<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Nov 5 2003, 02:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 5 2003, 02:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The reference list - rofl. Only one book manages to make it into the 20th century - one other does but thats actually a book defending the bible. What I find funny is that it seems that as time marches on less books attacking the Bible's consistency can be found, hence their very short references list. They have to go digging for books written in the 17,18 and 19C. Several of those I have already answered in my Accuracy and Consistency of the Bible thread, purely off the top of my head. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A defense of Biblical consistency is not well served by attacking sources based on how old they are. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Seriously though, I think the number of books on Biblical inconsistencies falls off because after a certain point, the ground became so well-traveled that nobody was interested in flogging the dead horse any further. In my 13 years of religious education I never had a teacher tell me that the Bible was 100% self-consistent on all the nitpicky details. The basic message is what counts.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Nov 5 2003, 05:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Nov 5 2003, 05:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Nov 5 2003, 02:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 5 2003, 02:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The reference list - rofl. Only one book manages to make it into the 20th century - one other does but thats actually a book defending the bible. What I find funny is that it seems that as time marches on less books attacking the Bible's consistency can be found, hence their very short references list. They have to go digging for books written in the 17,18 and 19C. Several of those I have already answered in my Accuracy and Consistency of the Bible thread, purely off the top of my head. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A defense of Biblical consistency is not well served by attacking sources based on how old they are. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Seriously though, I think the number of books on Biblical inconsistencies falls off because after a certain point, the ground became so well-traveled that nobody was interested in flogging the dead horse any further. In my 13 years of religious education I never had a teacher tell me that the Bible was 100% self-consistent on all the nitpicky details. The basic message is what counts. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quite right, a better defence would be to go through each on point by point. And to do so, I would have to translate each KJV to a more modern translation, and then hunt through the little book I have here sitting on my right called "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" and answer each and every one. And I have to go to work soon, so I dont have the time to invest in a solid refutation.
People always like to use the most up to date sources, those are the most reliable. The fact that they didnt makes for interesting conclusions. As I said - using sources hundreds of years old, making basic context misunderstanding look like contradictions, and using the KJV all smells fishy to me. But I dont have the time to attack on a point by point basis, so I went broad. Samwise - people never get tired of flogging up things religious, many of those points made in that article based of those sources an 18yr old kid from Brizzy can answer of the top of his head (in other words - me). I've seen them asked, I've seen them answered. I cant believe that the religious community has nothing to say to the books, I've seen these claims answered solidly many times.
EDIT - As Aegeri once said, the older a study or finding is, the lower its credibility is rated.
I feel comfortable challanging the accuracy of these sources on age grounds while defending the Bible because the Bible's sources are considered beyond compare. Thousands of sources all saying practically the same thing. Atheist or Theist alike will admit that for a religious text it is disgustingly well sourced. The Bible is a historical document, not a study or finding - I dont feel it can be attacked with my arguement.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Nov 5 2003, 03:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 5 2003, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I feel comfortable challanging the accuracy of these sources on age grounds while defending the Bible because the Bible's sources are considered beyond compare. Thousands of sources all saying practically the same thing. Atheist or Theist alike will admit that for a religious text it is disgustingly well sourced. The Bible is a historical document, not a study or finding - I dont feel it can be attacked with my arguement. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Which thousands of sources are those? The Bible is certainly well-preserved, but a solid historical document it's not. I don't know of any books of the Bible with more than a couple of sources that even <i>might</i> be independent. Take the Gospels, for example - at first blush it looks like four corroborating stories, but dig a little bit and you find out that three of the gospel writers were all cribbing from each other (the "synoptic" gospels, Matt, Mark, and Luke), and that their stuff disagrees on some details with the other (John, who is definitely the more authoritative source if you go on the assumption that the primary author of John's gospel was the apostle John).
The Bible is well-copied, to be sure, but simply copying a work does nothing to ensure its historical sources are accurate.
Mind you, I'm not saying nothing in the Bible can be historically corroborated, because I know a lot of it can be and has been. I'm just saying your assertion that the Bible's "thousands of sources" are "beyond compare" is a little questionable from an academic standpoint.
And back to the original point of this tangent off a branch of the original topic - the age of a given piece of biblical commentary does nothing to invalidate it, because in theory the commentators of the 1700s were working off the same well-preserved text that we have in front of us today. We don't have anything they didn't, so their conclusions are just as valid as conclusions drawn by more modern scholars. (Age of sources DOES matter in other sciences, such as biology and physics, because new findings are made that invalidate older research - so expect to get laughed at if you try to win an argument on quantum physics by quoting Newton - but theology doesn't generally suffer from this condition.)
<!--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-->Which thousands of sources are those? The Bible is certainly well-preserved, but a solid historical document it's not. I don't know of any books of the Bible with more than a couple of sources that even might be independent. Take the Gospels, for example - at first blush it looks like four corroborating stories, but dig a little bit and you find out that three of the gospel writers were all cribbing from each other (the "synoptic" gospels, Matt, Mark, and Luke), and that their stuff disagrees on some details with the other (John, who is definitely the more authoritative source if you go on the assumption that the primary author of John's gospel was the apostle John). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Chapter and verse please.
<!--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 back to the original point of this tangent off a branch of the original topic - the age of a given piece of biblical commentary does nothing to invalidate it, because in theory the commentators of the 1700s were working off the same well-preserved text that we have in front of us today. We don't have anything they didn't, so their conclusions are just as valid as conclusions drawn by more modern scholars. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect. We are not talking about mere commentary, the difference between Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis, we are talking about the difference between two different translations of the same copied work. Those who translated the 1611 KJV did not have manuscripts uncovered in the last 400 years. As such, you get things like the extra phrase tacked on to Romans 8:1 that puts a qulaification on salvation, an exact copy of a phrase found in Romans 8:4. This is only found in a few manuscripts, and among the ones used by the translators of the KJV. 400 years of archeology makes a BIG difference.
I'm still looking for evidence of direct contradiction. You mentioned the diatary laws before, compared to things like Acts10:13 where God tells Peter to kill and eat, even the unclean animals.
First of all, that vision was to show Peter he should not hold back from reaching out to the Gentiles, as shown in Acts 10:28: "He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."
Although the dietary laws are still there, they are not nessesary as a requirement for salvation. Romans is a good book to read that explains all of that, despite being a rather hefty chunk of theology. Chapters 1-6 seem to be the most pertinant to what you are talking about, but the basics is that the Law was given to convict man, that is, to show him that he was sinful, so that he may turn to God, and recieve faith. But of course, Paul says it much better than I can.
<!--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-->Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him." 9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thus, the Law, represented here by circumsision, is not directly corralated to being righteous, to being saved.
<sigh> If you insist on being obtuse, I'll fetch my Bible when I go home tonight and find a few representative tidbits. During my last semester of theology we did some exercises involving trying to pin down historical data on Jesus, and if I recall right a lot of it was impossible to pin down because the Synoptics and John would outright disagree on the details, especially when it came to exact time periods during which various things occur. Probably because the gospels were written the better part of a century after the fact, and people's memories weren't infallibly sharp. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Legionnaired+Nov 5 2003, 07:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Nov 5 2003, 07:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Those who translated the 1611 KJV did not have manuscripts uncovered in the last 400 years. As such, you get things like the extra phrase tacked on to Romans 8:1 that puts a qulaification on salvation, an exact copy of a phrase found in Romans 8:4. . <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Interesting thought - if 400 years of archaeology can change the Bible enough to invalidate prior commentary on it, what might we uncover in the next 400 years? That doesn't bolster the argument that the Bible as we have it today is the literal infallible unchanged word of God, now does it? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm digging now, but on the note of "historical document", here's a footnote from the New American Bible in reference to Luke 2:2...
<!--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-->1 [1-2] Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke's dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful. P. Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of the province of Syria in A.D. 6-7 when Judea was annexed to the province of Syria. At that time, a provincial census of Judea was taken up. If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have to have been before 10 B.C. because the various legates of Syria from 10 B.C. to 4 B.C. (the death of Herod) are known, and such a dating for an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus' ministry (Luke 3:1, 23). A previous legateship after 4 B.C. (and before A.D. 6) would not fit with the dating of Jesus' birth in the days of Herod (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1). Luke may simply be combining Jesus' birth in Bethlehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius (see also Acts 5:37) to underline the significance of this birth for the whole Roman world: through this child born in Bethlehem peace and salvation come to the empire.<!--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-->Be careful, therefore, to observe what I, the Lord, who make you holy, have prescribed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> - <i>Leviticus 20:8</i> <!--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-->If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> - <i>Leviticus 20:10</i>
<!--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-->1 Jesus had gone over to the Mount of Olives. 2 But at daybreak He again went back to the temple. All the people gathered around Him and He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees came to Him, bringing along a woman who had been taken in the act of adultery. And they placed her in their midst. 4 Then they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. 5 In the Law, Moses had told us to stone such women. Now, what do you have to say about it?"
6 They were trying to trap Him, so that they might find something against Him. But Jesus stooped down and began to write on the ground with His finger. 7 Since they kept questioning Him, He got up and said to them, "Let him among you who has no sin be the first to cast a stone at her." 8 Again He leaned forward to write on the ground. 9 But they had heard Him and, accused by their own conscience, they went away one by one, beginning with the oldest, till they all were gone. And Jesus was left alone with the woman, who was still standing before Him.
10 Then Jesus raised Himself up and, seeing no one there except the woman, He said to her, "Your accusers - where are they? Did no one condemn you?" 11 "No one, Lord," she replied. "Then, neither will I condemn you," said Jesus. "Go, and sin no more."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> - <i>John 8:1-11</i>
So in Leviticus, God says to Moses to stone adulteresses. He even emphasizes "be careful to observe what I have prescribed" - he doesn't say "do this sometimes," or "if it suits you." Leviticus is nice that way - God lays down the law very rigidly and unambiguously. But then Jesus comes along in the gospels and says "you're sorry? Promise to be good from now on? Okay, it's cool then. No biggie."
Read through Matthew 21:10-17. I'll summarize: Jesus came into Jerusalem, threw the money-changers out of the temple, and performed miracles. Then he went to Bethany to spend the night.
Now skip over to Mark 11:11-19. Mark says that Jesus did indeed go to the temple upon arriving in Jerusalem, but went directly to Bethany without causing a ruckus, and came back the next morning to do the cleansing.
Does this matter theologically? No, probably not. But it's this sort of inconsistency that reduces credibility of the Bible as a 100% accurate source.
Legion, I hate to break it to you, but the bible, and I say this with an honest, open-minded approach (remind you that I am a Christian), has most possibly, some contradictions.
If you take the whole old testament, it was mainly designated to King David and the focus of his dynasty and long, kingly line of offspring. The book of Samuel produces a very accurate picture of a ruthless, extremely sexual, deceiving, and traitorous person. Someone who has spilled to much blood in his life, David most likely got to the throne, because of his own charisma and ambition. In order to justify such actions, I believe people edited and toned down the work of the so called "biographer of King David," who's writings were harsh and to the point. Even the book of chronicles is a censored version to simplify and make David look more human than he is. With the mind that anything is possible, it could be that the whole old-testament before the dynasty of the kings of Israel was infact a written"fill-in" to explain Israel's "mythical" times.
For example, King David would do some ruthless act, like wiping out whole tribes of amelekites, and in the end of the whole ordeal some verse would popup saying that it was God's will for David to kill sinful people, but in reality to make him look more human than ruthless. It is such honest and truthful depicting in the book of Samuel that makes David the most human of people in the old testament, which is of course good to hear-good to hear, because even the greatest of people are very bad sinners.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Nov 5 2003, 10:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Nov 5 2003, 10:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Legionnaired+Nov 5 2003, 07:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Nov 5 2003, 07:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Those who translated the 1611 KJV did not have manuscripts uncovered in the last 400 years. As such, you get things like the extra phrase tacked on to Romans 8:1 that puts a qulaification on salvation, an exact copy of a phrase found in Romans 8:4. . <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Interesting thought - if 400 years of archaeology can change the Bible enough to invalidate prior commentary on it, what might we uncover in the next 400 years? That doesn't bolster the argument that the Bible as we have it today is the literal infallible unchanged word of God, now does it? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't believe in taking the english translation literally, going into semantics over a word that's already been altered in translation isn't exactly prudent, though given the ammount of time that has been put into studying the original texts, they are pretty damn close. The archeological efforts in that area since 1611 have been EXPONENTIALLY greater than those beforehand. I think it's safe to say that what we have to work with is, in fact, all there is. And, should new material come up, then our interpretations will be changed, but what God really has to say will now.
<!--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-->1 [1-2] Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke's dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful. P. Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of the province of Syria in A.D. 6-7 when Judea was annexed to the province of Syria. At that time, a provincial census of Judea was taken up. If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have to have been before 10 B.C. because the various legates of Syria from 10 B.C. to 4 B.C. (the death of Herod) are known, and such a dating for an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus' ministry (Luke 3:1, 23). A previous legateship after 4 B.C. (and before A.D. 6) would not fit with the dating of Jesus' birth in the days of Herod (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1). Luke may simply be combining Jesus' birth in Bethlehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius (see also Acts 5:37) to underline the significance of this birth for the whole Roman world: through this child born in Bethlehem peace and salvation come to the empire.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The note in the NIV says that Quinirius served two terms, 6-4 B.C and 6-9 A.D, with a census accompanying each. The earlyer of those two terms would fit right in, but I will have to check on it to see which version's notes are correct.
<!--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-->So in Leviticus, God says to Moses to stone adulteresses. He even emphasizes "be careful to observe what I have prescribed" - he doesn't say "do this sometimes," or "if it suits you." Leviticus is nice that way - God lays down the law very rigidly and unambiguously. But then Jesus comes along in the gospels and says "you're sorry? Promise to be good from now on? Okay, it's cool then. No biggie." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are several things within this story that implies it was simply an attempt to trap Jesus. For one thing, there was never a man also brought to be stoned, which, as the Leviticus scripture you pulled up, demanded there be. The woman was caught in the act, whereas Jewish law required multaple witnesses who had seen the act first hand, compromising circumstances were not grounds for execution, which, was not supposed to be done by stoning unless the woman was a betrothed virgin, as shown in Deuteronomy 22:23-24.
So how was it a trap? Jews couldn't carry out death sentences, so if he ordered her death, then he'd be in conflict with the Romans, and if he said not to stone her, then he'd be accused of violating the law. Because he spoke of throwing the stone, he could not be accused of refusing to advocate the death penalty. However, judgement is for God, not for us, to carry out. This woman had neither ample evidence for a ruling to take place, nor an accomplice in the crime, the criteria God set down for determining who should be put to death. That writing in Leviticus was his instructions for carrying out His justice, and since the evidence didn't meet the criteria, that judgement was rightfully not carried out.
And he didn't just say everything was just dandy. He gave her a specific order to leave her life of sin. That's straight from God, which carries quite a bit of weight. (She was a sinner, just like everyone else. Jesus is, in effect, telling her to come to repentance.)
<!--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-->Read through Matthew 21:10-17. I'll summarize: Jesus came into Jerusalem, threw the money-changers out of the temple, and performed miracles. Then he went to Bethany to spend the night.
Now skip over to Mark 11:11-19. Mark says that Jesus did indeed go to the temple upon arriving in Jerusalem, but went directly to Bethany without causing a ruckus, and came back the next morning to do the cleansing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Matthew had a thing for compressing narratives. What Matthew says is "Jesus went into the temple and kicked ****", where Mark says "Jesus went into the temple, came out, went back in and then kicked ****." In both accounts, Jesus goes to Bethany afterwards. Matthew meerly has a compression of the story, with the omittion of the first mention of Jesus going into the temple and not clearing it out. Neither is wrong or innacurate, Matthew simply features a compressed version.
You can't deny the little picky details. Okay sure, perhaps that was King James version. Give me an "accurate" version and we will take it apart piece by piece on every statement said, and I have no doubt in my mind we'll stumble across a few hundred contradictions.
Now would you make a reference to a source in which the data is inconsistent/incorrect? Is that any way to write a good english paper? I think not. The only difference with the bible is that whether it is right or wrong is debatable. However, it is still proven that it is inconsistent in many places. A good english student wouldn't use this as a source, unless the Bible was the focus of the paper.
They say before using any source to reference, you must check several things:
A) Up to date... Bible? No way!
B) Author(s) is/are well known to be reputable... Bible? Came from many different people, most of which either have yet known to have existed or were passed down from word of mouth long before it was ever written down on paper.
C) Trying to sell something... Bible? Yes.. trying to sell God
D) Consistency? I think we've proved it is not exactly the most concrete piece of writing.
E) Correctness? Well by saying the Bible is correct is saying God exists which we all know is far from proven.
F) Widely used? Yes, this is the only thing I credit to the Bible. It is one of the most widely used sources ever used. This is all it has going for it though.
Just because it is old and often used does not make it accurate. There are plenty of people which would believe the end of the world was coming tomorrow if you told them it was. Don't be one of these people. Look at the facts. Decide for yourself.
<!--QuoteBegin--Legionnaired+Nov 5 2003, 09:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Nov 5 2003, 09:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Matthew had a thing for compressing narratives. What Matthew says is "Jesus went into the temple and kicked ****", where Mark says "Jesus went into the temple, came out, went back in and then kicked ****." In both accounts, Jesus goes to Bethany afterwards. Matthew meerly has a compression of the story, with the omittion of the first mention of Jesus going into the temple and not clearing it out. Neither is wrong or innacurate, Matthew simply features a compressed version. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree there. Both specifically mention Jesus coming into Jerusalem for the first time. Both specifically mention him going to Bethany and spending the night. Both specifically mention Jesus kicking **** and taking names. And they both specifically put them in different chronological orders.
<!--QuoteBegin--Legionnaired+Nov 5 2003, 09:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Nov 5 2003, 09:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This woman had neither ample evidence for a ruling to take place, nor an accomplice in the crime, the criteria God set down for determining who should be put to death. That writing in Leviticus was his instructions for carrying out His justice, and since the evidence didn't meet the criteria, that judgement was rightfully not carried out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't buy it. If indeed he had scriptural justification for sparing this woman's life (which I don't think he did, unless John is exaggerating about the woman being "taken in the act"), why not give that justification rather than saying (albeit indirectly) that punishment is in fact NOT to be doled out strictly according to the law of Moses?
<!--QuoteBegin--kida+Nov 5 2003, 11:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kida @ Nov 5 2003, 11:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Legion, I hate to break it to you, but the bible, and I say this with an honest, open-minded approach (remind you that I am a Christian), has most possibly, some contradictions.
If you take the whole old testament, it was mainly designated to King David and the focus of his dynasty and long, kingly line of offspring. The book of Samuel produces a very accurate picture of a ruthless, extremely sexual, deceiving, and traitorous person. Someone who has spilled to much blood in his life, David most likely got to the throne, because of his own charisma and ambition. In order to justify such actions, I believe people edited and toned down the work of the so called "biographer of King David," who's writings were harsh and to the point. Even the book of chronicles is a censored version to simplify and make David look more human than he is. With the mind that anything is possible, it could be that the whole old-testament before the dynasty of the kings of Israel was infact a written"fill-in" to explain Israel's "mythical" times.
For example, King David would do some ruthless act, like wiping out whole tribes of amelekites, and in the end of the whole ordeal some verse would popup saying that it was God's will for David to kill sinful people, but in reality to make him look more human than ruthless. It is such honest and truthful depicting in the book of Samuel that makes David the most human of people in the old testament, which is of course good to hear-good to hear, because even the greatest of people are very bad sinners. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Plausible kida, but entirely lacking in evidence. There are several points of contention in the Bible, none of them about anything critical, and all based around trivialities.
There is nothing to suggest that David revised the Bible, and when you look at just how seriously the Jews took the writing of their scriptures, I seriously doubt any one man could get away with so much as an additional comma without a good stoning.
<!--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-->If indeed he had scriptural justification for sparing this woman's life (which I don't think he did, unless John is exaggerating about the woman being "taken in the act"), why not give that justification rather than saying (albeit indirectly) that punishment is in fact NOT to be doled out strictly according to the law of Moses? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Besides being a later addition to the text... does Jesus in any way indicate that stoning this woman would be unjust? He could have said: "No, you must not stone her because <legalistic reason>."
Instead, he appeals to the mercy of her accusers and would-be executioners. And only after <i>they</i> have decided to forego the lawful, temporal punishment the sin incurs, Jesus forgives her guilt.
And since you're quoting from the Catholic NAB... you'll find that <i>sola scriptura</i>-Protestants are a <i>lot</i> more zealous about these "contradictions". Their whole faith hinges on the impeccability of these texts.
<!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Nov 6 2003, 06:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Nov 6 2003, 06:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You can't deny the little picky details. Okay sure, perhaps that was King James version. Give me an "accurate" version and we will take it apart piece by piece on every statement said, and I have no doubt in my mind we'll stumble across a few hundred contradictions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You want an accurate version? read the bible in it's original languages. No translation errors there. Read it, and then come back with your contradictions.
<!--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-->Now would you make a reference to a source in which the data is inconsistent/incorrect? Is that any way to write a good english paper? I think not. The only difference with the bible is that whether it is right or wrong is debatable. However, it is still proven that it is inconsistent in many places. A good english student wouldn't use this as a source, unless the Bible was the focus of the paper. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rule 5 of the discussion forums:
<!--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-->5.: Respect other peoples newssources. It is <i>so</i> tempting. Tell someone that you don't believe the newspaper (source) they cited articles from, and the uncomfortably consistent argumentation they built up falls together, leaving you and your notion secure again. Don't ever try that. <!--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-->They say before using any source to reference, you must check several things:
A) Up to date... Bible? No way!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The bible has just as much relevance today as it did 2000 years ago. It may be old, but it is up to date.
<!--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-->B) Author(s) is/are well known to be reputable... Bible? Came from many different people, most of which either have yet known to have existed or were passed down from word of mouth long before it was ever written down on paper.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The jews were <i>very</i> strict about thier scriptures. Ther was nothing that wasn't written down either by the author or by a scribe listening to the author. Moses wrote his 5 books either first hand or by divine inspiration. Word of mouth? no such thing. The authors must have eixtsed, they wrote the thing.
<!--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-->C) Trying to sell something... Bible? Yes.. trying to sell God<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You find me an article without <i>any</i> bias then.
<!--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-->D) Consistency? I think we've proved it is not exactly the most concrete piece of writing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think we hgave proved that the minor contradictions were about things that were not really important, infact, in the gospels, the contradictions just support them. They were wiritten by different people, some of htem by interviewing people, others by first hand experience. of course they will be different. If two students hand in an essay about Hitler, and they were identical down to the last comma, the teacher will know that they copied, either from each other or from some website.
<!--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-->E) Correctness? Well by saying the Bible is correct is saying God exists which we all know is far from proven.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But does that mean the Bible is <i>in</i>correct?
<!--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-->F) Widely used? Yes, this is the only thing I credit to the Bible. It is one of the most widely used sources ever used. This is all it has going for it though. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is the <i>only</i> thing it has going for it?
<!--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-->Just because it is old and often used does not make it accurate. There are plenty of people which would believe the end of the world was coming tomorrow if you told them it was.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those people are people who are looking for somethng to believe in, and looking in the wrong place for the answer.
<!--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-->Don't be one of these people. Look at the facts. Decide for yourself<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is there anything wrong with being one of those people looking for an anwer? If you dont look, how will you ever find?
<!--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-->You can't deny the little picky details. Okay sure, perhaps that was King James version. Give me an "accurate" version and we will take it apart piece by piece on every statement said, and I have no doubt in my mind we'll stumble across a few hundred contradictions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have a program on my computer that allows simultanious viewing of the NIV, NASB, NKJV, and the KJV. Give us some verses that seem to contradict each other, and we'll use multiple translations, as well as the original text available from <a href='http://www.greekbible.com' target='_blank'>http://www.greekbible.com</a> to work out any contradictions. You can't say that they are there until you actually point them out.
<!--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-->Now would you make a reference to a source in which the data is inconsistent/incorrect? Is that any way to write a good english paper? I think not. The only difference with the bible is that whether it is right or wrong is debatable. However, it is still proven that it is inconsistent in many places. A good english student wouldn't use this as a source, unless the Bible was the focus of the paper. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thus far, NOBODY in this thread has even scratched the consistancy of the bible, except for Samwise' comment about the difference between Mark and Matthew's account of clearing the temple, which I will answer as soon as I get home, I'm posting this from Humanities. Until you have proof it is in fact inconsistant, then don't call it such. You can accept or reject what God has to say through the bible, but you haven't said anything that established the bible as a flawed presentation of his message.
<!--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-->A) Up to date... Bible? No way!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The bible is a historical document, much like, say, William the Conqueror's Domesday book. It's out of date in the sense that the people in them are all dead, but the events actually did happen, were recorded, and their extrapolated significance lies outside of time, as Jesus' sacrifice was for all people, of all places, of all times.
<!--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-->B) Author(s) is/are well known to be reputable... Bible? Came from many different people, most of which either have yet known to have existed or were passed down from word of mouth long before it was ever written down on paper.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of the authors of the books in the NT are known, the only one I know for certain is disputed is the author of Hebrews. The entire NT was written within the lifespan of the first or second generations of Jesus followers. If you want to make a more convincing case for disputing the author of any of the books, you'll want to start with the Torah. However, the claims that those were a collection of oral tradition are, usually, just speculation.
<!--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-->C) Trying to sell something... Bible? Yes.. trying to sell God <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Bible is a recorded history of everything that God has done to bring the human race to redemption, from the fall to Jesus. The reason it appears to have such a spin is that the things that God has done are, in fact, so absolutely amazing and different than anything we've ever seen that you are skeptical of them. Just because you refuse to believe something does not make anything that presents that idea inherantly spun.
<!--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-->D) Consistency? I think we've proved it is not exactly the most concrete piece of writing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marine, Boggle and I have shot down all claims to this thus far, save the mention of the clearing of the temple. Expect a reply to that at around 3 EST, I don't have a Bible on me ATM.
<!--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-->E) Correctness? Well by saying the Bible is correct is saying God exists which we all know is far from proven.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without a challenge to it's credibility, we have absolutly no ground to challenge it's correctness. If it is, in fact, a fully credible witness to events which can be only chocked up to God's doing, is evidence to the existance of the almighty.
<!--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-->F) Widely used? Yes, this is the only thing I credit to the Bible. It is one of the most widely used sources ever used. This is all it has going for it though. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think the fact that you haven't offered any challenge to it's credibility that hasn't been shot down also is something the Bible has going for it.
<!--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-->Just because it is old and often used does not make it accurate. There are plenty of people which would believe the end of the world was coming tomorrow if you told them it was. Don't be one of these people. Look at the facts. Decide for yourself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have looked at the facts. That's kind of why I'm a Christian.
And what did I say earlier about these sorts of discussions as to whether religion has any basis? Everyone here teeters on the edge of account Discussion Forum restriction. Learn some self control (that's step 2 to adulthood, after getting rid of your tiresome narcississm in step 1).
Comments
A defense of Biblical consistency is not well served by attacking sources based on how old they are. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Seriously though, I think the number of books on Biblical inconsistencies falls off because after a certain point, the ground became so well-traveled that nobody was interested in flogging the dead horse any further. In my 13 years of religious education I never had a teacher tell me that the Bible was 100% self-consistent on all the nitpicky details. The basic message is what counts.
A defense of Biblical consistency is not well served by attacking sources based on how old they are. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Seriously though, I think the number of books on Biblical inconsistencies falls off because after a certain point, the ground became so well-traveled that nobody was interested in flogging the dead horse any further. In my 13 years of religious education I never had a teacher tell me that the Bible was 100% self-consistent on all the nitpicky details. The basic message is what counts. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite right, a better defence would be to go through each on point by point. And to do so, I would have to translate each KJV to a more modern translation, and then hunt through the little book I have here sitting on my right called "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" and answer each and every one. And I have to go to work soon, so I dont have the time to invest in a solid refutation.
People always like to use the most up to date sources, those are the most reliable. The fact that they didnt makes for interesting conclusions. As I said - using sources hundreds of years old, making basic context misunderstanding look like contradictions, and using the KJV all smells fishy to me. But I dont have the time to attack on a point by point basis, so I went broad. Samwise - people never get tired of flogging up things religious, many of those points made in that article based of those sources an 18yr old kid from Brizzy can answer of the top of his head (in other words - me). I've seen them asked, I've seen them answered. I cant believe that the religious community has nothing to say to the books, I've seen these claims answered solidly many times.
EDIT - As Aegeri once said, the older a study or finding is, the lower its credibility is rated.
I feel comfortable challanging the accuracy of these sources on age grounds while defending the Bible because the Bible's sources are considered beyond compare. Thousands of sources all saying practically the same thing. Atheist or Theist alike will admit that for a religious text it is disgustingly well sourced. The Bible is a historical document, not a study or finding - I dont feel it can be attacked with my arguement.
Which thousands of sources are those? The Bible is certainly well-preserved, but a solid historical document it's not. I don't know of any books of the Bible with more than a couple of sources that even <i>might</i> be independent. Take the Gospels, for example - at first blush it looks like four corroborating stories, but dig a little bit and you find out that three of the gospel writers were all cribbing from each other (the "synoptic" gospels, Matt, Mark, and Luke), and that their stuff disagrees on some details with the other (John, who is definitely the more authoritative source if you go on the assumption that the primary author of John's gospel was the apostle John).
The Bible is well-copied, to be sure, but simply copying a work does nothing to ensure its historical sources are accurate.
Mind you, I'm not saying nothing in the Bible can be historically corroborated, because I know a lot of it can be and has been. I'm just saying your assertion that the Bible's "thousands of sources" are "beyond compare" is a little questionable from an academic standpoint.
And back to the original point of this tangent off a branch of the original topic - the age of a given piece of biblical commentary does nothing to invalidate it, because in theory the commentators of the 1700s were working off the same well-preserved text that we have in front of us today. We don't have anything they didn't, so their conclusions are just as valid as conclusions drawn by more modern scholars. (Age of sources DOES matter in other sciences, such as biology and physics, because new findings are made that invalidate older research - so expect to get laughed at if you try to win an argument on quantum physics by quoting Newton - but theology doesn't generally suffer from this condition.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Chapter and verse please.
<!--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 back to the original point of this tangent off a branch of the original topic - the age of a given piece of biblical commentary does nothing to invalidate it, because in theory the commentators of the 1700s were working off the same well-preserved text that we have in front of us today. We don't have anything they didn't, so their conclusions are just as valid as conclusions drawn by more modern scholars. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect. We are not talking about mere commentary, the difference between Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis, we are talking about the difference between two different translations of the same copied work. Those who translated the 1611 KJV did not have manuscripts uncovered in the last 400 years. As such, you get things like the extra phrase tacked on to Romans 8:1 that puts a qulaification on salvation, an exact copy of a phrase found in Romans 8:4. This is only found in a few manuscripts, and among the ones used by the translators of the KJV. 400 years of archeology makes a BIG difference.
I'm still looking for evidence of direct contradiction. You mentioned the diatary laws before, compared to things like Acts10:13 where God tells Peter to kill and eat, even the unclean animals.
First of all, that vision was to show Peter he should not hold back from reaching out to the Gentiles, as shown in Acts 10:28: "He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."
Although the dietary laws are still there, they are not nessesary as a requirement for salvation. Romans is a good book to read that explains all of that, despite being a rather hefty chunk of theology. Chapters 1-6 seem to be the most pertinant to what you are talking about, but the basics is that the Law was given to convict man, that is, to show him that he was sinful, so that he may turn to God, and recieve faith. But of course, Paul says it much better than I can.
<!--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-->Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,
30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?
2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God.
3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation.
5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."
9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness.
10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thus, the Law, represented here by circumsision, is not directly corralated to being righteous, to being saved.
Interesting thought - if 400 years of archaeology can change the Bible enough to invalidate prior commentary on it, what might we uncover in the next 400 years? That doesn't bolster the argument that the Bible as we have it today is the literal infallible unchanged word of God, now does it? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.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-->1 [1-2] Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke's dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful. P. Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of the province of Syria in A.D. 6-7 when Judea was annexed to the province of Syria. At that time, a provincial census of Judea was taken up. If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have to have been before 10 B.C. because the various legates of Syria from 10 B.C. to 4 B.C. (the death of Herod) are known, and such a dating for an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus' ministry (Luke 3:1, 23). A previous legateship after 4 B.C. (and before A.D. 6) would not fit with the dating of Jesus' birth in the days of Herod (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1). Luke may simply be combining Jesus' birth in Bethlehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius (see also Acts 5:37) to underline the significance of this birth for the whole Roman world: through this child born in Bethlehem peace and salvation come to the empire.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Riddle me that one, Batman...
<!--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-->Be careful, therefore, to observe what I, the Lord, who make you holy, have prescribed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> - <i>Leviticus 20:8</i>
<!--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-->If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> - <i>Leviticus 20:10</i>
<!--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-->1 Jesus had gone over to the Mount of Olives. 2 But at daybreak He again went back to the temple. All the people gathered around Him and He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees came to Him, bringing along a woman who had been taken in the act of adultery. And they placed her in their midst. 4 Then they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. 5 In the Law, Moses had told us to stone such women. Now, what do you have to say about it?"
6 They were trying to trap Him, so that they might find something against Him. But Jesus stooped down and began to write on the ground with His finger. 7 Since they kept questioning Him, He got up and said to them, "Let him among you who has no sin be the first to cast a stone at her." 8 Again He leaned forward to write on the ground. 9 But they had heard Him and, accused by their own conscience, they went away one by one, beginning with the oldest, till they all were gone. And Jesus was left alone with the woman, who was still standing before Him.
10 Then Jesus raised Himself up and, seeing no one there except the woman, He said to her, "Your accusers - where are they? Did no one condemn you?" 11 "No one, Lord," she replied. "Then, neither will I condemn you," said Jesus. "Go, and sin no more."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> - <i>John 8:1-11</i>
So in Leviticus, God says to Moses to stone adulteresses. He even emphasizes "be careful to observe what I have prescribed" - he doesn't say "do this sometimes," or "if it suits you." Leviticus is nice that way - God lays down the law very rigidly and unambiguously. But then Jesus comes along in the gospels and says "you're sorry? Promise to be good from now on? Okay, it's cool then. No biggie."
Read through Matthew 21:10-17. I'll summarize: Jesus came into Jerusalem, threw the money-changers out of the temple, and performed miracles. Then he went to Bethany to spend the night.
Now skip over to Mark 11:11-19. Mark says that Jesus did indeed go to the temple upon arriving in Jerusalem, but went directly to Bethany without causing a ruckus, and came back the next morning to do the cleansing.
Does this matter theologically? No, probably not. But it's this sort of inconsistency that reduces credibility of the Bible as a 100% accurate source.
If you take the whole old testament, it was mainly designated to King David and the focus of his dynasty and long, kingly line of offspring. The book of Samuel produces a very accurate picture of a ruthless, extremely sexual, deceiving, and traitorous person. Someone who has spilled to much blood in his life, David most likely got to the throne, because of his own charisma and ambition. In order to justify such actions, I believe people edited and toned down the work of the so called "biographer of King David," who's writings were harsh and to the point. Even the book of chronicles is a censored version to simplify and make David look more human than he is. With the mind that anything is possible, it could be that the whole old-testament before the dynasty of the kings of Israel was infact a written"fill-in" to explain Israel's "mythical" times.
For example, King David would do some ruthless act, like wiping out whole tribes of amelekites, and in the end of the whole ordeal some verse would popup saying that it was God's will for David to kill sinful people, but in reality to make him look more human than ruthless. It is such honest and truthful depicting in the book of Samuel that makes David the most human of people in the old testament, which is of course good to hear-good to hear, because even the greatest of people are very bad sinners.
Interesting thought - if 400 years of archaeology can change the Bible enough to invalidate prior commentary on it, what might we uncover in the next 400 years? That doesn't bolster the argument that the Bible as we have it today is the literal infallible unchanged word of God, now does it? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe in taking the english translation literally, going into semantics over a word that's already been altered in translation isn't exactly prudent, though given the ammount of time that has been put into studying the original texts, they are pretty damn close. The archeological efforts in that area since 1611 have been EXPONENTIALLY greater than those beforehand. I think it's safe to say that what we have to work with is, in fact, all there is. And, should new material come up, then our interpretations will be changed, but what God really has to say will now.
<!--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-->1 [1-2] Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke's dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful. P. Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of the province of Syria in A.D. 6-7 when Judea was annexed to the province of Syria. At that time, a provincial census of Judea was taken up. If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have to have been before 10 B.C. because the various legates of Syria from 10 B.C. to 4 B.C. (the death of Herod) are known, and such a dating for an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus' ministry (Luke 3:1, 23). A previous legateship after 4 B.C. (and before A.D. 6) would not fit with the dating of Jesus' birth in the days of Herod (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1). Luke may simply be combining Jesus' birth in Bethlehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius (see also Acts 5:37) to underline the significance of this birth for the whole Roman world: through this child born in Bethlehem peace and salvation come to the empire.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The note in the NIV says that Quinirius served two terms, 6-4 B.C and 6-9 A.D, with a census accompanying each. The earlyer of those two terms would fit right in, but I will have to check on it to see which version's notes are correct.
<!--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-->So in Leviticus, God says to Moses to stone adulteresses. He even emphasizes "be careful to observe what I have prescribed" - he doesn't say "do this sometimes," or "if it suits you." Leviticus is nice that way - God lays down the law very rigidly and unambiguously. But then Jesus comes along in the gospels and says "you're sorry? Promise to be good from now on? Okay, it's cool then. No biggie." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are several things within this story that implies it was simply an attempt to trap Jesus. For one thing, there was never a man also brought to be stoned, which, as the Leviticus scripture you pulled up, demanded there be. The woman was caught in the act, whereas Jewish law required multaple witnesses who had seen the act first hand, compromising circumstances were not grounds for execution, which, was not supposed to be done by stoning unless the woman was a betrothed virgin, as shown in Deuteronomy 22:23-24.
So how was it a trap? Jews couldn't carry out death sentences, so if he ordered her death, then he'd be in conflict with the Romans, and if he said not to stone her, then he'd be accused of violating the law. Because he spoke of throwing the stone, he could not be accused of refusing to advocate the death penalty. However, judgement is for God, not for us, to carry out. This woman had neither ample evidence for a ruling to take place, nor an accomplice in the crime, the criteria God set down for determining who should be put to death. That writing in Leviticus was his instructions for carrying out His justice, and since the evidence didn't meet the criteria, that judgement was rightfully not carried out.
And he didn't just say everything was just dandy. He gave her a specific order to leave her life of sin. That's straight from God, which carries quite a bit of weight. (She was a sinner, just like everyone else. Jesus is, in effect, telling her to come to repentance.)
<!--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-->Read through Matthew 21:10-17. I'll summarize: Jesus came into Jerusalem, threw the money-changers out of the temple, and performed miracles. Then he went to Bethany to spend the night.
Now skip over to Mark 11:11-19. Mark says that Jesus did indeed go to the temple upon arriving in Jerusalem, but went directly to Bethany without causing a ruckus, and came back the next morning to do the cleansing.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Matthew had a thing for compressing narratives. What Matthew says is "Jesus went into the temple and kicked ****", where Mark says "Jesus went into the temple, came out, went back in and then kicked ****." In both accounts, Jesus goes to Bethany afterwards. Matthew meerly has a compression of the story, with the omittion of the first mention of Jesus going into the temple and not clearing it out. Neither is wrong or innacurate, Matthew simply features a compressed version.
Now would you make a reference to a source in which the data is inconsistent/incorrect? Is that any way to write a good english paper? I think not. The only difference with the bible is that whether it is right or wrong is debatable. However, it is still proven that it is inconsistent in many places. A good english student wouldn't use this as a source, unless the Bible was the focus of the paper.
They say before using any source to reference, you must check several things:
A) Up to date... Bible? No way!
B) Author(s) is/are well known to be reputable... Bible? Came from many different people, most of which either have yet known to have existed or were passed down from word of mouth long before it was ever written down on paper.
C) Trying to sell something... Bible? Yes.. trying to sell God
D) Consistency? I think we've proved it is not exactly the most concrete piece of writing.
E) Correctness? Well by saying the Bible is correct is saying God exists which we all know is far from proven.
F) Widely used? Yes, this is the only thing I credit to the Bible. It is one of the most widely used sources ever used. This is all it has going for it though.
Just because it is old and often used does not make it accurate. There are plenty of people which would believe the end of the world was coming tomorrow if you told them it was. Don't be one of these people. Look at the facts. Decide for yourself.
I disagree there. Both specifically mention Jesus coming into Jerusalem for the first time. Both specifically mention him going to Bethany and spending the night. Both specifically mention Jesus kicking **** and taking names. And they both specifically put them in different chronological orders.
I don't buy it. If indeed he had scriptural justification for sparing this woman's life (which I don't think he did, unless John is exaggerating about the woman being "taken in the act"), why not give that justification rather than saying (albeit indirectly) that punishment is in fact NOT to be doled out strictly according to the law of Moses?
If you take the whole old testament, it was mainly designated to King David and the focus of his dynasty and long, kingly line of offspring. The book of Samuel produces a very accurate picture of a ruthless, extremely sexual, deceiving, and traitorous person. Someone who has spilled to much blood in his life, David most likely got to the throne, because of his own charisma and ambition. In order to justify such actions, I believe people edited and toned down the work of the so called "biographer of King David," who's writings were harsh and to the point. Even the book of chronicles is a censored version to simplify and make David look more human than he is. With the mind that anything is possible, it could be that the whole old-testament before the dynasty of the kings of Israel was infact a written"fill-in" to explain Israel's "mythical" times.
For example, King David would do some ruthless act, like wiping out whole tribes of amelekites, and in the end of the whole ordeal some verse would popup saying that it was God's will for David to kill sinful people, but in reality to make him look more human than ruthless. It is such honest and truthful depicting in the book of Samuel that makes David the most human of people in the old testament, which is of course good to hear-good to hear, because even the greatest of people are very bad sinners. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Plausible kida, but entirely lacking in evidence. There are several points of contention in the Bible, none of them about anything critical, and all based around trivialities.
There is nothing to suggest that David revised the Bible, and when you look at just how seriously the Jews took the writing of their scriptures, I seriously doubt any one man could get away with so much as an additional comma without a good stoning.
<!--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-->If indeed he had scriptural justification for sparing this woman's life (which I don't think he did, unless John is exaggerating about the woman being "taken in the act"), why not give that justification rather than saying (albeit indirectly) that punishment is in fact NOT to be doled out strictly according to the law of Moses? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Besides being a later addition to the text... does Jesus in any way indicate that stoning this woman would be unjust? He could have said: "No, you must not stone her because <legalistic reason>."
Instead, he appeals to the mercy of her accusers and would-be executioners. And only after <i>they</i> have decided to forego the lawful, temporal punishment the sin incurs, Jesus forgives her guilt.
And since you're quoting from the Catholic NAB... you'll find that <i>sola scriptura</i>-Protestants are a <i>lot</i> more zealous about these "contradictions". Their whole faith hinges on the impeccability of these texts.
You want an accurate version? read the bible in it's original languages. No translation errors there. Read it, and then come back with your contradictions.
<!--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-->Now would you make a reference to a source in which the data is inconsistent/incorrect? Is that any way to write a good english paper? I think not. The only difference with the bible is that whether it is right or wrong is debatable. However, it is still proven that it is inconsistent in many places. A good english student wouldn't use this as a source, unless the Bible was the focus of the paper. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rule 5 of the discussion forums:
<!--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-->5.: Respect other peoples newssources.
It is <i>so</i> tempting. Tell someone that you don't believe the newspaper (source) they cited articles from, and the uncomfortably consistent argumentation they built up falls together, leaving you and your notion secure again.
Don't ever try that. <!--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-->They say before using any source to reference, you must check several things:
A) Up to date... Bible? No way!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The bible has just as much relevance today as it did 2000 years ago. It may be old, but it is up to date.
<!--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-->B) Author(s) is/are well known to be reputable... Bible? Came from many different people, most of which either have yet known to have existed or were passed down from word of mouth long before it was ever written down on paper.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The jews were <i>very</i> strict about thier scriptures. Ther was nothing that wasn't written down either by the author or by a scribe listening to the author. Moses wrote his 5 books either first hand or by divine inspiration. Word of mouth? no such thing. The authors must have eixtsed, they wrote the thing.
<!--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-->C) Trying to sell something... Bible? Yes.. trying to sell God<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You find me an article without <i>any</i> bias then.
<!--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-->D) Consistency? I think we've proved it is not exactly the most concrete piece of writing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think we hgave proved that the minor contradictions were about things that were not really important, infact, in the gospels, the contradictions just support them. They were wiritten by different people, some of htem by interviewing people, others by first hand experience. of course they will be different. If two students hand in an essay about Hitler, and they were identical down to the last comma, the teacher will know that they copied, either from each other or from some website.
<!--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-->E) Correctness? Well by saying the Bible is correct is saying God exists which we all know is far from proven.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But does that mean the Bible is <i>in</i>correct?
<!--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-->F) Widely used? Yes, this is the only thing I credit to the Bible. It is one of the most widely used sources ever used. This is all it has going for it though. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is the <i>only</i> thing it has going for it?
<!--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-->Just because it is old and often used does not make it accurate. There are plenty of people which would believe the end of the world was coming tomorrow if you told them it was.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those people are people who are looking for somethng to believe in, and looking in the wrong place for the answer.
<!--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-->Don't be one of these people. Look at the facts. Decide for yourself<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is there anything wrong with being one of those people looking for an anwer? If you dont look, how will you ever find?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have a program on my computer that allows simultanious viewing of the NIV, NASB, NKJV, and the KJV. Give us some verses that seem to contradict each other, and we'll use multiple translations, as well as the original text available from <a href='http://www.greekbible.com' target='_blank'>http://www.greekbible.com</a> to work out any contradictions. You can't say that they are there until you actually point them out.
<!--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-->Now would you make a reference to a source in which the data is inconsistent/incorrect? Is that any way to write a good english paper? I think not. The only difference with the bible is that whether it is right or wrong is debatable. However, it is still proven that it is inconsistent in many places. A good english student wouldn't use this as a source, unless the Bible was the focus of the paper.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thus far, NOBODY in this thread has even scratched the consistancy of the bible, except for Samwise' comment about the difference between Mark and Matthew's account of clearing the temple, which I will answer as soon as I get home, I'm posting this from Humanities. Until you have proof it is in fact inconsistant, then don't call it such. You can accept or reject what God has to say through the bible, but you haven't said anything that established the bible as a flawed presentation of his message.
<!--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-->A) Up to date... Bible? No way!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The bible is a historical document, much like, say, William the Conqueror's Domesday book. It's out of date in the sense that the people in them are all dead, but the events actually did happen, were recorded, and their extrapolated significance lies outside of time, as Jesus' sacrifice was for all people, of all places, of all times.
<!--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-->B) Author(s) is/are well known to be reputable... Bible? Came from many different people, most of which either have yet known to have existed or were passed down from word of mouth long before it was ever written down on paper.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of the authors of the books in the NT are known, the only one I know for certain is disputed is the author of Hebrews. The entire NT was written within the lifespan of the first or second generations of Jesus followers. If you want to make a more convincing case for disputing the author of any of the books, you'll want to start with the Torah. However, the claims that those were a collection of oral tradition are, usually, just speculation.
<!--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-->C) Trying to sell something... Bible? Yes.. trying to sell God
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Bible is a recorded history of everything that God has done to bring the human race to redemption, from the fall to Jesus. The reason it appears to have such a spin is that the things that God has done are, in fact, so absolutely amazing and different than anything we've ever seen that you are skeptical of them. Just because you refuse to believe something does not make anything that presents that idea inherantly spun.
<!--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-->D) Consistency? I think we've proved it is not exactly the most concrete piece of writing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marine, Boggle and I have shot down all claims to this thus far, save the mention of the clearing of the temple. Expect a reply to that at around 3 EST, I don't have a Bible on me ATM.
<!--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-->E) Correctness? Well by saying the Bible is correct is saying God exists which we all know is far from proven.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without a challenge to it's credibility, we have absolutly no ground to challenge it's correctness. If it is, in fact, a fully credible witness to events which can be only chocked up to God's doing, is evidence to the existance of the almighty.
<!--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-->F) Widely used? Yes, this is the only thing I credit to the Bible. It is one of the most widely used sources ever used. This is all it has going for it though. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think the fact that you haven't offered any challenge to it's credibility that hasn't been shot down also is something the Bible has going for it.
<!--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-->Just because it is old and often used does not make it accurate. There are plenty of people which would believe the end of the world was coming tomorrow if you told them it was. Don't be one of these people. Look at the facts. Decide for yourself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have looked at the facts. That's kind of why I'm a Christian.
Move along.