On The Accuracy And Consistency..
Marine0I
Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">...of the Bible</div> The entire Christian belief is based upon a book. Hundreds of pages of writing dating back thousands of years. It was written by many different people, and then compiled to form the Bible. Christians claim that it is the Word of God. In other words, they believe what is in there is direct communication from the Supreme Being.
Now you can debate Christians on heaps of issues, and it will almost always come back to one thing. I believe in X because thats what the Bible tells me is right/wrong/how to act etc, and if the Bible tells me that, then I consider that instruction direct from God. If you accept the Christian premise that the Bible is the unchallengeable word of God, s/he will win just about every arguement involving ethics/morality. Differences can then only be found in interpretation.
However, you take away the Bible and the Christian has nothing, I repeat NOTHING, to base any of his or her arguement upon. They can argue from logic for a while, but it all comes back to what the Bible tells them. Thus, if you wish to go after a Christian in an arguement, you have to discredit the Bible. If you can achieve that, then you have won.
All debates on this board involving morality and eithics seem to have reached their natural conclusion at the accuracy of the Bible.
So here it is, the official attack/defence upon the accuracy and consistency of the Bible thread. And remember, context is your friend. If you find a really great verse for showing errors in consistency in the Bible, be sure to check the entire chapter around it before posting it, lest you end up in an extremely embarrasing situation.
So to start off: One thing that many Christians will believe is that the accuracy and consistency of the Bible does not extend to translation i.e. they believe that the Bible is perfect, but it can appear to contradict itself after translation. Thus, to fully understand the Bible, you have to either understand or refer to Greek/Hebrew scriptures to further clarify what appear to be inconsistencies.
I seriously doubt we have too many greek/hebrew scholars here, but just keep that in mind. The Bible is a real dog of a manuscript to translate, and thus we have hundreds of different translations all differing on small matters such as commas in sentences.
Does anyone here believe it is possible to make a rational decision to become a Christian if they believe the Bible to be flawed?
Now you can debate Christians on heaps of issues, and it will almost always come back to one thing. I believe in X because thats what the Bible tells me is right/wrong/how to act etc, and if the Bible tells me that, then I consider that instruction direct from God. If you accept the Christian premise that the Bible is the unchallengeable word of God, s/he will win just about every arguement involving ethics/morality. Differences can then only be found in interpretation.
However, you take away the Bible and the Christian has nothing, I repeat NOTHING, to base any of his or her arguement upon. They can argue from logic for a while, but it all comes back to what the Bible tells them. Thus, if you wish to go after a Christian in an arguement, you have to discredit the Bible. If you can achieve that, then you have won.
All debates on this board involving morality and eithics seem to have reached their natural conclusion at the accuracy of the Bible.
So here it is, the official attack/defence upon the accuracy and consistency of the Bible thread. And remember, context is your friend. If you find a really great verse for showing errors in consistency in the Bible, be sure to check the entire chapter around it before posting it, lest you end up in an extremely embarrasing situation.
So to start off: One thing that many Christians will believe is that the accuracy and consistency of the Bible does not extend to translation i.e. they believe that the Bible is perfect, but it can appear to contradict itself after translation. Thus, to fully understand the Bible, you have to either understand or refer to Greek/Hebrew scriptures to further clarify what appear to be inconsistencies.
I seriously doubt we have too many greek/hebrew scholars here, but just keep that in mind. The Bible is a real dog of a manuscript to translate, and thus we have hundreds of different translations all differing on small matters such as commas in sentences.
Does anyone here believe it is possible to make a rational decision to become a Christian if they believe the Bible to be flawed?
Comments
That doesn't mean that parts of the Bible arn't a useful historical tool. But it terms of determining the divinity of a person it's not a reliable source. Again, the problem once more is that a Christian has faith that Jesus was divine, and as such he or she will not only not require proof, but will scorn any attempts to prove their faith wrong. As such I can't really see a point in trying to pick holes in the Bible because anything I or anyone else finds will be disregarded on the grounds of "faith".
Anyway, on topic...
I'd like to begin this thread as threads back through the ages have been started, with the ancient and noble Ignorant-Vague-Bad-Argument:
It seems to me (one who has admittedly not spent a great deal of time reading any given religious sripture) that the bible contradicts itself mostly inter-testiment. What I mean by that (since the wording is bad having been written at 5:00am) is that the Old-Testiment seems to contradict the New-Testiment almost entirely. Also in the ancient and nobel tradition of forum postings, I will give no examples to support my argument. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
We still have tradition. The teachings, beliefs, and rituals passed down to us from the days of the Apostles. Christianity is not faith in a book. It's faith in a word (The Word, literally!). Did Christ write down his message? No, he picked disciples and taught them orally.
The Bible is so important not because it's scripture, but because it's such a trustworthy witness of the Word. So, only when the Scripture is combined with the unbroken traditions, tracing back to what Christ himself taught his disciples, do we get an impeccable whole. Take away the tradition, and every fraud can interpret isolated verses to suit his purposes (cf. various heretical sects).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As a historian I can't take the Bible as a serious work; it's been reprinted, recopied and reinterpreted so many times that any records in it would have to be collaborated by other material.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you accuse the Bible of being <i>too well</i> preserved to take it seriously? That's a funny view to have for a historian.
Of course, historians are not expected to make any statement about the factual truth of the messages in the Gospel. However, they <i>are</i> expected to research when and where the texts we know today as the Bible were written down, and which changes were made to them when and why. That's standard scientific work, and with the exception of a few well-documented discrepancies (e.g. <i>comma Johanneum</i>, ending of Mark, the adulterous woman), there is no doubt, even among the unbelieving scholars, that the correct text of the New Testament has been truthfully preserved since the first century AD.
Where does this leave us? We can doubt the honesty of the authors themselves, but then we need to explain why a bunch of intelligent human beings was so incredibly convinced of a strange, wonderful story that they wrote what they wrote and believed what they believed for 2000 years.
For proving beyond reasonable doubt the divinity of Jesus Christ the Bible fails. However, it is possible to use the Bible to DISPROVE his divinity. If you can point out flaws in the Bibles reasoning, then that means the book is fallible, which leads to the conclusion that obviously it is NOT divinely inspired, and thus the Christians are basing their religion off a book obviously not supported by God.
So to attack Christianity, you have to go for the foundation, which happens to be the Bible. Now I have heard the "re-printed, re-copied, so obviously something must have been changed in that time" arguement before. But I have also seen it solidly (IMHO) refuted. When people translate the Bible, they do so from thousands of manuscripts, many of which are VERY old. And from what I am told, the accuracy and basic sameness with the current translation is incredible.
If anyone has something to show that it has been drastically changed, please table it. I do recall somewhere seeing a post about the Dead Sea Scolls not supporting the modern Bible, but my google search was fruitless.
But Ryo, the Bible is considered a very useful tool as far as archeology goes. Admittedly its timeline disagrees with the current Egyptian one, but its spacing is perfect. It makes several references to things which CAN be verified, such as place names, certain rulers, certian edicts of certain rulers etc. It can be collaborated.
I have also read a quote from an ancient historian (I think it was Heroditus(sp)) on how important correct copying of Jewish scriptures where: "The Jews would rather die a thousand deaths than see one syllable of their holy writings changed."
The accuracy of translations was incredibly important to the Hebrews, and when making copies of their scriptures, there was a mass of preparation, checking and ritual to go through. You had to wear a special constume, read each character from the original parchment, then write it down on a new parchment, which was then itself checked. The scribe was under no circumstances to copy so much as a single character from memory. It was a long, slow business with extreme quality control. It was impossible to change or adapt the thing because the second you tried to everyone started reaching for the nearest stone.
Its really hard to answer your arguement there Skulk because as you said, you didnt provide any concrete evidence <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ryo, I comment on these boards partly because I like talking (<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->) and partly because I hope something that I say will maybe give someone else some food for thought. I seriously doubt anything I type will influence anyone to the extreme, and I never post with that being my sole intent.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As such I can't really see a point in trying to pick holes in the Bible because anything I or anyone else finds will be disregarded on the grounds of "faith".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats a bit of a defeatist attitude. I was hoping you would post something that could be defended without the need for faith. You post frequently on US Government, and despite the fact that your opposition will NEVER accept what you say and will always wave the flag, you continue. So why is that different from here?
No, what I said was the exact opposite: what we have today that is called "the Bible" is not a direct copy of the writings of the people who lived in the times of Jesus. Hence it's hard to use it even as a source for events of the 1st century AD because facts may have been twisted by the Church or people who recopied the original work. I treat the Bible the same ay I treat any other historical document that has been copied and subjected to 2000 years of dogma and fanatisism: with a grain of salt larger than Lot's wife.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but then we need to explain why a bunch of intelligent human beings was so incredibly convinced of a strange, wonderful story that they wrote what they wrote and believed what they believed for 2000 years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well a Christian believes that Mohammad wasn't a prophet. Yet millions of people saw fit to see that he was. Millions more today still believe that. Humans will believe in just about anything; it's the nature of our minds. Because we are self-aware, because we can imagine, things like religion come naturally to us. As such, some people saw fit to call a man from Nazareth, named Jesus, the son of god. He had some strange teachings and weird ideas, but some people chose to follow him. That's the makings of a religion right there. Thus it's not so much a question of "why did people believe in Jesus" but more "Why would people not follow this new religion?". Just because people believe in something doesn't make it true. I can believe all I want that I can fly, but if I jump off a building I'll fall straight down. Also, the arguement that "well people saw fit to believe in it so it must have had something special" is a moot point, because humans can and do worship just about anything.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But Ryo, the Bible is considered a very useful tool as far as archeology goes. Admittedly its timeline disagrees with the current Egyptian one, but its spacing is perfect. It makes several references to things which CAN be verified, such as place names, certain rulers, certian edicts of certain rulers etc. It can be collaborated.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh I do't disagree that it can be useful. In the same way that Thutmosis IIIrds account of his campaign in Syria can be useful. Once you wade through all the propaganda and religious content, you can get some hard facts which can be collaborated. But Marine even you would have to admit that the parts which can be collaborated arn't of much use to a Christian trying to prove that Jesus was the son of a god. Yes, we can collaborate that the governer of Palistine was one P. Pilate (like I can spell <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ), but all that does it tell us that at some stage, a man named Jesus may have been brought before him. If we check the records and find that one Jesus was crucified around 33 AD after being sentanced to death for...(hey help me out here I've completly forgotten why Jesus was sentanced to death. Some historian I am. In my defense I focus on 19th and 20th century military history but nonetheless, I'm annoyed that I forgot that). Again, not much use to a Christian; all it does it tell us that a man named Jesus died by crucifixion.
Hence I really don't know what we'd be setting out to do. Collaboration of the parts of the Bible that matter to Christians is impossible and the collaboration of the parts we can collaborate don't matter. Saying to a Christian that you have hard, undeniable proof that in something in the Bible is wrong is the equivilant of slamming your head into a brick wall. They won't listen because to them, it doesn't matter.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thats a bit of a defeatist attitude. I was hoping you would post something that could be defended without the need for faith. You post frequently on US Government, and despite the fact that your opposition will NEVER accept what you say and will always wave the flag, you continue. So why is that different from here? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Argueing religion though is a nightmare. The people you're argueing with don't work with facts, they work with faith. You can't argue with faith because anything you do to try and prove it incorrect will be ignored. A long time ago I would have argued tooth and nail with a die-hard Christian, but not anymore. It's a defeatist attitude because I know I can't argue logically with regards to religion. Now I'll never convince a right wing American that he or she is wrong, but they and I work with facts and logic. Religion by it's very nature scorns both facts and logic. Hence I don't really see any point in trying to argue with a Christian.
If you have disproved the entire book, the entire Christian religion is moot. Please realise that all the above is IMHO.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saying to a Christian that you have hard, undeniable proof that in something in the Bible is wrong is the equivilant of slamming your head into a brick wall. They won't listen because to them, it doesn't matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it matters to me, it matters a whole stack. If you can find that undeniable proof then my entire faith is in ruins.
When you attack religion, then yes logic cant really help in the face of faith. But I'm not asking you to go after religion, I'm asking you to question the accuracy of a religious text. At no stage do I intend to say "Well I believe in God therefore I dont care what you say about the Bible." It is possible to attack the Bible with logic and reasoning even though its impossible to do the same against faith.
The Church itself as an institution didnt appear until the Second Century AD I think, so it is highly doubtful that they managed to get their hands on it and twist it. Of the original copiers, they must have got their hands on the original documents and destroyed every last one, because the thousands (yeah I mean that, thousands) of ancient documented copies all say basically the same thing. They all agree with each other. This twisting, if it happened at all, must of happen at the extreme beginning of the writing down of these scriptures, especially the Jewish ones. The Jews knew their scriptures inside out, and if you changed it or twisted it they would know about it all right.
I have yet to see anything concrete which points to a definate twisting of these scriptures, only the claim that "hell look at that time period they must have got it mixed up somewhere".
So in conclusion, please stay and argue, I promise it CAN be fruitful. This isnt an arguement about faith, its an arguement about accuracy. Oh, and I do believe Jesus was executed because the Jews accused him of blasphemy, claiming to be God, claiming to be able to forgive sins, and they tagged a whole stack of false accusations along as well.
EDIT True boggle science cant tell us everything, but if science can show that the Bible has got something wrong, or lied, then it can demonstrate to us very clearly that our faith is founded upon a flawed document. Now if science did demonstrate something like that, I would examine it very carefully, but if it was true and the Bible is flawed, then I am joining the athiests. I dont know the exact verse, maybe Twex can help me out, but it says in the Bible: "Examine your faith, put it to the test, see for yourselves that what you believe is real". If our faith if in fact legitimate, then it should stand up to scrutiny.
1) Is christmas written down in the bible? IIRC, current belief is that the birth happened in early to mid-Spring. However, it's interesting that christmas is almost directly on the winter solstice, which has been seen by many researchers as a simple attempt to make conversion of 'pagan' believers an easier prospect, making a holy day nearly coincide. As well, the 'five wounds of christ' from older illustrations line up nicely with the points of a pentagram.
2) Less pertinent, but it's seen as highly unlikely that the Romans would have used what we see today as a crucifix in the execution. It's a pain to put one of those together. It's MUCH more likely that it simply would be a 'T' shape.
But I can't do that. For example, the Bible claims that Jesus' was the son of the Hebrew god Jehovah sent to earth to give humanity a new message. How exactly am I ment to refute that? All the documentary evidance in the world won't convince a Christian that Jesus was not divine. No evidence I can bring forth will convince a Christian that their god does not exist.
I could point out that the story of the Ark is impossible, seeing as archaelogical evidence clearly shows that the worlds' population was not wiped out a few thousand years ago and in order to keep 2 of every animal alive on an Ark you would need a vessal that would roughly equal the size of an entire continent. What I can say is that the same story appears in several faiths and seems to be the result of the flooding of one of the first cities, Ur. The Genesis story is also impossible; evolutionary theory and genetics completly disprove it. The earth is over 4.5 billion years old, evolutionary evidence shows that life on earth was not created in 7 days and genetic evidence shows that every human on the planet is not decended from 2 original parents. But this won't change peoples' minds. People will say "Oh but they're just stories" "You're not supposed to take them at face value" or "That's the Old Testemant we don't believe in that". Before we go any further Marine I have to know: are we looking at both the Old and New Testemant, or just the New?
Do you <i>know</i> that or do you <i>believe</i> that? Which parts have been changed, in your opinion?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hence it's hard to use it even as a source for events of the 1st century AD because facts may have been twisted by the Church or people who recopied the original work.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You make it sound as if the "Church" of the 1st century was organized enough to pull of some kind of global conspiracy. It's true that individual scribes were subject to a vast variety of error sources; but they're all researched, documented and commented in the modern critical editions. Even if we <i>erased</i> every passage modern text critics have the slightest doubt about, the <i>message</i> of the text(s) will not change.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Religion by it's very nature scorns both facts and logic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, it doesn't scorn logic at all. The very purpose of religion is to explain human existence as a whole via a logical system of theories. Christians believe that God himself is <i>logos</i>. If you find a true contradiction in the way God is believed to handle things, you have a very good case. Example: the Problem of Evil (theodicy). The battle among the scholars was fierce (and very logical, by the way), but the theists won. Nowadays you won't find any respectable philosopher using the POE.
Second, does it scorn facts? It could be said that historical facts are of secondary importance to the doctrines of faith; but if a historian found conclusive evidence that factual events described in the Bible did <i>not</i> take place (e.g. no Roman census took place in the timeframe given by Luke), that <i>would</i> be efficient to shake the faith of many people. If the Gospel authors lied about these things, they might have lied about others as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Examine your faith, put it to the test, see for yourselves that what you believe is real"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you thinking of 1 Thess 5:20?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do not treat prophecies with contempt. But examine all things; hold fast to what is good; stay away from every form of evil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2) Less pertinent, but it's seen as highly unlikely that the Romans would have used what we see today as a crucifix in the execution. It's a pain to put one of those together. It's MUCH more likely that it simply would be a 'T' shape. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) Christmas is not mentioned anywhere at all in the bible. iirc, there were reports of it being around the end of october, but it could just have easily happenedat the end ot spring. Easter is the same. When they were deciding on dates to celebrate the two events, they based thier days on pagan festivals - the winter solstice for christams and the cycle of the mmon for Easter. I dont know why they did, but that is why we celebrate them on the days that we do.
2) It may have been something as simple as a crossbar nailed to a tree. The criminal is nailed to the bar and then hoisted up and the bar is nailed to the tree. The accounts dont tell us how, and tbh, i dont care.
Dune (the book) and
Monty Python: The life Of Brian.
Those might seem pretty random, but think about the stories of them both.
In Dune, Paul (the son of Duke Leto) gets whisked off to a foreign planet and gets put into a new society. He fits into some prophecy, and eventually, his every move becomes a miracle. He constantly says things like "I never lifted a finger to help slay those Sardukar, but it will be written that i killed 100 by myself unarmed". The Fremen get so caught up in following him they begin to glorify him in everything he does.
Ok, that sounds like Science Fiction? reminds me a bit of that son of a carpenter (even though he wasn't, because Mary was a virgin).
In The Life Of Brian, Brian is basically misquoted all the way through the film, and huge crowds start to follow him around, asking him to bless them etc... One bit i like is where a man with a cane walks up to him, touches him and shouts "I'M healed!" and walks off. The crows go wild, and no one notices when the man falls down a flight of stairs (i can't remember if it's a cripple or a blind man, sorry).
Basically, both of those stories show how Jesus could have turned out how he was, and why people would have written it down. Hell, the bible could have been written by some, ancient Stephen King.
While those two books may have some similarites to the bible, The fundamentals are completely different
Ah the Bible says that Jesus filled all of them. The point being made in referance to Dune and The Life of Brian was that records don't nessassirly provide an accurate account of what happened. Often people will see what they want to see and write accordingly. Hence, the official records in the Dune series for example (I havn't read the books so this is just speculation) might say that Paul fullfilled every prophecy, even though he clearly did not. As such, the people who were writing the Bible may have seen Jesus do some things that seemed to fit some of the prophecies, and then simply "filled in the gaps" as it were. I wouldn't call it lying, I'd say rather that these people were caught up in the moment. Jesus was obviously an intelligant and influencial man who attracted people to him, and as such the people who were recording what they knew of him may have glorified details. It's not an uncommon thing to do. So, Jesus may very well have not filled all the prophecies.
FYI, I don't think evolutionary theory can disprove anything, since its unproven itself.
But I can't do that. For example, the Bible claims that Jesus' was the son of the Hebrew god Jehovah sent to earth to give humanity a new message. How exactly am I ment to refute that? All the documentary evidance in the world won't convince a Christian that Jesus was not divine. No evidence I can bring forth will convince a Christian that their god does not exist.
I could point out that the story of the Ark is impossible, seeing as archaelogical evidence clearly shows that the worlds' population was not wiped out a few thousand years ago and in order to keep 2 of every animal alive on an Ark you would need a vessal that would roughly equal the size of an entire continent. What I can say is that the same story appears in several faiths and seems to be the result of the flooding of one of the first cities, Ur. The Genesis story is also impossible; evolutionary theory and genetics completly disprove it. The earth is over 4.5 billion years old, evolutionary evidence shows that life on earth was not created in 7 days and genetic evidence shows that every human on the planet is not decended from 2 original parents. But this won't change peoples' minds. People will say "Oh but they're just stories" "You're not supposed to take them at face value" or "That's the Old Testemant we don't believe in that". Before we go any further Marine I have to know: are we looking at both the Old and New Testemant, or just the New? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Bible cant give concrete proofs on anyones divinity, I'm with you all the way. But when it quotes a so called God and it turns out that God was wrong, then obviously the Bible is erroneous, and nothing in there can be given absolute trust. Its what all Christians stand on and if you take it away their faith is moot. You dont attack the Bible to dispel the notion of God, you attack the Bible to dispel the notion that its Gods Word.
Ahhhh now we are getting into the meat and vegetables. Did the Ark really need to be that big? I believe this <a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp' target='_blank'>Link</a> fresh from Google can sum it up better than I can, but it shows that the idea of the Ark is indeed feasible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15) which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats a pretty damn large boat, and given that insects could survive on vegetation mats andswimming things could survive in the ocean, its actually possible to fit all those animals on the boat, and then feed and water them for over a year, especially if they were young animals.
And there is evidence for a global flood, its just percieved as evidence of evolution. They find seashells on top of huge mountains, but no one has the guts to suggest maybe it got put there in the Great Flood.
Evolution. As much as I hate to exclude it from this conversation, as it is a really great point to launch attacks on the Bible, could we please leave that outside the arguement. Threads have already been made (and locked) on the theory of evolution, and there are a lot of very intelligent people who support it, and a lot of very intelligent people who dont. This thread will degenerate into another evolution vs creation arguement and I really want to avoid that. Its a great point Ryo, but please lets no follow it up in this thread.
However, genetic information showing that life didnt come from an "Adam and Eve" style parents? Thats strange, I thought that was one of the few points genetics and religion agreed on. Humans have 99.98% similarity, be we black, white or yellow. It is entirely possible to have two parents who contain the genetic possibility of children having any of the blood types. Even if you accept the evolutionairy idea, originally, a pair of protohumans must have simultaeneously upgraded themselves to full human status - a very unlikely event, and then reproduced. No one claims that whole stack of protohumans upgraded at the same time, its even more unlikely.
We are after both Old and New. The New relies heavily on the Old as it is supposed to be the culmination of the Old. Any falsities in either and both fall down, with the Christian religion joining the pileon.
I had 14 pages of direct qoutes in size 10 font.
Everything from tiny "who cares" topics to larger ideas such as murder, sexism, slavery etc
here are some examples.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are we saved through works?
Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."
vs
James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are we punished for our parents' sins?
Exodus 20:5 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Repeated in Deuteronomy 5:9)
vs
Deuteronomy 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." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is God peaceable?
Romans 15:33 "The God of peace."
vs
Exodus 15:3 "The Lord is a man of war." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."
vs
Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face."
Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are we all sinners?
Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."
vs
Job 1:1 "There was a man . . . who name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright."
Genesis 7:1 "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."
Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How old was Ahaziah?
II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."
vs
II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
vs
John 19:14-15 "And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out . . . crucify him." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could go on here forever and make this a 10 page reply but I wont.
Each example I posted here was only a part of many more under each catagory.
Am I trying to say the Bible or religion is total crap because of this, No. im just pointing out a few of hundreds of points where it just doesnt make up its mind. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm, that's not evidance for a global flood. Seashells are on top of mountains because of plate tectonics and the movement of the continents. Scientists used to say "They got there during the Great Flood" but that was quite some time ago. Nowdays we know that they're up there because ancient seabeds have been pushed up into mountain ranges by continents colliding. Also the shells found there are not those of modern species; they are much older ones that pre-date mankind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Thats strange, I thought that was one of the few points genetics and religion agreed on. Humans have 99.98% similarity, be we black, white or yellow. It is entirely possible to have two parents who contain the genetic possibility of children having any of the blood types.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Humans do have a very similar genetic structure, that is true, but thats because we're all the same species. Now if we really had all come from 2 original parents, the genetic problems would have become woefully apparent in the first few generations. Incestuous relationships throughout history have shown to us, and modern genetics reaffirms this, that interbreeding in a confined gene pool leads to big genetic problems, such as mutations. The Bible mentions no such occurances. Furthurmore, there's the problem that according to the Bible the world is 6,000 years old. That means, allowing for a 25 year generation period, that there have been only 240 generations of people on this planet. If that is the case, 99.98% similarity is huge compared to what it should be, which would much closer to 100%.
Looking at the whle genesis theory we run into another problem. After Cain kills Abel the following passages say that:
4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
4:18 And unto Enoch was born Irad:
Exactly where is this Land of Nod? Does this mean that god created more humans in another place? Or was Cain married to the only other known woman, Eve? And then, how does Cain's son bear children when the only candidates are Eve and this mysterious "Nod" wife? But wait, it gets more complicated. After Cain and Abel had been born, we have:
4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Thus the Bible tells us that Adam and Eve had 3 sons. <b>But no daughters</b>. Hence, Seth must have been having sex with his own mother to "begat sons and daughters". Are we getting twisted enough yet?
So what we end up with is a mysterious land of Nod, which merits one mention in the Bible yet surely must have contained other humans, and in both places rampant incest. Not really a good start all things considered.
Well the thing is Ryo, that modern theory still claims we all came from the same two ancestors. Now I dont have any of their specific proofs right with me at the moment, but I have yet to see anyone claim that we came from something other than a single breeding pair. Both creationist and evolutionairy theory alike. I find it a bit ummmm... contradictory to claim that they would all be hideously inbred, yet after 240 generations they should be way more genetically similar than 99.98%
The Genesis conundrum of "Who was Cain's wife" is exactly as you said, his sister. Inbreeding. Now before everyone starts making faces, you must remember that incest only has the stigma because the products of "interfamily unions" are usually "unconventional". Given that Adam and Eve where supposed to be created perfect (something which cannot be proven from the Bible), and problems/mutations/miscopies would only occur after they were thrown out of the Garden of Eden.
Therefore, the further back in time you go, the more perfect the genetic code. Entropy - from order to disorder (i think). Thus, with improved genetic code, there is no reason to suggest that malformed children would be rife, despite the proliferation of incest. The people in the Land of Nod must have been blood relatives of Cain. Simply because the Bible only specifically mentions 2 of Adam and Eves children does not preclude the idea that they may have had more. Jewish tradition holds the number at close to 100 I think.
And Mr Davis, you have certainly given me something to think about there - I now have a lot of questions for certain pastors who better have decent answers. The KJV is highly respected for accuracy, but it suffers the same problem of all translations of the Bible, translating context and meaning into English. I'm going to read the surround passages, see what people think it means in hebrew, and get back to you. I love this stuff - you never ever get a decent and balanced perspective on anything until you hold it up to the opposition and have it challenged. When certain areas are questioned, you go and see if you can find answers. If answers can be found, then your faith in it is increased. If answers cant, then that deals a blow to its credibility, but either way you're learning. Bless you discussion forum <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Actually it doesn't mention who his wife is, it's just that according to the Bible there's only one candidate, Eve, because Adam and Eve just have sons. Which leaves us with the problem again of Cain being banished, and seeing as he murdered his brother I hardly think that Eve would be willing to bed him to concieve a daughter, which once again isn't mentioned.
Incest is considered taboo in so many cultures because it results in very nasty genetic mutations. If indeed we all were decended from one genetic "choke point" as it were, Adam and Eve's offspring would be producing children that would consist mainly of teeth <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but I have yet to see anyone claim that we came from something other than a single breeding pair. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now what the modern theories have going for them is not that it was a single pair, but rather that the genetic pool was much wider. At some stage anatomically modern humans came into being. Now the very first <i>Homo sapiens sapiens</i> probably wouldn't have another <i>Homo sapiens sapiens</i> to breed with. He or she would breed with a <i>Homo sapiens</i>. Now recall that by this stage, the fossil record shows us that <i>Homo sapiens sapiens</i> was very similar to a <i>Homo sapiens</i>. Hence, breeding across species isn't a problem. Thus, over the course of generations, that original ancestral stock of <i>Homo sapiens</i> evolves into <i>Homo sapiens sapiens</i>. From there on, we can track the course of the spread of <i>Homo sapiens sapiens</i> out of southern Africa, through the Middle east and from there on out. <i>Homo sapiens sapiens</i> achieved dominance over other <i>Homo</i> species due to better hunting techniques, higher intelligance and greater organisation.
Thus it's not so much that we all came from one ancestral pair, but rather that genetic mutations in a group of Homo sapiens in southern Africa produced a slightly more adaptable species of <i>Homo sapiens</i>, which would from that point interbreed with the very similar <i>Homo sapiens</i> to eventualy produce a large ancestral stock. Studies have located this ancestral stock ground in southern Africa by comparing genetic samples from people from across the world to the genetic material we have from the earliest <i>Homo sapiens sapiens</i> remains, and the group that has changed the least is located in southern Africa.
Does that answer the question about theories of modern human origins?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Therefore, the further back in time you go, the more perfect the genetic code. Entropy - from order to disorder (i think). Thus, with improved genetic code, there is no reason to suggest that malformed children would be rife, despite the proliferation of incest.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, not so. The first Homo sapiens sapiens did not have a "perfect" genetic code so to speak. The problems of incest come about because the two gene pools are so very similar. Basically, because siblings and families share so many of the same genes, the chance of producing offspring with an abdormality increases greatly. As the gene pool widens, the chance of abdormalities and defects decreases. This is why having sex with your 2nd cousin will usually produce fine offspring, whereas having sex with your sister will likely produce abnormal offspring. These genetic problems would very quickly make themselves apparent, yet no mention is made of them in the Bible. Saying that "Well, Adam and Eve had perfect genetic codes" doesn't cut it, because a) No-one can have a perfect genetic code because there's no defenition of perfection and b) Even if they were perfect they would hence be identical (Eve is born from Adam's rib so he's pretty much having sex with himself in genetic terms), and as such genetic defects would immediatly be apparent in the first generation (their children). Again, the Bible makes no mention of this. Bear in mind that such problems also affect other mammals so 2 of every animal creates big problems with the Ark, in addition to the fact that the Ark introduces a 2nd bottleneck into the genetic pool by only having a small number of humans left.
And thank you, you have cleared up my question about modern theories of genetic origin. That fits logically in my mind.
As I have been tought, problems of inbreeding occur because of recessive "bad genes". So if you mate with your sister and your parents have any recessive bad genes, then your chances of passing that on to your kids goes through the roof. Thus, if your parents DIDNT have any bad genes, you chances of getting that malformed child plummets. The idea is that as time goes on, random mutations produce bad genes that werent originally present, and thus inbreeding becomes a serious problem, and then outlawed in just about every civilisation. I wasnt trying to claim that the homo sapiens had perfect genetic code, but thats because I'm talking about the Adam and Eve of the Bible, not of the biology textbook <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
The ark does create another bottleneck, but I think it was roughly 30 people on the ark, seems plenty to me.
Actually it doesn't mention who his wife is, it's just that according to the Bible there's only one candidate, Eve, because Adam and Eve just have sons. Which leaves us with the problem again of Cain being banished, and seeing as he murdered his brother I hardly think that Eve would be willing to bed him to concieve a daughter, which once again isn't mentioned. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me get this one thing straight right now.
Just because the bible didnt say that adam and eve had a daughter doesnt mean they didnt. Maybe they had ten daughters before they had Cain, nobody knows. If i tell you my parents have had two sons, it doesnt mean i dont have any sisters, i have just chosen not to tell you. The bible makes no mention of any women being born to any of the parents yet clearly they were. you mean you thought that every singer person had sex with eve, and every single baby turned out to be a boy? Women were not mentioned because <b>The weren't considered important.</b> Jews could trace their family history back into the tens of generations, thats how they proved thier jewish-hood. Women dont carry the family line, men do. a jewish man couldn't care less who his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather maried, all he cared was that he fathered his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather.
the bible doesnt mention who peter's mother was. does that mean she didnt exist? no, she is just not important to the message of the bible - God created Man, then created woman as company for man (which is another reason why i believe homosexuality is wrong, but thats another topic altogether) and man and woman had babies and filled the earth.
Anyway, I doubt genetics could be used against the bible since God is omnipotent. So maybe god just worked some voodoo and made genetics not be a problem for the first some odd number of generations. Then of course he didn't tell anybody about it since it would be a waste of time to explain genetics to people who barely know how to copulate.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
no, till the rich wester countries had 10 times as much food as they needed and the developing countries had 10 times as little food as they need. GG <b>Humans</b>
Yeah but that phenomena occurs in many aspects of genetic disease. I'm colourblind, my Father is not, nor anyone on his families side. My mother is also not colourblind, nor is anyone on her families side. I am because I carry an X chromosome from my mother that has the gene for colourblindness, as I have 1 copy of a detrimental (if only minor) gene and only one X chromosome (so no second option) I express it. A small gene pool can hence still be massively damaging to a small population (sex linked diseases for example).
The other thing is that when you are very genetically similar you are in a LOT of trouble. Chromosomes like eachother by nature, and the more similar two peoples chromosomes there are to eachother the more likely they are to stick together. This leads to conditions like downs syndromes, massive birth defects, raises the mutation rate through the roof (good and bad thing however) and many othe massive reprocussions.
From an immunological perspective this is a *disaster*. A low or confined gene pool increases the chance astronomically that a population of immunological susceptible individuals could be devastated by a single disease or virulent pathogen. The first populations of humans would probably have been exterminated by disease if they were that similar to one another.
Some other random tidbits (but I do agree with marine for the most part, such as the bible rarely contradicts itself really if you take things in full context, there is a lot of archaeological evidence that supports some events in the bible etc)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thats a pretty damn large boat, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well aside from gibbering in Genesis with their usual funny ideas, it really isn't going to be big enough to store both the animals needed, and then enough tonnes of food. Also keeping all the insects (we'll cover this again shortly) in the world INCLUDING the mass of nematodes worms etc would be impossible.
The amount animal species go into and over the millions from last I looked, that is an AMAZING amount of animals to store on a single ship. Not to mention that we have a massive genetic bottleneck for every single species available, and hence a lot of microbes and viruses. Mass extinctions in that environment were't likely, they were DEFINITE.
Just look at <i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i>, it has spread from Humans into a whole mess of animals (which is looking REALLY bad for us BTW) and is known to have existed well before the Egyptians! It isn't just sitting in such animals either, it kills them! With 2 possums and 1 hit of Bovine tuburculosis, well BYE BYE possums!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and given that insects could survive on vegetation mats<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very unlikely, try putting an emporer scorpion on a vegetation mat! Not to mention that many insects could not take the dessication from such an event and would die. Very few insects could survive like this for any meaningful period of time. I doubt that most insects could survive this kind of abuse for a terribly long time.
Also consider that there is an estimate thrown around of over 300,000,000 MILLION insect species (and this is being <i>generous</i>, that is a near impossible assumption.
Sounds like something from answers in genesis...*has a look, sees it, puts on captain winner hat and does a dance*
Thought so. That site just makes amazingly classic statements like that all the time.
That is a really ridiculous assumption, probably made before there was a great deal of knowledge about insect physiology and biodiversity (they've become popular only very recently).
<img src='http://chameleoncounters.com/images/emporer.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
That is a very large thing to have living on a mat of vegetation (which is itself extraordinarily unlikely, when was the last time you saw a mat of vegetation floating around in the middle of the ocean for any meaningful amount of time?). There are just so many problems with that statment it isn't funny.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->andswimming things could survive in the ocean,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is again horrifically incorrect. Consider coral reefs and the life biomass around them. An increase in water level would heavily reduce the amount of light that can reach them. Essentially coral reefs would suffer a mass extinction of near apocalyptic levels. Guess what, this is <i>occuring</i>, NOW! It is a sad thing to see that as sea levels are rising in places in the world, coral reefs are beginning to die out as the amount of light that reaches them decrease.
With the death of the coral reef a huge slew of animals would die, leading to an incredible mass extinction of aquatic animals. For these to then grow back (at observed growth rates of the current coral reefs) would take many more years than were available in the short period of time set by creationists, making this event entirely impossible.
2nd. Another problem with this idea is pressure. Animals that live in the ocean either can alter their depth (whales) and hence pressure tolerance, or they live at a specific depth/pressure. If you were to dump a large amount of water on the top of the ocean, you would dramatically increase the pressure at the greatest depths. Animals down there can take that pressure, but the sudden increase would stuff them. Again, this would lead to a mass extinction of animals in the ocean that are unable to cope with the sudden change in pressure.
Of course, this in itself isn't relevant, but when we get back on land afterwards, there are a lot of species that will go extinct without the coral reefs. Many animals rely on the sea too!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->its actually possible to fit all those animals on the boat, and then feed and water them for over a year, especially if they were young animals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Negative, I'd say it would be completely impossible. You couldn't ever get all the earths biomass of animals onto a single ship (2 of each even), and then not expect disease, a lack of general excercise and many other factors to strike them down to their deaths. This is in about the 40 odd days this flood was supposed to have gone for.
Noahs ark is about as probabable as the boogey man is to be living under my bed.
Then again... <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
Essentially the Bible is a collection of stories, laws, prayers, and all manner of things written by different people at different times so there are bound to be some problems in the accuracy and consistency of the Bible because it was not written directly by God or by someone transcribing for God, like the Koran is understood to have been.
What one finds is that most Christians use their conscience, which they believe is "God given", and the teachings of the Bible, of Jesus, to discover what is right and what is not.
It is very well saying that one set of chapter and verse contradicts another, most Christians don't care - they spend their time taking their belief and living it today rather than worrying about different accounts of the history of the Jews or the exact time of Jesus' death.
With Christianity there is no need to argue over the details, the ideas are there in the teachings of Jesus and the Bible - its a Christian's "job" to follow those teachings to the best of their ability.
Ok, so the qu'ran was written by one person dictated to by God. the bible was wrtitten by lots of people, each dictated to by God. Whats the difference? If I'm dictating a project report to my dad because i cant type fast, then he gets tired and so my brother takes over, what does it matter? The teacher isnt going to say that becasue two different people wrote my report, i cant pass the class. Both of the pieces are still my words, it is my report.
Ok, so the qu'ran was written by one person dictated to by God. the bible was wrtitten by lots of people, each dictated to by God. Whats the difference? If I'm dictating a project report to my dad because i cant type fast, then he gets tired and so my brother takes over, what does it matter? The teacher isnt going to say that becasue two different people wrote my report, i cant pass the class. Both of the pieces are still my words, it is my report. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you know they were all written by people being dictated to by God?