biblical contradictions: hit me

[bobbygreenbear]

ok, so i hear over and over "there are tons of contradictions in the bible." there are myriads of websites that list apparent contradictions. i spent a couple years studying biblical greek and hebrew, and i'd like to see if i can take on some apparent contradictions.

i believe the bible, in its original writings, is the inspired word of God. i believe jesus christ is my savior of my sins. i also know that there there are differences in the manuscripts we have today, so some of them must have errors from the original. i don't believe that any translation, in any language, is perfect, but i do think most of them do an excellent job at being true to the original, so you know where i'm coming from

i don't claim that i'll have all the answers, i'm sure there might be apparent contradictions that i may not have answers for, but i'd like to try.

so rather than just quipping "there are so many contradictions" why not list one and i'll try to answer them, from the original languages


peace

[bobbygreenbear]

i'll get it started with a typical website contradiction.


God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.



this is a hard one. you'll see God in the bible many times as a loving and caring father, and other times as a vengeful destroyer. in fact, a lot of folks have thought that the God of the old testament is incompatible with the God of the new testament, because He seems to be filled with rage and destruction in the old, and love and mercy in the new.

the best way i can answer this question (and i know it's not a great answer) is that God is not bound by human emotion or characteristics. He is both love, and He is also holy, perfect, and hates sin. "sin" means "missing the mark" and is anything short of perfection. so when you here me say "we're all sinners" i think you'll understand that i mean, none of us is perfect. it is important when reading the bible to realize that God is descending to our level to interpret heavenly things to us.

anyway, this sort of "contradiction" may be impossible for some to get over. the reason is because you're implying human characteristics on the allmighty. we don't tend to show great wrath, and also mercy and kindness, but God is not human, nor bound by our imperfections.

this explanation might sound like a cop-out, and it doesn't really explain why God is the way He is (that's one i can't answer), but i think it's a critical point when understanding the bible.

[bobbygreenbear]

disclaimer: i wanted to say, i understand that most of y'all probably don't think that the bible is the word of God, and that's the perspective you're coming from. i do believe it is, and that's the perspective i'm coming from. i'm certainly not trying to force anything on anyone, i have plenty of doubts about life, the universe and everything; just want to try to explain the bible from the perspective of a believer.


DON'T PANIC ;)

.........free anti-christian rant to the first person to recognize that reference :thumbsup:

[JackdaWack]

if you have read the bible, the first testament speaks mainly as god as the "ruler" of the people, with no mercy and forgivness.

Once you hit the new testament and the comming of jesus, we see a total turn around as god being a savor, and he with all the mercy and forgivness.

It was made this way so we see the mercy limits of god, we have a lifetime of mercy, but on our day of judgement god has no mercy.

Personally i think its a load of BS, because any god whom tests his people through human sacrifice is just wrong.

From the teachings of Abraham we can see the controversy instilled when God asked him to kill his child in the name of god, Abraham with the ax in his hand about to do it, and god say's you have proven your love to me.

[LaidZeppelin]

if humans are dumb as sheep why should we go to church and listen to what pastors think the scriptures mean.. going to church is a little to much like the catholic church before the protestant reformation for me.

[40oz]

I have a question greenbear. What other historical documents does jesus appear in besides the bible?

[PureEvil760]

Your all looking at it wrong, even me..the bible is just another reflection of self. Say you stare at a rock and study it for years and years. Now, after years of study you have all these ideas and thoughts surrounding the rock. Somone seeing it for the first time will have a completely different perception. Thats just somthing simple, now imagine the bible in the same context.

[Stemis516]

I have a question greenbear. What other historical documents does jesus appear in besides the bible?


he appears on ancient roman documents actually...his birth and existence is listed on the ancient roman census that is mentioned in the bible (the reason they flee to bethlehem)...he also appears in other roman records that he was executed by crucifixtion for treason against the roman empire

also he appears in an ancient jewish text (fuck i cant think of the name of the book right now, some1 help me) but anyways, this text was written by rabbis during jesus' time and it explains the rights and history of jews living in that day...it mentions a man named jesus who performed "magic" and it warned jews of the time to be wary of him


so if your questioning jesus' existence at all then there you go....its a pretty common truth that jesus was a historical person and did exist....the only thing up in the air is if he rose from the dead....we can even take the fact that he performed "magic" as stated by ancient rabbis of proof of some miracles....that or maybe jesus was just a really good illusionist...i really dont know

[Mark Bryan]

also he appears in an ancient jewish text (fuck i cant think of the name of the book right now, some1 help me)
You have either the Torah or the Talmud.

[Stemis516]

the talmud.....thats the one, thanks bro

[Mark Bryan]

ANYTIME!

[hazetwostep]

jesus also appears in writings of Josephus (who was NOT a follower or believer)...

here is a question Bobby...

According to the Bible, those who do not believe in and accept Jesus as their Savior cannot go to heaven. God created a place for those (both angelic and human) who do not believe. This place is called "Hell" and is described as a place of complete seperation from God as well as utter torture and misery (fire and brimstone).

If God truly is love, then why did he create hell to add more misery to eternal seperation from HIMSELF? That seems to contradict who he says he is. What would God have to gain or prove from not only eternally seperating himself from them, but actually trying to add more to the misery of eternal seperation by adding other forms of misery???

understood that sin cannot be in a perfect place, so sinners cannot enter heaven... that is logical. why would he try to add more misery?!?!?!?! it isn't to teach the beings a lesson since there is no redemption after damnation. isn't eternal seperation enough without the extra torture???

or is the Bible inaccurate in its description of hell...?

[Oneironaut]

Okay, how about this one? When the women arrive at Jesus' tomb, according to Luke, Mark and John, the tomb was open, but according to Matthew it was closed.


And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away.

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
But:

The angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

Or how about these two Biblical passages, which clearly contradict each other:

Thou shalt not kill.

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
So, God makes a commandment prohibiting killing, and then makes another commandment to kill your wife if she's had her cherry popped, and one to kill women who are raped in the city if they don't scream loud enough.

Regardless of whether or not this is a contradiction, this is a stinking heap of extremely barbaric misogyny.

[LaidZeppelin]

My big problem with God and all that is...doesn't it seem a little too convenient that thousands of years ago people saw miracles and burning bushes and giant man eating whales (stomach acids would digest you in seconds, not to mention other digestive processes apparently absent from completely hollow fish) and now nothing. Anything that doesnt make sense is simply explained by saying. "god works in mysterious ways or sense you arent God you cant understand it" thats BS. I thought God gave me intelect and rationality so i could understand things like that. Our GOD GIVEN rationality tells us to reject concepts that dont make sense within our physical world... I think that the Bible was written by many naive people, like greeks who thought there was a SUN GOD or GOD of WAR. Remember it was only 600 years ago that man thought you fell off the end of the earth if you sailed to far...and we are to take the words of men 1800 years or so ago as facts...Also very convenient that when Jesus rose from the dead only 12 guys saw him and a couple ladies i think. He couldnt of gone to market that would of gotten the message out that hes meeans business...

[halo]

jesus also appears in writings of Josephus (who was NOT a follower or believer)...

here is a question Bobby...

According to the Bible, those who do not believe in and accept Jesus as their Savior cannot go to heaven. God created a place for those (both angelic and human) who do not believe. This place is called "Hell" and is described as a place of complete seperation from God as well as utter torture and misery (fire and brimstone).

If God truly is love, then why did he create hell to add more misery to eternal seperation from HIMSELF? That seems to contradict who he says he is. What would God have to gain or prove from not only eternally seperating himself from them, but actually trying to add more to the misery of eternal seperation by adding other forms of misery???

understood that sin cannot be in a perfect place, so sinners cannot enter heaven... that is logical. why would he try to add more misery?!?!?!?! it isn't to teach the beings a lesson since there is no redemption after damnation. isn't eternal seperation enough without the extra torture???

or is the Bible inaccurate in its description of hell...?

Honestly I do not think hell is all that bad. In fact, I bet it is a lot like earth. The actual definition of hell is absence from God. Many of us are absent from God right now such as atheists for example. It was Dante's Inferno that gave us the images of hell we imagine. A fiery place with torture and such. I also think that all religions hold truth and i believe in reincarnation. I think that we can only enter heaven after we have learned enough. And since it is impossible to learn enough in one lifetime we must live multiple lifetimes until we are spiritually ready for heaven and God. Of course that is just my opinion and i could be 100% wrong.

To the original question though. There are plenty of contradictions in the bible, especially b/w the Old Testament and the New Testament. I read the bible as more of a metaphor of what was going on and i try to read it in context. The Bible cannot be read literally because people of that time had no idea what they were seeing. The describe bright lights, voices, chariots of fire et cetera. They lacked our vocabulary and described certain visions and apparitions with the words they had. Just read the first couple pages of ezekiel and you will understand what i mean. Ezekiel speaks of a metallic object in the sky and a creature with 4 faces and other odd features. Well i'm done with this rant for now.

[40oz]

so if your questioning jesus' existence at all then there you go....its a pretty common truth that jesus was a historical person and did exist....the only thing up in the air is if he rose from the dead....we can even take the fact that he performed "magic" as stated by ancient rabbis of proof of some miracles....that or maybe jesus was just a really good illusionist...i really dont know

Was Jesus the only one that had the name jesus back then?

[Stemis516]

its hard to say really...the bible doesnt mention any others, thats for sure....his name wasnt actually jesus it was jeshua....which is the hebrew name joshua....the greek goes by jesus though, they are all the same

i do know that he was jesus of nazareth son of joseph....jesus not being a very common name back then, its safe to say he was the only jesus of nazareth son of joseph...and this is how he is referred to officially in both the talmud and roman records

[krazy chino]

hey LAIDZEPPLIN in isaih 40:22 it says the earth is round

[Triple-P]

christianity and the roman cathlic church are 2 of the worst things to ever happen to this planet

think of how many have died (and are still dying) by them

do i have to mention that the vatican were the ones that were saying the sun relvolves around the earth...think of what could have been accomplished if galileos work wasnt banned

[bobbygreenbear]

sorry for forgetting about this thread :)



I have a question greenbear. What other historical documents does jesus appear in besides the bible?

that's a great question. i actually don't know. i believe historians such as Josephus chronicled his existence. this really is a good question, i'm honestly not sure.

ah here you go:
Extra-biblical references to Jesus and Christianity (http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html)

yeah, josephus is the most famous new-testament era chonicler. a lot of criticism is focused on him because he stands mostly alone in providing the early extra-biblical record.

really great question

[bobbygreenbear]

if you have read the bible, the first testament speaks mainly as god as the "ruler" of the people, with no mercy and forgivness.

Once you hit the new testament and the comming of jesus, we see a total turn around as god being a savor, and he with all the mercy and forgivness.

It was made this way so we see the mercy limits of god, we have a lifetime of mercy, but on our day of judgement god has no mercy.

Personally i think its a load of BS, because any god whom tests his people through human sacrifice is just wrong.

From the teachings of Abraham we can see the controversy instilled when God asked him to kill his child in the name of god, Abraham with the ax in his hand about to do it, and god say's you have proven your love to me.

i can understand where you're coming from; i will say that God would never have let Abraham kill his son, but, that is sort of irrelevant, he set Abraham up to be willing to do it. this is a morality issue; i can't logically argue that this is a good or right thing. i feel where you're coming from.

[bobbygreenbear]

if humans are dumb as sheep why should we go to church and listen to what pastors think the scriptures mean.. going to church is a little to much like the catholic church before the protestant reformation for me.


i actually haven't been to church in years. i think i'd like to go back though. all churches are different. on the one hand, i agree wholeheartedly that checking your brain at the door and just accepting whatever you're told is bullshit. in fact, i believe that more than anything, you have to come to your own conclusions, and can't just believe whatever someone tells you, and that with anything in this life. on the other hand, i've known pastors that were wonderful fellows (my pastor's son and i were great friends and i used to hang with his fam.); he was the kind of man that i'd like to be someday; caring, hardworking, giving, and would do anything for his family.

[bobbygreenbear]

jesus also appears in writings of Josephus (who was NOT a follower or believer)...

here is a question Bobby...

According to the Bible, those who do not believe in and accept Jesus as their Savior cannot go to heaven. God created a place for those (both angelic and human) who do not believe. This place is called "Hell" and is described as a place of complete seperation from God as well as utter torture and misery (fire and brimstone).

If God truly is love, then why did he create hell to add more misery to eternal seperation from HIMSELF? That seems to contradict who he says he is. What would God have to gain or prove from not only eternally seperating himself from them, but actually trying to add more to the misery of eternal seperation by adding other forms of misery???

understood that sin cannot be in a perfect place, so sinners cannot enter heaven... that is logical. why would he try to add more misery?!?!?!?! it isn't to teach the beings a lesson since there is no redemption after damnation. isn't eternal seperation enough without the extra torture???

or is the Bible inaccurate in its description of hell...?


this really is THE question. it is for me. i'll be honest with you, i can't wrap my head around it. i understand all the logic of "God is holy, if you've sinned you can't be in His presence", but that's not nearly good enough for me.

this is totally extra-biblical, but i guess i keep in mind that the Bible doesn't contain EVERYTHING there is to know about God, not hardly. i think of it as god explaining heavenly things down to our level, and it can often get figurative and incomplete. i guess what i really hope is that god has an ace up his sleeve and everyone will be saved. my parents aren't believers in christ; i can't imagine them suffering forever. i cannot possibly imagine that, and there is no way i can understand how god could possibly let that happen, if he loves us so much. so i guess my answer is: i feel the same way, i can't believe that god would let that happen, but i also recognize that what i understand is extremely limited; i can't wrap my head around a fraction of god's mind.

i warned y'all i didn't have all the answers :)


ps: also, it should be noted that hell was made for the devil and the fallen angels, not for man. this isn't really an explanation, but it's something to note

yeah, i really don't get it

[bobbygreenbear]

Okay, how about this one? When the women arrive at Jesus' tomb, according to Luke, Mark and John, the tomb was open, but according to Matthew it was closed.




But:


Or how about these two Biblical passages, which clearly contradict each other:


So, God makes a commandment prohibiting killing, and then makes another commandment to kill your wife if she's had her cherry popped, and one to kill women who are raped in the city if they don't scream loud enough.

Regardless of whether or not this is a contradiction, this is a stinking heap of extremely barbaric misogyny.


as far as the killing, the hebrew word "you shall not KILL" means to "murder", so there is no contradiction; it's not prohibiting all killing, but murder. as far as the penalities for sin in the tribe, i can't argue that it was right for god to enact those penalties; it was to keep the tribe holy and pure, but again this is a question of personal opinion of morality.

as far as the first question, i don't think the reading is supposed to indicate that that is a 1-2 sequence of events, like:

1.they come to the tomb
2.the stone gets rolled away

i'm trying to parse "descended" (katabas) but having some trouble

this is the sort of thing where the original languages are essential, but as far as i can see, the folks coming to the tomb, and the earthquake could have very well been simultaneous

[bobbygreenbear]

My big problem with God and all that is...doesn't it seem a little too convenient that thousands of years ago people saw miracles and burning bushes and giant man eating whales (stomach acids would digest you in seconds, not to mention other digestive processes apparently absent from completely hollow fish) and now nothing. Anything that doesnt make sense is simply explained by saying. "god works in mysterious ways or sense you arent God you cant understand it" thats BS. I thought God gave me intelect and rationality so i could understand things like that. Our GOD GIVEN rationality tells us to reject concepts that dont make sense within our physical world... I think that the Bible was written by many naive people, like greeks who thought there was a SUN GOD or GOD of WAR. Remember it was only 600 years ago that man thought you fell off the end of the earth if you sailed to far...and we are to take the words of men 1800 years or so ago as facts...Also very convenient that when Jesus rose from the dead only 12 guys saw him and a couple ladies i think. He couldnt of gone to market that would of gotten the message out that hes meeans business...


one thing that you do have to deal with though is this: the followers of jesus were willing to die, often in terrible ways, and be persecuted for their belief; it would be hard for me to understand that if jesus died and that's it, that they made up a story about him being risen, and then went and dedicated their lives to the lie, got persecuted, and most of them killed in terrible ways

[bobbygreenbear]

The Bible cannot be read literally because people of that time had no idea what they were seeing. The describe bright lights, voices, chariots of fire et cetera. They lacked our vocabulary and described certain visions and apparitions with the words they had. Just read the first couple pages of ezekiel and you will understand what i mean. Ezekiel speaks of a metallic object in the sky and a creature with 4 faces and other odd features. Well i'm done with this rant for now.

i really don't get this argument. they lacked our language? i'd COMPLETELY disagree with that; in fact i'd say that language has degraded more than anything. for example, in the new testament there are three different words which are all translated as "love" in english. this is one of the most prime examples for the importance of original language understanding.

yeah, that ezekiel stuff is REALLY weird, but i'd tend to say it is a person trying to describe something heavenly with earthly words, not that their language was primative. you get the same problem in revelation. john is like: "well, it looks kinda like this shining thing, with glass, and water, and uhh......." and you get the picture he can't find words to describe it; i think if he had modern english it would probably be much worse :)

[bobbygreenbear]

Was Jesus the only one that had the name jesus back then?

not remotely. it was an EXTREMELY common name. Jesus and joshua is the same name. the transliteration "jesus" is from the greek which sounds like "E-A-sus". in hebrew, the name would be "ye-shu-A" and means "god saves". it would be as common a name as bob or something today.

oh, and his last name wasn't "christ" ;) rather than last names, they were known as who their father was, i.e. "jesus, son of joseph", or where they came from "jesus of nazareth" which is where he grew up

[bobbygreenbear]

christianity and the roman cathlic church are 2 of the worst things to ever happen to this planet

think of how many have died (and are still dying) by them

do i have to mention that the vatican were the ones that were saying the sun relvolves around the earth...think of what could have been accomplished if galileos work wasnt banned


people have done atrocious and horrible things in the NAME of god. we all know that. because someone claims that god is on their side does not mean he is, in fact usually anyone claiming this would already be going down the wrong path.

i'm not really disagreeing though. you're right that horrible things have been done by the catholic church, and not just them, puritans burned witches for example. no excuse.

[bobbygreenbear]

y'all will have to forgive me for spewing out so much ;) peace everybody and keep searching and keep making up your own minds.

[RichieRich]

jesus also appears in writings of Josephus (who was NOT a follower or believer)...

here is a question Bobby...

According to the Bible, those who do not believe in and accept Jesus as their Savior cannot go to heaven. God created a place for those (both angelic and human) who do not believe. This place is called "Hell" and is described as a place of complete seperation from God as well as utter torture and misery (fire and brimstone).

If God truly is love, then why did he create hell to add more misery to eternal seperation from HIMSELF? That seems to contradict who he says he is. What would God have to gain or prove from not only eternally seperating himself from them, but actually trying to add more to the misery of eternal seperation by adding other forms of misery???

understood that sin cannot be in a perfect place, so sinners cannot enter heaven... that is logical. why would he try to add more misery?!?!?!?! it isn't to teach the beings a lesson since there is no redemption after damnation. isn't eternal seperation enough without the extra torture???

or is the Bible inaccurate in its description of hell...?

Ok so I want to break this down a little bit...."According to the Bible, those who do not believe in and accept Jesus as their Savior cannot go to heaven."

I would disagree with this statement somewhat. According to Romans 1, God has clearly given people knowledge of himself through conscience and nature. And the wrath of God is revealed against godlessness and wickedness and people who have knowledge of God but choose not to follow and glorify him. I don't think that this means EVERYONE does this or has done this. (Resorting to total depravity and idolatry) I think people will be accountable to the amount of knowledge that they have available and what they do with that. For many who lived before Jesus and others who have never heard of Jesus this means nature, conscience, and the invisible qualities of God. Which leads me to my next point that is the doctrine of Rewards and punishments.

The bible clearly teaches that there are different rewards, crowns, and degrees of punishment for those who do right and wrong. Jesus clearly told people to store up treasure in heaven (Matt 6:20 Luke 18:22). Paul teaches that our works will be tested and will survive or be burned up. (1 Cor 3:14-15)
There are many other passages as well that teach the same thing.

The wages of all sin is death. That is a fact regardless (spirtual and physical). But the only way I can give an example of the degrees of heaven and hell would be a sliding scale. 1 to 10 (Heaven) and -1 to -10 (Hell). I would say that the lake of fire that was created for the devil and the angels that rebelled would be the -10 place (eternal agony and punishment). I would say that not accepting Jesus would put you in the camp of -1. And then what you did from there would determine what your degree of punishment would be and where you would land.

Maybe -1 is a paradise compared to earth. Maybe its just seperation from God and is full of sorrow. I don't think anyone knows. Maybe +1 is paradise beyond anything we can imagine.
I am reminded of that wonderful verse that says "no eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him."

Sorry this is so long...peace....:jointsmile:

[couch-potato]

What about ancient Aztecs? Incas? Completely isolated from Christianity for a vast majority of their empire's existence (but fucked over due to Cortez and Pizarro) , yet they created their own systems of beliefs with their own gods. To them, it was truth. Think about why their gods were imaginary, then apply those same standards to whichever god you may or may not believe in. Open your eyes, the only difference between religion and a cult is a few million followers.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

something that could be taken into consideration are false gods, or people proclaiming hte word of god, from their own beliefs and not from any words of any gods. truly, the bible is the work of man, not jesus, not god, not even a prophet, just silly little men who think they know something about god.

[hazetwostep]

Oneir.....

this would be exactly the same thing as capital punishment. governments differentiate murder and killing. murder is an unjust taking of a life. killing (capital punishment) is considered payment for a crime.

now whether or not you consider the punishment fitting of the crime is another story, but it is not a contradiction anymore than the death penalty today is a contradiction of US law that prohibits murder.

[Oneironaut]

as far as the killing, the hebrew word "you shall not KILL" means to "murder", so there is no contradiction; it's not prohibiting all killing, but murder. as far as the penalities for sin in the tribe, i can't argue that it was right for god to enact those penalties; it was to keep the tribe holy and pure, but again this is a question of personal opinion of morality.
Well, I think most civilized people would say that killing people to keep your tribe pure is a morally disgusting act. The Germans tried that once. Didn't go over so well.

These are not people who did anything morally objectionable. They had premarital sex or male homosexual sex, they worked on the Sabbath or disobeyed their parents. Such people do not deserve the death penalty, no matter what tribe you come from. As far as I'm concerned, this is not a matter of debate. If I killed someone for doing any of these things, I would be punished, and rightly so, because that would be a case of senseless murder.

as far as the first question, i don't think the reading is supposed to indicate that that is a 1-2 sequence of events, like:

1.they come to the tomb
2.the stone gets rolled away

i'm trying to parse "descended" (katabas) but having some trouble

this is the sort of thing where the original languages are essential, but as far as i can see, the folks coming to the tomb, and the earthquake could have very well been simultaneous
I don't really see how the two can really be reconciled. It's just mythology. When stories are told and retold about mythological figures, details change. Whether it's Osiris or Mithra or Hercules or Jesus, no two accounts of a worshipped figure are exactly the same story, and that's exactly what we should expect from any ancient mythological scriptures, be they Hindu or Jewish or Zoroastrian or whatever.

These aren't real stories of shit that actually happened. People don't really walk on water, rise from the dead, and cure people by exorcising demons out of them. Why should the Bible be considered literally true but not the Bhagavad Gita or the works of Homer? There is no objective reason to prefer one over the others.

[onequickmove]

What about ancient Aztecs? Incas? Completely isolated from Christianity for a vast majority of their empire's existence (but fucked over due to Cortez and Pizarro) , yet they created their own systems of beliefs with their own gods. To them, it was truth. Think about why their gods were imaginary, then apply those same standards to whichever god you may or may not believe in. Open your eyes, the only difference between religion and a cult is a few million followers.


i'm not sure what you're saying with this; unless god is whatever we make him to be, then most religions (or all) have to be wrong, cuz they don't agree one with another

[onequickmove]

Well, I think most civilized people would say that killing people to keep your tribe pure is a morally disgusting act. The Germans tried that once. Didn't go over so well.

These are not people who did anything morally objectionable. They had premarital sex or male homosexual sex, they worked on the Sabbath or disobeyed their parents. Such people do not deserve the death penalty, no matter what tribe you come from. As far as I'm concerned, this is not a matter of debate. If I killed someone for doing any of these things, I would be punished, and rightly so, because that would be a case of senseless murder.

I don't really see how the two can really be reconciled. It's just mythology. When stories are told and retold about mythological figures, details change. Whether it's Osiris or Mithra or Hercules or Jesus, no two accounts of a worshipped figure are exactly the same story, and that's exactly what we should expect from any ancient mythological scriptures, be they Hindu or Jewish or Zoroastrian or whatever.

These aren't real stories of shit that actually happened. People don't really walk on water, rise from the dead, and cure people by exorcising demons out of them. Why should the Bible be considered literally true but not the Bhagavad Gita or the works of Homer? There is no objective reason to prefer one over the others.

well then clearly you came into the question with an enormous weight of preconception, and weren't really open to an answer in the first place; i'm not sure about everything bobby is saying, but you can't apply your preconceptions to this question first, and then ask for an answer; you assume that from the first that these things are impossible, so what kind of argument could be made to dissuade that view?

i hope you're wise enough to understand this; your preconceptions are blocking the objective searching for an answer. of course this could easily be said for the christians too; their preconceptions that the bible is from god and true, could block their searching for an objective answer

it's hard, but taking a step back and looking at the whole thing, without church, without sunday school, without carl sagan, is what's needed; but it is very difficult to do that.

[couch-potato]

i'm not sure what you're saying with this; unless god is whatever we make him to be, then most religions (or all) have to be wrong, cuz they don't agree one with another


My point was that religion is merely a psychological delusion.

[fishman3811]

The bible is full of shit.Nothing but a bunch of fairy tales like Jesus was born by immaculate conception come on Mary and Joseph were married didnt they have sex?Or like Noahs Ark so this guy called Noah built a huge boat and then collected all the animals and put them on a boat lol come on people wake up.Or people lived to be 600 700 years old right in their dreams maybe.

[anangrymailman]

do i have to mention that the vatican were the ones that were saying the sun relvolves around the earth...think of what could have been accomplished if galileos work wasnt banned

Imagine if he hadn't been put under house arrest by the church until his death!

[stoneberg]

one problem i have with the bible is under leviticus chapter 20 where it says to stone(with rocks not weed) disobedient children and kill fags, along with many other guidlines on who to kill/burn/stone etc. After reading that section, it makes me wonder, if the bible is the inspired word of God, he sure as hell doesn't seem too full of love or mercy.

[smoke it]

i got 3 for ya.

1. dinosaurs. the bible says that all of the animals and adam ane eve were created at the same time. carbon 14 dating proves that dinosaurs are older than people (if you dont know what carbon 14 dating is, say so, and ill explain). this contradicts what the bible says.

2. skeletons on ancient humans have been found that arent homo-sapiens. actually, several different stages of human development have been found. the bible says that adam and eve were homo-sapiens just as we are now. what gives?

3. and lastly, the whole noah's arc story makes no sense. for everything on earth to be covered with water, there would have to be 5 times the amount of water thats in all of the worlds oceans, lakes, glaciers and rivers combined. even if god did create and take away all of this water when he wanted to, the amount of water vapor that would be in the air when the whole world was submerged, would be so great, that just breathing would cause you to drown.

[da highest]

genesis "let there be light", then god created the sun, how can there be light before the sun?
turns out the jewish writers didn't think about that one.

[hazetwostep]

da highest... stars are not the only sorce of light... ;)

[Frank_The_Tank]

is it not possible that the jesus rebirth or watever was a hoax? This is just a theory and in no way represents what i believe but sence we are on the topic... lets say jesus was a pot smoking alchoholic with really good weed and was halucinating left and right. He was acually what the governments though he was and he was killed.And his disifles(spelling) came back at night and hid the corpse because they didn't want to look like jackass's for believing in him and than when the rest of the people returned the next day they seen him missing from the tomb and went on their merry way preaching about his dissipearance. Although that theory may sound obserd which one is more believable my theory or that god really does exist but left us absolutely no proof exept for the writings of people 2000 years ago. Also what says that the writings from all there people were really just a fictional novel that was confused with acual truth through the ages. I think that is there is a god he would give proof just like he did 2000 years ago. i could go on for pages on the theories on god but meh.

[darth stoner]

i'll get it started with a typical website contradiction.


God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.



this is a hard one. you'll see God in the bible many times as a loving and caring father, and other times as a vengeful destroyer. in fact, a lot of folks have thought that the God of the old testament is incompatible with the God of the new testament, because He seems to be filled with rage and destruction in the old, and love and mercy in the new.

the best way i can answer this question (and i know it's not a great answer) is that God is not bound by human emotion or characteristics. He is both love, and He is also holy, perfect, and hates sin. "sin" means "missing the mark" and is anything short of perfection. so when you here me say "we're all sinners" i think you'll understand that i mean, none of us is perfect. it is important when reading the bible to realize that God is descending to our level to interpret heavenly things to us.

anyway, this sort of "contradiction" may be impossible for some to get over. the reason is because you're implying human characteristics on the allmighty. we don't tend to show great wrath, and also mercy and kindness, but God is not human, nor bound by our imperfections.

this explanation might sound like a cop-out, and it doesn't really explain why God is the way He is (that's one i can't answer), but i think it's a critical point when understanding the bible.

So you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that women were created from a guy's rib ?


You're delusional, sorry to say. How would you feel about me if I whole-heartedly said I believe in Zeus ? Or Poseidon ? Or Ra ?

Yup.

I don't want to write a testament (no pun intended) on the subject, but I suggest you watch/read the following:

God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens

Beyond Belief 2006 (http://beyondbelief2006.org/) (15+ hours but damn worth it)

You can find plenty of Richard Dawkins on youtube also. If you prefer reading, you can find some literature @
RichardDawkins.net (http://www.richarddawkins.net/)
http://www.exchristian.net/


I'm not being offensive towards you here, it's just that I've had this same debate with friends of friends and some online friends way too many times for the past few months.

[longgonetx]

1. how can God be one God but be composed of three persons ,ie father son and holy spirit
2. how can a man be born of a virgin (humans just don't replicate that way)
3. how can Jesus be fully man or fully man, christian sects are stilly fighting over that one

[Tony1234567890]

i'll get it started with a typical website contradiction.


God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.



this is a hard one. you'll see God in the bible many times as a loving and caring father, and other times as a vengeful destroyer. in fact, a lot of folks have thought that the God of the old testament is incompatible with the God of the new testament, because He seems to be filled with rage and destruction in the old, and love and mercy in the new.

OLD TESTIMENT GOD: No payment for sin.
NEW TESTIMENT GOD: Full & complete payment for sin.

In the old testiment, only the a select few were able to talk to God because only a select few found favor with God. The priest can only enter God's presence once a year. Only priests can make your requests to God because you had no right to even mention his name let alone talk to him.

In the new testiment, everyone can talk to God because full and 100% payment has been made by Jesus Christ. The book of Hebrews tells us that we can boldly come before God because of Jesus Christ and make our requests known AND BE ASSURED OF HIS GLAD WELCOME. Why can we be assured of his glad welcome? Because our debt has been paid in full. We have been redeemed.

If you doubt that God exists, give him a chance. What have you got to loose? I can promise you that if you pray, not just some blah blah blah amen, but if you really pray, if you really trust, he will show you. I didn't beleive at one point. I had major doubts. Then one day, I gave him a chance, no sarcasim, no buts, no anger, just total and completely break down and have an honest conversation with no guard up and no questions, just seeking and asking for a "taste". I got it. Can't explain what I got, can't explain how I know, but people that know, know exactly what I'm talking about.