important matters.

A commentary on how to different accounts by two different people that still tells the same overall story and how that would affect anything would be nice. These are not contradictions- a contradiction would be " Jesus said it's not o.k. to kill but Peter, his apostle ,taught vehemently that it was." That's a contradiction that actually calls into question doctrine, and the contradictions that Canada comes up with effect, well, nothing. All it does is show that the Bibe was indeed written by sperate people, minds, with no collaboratuon and it lends to my belief that, barring new translations spun to mirror religous teaching, it was not doctored by scholars who translated it from the Hebrew years ago, in that surely they would have made the story fit squeaky clean .

[BuffDan 0]

A commentary on how to different accounts by two different people that still tells the same overall story and how that would affect anything would be nice. These are not contradictions- a contradiction would be " Jesus said it's not o.k. to kill but Peter, his apostle ,taught vehemently that it was." That's a contradiction that actually calls into question doctrine, and the contradictions that Canada comes up with effect, well, nothing. All it does is show that the Bibe was indeed written by sperate people, minds, with no collaboratuon and it lends to my belief that, barring new translations spun to mirror religous teaching, it was not doctored by scholars who translated it from the Hebrew years ago, in that surely they would have made the story fit squeaky clean .

However we have:EcclesiastesQoh.1[4] One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.2 Peter 3[10] But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.Ecclesiastes is saying the earth will be here forever and Peter is saying the earth shall be burned up. That is not a discrepancy. It is a blatant disagreement. If I said to you "The earth will be here for ever" and you countered "The earth will be burned up" we are taking opposing points. You are calling me a liar, just as Peter is of Ecclesiastes.It even gets more direct with Jacob and JohnGen.32[30] And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.John.1[18] No man hath seen God at any timeI think you put Jacob and John in a room and they might argue.

Whether or not man can see the face of God or whether or not the earth is going to last forever sure seem like fundamental differences, not just differing accounts of the same events.

[Loismustdie 0]

Whether or not man can see the face of God or whether or not the earth is going to last forever sure seem like fundamental differences, not just differing accounts of the same events.

Ecclesiastes he is being philosophical, not literal- learn the difference. No man has seen God- God appeared to him in a dream. So, in essence he had seen God, but in a figurative manner. Next?

[checkymcfold 0]

i'm jumping into this mess a bit late, i realize, but this post was very thought-provoking.

This is the point of your question no doubt - but it raises a simple question. It seems so obvious to us all atheist, agnostic and theist alike that when faced with irrefutable evidence of a deity, you would obey unquestioningly. Look how crowTrobot got shouted down when he said he would still object to the Christian God. Whilst there is logic there, I am sure that if he was faced with a loving God who granted him everything he needed or desired he would obey.Now bring in Adam and Eve. There they are, sitting in Eden with a God that walks amongst them. For those of you that believe in the big G-man just try to imagine that. He's right there in front of you, talking to you and walking around with you. It would be awe inspiring. You desire for nothing, your life is perfect and your God is there for a chat any time you want.Yet despite that, Eve and shortly thereafter Adam do the one thing they are told not to. They eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil...It just doesn't make sense. We are all here saying that we would obey unquestioningly and yet Adam & Eve can't, despite being 1000% sure God exists. Sure the snake talks her into it, but who are you going to believe? A snake or God? Same goes for Adam, God says don't, Eve says do. Adam does. Surely it goes snake: "Eat the apple, you'll be fine" Eve: "Hey God, are you sure I can't eat this?" God: "I'm sure" Eve:"Why not?" God (In a voice that flattens mountains): "BECAUSE I SAID SO" Eve:"Fine, be like that"This doesn't even consider the fact that God, all wise and all powerful, who knows what Adam & Eve are capable of, sticks the fricken tree in the middle of the Garden to begin with!?! I mean either Adam and Eve are complete morons, which would be a little unlikely as God created them himself - you'd think they might just be 'perfect' or you are left with a scenario where a loving father sticks some rat poison wrapped in chocolate on the table and points it out to his child and says, 'Don't eat that or else'Unless of course God is just testing Adam & Eve. In this case you have love without trust or an all-knowing Creator who knows his creation is weak and will fail, but puts the mechanism for that failure within easy reach.

there are many ways to interpret biblical scripture, but i'm aware of one typical interpretation of the adam/eve story that i find particularly satisfying, and i ain't even a christian (i am a scholar of religion, however):adam and eve may or may not be real. doesn't matter. the point is that they represent a very fundamental internal turmoil within humanity writ large, one which we call morality. morality, generalized, can be taken to mean a state of internal struggle between various pulls that are all "real" in some sense. do i want to be obedient because i have always been that way? do i want to constantly be searching for something new? should i give in to curiosity? when i am told not to do something, doesn't it make me want to do it more? in more properly christian terminology, aren't i always to some extent tempted to do otherwise than god's will (which was at some point explicit)?morality is all of these rolled into one. part of me wants to eat the apple. part of me wants to run away entirely. part of me wants to just like father says. now in the adam and eve story, the solution is given for all who would follow christian doctrine: the will of god is the way to go in all cases. but unfortunately, god don't speak to us like he used to. that sucks. well, then, the locus of moral decision-making lies with us. we're ****ed up these days, what with the original sin that we can't get past and all, but what we can do is deliberate about how we're to go about discerning god's will in spite of his silence toward us.whether you're a christian or not, that's the essence of morality--the deliberative part of moral existence. if it were easy, it wouldn't REALLY be a moral decision, and i think the adam and eve story is trying to get at just that point (coincidentally, both aristotle and kant talk about this deliberative part of morality at great length).

Seriously, none of it makes any logical sense, which leads me to this:Point number 1 - The burden of proof has never been on creationists <insert any other theists you wish here>It always has. In any discussion the party propsing a position have the burden of proof. Pretty simple stuff really. The counter ie there is no God, does not exist with out the initial claim. It's like party A saying to party B "You owe me $500" Party B replies "I don't believe you. Show me some proof and I will pay you" Party A responds "Well, you can't prove that you don't owe me $500 so hand it over" Surely you agree that Party A sounds just a little silly?

i don't think i agree. to be honest, i think it's terribly sad and indicative of a nihilistic time that we make the yes-sayers prove their side and not the other way around. leaving aside the roots of this development (coughsciencecough) for the moment, i think that this sort of "you say something positive? prove it!" mentality is not at all felicitous toward a healthy democratic pluralism of ideas. of course, within some disciplines (the scientific method has indeed helped us in some areas, like building ****), it's necessary, but when it comes to something like religion and religious pluralism, it's profoundly inhibitive.

Point number 2 - Reasonable doubt. I think Christianity (and probably all religions, however this is a guess due to a lack of knowledge on other religions) easily fails reasonable doubt.Just look at the above regarding Adam & Eve for the indtroduction of a few doubts. Now I not suggesting that the above is enough for an open and shut case, but it's the first book of the Bible for crying out loud! From page one the Bible is highly questionable from a position of common sense.

i don't understand what you mean by "common sense." if that existed, we wouldn't be having these debates, would we? it's a mean trick to force people to think in certain logical frameworks in order to allow them to enter into a debate. the proof thing above is one instance of that. the "reasonable doubt" thing is another. it seems perfectly "common" for many christians to think you're horribly silly for not seeing god's grace all around you, but a lot of atheists seem to think that ground for dismissing their argument. seems only hypocritical to me.

More importantly though, if you are God and you want your follows to have some instructions from you, surely you would inspire the authors to be accurate and consistent. If it insn't inspired by God it becomes a collection of tales from men who are then free to put their own spin on everything.The Bible, both old and new testaments is so full of contradictions and obvious falsehoods that to put it forward as evidence is laughable. But it's really all Christians have. Take away the Bible and there is not much left to hold the argument together.

from a christian mindset, this is just claiming to have direct access to god's will, which is presumptuous to say the least. we don't know why he does what he does--tough luck, but true. if you see inconsistencies in the bible, you're not looking hard enough. the (orthodox) jewish stance on this sort of problem is pretty satisfying to me. take, for instance, the jewish practice of talmudic study and interpretation. first, know that the talmud as a text is "canonized" for (many) jews and not just a sort of secondary thing. the way the talmud is actually constructed is that it physically takes a passage from some story (sometimes from torah, or the hebrew bible) in the center of the page, and various rabbis actually inscribe interpretive or more detailed versions of the story or lesson physically surrounding the center story itself. and this WHOLE page, the story as well as the interpretations around it, become part of the jewish canon and are to be read together as a whole.a bit long-winded, i realize, but i don't think that any christian would want to dissuade anyone from thinking that reading the bible is an act of interpretation similar to the jewish practice of talmudic study. some christians think it's easier to interpret than others, indeed, but for the most part they agree that you have to keep looking at the text, keep looking in new places and back and forth from old ones, in order to really understand the bible.

Take a look at another well known story from Genesis, that of Noah. There are more holes here than there would've been on the ark.Simple things like the amount of water required to flood the earth. Lets say we just cover our tallest mountain, so we roughly need 30,000 feet of water to fall in 40 days. Which equals 30000/40 = 750 feet of rain a day or 750/24 = 31.25 feet in an hour. Now why is this important? Well torrential, destructive rainfall is commonly around the 3-4 inches per hour mark. So 31.25 feet per or 375 inches per hour is impressive. So impressive that you are looking at volumes that equate to hydraulic mining. In simple terms, you drop that much water per hour for that length of time and you wash away everything, even mountains. Leaving (once the water drains away) a perfectly flat ball of mud. A little different than what we have. Not to mention that no boat would remain afloat in those conditions, it would be torn apart almost instantly. Nor would any marine animals survive the mud bath that would be the oceans.Now all of this is supposed to have happened circa 2600BC, so despite the Egyptians and Chinese having recorded history predating this time mankind is destroyedHowever, after we choose to ignore common sense and continue with the story we are left with the repopulation of the earth. Man woman and child along with all beasts of land and air have to make there ways across the globe from Turkey.All the Kangaroo's make it to Australia somehow, the Kiwis to New Zealand and so on and so forth. No only do they make it there, they don't decide to go anywhere else. Yet, whilst these frail creatures are doing backstroke across miles of ocean, somehow the dinosaurs all go up in smoke.What about the people, all of us decended from Noah, yet as we spread out we become Asian, Negro, Indian etc and we all forget about God and the flood, except the small pocket that remain in the Middle East. We all create new Gods to explain the unexplainable. Isn't it interesting how all civilisations need to create explanaitions for the unexplainable, yet mankind had one and without fail forgot it and created new ones. Surely if we are all the decendants of Noah, pockets of pre-Christ Christianity would pop up all over the place. Despite men who lived for hundreds of years back then, we all forget. Except those local to where the story is told. Hmmmmm. Reasonable doubt.But maybe there are bits missing that explain these small anomolies. Luckily Lois gives us a nice explanation there.So within the first few pages of the Bible you have what common sense SCREAMS is impossible/implausible/illogical. Whilst you might suggest that it is easy to pick holes in what might be considered fables of an ancient religion, the Good Book continues that way to the final verse.Seriously, anybody unfamiliar with Christianity could pick up the Bible, read it, see the inconsistencies and know to file it away in the Fiction section. I did, despite being raised a Christian. There is just too much within that insults the intelligence.That really only leaves those that need it to be true believing it. Those whose God-given freedom of thought lead to...

again, i'd read the story differently, but i've already addressed any substantive points that would come up in my reading of the noah story.

I'm waiting. Specific scriptures would help and we are working with the KJV and only the KJV.

just so we're clear, you're aware that the KJV was selectively (and i use that word loosely) translated from a latin version that was translated from biblical greek in turn, right? and done so largely with political ends in mind?the international version is MUCH more true to the original text itself.

[DonkSlayer 1]

So really, we're back to the ol' debate.If you believe the Bible is not literal but full of inspired moral truths, does that invalidate taking specific lines from the bible and weaving them into dogma/theology, such as anti-homosexuality?Tough question.Good posts though, Check.

[checkymcfold 0]

So really, we're back to the ol' debate.If you believe the Bible is not literal but full of inspired moral truths, does that invalidate taking specific lines from the bible and weaving them into dogma/theology, such as anti-homosexuality?Tough question.Good posts though, Check.

ha, luckily it's not an issue for me. as for the status of specific moral legislations (largely taken from leviticus i assume?) for religious practitioners, well... there are a lot of people that would call themselves christians and tell us that the bible is to be taken literally in those places or not. that's an issue that divides sects of christianity, and i'm hardly an authority on telling them which one is right. i would say, though, that active debate on the matter seems to cultivate a state of mind wherein one is constantly searching for his or her own authoritative interpretation of something one holds holy, and that that's a good thing. that's what i was trying to get at by alluding to talmudic study with respect to judaism.

[DonkSlayer 1]

It's also in Paul's letters. Maybe somewhere else in the OT but I forget. Just fyi.

[checkymcfold 0]

It's also in Paul's letters. Maybe somewhere else in the OT but I forget. Just fyi.

wait, what is?

[DonkSlayer 1]

wait, what is?

Man on man stuff being no good. Interpreting Paul is interesting too; he never claims his words to be prophecy...

[checkymcfold 0]

Man on man stuff being no good. Interpreting Paul is interesting too; he never claims his words to be prophecy...

ha, i am not going NEAR the question of the status of paul and his authority. there are a lot of people who are way more smart than me that talk about that stuff. also, fyi, this topic is pretty much all the rage amongst christian scholars these days. they don't agree, but they do like fighting about it.