Evidences that support the reliability of the Bible

[Sig]

"A contradiction occurs when two (or more) different statements on a topic cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. For instance, let's look at the statements "I am walking my dog," and "I am not walking my dog." Both statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way. They are mutually exclusive. However, the following is not a contradiction: "Bob saw two people get out of the 1967 black Camaro," and "Frank saw three people get out of the 1967 black Camaro." These statements are not mutually exclusive because both statements can be true at the same time. Bob may have been at an angle where he was only able to see two people, where Frank could have been at a different angle where he was able to see three people. Both statements can be true at the same time and in the same sense without excluding the other."https://carm.org/what-is-a-contradiction

The accounts in the gospels of Jesus' death and resurrection are reliable. Any apparent contradictions suggested by skeptics can be reasonably explained. Actually, the fact that there are differing, yet complimentary details throughout the gospels that give a harmonious presentation of Jesus as the promised Messiah and Savior is one reason to believe that the accounts were based on real events.

Well how very interesting. First you claimed

For there to be a contradiction one of the passages would need to specifically state that it recorded the “only” last words Jesus spoke at his death, and no other words were spoken at the time of his death. Then, if there was a discrepancy between two accounts, we would have reason to believe there was a contradiction. However, the gospels do not make that claim.

When I then pointed out to you that in fact the conditions of a contradiction you defined were indeed there, you conveniently forgot about that explanation and clearly googled to find the currently accepted apologist explanation that although both the Bible claims both the passage in Luke and the passage in John to be stating the last words of Jesus, they were actually mistaken and were only reporting the last words of Jesus that the person Luke and the person John personally heard.

Also very interesting, for two reasons. First, you personally were clearly unaware of this contradiction until I pointed it out to you, and didn't have a reasonable explanation for it. Like most evangelicals you're shockingly ignorant of your own holy book you attempt to hit the rest of the world over the head with. But not to let that stop you, just google a reason and go with that, no need to think critically on your own right? And of course don't admit that the reason you previously gave, the one we can all clearly see in writing right on this thread, was 100% wrong. Definitely what Jesus would do, am I right?

The second issue is much more confounding for the likes of your beliefs. Let's be clear, you're an evangelical and you believe the Bible is 100% true and to be taken entirely literally. Except this one time, in which case you decide, despite nothing in the verses to indicate it, that when God tells us in Luke 23:46 " “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.” Having said this, He breathed His last.” that's not really literally what happened, that's just what a man named Luke heard. Or alternately when God told us in John 19:30 ""When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.", that's not actually what happened, it's just what John heard. That's a somewhat reasonable explanation...as long as you don't believe the Bible is the 100% unerringly true word of God to be taken completely literally. So let's agree, you'll jettison the assertion that anything written in Luke or John is the 100% unerringly true word of God to be taken literally. After all you just told me it in fact was just a retelling of what these two men heard and they both couldn't have been right that two completely different things were Jesus' last words, your definition of a contradiction. At which point I'll stop pointing it out as a contradiction. Or you agree it's a contradiction. You can't have it both ways, sorry.

And maybe, while you're at it, start approaching everything in life with the scientific method which assumes that your current knowledge is just what you know up to now, you could very well be wrong, and you're open to evidence of that. Including your religion. Or stop trying to justify your religion using "evidence", which as I've shown is clearly impossible. Again, you can't have it both ways, it simply doesn't work. There's nothing wrong with religion, but fundamentalist religion is simply completely and utterly indefensible from an "evidence" perspective.

 

[studentofthemarkets]

Well how very interesting. First you claimed
When I then pointed out to you that in fact the conditions of a contradiction you defined were indeed there, you conveniently forgot about that explanation and clearly googled to find the currently accepted apologist explanation that although both the Bible claims both the passage in Luke and the passage in John to be stating the last words of Jesus, they were actually mistaken and were only reporting the last words of Jesus that the person Luke and the person John personally heard.

Also very interesting, for two reasons. First, you personally were clearly unaware of this contradiction until I pointed it out to you, and didn't have a reasonable explanation for it. Like most evangelicals you're shockingly ignorant of your own holy book you attempt to hit the rest of the world over the head with. But not to let that stop you, just google a reason and go with that, no need to think critically on your own right? And of course don't admit that the reason you previously gave, the one we can all clearly see in writing right on this thread, was 100% wrong. Definitely what Jesus would do, am I right?

The second issue is much more confounding for the likes of your beliefs. Let's be clear, you're an evangelical and you believe the Bible is 100% true and to be taken entirely literally. Except this one time, in which case you decide, despite nothing in the verses to indicate it, that when God tells us in Luke 23:46 " “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.” Having said this, He breathed His last.” that's not really literally what happened, that's just what a man named Luke heard. Or alternately when God told us in John 19:30 ""When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.", that's not actually what happened, it's just what John heard. That's a somewhat reasonable explanation...as long as you don't believe the Bible is the 100% unerringly true word of God to be taken completely literally. So let's agree, you'll jettison the assertion that anything written in Luke or John is the 100% unerringly true word of God to be taken literally. After all you just told me it in fact was just a retelling of what these two men heard and they both couldn't have been right that two completely different things were Jesus' last words, your definition of a contradiction. At which point I'll stop pointing it out as a contradiction. Or you agree it's a contradiction. You can't have it both ways, sorry.

And maybe, while you're at it, start approaching everything in life with the scientific method which assumes that your current knowledge is just what you know up to now, you could very well be wrong, and you're open to evidence of that. Including your religion. Or stop trying to justify your religion using "evidence", which as I've shown is clearly impossible. Again, you can't have it both ways, it simply doesn't work. There's nothing wrong with religion, but fundamentalist religion is simply completely and utterly indefensible from an "evidence" perspective.

LOL, you are trying to make an argument here, but there is none.


You tried to make it seem like I tried to change my first explanation of what would make the verses a contradiction, but I still stand by it:

For there to be a contradiction one of the passages would need to specifically state that it recorded the “only” last words Jesus spoke at his death, and no other words were spoken at the time of his death. Then, if there was a discrepancy between two accounts, we would have reason to believe there was a contradiction. However, the gospels do not make that claim.
​

Sig said:
When I then pointed out to you that in fact the conditions of a contradiction you defined were indeed there


You are wrong in both points.


You did NOT point out that the conditions of a contradiction were there. My definition that “it would need to state that it recorded the “only” last words of Jesus and no other words were spoken at the time of his death” still stands. The gospels do not make such statements. The highlighted phrases do NOT prove your point. Sig's highlighted verses:

“And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.” Having said this, He breathed His last.” Luke 23:46 NASB
The bolding is mine to emphasize that clearly the verse indicates these were the last words of Jesus.
But wait....
“Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.” John 19:30 NASB
or NIV
"When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."​

What you are doing is trying to use an omission of details to make a contradiction. That is not a valid argument.


That’s WHY I put the conditions of needing to use the words “Only” in my first post, if your argument was going to stand. The words “Only” are not made, and the gospels are not making the claim that you are claiming they are making. I already clearly said that the omission of details when retelling an event doesn’t invalidate the statement.


Example: If I tell you that “earlier today I said to my friend, ‘See you at the game.’ Then I got into my car and drove to the game.” But if I didn’t tell you that I also said, “Bye” as the final word of the conversation, it doesn’t mean that my statement to you was incorrect. An omission of details does not invalidate a statement. In the same way, if the different writers opt to report some sayings and not others, it doesn’t make a contradiction.


To make it even more clear:


“Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.” John 19:30 NASB


The possible order of sayings that I constructed the diagram around would place another saying after Jesus said, “It is finished.” That John does not include the saying, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit” does not mean that John’s statement is incorrect. Jesus did say “It is finished.” And he died at some point after that.

 

[Sig]

LOL, you are trying to make an argument here, but there is none.


You tried to make it seem like I tried to change my first explanation of what would make the verses a contradiction, but I still stand by it:

For there to be a contradiction one of the passages would need to specifically state that it recorded the “only” last words Jesus spoke at his death, and no other words were spoken at the time of his death. Then, if there was a discrepancy between two accounts, we would have reason to believe there was a contradiction. However, the gospels do not make that claim.
​

Sig said:
When I then pointed out to you that in fact the conditions of a contradiction you defined were indeed there


You are wrong in both points.


You did NOT point out that the conditions of a contradiction were there. My definition that “it would need to state that it recorded the “only” last words of Jesus and no other words were spoken at the time of his death” still stands. The gospels do not make such statements. The highlighted phrases do NOT prove your point. Sig's highlighted verses:

“And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.” Having said this, He breathed His last.” Luke 23:46 NASB
The bolding is mine to emphasize that clearly the verse indicates these were the last words of Jesus.
But wait....
“Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.” John 19:30 NASB
or NIV
"When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."​

What you are doing is trying to use an omission of details to make a contradiction. That is not a valid argument.


That’s WHY I put the conditions of needing to use the words “Only” in my first post, if your argument was going to stand. The words “Only” are not made, and the gospels are not making the claim that you are claiming they are making. I already clearly said that the omission of details when retelling an event doesn’t invalidate the statement.


Example: If I tell you that “earlier today I said to my friend, ‘See you at the game.’ Then I got into my car and drove to the game.” But if I didn’t tell you that I also said, “Bye” as the final word of the conversation, it doesn’t mean that my statement to you was incorrect. An omission of details does not invalidate a statement. In the same way, if the different writers opt to report some sayings and not others, it doesn’t make a contradiction.


To make it even more clear:


“Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.” John 19:30 NASB


The possible order of sayings that I constructed the diagram around would place another saying after Jesus said, “It is finished.” That John does not include the saying, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit” does not mean that John’s statement is incorrect. Jesus did say “It is finished.” And he died at some point after that.

You don't do your cause or yourself any favors when you contort yourself to such ridiculous lengths to effectively try the Bill Clinton "it depends what is, is" defense. You like analogies, so let's go with a more germane one. Let's say I happened to be the only one with your wife when she died. I wrote you a letter about her death, in which I wrote "she said "tell my husband I love him", with that, she bowed her head and gave up her spirit." then both from the actual words I wrote and the context I would be clearly conveying and you and any other reasonable person would clearly perceive those to be my recounting her last words. If I then later wrote in testimony to an investigation about her death "she said "Why is this happening to me?". Having said this, she breathed her last." then both from the actual words I wrote and the context I would be clearly conveying and you and any other reasonable person would clearly perceive those to be my recounting her last words. And you and any other reasonable person would call that a contradiction. In fact, if we were in court such a contradiction would make my entire testimony unreliable.
If I replied to you or any other reasonable person something along the lines of “There's no contradiction, I would need to state that I was recording the “only” last words of your wife and no other words were spoken at the time of her death” then you and any other reasonable person would believe me to be a liar who not only contradicted himself but isn't intellectually honest enough to admit it and instead thinks insulting the intelligence of my audience with a bunch of poppycock about this new linguistic requirement that one use the word "only" when chronologically recounting someones last words will somehow make me more believable!

I have to ask you, do you really think that insulting the intelligence of your reader with the idiotic claim you just made is an effective technique to persuade? Do you really think that a single person, ever, will read what you said and make up their mind in your direction based on it? At this point you seem to be only trying to persuade yourself, because the sheer irrationality of what you've argued is clearly not something anyone would ever use in any context where they weren't trying to defend a deeply held belief that they've suddenly found is indefensible. You're doing a great job both convincing people that your beliefs are irrational and indefensible and that you personally as a witness for your beliefs are willing to stoop to ridiculous lengths and give up all intellectual honesty to defend them. Who in their right mind would want to end up like what you've demonstrated you've become?

But while we're on the subject of Jesus' death, maybe you can help me out with what happened to our friend Judas and his 30 pieces of silver he got for betraying Jesus? It seems that according to Matthew 27:5 "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." but according to Acts 1:18 "With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out." So let's see, according to you we have to assume that he threw the money into the temple, then went back and picked it up again, then bought a field with it, then hanged himself? And then after hanging himself he fell headlong, his body burst open, and all his intestines spilled out?

I could go on and on with this? Are you willing to twist yourself into ever more ridiculous linguistic pretzels to explain away what anyone who wasn't blinded by a preconceived notion that they can't ever be wrong sees as obvious contradictions? Are you willing for those same linguistic rules your make up to apply to how we interpret everything you say?

 

[Sig]

You don't do your cause or yourself any favors when you contort yourself to such ridiculous lengths to effectively try the Bill Clinton "it depends what is, is" defense. You like analogies, so let's go with a more germane one. Let's say I happened to be the only one with your wife when she died. I wrote you a letter about her death, in which I wrote "she said "tell my husband I love him", with that, she bowed her head and gave up her spirit." then both from the actual words I wrote and the context I would be clearly conveying and you and any other reasonable person would clearly perceive those to be my recounting her last words. If I then later wrote in testimony to an investigation about her death "she said "Why is this happening to me?". Having said this, she breathed her last." then both from the actual words I wrote and the context I would be clearly conveying and you and any other reasonable person would clearly perceive those to be my recounting her last words. And you and any other reasonable person would call that a contradiction. In fact, if we were in court such a contradiction would make my entire testimony unreliable.
If I replied to you or any other reasonable person something along the lines of “There's no contradiction, I would need to state that I was recording the “only” last words of your wife and no other words were spoken at the time of her death” then you and any other reasonable person would believe me to be a liar who not only contradicted himself but isn't intellectually honest enough to admit it and instead thinks insulting the intelligence of my audience with a bunch of poppycock about this new linguistic requirement that one use the word "only" when chronologically recounting someones last words will somehow make me more believable!

I have to ask you, do you really think that insulting the intelligence of your reader with the idiotic claim you just made is an effective technique to persuade? Do you really think that a single person, ever, will read what you said and make up their mind in your direction based on it? At this point you seem to be only trying to persuade yourself, because the sheer irrationality of what you've argued is clearly not something anyone would ever use in any context where they weren't trying to defend a deeply held belief that they've suddenly found is indefensible. You're doing a great job both convincing people that your beliefs are irrational and indefensible and that you personally as a witness for your beliefs are willing to stoop to ridiculous lengths and give up all intellectual honesty to defend them. Who in their right mind would want to end up like what you've demonstrated you've become?

But while we're on the subject of Jesus' death, maybe you can help me out with what happened to our friend Judas and his 30 pieces of silver he got for betraying Jesus? It seems that according to Matthew 27:5 "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." but according to Acts 1:18 "With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out." So let's see, according to you we have to assume that he threw the money into the temple, then went back and picked it up again, then bought a field with it, then hanged himself? And then after hanging himself he fell headlong, his body burst open, and all his intestines spilled out?

I could go on and on with this? Are you willing to twist yourself into ever more ridiculous linguistic pretzels to explain away what anyone who wasn't blinded by a preconceived notion that they can't ever be wrong sees as obvious contradictions? Are you willing for those same linguistic rules your make up to apply to how we interpret everything you say?

Hmm, must be one of those "hard questions", best just ignore it right? While you're googling the apologist answer for that contradiction that you were previously unaware of, let's talk more about the events surrounding Jesus' death, the last supper. What day was it again? It seems that Mark 14 thinks it was the day of Passover "
16 The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
17 When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18 While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.”"

But wait, in John 19 we're told Jesus was judged by Pilate, after being betrayed by Judas, the day before passover! "13 When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha).14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon."

Let me guess, nothing in the specifically says that the last supper was literally the "last" supper, it might have been 6 days before? Oops, sorry, the narrative in the rest of Mark 14 blows that out of the water. Is now the time to twist yourself into even more minutia about "in the original Greek..." thus admitting that the Bible you think should be taken 100% literally might actually not be clear enough to be taken 100% literally unless you are able to read it in Koine Greek?

Should we go with 1 of these a week until the farcical nature of the apologists explanations you're googling because you never even realized these contradictions existed become too much even for you? Can you really honestly say you can defend your faith without Google?

 

[studentofthemarkets]

Hmm, must be one of those "hard questions", best just ignore it right? While you're googling the apologist answer for that contradiction that you were previously unaware of, let's talk more about the events surrounding Jesus' death, the last supper. What day was it again? It seems that Mark 14 thinks it was the day of Passover "
16 The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
17 When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18 While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.”"

But wait, in John 19 we're told Jesus was judged by Pilate, after being betrayed by Judas, the day before passover! "13 When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha).14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon."

Let me guess, nothing in the specifically says that the last supper was literally the "last" supper, it might have been 6 days before? Oops, sorry, the narrative in the rest of Mark 14 blows that out of the water. Is now the time to twist yourself into even more minutia about "in the original Greek..." thus admitting that the Bible you think should be taken 100% literally might actually not be clear enough to be taken 100% literally unless you are able to read it in Koine Greek?

Should we go with 1 of these a week until the farcical nature of the apologists explanations you're googling because you never even realized these contradictions existed become too much even for you? Can you really honestly say you can defend your faith without Google?

"While you're googling the apologist answer for that contradiction"

I highly doubt you came up with these questions on your own, without Google's help, or perhaps a book by Bart Ehrman.

I do plan to respond to you, as long as our discussions remain respectful.

In my first encounter with material by Bart Ehrman, I found all of his contradictions to be easily explainable. There are some more difficult passages, but they are not without explanations either.

 

[Sig]

"While you're googling the apologist answer for that contradiction"

I highly doubt you came up with these questions on your own, without Google's help, or perhaps a book by Bart Ehrman.

I do plan to respond to you, as long as our discussions remain respectful.

In my first encounter with material by Bart Ehrman, I found all of his contradictions to be easily explainable. There are some more difficult passages, but they are not without explanations either.

I was raised a fundamentalist. I had read the Bible cover to cover several times by the time I was in high school and memorized large portions of it (I was very dedicated to the religion and lived in a rural area in the 1980s with not much else to do). I discovered each of these contradictions while memorizing these passages, they tend to jump out at you when you're doing that. Obviously the crucifixion is one of the areas most commonly read and memorized, so those were the first one's I noticed. I used my critical thinking skills and came to realize that a fundamentalist view of religion is not only unsupportable based on facts, but after seeing the combination of simpletons and the evil folks taking advantage of them that together made up pretty much the entire movement I determined that almost the entire movement is pure evil or people being manipulated into evil. I hope you're capable of the same level of critical thinking and discovery done on your own?

That's what critical thinking entails. Critically thinking about any inconsistencies that are pointed out to you. Thinking for yourself. Using the intellect God gave you. It is not deciding that something you believe to be true only because you were raised that way must be 100% correct and then searching for ways to discount any inconsistencies that are pointed out. I have the ultimate in an open mind on this, I once truly believed exactly as you did and as I said have not only read all of but memorized large portions of the book you say you base your life on. Can you say the same, or are you convinced you're right and unwilling to ever entertain even the most remote thought that you might not be? Are you going to seriously tell me, from deep down in your heart, that you're sure there isn't a single error in a book you may not have even read completely or at least carefully, and that's in any way a reasonable position to hold?

 

[studentofthemarkets]

I was raised a fundamentalist. I had read the Bible cover to cover several times by the time I was in high school and memorized large portions of it (I was very dedicated to the religion and lived in a rural area in the 1980s with not much else to do). I discovered each of these contradictions while memorizing these passages, they tend to jump out at you when you're doing that. I used my critical thinking skills and came to realize that a fundamentalist view of religion is not only unsupportable based on facts, but after seeing the combination of simpletons and the evil folks taking advantage of them that made up pretty much the entire movement I determined that almost the entire movement is pure evil. I hope you're capable of the same level of critical thinking and discovery done on your own?

That's what critical thinking entail. Critically thinking about any inconsistencies that are pointed out to you. Thinking for yourself. Using the intellect God gave you. It is not deciding that something you believe to be true only because you were raised that way must be 100% correct and then searching for ways to discount any inconsistencies that are pointed out. I have the ultimate in an open mind on this, I once truly believed exactly as you did. Can you say the same, or are you convinced you're right and unwilling to ever entertain even the most remote thought that you might not be?

I was raised a fundamentalist too and also read the Bible cover to cover once through by the time I was a junior in high school as part of a challenge by a young Bible School grad planning to be a missionary. I was already a born again believer before starting the challenge of reading the Bible all the way through and found that, contrary to your experience, as I read, I began to develop a more intimate relationship with God and a better understanding of Who He is by simply reading the Bible. I came up with my own idea on the matter....still remember riding in the back of a pickup truck (before seat belt laws) as a teen and wondering why I sometimes had no "feelings" about God....meaning nothing was currently impressing my understanding of His Being or His presence, yet other times, the revelation of God was so powerful to me. In the back of that truck I determined that it must be that when I was actually thinking about God's Word, that I had those times, but when my mind was on other things, I wasn't having the same communication with God, and I wasn't in tune with His presence.

The funny thing is, that pattern has continued to today. I have come to understand the scriptures clearer when it says to "let the word of Christ dwell in your richly" combined with "so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" and just in case some false teacher out there tries to twist my words to mean some new age view of Christ, I actually ONLY mean that Christ, by His Spirit, as His word says, dwells in me, yet, is completely separate from me. I do not become in any way the essence of God. Instead, He promised His Holy Spirit, and thus His own presence, the presence of Christ, to do a specific job as detailed in John 14:26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things...." Basically, the Holy Spirit teaches. He also uses scripture to reveal Himself clearer to believers....not going to list all the biblical reasons that is based on. I have definitely noticed what I believe is the Holy Spirit, not only opening my understanding of passages, and revealing Himself to me in a personal, relationship way, but also directing the timing of certain passages to address certain situations into my life. An unbeliever would dismiss these as coincidences. But time after time, these have occurred so often, that although I cannot say I have recorded and studied the statistical likelihood of such occurrences happening, they do happen, often, and I am convinced they are not random coincidences.

I have encountered a few passages in the Bible that at the time I thought were contradictions and did make me question how that could be. However, it did not shake my faith, because of the stronger reasons I had, as shared above, of a personal relationship with God, and seeing Him intervene in my life and others. And also, what I knew of the other evidences for faith. Later on, actually, several years later, I came across more information that clarified what the passages were actually talking about and a way to interpret them that confirmed my belief that in spite of my understanding of a few difficult passages, the rest of the Bible has proved to be reliable both on a scholarly level....and an experiential level.

One time, when I was 18, I was asked by a Pastor if God was answering my prayers. In the discussion it came out that perhaps I was not praying specifically enough to see if God was really answering my prayers or not. It really got me thinking. I had seen God intervene in my life many times, directing my path or conversations, or plans for the future. I had a few dramatic answers to prayer, there were 2 big ones the summer I was 13. They were the first time I remember really wanting something (both big decisions affecting my future) that seemed impossible, praying for the first one in the middle of the summer, and having that one answered within 2 weeks....and continuing to have the blessing from that answer continue for the next 6 years and then later that summer, another big change in the direction of my life, that seemed impossible, yet really wanting it, thinking it was the best course for my life and within a week, it also happened....originally against my parents complete objections and finally with their blessing and no, I did not argue with my parents....simply asked then prayed. Sorry, I don't like to give more details of my personal life to explain what those 2 prayers specifically entailed, but they still are amazing to me today.

Anyhow, since the age of 18, I began to really think about prayer and answers to prayer and whether or not my "answers" are mere coincidences or if they are Divine Interventions in my life. I have overwhelmingly been convinced, week after week, month after month, year after year that God has faithfully intervened in my life at times and also answered many of my prayers.

I've shared this with atheists in the past and they can only say, well, you can't prove it's not coincidental and you want to believe it, so you can't use that as an argument. And you know what? They are right. I really can't prove it to anybody else. You'd have to have been me and experienced it, which isn't possible. But hanging around Christians in prayer groups and praying with others and seeing that as a group we prayed and saw answers together, and hearing about other Christian's similar experiences with answered prayers all just confirms it to myself.

My point is, although we both read the Bible early in life, we both have had different experiences of it.

You said, "Can you say the same, or are you convinced you're right and unwilling to ever entertain even the most remote thought that you might not be?"

I have not yet encountered anything remotely convincing of a reason not to believe the entire body of evidences I have found to be consistent with or lending support to faith in the God of the Bible. Those evidences are based on internal evidences within the Bible, external within the Sciences (including archaeological) and my personal life experiences of God's intervening in my life and revealing Himself to me through Scripture.

 

[studentofthemarkets]

I was raised a fundamentalist. I had read the Bible cover to cover several times by the time I was in high school and memorized large portions of it (I was very dedicated to the religion and lived in a rural area in the 1980s with not much else to do). I discovered each of these contradictions while memorizing these passages, they tend to jump out at you when you're doing that. Obviously the crucifixion is one of the areas most commonly read and memorized, so those were the first one's I noticed. I used my critical thinking skills and came to realize that a fundamentalist view of religion is not only unsupportable based on facts, but after seeing the combination of simpletons and the evil folks taking advantage of them that together made up pretty much the entire movement I determined that almost the entire movement is pure evil or people being manipulated into evil. I hope you're capable of the same level of critical thinking and discovery done on your own?

That's what critical thinking entails. Critically thinking about any inconsistencies that are pointed out to you. Thinking for yourself. Using the intellect God gave you. It is not deciding that something you believe to be true only because you were raised that way must be 100% correct and then searching for ways to discount any inconsistencies that are pointed out. I have the ultimate in an open mind on this, I once truly believed exactly as you did and as I said have not only read all of but memorized large portions of the book you say you base your life on. Can you say the same, or are you convinced you're right and unwilling to ever entertain even the most remote thought that you might not be? Are you going to seriously tell me, from deep down in your heart, that you're sure there isn't a single error in a book you may not have even read completely or at least carefully, and that's in any way a reasonable position to hold?

I still plan on getting back to our discussion on condradictions, but I've been distracted some other posts and other things going on in my life and will need to get back to you later on them.

 

[Sig]

I still plan on getting back to our discussion on condradictions, but I've been distracted some other posts and other things going on in my life and will need to get back to you later on them.

You wrote a long and convincing story about why Christianity works for you. But if you had read carefully, I have confined all my comments to fundamentalists and fundamentalism. It is so very different from Christianity, which you did a decent job of describing in your previous post and which I'll add I fully respect, as someone who I'll also add is not an atheist as you decided.

Fundamentalist believes everything in the Bible is 100% literally true and to be followed literally. Thus, if even a single aspect of the Bible is shown to be false or just downright evil (God's thoughts on selling your daughter into slavery anyone?), then the entire basis of your beliefs are called into question. Which leads to the frankly ridiculous knots you tie yourself into to try to explain away what anyone can clearly see are the results of men writing down stories which were transcribed over centuries, often by or under the supervision of other men with ulterior motives. I'm willing to bet that never once in the history of fundamentalism has someone who is truly critically thinking about these issues has been convinced by this flailing. Certainly not by accusing them of not knowing the Bible or deciding they're an atheist in response to them pointing out clear contradictions in the Bible. On the other hand it probably has turned innumerable people away from your brand of beliefs because you're demonstrating with your words and actions you have to suspend rational and reasonable thought to be a fundamentalist. That, and that all of us have to be exactly your kind of Christian to be a "real" Christian, otherwise we're clearly atheists.

If you want to believe in the Christianity you described two posts ago, then by all means I applaud that. It's your personal relationship with God and doesn't require me to share it just like my beliefs don't require you to share them. It's when you decide you need to "prove" that the words of the Bible are 100% the Word of God to be taken literally that you go completely off the rails into the evils of fundamentalism. And, as I mentioned only drive people away from your beliefs. I kind of think that's the opposite of what Jesus was aiming for, no? Leave provable things to the realm of science where they belong, and look to your faith only for matters of faith. If nothing else you'll be a lot more effective witness for your faith that way.

 

[studentofthemarkets]