Same sex marriages. Your opinon? Volume two.

[Cloudbringer]

Ok gang, this is off the original topic, so how about someone starting a NEW thread for the religion debate?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: This was an excellent post, esteemed Wookie, despite the fact certain ones may not be direct contradictions. The Bible is full of contradictions -- which is why anyone must read it as an allegorical work or suffer inevitable schizophrenia. You missed two of my favorite contradictions:

I cant take credit for the post, I copied and pasted it from a site I found on the net a while back ran by a group called Freedom From Religion Foundation:
http://www.ffrf.org/

They have an excellent seperation of church and state quiz:
http://www.ffrf.org/quiz.html

-I missed 2 questions- quite proud of myself I am. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Also they have an action alert news system to warn of religion creeping into goverment and even public companies:
http://www.ffrf.org/action/

-Thanks to this gem of a news source I found out them darn bible plaques mysteriously showed back up in the Grand Canyon national park.

Although I am not an aethist, I do respect the veiwpoint (shhh-Shamans can be aethists too, I've known a few )

Cheers!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: The Bible is full of contradictions

This is simply incorrect. Every alleged contradiction has been answered.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: When was Jesus crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him." vs. John 19:14-15 "And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out . . . crucify him." It is an ad hoc defense to claim that there are two methods of reckoning time here. It has never been shown that this is the case.

Er... yes it has. Why is the only retort Barker has to PROVEN FACTS that they are an "ad hoc" response? Pathetic parrying.

I got this from here: http://www.tektonics.org/passovertime.html#time

Contradiction is sometimes alleged in that Mark reports the crucifixion at the third hour (Mark 15:25) while John says the sixth. The basic reply is that Mark and the other synoptics are using Jewish time (sunset to sunset; third hour = 9 AM); John is using Roman time, which is like ours (sixth hour = 6 AM - note that John says about the sixth hour; he's estimating). (The former method is still used in the Middle East, and we and other Western nations use the latter.) We know from the Synoptics that the crucifixion took over 6 hours. If John's sixth hour is really the Jewish sixth hour - noon, as unfortunately, even the Living Bible says - then the crucifixion lasted past the time when the Sabbath started. John 19:31 says that the Jews didn't want the bodies left up over the Sabbath, which obviously means that the Sabbath hadn't started yet. So either John is giving us an extraordinarily short crucifixion, or he is giving us the time in Roman. Since crucifixions were usually extended affairs, the latter assumption is more valid.

If people recorded time differently, then they recorded time differently. Facts are facts. Calling it "ad hoc" is ridiculous. As the different times are STILL used it is possible journalists today could have the same time discrepency. It depends on WHO THEY ARE WRITING FOR.

[ 08-13-2003, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Should we swear an oath? Numbers 30:2 "If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath . . . he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth." Genesis 21:22-24,31 " . . . swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me . . . And Abraham said, I will swear. . . . Wherefore he called that place Beersheba ["well of the oath"]; because there they sware both of them." Hebrews 6:13-17 "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself . . . for men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath." See also Genesis 22:15-19, Genesis 31:53, and Judges 11:30-39. vs. Matthew 5:34-37 "But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven . . . nor by the earth . . . . Neither shalt thou swear by thy head . . . . But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." James 5:12 ". . . swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."

from here: http://www.tektonics.org/oathswear.html

There are many examples of and instructions for giving oaths in the Bible, but the critics like to place them against these two NT verses (the latter of which is likely alluding to the former): Matthew 5:34-37 "But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven . . . nor by the earth . . . . Neither shalt thou swear by thy head . . . . But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." James 5:12 ". . . swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." Heb. 7:21 "The Lord sware and will not repent." So are these simple "no oath" commands that contradict the rest of the Bible's oaths and instructions for them? And is God violating his own rule? Only if you don't read in context. What is being condemned in the NT verses is not oath-taking per se, but flippant, casual oaths. The words "at all" in Matthew come from holos, which can mean simply, "not at all," but can also mean "commonly." Let's look at ALL of the verses from Matthew: Matt. 5:34-7 But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. Now, who makes a serious, solemn oath on heaven, the earth, a city, or their own head? The NT is condeming people who treat oaths with contempt by making them thoughtlessly. Keener's commentary on Matthew (192ff) explains the historical context of these passages. All ancient societies viewed oath-taking as dangerous, since they essentially called upon a deity to execute vengeance if the oath was not fulfilled. A flippant or false oath was in a a real sense a blasphemy, a casual misuse of the name of God. Somewhat paralleling the words of Jesus, the Essenes seem to have avoided oaths altogether, other than their oath of initiation. The Greek philosopher Pythagoras and others similarly taught, "let one's word carry such conviction that one need not call deities to witness." In the context of Jesus' own day, there existed a "popular abuse" of oath-taking in which surrogate objects were introduced to swear by, so as not to profane the divine name -- things like the right hand, Jerusalem, God's throne, and the head. Jesus also addresses this practice in his directive not to swear on such objects, as some thought it easier to break an oath if they swore on something inanimate rather than God! What we therefore have here is an example of Jesus not disagreeing with the OT about oaths, but rather moving beyond the OT into an even more demanding standard that focuses on motivation rather than action (in the same manner as the "adultery in the heart" directive). Those who find contradictions between these verses and others are, as usual, oblivious to the contexts and the purposes behind the passages.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Should we tell lies? Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord." vs. I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." Also, compare Joshua 2:4-6 with James 2:25.

God sending, or allowing a "lying spirit" - such as Satan - to work in the world, or allowing humans to believe lies, does not contradict the law FOR ISRAEL regarding lying.


Regarding Joshua/James: http://www.tektonics.org/tellalie.html

Josh. 2:4-6 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from. At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don't know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them." (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.) On the point of this story, skeptics have a question about this NT verse: James 2:24-5 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? The skeptics want to know how James can hold up Rahab as an example, since she was a liar. Of course, James isn't complimenting Rahab for lying here -- he's complimenting her for her faith in believing in the God of Israel and His promise to destroy Jericho. Now some may say, "Well, that a poor example to hold up - someone who LIED!" OK - as long as you agree that the people who lied about having Jews in their cellars were poor examples of humanitarians to hold up, I'll go along with that! Strangely enough it is skeptics here who are thinking in the very "black and white" way they often rail against in "fundamentalism" -- not realizing that the Bible does endorse the concept of a hierarchy of morals, in which one rule may take precedence over another (as in the rule of not working on the Sabbath, vs. healing)! Indeed, in the Biblical world lying under certain circumstances -- like Rahab's, for the greater good -- was considered just, honorable, and admirable.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Should we steal? Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal." Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him." vs. Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians." Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians." Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him." I was taught as a child that when you take something without asking for it, that is stealing.

from http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_BUTWT.html

Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians." is pitted against Exodus 12:35-36, "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians." How exactly is this stealing? Ex. 12:35-36 says that the Israelities asked the Egyptians for stuff, and the Egyptians gave it to them. (Though of course, Barker leaves that part out...) But if you still object, consider this: It is inarguable that the United States owed African-Americans restitution after slavery; so certainly the Egyptians owed the Israelites some tribute! Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him." (parallels in Matthew Some of the worst skeptics want to accuse Jesus of misapprhending the property of others here. But simply put, we may ask, if the disciples were stealing the colt on Jesus' behalf, and committing a criminal act, why did the owners let them take it? OWNERS: Why are you loosing that colt? DISCIPLES: The Lord needs him. OWNERS: Oh! Okay! If someone walks up to your brand new bright red Corvette, takes the keys, gets in, and starts revving up, you will certainly ask (in a less than rational tone, naturally) "Why are you taking my car?" And I very much doubt that you would be satisifed with the answer, "God needs it." If you hadn't already punched the guy's lights out, your next step would be to call the men in the white coats and the police. Obviously, that didn't happen here -- the owners made no effort to stop what was going on, and the disciples were allowed to leave with the colt unhindered. So there is obviously more to this story. Many skeptics have charged that in riding the colt into Jerusalem, Jesus was intentionally trying to fulfill Zechariah 9:9. And I agree - this was a deliberate act by Jesus. (It could hardly be otherwise; not many people ride a donkey by accident!) This, and the fact that the disciples were allowed to take the colt with a minimum of fuss, strongly suggests that the owners knew what was going on and had been approached by Jesus beforehand concerning use of the colt (or, at the very least, knew who Jesus was and had no objection). Jesus probably bought or rented the services of the animals, or else been granted permission to use them; then he told the owners, "I will send my disciples to pick up the colt. Here is how you will know them: They will untie the colt without saying a word. (Obviously, it would not be fitting for the Messiah to walk over and get the donkey himself!) Ask them why they are untying it. If they say, 'The Lord needs it,' then those are my disciples." Jesus also probably appended a brief physical description of who He would send. (It's also possible - maybe probable - that he sent Judas to arrange the whole thing; from the Gospel of John, we know that he was the group's treasurer, and we gather that it was not unusual for Jesus to send him on errands that the other disciples didn't know about.) A bit too cloak-and-dagger to be believable? Not really; judging by the accompanying tumult when Jesus rode in, it was likely that the people were to interpret this as a sign that Jesus was about to fulfill the expected Messianic role of kicking some Roman behind. So understandably, Jesus would want to keep the whole affair under wraps until the proper time. Someone also suggested to me that there was no advance permission, but that the owners of the animals knew of Jesus' reputation and gladly acquiesed to their use on account of that. If that is so, then the divine aspect of Jesus had foreknowledge of their acceptance, and again, there is no theivery. Or else, as Harvey notes in Jesus and the Constraints of History (123), Jesus was simply exercising what at the time was the normal right of a king, general, or "even a respected rabbi" to procure transportation for himself. The phrase 'the master needs it' would be sufficient for the loan, provided the person's authority was recognized, which Jesus' evidently was - and again, no thievery. (Harvey also notes that Jesus in this episode adhered properly to the Jewish laws concerning borrowing.) Issue #26 of the BE newsletter contains a few good laughs in response to an answer like this. On the report that Jesus' arrangements for the upper room were made in advance, McKinsey once again disdains critical analysis of the text and says, "If you are going to assume Jesus had been invited, although there is nothing stated to this effect, then I am going to assume he stole the silverware as he left. If you are going to make gratuitous assumptions to enhance his image, then I'm going to assume the opposite." There is not a thing that is "gratuitous" about a pre-arranged scenario; if it was not pre-arranged, how did Jesus manage to get the room? By brute force? By sheer charisma? In reply to the implication that the room was ready to go, as indicated in the story, McKinsey says, "my grandmother always had the guest room ready whether someone was coming or not." Really? Did your grandmother have the room ready for a dozen or more people? What an absurd comparison! We may add, finally, that since God owns everything, how can the Son of God taking anything be stealing?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Shall we make graven images? Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven . . . earth . . . water." Leviticus 26:1 "Ye shall make ye no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone." Deuteronomy 27:15 "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image." vs. Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them." I Kings 7:15,16,23,25 "For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass . . . and two chapiters of molten brass . . . And he made a molten sea . . . it stood upon twelve oxen . . . [and so on]"

http://www.tektonics.org/gravenimages.html

Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven . . . earth . . . water." (See also Lev. 26:1, Deut. 27:15) A clear enough command, the skeptics say -- so why these? Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them." I Kings 7:15,16,23,25 "For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass . . . and two chapiters of molten brass . . . And he made a molten sea . . . it stood upon twelve oxen . . . [and so on]" It's time for another installment of, "Get The Point." Our contestant, Joe Skeptic, believes that the latter two verses indicate violation of the command given in the first. (Actually, since the last verse is an account of what Solomon did, we could easily point out that he simply violated the command. But we don't need to go there.) Question: WHY were the Israelites commanded not to make graven images? Answer: Graven images were the standard method of pagan worship. They were representations of false gods. Now that being the case, it is fairly obvious that an "image" NOT made for worship is acceptable. In fact, we should not really call things like the cherubims "images" at all -- an "image" in ancient thought is not merely something that has an appearance, like a statue or a picture, but something that serves as a focal point for the presence and power of a deity. Thus for example ancient rulers in Egypt, Babylon, and elsewhere were referred to as the "image" of a certain deity, not because they looked like the deity, but because the deity's power and authority was thought to operate through them. Barker is simply making the same erroneous interpretation that much of Jewish culture made. (Though I credit that to Jewish culture as an instance of erring on the side of caution, rather than a full-fledged error. It has been noted that Jewish excellence in poetry and music may be attributed partially to the above commands. For more on the use of the word "image", see Chapter 1 of my book, The Mormon Defenders.) Solomon's bulls and stuff were (as far as we can tell) not for worship and do not fit the definition of an "image" we have described. The cherubim on the Ark were not for worship and also do not fit the ancient definition. So, the command was not violated in either case.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Does God change his mind? Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not." Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent." James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." vs. Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him." Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." See also II Kings 20:1-7, Numbers 16:20-35, Numbers 16:44-50. See Genesis 18:23-33, where Abraham gets God to change his mind about the minimum number of righteous people in Sodom required to avoid destruction, bargaining down from fifty to ten. (An omniscient God must have known that he was playing with Abraham's hopes for mercy--he destroyed the city anyway.)

http://www.tektonics.org/godchangemind.html

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not." Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent." James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." These verses indicate that God isn't the sort to flip sides. But what, it is asked, of these verses? Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him." Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." 2 Kings 20:1-7, Numbers 16:20-35, Numbers 16:44-50, Genesis 18:23-33. In answering this alleged contradiction set, we need to set a little (theo)logical groundwork. The attribute of omniscience, of knowing all things, must be clarified. Judeo-Christian belief holds that God is timeless. Past, present and future for God can be seen as a whole. This much is commonly asserted. What is sometimes not asserted as a corollary is that God also knows how things would turn out if differently had a different path been taken at every potential choice-making nexus. God knew you would turn left at Main Street this morning; but He also knows what would have happened had you turned right. Thomas Paine was not particularly bright, but he rightly perceived that "prophet" in the Bible meant more than simply "a predictor of the future". A prophet was also a messenger and an exhorter. His words were never set in stone. A key verse for this is Jer. 18:7-10 -- If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed,and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. With this verse, and the fact that the role of a prophet was more than just as a predictor, it is quite clear why it is pointless to object when, for example, God withholds judgment upon Nineveh (Jonah 3:10). We may read it as a definitive prophecy, but it would be understood by the hearers as exhortation allowing for the disaster to be avoided. Following ancient rules of rhetoric and the constraints of oral communication, as well as the nature of the Semitic mindset which, as we note here, typically expressed itself in extremes, it would be less appropriate for a prophet making a popular declaration to delineate possible exceptions in his general proclamation. Such side-tracking would make his message less memorable and effective in an era when retention and effect was far more important in the short term than detailed analysis. (G. B. Caird in The Language and Imagery of the Bible [112ff] uses several passages cited typically by Skeptics in this context as examples of "prophetic hyperbole" intended to express matters in an unqualified way, yet hardly meaning that there was no chance to escape judgment.) Finally, let us make it clear what it means to say that God does not "change". I do not think any skeptic or critic is so naive as to think that this means that God is static, never does anything, or never says anything. Nor can it be asserted to mean that God does not alter stated plans in reaction to human freewill choices. Our quote from Jeremiah shows that well enough. We will find that the references to God not "changing" cannot hold up such a narrow interpretation. Let's go now to an examination of verses that have been used in this argument. Gen. 6:6-7 -- This (along with another, 1 Sam 15:11, regarding God "repenting" over the choice of Saul) is the primary hinge point of the skeptical argument alleging contradiction. But let's look at that word "repent" more closely. Strong's gives this definition: 5162. nacham, naw-kham'; a prim. root; prop. to sigh, i.e. breathe strongly; by impl. to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console, or (reflex.) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself): --comfort (self), ease [one's self], repent (-er, -ing, self). Now here is a question: Is it not possible to grieve and feel sorry over something -- even if we know that it is going to happen, even if we cause it to happen? Of course it is. And there is no reason why this cannot also apply to God, as we shall see. Gen. 18:23-33. We won't quote this passage in entirety; suffice to say: It is the incident in which Abraham intercedes with God on behalf of Sodom, asking Him to spare the city in a classic ANE "marketplace bartering" conversation which probably served to give Abraham some idea what this new God of "his" was like! Did God here offer to change His mind? Let's put it this way. The story, and Jeremiah above, indicates that with intercession and/or change, God will make a change in an announced plan. But if God is omniscient, then He knew in advance what Abraham would ask for -- and knew also what the end result would be. (Note that God asks, clearly rhetorically [18:17], whether He should tell Abraham what His plans are, and that the number of possible righteous goes only to 10 -- the next logical increment, 5, would have been less than the number of Lot's family of 6: Lot, his wife, his two daughters, and their prospective grooms. In essence Abraham is pleading for Lot's safety here!) God dealt with Abraham in human terms for his own sake; but even before the conversation started, the matter was decided. God did not change nor compromise, but in fact, in feigning ignorance (v. 21), dropped a very strong hint that intercession on Abraham's part was desired. This incident was more than a typical ANE barter-exchange, then: It was also a tone-setting meeting laying down the terms upon which God would relate to His covenant people. He knew what they would do; but He also wanted them to come to Him in their need. (And in any event, since all 6 members of Lot's family eventually fouled up, it was proven that there were no righteous people in Sodom on that day!) This general principle of intercession -- which of course was always foreknown -- can be seen in other cites commonly used in this argument: Exodus 32:10-14; Numbers 16:20-35 and 44-50; 2 Kings 20:1-7, and Amos 7:3, 6. But let's look at some other key cites. Numbers 23:19 -- The oracle of Balaam needs to be looked at it two ways. First, what of this word repent? I think it is obvious that it must be read in a different sense here -- "grieve" just doesn't fit the bill! Second, the oracle itself notes that there were conditions for the blessing (v. 21). This pretty obviously indicates that if the conditions change, a "Jeremiah 18 reversal" will follow! (cf. also 1 Sam. 15:29, Ezek. 24:14. Moreover, keep in mind that this is said by Balaam, who is trying to keep himself out of trouble with Balak for giving out a prophecy blessing Israel rather than cursing it!) Malachi 3:6 -- This is a "no change" verse, and we should immediately remember what we have said above about such things. "Change" does not refer to simply any possible change, but has specific contexts. Here, it is said in the context of maintaining the covenant promise of preservation to the Israelites in spite of their sins. A covenant agreement is a serious thing -- it is a written contract! This was an unconditional promise, unlike those under the Jeremiah 18 clause, and God will not break it, and has not (though the Israelites did). James 1:17 -- Finally, there is this reach into the NT. But again, context makes for clear: James is discussing the ways of men and their fickle, changing morals and treasures (1:2-16). This is the regard in which he asserts that there is neither turning or variation in God, and we are not justified in reading more than that into it. It is not a statement of "ontological immutability" but one concerned with "the unwavering character of God's faithfulness." (See Donald J. Versput, "James 1:17 and the Jewish Morning Prayers." Novum Testamentum 35, 1997, 177-191.)

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: The Bible is full of contradictions

This is simply incorrect. Every alleged contradiction has been answered. [/QUOTE]Need I go on? I posted a link to the website, yet Timber posted his fallicy despite the "contradictions" being shown to be the shallow frauds that they are.

I can only assume Timber did not go to the site. So I'm posting them one by one. But is all this necessary?

Atthe end of the day, Timber and Chewbacca, you are both essentially repeating the opinions of others.

I read the bible daily, I've read it in totality numerous times. I find it to be internally consistent. And I place it under extraordinary scruitiny. I would not base my life on something fraudulent that does not work. Every day the Bible is put to the test in my life, and every day it "passes". It works, it is consistent and doesn't contradict itself.