Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nmh; Thatcherite
There is NO contradiction in the Bible. Unlike evolutions theories don't have to "evolve". You are so blind and so willing to believe the absurd. It's sad.

However, the Bible and religion did evolve.

As I read many of the post of the creationists, I see a tremendous amount of credence given to a single Biblical verse or an interpretation from a particular scholar. The rub is how does anyone know if that verse is really the correct one. Is it argued from an imprinted engram, or is it argued from a personal revelation? From many observations, I have come to the conclusion that the environment directly influences the worldview taken on by the individual that this individual grew up in. This also includes the fundamental belief systems imprinted into the brain over the years. So people end up taking a particular stance on a many thousand year old writing colored by personal experiences and or a long-term environment that was inhabited.

I constantly hear from the various churches, “baby steps”. Why is this? It is because we learn this way. We have to allow the brain to build those neural interconnects to over a period of time. It’s not unlike flying an aircraft. What was so terribly difficult at first becomes absurdly simple as our brains adapt to the new directives we are imprinting on it. This is the same with the different religions. Over time people imprint the “truth” that is then defended vehemently because it’s “known to be true”.

So here is the rub. How can we determine on a pure faith based belief system, which is the correct model or “truth”? When I ask this question I get answers like; the Bible told me, my pastor stated it, or I prayed and God himself told me. Well, if there were immutable truths, wouldn’t everyone get the same answer when they prayed or read the same book? Since there is an ongoing fierce argument between the different religions, obviously this is not the case.

Now we will throw another monkey wrench into the equation. There have been a number of councils that have determined what is “truth” in scripture and what is not: i.e. the Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the council of Nicea, etc. So here is another rub, if the word of God has been handed down, why the requirement for the councils?

There also seems to be contradictions in the Bible. For example, the resurrection stories from each of the different Gospels. They are different enough that just to say they were seen from different perspectives does not wash. I always have wondered which is the correct one or the “truth”. If there is that kind of discrepancy in the very thing that defines Christianity (the resurrection itself), how can we not suspect the other verses in this same book? I get answers like the Bible is divine because God stated it was. Well where did he state that but in the Bible. This is not unlike me writing a letter and then stating in that letter that it’s divine because God says so. Would you take that seriously? This is in effect what you are doing with the Bible.

For example:

Matthew 28: Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulcher. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled the stone back and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning, and his rainment white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.

Mark 16: Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, brought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they were saying to each one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?” And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; for it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed. .

Luke 24: But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel; and as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” .

John 20: Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “they have taken the lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went towards the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. .

So were there one or two angels, did an angel sit on the rock, was there an earthquake, were there guards, were there two men, did the disciples run to the tomb? Etc.

The resurrection is the very linchpin of all Christianity! And yet the stories in each of the Gospels for this single most pivotal event in the entire Bible are a far cry from each other. If these verses have this kind of disparity, how is it possible to argue the fine nuances of the others?

Now we will throw a final monkey wrench into the works. There is a body of knowledge that has been painstakingly complied over thousands of years we refer to today as science. Unlike a belief system, science is a series of models that describe the universe we inhabit from both observation and experimentation. Again unlike an immutable text such as the Bible, science will revise its models as new evidence comes to light. This also gives rise to the false belief that science is shiftless sand that has no firm foundations. This is far from the case. Over the millennia we have made discoveries that we continue to build on as we obtain further knowledge and understanding. Do old ideas get thrown out? Of course! However, not without coming up with a better model to fit the observed phenomena in question. Take gravity for instance. It is a theory and no matter how much evidence accumulates, it will always remain a theory. One of my problems is that we don’t revise (or at least re interpret) the Bible as new facts come to light.

Now if an atheist looks at this, he will see a group of individuals or a church blindly following a faith system that has been handed down over thousands of years that ignore the basic findings of science. For example, there is not one shred of Geologic evidence for a word wide flood approximately 4-6 thousand years ago. However, there are groups that vehemently will defend such to their dying breath just because the Bible told them so. No wonder he/she (the atheist) sees the religion as a foolish waste of time.

So the question is where is the line drawn? Parts of the Bible already have been modified or rejected from what once was considered scripture via the councils. So why not take into account the findings from the scientific community?

263 posted on 01/19/2005 2:01:46 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies ]


To: RadioAstronomer
Very good RA. That took a lot of work.

Many, perhaps most in this thread will say that a "day" in Genesis is not really a 24 hour day. By admiting as much, they have already modified the clear, litteral words of Genesis.

So why will they not go the rest of the way and decide that since Evolution is not specifically denied in Genesis, then perhaps it is true?

There needn't be any conflict, IMHO.

274 posted on 01/19/2005 2:37:01 PM PST by narby (If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies ]

To: RadioAstronomer

What you need to do is sit down with someone who knows the Bible and have them help you. It's not a matter of "interpretation". The original language is Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). THe truth is revealed through the original language.

I get the impression that you don't want to understand anything. You are looking to bolster your disbelief via me - LOL!

I could sit here and tell you what to believe but with you that will not work. You NEED to start looking at the Hebrew and Greek and start answering some of your own questions.

You mention accounts by 3 different people, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. WHY is it so odd that 3 different people would have slightly different accounts? Yet, you will willingly beleive evolutionary theory when there are more than three diametrically opposed theories without question. These accounts in the Bible complement each other. That's more than I can say about evolutionary theory.

You need to do som soul searching.

Best Regards,


291 posted on 01/19/2005 4:13:08 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies ]

To: RadioAstronomer
Okay. I'm a glutton for punishment tonight.

Let's go back to your question In #263 on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I'm going to explain your question on Matthew and John. I will leave the other questions up to you since you are making the same error. If I explain the error in Matthew and John, maybe you'll be able to correct your own error in Mark and Luke. Too often it is pointless to "preach" at people. It's so easy to see what is going on. You'll be embarrassed ... .

Okay ... Matthew 28:5 refers to the "angel" at the tomb after Jesus' resurrection and yet John says there were "two angels" there in John 20:12. I believe this is your question.

Matt. 28:5

[5] And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.


John 20:12

[12] And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.


Matthew does NOT say there was only ONE angel.

John says there were TWO and whenever there are TWO there is always ONE - it never fails (logic). The critic, YOU, have voluntarily added ONLY to make it contradictory. "ONLY" is not present in the account by Matthew. The problem is YOU adding "ONLY" to the account of Matthew.

Matthew does focus on the one who SPOKE and "said to the women, "Do not be afraid ..." Matt. 28:5 whereas John referred to how MANY angels they SAW "and she saw two angels" in John 20:12.

Do you see what you are doing? You are reading things in that are NOT there and failing to use good old fashioned logic. No Greek is needed here or Hebrew.
374 posted on 01/19/2005 9:19:56 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson