15 Oct 09
Jesus was buried in the tomb. According to Mark 16:1 Mary Magdale, Mary mother of James, and Salome were the 1st to visit when the sun had risen (Mark 16:2.) Yet according to John, only Mary Magdalene visited when it was yet dark (John 20:1) Again they can't both be right so obviously, the bible made another error.
This is fun.......using the bible to prove that it is incorrect!
15 Oct 09
Originally posted by 667joelet us know when you actually find any proof as its stands both your other attempts were lame!
Jesus was buried in the tomb. According to Mark 16:1 Mary Magdale, Mary mother of James, and Salome were the 1st to visit when the sun had risen (Mark 16:2.) Yet according to John, only Mary Magdalene visited when it was yet dark (John 20:1) Again they can't both be right so obviously, the bible made another error.
This is fun.......using the bible to prove that it is incorrect!
15 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joesimply because one account does not mention the other person, does not mean that they were not present, does it? if there is a room filled with people and i record a conversation between two persons, does it mean that the others were not present, lame lame lame! and please you have provided two references, which amount to nothing closely resembling proof, lets not get ahead of ourselves.
I gave you proof Chapter and verse. The bible says 2 different things and they both can't be right. What is so hard to understand?
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat about the darkness and the daylight? How do you get around that?
simply because one account does not mention the other person, does not mean that they were not present, does it? if there is a room filled with people and i record a conversation between two persons, does it mean that the others were not present, lame lame lame! and please you have provided two references, which amount to nothing closely resembling proof, lets not get ahead of ourselves.
16 Oct 09
3 edits
Originally posted by 667joeThese kinds of complex details might be expected in the reporting of an event from different eyewitnesses. The inconsistencies may not at all mean that the event did not take place.
Jesus was buried in the tomb. According to Mark 16:1 Mary Magdale, Mary mother of James, and Salome were the 1st to visit when the sun had risen (Mark 16:2.) Yet according to John, only Mary Magdalene visited when it was yet dark (John 20:1) Again they can't both be right so obviously, the bible made another error.
This is fun.......using the bible to prove that it is incorrect!
I read through the court proceedings to the famous Gunfight at the OK Corral. The court was trying to ascertain who started the gun battle, who fired the first shot, and so forth. Generally, the law was trying to determine if a crime had been commited.
The eyewitness testimony was complex and often contradictory. Yet it was obvious that a bad gun battle had occured. The inability of the jury to totally reconstruct in every detail what occured did not diminish the fact that a historical event had taken place.
Likewise, the resurrection of Jesus may contain some testimony which is difficult to reconstruct in a completely satisfactory way. Our best explanation is that nonetheless that a miracle took place and Jesus had risen from the dead.
Did you ever hear of "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel?" I think that is all you are demonstrating.
Gary Habermas is an authority on the details of the resurrection. Google him up or YouTube him up and maybe you can put the question to him. He has spent his life researching the evidence for the resurrection of Christ on primarily if not purely historical grounds.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywillThis shows what I've always said: The bible, all of it, is written by men. Men are not reliable, therefore the bible shows unreliabilities.
These kinds of complex details might be expected in the reporting of an event from different eyewitnesses. The inconsistencies may not at all mean that the event did not take place.
Further: Whatever is read in bible is nothing more than hearsay. Jaywill calls it reports from eyewitnesses. So that's what it is - hearsay.
There are a lot of inconsistencies in the bible. Why not just admit it? Why all this defending the undefendable? It's embarrasing...
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by FabianFnas=================================
This shows what I've always said: The bible, all of it, is written by men. Men are not reliable, therefore the bible shows unreliabilities.
Further: Whatever is read in bible is nothing more than hearsay. Jaywill calls it reports from eyewitnesses. So that's what it is - hearsay.
There are a lot of inconsistencies in the bible. Why not just admit it? Why all this defending the undefendable? It's embarrasing...
This shows what I've always said: The bible, all of it, is written by men. Men are not reliable, therefore the bible shows unreliabilities.
Further: Whatever is read in bible is nothing more than hearsay. Jaywill calls it reports from eyewitnesses. So that's what it is - hearsay.
There are a lot of inconsistencies in the bible. Why not just admit it? Why all this defending the undefendable? It's embarrasing...
=====================================
I am not embaressed by the Holy Bible at all. Are you kidding ?
Who else in human history exemplifies such a high and splendid moral personality as Jesus Christ ? He's in a class all by Himself. And His resurrection from the dead is certainly not in a vacuum. It is totally consistent with the power of His words and deeds.
I feel glorious to be associated with such a Person and such a Bible.
16 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillWho else in human history exemplifies such a high and splendid moral personality as Jesus Christ?
[b]=================================
This shows what I've always said: The bible, all of it, is written by men. Men are not reliable, therefore the bible shows unreliabilities.
Further: Whatever is read in bible is nothing more than hearsay. Jaywill calls it reports from eyewitnesses. So that's what it is - hearsay.
There are a lot of inconsis words and deeds.
I feel glorious to be associated with such a Person and such a Bible.
Siddhartha Gautama
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywillIf you think of the holy bible as the Truth, it's embarrasing. There are a lot of errors in it.
=================================
This shows what I've always said: The bible, all of it, is written by men. Men are not reliable, therefore the bible shows unreliabilities.
Further: Whatever is read in bible is nothing more than hearsay. Jaywill calls it reports from eyewitnesses. So that's what it is - hearsay.
There are a lot of inconsisten ...[text shortened]... ==============
I am not embaressed by the Holy Bible at all. Are you kidding ?
[/b]
People trying to defend these errors, is embarrasing. They should know better.
People who are not embarrassed by the bible being the dogma of the christian cults, it's embarrasing.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasSome of the bible is probably true. Some of it it false. Some of it is metaphoric. Cross refrencing ,(especially from other religous,(or other)), scources is a good way to start to ascertain whether something actually occurred or not.
If you think of the holy bible as the Truth, it's embarrasing. There are a lot of errors in it.
People trying to defend these errors, is embarrasing. They should know better.
People who are not embarrassed by the bible being the dogma of the christian cults, it's embarrasing.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelI agree completely.
Some of the bible is probably true. Some of it it false.
I cannot however agree to those who say that the bible is true in its entirety.
Its value lies in the fact that it reflects a long gone culture. As a document from far away and long ago we can learn a lot of things. But to use it as a book on physics, or a laws, or whatever, it simply cannot be done, and is furthermore foolish.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasWell the scientific part is one aspect. A pretty poor aspect too.
I agree completely.
I cannot however agree to those who say that the bible is true in its entirety.
Its value lies in the fact that it reflects a long gone culture. As a document from far away and long ago we can learn a lot of things. But to use it as a book on physics, or a laws, or whatever, it simply cannot be done, and is furthermore foolish.
It is my contention that the bible has been 'fiddled' with. Possibly some parts have been omitted,(and/or addded), as well.
If the bible was not tampered with in this way I believe our world would be a better place. (Primarily the western world-which affects the whole world in the end.)