Your favourite Bible absurdity

My favorite is: John the Baptist allegedly recognized Jesus when they were both still in the womb (he lept, after all!) but then later had to send his posse to ask Jesus if He was the one, or should they wait for another. Curious, that.

Hi Shilo :-) Just trying the UBB option LOLI'll reply another time :-)Paul :-)

Defensive? That's called "projection". It's not my belief system that needs justification, so as far as defensive goes... However, if you are insulted by an exclamation as simple as "Oh boy.", or feel that it is in any way denigrating to YOU as a person rather than to the apparent contradiction you posted, then I apologize for not recognizing your hypersensitivity in this matter, and will forebear to use such expressions in the future. Right. I understand the three-in-one rule. It is literally no different than the Hindu Trinity of Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Siva the Destroyer - also a three-in-one god, or at least three Aspects of a single entity. However, this is consistent with Hindu polytheism. It's only Christians who seem to have major problems squaring the idea with monotheism. Even your refernces to "sending forth your Spirit" can be either interpreted as sending a messenger - a separate entity - OR as an appendage of the deity. However, the Genesis reference tends to indicate the former, as while God was doing His thing, the Spirit was doing Its thing elsewhere. Of course, you can always just say that "God can do anything He wants how He wants to do it", which while begging the question is a good conversation stopper.And the concordance with John is arguably an attempt by the new Christians to shoehorn the Jesus myth they base their religion on into the old Jewish traditions. After all, John was writing thousands of years (allegedly) after the Genesis account was related. This is quite plainly post facto rationalization. When I asked for textual references, I was expecting a reply that contained references to a third entity in the OT and that distinctly pointed to Jesus = The Word. You're badly twisting and distorting what is actually written. However, this is only your assertion. I refer you to the specific passage in Genesis:

quote:

---

Gen 6:1-4 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh:yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days: and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of reknown.

---

Note the highlighted section. Obviously this is a translation (KJV), so could be erroneous. Still, if that is the case, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the bible, which has also been translated multiple times. I suppose you could make an argument that these were fallen angels (and thus the translation is incorrect), although in that sense you have a timeline problem since this interpretation is contradicted by separate references to the nephilim who ARE supposed to be the fallen angels. It's your mythology, YOU figure out a way to make a literal interpretation consistent. Nice wiggle. "Most likely"? You have some support for this, or is it merely your interpretation? As to the different terms used, again you can't use the NT as textual support for events or passages in the OT since the NT was written thousands of years after the OT was supposedly handed down. After all, the folks who wrote the NT were trying to justify and clarify their new sect - and writing in a different language, to boot. This is pure rationalization on your part. Once more, do you have textual support for your assertions from the Old Testament? I'll concede that God made the angels - assuming He made anything, we'll agree for the sake of argument that He made everything. That being the case, I'll concede He could have been talking to the angels, OR a be suffering from multiple personality disorder if He's talking to Himself, OR being talking to two other distinct deities. Would you care to try and support and/or eliminate the ones that don't apply? Ah, so the Genesis account doesn't refer to "linear time"? Interesting. Please provide your interpretation of the days, evenings, first/second, etc in Gen 1 and 2. Sure - as soon as you either remove the chip from your shoulder and/or stop whining about a simple exclamation. Feel free to "dumb down" your reply or attempt to "make me feel inferior" if you think that will help your cause, or if it makes you feel better. I'm not the one that has to perform mental gymnastics to make a primitive superstition sound rational.(edited to fix UBB code)[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-18-2003]

Hi sagg,On what basis do you judge the accuracy of the Bible? What external influences from other cultures would you accept as having made their way into the Bible?Joel

[quote]or feel that it is in any way denigrating to YOU as a person rather than to the apparent contradiction you posted[quote] I did not post any contradictions. You asked for references to my earlier post, and I reponded with those references. Please take this statement back, as it is an erroneous attempt to discredit my position.

quote:

---

Right. I understand the three-in-one rule. It is literally no different than the Hindu Trinity of Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Siva the Destroyer - also a three-in-one god, or at least three Aspects of a single entity. However, this is consistent with Hindu polytheism. It's only Christians who seem to have major problems squaring the idea with monotheism. Even your refernces to "sending forth your Spirit" can be either interpreted as sending a messenger - a separate entity - OR as an appendage of the deity. However, the Genesis reference tends to indicate the former, as while God was doing His thing, the Spirit was doing Its thing elsewhere. Of course, you can always just say that "God can do anything He wants how He wants to do it", which while begging the question is a good conversation stopper.

---

I think you have a misconception here of the Christian view of the Trinity. There ARE three distinct entities. They can be in seperate places: for example, when Christ was on earth, he wasn't in Heaven with God the Father. They work together, though, and are part of the same unit that is God in total. Again, however, this is just a limited understanding of something that is beyond the capabilities of our minds. The finite cannot understand the infinite. His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts higher than our thoughts. You seem to demand a detailed explanation on God, which is irrational. The supernatural cannot be solved through mathematics or science. Science can't explain Deja-Vu, or the Triune nature of God. All we can know is what God reveals to us through His word, or by His spirit.

quote:

---

And the concordance with John is arguably an attempt by the new Christians to shoehorn the Jesus myth they base their religion on into the old Jewish traditions. After all, John was writing thousands of years (allegedly) after the Genesis account was related. This is quite plainly post facto rationalization. When I asked for textual references, I was expecting a reply that contained references to a third entity in the OT and that distinctly pointed to Jesus = The Word. You're badly twisting and distorting what is actually written.

---

I did not twist anything that is written. Again I ask you take this back. I quoted exactly what was written to show that the Word = Jesus. Please take back this statement, again, as it is an erroneous attempt to discredit my position.Your logic here is faulty as well. You can't discredit the NT because you make some assumption of the writers' motivations. If this were the case, we could not osbserve as truth any historical documents - as most historical writings have either a social, political, or religious agenda, at least, in the eyes of some. If you can discredit it because you assume their motivations were untrue, then I can just as simply credit it because I assume their motivations were true. When the authors were living, there was no organized christian church. They were letters written to scattered groups of followers hundreds of miles apart. They had no idea these letters would be compiled together into the New Testament. They were also willing to watch their families tortured and killed, and then be tortured and killed themselves without recanting a bit of their story. Maybe they had a reason and a power for enduring so much.

quote:

---

Note the highlighted section. Obviously this is a translation (KJV), so could be erroneous. Still, if that is the case, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the bible, which has also been translated multiple times. I suppose you could make an argument that these were fallen angels (and thus the translation is incorrect), although in that sense you have a timeline problem since this interpretation is contradicted by separate references to the nephilim who ARE supposed to be the fallen angels. It's your mythology, YOU figure out a way to make a literal interpretation consistent.

---

In this passage, it is understood by most Christian scholars, that the sons of God are the offspring of Seth. They were not suppose to take wives from Cain's offspring... and what we see here, is in fact that crossover. However, we really don't know for sure what is happening here. There isn't enough supporting evidence to say one way or another. It certainly isn't something that discredits the Bible. Again, I ask you take back the statement, "It's your mythology". I don't discredit your belief systems, and I appreciate the same from you. This is again, a shallow attempt (that reveals your true character) to discredit my position - and it was exactly for reasons such as these that I rightly took your "Oh boy" statement to be an exclamation of shrugged off superiotity.

quote:

---

Nice wiggle. "Most likely"? You have some support for this, or is it merely your interpretation? As to the different terms used, again you can't use the NT as textual support for events or passages in the OT since the NT was written thousands of years after the OT was supposedly handed down. After all, the folks who wrote the NT were trying to justify and clarify their new sect - and writing in a different language, to boot. This is pure rationalization on your part. Once more, do you have textual support for your assertions from the Old Testament? I'll concede that God made the angels - assuming He made anything, we'll agree for the sake of argument that He made everything. That being the case, I'll concede He could have been talking to the angels, OR a be suffering from multiple personality disorder if He's talking to Himself, OR being talking to two other distinct deities. Would you care to try and support and/or eliminate the ones that don't apply?

---

There was no "wiggle". Yes, this is an assumption. I assume the HOST OF HEAVEN were created when HEAVEN was created. The Bible doesn't say when they were made, so all we can do is assume. This isn't a wiggle, it's called an educated guess. It could be wrong. It could be right.Already covered the discrediting the whole NT thing. You know, if the Bible was presented simply as a historical document, and wasn't the backbone of a major religion, you would accept it as truthful. It has been proven to be one of the most historically accurate ancient texts we have. Unfortunately, because it is the backbone of Christianity, it is met with a skepticism and rejection not usually seen in text from different origins.You are also trying to project human characterisitcs onto God. No, I can't explain how God works to you, sorry. If I could, then I'd be God. Can you accept that something greater than yourself is possiibly out there, something you can't fully understand or explain?

quote:

---

Ah, so the Genesis account doesn't refer to "linear time"? Interesting. Please provide your interpretation of the days, evenings, first/second, etc in Gen 1 and 2.

---

There are multiple possibilites for the references to days in Creation. A day could be a span of millions of years, or it could be a 24 hour period. How would you possibly expect me to know? I wasn't there. When we say something like, "in the day of Julius Caesar..." - does that me a 24 hour period, or a broader expanse of time? Obviosuly the word "day" can have several meanings. Creations could have taken place over millions of years, and possibly evolution could have been the means through which God created the animals. Or, it could have taken place in one week, and everything was made instantaneous. There is no right or wrong answer here... we simple don't know. You are asking me to be God and explain His ways.It is really simple: there is no intellectual answer to whether or not God exists. You are trying to solve something with your intellect, that is a matter of the soul, and of destiny. You can't intellectually make a decision, because you have to admit that many people far smarter, far greater than you in science, philosophy, mathematics, etc. have chosen to believe in the Christian God and in Jesus. Just as I have to realize that people far greater than me, smarter than me, have chosen not to believe in God, or in Jesus. Our own pride and arrogance will try to convince us that we are unique, and that we are the one person who has figured it all out. But this isn't very logical, is it? I'm comforted in knowing, however, if I'm wrong - that I won't have suffered for being wrong. I'll have lived a good life by wordly standards, and then disappear into the meanigless abyss of nothingness from which I randomly crawled out of. So, can you admit you might be wrong? That there might be a God? That perhaps Jesus was the savior? Or are you to prideful to admit that? If you can admit it to yourself - what are the consequences if you are wrong? Are you willing to gamble your soul?-Sagg

So I get my Bible out and where do I find the definition of 'Blot out'? And which one do I use for this reference? I disagree, taken literally this verse means that the Lord will 'utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.'Now to do this the Lord not only has to wipe out all the decsnedants but also has to wipe out any references to what Amalek has done. He hasn't done this. To 'destroy' the memory of someone you have to wipe out all signs of him.
To 'destroy' the 'remembrance'of him you have to eradicate everyone that could 'remember' him. No more cowardly then the many atrocities commited by YHWH. Really, do you have proof that there ever were people known as the Amalekites? How do you know that there are not descendants that are known by a different name? Is it reasonable to assume that not a single Amalekite left the tribe and settled in another region, or inter-married with another tribe? Also, why did it take YHWH over 400 years to wipe them out? (if they did exist of course) All this, of course, without a single external shred of evidence!What proof do you have that the Edomites ever had any battles with the Israelites, what proof do you have that there ever was a King David? You are using a fairytale book to support the fairy tales that are written in it.The rest of the post is just a summary of more bible mythology with no support from any external sources. I disagree, in this case 'memory' = everything associted with Amalek. IMHO of course. This is excellent and summarises Christianity, and the teachings of Jesus very well. Essentially it says this, 'if you do not believe my fairy stories then you are to be prepared to have a loving God cast you into hell'. Well this may have been convincing enough for uneducated peasants centuries ago, and it is even convincing for anyone who goes through the cerebral bypass known as being 'born again', but for 'normal' people, this is no more than a threat on a level with 'if you stand on a crack in the pavement then you will break your mummy's dishes'.The threat of a revengeful God means absolutely nothing, God is absent from the universe, He only exists in the delusions of ex drug addicts, ex alcoholics, brain washed chldren and people who need the 'comfort blanket' of eternal life.Anyway, your explanation of 'memory' does make some sense, as some apologetics often do, but on closer inspection it is nothning more that a desperate clutch at a straw.Best Wishes.Brian.PS. Pleased to meet you.

quote:

---

On what basis do you judge the accuracy of the Bible? What external influences from other cultures would you accept as having made their way into the Bible?

---

Can you point out where I said anything about the accuracy of the Bible? Because I don't seem to recall ever saying anything about it. Way to presume!I believe scripture was divinely inspired, because it claims it was. However, I do not believe the gathering, copying, and translation processes weren't necessarily divinely directed - so sure, there could be some errors in there. This doesn't discredit the document as a whole. Many of the historical texts we base history on have errors in them - but we don't discredit them. Whenever we uncover a historical text, we assume it is truthful, and I treat the Bible in the same way. There is no reason not to, unless you feel threatened by what it says. But then, you are somewhat biased. Parts of it that seem in error, in fact, sometimes turn out to be true. For years, numberous cities mentioned in the Bible that appeared to be "missing" were pointed to by skeptics as proof the Bible wasn't true. However, when archaelogist found some of those cities, you didn't hear the skeptics apologize. Or, when they said the Romans didn't nail through victims to the cross, especially their feet (only tied them to the cross) - they didn't apologize, or admit they were wrong, when Jewish remains of a crucified man were found with a nail still in the heel bones. So, unlike a biased skeptic, I assume the Bible is a trustworthy historical document - and more.Please don't make invalid assumptions about me in the future. An apology would be nice, if you can admit you were wrong.-Sagg

quote:

---

This is excellent and summarises Christianity, and the teachings of Jesus very well. Essentially it says this, 'if you do not believe my fairy stories then you are to be prepared to have a loving God cast you into hell'. Well this may have been convincing enough for uneducated peasants centuries ago, and it is even convincing for anyone who goes through the cerebral bypass known as being 'born again', but for 'normal' people, this is no more than a threat on a level with 'if you stand on a crack in the pavement then you will break your mummy's dishes'.

​

The threat of a revengeful God means absolutely nothing, God is absent from the universe, He only exists in the delusions of ex drug addicts, ex alcoholics, brain washed chldren and people who need the 'comfort blanket' of eternal life.

---

That's an arrogant statement if I've ever heard one. So you don't think people far smarter than yourself, more knowledgeable in science, philosophy, art, music, history, etc. have believed in God? Because, they have. It's happened on more than one occasion where skeptic scientist have set out to dissprove God, and wind up converting in the process because of the evidence they find for him.I hope you can suck your pride back up and admit this was a cheap shot. You can't discredit the belief of millions of people, many of them as smart or smarter than you, because of what your own little mind supposes to understand.Really though, you do owe an apology. Just because you don't believe something doesn't mean you are right, or give you the power to discredit others' beliefs - which have just as much room for validity as your own.BTW - the Bible doesn't say people are condemned to Hell because of God's revenge, people make that decision for themselves. Actually, all people are condemned to Hell, because we all choose against God. It is by God's GRACE that some are SAVED FROM HELL. So, your little emotional spat runeth over in errors...-Sagg

Hello sagg,You seem rather defensive already. I asked two question, neither of which insinuated anything, and already you're taking offense? Why should I apologise for asking questions? The fact is, your answers presuppose that the Bible is accurate to a large degree, and it is therefore a simple question of methodology. So let's have a look at your methodology:

quote:

---

I believe scripture was divinely inspired, because it claims it was.

---

This is called circular reasoning. If I wrote, "Everything I say is true and comes from the mouth of God," does that mean therefore, that everything I say really does come from the mouth of God? Apply this to any religious text, and we find that this method is useless in determining the truth of the text.

quote:

---

However, I do not believe the gathering, copying, and translation processes weren't necessarily divinely directed - so sure, there could be some errors in there. This doesn't discredit the document as a whole. Many of the historical texts we base history on have errors in them - but we don't discredit them.

---

It's much more complicated than that. There are numerous instances in historical texts where there are fanciful stories, and which are thus completely struck off from consideration. Pliny (the Elder I think?) wrote of Augustus Caesar's virgin birth. Historians scoffed. Homer mentions iron weapons in the Iliad (purportedly set in the Bronze Age). Historians scoffed. Now we look at the Bible--virgin births in Matthew and iron chariots in Judges. What do we say to that?

quote:

---

Whenever we uncover a historical text, we assume it is truthful, and I treat the Bible in the same way. There is no reason not to, unless you feel threatened by what it says. But then, you are somewhat biased.

---

Wrong. When we uncover historical texts, the historian looks for external corroboration, legendary development and other telltale signs, in order to determine the accuracy of the texts. And when these simple standards are applied to the Bible, they fail miserably. Acts 5:37, for example, has a nice little anachronism in which Judas the Galilean is said to rise up in the days of Quirinius Census (also mentioned in Luke--6 CE). This is supposedly after the rebellion by Theudas. However, while the rebellion by Judas the Galilean is unquestioned (being in the days of the census, as verified in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Theudas rose up in the 40s CE. Clearly Acts is wrong, or else, apologists have to twist themselves up in knots with ad hoc postulations, without evidence, that there were two Theudas's. It's a common knack of apologists: every time the Bible gets something wrong, create multiple characters to explain away contradictions. That's why we don't pay attention to them: we look for evidence before deciding, apologists take the Bible as inerrant and then try their hardest to revise history according to their prejudice.In fact, the mistake can be simply explained if we realise that Judas the Galilean's two sons rose up shortly after Theudas, and the author of Acts simply got his facts wrong. This points to a lack of understanding of history by the author, and leads us to question his accuracy on other matters.

quote:

---

Parts of it that seem in error, in fact, sometimes turn out to be true. For years, numberous cities mentioned in the Bible that appeared to be "missing" were pointed to by skeptics as proof the Bible wasn't true. However, when archaelogist found some of those cities, you didn't hear the skeptics apologize. Or, when they said the Romans didn't nail through victims to the cross, especially their feet (only tied them to the cross) - they didn't apologize, or admit they were wrong, when Jewish remains of a crucified man were found with a nail still in the heel bones. So, unlike a biased skeptic, I assume the Bible is a trustworthy historical document - and more.

---

I believe you are using straw skeptics. The fact remains, there was no single method of crucixion, and we do not yet even know how crucifixion victims died (although it was undoubtedly horrific). The historian must work with evidence, not supernatural postulates.

quote:

---

Please don't make invalid assumptions about me in the future. An apology would be nice, if you can admit you were wrong.

---

Please point out where I made any assumptions about you in my previous post.Joel

sagg,
Please, please, please, stop begging for an apology! This is a forum for exactly what you got yourself into. If you don't want disagreement and discusion, go to http://www.everybodybelievesthesamething.comGet out of the ring if you can't take a shot in the mouth without crying.BTW, this thread is for Favorite Bible Absurdities. Do you have one to offer?
Peace.[This message has been edited by shilohproject, 04-18-2003]

quote:

---

I believe scripture was divinely inspired, because it claims it was.

---

I've seen it argued -- I believe by someone on this board -- that the Bible claims to be inspired only in a few spots. Wish I could remember how that went.

quote:

---

This doesn't discredit the document as a whole.

---

No, it doesn't. Translation errors are the least troublesome bits.

quote:

---

Many of the historical texts we base history on have errors in them - but we don't discredit them.

---

But we do cross reference them with other sources and try to verify the account or construct an accurate account. This type of analysis of the Bible, for most Christians, is sacrilegious. I think this is where the analogy with our treatment of other historical documents breaks down.

quote:

---

Whenever we uncover a historical text, we assume it is truthful, and I treat the Bible in the same way.

---

It would be more accurate to say that we assume the document reflects the author's, perhaps a culture's, convictions, beliefs, and possibly ulterior motives. If this is what you mean, then I treat the Bible that way as well.The real problem is in extrapolating from those things that can be verified-- and really, the Bible scores very low here-- to those things that can't, such as the various miracles, angels, God, and whatnot. Because these things cannot be verified, an argument is usually bootstrapped from the "fact" that the Bible is miraculously non-contradictory and from the "fact" that every attempt at verification has been successful. Basically, this argument depends upon the Bible containing no errors. A single error and the whole construct crashes down.A second problem is that none of the major events described have been verified-- the creation, the Flood, the exodus-- though all, in fact, should have left mountains of evidence. This isn't really a problem for a historical document. We realize that people included myth, legend, and such into their histories. This is a problem for a religion, though.Please note that I don't know what your take on any of this is-- you haven't been posting long enough here-- so I don't mean to imply that anything I've said reflects your personal beliefs.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

No no no. I came here expecting logical debates that extends respect to the other side. Read above, Brian (I believe) says that for someone to believe in the Christian God - they have to be stupid (a cerebral bypass), and that only uneducated ancient peasants could believe such a thing.THAT doesn't belong in a sphere of logical debate. That is a pathetic insult, and that DEMANDS an apology.As for favorites absurdity? OK, assumption: that all scripture is directly from God, and wasn't influenced by its authors. Then why, in God's Word, did Paul ask Timothy to bring his robe when he visited? Is there some profound spiritual insight here? Or was Paul just cold?As for the other responses - again, I didn't say the Bible didn't contain inaccuracy, but those don't discredit the whole Bible. And this idea that only idiots would believe in Jesus has got to stop. Science cannot prove, or disprove God or the the Bible. We don't have all the answers, and many things that happened in ancient times are too far removed to get insight into.Yes, I am defensive. When someone calls me a brainless, mesopotamian peasant... I'm offended, and take defense. SO, an apology should be made, and it should be agreed that intellectuals far above any of us here fall on both sides of the fence. Many great scientists have, and do, believe in God and Jesus, and many do not.-Sagg

Incorrect. I pointed out what I considered an inconsistency in the references you provided. You have not shown - merely asserted - that there is no inconsistency. Therefore, there is no reason nor rationale for your demand that I retract my statement. You are under the somewhat arrogant impression that a discussion of your position is an attack on you personally. This is not the case. And how is this position different from the avowedly polytheistic Hindu Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva? Apparently, you are unable to answer this question. Statements such as "the finite cannot understand the infinite" are known as the fallacy of begging the question (also known in logic as the multiple out). In essence, you have taken a position which permits you an inexhaustable series of excuses for why you are unable to answer the question. "Heads I win, tails you lose." Very well, I take it you are unable to explain the difference between the Trinity and polytheism. You missed the point. You cannot use interpretations provided in the New Testament to support claims made in the Old Testament. This is a post hoc fallacy, as the NT was written several thousand years after the events depicted in the OT. I am free to speculate on the authors' intentions, but that had nothing to do with why you are unable to use the NT in an argument concerning the Genesis account. It wouldn't matter if the NT was 100% true and accurate. It STILL cannot be used to argue the accuracy and innerrancy of the OT, nor can it be used to argue the existence or non-existence of anything IN the OT. Now, please try and provide substantive, textual support to the claim that Jesus is mentioned in the OT as equivalent to the Word. So, in this instance, the phrase "sons of God" is allegory or metaphor for something else? If they ARE the sons of Seth (not the sons of God as is clearly written in the bible), then they must have taken wives from Cain's daughters, because those are the only other people around at the time according to your own texts. Now you're saying "we don't know what's happening", and yet you take every other single word literally? And you don't see the logical flaw in this argument? What does this do to your literal timelines, which you later say are non-linear? Who then are the nephelim? There are many questions and inconsistencies in Genesis that have caused most Christians to treat the whole chapter as allegory. In other words, it most assuredly DOES discredit a literal reading of the bible - or at least of Genesis.As to your demand concerning the "it's your mythology" comment, why should I retract it? Are you or are you not a Christian? It's certainly not my mythology. It's up to you to defend it, as you apparently have chosen to do. Okay. Since by your own admission your assertion has no support, we can take any OTHER interpretation as having equal validity? That being the case, I prefer the multiple personality disorder explanation. After all, I have as much support for mine as you do for yours. And again, I was not discrediting the NT. I was stating that you were unable to use it as textual support for your assertions concerning the content of the OT. A stance which you have in no way refuted by the special pleading you are attempting.As to the accuracy of any history - no one takes any document as historically accurate unless there is additional, unrelated supporting evidence. In the case of the bible, there is none. It isn't because it's Christian, or the backbone of a major religion (by that standard, the Qu'ran and the Vedas should also be taken as "true"), it's because the document has been through innumerable translations and has no extra-biblical support. The problem with biblical literalists is that they assert the bible is 100% accurate from the very first word, with no evidence to back the assertion outside the bible itself. Worse still, it has proven to be one of the most inaccurate historical documents ever to have been produced. As an allegory, or guide for life (especially the NT), it ain't bad. As a historically accurate text, it's abysmal. So, reduced to sophistry? Again with the multiple out. "Can I accept that there's something greater than me" that I can't fully understand? Of course. Tensor calculus is waaaay beyond my meager abilities. Understanding the universe pre-Planck time is beyond me. The universe itself is "greater" than I am. However, if in this context you are referring to the possibility of the existence of the Christian God, then you being the one making the positive claim, it is incumbent on you to provide the evidence. So far, none has been forthcoming. No, I was responding to your claim about non-linear time. I asked for your clarification. You have not provided it, merely equivocated. State your interpretation clearly, and particularly what you meant by non-linear time. So it's all a matter of faith? Okay by me. The appeal to authority and argumentum ad populum are again fallacies which provide no reason to accept your premises. There are a lot of incredibly intelligent people who are Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Shinto, etc. Why should YOUR particular faith have any special priority? Since there is nothing to indicate that God, souls, heaven, etc exist in the first place, why should I be concerned? Pascal's wager was answered 200 years ago. You have provided no new argument that indicates it's newly valid.

No more arrogant than claiming that your God is the one true one. Where did i say that? I would be crazy to believe that, stil doesnt mean there's a God though. I wasn't having a cheap shot at God, I was having a cheap and deseved shot at christiaity and Jesus!Dont you think that there are many people smarter than yourself, more knowledgeable at science, philosophy, art, music, history etc, that don't believe in God, or worse, that believe that Allah is God. Your plea to authority is pointless. Has it, who and where?I also believe that the opposite can happen. Why not, this is what hunndreds of millions of christians do everyday, they discredit, or try to, discredit everyone that disagrees with them. I owe no one an apology, I have done nothing wrong. The belief in God, becasue it has never been proven and has no good evidence, is invalid. Make up your mind, are we condemned to hell or not?Dress it up anyway you want, God condemns people because his jealous nature cannot abide any of his creation realising that he is a joke.God's grace, dont make me laugh. Look at the christian salvic myth. God makes a mistake and blames us for it! Oh and to make things ok again between his creation and himself he requires that his son be tortured and murdered! You really need to be incloud cuckoo land to swallow this nonsense.A God who makes people especially to see them suffer in hell is a horrendous belief. God, who must know everything, knows that many more people will reject Jesus than will accpet him, so does he try and understand and be a loving father? No he casts them into the pit.Try being a bit more critical of your Book, take of the rose tinted specs and see what an abomination on mankind that Jesus and christianity has been.Brian.PS, I am not ranting, I am a very placid person

I think you have wrongly perceived that my goal is to argue you into believing what I believe, which isn't so. This started when you asked for references for something I said, which I gave. I don't have to prove anything to you. You can't disprove anything to me. These are not my ideas, beliefs, etc. They are truths I've accepted as being from God, ultimately, you have to answer to Him not me. I submitted several valid points to you, which you arrogantly dismiss. As for why I believe in the Chrisian notion of God, rather than others... well, Jesus made some very unique claims. He claimed to be God. The founders of all other major religions claimed to be Godly Men, but not men who were God. Secondly, the founders of all other Religions died - and are still dead. Jesus died, and returned to life, and will return again. Third, the disciples were crushed after Jesus' death. They lost their teach, and their motiviation to spread His teachings. They went into hiding, and even denied knowing him. They certainly weren't going to make an impact on the world. Something happened though... and they did a complete 180: to the extreme of watching their families tortured and killed before them, just before being tortured and killed themselves for proclaiming that Jesus had risen, and that he was the Messiah. I surely wouldn't watch my wife tortured and killed for something I knew was a lie, myth, misbelief. Do you think you could impact the world in only three years of work the way Jesus did? Could you do something so important in only three years that time would be marked from the moment you came into this world? So the origin of my faith starts with Jesus, and then extends to the Bible, not the other way around.I don't feel convinced to argue you into submission, because, one, I can't. As I said previously, this isn't an intellectual argument. Certainly an intelligent person can believe in Christ, and certainly they cannot. If I'm right, then one day, you will bow down and name God as your Lord. If you are right, one day I'll cease to exists - which won't bother me, because I won't be around to know I was wrong. Of course, you'd have an eternity of regrets to consume your thoughts if I'm right. So.. it's just a gamble. There's no way of being sure. There is only faith.When you apply the same standards to the Bible, it has proven to be true in many circumstances. And many that were thought to be incorrect, have been proven through archaelogy:The Hittites were presumed to be a legnedary creation. Archaeology uncovered their capital city and records in Bogazkoy, Turkey.Skeptics use to claim there was no Assyrian King named Sargon, because his name wasn't found in any Assyrian records. Arachaeology uncovered Sargon's palace in Khorsabad, Iraq. In fact, the event mentioned in Isaiah, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. Even more, stela were found at Ashdod itself that recorded his victory.According to recorded history, Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king, there was no Belshazzar. Archaelogy uncovered tablets showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus son, who served as co-regent.The story of the flood is corrobarated in many other documents of many other ancient civilizations.Sumerian tablets record the confusion of language found in the Tower of Babel story.The walls of the Egyptian Temple of Amun in Thebes recors Shishaks campaign into Israel.the Mesha inscription records the revolt of Moab against Israel.The Taylor Prism records the campaign of Sennacherib against Judah.The Lachish reliefs record the siege of Lachish.The annals of Esarhaddon record the assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons.The Babylonian Chronicles record the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar.The Babylonian Ration Records record the captivity of Jehoiachin in Babylon.The Cyrus Cylinder records the freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus.Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud and Lucian record Jesus existence.Suetonius records the forcing of Jews to leave Rome during Claudius' reign.Obviously, other texts corroborate at least some of the historical events recorded in the Bible