CRITICAL BIBLE STUDY [Archive]

K8MHZ

01-21-2008, 08:13 PM

That is also true for any instruction manual I have ever read.

Why should the Bible be any different?

Don't forget, both the Bible and the instruction manuals we use are both converted from another language.

Personally, it doesn't matter what people read or believe, I make my decisions on how they behave and how they treat me.

No matter how flawed the Bible is, there are some things written in it that are a benefit to mankind and how it is applied is more important that the words therein.

The Bible is merely a tool and like any tool can be used as a weapon. The authors of the Bible, men, not God, had good intents. Those that amended it throughout time for their own personal gain did not. What we have today is a mix of both. The Bible's successful application is dependent on the reader's ability to sort, which requires relying on wisdom versus emotion. Those that use the Bible correctly will not be affected one way or another by it's errors, inconsistencies, or contradictions.

FWIW, I am an agnostic that feels that Jesus was the greatest man on the planet existing to serve as an example, not as a pass to get to Heaven. If so, only one passage in the Bible would be needed, that being John 3:16. The rest of the Bible would stand as a moot statement in it's shadow.

Now that I have made my statement, feel free to sit back and watch the rest of the Zoo go at each other's throats as it seems your quest by the very nature of your question. I, for one, refuse to attack anyone for their personal beliefs. Goodness and Evil exists pretty evenly among people of the myriads of beliefs they hold. Subscribing to one book or another never has, and never will, preclude such traits.

K8MHZ

01-21-2008, 08:24 PM

RE: Pi in the Bible.

Actually, the accuracy of the passage depends on the resolution of the unit of measure. If only whole numbers are used, as it seems in the case of cubit measure of that era, the passage is accurate. If an exact interpretation is used, nothing can be accurate. 22/7 is only an approximation. 3.14 is the same. In fact, Pi has been figured out to something on the order of a billion decimal places and still does not stop, so any numerical representation of Pi is only an approximation. For the time, a 3 to 1 ratio was sufficient and can be considered a truthful passage.

W1GUH

01-21-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ Jan. 20 2008,14:13)]That is also true for any instruction manual I have ever read.

Why should the Bible be any different?

Don't forget, both the Bible and the instruction manuals we use are both converted from another language.

Personally, it doesn't matter what people read or believe, I make my decisions on how they behave and how they treat me.

No matter how flawed the Bible is, there are some things written in it that are a benefit to mankind and how it is applied is more important that the words therein.

The Bible is merely a tool and like any tool can be used as a weapon. #The authors of the Bible, men, not God, had good intents. #Those that amended it throughout time for their own personal gain did not. #What we have today is a mix of both. #The Bible's successful application is dependent on the reader's ability to sort, which requires relying on wisdom versus emotion. #Those that use the Bible correctly will not be affected one way or another by it's errors, inconsistencies, or contradictions.

FWIW, I am an agnostic that feels that Jesus was the greatest man on the planet existing to serve as an example, not as a pass to get to Heaven. #If so, only one passage in the Bible would be needed, that being John 3:16. #The rest of the Bible would stand as a moot statement in it's shadow.

Now that I have made my statement, feel free to sit back and watch the rest of the Zoo go at each other's throats as it seems your quest by the very nature of your question. #I, for one, refuse to attack anyone for their personal beliefs. #Goodness and Evil exists pretty evenly among people of the myriads of beliefs they hold. #Subscribing to one book or another has, and never will, preclude such traits.
IMHO, what you say is so right on I quoted it to repeat it here. Thanks for the good words.

K8MHZ

01-21-2008, 08:50 PM

GUH,

Thank you. I noticed an error in my original post and went back and corrected it.

Spell check is no substitute for proofreading, which I thought I did.

One word, or the omission thereof, can totally change the meaning of a sentence.

Peace be with you,

Mark

KP3FT

01-21-2008, 09:06 PM

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Jan. 21 2008,13:09)]The first one that comes to mind is the value of pi. Here's a link to one version of the controversy:

Pi in the Bible (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/158/)

Another is the 'Curse of Ham' Ham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham)

This one is based on an apparent misinterpretation of the Bible, and was used as a justification for slavery by some of the same fundamentalist churches who insist King James Version is God's Holy and infallible word today.
There's another very good explanation I've seen regarding the "pi" value. First, when the people measured the bronze basin, they were not doing it to determine a mathematical ratio. Therefore it's perfectly logical to assume they measured the inside of the opening of the basin for the circumference, which would give a value of 3.0 instead of 3.1415...depending on the thickness of the edges. The edges were probably thick because the measurements of the basin were 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference. It's generally agreed the cubit is at least 18 inches. That would make the basin 15 feet across and 45 feet around.

KP3FT

01-21-2008, 09:14 PM

Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ Jan. 21 2008,13:13)]FWIW, I am an agnostic that feels that Jesus was the greatest man on the planet existing to serve as an example, not as a pass to get to Heaven. If so, only one passage in the Bible would be needed, that being John 3:16. The rest of the Bible would stand as a moot statement in it's shadow.
I used to believe the same thing. There's a problem with that though. If you believe he was a great teacher or a great example, but nothing else, then you also need to believe he was a liar or a madman. He directly claimed that He was God, He would rise from the dead in three days, and that he would be coming back. He said no one would get to the Father except through him. He said people need to repent and be born again. The things he said go beyond a nice ideology or philosophy for mankind to adopt.

NL7W

01-21-2008, 09:22 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Jan. 21 2008,13:14)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ Jan. 21 2008,13:13)]FWIW, I am an agnostic that feels that Jesus was the greatest man on the planet existing to serve as an example, not as a pass to get to Heaven. If so, only one passage in the Bible would be needed, that being John 3:16. The rest of the Bible would stand as a moot statement in it's shadow.
I used to believe the same thing. There's a problem with that though. If you believe he was a great teacher or a great example, but nothing else, then you also need to believe he was a liar or a madman. He directly claimed that He was God, He would rise from the dead in three days, and that he would be coming back. He said no one would get to the Father except through him. He said people need to repent and be born again. The things he said go beyond a nice ideology or philosophy for mankind to adopt.
Well said. Succinct.

wa6ccw

01-21-2008, 09:58 PM

Let me start by saying that, as a former Evangelical Christian, I was convinced that the Bible was the perfect word of a perfect God. As such, it wouldn't be possible for the Bible to contain any error, inconsistency, contradiction, or claim that is unable to be substantiated. By definition, then, if so much as one of the aforementioned could be positively shown, the entire validity of the Bible would then come into question.

Does anyone agree or disagree?

K8MHZ

01-21-2008, 10:46 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Jan. 21 2008,09:14)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ Jan. 21 2008,13:13)]FWIW, I am an agnostic that feels that Jesus was the greatest man on the planet existing to serve as an example, not as a pass to get to Heaven. If so, only one passage in the Bible would be needed, that being John 3:16. The rest of the Bible would stand as a moot statement in it's shadow.
I used to believe the same thing. There's a problem with that though. If you believe he was a great teacher or a great example, but nothing else, then you also need to believe he was a liar or a madman. He directly claimed that He was God, He would rise from the dead in three days, and that he would be coming back. He said no one would get to the Father except through him. He said people need to repent and be born again. The things he said go beyond a nice ideology or philosophy for mankind to adopt.
Your point is worthy of consideration.

I would like to point out, however, that Jesus did not write the Bible, others did, as such we are taking their word for what is said, not His.

We don't even really know who wrote the Bible. Many studies have been inconclusive and some allege that the Bible is a re-hash of other books, or scrolls to possibly be more accurate, that were in existence before the compilation of the books people consider to be the Bible were assembled.

There are parts of the Bible that I simply don't believe, some I don't understand and some I respect. Since I have never promised anyone that I will take the entire collection of the scriptures as neither law nor fact, I owe no one any adherence to any part the Bible other than myself and do so simply as a method to do what I feel is prudent to carry on peacefully in life and to hopefully leave this planet in better shape than I came into it.

K8MHZ

01-21-2008, 10:59 PM

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 21 2008,09:58)]Let me start by saying that, as a former Evangelical Christian, I was convinced that the Bible was the perfect word of a perfect God. As such, it wouldn't be possible for the Bible to contain any error, inconsistency, contradiction, or claim that is unable to be substantiated. By definition, then, if so much as one of the aforementioned could be positively shown, the entire validity of the Bible would then come into question.

Does anyone agree or disagree?
Which Bible?

I have copies that are over 100 years old that are different than ones that are 10 years old. Some Bibles contain books others do not. There are different versions of the Bible, the King James being the most well known.

Here is just one example of how the Bible changes.

Bible comparison (http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/comparison.asp)

And a link to a very good question:

One Simple Question (http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/)

Here is an interesting link to what I thought was an error in the Bible many years ago, and a possible explanation as to why it may just be a mis-translation:

Corn in the Bible (http://www.godandscience.org/cults/corn.html)

The Bible is what you make of it. If it works for you, great. If only parts of it work for you, great. So long as people don't use it as a reason to harm others, I have no qualms about anyone's interpretation of the book.

K0RGR

01-21-2008, 11:03 PM

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 21 2008,14:58)]Let me start by saying that, as a former Evangelical Christian, I was convinced that the Bible was the perfect word of a perfect God. As such, it wouldn't be possible for the Bible to contain any error, inconsistency, contradiction, or claim that is unable to be substantiated. By definition, then, if so much as one of the aforementioned could be positively shown, the entire validity of the Bible would then come into question.

Does anyone agree or disagree?
No, many mainstream churches believe that the earliest books of the Bible contain stories that are allegories for what really happened, because we cannot understand the real processes.

Even the current Pope wrote a paper years ago, where he argued that God used evolution to create the species. The reference to '7 days' (OK 6 days and rested on the 7th) in Genesis could be a reference to God's reckoning of time, not ours. It could easily mean 6 or 7 revolutions of our solar system around the galaxy, which would come out much closer to what science thinks is the true age of our solar system.

I like to believe that science reveals more of God's work to us every day, and it doesn't sound much like the Bible, unless you stand back and take a fairly broad view of it.

Many have speculated over time that the Bible is also a political statement, and I think there's a lot of truth to that, too. Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the New Testament, where he removed what he believed were statements attributed to Jesus, but actually inserted by someone else. This included all references to Jesus as the son of God, and miracles.

Many of the Jewish laws enshrined in the Bible's Book of Leviticus are related to real health issues. If you eat pork or seafood, and get a parasitic infection, it will not be God's wrath that kills you. I still wonder if those who eat seafood and those who practice homosexuality will end up in the same burning pool on judgement day - those acts are both declared abominations in Leviticus, and only three verses apart!

Personally, I think St. John the Divine was whacked out when he wrote Revelations. If not, I at least won't be all alone in the burning pool. There are lots of other seafood eaters out there!

KP3FT

01-21-2008, 11:12 PM

Wow, this topic could go in a zillion different directions.
I have some replies, but will have to wait; the foremen at my new job site are doing their best to kill me early with extra hard labor and I'm ready for bed.
Well, maybe one reply...the Pope is just a guy, nothing special about him. For him to claim God used evolution just shows his ignorance of the facts.

W0MT

01-21-2008, 11:28 PM

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 21 2008,14:58)]Let me start by saying that, as a former Evangelical Christian, I was convinced that the Bible was the perfect word of a perfect God. As such, it wouldn't be possible for the Bible to contain any error, inconsistency, contradiction, or claim that is unable to be substantiated. By definition, then, if so much as one of the aforementioned could be positively shown, the entire validity of the Bible would then come into question.

Does anyone agree or disagree?
I think anyone who believes that the Bible is a perfect word of a perfect God simply has not read it. For example in Exodus 35:2 it says pretty clearly that anyone who works on the Sabbath shall be put to death. I doubt if the there many Jews of Christians who believe that this should be followed. I don't know if this should be called an error or what. There are many other similar passages.

In the early 1970s I lived in Alabama. One day there was a knock on the door. There was a man and a woman who wanted me to sign a petition that said something like, "The KJV of the Bible is the only true Bible and when the books of the Bible were written in Greek or whatever language, that God intended that they be translated into the KJV as the true word." I refused to sign.

I think the Bible should be taken as something that was written by people who (1) mostly did not observe what they were writing about but rather on what they were told by others who also did not observe, (2) had little understanding of science, (3) had a strong belief in the supernatural, and (4) may have shaded what they were writing about to support a position or point they wanted to make. Some of the books of the New Testament were not written until something like 300 years after the death of Jesus. Today scholars disagree on the life and times of George Washington and that is less than 300 years ago and we certainly have a much better historical record than any that existed almost 2,000 years ago.

kd5kfl

01-21-2008, 11:31 PM

Quote[/b] ]Let me start by saying that, as a former Evangelical Christian, I was convinced that the Bible was the perfect word of a perfect God. As such, it wouldn't be possible for the Bible to contain any error, inconsistency, contradiction, or claim that is unable to be substantiated. By definition, then, if so much as one of the aforementioned could be positively shown, the entire validity of the Bible would then come into question.

Does anyone agree or disagree?

1 for disagree.

That is the thought process of a very simple mind. Some people are terrified at the prospect of having to pick and choose what is true and what is not. Ergo, every bit of it must be inerrant.

Ever had anyone come up to you and say "2 + 3 = 5. Isn't that right?" No. But I have had people demand that I say the Bible is inerrant. They don't really believe it themselves and they need the reinforcement.

The Hebrew language has ~55,000 words. English: estimates range from 450,000 to 1.5 million. We are accustomed to a far greater degree of precision in our language than the biblical Jews were capable of. The Jews had one word ( which I have no way to look up at this moment ) that covered all diseases which manifest themselves through skin markings. Chicken Pox, Shingles, Measles, all had the same name. Translators chose to assign the condition of Leprosy where they saw this word. See Isaac Asimovs Guide To The Bible.

News flash: The Jews did not have the letter J. J first showed up in France in 1520. Ergo, Joseph, Jehovah, Jehoshafat, Joshua, Jehoshua et al - No. Yusuf, Yehu, Yehoshafat, Yeshua, Yehoshua. Jesus would have been Joshua ( Hebrew ) or Jehoshua ( Aramaic ) but the Romans "honored" him by adding a Roman -us to his name. As they did with Lazarus and "Moses" - Moishe in Hebrew.

k6pme

01-21-2008, 11:35 PM

wa6ccw

01-22-2008, 12:11 AM

Hey, I seem to have hit the jackpot with some (mostly) thoughtful responses. While I appreciate the participation, it seems that we don't have any "inerrantists" out here...

While I personally consider that to be a good thing, I do have to take issue on a previous comment:

Quote[/b] ]The Bible is what you make of it.

That comment misses the point completely - any book is "what you make of it"... #in the case of the Bible, either we have a "Word of God" or we do not.

Same thing with belief: you either do or you don't (for whatever the reason) - there isn't a "middle ground".

al2n

01-22-2008, 12:23 AM

Errors in the Bible are often a result of translation or grammar issues that some will take and use as ammo in their crusade against Christianity.

In comparing ancient texts, some are found to have different words here and there. This is not in dispute. In fact, many of the study Bibles out there today will have footnotes telling the reader that not all manuscripts contain that word or phrase.

As a whole, the Bible is an incredibly preserved set of documents. Many of the "errors" people point to are minor or a result of cherry picking a verse here and there to suit the purpose.

In all these differences between the manuscripts, none have any effect on any major doctrine.

Then you have the task of translating ancient greek, aramaic, or hebrew into english- not an easy task.

All in all, the message is not lost. The argument is usually over small stuff that has little to no bearing over the message as a whole.

KA8DKT

01-22-2008, 01:25 AM

Quote[/b] ]Why should the Bible be any different?
Because the Bible is the word of God and is thus Perfect?

-gary

KB9YCO

01-22-2008, 01:45 AM

Here are just a few that I lifted from this website: Biblical contradictions (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#good_to_all)

Quote[/b] ]War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Righteous live?

Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

God be seen?

Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

Who bears guilt?

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

And here are a few other links of fun stuff:

Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=contra)

194 contradictions of the new testament (http://skeptically.org/bible/id6.html)

Self-Contradictions of the Bible, by William Henry Burr, [1860] (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/scb/scb01.htm)

Enjoy, I am pretty sure this thread will become a s***storm of insults and insinuations.

K8MHZ

01-22-2008, 02:11 AM

Quote[/b] ]That comment misses the point completely - any book is "what you make of it"...in the case of the Bible, either we have a "Word of God" or we do not.

In one sense you are correct, as there can only be one truth. In another sense, as it has been pointed out that the essence of the Bible is it's inspiration and interpretation, the Bible is indeed what each reader makes of it. Or does not, as the case may be. Some take it literally, others do not yet still believe in it's essence.

It is almost universally agreed that the Bible was not written by God, so to that effect it is the word of men. The accuracy of what they supposedly passed from God to text would be the sole determination of the Bible being the "Word of God" or not.

As for there being no middle ground, I, like many have to disagree. In between belief and dis-belief there exists uncertainty and an admitted lack of understanding. Agnostics feel they occupy that realm, where 'believers' and atheists refuse to acknowledge that realm, albeit from opposite ends of the spectrum.

I feel that I am being honest when I say I neither understand nor comprehend what a complex being God would be if He existed. I refuse to adopt what others believe to fill in a void left by my admitted uncertainty. I do think it is arrogant and egotistical to believe that God made us in His own image. We even extend that arrogance to specify a gender for God, reflecting a male dominated culture that has existed for eons.

Please note that I used gender specifics and proper nouns due to accepted literary practice and not because of my belief or lack thereof.

K8MHZ

01-22-2008, 02:15 AM

Quote[/b] ]Enjoy, I am pretty sure this thread will become a s***storm of insults and insinuations.

I thought the same thing when I first saw the thread. So far we have been able to remain civil and have had a very good discussion. That has surprised me, pleasantly, I might add.

I will continue to participate so long as that civility remains. Once the 'storm' starts, please excuse me if I head for harbor.

al2n

01-22-2008, 02:27 AM

Quote[/b] ]Enjoy, I am pretty sure this thread will become a s***storm of insults and insinuations.

Not really.

I do not have time to address each one individually, but they serve as an example of the cherry picking I talked about earlier.

A verse here, a verse there and they sound in conflict. Take those same verses and read them in the context in which they were written and it makes sense.

For example, the first one listed gives a verse from Exodus and one from Romans. The verse from Exodus is part of a song that speaks of God protecting the Israelites after the crossing of the Red Sea. The verse from Romans is Paul bidding farewell to the Christians in Rome until the next time he visits or writes them. Neither is a direct command, but merely figures of speech and should be taken into the context in which they are written.

Two totally different circumstances, yet they are used as examples of contradiction. And this does not even get into the issue of the Old and New Covenant, which is another thread in itself.

This kind of argument can be done with any text. I could pluck bits and pieces from the ARRL Manual and probably have the league giving commands for us to take over the world and kill those who do not know code. Everything should be taken in the context in which it was written.

wa6ccw

01-22-2008, 03:28 AM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ Jan. 22 2008,09:27)]A verse here, a verse there and they sound in conflict. #Take those same verses and read them in the context in which they were written and it makes sense.
I'm glad you brought this up because it brings a few items into the forefront...

First of all, to those who would say that the Bible is an "incredibly preserved set of documents" I would ask: HOW do you know?

Secondly, yes, there are a number of verses which can be easily harmonized with proper context. But there are also those that canNOT. For example:

In the book of Matthew (Chapter 2, Verses 19-23 NASB), note the following (in bold):

"But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, and said, "Get up, take the Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel; for those who sought the Child's life are dead." So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee, and came and lived in a city called Nazareth This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."

Unfortunately, although the author of Matthew assures us otherwise, this direct quote can't be found to have been spoken by ANY of the Old Testament prophets.

An apologetic website offers the following "explanation":

Quote[/b] ]1. It is possible that Matthew is referencing a specific prophecy which was not recorded in any Old Testament book, but passed down verbally or revealed specifically to the New Testament writer. Jude quotes a prophecy of Enoch (Jude 14-15) and Paul referenced a Cretan prophet (Titus 1:12), but neither original account appears in the Bible. Matthew's reference here may be the same.

2. It is believed by some that the Greek nazaret (translated "Nazareth") is related to the Hebrew netzer (translated "branch", "sprout", figuratively). Isaiah 11:1 reads, "There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch (netzer) shall grow out of his roots." (also see Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12). If a relationship exists between these words, perhaps Matthew had Isaiah's prophecy in mind.

3. With no prophet particularly referenced, and no specific prophecy (unlike Matthew 1:22; 2:5, 15), it is possible that Matthew's statement is based upon a general view or theme given through the prophets, and not specific words which they spoke (ie. Acts 3:18, 24). The Old Testament revealed Jesus to be despised among men, viewed with contempt, and rejected (Psalm 22:6-8; 69:9-11, 19-21; Isaiah 53:2-4, 7-9). This being the case, what better name to be applied to the Christ in first century Israel than "Nazarene"? Notice the contempt with which Nazareth of Galilee was held:
– "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:46)
– "Search and look, for no prophet has arisen out of Galilee." (John 7:52)

However...

#1 doesn't work for the simple fact that the author of Matthew was on a mission in these particular verses and others to prove - point by point - how Jesus was the fulfillment of specific prophecy. With no specific prophecy to examine, a specific point is unable to be proven.

#2 doesn't work because "Nazareth" and "Nazarene" as used by the author of Matthew are in clear reference to geographic location.

#3 doesn't work because because no "general view or theme" is being made reference to. This is clearly seen by way of the fact that the author of Matthew uses a specific phrase surrounded by quotation marks to indicate that which was allegedly communicated.

al2n

01-22-2008, 03:46 AM

Quote[/b] ]#3 doesn't work because because no "general view or theme" is being made reference to. This is clearly seen by way of the fact that the author of Matthew uses a specific phrase surrounded by quotation marks to indicate that which was allegedly communicated.

#3 is the most commonly accepted theory for the reference.

While no general view or theme is given for us to draw upon, the readers of the time would have known full well what was being referenced without an explination. This issue is up for debate, but it does not take away or alter any major doctrine of the Christian faith.

wa6ccw

01-22-2008, 03:51 AM

Quote[/b] (al2n @ Jan. 22 2008,10:46)]Quote[/b] ]#3 doesn't work because because no "general view or theme" is being made reference to. This is clearly seen by way of the fact that the author of Matthew uses a specific phrase surrounded by quotation marks to indicate that which was allegedly communicated.

#3 is the most commonly accepted theory for the reference.

While no general view or theme is given for us to draw upon, the readers of the time would have known full well what was being referenced without an explination. # This issue is up for debate, but it does not take away or alter any major doctrine of the Christian faith.
Unfortunately, supposition and rationalization do not solve the problem...

The bottom line here is that the subject verse canNOT be harmonized.

KB9YCO

01-22-2008, 04:16 AM

Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ Jan. 21 2008,20:15)]Quote[/b] ]Enjoy, I am pretty sure this thread will become a s***storm of insults and insinuations.

I thought the same thing when I first saw the thread. So far we have been able to remain civil and have had a very good discussion. That has surprised me, pleasantly, I might add.

I will continue to participate so long as that civility remains. Once the 'storm' starts, please excuse me if I head for harbor.
Oh, just give it time. These threads can start with the nicest and most sincere of intentions and quickly degenerate. It is common on the internet so don't be surprised when it happens, not that you would.

Also, I just want to say that I posted those contradictions only to add to the discussion as the original poster asked for. I personally could care less about religion one way or the other as long as it isn't forced on me or my way of life. I don't put much stock in it but I don't begrudge someone else their right to it, that is supposed to be what this country is all about.

KA8DKT

01-22-2008, 04:32 AM

If the Bible was the Perfect Word of a God then it would be still one hundred percent applicable to today's world. #It is not, and only a very small minority would suggest otherwise. #

Further, a very substantial majority of Bible scholars agree that the first writings of the New Testament of the Bible were first written, by men, some three generations after the lifetime of Jesus.

As far as I can tell, the only words that are in the Bible that were ever claimed in the Bible to be the actual Word of God were the stone tablets on which the Ten Commandments were written, in Hebrew. #The first tablets were broken in anger by Moses (or maybe he accidently dropped them coming down the mountain, but anger makes a so much better story) so God sent another set.

It seems so strange that the single most important part of the message of the Bible, the only words according to the Bible itself that are the true Words of God, are the ones ignored by most of those who claim to believe in the Bible. #

Oddly, it is the six most important Commandments, numbered five through ten, the ones that are the very most important for getting along with other people and living on this Earth, that are ignored the very most. #Even those who try to live the most ethical of lives will occasionally find themselves in conflict with these Commandments, so clearly none of us are perfect. #But most people don't even really try. #That is my issue. #

You can claim all you want that you are Jewish, a "Christian", a follower of Islam, Deist, whatever. #If you don't fully obey six simple Laws of your God, then you a hypocrite. #Period. #If you ascribe to the Bible (or the Koran, which acknowledges the so-called Old Testament and the Ten Commandments) and you do not live your life accordingly, then you are a hypocrite.

The same for those who claim follow the creed of, say, the Secular Humanists. #If you do not make a sincere effort to ascribe to and follow the precepts therein then you, too, are being hypocritical.

Both the credo of the Secular Humanists and the last six of the Ten Commandments are good guidelines to an ethical and righteous life.

Is the Bible actually the thoughts and words of a mystical all powerful being? #Probably not, since all the evidence points to men having written all of the Bible. #Whether or not they were truly inspired by a god or they were just inspired is a moot point, really, since most people really ignore their writings in spite of claims to the contrary.

-gary

KC9IUX

01-22-2008, 04:53 AM

I considered being "born again".

I just can't reconsile teh Old Testament with the New.

The "Good News" is compelling, if I had a choice to have supper with any historical person, I'd choose Jesus of Nazereth.

The anger and spite of the God of the Old Testement is at odds of the New, in my opinion.

KA8DKT

01-22-2008, 01:26 PM

Quote[/b] (KC9IUX @ Jan. 22 2008,00:53)]I considered being "born again".

I just can't reconsile teh Old Testament with the New.

The "Good News" is compelling, if I had a choice to have supper with any historical person, I'd choose Jesus of Nazereth.

The anger and spite of the God of the Old Testement is at odds of the New, in my opinion.
But it is the same "god". Did Jesus save him too?

-gary

al2n

01-22-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 21 2008,20:51)]Quote[/b] (al2n @ Jan. 22 2008,10:46)]Quote[/b] ]#3 doesn't work because because no "general view or theme" is being made reference to. This is clearly seen by way of the fact that the author of Matthew uses a specific phrase surrounded by quotation marks to indicate that which was allegedly communicated.

#3 is the most commonly accepted theory for the reference.

While no general view or theme is given for us to draw upon, the readers of the time would have known full well what was being referenced without an explination. This issue is up for debate, but it does not take away or alter any major doctrine of the Christian faith.
Unfortunately, supposition and rationalization do not solve the problem...

The bottom line here is that the subject verse canNOT be harmonized.
Yes, there is a lack of follow through with this verse. There are a couple others that do this as well. With the others it seems that the audience the letters are written to are familiar with the reference, that is suggested here.

Elsewhere in Matthew, specific references to scripture are made, here is simply refers to the prophets. Verses 6, 15 and 18 of the same chapter quote specific parts of the Old Testament. The lack of quotation here would suggest that there is no specific prophecy to be quoted, but that it is more of a concept rather than a specific item.

There are references in Jude and Titus that do the same thing. Again, these have no effect on any major doctrine.

The message of God remains intact even if we have missed bits here and there in translation. That is where a good study Bible with translators notes and such comes in very handy. It helps understand where the translation issues are and why certain English words are used over others.

As to your earlier question on how we know that the texts have been preserved. This is through archaeology. Thousands of texts and fragments of texts have been found that verify that the Bible we have now is the same as when it was written. We have Old Testament texts that were written before the time of Christ and some fragments of New Testament texts that date as early as 80 AD.

Here are some sites that cover the textual criticism of the bible:

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/

http://www.bible-researcher.com/title.html

http://www.cob-net.org/compare.htm

When the King James was translated, they used the best texts they had at the time. Since then other, older, texts have been found. These are often used in conjunction with the ones used for the King James in more modern translations. The wording may change a bit from one to another, but the message is the same. There are some that say that the King James is the only 'authorized' translation and others that are anything but King James readers. I like to reference a variety of translations. But no matter what translation you read, the message remains.

To me, the message is the word of God, not the particular translation I am reading.

kl7aj

01-22-2008, 03:52 PM

A Cubit was the measure from one's elbow to the tip of one's finger. It's unlikely anyone was willing to saw off 9/10 of their forearm in order to make the decimals come out right.

We call it the 80 meter band...is it REALLY exactly 80 meters?

The Bible actually accounts for some COMMON SENSE....surprise!

Eeeesh!

Eric

n2ize

01-22-2008, 03:54 PM

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 21 2008,12:50)]alleged errors, inconsistencies, contradictions, etc., that supposedly exist in the Bible.

Anyone up for it?
Do they worship poop ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

N8UZE

01-22-2008, 06:04 PM

Personally I prefer the King James Version simply due to its "poetry". Many of the most magnificent phrases just don't sound as good in other translations even if they say exactly the same thing.

kd5kfl

01-22-2008, 06:08 PM

Quote[/b] ]Personally I prefer the King James Version simply due to its "poetry". Many of the most magnificent phrases just don't sound as good in other translations even if they say exactly the same thing.

Final edit by Sir Francis Bacon. Considered by many to be the true author of Shakespeares works. Hence the consistent style.

N8UZE

01-22-2008, 06:09 PM

Another item to keep in mind that the Bible developed over time. The needs of the people changed. Some of that change is reflected in what we might call contradictory passages.

It was a living, growing book during its early stages. It not only laid down laws for the society (these needs can change over time) but also documented some of the history of the Jews, filtered of course through their religious views, but still refering to some real events.

N8UZE

01-22-2008, 06:10 PM

Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Jan. 22 2008,13:08)]Quote[/b] ]Personally I prefer the King James Version simply due to its "poetry". #Many of the most magnificent phrases just don't sound as good in other translations even if they say exactly the same thing.

Final edit by Sir Francis Bacon. Considered by many to be the true author of Shakespeares works. Hence the consistent style.
Doesn't surprise me at all. From a literary standpoint the KJV is beautiful.

K6BBC

01-22-2008, 07:40 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Jan. 21 2008,14:14)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ Jan. 21 2008,13:13)]FWIW, I am an agnostic that feels that Jesus was the greatest man on the planet existing to serve as an example, not as a pass to get to Heaven. If so, only one passage in the Bible would be needed, that being John 3:16. The rest of the Bible would stand as a moot statement in it's shadow.
I used to believe the same thing. There's a problem with that though. If you believe he was a great teacher or a great example, but nothing else, then you also need to believe he was a liar or a madman. He directly claimed that He was God, He would rise from the dead in three days, and that he would be coming back. He said no one would get to the Father except through him. He said people need to repent and be born again. The things he said go beyond a nice ideology or philosophy for mankind to adopt.
Charles Manson also thinks he is God - FYI...

bbc

KP3FT

01-22-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Jan. 22 2008,12:40)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Jan. 21 2008,14:14)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ Jan. 21 2008,13:13)]FWIW, I am an agnostic that feels that Jesus was the greatest man on the planet existing to serve as an example, not as a pass to get to Heaven. If so, only one passage in the Bible would be needed, that being John 3:16. The rest of the Bible would stand as a moot statement in it's shadow.
I used to believe the same thing. There's a problem with that though. If you believe he was a great teacher or a great example, but nothing else, then you also need to believe he was a liar or a madman. He directly claimed that He was God, He would rise from the dead in three days, and that he would be coming back. He said no one would get to the Father except through him. He said people need to repent and be born again. The things he said go beyond a nice ideology or philosophy for mankind to adopt.
Charles Manson also thinks he is God - FYI...

bbc
Did Manson do miracles, forgive sin, and rise from the dead?

K6BBC

01-22-2008, 08:35 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Jan. 22 2008,13:34)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Jan. 22 2008,12:40)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Jan. 21 2008,14:14)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ Jan. 21 2008,13:13)]FWIW, I am an agnostic that feels that Jesus was the greatest man on the planet existing to serve as an example, not as a pass to get to Heaven. If so, only one passage in the Bible would be needed, that being John 3:16. The rest of the Bible would stand as a moot statement in it's shadow.
I used to believe the same thing. There's a problem with that though. If you believe he was a great teacher or a great example, but nothing else, then you also need to believe he was a liar or a madman. He directly claimed that He was God, He would rise from the dead in three days, and that he would be coming back. He said no one would get to the Father except through him. He said people need to repent and be born again. The things he said go beyond a nice ideology or philosophy for mankind to adopt.
Charles Manson also thinks he is God - FYI...

bbc
Did Manson do miracles, forgive sin, and rise from the dead?
You really do need to seek professional help...

bbc

KP3FT

01-22-2008, 08:45 PM

Quote[/b] (KC9IUX @ Jan. 21 2008,21:53)]I considered being "born again".

I just can't reconsile teh Old Testament with the New.

The "Good News" is compelling, if I had a choice to have supper with any historical person, I'd choose Jesus of Nazereth.

The anger and spite of the God of the Old Testement is at odds of the New, in my opinion.
The Old and New Testaments both show God as having love mercy, wrath, anger, etc. If you read through the entire Bible, you will see many passages which show this. For example, the New Testament states that the Lamb will be wrathful. No one argues that the Lamb is not referring to Jesus:
Revelation 6:16 "And said to the mountains and rocks, 'Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb..."
That doesn't sound like the "meek and mild" Jesus. Jesus IS the same God of the Old Testament. He is the "Living God", as in He has emotion like us, He interacts with us, and so on. People seem to place God into some sort of robotic function where He is supposed to act in a way which we predetermine. One of my favorite passages is in Genesis where Abraham actually "bargained" with God, and God changed His mind as a result.

KA8DKT

01-22-2008, 08:54 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Jan. 22 2008,16:34)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Jan. 22 2008,12:40)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Jan. 21 2008,14:14)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ Jan. 21 2008,13:13)]FWIW, I am an agnostic that feels that Jesus was the greatest man on the planet existing to serve as an example, not as a pass to get to Heaven. #If so, only one passage in the Bible would be needed, that being John 3:16. #The rest of the Bible would stand as a moot statement in it's shadow.
I used to believe the same thing. #There's a problem with that though. #If you believe he was a great teacher or a great example, but nothing else, then you also need to believe he was a liar or a madman. #He directly claimed that He was God, He would rise from the dead in three days, and that he would be coming back. #He said no one would get to the Father except through him. #He said people need to repent and be born again. #The things he said go beyond a nice ideology or philosophy for mankind to adopt.
Charles Manson also thinks he is God - FYI...

bbc
Did Manson do miracles, forgive sin, and rise from the dead?
Not a valid question, as we have absolutely no proof that anyone ever performed miracles, or actually became alive again after being actually dead for two (or three) days. #And even I could forgive sin, "You are forgiven."

The Bible was written within a context of historical events. #That does not mean everything in the Bible is history or even true.

Manson and/or his followers could have made the same claims about him, and viola, three generations later, he is credited with those "powers". #That doesn't mean he had them.

-gary

K6BBC

01-22-2008, 09:01 PM

Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Jan. 22 2008,13:54)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Jan. 22 2008,16:34)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Jan. 22 2008,12:40)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Jan. 21 2008,14:14)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ Jan. 21 2008,13:13)]FWIW, I am an agnostic that feels that Jesus was the greatest man on the planet existing to serve as an example, not as a pass to get to Heaven. If so, only one passage in the Bible would be needed, that being John 3:16. The rest of the Bible would stand as a moot statement in it's shadow.
I used to believe the same thing. There's a problem with that though. If you believe he was a great teacher or a great example, but nothing else, then you also need to believe he was a liar or a madman. He directly claimed that He was God, He would rise from the dead in three days, and that he would be coming back. He said no one would get to the Father except through him. He said people need to repent and be born again. The things he said go beyond a nice ideology or philosophy for mankind to adopt.
Charles Manson also thinks he is God - FYI...

bbc
Did Manson do miracles, forgive sin, and rise from the dead?
Not a valid question, as we have absolutely no proof that anyone ever performed miracles, or actually became alive again after being actually dead for two (or three) days. And even I could forgive sin, "You are forgiven."

The Bible was written within a context of historical events. That does not mean everything in the Bible is history or even true.

Manson and/or his followers could have made the same claims about him, and viola, three generations later, he is credited with those "powers". That doesn't mean he had them.

-gary
Logic does not work with these people. Just keep them out of my government and my life.

bbc

KP3FT

01-22-2008, 09:07 PM

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 21 2008,20:28)]Quote[/b] (al2n @ Jan. 22 2008,09:27)]A verse here, a verse there and they sound in conflict. Take those same verses and read them in the context in which they were written and it makes sense.
I'm glad you brought this up because it brings a few items into the forefront...

First of all, to those who would say that the Bible is an "incredibly preserved set of documents" I would ask: HOW do you know?

Secondly, yes, there are a number of verses which can be easily harmonized with proper context. But there are also those that canNOT. For example:

In the book of Matthew (Chapter 2, Verses 19-23 NASB), note the following (in bold):

"But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, and said, "Get up, take the Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel; for those who sought the Child's life are dead." So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee, and came and lived in a city called Nazareth This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."

Unfortunately, although the author of Matthew assures us otherwise, this direct quote can't be found to have been spoken by ANY of the Old Testament prophets.

An apologetic website offers the following "explanation":

Quote[/b] ]1. It is possible that Matthew is referencing a specific prophecy which was not recorded in any Old Testament book, but passed down verbally or revealed specifically to the New Testament writer. Jude quotes a prophecy of Enoch (Jude 14-15) and Paul referenced a Cretan prophet (Titus 1:12), but neither original account appears in the Bible. Matthew's reference here may be the same.

2. It is believed by some that the Greek nazaret (translated "Nazareth") is related to the Hebrew netzer (translated "branch", "sprout", figuratively). Isaiah 11:1 reads, "There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch (netzer) shall grow out of his roots." (also see Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12). If a relationship exists between these words, perhaps Matthew had Isaiah's prophecy in mind.

3. With no prophet particularly referenced, and no specific prophecy (unlike Matthew 1:22; 2:5, 15), it is possible that Matthew's statement is based upon a general view or theme given through the prophets, and not specific words which they spoke (ie. Acts 3:18, 24). The Old Testament revealed Jesus to be despised among men, viewed with contempt, and rejected (Psalm 22:6-8; 69:9-11, 19-21; Isaiah 53:2-4, 7-9). This being the case, what better name to be applied to the Christ in first century Israel than "Nazarene"? Notice the contempt with which Nazareth of Galilee was held:
– "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:46)
– "Search and look, for no prophet has arisen out of Galilee." (John 7:52)

However...

#1 doesn't work for the simple fact that the author of Matthew was on a mission in these particular verses and others to prove - point by point - how Jesus was the fulfillment of specific prophecy. With no specific prophecy to examine, a specific point is unable to be proven.

#2 doesn't work because "Nazareth" and "Nazarene" as used by the author of Matthew are in clear reference to geographic location.

#3 doesn't work because because no "general view or theme" is being made reference to. This is clearly seen by way of the fact that the author of Matthew uses a specific phrase surrounded by quotation marks to indicate that which was allegedly communicated.
I believe #1 is the explanation. There must have been a specific prophecy regarding Nazareth, which we don't have today. Otherwise, why would Matthew mention it? It makes no sense for Matthew to cite a prophecy as proof if there was no prophecy in existence.
The Bible cites other books which we don't have in existence today. The most logical and common sense approach would be to assume there was a real prophecy regarding Nazareth. This is also similar to the Hittite civilization which the Bible mentions. Nowhere else in the world was there any evidence or mention of Hittites. Skeptics pointed it out for a long time, until the early 1900's when archeology discovered the Hittites.
Furthermore, regarding other "contradictions" such as in Genesis (and others), why would the author be so dumb as to overlook it? Also, if it's a contradiction and Genesis is just a made-up story, why didn't someone "fix" it?

KA8DKT

01-22-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote[/b] ]He directly claimed that He was God, He would rise from the dead in three days, and that he would be coming back.
He was reported to have made those claims. #You were not there so you cannot state for a fact that the claims were made. #Nor were the people who actually wrote the claims down. #And, except for that text that was written some two, three, or more generations later we have no evidence or any physical proof that any of these events happened. #The Romans, who were meticulous records keepers, kept no record of putting a Jesus of Nazareth on a cross.

While there are some people who have apparently risen after being dead they were all shown to have one condition or another that made them appear, at least superficially, to be dead before they awakened quite alive.

And, when he allegedly made the claim that he was coming back, he indicated it would be "soon". It has been some two thousand years since that time. It is now "late".

-gary

KA8DKT

01-22-2008, 09:19 PM

Quote[/b] ]There must have been a specific prophecy regarding Nazareth, which we don't have today. #Otherwise, why would Matthew mention it? #It makes no sense for Matthew to cite a prophecy as proof if there was no prophecy in existence.(My emphasis)

ONLY if you assume the Bible is factual document. #It may very well not be, and Matthew's mention may have been just to fill out the story a little.

Quote[/b] ]Also, if it's a contradiction and Genesis is just a made-up story, why didn't someone "fix" it?
Because they "believed" it to be true and had no way to refute it, like we have today.

-gary

KP3FT

01-22-2008, 09:23 PM

Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Jan. 22 2008,14:11)]Quote[/b] ]He directly claimed that He was God, He would rise from the dead in three days, and that he would be coming back.
He was reported to have made those claims. You were not there so you cannot state for a fact that the claims were made. Nor were the people who actually wrote the claims down. And, except for that text that was written some two, three, or more generations later we have no evidence or any physical proof that any of these events happened. The Romans, who were meticulous records keepers, kept no record of putting a Jesus of Nazareth on a cross.

While there are some people who have apparently risen after being dead they were all shown to have one condition or another that made them appear, at least superficially, to be dead before they awakened quite alive.

And, when he allegedly made the claim that he was coming back, he indicated it would be "soon". It has been some two thousand years since that time. It is now "late".

-gary
**sigh**
The people who wrote the Gospels were eyewitnesses of Jesus, except for Luke. Luke lived at the same time period and was a traveling companion of Paul. The "scholars" who claim this are not being scholarly.
Actually, there is mention of Jesus in extra-Biblical texts. In one text Jews who were against the Christian movement accused Jesus of practicing "sorcery". It's a great affirmation that Jesus was performing miracles. There's no better witness than a hostile witness.

KA8DKT

01-22-2008, 11:12 PM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Jan. 22 2008,17:23)]Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Jan. 22 2008,14:11)]Quote[/b] ]He directly claimed that He was God, He would rise from the dead in three days, and that he would be coming back.
He was reported to have made those claims. #You were not there so you cannot state for a fact that the claims were made. #Nor were the people who actually wrote the claims down. #And, except for that text that was written some two, three, or more generations later we have no evidence or any physical proof that any of these events happened. #The Romans, who were meticulous records keepers, kept no record of putting a Jesus of Nazareth on a cross.

While there are some people who have apparently risen after being dead they were all shown to have one condition or another that made them appear, at least superficially, to be dead before they awakened quite alive.

And, when he allegedly made the claim that he was coming back, he indicated it would be "soon". #It has been some two thousand years since that time. #It is now "late".

-gary
**sigh**
The people who wrote the Gospels were eyewitnesses of Jesus, except for Luke. #Luke lived at the same time period and was a traveling companion of Paul. The "scholars" who claim this are not being scholarly. #
Actually, there is mention of Jesus in extra-Biblical texts. In one text Jews who were against the Christian movement accused Jesus of practicing "sorcery". #It's a great affirmation that Jesus was performing miracles. #There's no better witness than a hostile witness.
Matthew, maybe.

Link (http://www.british-israel.ca/Interview.htm)

The others were still most likely second hand accounts. #

In any case, there must certainly have been some temptation on Matthew's part to embellish a little. #I don't believe Jesus physically rose into the heavens because there is no basis for it in fact, and because it just makes such a good story. #(And, he would have had to go a long, long way before he found anything but decreasing air pressure and vacuum. #Today, we know that heaven is surely not just above us! #We have been to "above us" and have found the Moon and some meteorites, not much else.) #Just because Matthew was an eyewitness does not necessarily mean he will tell an accurate truth. #He did have an agenda to make his Jesus look like he was connected to a god, after all, as did the others who wrote of him.

When put into the context of people wanting to promote this Jesus, then a lot of the writings make more sense. #We can now accept them as two thousand year old versions of hype and promotion, not as "fact".

And sleights of hand are "miracles" to those with no education in such things. #There is no historical evidence of any miracles being performed, except in the context of promotion, and the possibility of some rehearsed illusions.

*sigh*

-gary

wa6ccw

01-23-2008, 03:45 AM

With the clarity of the example that I used from Matthew 2:19-23, I have to wonder what - if anything - #our good friends AL2N and KP3FT (and others like them) would accept as a biblical discrepancy?

As the author of the EBON MUSINGS (http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/index.html) website put it to a particular biblical apologist:

Quote[/b] ]...what would it take for you to admit that the Bible contained errors? What would it have to say to be discrepant? Can you give an example of a contradiction that you would accept as impossible to harmonize, and that you would agree casts doubt on the Bible's overall reliability and trustworthiness? All your erudition appears to have provided you with no end of creative ways to explain contradictions away. Is there any even hypothetical contradiction that could not be resolved by any of these techniques?

wa6ccw

01-23-2008, 04:28 AM

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Jan. 23 2008,04:23)]The people who wrote the Gospels were eyewitnesses of Jesus, except for Luke.
Not one single author of any of the 4 gospels claimed to have been a personal eyewitness to the stories written therein. Also, the authors of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John do NOT identify themselves as Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

KA8DKT

01-23-2008, 07:54 PM

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 23 2008,00:28)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Jan. 23 2008,04:23)]The people who wrote the Gospels were eyewitnesses of Jesus, except for Luke.
Not one single author of any of the 4 gospels claimed to have been a personal eyewitness to the stories written therein. Also, the authors of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John do NOT identify themselves as Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.
The earliest fragments of letters and materials for the New Testament date to about 70CE. #Making the assumption that Jesus' followers, and certainly his disciples, were within ten or fifteen years of the age of Jesus, we could say that the writers were perhaps between 55 and 70 or so. #This in an age where people who were over 50 were really old.

Thus it is most likely that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were in actuality written by someone else using information from very old witnesses, those who knew witnesses, and those who made claim to have been or to have known witnesses.

There is some evidence, apparently, that Matthew may have had a direct hand in the writing of the book that was given his name. # I have long suspected that the books were given their names some two hundred years later as the Catholic church started to amass and codify the New Testament. #This may have been why it was thought that the books had been written at that time instead of somewhat earlier.

Even with all that, there was surely some desire on the part of the early Christians to dress up the stories a little and talk about god-like miracles. #After all, were they not promoting him as the "Son of God"? #How better to demonstrate this than by offering miracles, assentions, and the like.

-gary

KA8DKT

01-23-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 23 2008,00:28)]Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Jan. 23 2008,04:23)]The people who wrote the Gospels were eyewitnesses of Jesus, except for Luke.
Not one single author of any of the 4 gospels claimed to have been a personal eyewitness to the stories written therein. Also, the authors of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John do NOT identify themselves as Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.
The earliest fragments of letters and materials for the New Testament date to about 70CE. #Making the assumption that Jesus' followers, and certainly his disciples, were within ten or fifteen years of the age of Jesus, we could say that the writers were perhaps between 55 and 80 or so. #This, in an age where people who were over 50 were really old.

Thus it is most likely that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were in actuality written by someone else using information from very old witnesses, those who knew witnesses, and those who made claim to have been or to have known witnesses.

There is some evidence, apparently, that Matthew may have had a direct hand in the writing of the book that was given his name. # I have long suspected that the books were given their names some two hundred years later as the Catholic church started to amass and codify the New Testament. #This may have been why it was thought that the books had been written at that time instead of somewhat earlier.

Even with all that, there was surely some desire on the part of the early Christians to dress up the stories a little and talk about god-like miracles. #After all, were they not promoting him as the "Son of God"? #How better to demonstrate this than by offering miracles, assentions, and the like in their stories of him and his teachings?

-gary

k8wbl

01-23-2008, 08:42 PM

I echo most of what K8MHZ has stated - as a Philosophy and Psychology major (add astronomer to that too) some 25 years ago, I have studied and read many great teachers over the ages. (Xavier Univ. grad X2) Any of them perfect, no, nor should we expect them to be. You have it within YOU to find the answers, not from someone's book, they can point, help, but only you can find YOUR answers. Vague, I know, trite, sure...thats why I tend to gravitate towards Taoism I suppose, more common sense oriented and not a step-by-step guide of how to get to heaven. (Don't even get me started on what the definition of heaven is) Most religions loose me right away by being "exclusive" "the only way to the father is through the son" , most religions have some sort of this, control function really. Marx called it "Opiate of the masses"...

I believe religion was invented by Man to explain what they did not understand, rain, thunder, etc. Then Man corrupted it to control others...too bad to. Most people are sheep, easily lead and believe anything without much proof. I also believe in UFO's, or at least intelligent life on other planets, odds are in favor of it. You could call that faith as well I suppose, but thinking that WE are the only one's around seems especially naive. So to say that Jesus is the ONLY way...sorry...I am betting that when ET shows up, he will probably NOT be a Christian or Muslim, etc.

Religion has done a lot of good things, but also a lot of bad things over the generations. Question everything told to you, don't merely accept it as fact. I have been a Social Worker and Therapist for over 20 years now, my main philosphy in the field tends to be "do no harm", I believe MD's recite that as well. So, if believing in religion is helpful to my client, I support it! Do I want to debate the Bible - no more than I want to debate the errors in the phone book, there are many. In fact, if you have read the Bible, you immediately realize the difference in God's general attitude between the Old and New...eye for eye vs turn the other cheek, seems inconsistant to me. Besides, if God wrote a book, we would not have to translate it, or need "others" to translate for us, it would automatically come on all languages and be plainly understood by all. (also - I would first have to debate on how to define the word "God", as everyone has a different definition, then I would have to recon back to what my Jesuit Teachers said "You cannot define the infinite in terms of the finite") Have a Great Day all!

73, Tim K8WBL

wa6ccw

01-24-2008, 11:32 PM

Quote[/b] (k8wbl @ Jan. 24 2008,03:42)]I believe religion was invented by Man to explain what they did not understand, rain, thunder, etc. Then Man corrupted it to control others...
I agree (and well said). http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

KI4PRK

01-24-2008, 11:43 PM

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 24 2008,16:32)]Quote[/b] (k8wbl @ Jan. 24 2008,03:42)]I believe religion was invented by Man to explain what they did not understand, rain, thunder, etc. Then Man corrupted it to control others...
I agree (and well said). #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
As an aetheist, I've heard this one many times before. Because it's true...

Now I respect other's beliefs so I won't be rude, but I do find that the bible contains a lot of errors. There was a website devoted to errors in the bible(s), but I'm sorry —#I can't remember the address.

wa6ccw

01-24-2008, 11:50 PM

Quote[/b] (KI4PRK @ Jan. 25 2008,06:43)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 24 2008,16:32)]Quote[/b] (k8wbl @ Jan. 24 2008,03:42)]I believe religion was invented by Man to explain what they did not understand, rain, thunder, etc. Then Man corrupted it to control others...
I agree (and well said). #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
As an aetheist, I've heard this one many times before. Because it's true...

Now I respect other's beliefs so I won't be rude, but I do find that the bible contains a lot of errors. There was a website devoted to errors in the bible(s), but I'm sorry —#I can't remember the address.
There are a number of them out there. Here are a few of my personal favorites:

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/index.jsp

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/index.html

http://packham.n4m.org/

KA8DKT

01-25-2008, 02:39 AM

And, here are a few more:

Bible Error Link 1 (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.html)

Bible Error Link 2 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html) (Some of these are not entirely accurate or are out of context, but the majority are valid questions about the accuracy or reality of the Bible stories.)

Bible Error Link 3 (http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/Contra/index.html) (An Islamic apologists' site. #Worth looking at because of the so-called explanations. #Many just leave one wondering which is more lame, the Bible's errors or the apologists' explanations. #Also includes many links to others who try to explain away the inconsistancies.)

Bible Error Link 4 (http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2005/11/7-e-z-steps-to-get-handy-collection-of.php) (This one offers a handy list of Biblical cites to keep in your wallet and use when the boys with the nice suits and thin ties knock on your door.)

Bible Error Link 5 (http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-errors.html) # Another apologist site with answers for the "errors". #From the site: #"If you read the Bible, at face value, without a preconceived bias for finding errors – you will find it to be a coherent, consistent, and relatively easy-to-understand book. Yes, there are difficult passages. Yes, there are verses that appear to contradict each other. We must remember that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years. Each writer wrote from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some differences! However, a difference is not a contradiction or an error. It is only an error if there is absolutely no conceivable manner in which the verses or passages can be reconciled. Even if we do not have the answer right now, that does not mean the answer does not exist." #Seems to admit that the Bible was written by men, and not a god.

Bible Error Link 6 (http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm) (Another site but with a pretty fair presentation.)

Bible Error Link 7 (http://www.jamaat.net/bible/AwakeArticle(1957).html) (Well, was the Bible written by a Perfect God or by imperfect men? #This article is of interest only because it cannot really answer the question it is implying.)

Bible Error Link 8 (http://www.answering-christianity.com/contra.htm) (Another Islamic site. #What is laughable is that the Islamics who put this site up find hundreds of errors in both testaments of the Judeo-Christian Bible. #Unfortunately, they fail to apply the same critical thinking to the Koran. #Dumb.)

Bible Error Link 9 (http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/disclaimer.htm) (This one is interesting. #From the Explanations and Warnings page on the site: #"All religions have been a hindrance to the progression of mankind, but since the dawn of time, but no religion has been as bloody and oppressive than Christianity." #Until Islam (the "religion of peace"), of course.

From the site:

"Mankind should focus on the known and tangible, and should embrace science and education. #NOT put faith in the unknown and that which cannot be proven above the progression of mankind.

There should be a global separation of Church and State. #No religion should have any influence on a nation's political state nor on its policies.

Morality is manmade. #The concept of right and wrong has nothing to do with any myths or fairy tales.

No society should be forced into the financial support of any religious groups or programs. #This includes but is not limited to tax exemptions for churches, government vouchers to private religious schools, and religion based reform in the prisons.

Everyone has the right to question what they read and/or hear, regardless of what they are told by their churches. #It is also encouraged that you question this site. #Don't just take what you read as true, get a Bible and see that it is true. #I may type this and code this site for you, but I shouldn't have to think for you too."

You will want to click on the "The Holy Bible" link on the left side of the page.)

Bible Error Link 10 (http://www.goatstar.org/bible-errors/) (Yet another site with a fair list of inconsistancies)

There are hundreds of sites promoting both sides of the argument. #If you are going to believe that a god exists and that he wrote or inspired the writing of this book, the inconsistancies are easily explained away with the usual rationales. #However if you want to add our present day knowledge of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and the surrounding universe to your thinking process, the apologists have no real arguments, in my mind.

It is indeed a fascinating subject, this book of two to four thousand year old stories called "The Bible". #I liken it to an historical novel or a collection of such novels. #Many of the major events and geography are consistant with reality. #And within that framework are the stories of the Bible that almost certainly have to be taken as fiction. #Interesting reading and sometimes thought provoking, but still a collection of stories and novelettes set within an historical context.

And, of course, if the Bible is the "Word of [a Perfect] God" then it cannot have any errors or inconsistancies, by definition. #Yet it does. #

-gary

If there was a true religion, there would be only one religion.