All 117 could be construed then as asking the basic question -
Are Scriptures writtem by man the inspired work of the Deity?
And what proofs are there to support the contention?
Which are inspired?
Which are salad dressing?

One question down - 116 more to go!

---

Classic WU= 7,237 Classic Hours= 42,079

All 117 could be construed then as asking the basic question -
Are Scriptures writtem by man the inspired work of the Deity?
And what proofs are there to support the contention?
Which are inspired?
Which are salad dressing?

This is true, HAL. And of course, differing sects have different views of the bible. Those that believe that the bible is the infallible word of God of course recognize the problem of discernment with fact and fiction and may avoid it by just summarizing that it's all true.

But, the problem for many in admitting that there is any flaw is that if any part of it can be wrong, then it opens up the whole thing to question, and for many people of faith this is a frightening concept.

Which are salad dressing indeed! For example;

84. Why is 2 Kings 19 exactly identical to Isaiah 37?

Same author? Edited? Weird that an entire chapter is identical to another.

plagiarism was not unknown to past generations of literates!
If it can historically be proven which is the most current passage, then the question is answered.
It does NOT however answer the question of the truth or inspiration of the original.

Ergo - one of them must be salad dressing

---

Classic WU= 7,237 Classic Hours= 42,079

Ergo - one of them must be salad dressing

Or maybe all of them are.

Or maybe all of them are.

Then it is okay to call every person on earth a liar because one is untruthful?

If one argument does not agree with a pre-concieved notiion then every fact is untrue?
This is not inquiry - it's an inquisition!

---

Classic WU= 7,237 Classic Hours= 42,079

Or maybe all of them are.

Then it is okay to call every person on earth a liar because one is untruthful?

If one argument does not agree with a pre-concieved notiion then every fact is untrue?
This is not inquiry - it's an inquisition!

Oh no, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that my default position is not that one is definitely true. Finding that one of the passages is wrong does not by default make a contradictory passage accurate.

Establishing fallibility warrants questioning of all other parts. Fallibility of one part does not by default falsify another either, but it does open it up to question.

We cannot determine biblical accuracies by process of elimination, unless the default position is that one of (in this case, the last words of Christ) the accounts is true. Therefore, they might all be wrong; not because one of them is wrong, but because they might all be wrong without any consideration for a reductive process.

Finding the last words of Christ narratives suspect in my view does NOT nullify the veracity of the entire gospel of that or any other similar author. It merely nullifies the contention that others may make of the infallibility of every jot and tittle of gospel.

I am not a religious person - but I am a person of faith!

IMHO there is a wisdom in scripture regardless of conflicts and it is up to each being to determine what represents truth and what is designed only to reinforce that concept.

If we are to believe original man partook of the tree of knowledge, then Christ's statement that I have given to you the power to become the sons of God then it follows we have the ability to discern truth from salad dressing and it is our mission in life to learn the difference.

Thus endeth the gospel of OUTHOUSE!

---

Classic WU= 7,237 Classic Hours= 42,079

Or maybe all of them are.

Then it is okay to call every person on earth a liar because one is untruthful?

If one argument does not agree with a pre-conceived notion then every fact is untrue?
This is not inquiry - it's an inquisition!

To which my first instinct was to reply with "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" ;-). But more seriously MP did say "maybe" which does allow for some doubt/inquiry. On the question of duplicate Biblical chapters, perhaps this is an indication that they are the most accurate, God inspired two different authors to write the same thing, or not.

The question remains that if one can reasonably conclude that not all passages are true as written, how does one decide which are true? To answer that is up to the individual to make that judgment for themselves, while not exactly a dodge, does beg the question, what is the purpose of the Bible as opposed to some other collection of stories? (apologies in advance if that comparison offends).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Finding the last words of Christ narratives suspect in my view does NOT nullify the veracity of the entire gospel of that or any other similar author. It merely nullifies the contention that others may make of the infallibility of every jot and tittle of gospel.

I agree. This were to be especially true if this part of the bible was the only part in contention with itself. Or if we had other supporting evidence to back up the claims that aren't contradictory. No single piece of evidence or contradiction nullifies the bible (although it does falsify the infallible argument), but it's the synergy behind so many holes, omissions, contradictions, etc. that have me personally doubting pretty much all of it.

I am not a religious person - but I am a person of faith!

I think we all are to some degree, if we consider faith to be simply belief without evidence. It is just manifested differently for some people. For example, I have "faith" that there is life on other planets, despite not having evidence of life on other planets. I have "faith" that the planet will not end in a nuclear exchange, although there is nothing to guarantee it won't happen. In any case, what I'm getting at is that the notion of faith is not exclusive to spiritual beliefs, and in that regard I believe every one of us has faith in something.

IMHO there is a wisdom in scripture regardless of conflicts and it is up to each being to determine what represents truth and what is designed only to reinforce that concept.

In other words, pick and choose from the bible. Sure, there is some wisdom in the bible, there is also a lot of absurdity and brutality. Many of these bits of wisdom are present in other ideologies, many predating the bible. But that hardly matters. If you get something out of it, then great. But the fact that Christians themselves cannot agree upon what the bible says tells me that most of the wisdom is either commonly understood outside of Christianity, and other bits of "wisdom" are measured on a subjective basis.

If we are to believe original man partook of the tree of knowledge, then Christ's statement that I have given to you the power to become the sons of God then it follows we have the ability to discern truth from salad dressing and it is our mission in life to learn the difference.

But why should we believe that? What substantiation other than wanting to believe it or needing it to substantiate something else do we have?
I do Understand what you're saying though. In regard to that, I can understand that people believe differently about different things and that's life. What I can't understand however is holding a personal belief with oneself that is in contention with itself. For example, when I was talking earlier about the Garden of Eden and the notion of theistic evolution. With evolution it's impossible to have original sin which negates the requirement of Christ's salvation as we're not born into sin (and in regard to being saved through Christ, see question # 2 (the answer being "no" because of animal sacrifice before Jesus established the new covenant).

Unless of course, one's understanding of evolution is that one animal morphs into another overnight.

Faith is Man's ultimate concern for the Ultimate
Religion is Man's expression of that Faith!
Paul Tillich

It has also been written - AS YE HAVE FAITH , SO BE IT UNTO YOU!

---

Classic WU= 7,237 Classic Hours= 42,079

What I can't understand however is holding a personal belief with oneself that is in contention with itself.

I think that's called Cognitive Dissonance and is by no means limited to believers of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Even though I am not a Christian, I do believe in the Bible and that it is divinely inspired. It does not matter to me that the authors of the New Testament were not present at the Crucifixion, nor does it matter that different versions of the event relate different words as the last spoken by Jesus.

The purpose of religion is to instruct us in spiritual matters. I know many Christians believe the Bible is absolutely accurate in all matters historical, scientific and theological, but its real value lies in the last of those three, not the first two. I have to ask, what religious purpose is served by stating matters best left to history and science, except for the moral lessons that can be learned from them?

Was there ever really a "Good Samaritan"? Who cares--except the parable teaches us that we should do likewise.

As for this specific question, about the last words of Jesus, please recall the story of three blind men asked to describe an elephant: one said an elephant was like a hose, one said it was like a wall and he third said it was like a rope. All three described what they knew of an elephant accurately.

Did three such blind men ever exist? Who cares, as long as the point of the story is better understood. (That is, different viewpoints sometimes result in apparent contradictions, which aren't contradictions at all.)

Anyone can pick apart the Bible for its apparent (logical) contradictions, scientific inaccuracies and historical errors. But if you are interested, the Bible can also be a source of spiritual teaching. I choose the latter.

Anyone can pick apart the Bible for its apparent (logical) contradictions, scientific inaccuracies and historical errors. But if you are interested, the Bible can also be a source of spiritual teaching. I choose the latter.

To that I have to ask, why would we expect the bible to be accurate in regard to spiritual teachings if it can be shown to be contradictory or inaccurate on empirical, historical, or scientific matters?

I suppose it all depends upon vested interest in Christian faith, and the standard of proof that one needs. The higher one's vested interest or need for faith, the lower one's standard of proof tends to be.

I don't hold religious beliefs to a higher or lower standard than I hold anything else; whether or not global warming is happening, the theory of evolution, or your claim that you were abducted by aliens. The standard of proof (for me anyway) is the same for all claims. In that regard, I find the bible to be the biggest piece of evidence against the bible.

As for this specific question, about the last words of Jesus, please recall the story of three blind men asked to describe an elephant: one said an elephant was like a hose, one said it was like a wall and he third said it was like a rope. All three described what they knew of an elephant accurately.

Did three such blind men ever exist? Who cares, as long as the point of the story is better understood. (That is, different viewpoints sometimes result in apparent contradictions, which aren't contradictions at all.)

But the blind men could all be right. The account of Christ's final words are specific and cannot all be right. An elephant can be like a hose, it can be like a wall, and it can be like a rope, these are all very vague and partial descriptions, but Christ's final words cannot all be what the bible says they are.

If I said Qui-Gon always support the death penalty, Bobby said you think it should be abolished completely, and Misfit said that there is no such thing as the death penalty, we can't all be right. We could even all be wrong in that you believe in the death penalty but only for certain circumstances.

But my question for you is as stated above; without corroborating and supporting evidence, why believe in unverifiable claims when those that we can verify have been falsified?

Whatever your answer might be, I do find it mature that you recognize that the bible is not without fault. I am just curious as to why those faults aren't considered relevant.

I am just curious as to why those faults aren't considered relevant.

Then read the rest of my post. I said, "The purpose of religion is to instruct us in spiritual matters. I know many Christians believe the Bible is absolutely accurate in all matters historical, scientific and theological, but its real value lies in the last of those three, not the first two. I have to ask, what religious purpose is served by stating matters best left to history and science, except for the moral lessons that can be learned from them?"

The real last words of Jesus might have been "Holy crap! These nails hurt." But the point of the Gospels (and the rest of the Bible) is not history or science; it is spiritual teaching. The authors of these books were not at the event, they reported versions of this important occasion as told by (usually followers of) the Apostles, who recounted the event not as historians but as theologians. For the purpose these stories were told, they were not wrong.

What actually happened can never be empirically proven. But finding a historical inaccuracy does not automatically prove that the spiritual teaching is also wrong. If you made a mistake once, does that make everything you ever did or said a mistake? If you find amusement in picking apart the Bible, then have at it, but you are missing the point.

But the point of the Gospels (and the rest of the Bible) is not history or science; it is spiritual teaching. [...] For the purpose these stories were told, they were not wrong.

Does that mean that the very existence of an historical Jesus is not of particular importance, the purpose of the Bible is the moral lessons, not the specific characters? I understand that for many Christians this is not the case, while noting this may not be a concern for you as you are not in their number.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

But the point of the Gospels (and the rest of the Bible) is not history or science; it is spiritual teaching. [...] For the purpose these stories were told, they were not wrong.

Does that mean that the very existence of an historical Jesus is not of particular importance, the purpose of the Bible is the moral lessons, not the specific characters? I understand that for many Christians this is not the case, while noting this may not be a concern for you as you are not in their number.

I believe He did exist, but is it important that Jesus existed? Yes, but not to prove the message. So if He did not exist, would that make His message invalid? I don't believe so, but some might.

Then is the body the reason for worship, or the divine message? All I know is, that I can demonstrate to others that I have a body (though in 2000 years there may be some doubt of that fact), but my philosophical view is not worthy to be remembered in two millennia. It is the message that sets Jesus apart form me (notice I did not say all people), not whether or not He had a corporeal form.

Then read the rest of my post. I said, "The purpose of religion is to instruct us in spiritual matters.

I did read your post and carefully considered every word. But I didn't feel that my question was really addressed; I'm asking how we can trust the spiritual matters which can't be proven when other things can be disproved.

What actually happened can never be empirically proven. But finding a historical inaccuracy does not automatically prove that the spiritual teaching is also wrong. If you made a mistake once, does that make everything you ever did or said a mistake?

No it doesn't, but not being able to disprove the spiritual lesson doesn't make it likely.

I fail to understand why everything we can prove against the bible is ignored when considering those aspects which cannot be proven or falsified but accepted as truth. Why are they accepted as truth? That's what I'm asking.

The authors of these books were not at the event, they reported versions of this important occasion as told by (usually followers of) the Apostles, who recounted the event not as historians but as theologians. For the purpose these stories were told, they were not wrong.

You have no more evidence for their purpose than you do for the material they wrote. Considering different accounts of the crucifixion, different accounts of Jesus' genealogy, different accounts of the others around them, Judas... it could easily be argued that the apostles did in fact have different motives. That's of course without mentioning the purpose of the "church" where the Council of Nicea, with a show of hands, voted on which books would be included in the bible, and which wouldn't.

edit;

I see you answered it when talking to Bobby;

Then is the body the reason for worship, or the divine message? All I know is, that I can demonstrate to others that I have a body (though in 2000 years there may be some doubt of that fact), but my philosophical view is not worthy to be remembered in two millennia. It is the message that sets Jesus apart form me (notice I did not say all people), not whether or not He had a corporeal form.

Ok, so you agree with it, therefore you believe it. Understood.

Mr. Poodle,

Well, I do believe you read my post, and you may have even "considered every word", but either you don't understand what I have said (three different ways in my last three post here), or you just want to argue. I will try one more time to tell you my position (bobby seems to have understood me, so I believe you can too, unless you're just being obstinate).

The Bible is a religious book, not History, not Science, and it is meant to teach religious values. Which Gospel, if any, was right about the last words of Jesus is irrelevant and unprovable, but the stories of the Bible, including the story of the crucifixion, are meant to teach us spiritual lessons. Looking for inconsistencies and scientific flaws ignores the primary meaning/reason for the Bible.

You say that, "not being able to disprove the spiritual lesson doesn't make it likely." First, that makes no sense and is not what I said. Of course you can verify the spiritual lessons, just look around you and you can see people being good, who live their lives according to these precepts, and people being bad, who do not. Please don't claim you don't know the difference between good and evil, because if you claim that as your position I will know that you are being intellectually dishonest. (Note that I did not say the Bible is the only place where people can find these spiritual lessons, which is another discussion completely.)

I never ignored the logical inconsistencies and scientific flaws in the Bible, I am simply saying that if they exist, they don't matter when you realize that the whole work is dedicated to teaching something other than physical facts. Jesus said to love your neighbor as you do yourself, Moses said don't murder, but these are open to wide interpretation. Without examples, like the Good Samaritan story, how do we interpret what "love your neighbor" means or how it should be applied in our lives? Did you know that Jews and Samaritans did not like each other very much? This has caused some to believe such a Good Samaritan never really existed, because it is highly unlikely a Samaritan would have helped a Jew. In your view, if the Samaritan did not exist, then the story would be invalid. All I am saying is it is irrelevant whether the Samaritan ever existed; it is the parable that has value for the moral lesson it teaches.

I can prove to myself that spiritual lessons are true by, among other things, the positive reactions I get from others when I follow them (when I do good), from the good feeling I get when I do something generous, when I respect others, when I refrain from what I know is wrong--and from the bad feeling I get when I do something wrong. If you are honest with yourself, you know when you are doing right or wrong, too. All rational people are capable of knowing that what they are doing is either right or wrong. That is how anyone can "prove" the validity of spiritual lessons, by testing them against what you have observed in their application; and this "proof" is not affected one bit by any factual inconsistencies in the Bible (or any other source of spiritual teaching).

Well, I do believe you read my post, and you may have even "considered every word", but either you don't understand what I have said (three different ways in my last three post here), or you just want to argue. I will try one more time to tell you my position (bobby seems to have understood me, so I believe you can too, unless you're just being obstinate).

It's obvious to me that you're taking offense to my questions and trying to equate the difficulty with the bible as difficulty within my attitude. Don't confuse the two.

The Bible is a religious book, not History, not Science, and it is meant to teach religious values. Which Gospel, if any, was right about the last words of Jesus is irrelevant and unprovable, but the stories of the Bible, including the story of the crucifixion, are meant to teach us spiritual lessons. Looking for inconsistencies and scientific flaws ignores the primary meaning/reason for the Bible.

This history of the following says otherwise. The bible attempts to explain the origins of man, the origins of the universe, the creation of the earth and life, the mechanics of seasons, daylight, and the like. Because you don't consider the bible to be scientifically accurate does not mean that the bible never attempted to explain notions which fall into the realm of science. I mean, the whole purpose of persecuting people that stated that the earth moved at all was because it was contradictory to biblical claims of a geocentric system. I understand that you look at it differently, but it appears to me that you're citing the intentions of the bible based only on what you believe about what it says, then taking all of the parts that you don't agree with and surmising that they are irrelevant and not part of the message.

You say that, "not being able to disprove the spiritual lesson doesn't make it likely." First, that makes no sense and is not what I said. Of course you can verify the spiritual lessons, just look around you and you can see people being good, who live their lives according to these precepts, and people being bad, who do not. Please don't claim you don't know the difference between good and evil, because if you claim that as your position I will know that you are being intellectually dishonest.

If people that followed the bible were exclusively moral, and people that didn't were exclusively immoral, then you'd have an argument here. But this isn't the case. Morality is subjective anyway. Many atheists practice biblical spiritual lessons (forgiveness, kindness, charity, loyalty to spouse, etc.) better than some Christians do.

You have no idea whether I know the difference between good and evil or whether I truly think I do or not. I might very well be wrong about it, but I'm certainly not intellectually dishonest about it.

I can prove to myself that spiritual lessons are true by, among other things, the positive reactions I get from others when I follow them (when I do good), from the good feeling I get when I do something generous, when I respect others, when I refrain from what I know is wrong--and from the bad feeling I get when I do something wrong.

The fact that these traits exist in a wide variety of demographics means that they do not necessarily come from the bible. Unless of course, before the bible every single person was biblically immoral and never felt wrong when they did something bad.

All rational people are capable of knowing that what they are doing is either right or wrong.

I disagree. People of opposing moral practices may very well feel that they are doing right, and there may be logical, rational arguments for both sides. For example, monogamy and polygamy are competing (in many cases, spiritual) values across different cultures. I don't think that one practicing either thinks that what they are doing is wrong, especially if their religion endorses it.

If you're talking about a conscience or specific behavior, I wouldn't know because you're painting with such broad strokes here.

That is how anyone can "prove" the validity of spiritual lessons, by testing them against what you have observed in their application; and this "proof" is not affected one bit by any factual inconsistencies in the Bible (or any other source of spiritual teaching).

That doesn't prove spiritual lessons. The only thing is does reflect is that some of the spiritual lessons in the bible are consistent with natural and evolutionarily positive human behavior that exists outside of the bible, as well as had existed prior to.

But I do appreciate you answering the question of why you believed in the spiritual lessons when the bible is obviously flawed. After addressing the question posed, my only other question to you was why you believed why you do. I personally like it when people ask me about what I think. If you're offended by it or otherwise defensive, then you are being obstinate, not I.

I am not confusing anything, least of all your difficulty with the Bible. I have addressed it four times and you have ignored my arguments and those made by others in this thread. Am I angry? Yes, I am a little angry at myself.

This discussion began by your posting 117 variations of questions pointing out completely irrelevant inconsistencies in the Bible. Based on these flaws you have come to the conclusion that the Bible is worthless for its spiritual teaching. I have been saying all along, that is its real worth.

I was warned by friends that you are simply a troll spoiling for a fight, yet I gave you the opportunity to look back through these threads to see if your questions had not already been discussed. You picked a single question, and I fell for the bait, thinking that you really wanted to discuss how historical and scientific inconsistencies do or do not impact the value of the Bible. It's clear that was not your purpose in posting here in the Religious Thread.

Since all you really want to do is parade your vast knowledge of the Bible in order to show people how smart you are, that you can spot these inconsistencies, then start your own thread and call it "I Can Find Errors in Other People's Writing". You can even point out the historical flaws in Shakespeare and Tolstoy, then claim that their writing is worthless because they got so many details wrong, and besides, their stories never happened. Or, you can visit a fundamentalist Christian church, where they really do believe that every word in the Bible is absolutely true and every event actually happened. This series of threads has seen its share of fundamentalist Christians who refuse to even acknowledge the logic of an opposing viewpoint. Except that you are at the other end of the spectrum, your obstinacy is no different.

In my four previous responses to you I never claimed that the history and science of the Bible were perfect, only that the spiritual/moral/ethical lessons are correct, and verifiably so. I even told you how you can determine their validity. I never suggested that all Christians follow them perfectly (or for some Christians, even very well), but that does not make the lessons themselves untrue.

Anyway, thank you for playing. The good news for me is: if you really don't understand my position, as it appears from your responses that you don't, then you probably don't have the capacity to realize how illogical and narrowminded your responses have been. And I'll save you the trouble of responding to that last sentence, because based on everything you've posted so far your response to it will be, "Christians have been illogical and narrowminded for 2000 years." While that may be true, it does not excuse you.

Have a nice day.