[De Maria]

I did here on this board. Several times already. Up to 150 different examples out of a total of several hundreds. I showed all kinds of mistakes, of incorrectness, of wrong statements, of inconsistences, and of contradictions. It is clear and beyond any doubt that the Bible is full of - specially - contradictions.

One at a time will be fine.

The evidence is in the Bible itself. A true perfect being that can create an entire universe in 6 days only would not need 60+ different imperfect human beings to write, hundreds of imperfect human beings to select which are the "real" bible books (various synodes), and millions of imperfect human beings to translate and re-translate, print, and distribute bibles.

Again, you have used the word "need". Where did you get the impression that God needs anything?

Where can any OSE be found on that inerrancy ? Or is that only what you BELIEVE ?

I haven't seen any errors.

So lets see YOUR evidence.

:>)

.

My evidence is that you haven't provided any examples of errors in the Bible.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[CHRISTOPHEROBIN]

Red Sea and Reed sea are my examples. They are not the same therefore one is wrong.That would be a mistake, correct? My point is if the Bible had been translated wrong it would take on a whole new meaning, as in not the original that it once was.If people had left out gospels which I believe they did, it would not be technically correct. The gospels I believe that were left out are the gospel of Phillip, Mary,Thomas,Judas,Apocrypha and the most important the gospel of Jesus.If these were missing would you call it accurate?And these are to state a few.

[De Maria]

Red Sea and Reed sea are my examples.

I've never seen this Reed sea version. Where is it?

They are not the same therefore one is wrong.

Correct.

That would be a mistake, correct?

Correct.

My point is if the Bible had been translated wrong it would take on a whole new meaning, as in not the original that it once was.

That is correct.

If people had left out gospels which I believe they did, it would not be technically correct.

What makes you think they left out Gospels?

The gospels I believe that were left out are the gospel of Phillip, Mary,Thomas,Judas,Apocrypha and the most important the gospel of Jesus.

What is your criteria for a true Gospel?

If these were missing would you call it accurate?

Yes.

And these are to state a few.

That is also true.

The Church used the criteria of known Apostolic authorship. If a Gospel was not written by an Apostle or one of the Disciples, the Gospel was not included in the Bible.

The books, which we call the Apocrypha, (not the same books which Protestants call the Apocrypha)were not discarded however and were kept for study by Bible Scholars as they could give details of life in Biblical times. However, the Church does not guarantee their inspiritation as She does not know who were the true authors.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Credendovidis]

On Bible inconsistencies / faults / contradictions / etc.

One at a time will be fine.

Sorry, but I already did that several times. Long lists of hundreds of inconsistences. Just read back !

:>)

.

[CHRISTOPHEROBIN]

Parts of these gospels have already been found. A monastic order hid some of these at Nag Hammadi.

[De Maria]

Parts of these gospels have already been found. A monastic order hid some of these at Nag Hammadi.

As I said, the Catholic Church kept the Gospels which were proved authentic writings of the Apostles and the Disciples.

What is your criteria for authenticity?

[Credendovidis]

As I said, the Catholic Church kept the Gospels which were proved authentic writings of the Apostles and the Disciples. What is your criteria for authenticity?

All that can be stated is that the Gospels were the writings of these men. There never was any proof that the essence of what these men wrote was more than belief. Neither was there any proof that their belief was correct.

Back to square one.

:>)

.

[Galveston1]

One of the main proofs that the Bible is the Word of God is the fact that it was penned by so many different men over such a great period, yet is in agreement with itself. The Bible is a miraculous book, and contains records of many miracles, written by the people who observed them. Do you believe history books? Why? Do you have OSE for them? All of them? Some of them? Any of them? Or do you just BELIEVE?

[Credendovidis]

One of the main proofs that the Bible is the Word of God is the fact that it was penned by so many different men over such a great period of time, yet is in agreement with itself.

No it is not. The Bible is full with mistakes, historical faults, and - specially - inconsistencies and contradictions. I have posted about that extensively here on this board in the past.

The Bible is a miraculous book, and contains records of many miracles, written by the people who observed them.

Observation is no OSE, but hear-say. You have to accept that the observer was correct with his claim without any OSE, i.e. you have to BELIEVE him/her. The contradictions in the Bible indicate that much that was written in the biblebooks was based on hear-say. Besides that : many stories are just PLAGIARIZED COPIES of existing local mythical reginal stories of that time. The "great flood" is a perfect example of that, being a copy of the Gilgamesh Epos.

Do you believe history books?

No I don't. You always must scrutinize the provided details for correctness.
German history books about WW2 are different to English history books.
US history books about the Vietnam war are different to Russian/Chinese history books.
Etc.

:>)

.

[De Maria]

All that can be stated is that the Gospels were the writings of these men. There never was any proof that the essence of what these men wrote was more than belief. Neither was there any proof that their belief was correct.

Back to square one.

You are the first one clamoring for proof and the first one to admit you have none.

You are wrong however, these Gospels weren't written in a vaccuum. They were written in the midst of people who had seen and heard exactly what is depicted in the Gospels. And there are no denials. Even from those who are Jesus' enemies.

So, if you want to discount the evidence, that is your business, but the evidence of the Gospels would stand up in any court today.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

No it is not. The Bible is full with mistakes, historical faults, and - specially - inconsistencies and contradictions. I have posted about that extensively here on this board in the past.

You keep saying that but I don't see any such things posted.

Observation is no OSE, but hear-say. You have to accept that the observer was correct with his claim without any OSE, i.e. you have to BELIEVE him/her. The contradictions in the Bible indicate that much that was written in the biblebooks was based on hear-say. Besides that : many stories are just PLAGIARIZED COPIES of existing local mythical reginal stories of that time. The "great flood" is a perfect example of that, being a copy of the Gilgamesh Epos.

Horse hockey! All you are doing is repeating anti-Christian propaganda without even looking into the facts. The fact is that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses who lived with Jesus for approximately three years. He taught them and they witnessed his miracles and then later produced miracles themselves.

Of course, you don't want to believe in miracles, but you are the man who would rather believe that lifeless, unintelligent matter spontaneously becomes living organisms with more complexity than a super computer.

So I think your stance is a bit, to say the least, inconsistent.

No I don't. You always must scrutinize the provided details for correctness.
German history books about WW2 are different to English history books.
US history books about the Vietnam war are different to Russian/Chinese history books.
Etc.

You claim to believe only what you see, but as I explained before, you must believe in gravity. And you can only see the results of that invisible force.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Alty]

If I write a story about a miracle I witnessed, and I swear that this story is true, and I have a witness that will swear that the story is true, would you believe it's true?

That's all the bible is, stories written by mortal men, fallible men, only men, not God.

To say that these men were "inspired" by God to write this book, well show me proof of that. If I told you I was inpsired by God to write a book would you believe me? Of course you wouldn't, you'd think I was crazy.

The bible is just a book written by men. Yes, it's interesting, yes, the stories are fantastic, but fact, word of God, no, it's not, there's no proof of that.

[De Maria]

If I write a story about a miracle I witnessed, and I swear that this story is true, and I have a witness that will swear that the story is true, would you believe it's true?

Sure. I have no reason to believe you are lying. And if you have a witness, I have no reason to believe that both of you are lying.

That's all the bible is, stories written by mortal men, fallible men, only men, not God.

But men who lived with Christ and were inspired by God.

To say that these men were "inspired" by God to write this book, well show me proof of that. If I told you I was inpsired by God to write a book would you believe me? Of course you wouldn't, you'd think I was crazy.

Why would I?

The bible is just a book written by men. Yes, it's interesting, yes, the stories are fantastic, but fact, word of God, no, it's not, there's no proof of that.

Sure there is.

1. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for any other person of that era. And yet, most people only doubt Jesus' existence. Why is that? Because they don't want to believe.

2. The evidence which the Gospel writers provided is eyewitness testimony. They saw this with their own eyes and interviewed people who saw it with their own eyes. This is evidence that would stand up in court.

3. These men and many others died for their beliefs. Crazy men die for their beliefs
But their beliefs die with them. The beliefs these men held have persisted to this day and are getting stronger by the day. Why? Because of the beauty and wisdom of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

4. Jesus Christ was either a mad man or God. Because if He is not God as He claimed, then He must be mad. Or worse, a liar. But the beauty of His teachings proves that He was neither a mad man nor a liar and His miracles witnessed by many prove that He is God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Credendovidis]

Ref. Your post #30 :

You are wrong however, these Gospels weren't written in a vaccuum. They were written in the midst of people who had seen and heard exactly what is depicted in the Gospels. And there are no denials. Even from those who are Jesus' enemies.

I am not what you describe as "Jesus' enemy". I have nothing against religion in general.
I have however strong feelings against religious activists who insist that the world accept their limited word view based on mythical views that were thought up by human beings several thousands of years ago to lower their fears for whatever was getting at them in life.
Believe whatever you like to believe, but don't claim it to be the "truth" : that you have to prove!!

As far as "these Gospels" are concerned : that is still hear-say, and NOT proof of anything.
If I go to the town of Roswell I will meet many thousands of people who are convinced of what is claimed to have happened there on July 7, 1947. But does that prove the existence in general - and actual presence there and at that time - of aliens visiting earth?

Get real!!

So, if you want to discount the evidence, that is your business, but the evidence of the Gospels would stand up in any court today.

No it would not. Any smart DA would not even let it get to that courtroom at all, as at least it is still common for the US justice system to rely on evidence, and not on hear-say!!
.

[Credendovidis]

Ref. Your post #31 :

You keep saying that but I don't see any such things posted.

That is your problem, not mine. I have posted topics on that several times, once even with 100 different biblical contradictions.

All you are doing is repeating anti-Christian propaganda without even looking into the facts.

I do not agree with any anti-Christian or any other anti-whatever propaganda.
I always look at the facts : it is you who fails to do that!!

The fact is that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses who lived ...

Just more hear-say. See my previous post and read the "Roswell" point.

Of course, you don't want to believe in miracles, but you are the man who would rather believe that lifeless, unintelligent matter spontaneously becomes living organisms with more complexity than a super computer.

What miracles? And for the umpteenth time : I DO NOT BELIEVE in abiogenesis. I can see that that thesis makes some sense, and is even - though only partial - underwritten by facts. Unlike your "creation" claim that is based on wild religious dogmatic claims only.

.... I explained before, you must believe in gravity. And you can only see the results of that invisible force.

Nobody can see any "natural" force. Only the result of existing forces can be seen. Your religion is build on nothing else but invisibility : an invisible deity in an invisible heaven surrounded by invisible angles and trillions of invisible souls of departed. You can not even see the results of what you BELIEVE to be your invisible force...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[De Maria]

Ref. your post #30 :

I am not what you describe as "Jesus' enemy".

Did you live in the time of Jesus? Why do you think I was referring to you?

I have nothing against religion in general.

Riiiight.

I have however strong feelings against religious activists who insist that the world accept their limited word view based on mythical views that were thought up by human beings several thousands of years ago to lower their fears for whatever was getting at them in life.

Where's the OSE for that?

Believe whatever you like to believe,

Thanks. But I didn't need your permission.

but don't claim it to be the "truth" : that you have to prove!!

When people, like you, challenge my beliefs, I defend them. I know you'd like it if everyone accepted your illogical view of the world, but unfortunately for you, we live in a free country where people can voice their opinions.

As far as "these Gospels" are concerned : that is still hear-say,

You might want to read up on what is "Hearsay evidence".

and NOT proof of anything.

If the Gospels were hearsay evidence, you would be correct. But the Gospels are examples of eyewitness testimonies. Eyewitness testimonies are accepted as evidence in every court in the world.

If I go to the town of Roswell I will meet many thousands of people who are convinced of what is claimed to have happened there on July 7, 1947. But does that prove the existence in general - and actual presence there and at that time - of aliens visiting earth? Get real!!

No. But it certainly lends credence to the idea.

Do you believe they are all lying? If so, why?

No it would not. Any smart DA would not even let it get to that courtroom at all, as at least it is still common for the US justice system to rely on evidence, and not on hear-say!!
.

Do you even know what is the definition of "hear say" evidence? Find out the definition of hear say evidence and then show me how that relates to the Gospels.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[CHRISTOPHEROBIN]

You keep saying that but I don't see any such things posted.



Horse hockey! All you are doing is repeating anti-Christian propaganda without even looking into the facts. The fact is that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses who lived with Jesus for approximately three years. He taught them and they witnessed his miracles and then later produced miracles themselves.

Of course, you don't want to believe in miracles, but you are the man who would rather believe that lifeless, unintelligent matter spontaneously becomes living organisms with more complexity than a super computer.

So I think your stance is a bit, to say the least, inconsistent.



You claim to believe only what you see, but as I explained before, you must believe in gravity. And you can only see the results of that invisible force.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I really don't understand why you say that all people are doing is repeating anti-christian propaganda without even looking into the facts.What facts?If you mean the Bible, then you truelly haven't looked very hard.If you base everything in the Bible as facts, then why don't you follow these teachings.My example being-Catholic tradition- call priests father.Bible says call no man your father upon this earth,for one is your father and He is in heaven.Mathew 23:9.Wouldnt this be an example of anti-christian?

[De Maria]

I really dont understand why you say that all people are doing is repeating anti-christian propaganda without even looking into the facts.What facts?If you mean the Bible, then you truelly havent looked very hard.If you base everything in the Bible as facts, then why dont you follow these teachings.My example being-Catholic tradition- call priests father.Bible says call no man your father upon this earth,for one is your father and He is in heaven.Mathew 23:9.Wouldnt this be an example of anti-christian?

No. That's an example of an overly literal reading of one verse of Scripture. In fact, many Protestants believe that they should call no man father.

However, we note that Jesus Himself referred to Abraham as Father Abraham in this narrative:
Luke 16 30 But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.


And the Apostles referred to Abraham the same way.

Acts Of Apostles 7 2 Who said: Ye men, brethren, and fathers, hear. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charan.

And they recognized that their brethren had fathers:
Acts Of Apostles 7 2 Who said: Ye men, brethren, and fathers, hear. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charan.

And they even referred to themselves as fathers of their flocks.
1 Corinthians 4 15 For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.

1 Thessalonians 2 11 As you know in what manner, entreating and comforting you, (as a father doth his children,)

Philippians 2 22 Now know ye the proof of him, that as a son with the father, so hath he served with me in the gospel.

So, if Jesus and the Apostles didn't take that verse literally, why would you?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[CHRISTOPHEROBIN]

Maria, that was only 1 example.There are many more.examples listed are:Catholic tradition-the pope bows to the statue of Mary,worshiping of the eucharist,the pope has people bow before him.Bible-Exodus20:4-20:5.Catholic tradition-Mary is queen of heaven.Bible-Jeremiah 7:17-18-19.Why pray to Mary?Holy Mary mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.Mary is not the mother of God. For this to be even possible she would have to be a god.Isaiah 43:10-Philippians 2:6-2:7.Catholic tradition-forbids priests to marry.Wasnt Peter married? The pope is supposedly continuing the apostolic line through Peter,right?Bible read 1Timothy.Catholic tradition-Mary never had otherchildren after Jesus.A perpetual virgin.What about His brethrenJames, Simon,Joses and Judas.Bible-Mathew13:55-56.Mark6:3.this is just to state a few.

[Galveston1]

Observation is no OSE, but hear-say. You have to accept that the observer was correct with his claim without any OSE, i.e. you have to BELIEVE him/her. The contradictions in the Bible indicate that much that was written in the biblebooks was based on hear-say. Besides that : many stories are just PLAGIARIZED COPIES of existing local mythical reginal stories of that time. The "great flood" is a perfect example of that, being a copy of the Gilgamesh Epos.



:>)

.[/QUOTE]

I will take this opportunity to deal with your "perfect example" and your claim that Moses plagiarized something.

I assume that you are saying that the Gilgamesh Epos was written before Genesis. If the Gilagmesh Epos describes a great flood, that gives you the OSE for the Bible account. The flood would have been common knowledge at that early date, and there were likely many accounts written about it. How many accounts have been written about events in WW2? Does that mean that the later writers plagiarized the earlier ones? You have no evidence to say that Moses' account was based on any previous writing. It was far more likely that it was based on oral accounts handed down from Noah. It was not many generations from the flood to Moses, and Japheth lived long enough to see several of those generations, so the time distance from a survivor of the flood to Moses was relatively short.

I'm glad you said this is your "perfect example" because it shows how weak your position really is.