Hey Draginol,

I agree with you it is not objective evidence. But why does the Bible receive so much credibility then? It's has wisdom about many different situations and dealing with them. Whether financial, relationships, or interaction with others. This isn't something that someone just came up with this has been proven over thousands of years. The other place the Bible gains most of it's credibility is it's historical records. There are hundreds of archeological digs that were derived from Scriptures. As for evidence that G-D exists science and geology point right to a creator eventhough many scientists try to prove otherwise.

However I want to add that one might consider the evidence of G-D existing from the Bible when they begin looking at the sequence of names. I have some of the names and their literal translation/meaning starting Adam (man) Seth (bring) Enosh (sick) Cainin (dwelling) Mahalalel (Praise G-D) Jared (decends) Enoch (to discipline) Methuselah (men cast out) etc.. When you look at the historical events and the probability it points to a diety or controlling being. That's my 2 cents.

AD

Well Draginol.......there's a difference...a big one here. We have no evidence that ERU existed now do we? You are trying to say that fiction and non fiction are the same or similar. What about all the archaelogy involved? There has been numerous digs that show the places, people, events etc are indeed who and what they said they were in scripture. Does that mean archaelogy proves the bible? No. It cannot prove and show that it is indeed inspired of God. But it does show "proof" that some biblical event or passage is historical. There has not been a dig yet that has disproven these places, people and things have not occurred. The bible, unlike JRR Tolkein's works, has been proven historically correct. You are right tho....there has been no evidence as of yet to show that ERU existed. I believe the bible holds up very well under historical scrunity,l but again it cannot prove the bible is from God. For example...say we find the ark of the covenant with the tablets that the 10 commandments were written on. We could prove that it came from the time of Moses but we couldn't prove that God had written on them. Same with the ark. We could say well it's a big boat...so what? We can't prove that God helped Noah build it. To compare a historical document to a work of fiction is absurd.

To you the bible is a fact.  We have no evidence that God exists either. 

You feel. You believe. That's nice.  You believe and feel a lot of things. That does not make those things true. You believe the bible doesn't have contradictions. That's blatnatly untrue. I even gave you a link to a site that organizes them. 

I know the bible too. I've read it. Many times. Anyone who knows me personally can tell you that.  People who have come to my house to discuss it will find my bible full of book markers and highlights.  It's an important book.  But a "historical document"? That's absurd.  The bible has not been "proven" to be historically correct.  You saying it or quoting some like minded person who have faith that it is historically correct is meaningless.

There is equal evidence in the existence of God as there is the existence of Eru or the existence or Googly, the god of lost socks.

BTW.......Tolkein was a Christian and best friend of C.S. Lewis. You may want to check on both of these fine gentlemen a bit closer. When I saw the "Fellowship of the Ring" when it first came out......I was amazed at all the hidden Christianity weaved into the words of his book and later inserted into the movie.

Yes, you're easily amazed.  Unlike you apparently, I've known that Tolkien was a devout Christian for a long time.  Jesus, btw, was Jewish. So what? 

What you consider to be "proof" and what people who aren't indoctrinated consider to be proof are two different things.  The bible being a book of mythology doesn't prove God doesn't exist.  I have no idea whether God exists or not.  I have no idea if it's one god, many gods, or no gods.  I don't really care one way or the other.   But as someone who doesn't have preconceived notions on the matter, seeing someone hold up the bible as "proof" of God just looks ridiculous to me. Hence my comparison between the bible as "proof" and any other fictional book (even one that has some historical context in it) does.

But why does the Bible receive so much credibility then?

For the same reason Santa Claus does.  We believe what we're taught.  People who aren't religious don't believe in the bible.  People who are into Scientology believe the things it espouses.

People believing something isn't proof.  People believe all kinds of things.  Most people believe in ghosts and alien abductions too.  That doesn't make them true. 

It's has wisdom about many different situations and dealing with them. Whether financial, relationships, or interaction with others

It does? Have you READ the bible? I mean all of it?  Every time I get into a debate in person with someone who claims to be deeply religious I discover that they are only familiar with relatively small parts of the bible.  Tell me, what wisdom is in Numbers? What teachings should we take away from Leviticus? What tips should we take from Deuteronomy (Sp)?

However I want to add that one might consider the evidence of G-D existing from the Bible when they begin looking at the sequence of names. I have some of the names and their literal translation/meaning starting Adam (man) Seth (bring) Enosh (sick) Cainin (dwelling) Mahalalel (Praise G-D) Jared (decends) Enoch (to discipline) Methuselah (men cast out) etc.. When you look at the historical events and the probability it points to a diety or controlling being. That's my 2 cents.

I don't even know where to start with this line of thinking.  You do know that naming people with meaningful names is not something new right?

Let me be clear, what you believe is your business. It doesn't hurt me if you believe in God or any other magical super being.  But when you try to walk beyond the realm of myth and into the realm of science where there's people who haven't been fed religious dogma of one type or another for years, you're going to run into people who are going to find your arguments uncompelling.

But when you try to walk beyond the realm of myth and into the realm of science where there's people who haven't been fed religious dogma of one type or another for years, you're going to run into people who are going to find your arguments uncompelling.

Help me understand where you are coming from. Science is a huge egg to hatch. I am not the most learned person in science but I think I know enough to get me in trouble . What I have found in many sciences is that there are usually laws or facts that are conveniently ignored or don't apply in reality similar to what happens in economics.

Those of us who are raised by parents who teach us about God can only go so far on the teachings of our parents. Whether a person is raised with a particular belief or not, there comes a time in everyone's life that they have to decide for themselves. That is when true faith comes in.

This is true. God has no grandchildren, only sons and daughters. I grew up as a pastor's kid, but it wasn't until I was in my mid-twenties that my faith became real to ME... it became my own, instead of just some set of teachings that had been passed down to me from my parents. It went from being "head knowledge" to being "heart knowledge", and that was after a considerable amount of time bucking the very beliefs that are now precious to my heart.

But here, I’ll wheel out Sir William Blagg’s quote, because I think it’s apt: “Religion and science are opposed . . . but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything."

Nice quote!

Actually, for the believers, I suspect there is little more to say of value than jlaur65's comment above: ' my answer--yes, and then yes again.there is no way i could explain it. but there's my answer.' Can't argue with that!

Eh.. she's a smart kid.

Tell me, what wisdom is in Numbers? What teachings should we take away from Leviticus? What tips should we take from Deuteronomy (Sp)?

Numbers......... begins with the preparations for the march across the desert (Exodus), tells of experiences along the way, speaks to the failure of faith that led that first generation of Israelites to NOT possess the Promised Land, details the 40 years of waiting for the conquset... ends with preparation for entering Canaan. It served as a warning to the generation of Israelites born in the desert to persevere in faith and obedience where their parents had not.... and speaks a similar message to me. It also reminds me of God's sovereign power and His gracious faithfulness.

Leviticus........ gives an account of God's words to Moses and Aaron. It details the rituals that express and teach the values that the society of Israelites held dear, and teaches me what was most important to them. Many of the concepts illustrated in Leviticus are brought forth in the NT as well... sin, sacrifice, atonement... it all points the way to Jesus and the sacrifice He made for me. Leviticus tells me that not only was God present with His people, but that His people also must be holy. Since man can't accomplish that on his own, God provided atonement for sin through the sacrificial system.

Deuteronomy......... this is a repetition of the law and history of Israel. It recounts God's providential care for Israel and also exhorts them to godly living. It contains the law, and also details Joshua's installation as Moses' successor, some great songs of blessing and then the death of Moses. It also (to me, anyway) points to Christ. He is the Passover Lamb (chapter 16) and the coming Prophet (chapter 18). It details the covenant that Moses was mediator of while Christ is the mediator of the new covenant.

I've read all three at one point in time. I'll be the first to admit that they didn't keep me captivated the way other portions of Scripture do, but even in these... there are things that I find very interesting, and I learn something from all of it. 2 Tim. 3:16 says that all Scripture is God-breathed and useful... and I believe it.

I know that most people won't be swayed by my thoughts or experiences, and that's ok. My job isn't to save anyone -- that's God's doing. All I have to do is share what I know about Him. What happens after that is up to Him (and those who hear). Honestly, I don't jump into religious debate as often as some. Knowing that we all have our own ingrained beliefs and that we're all pretty set in those beliefs makes me wonder at how productive it is to spend hours and hours debating the concepts. My time can be better spent growing in my relationship with Christ or living out my faith. Once in a while, though... I'll step in and post a comment or two. Something will catch my eye, or start of chain of thoughts in my head and I'll go with it. My prayer is that I will share my views in such a way as to follow my convictions, without shoving something down someone's throat and making them gag. Generally, if I speak up, it's because something in the thread has struck a chord with my heart. I get turned off by hostile debating and people arguing just for the sake of being right. In the grand scheme, those things are so insignificant. What good does it do to disprove someone else's claim if they totally reject considering my beliefs because my style was offensive? It would be pointless.

Draginol

One question. If you have read the bible as you say.....then why are you pointing me to a site to give me a contradiction? You should be able to come up with one in a nano second. After all you say there are so many contradictions so there must be many to pick from.

The bible has no contradictions at all in it. I still can't seem to get any from people like you who say there are. I don't want a site. I want an example that has been bothering you and the reason you cannot believe the bible to be true.

In the OT books you mentioned? You can see Christ hidden between the pages. The OT is revealed in the New and the NT is conceled in the OLD. It all fits together like a glove.

Yes Jesus was Jewish. That's the whole reason for the OT's history of the Jews. It all pointed to the one that would come. The Jewish race was protected and preserved even tho more than once it was almost wiped out......Satan did all he could to stop the "promised one" from entering the world.

There are people from all walks of life who have come to find out that not only is the bible what it claims to be but there is a personal God that cares for his own. I have seen many atheists and agnostics that were not "indoctrinated" as children come to Christ late in life. What about them?

I don't just believe for the heck of it. I don't believe in God cuz it makes me feel good. No, I believe in Him because he made himself known to me and I've had an encounter with him. I know he's real and alive as I know my husband and children are. You just have not met him yet. It doesn't mean he's not here. You just haven't seen him but don't worry you will in some form or fashion. I believe we all will stand before him one day and have to account for our lives here on earth but most of all I believe we will have to answer the question....What did you do with Jesus? Who do you say he is?

Well said HC! Good stuff,

One question. If you have read the bible as you say.....then why are you pointing me to a site to give me a contradiction? You should be able to come up with one in a nano second. After all you say there are so many contradictions so there must be many to pick from.

I don't sit around and reinvent the wheel.    If there is already a resource that is better than anything I could quickly put together, then I make use of that instead.  Productivity is the path to business success.  Hence, the links to the sites.

In another post, I gave you some contradictions, but you completely ignored them and moved right along.  It was easier for me to simply give a URL rather than continually rewrite what I had written.

But fine, here are a few contradictions for you:

Genesis 1:25 "God made th ebeasts of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind, etc." This was BEFORE he created Man.

Yet

Genesis 2:19 AFTER man was created "And out of the groudn the LORD God formed every beat of the field.."  Which is correct?

Levitcus 11:19: (about what birds shall not be eaten) And teh stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

The bat is not a bird.  It's a mammal. Does God not know this?

Levitcus 11:6: "And teh hare, because he cheweth the cud,but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

Um, no, the rabbit does not chew its cud.  Rabbits dont' bring up anything.

And to repeat the issue of Genesis:

Day 1: Let there be light.

Day 4: The sun is made. The stars are made. The moon is made.  So where did the light come from?

In Genesis 32:30: "For I have seen God face to face..."

but then Tim: 6:16: "No man hath seen nor can see [God]"  So which is true? Can you see God or not?

In Matt 27:5 Judas died by hanging himself: "And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed and went out and hanged himself"

But then in Acts 1:18 it says "And falling headling, he burst asunder in the midst and all of his bowels gushed out."  So which way did Judas die. If you really read the bible so closely, how could you not notice this?

Or a little one: Michal, (daughter of Saul) had never had children said one place in the bible but then mcuh laster it says that she had five sons.

Let's talk about St. Paul himself..

ACT 9:7 says that the men who came with Paul heard God's voice.  But then in ACT 22:9 it says "And they that were with me saw indeed the light and weree afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."  So did they hear God or not?

How about the color of the robe placed on Jesus in his trial? Was it scarlet (According to Matthew) or was it purple (according to John?)  Did they give him Vinigar (Matthew) or Wine with Myrrh (according to Mark)

Let's talk about Kings.  In 24:8 Jehoiachin was supposed to be 18 years old when he started to rule.  But then later on in CH2 36:9 he was only 8 years old when he began to reign.  Which is it?

Or how about GOd himself? Does God try to tempt men or not?  IN Genesis 22:1 "God did tempt Abraham" But later in Jame 1:13 it says "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tepted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempeth he any man." I.e. God doesn't tempt men.

The last one that sticks out in my mind are Jesus's last words:

Matt (27:46) says Jesus's last words were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsken me? and Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yieleded up the ghost"

Not to be outdone, Luke claims Jesus said "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

And then John gets in there and claims Jesus said "When Jesus therefore had received the vinigar, he said "It is finished:" and he bowed his head and gave up the ghost.

The only thing they have in common is that Jesus gave up the ghost. 

But no..no contradictions there...

It makes me believe you haven't read the bible as thoroughly as you claimed.

 

The question does God exist is an important one. And if you have to ask the question, then he must not really exist at all.

I don't think contradictions in the bible disprove the existence of God.  It just means that the bible is the work of men and men are imperfect.  Whether the bible is inspired by the divine is not relevant because ultimately, either way, flawed humans were the instruments in its making.  KFC saying there are no contradictions tells me that either a) She hasn't read the bible or She doesn't remember the bible.

Draginol,

I'll take your challenge on. It may take me a few days because I am swamped at work and I don't have my laptop . So please bear with me.

Q1: Genesis 1 and 2 regarding creation of man and beast.
Genesis 1 does not give any evidence of which was created first (man or beast). The assumption that beasts were created first is only supported by the fact that it was mentioned first. Same with Genesis 2 there is no evidence that one came before the other. We can't even really conclude whether Eve was created before or after the beasts either. I see no wording of then, before, first etc... I fail to see how this really contradicts.

Q2: Lev 11:19 regarding bats being a bird.
Lev 11:13 is where we must begin this discussion as it is the root of your contradiction. The Hebrew root word that has been translated to fowl is "uwph' (#5774) which simply means 'to fly (with wings).' The same word is used in Verse 20 but isn't talking about birds. How many birds do you know have four feet?

I know there are many more but I better get back to work. If I don't get back later this afternoon have a great weekend everyone.

AD

I don't wanna tackle them all, but I'll offer my thoughts on the first one if that's ok. Take it or leave it, for what it's worth.

Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap, with more emphasis on the 6th day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. I don't think chapter two is intended to be a chronological account but is a topical one. (this same format can be found in Gen. 10. The Tower of Babel in Ch. 11 actually precedes the Table of Nations, but Moses listed the TON first). I think the animals aren't mentioned until after Adam because the point is that their purpose was to be designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after he was created. Chapter 1 has the sequential events for the creation week, while chapter 2 is concerned with man and his environment. It wasn't meant to be chronological. Further support of this is that in chapter 2 there is no mention of the oceans, fish, sun, moon or stars. Gen. 2 presupposes chapter 1 and is built upon it. Rather than seeing a contradiction, I see the two accounts as complementary -- the second expounding on the first.

I appreciate your allowance that contradictions (or apparent ones) in the Bible don't disprove the existence of God, Draginol. As for me, I still choose to believe that the Bible is inerrant... I understand that you feel differently. Thanks for taking the time to list specific contradictions here... I think it will be fun to do some research. I'm grateful for people who make me really think through my theology and know why I believe what I believe. That's important to me.

If you accept the proposition, the Bible is not perfect due to the fact Man wrote it. Then you have to accept that much that is written remains uncertain as to its legitimacy.
Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but what guide do we go by in declaring which parts of the Bible are true and witch parts aren't.

I think certainty about Biblical subjects will never be resolved, because even in your own self, there are struggles with which parts are important and which aren't. If we can't reconcile those items within ourselves, how do we expect to even begin in others?

If you accept the proposition, the Bible is not perfect due to the fact Man wrote it. Then you have to accept that much that is written remains uncertain as to its legitimacy.Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but what guide do we go by in declaring which parts of the Bible are true and witch parts aren't.

Ah, but there's the difference. I don't believe that it isn't perfect. For someone who does, your point is totally valid. For me, it doesn't work because the premise isn't true. I don't believe that there are parts that are true and parts that aren't.

I think certainty about Biblical subjects will never be resolved, because even in your own self, there are struggles with which parts are important and which aren't.

Again, I think it's all important, so I have no struggle. To me, it's not about which pieces don't fit, but instead is about putting them all together. I'm convinced that I will never know all there is to know (or even a fraction of it! ) about the Bible and how it all works together. That doesn't negate my belief that is does, or my experience of having God speak to me through it. I consider myself blessed to have the freedom to explore it's pages and see what's there... it truly is a privilege of living in this great country.

'The question does God exist is an important one. And if you have to ask the question, then he must not really exist at all.'
Say what? In that case, here are some other things that 'don't exist at all' - atoms, molecules, consciousness, the solar system, DNA, magnetism, gravity. So unless we know a priori that something exists, it doesn't? Honestly foxjazz, I've seen some moronic arguments in my time but that takes the biscuit.

If you accept the proposition, the Bible is not perfect due to the fact Man wrote it. Then you have to accept that much that is written remains uncertain as to its legitimacy. Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but what guide do we go by in declaring which parts of the Bible are true and witch parts aren't. I think certainty about Biblical subjects will never be resolved, because even in your own self, there are struggles with which parts are important and which aren't. If we can't reconcile those items within ourselves, how do we expect to even begin in others?

First off, KFC has stated that she believes the bible should be taken word for word. Some people have already started to make some allowances.  Others are trying to trim around the edges.

The story of Judas is a no brainer for instance. There is no wiggle room there.  One account implies that Judas felt remorse and hung himself. The other states he took the money and bought a farm and died in a very different way.  I find it pretty telling that the literalists here are messing around with the "are bats birds" one.  Talk about splitting hairs. 

I don't think anything in the bible is godly because I'm agnostic.  It's just another book of mythology - abeit, one that is rather sloppily written.

All I have to do is show ONE contradiction for KFC to be proven wrong in her statements. I think I've made my point. It is full of contradictions.  Seeing people gloss over the whole light on the first day but then we get the sun and stars later while instead focusing on whether beasts came before or after man is the kind of thing that I think makes my point.  KFC or others who agree with her should be able to zip through my list with rational explanations. Not split hairs over a couple of them while leaving the huge ones untouched.