Actually, the more you know about the Bible, the more the belief should be enforced that there are no contradictions in it. The process that was used to put the bible together was a very serious one.

yeah.... they formed a committee and picked the books that fit the beliefs of the time.... 300 years after Jesus was dead. How could they have possibly missed anything?

geeogree : I'm not talking the council in Rome that decided which books to put in the bible, I'm talking the process in which the scriptures were actually written.

I analyse everything i read in the Bible. It was written in a different time and had different meaning for people back then to now. The more i read the Bible, the more questions i have about many things that many religous people have not been able to give me an answer about. This is where faith comes into the picture. Not everything in the Bible is clear cut and easy to understand. Things have been changed and translated through time. Bits and pieces have been lost through translation and bit and pieces have been added. Certain meaning of words in the old testament have been changed. Some words that are used today didn't exist back then so therefore have entirely different meanings.
Some of the books that didn't make it into the Bible, either lost or burnt have entirely different view points to what most people assume happened. So to say that there are no errors in the Bible is to say that people use the Bible to prove the Bible. You have to look to other sources to get a broader view on things, these are the stories/information that no church will ever teach you or want you to know. There will always be contradictions and errors in the Bible because there was human intervention. Humans are corrupt.

Golvellius : "It was written in a different time and had different meaning for people back then to now"
Not true. You can tell through context on what the Bible is trying to say. Most verses are pretty clear. We don't want to have a viewpoint that the Bible is a difficult book that you need to be an expert to understand. That would lean towards Gnosticism, which the belief is that only the elite would understand. No, the Bible can be clear on many things.

"The more i read the Bible, the more questions i have about many things that many religous people have not been able to give me an answer about."

Give us some examples, maybe some of us can help you clear the air a little.

As for the topic of the authenticity of the Bible: https://www.vizzed.com/vizzedboard/thread.php?id=12193&ppp=20&page=0#192909

"Some of the books that didn't make it into the Bible, either lost or burnt have entirely different view points to what most people assume happened."

"You have to look to other sources to get a broader view on things, these are the stories/information that no church will ever teach you or want you to know."

A few things to go through:
1. Christians understand that God's word is "truth" and "eternal" (Psalm 119:160) which goes from the understanding that God never changes (Malachi 3:6). Also, it states that scripture, God's word, is "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16). If scripture is considered God-breathed, it means that it is as if God is speaking to you through these words.
2. Jesus used scripture...A LOT. Jesus made an emphasis on using scripture with Authority, because it is the Word of God. In fact, Jesus said that "not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18) Nothing will change or be lost in scripture.
3. Concerning the topic of books in the Bible, the thing is called the canon of scripture. This is important because the Bible warns about false teachers who teach the wrong message, and it is important to examine what is true from false. Paul even warned about people who uses his name and write letters that contradict the Christian message. So it is important to know what is canon and what is not. It's not about getting a broader view, it's about getting the truth.
4. Churches do teach it. They are not naive, unless it is a bad church. In fact, Christian colleges study about these topics all the time.

"There will always be contradictions and errors in the Bible because there was human intervention."

Human intervention has nothing to do with whether God wants His Word preserved. And God does, in order to communicate His Word to use, through the Bible. Whether one believes if the Bible is inerrant (without error at all) or not. All Christians believe that the Bible is the Infallible Inspired Word of God. Meaning in terms of the topic of God and His Story, there are no contradictions or errors.

I understand where you're coming from, you're a Christian. But can you understand my point of view ? An outsider looking in without bias trying to sort through everything to find some truth.I still disagree with some of the things you say. I agree with trying to find the truth. For me i don't think it's as clear as you make it out to be. You believe everything single word that is written in the Bible, I don't. Like i said before i don't believe people can use the Bible to prove the Bible. I'm not trying to disprove the Bible's authenticity, It's more or less I'm trying to sort out the crap/lies from history.

The Bible is difficult to read, that's why there are so many different versions of it. To make it easier to read. I read one version of the Bible and compare it to others and sometimes it says entirely different things.

"So it is important to know what is canon and what is not" -
Who are you or any other church to decide what is canon and what is not ? You talk about the word of God but God had nothing to do with the creation of the actual forming of the bible. Man did. This happened more then 300 years after Christ. These books/texts where edited and revised many times before the forming of the Bible. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual authors. None of the Gospel authors was either an actual disciple of Jesus or even an eyewitness to his ministry. I'll admit though the timeline for these events are still being debated but the fact still remains that these Gospels were written by other people. (Same thing with Islam, Muhammed can't read or write but the Koran is formed after his death. And no one questions this either ? Come on)
Most of the epic stories in the Old testament are taken from other cultures/ relgions, most notably the Sumerians.

"Churches do teach it. They are not naive, unless it is a bad church. In fact, Christian colleges study about these topics all the time" -
Of course colleges teach these things.I ask guys from work all the time about the gnostic gospels and to ask there church because of curiosity. The guys from my work have never even heard about these things,nore their priets, pasters etc. And this is not restricted to people at work, I don't think I know any Christian personally that knows much else outside of the Bible. By no means am I an expert, just a novice with a fascination.

Here are some examples of inconsistencies or conradictions.

GE 1:3-5, On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19, The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:12,16, Plants began to grow before there was sunlight.

GE 1:11-12,26-27, Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9, Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:26-27, Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22, Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 2:17, Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5, Adam lived 930 years.

GE 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Able is.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view. * The same thing in the Garden of Eden.

GE 6:4, There were Nephilim (Giants) before the Flood.
GE 7:21, All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood.
NU 13:33, There were Nephilim after the Flood. * I take particular notice to this one because i have an Interest In the Nephilim, very interesting subject.

DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, God is sometimes angry.
MT 5:22, Anger is a sin.

1SA 17:50, David killed Goliath with a slingshot.
1SA 17:51, David killed Goliath (again?) with a sword. *Once again, I love the stuff on giants.

MT 26:49-50, MK 14:44-46 Jesus is betrayed by Judas with a kiss, then seized.
LK 22:47-48, Jesus anticipates Judas' kiss. No actual kiss is mentioned.
JN 18:2-9, Jesus voluntarily steps forward to identify himself making it completely unnecessary for Judas to point him out. No kiss is mentioned.

MT 27:11-14, Jesus answers not a single charge at his hearing before Pilate.
JN 18:33-37, Jesus answers all charges at his hearing before Pilate.

MT 27:32, MK 15:21, LK 23:26 Simon of Cyrene carries Jesus' cross.
JN 19:17, Jesus carries his own cross with no help from anyone.

MK 3:29 Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin.
AC 13:39, CN 2:13, 1JN 1:9 All sins are forgivable.

Sorry for the long post, these relgious conversations can go on and on sometimes. Especially when i suck at typing.Also i haven't worked out how to use colour and fancy pictures yet. Haha (laughing at myself).

Golvellius : Hint: You can use the editing buttons above the text box for making it bold or color, but if you want to change the color of the text, type "[" and then the color that you want (limited choices) and then type "]" Everything after this code would be that color.

Bare with me, this is going to be a long reply.

"I understand where you're coming from, you're a Christian. But can you understand my point of view ? An outsider looking in without bias trying to sort through everything to find some truth.I still disagree with some of the things you say. I agree with trying to find the truth. For me i don't think it's as clear as you make it out to be. You believe everything single word that is written in the Bible, I don't. Like i said before i don't believe people can use the Bible to prove the Bible. I'm not trying to disprove the Bible's authenticity, It's more or less I'm trying to sort out the crap/lies from history."

I understand that. However, if you are wanting to learn about something, you don't try to go in with a skeptic mindset and tear everything apart. You want to learn it the way it is. After understand what it is claiming or saying, then make a critical reply. If something is true, it can stand by itself as truth. The Bible is easy to understand. If there are some parts that are complicated, pastors are trained to teach the church about these things. Seminary is a place for them to be trained in the original language, theology, as well as Bible interpretation.

"The Bible is difficult to read, that's why there are so many different versions of it."

well in a sense, yes, but it is only made easier to read because of the different culture we have. For example, the more updated versions of the Bible are there because no one around really talks in the older English, like "thou" or "thy" or "ye", etc. Newer versions are made to make it easier for us to read, because the English language changed throughout time, but if you use two versions and compare, they would say the same thing, only worded differently depending on how they worded from the Greek and Hebrew.

In terms of versions, there are basically two types. 1. Word-for-word translation, which actually translates what the original text means (ESV, KJV, NASB) and 2. summarizing and less word for word, which tries to make the statements easier to read and understand, but may have interpretation rather than plainly translating (NLT, CEV, ASV). For studying the Bible, use the first. The second is more of for sayings and encouragement usage. (NIV is in the middle).

"You talk about the word of God but God had nothing to do with the creation of the actual forming of the bible."

This is where you have to see for yourself about the claims of the Bible. It is Inspired by God, and man are only instruments in recording down the Word. This book is pretty much alive, because of the fulfilled prophesies and also the authoritative claims that it makes.

"Who are you or any other church to decide what is canon and what is not?"
"This happened more then 300 years after Christ."

Well they would have not need to do so, but there were people who write books in claiming that they were an apostle, or there were false teachers who write things that are contrary to what scripture actually teaches. With all of these false books coming out, Christians needed to make a stand on what is true and what is false. (God preserving His Word using Man) In fact, there are some ways that can easily tell which ones are false and forgeries. Factors include time they were written from the events it claims to have, the style of writing compared to the actual person's style, and finally, their doctrine, whether they are aligned with what Jesus and the apostles taught. If they were placed in the canon, people would claim that the Bible is contradictory, since they are way off in terms of what Christians actually believe. In short, Gnostic gospels are false gospels with no support from the teachings of orthodoxy.

"The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual authors. None of the Gospel authors was either an actual disciple of Jesus or even an eyewitness to his ministry."

Where are you getting this information? I have Bible Survey textbook right here concerning the authorship of these books, and it is very clear who wrote these books:

Matthew : Matthew, the apostle and disciple of Jesus Christ (so eyewitness), the former tax-collector.
Mark : John Mark, a follower of Peter, and a helper to Paul's ministry (2 Timothy 4). The information in the Book of Mark is actually Peter's account with Christ, and Peter was an eyewitness.
Luke : Companion of Paul. A Physician, and if you read the book, he is very detailed. Also wrote the book of Acts, and wrote as an eyewitness of what happened in that book. Wanted to write a full account after investigating everything (Luke 1:3)
John : A apostle and a disciple of Jesus Christ. ("the loved disciple") (Eyewitness)

These books/texts where edited and revised many times before the forming of the Bible.

we still have (around 5000, the most in any ancient literature) manuscripts of the scriptures in their original language (Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic). Bibles are translated from those manuscripts, and they are not revised. Besides, the Bible talks against those who revises scripture.

I'll admit though the timeline for these events are still being debated

If you are saying the exact year and time, yeah, we are not completely sure. If you are saying time range estimates, we have a good idea of it.

Matthew: A.D. 45-60 (after Mark)
Mark: A.D. 45-60
Luke: A.D. 58-65 (Acts was written in A.D. 64-67)
John: A.D. 70 or 85-90
(Key date for all of these to revolve on is A.D. 70: The destruction of Jerusalem)

"Most of the epic stories in the Old testament are taken from other cultures/ relgions, most notably the Sumerians."

You can argue about who copied who here and there, but the fact that many of these stories from different culture have a similar description of certain events show that there were these events that actually happened. No matter copy or not, the prominence of these records says it all.

"I ask guys from work all the time about the gnostic gospels and to ask there church because of curiosity. The guys from my work have never even heard about these things,nore their priets, pasters etc. And this is not restricted to people at work, I don't think I know any Christian personally that knows much else outside of the Bible"

Just because some Christians don't know how to respond to it does not mean that there is no answer. They may not have encountered that topic before. They are human, not God himself. All of us have room to learn more. But these objections are no surprise to the Christian community. Some of them have already been answered, and you can go research for them yourself. But these are old news to the Christian community.

And with that, I will try my best to answer your Bible contradictions.

GE 1:3-5, On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19, The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

This is fine, because God created a light source for earth on the first day. This does not mean that the light source is the sun, nor does it say that. This is to indirectly establish the system of time. That is why starting Genesis 1:5, there is a concept of evening and morning. It was not until the fourth day that the sun was created as the main light source for earth.

GE 1:12,16, Plants began to grow before there was sunlight.

soooo? God create plants, and God is there to help plants grow and survive. There is nothing wrong with that.

GE 1:11-12,26-27, Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9, Man was created before trees were created.

Look closely on what plants we are talking about. Genesis 1 is the establishment of plants and trees in the land, however, in Genesis 2, it is talking about the plants for farming on the land. "of the field" "sent rain on the earth" "no man to work the ground" are some of the contexts in chapter 2 talking about being able to plant and farm vegetables are not ready, because the land is not ready.

GE 1:26-27, Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22, Man was created first, woman sometime later.

Genesis 1 is a run through of the 7 days, which is saying that Adam and Eve were created on the same day. Genesis 2 is going back to the 6th day talking in more detail of the creation of Adam and Eve. So Adam was created first, and then Eve was created using Adam's ribs.

GE 2:17, Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5, Adam lived 930 years.

Well Adam did not live eternally as he could have and he would die physically, but Adam did "die" on that day. It is a spiritual death. He sinned, which caused a separation between God and Man. God cannot be with Man because of the sinfulness of Man and the holiness of God. Their relationship is shattered, his soul was separated from God, and that is why Adam and Eve have been rid out of Eden.

GE 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Abel is.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view. * The same thing in the Garden of Eden.

Yeah God knew about it, but asked Cain anyways. Cain still lied to Him, and God revealed that he knew all along as the verse went on. One might think that this might be God giving him a chance to actually confess rather than hide.

GE 6:4, There were Nephilim (Giants) before the Flood.
GE 7:21, All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood.
NU 13:33, There were Nephilim after the Flood. * I take particular notice to this one because i have an Interest In the Nephilim, very interesting subject.

I don't exactly know how this would be a contradiction...there are giants before the flood and after the flood...so? they are still human.

DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, God is sometimes angry.
MT 5:22, Anger is a sin.

Anger is not a sin. Matthew 5:22 is talking about "angry without cause." Even Jesus was angry when people made the temple into a market place. It is a sin if you use anger to motivate yourself to sin, which was why it was in the context of murder. The emotion itself is not a sin, it's what you will do with it and what extent it would become. If it becomes hatred against someone, it is sin. If it is to the point of calling someone "Fool," it's a sin. But anger itself is not a sin. God should be angry at those times anyways...His people rebelling against Him.

1SA 17:50, David killed Goliath with a slingshot.
1SA 17:51, David killed Goliath (again?) with a sword. *Once again, I love the stuff on giants.

huh...never seen this to be a contradiction before... you misread: David killed Goliath with a slingshot, and then cut off his head with Goliath's own sword. (add insult to injury.)

MT 26:49-50, MK 14:44-46 Jesus is betrayed by Judas with a kiss, then seized.
LK 22:47-48, Jesus anticipates Judas' kiss. No actual kiss is mentioned.
JN 18:2-9, Jesus voluntarily steps forward to identify himself making it completely unnecessary for Judas to point him out. No kiss is mentioned.

He kissed. Remember, these are eyewitness accounts. The point of view or angle of the situation may be different, and one account may not get the whole picture. Ex. You are in a car crash, and you said there was your car, and 5 other cars front and back. When you watch the news later that night, you saw an aerial scene of a 15 car crash with you in the middle of it all. Are you wrong? no. You are just in one spot of the entire accident.

MT 27:11-14, Jesus answers not a single charge at his hearing before Pilate.
JN 18:33-37, Jesus answers all charges at his hearing before Pilate.

Read those verse again. Both times, Jesus answers Pilate, but not those who brought accusations on him.

MT 27:32, MK 15:21, LK 23:26 Simon of Cyrene carries Jesus' cross.
JN 19:17, Jesus carries his own cross with no help from anyone.

It's both. Remember that Jesus took a huge beating before heading to the hill that he is to be nailed on the cross. He was not able to take the cross all the way to the hill with his condition. At one point, Jesus fell and the Romans chose Simon to pick up the rest of the way.

MK 3:29 Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin.
AC 13:39, CN 2:13, 1JN 1:9 All sins are forgivable.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is basically to deny God. All sin is forgivable if you repent and trust in the savior, who died on the cross, giving the gift of salvation and eternal life. One receives the gift through repentance and trust. By denying God, you basically are going to take up the punishment of sin yourself, and that is why you would not be forgiven. Ask if you need more detailed of an answer.

That is what I got.

Golvellius : it works

Golvellius : "Sorry if this goes on a bit, but I'm trying my best to explain myself."

It's ok to explain yourself. No problem. It might take more time to read, but it's good to clarify what you are trying to say so that people won't misunderstand you. I tend to write long response a lot, but I don't think this has been my longest yet.

"First of all, I;m not tearing anything apart,you think I'm attacking your beliefs when I'm not. I'm Merely trying to point out that there are other points of view and other studies that have been conducted that are different to the dogmatic teachings of the churches. I disagree with your way of thinking and your rationlisation. If anyone on this planet is to learn something new, the natural way is to study, be critical and ask lots of questions. Do you believe everything you see on Tv ? Or read in newspapers ? Do you believe everything a car salesman tells you ? I hope not. Did you believe everything without question the first time you read the bible ? If you did then our conversation Isn't going to go very far. Now do you understand where I'm coming from ? What's outside of the box."

I can honestly say to you that Christians will have a time in their life that they will doubt or test whether their faith is true. Most likely during the teen years when people start to really challenge and think amongst themselves. I don't think someone has real faith without really questioning it at some point. However, if what the Bible is true and what the beliefs that they have is truth, it will stand on itself as truth and will not crumble to the end. So when you see teachings that are opposing each other, you need to see which one is true and which one is false, or whether they are agree with each other. This also goes with the information that you have been getting, do you question the things that you believe from what you read or watch on tv?

"I know the Bible is inspired by God but it was recorded by man. See my point ? In the beginning there was no written word, everything was by word of mouth. So naturally there are going to be pieces of stories lost and some things would have been embellished. Their work was primarily intended for local use and it is unlikely that any author foresaw that his work would be included in a "Bible".

Do you know what they mean when they say the Bible is "inspired"? That means the book is "breathed by God," that the Bible is what we call "special revelation" which means that these things would not be known unless God revealed it to us (and how loving that is He would actually care to reveal it to us puny humans). There are two types of revelation, one is general revelation, which is using what we see and sense in the world to know that there is a God, and special revelation, which God reveals to Man personally. And as you can see in the Bible, it has written about instances about people who were reveal by God. That is also why the claims in this book has the phrase "thus says the Lord" saying that these words are by God.

Know that people at that time take prophesy and claiming that it is God's Word to be very very seriously. If someone is giving a false prophesy, which is not God's Word, they are immediately claimed as blasphemous and are immediately stoned.

They may not have intended that all of these scriptures to be combined into 1 book called the Bible, but they do know that those Words will not be gone. They DEFINITELY did not intend it for just local use: Timothy 3:16, Colossians 4:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:27.

The Bible makes all these claims that God's Word will remain: Mark 13:31, Matt 5:18, Psalm 119:89, Isa 40:8, 1 Pet 1:23, 25

"If the Bible were really the work of a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God, one would reasonably expect it to be obviously superlative in every respect accurate, clear, concise, and consistent throughout as compared to anything that could possibly be conceived by human intellect alone."

It is clear. But one has to actually read through the whole thing and understand the context of it. Also, it is a good thing that God does not make the Bible as a list of rules and solutions to problems in life, because 1. It will be wayy too huge of a book for anyone to read (we have lots of problems in humans ), and 2. It will be boring. Works like the Iliad is clear of what they are describing, but one must study it and read it and know the context of that time to understand it.

"Speaking about fulfillment of prophesies, the apsotles thought Jesus was going to return in there lifetime and they wouldn't die until this happened."

That's not called a prophesy, that is what they thought (or what they hoped). They really hoped that they would be alive when Jesus returns, but even Jesus told them that He does not know the day or the hour that He returns, until the Father told Him (Matthew 24:36). In the book of 2 Thessalonians, in response to 1 Thessalonians, the Thessalonian people were worried about what would happen to those that died before Jesus' return, especially from the first letter, that Paul states that "the Day of the Lord is at hand", and Paul was reassuring them that they will be fine as believers, and that to continue to be in the faith, that is what it means to be ready. But they don't know when that day will be.

"There are many books that didn't make it into the Bible that aren't claimed to be false. These are briefly quoted in the Bible. I can't find an explanation why. One example is the mention of the Angels coming down to earth to have sex with our women. There is one or two lines on this in genisis. If you look into the Book of Enoch it delves deeper. If certain other books are wrong, why does the Bible have small pieces of these other stories or texts referring to other older books ? The reason many books were shunned was because it gave an alternative view point from what the majority knew about.

It's never been about popularity, it's about whether if it is true or not, or if it is orthodox. This goes the same with the formation of creeds and the banishment of heresies. There was at one point that a heresy was taking control of most of the land because the roman emperor decided to support the heresy, not because He thinks it's true, but only to unite the empire. Those opposing it were banished, but after that emperor died, the debate came back, and the true doctrine was finally defended

The Book of Enoch has been deemed as an apocrypha book, not by Christians, but by the jewish community themselves. Even they think that the book is has questionable authenticity, which is what the word "apocrypha" means. Apocryphal books are not inspired by God, but to some Christians, it can be a good read. Martin Luther has the apocrypha with him and reads it and deeming them to be "useful" but he would not quote from it as if it was the Word of God. At my college, we have the apocrypha available for reading as well.

And in this relgion they don't want people to think, they want people to follow and serve without hesitation.Don't you think it's strange that the gospels dont have much info on Jesus' life. Of course they wouldn't want the Gospel of Judas or others to be included because it paints a different story and might rock the boat. Christians always shy away from anything that may bring forth intelligent questions."

We have talked about the issue of intellectual abandonment by some Christians in a different thread, and it is something that is looked down upon and should be changed. Prominent leaders and many Christians like myself emphasize that the intellect is not something that would be against Christianity, but work hand in hand, since God created all things. It should not, however, go over your head, and say that we can know everything with out intellect.

The reason that there is not much info on Jesus' early life is because that either it is irrelevant or because eyewitnesses did not witness that.

The reason that the Gospel of Judas is that they are not even close to what Christianity teaches. Gnostic gospels are not even considered to be "apocrypha." Gnosticism emphasizes the gaining of secret knowledge would gain one's salvation. You can basically deem them as a different religion or cult. It does appeal to many people, especially young people who get persuaded into wanting "secret knowledge." These books are not even close to be being useful, but harmful by producing inaccurate "knowledge." You can ask about it, and knowledgeable Christians would answer about it. (It almost seems that you never met a thoughtful Christian before.)

"Are you getting your info from a relgious school or college ? If you're stuying theology then you have already made up your mind about many things. The dates you gave me are similar to others i have seen yes, but i have seen totally different dates from others sources too. These dates may be agreed upon in your religous circles but no one actually knows how accurate the dates are.
Your book isn't the only piece of research material concerning this subject. Also, another theory is that all the Gospels were written after the destruction of Jerusalem. I came across another two other ideas that Jesus may have been Killed in the time of two diffferent Emperors. Some people out there claim that Jesus never walked the earth. He was a myth. And I'm sure there are a dozen more examples and theories that I haven't even heard of before."

I study physics, but that is irrelevant.

The textbook actually went through all of the theories of dates and authorship and authenticity based on secular and religious scholarship. The information that I gave were the most agreed among secular and religious scholarship according to archeology, Bible analysis, (of course, you have a few who tried to support other theories, but not many find them to be authentic theories)

I'm not a Christian scholar, so I did not really learn the specifics until coming to my college, and this college emphasizes the analysis of Bible. Especially for the Theology department from my school, most of the faculty did their doctorate work in secular universities, like UMichigan, Yale, Princeton, UChicago, etc, etc, and they affirm to this.

They were revised before they were translated. The translation was a part of the process when the Bible was formed.
The oldest survivng Bible text is from the Dead sea scroll fragments. So no original texts exist, so no one will ever know 100%. Unless you have super human powers that can see into the past, (joke). What do you mean Bibles aren't revised ? All of them are, even some of the new bibles that have been released have the word "revised" in the title or version. Also, Due to commmenting in another post I was cross referencing something and looked it up in different versions and some had changed not just the wording but the entire meaning of the passage.

Have you read what I wrote on the link that I gave last time? This is where the authenticity of the Bible is soo important. Many ancient books don't have the original text, like Plato's work, Homer's work, Caesar's work, etc. Yet these works are still read as the authentic works as they are. Students read the Iliad in schools. I told you about the 3 things historians see whether an ancient work is authentic, is how many manuscripts, how early are the manuscripts to the events and how consistent are the manuscripts. And guess what, the Bible has the most manuscripts, the earliest manuscripts to the event it describes, and the most consistent manuscripts very little variation in them. https://www.vizzed.com/vizzedboard/thread.php?id=12193&ppp=20&page=0#192909

I encourage you to watch this video from Dr. Steve Lawson, and tell me what you think from his reasons that the Bible is the Word of God: http://www.christianity.com/ligonier/?speaker=lawson1

The newer versions of the Bible are "revised" means they change the way it is translated in English, because the English language does change. Some words have different meanings as time goes on. However, all Bibles are translated from it's original language. So revision is made for updated language, gender inclusive language (which I dislike), how it's being phrase, use a more complicated word or simpler word, etc. But not it's meaning.

The website, Blue Letter Bible, is a pretty good website where you can actually see the Bible in different versions and to also see the original language of greek and hebrew from the manuscripts: http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm

I'm curious, what version of the Bible are you using? Are you using one that translate word for word from the original language, or a paraphrase version, like the Message, the want-to-be Bible? (I have my grudge against whoever made this version, very very paraphrased)

"I'm not arguing, I'm telling you what happened. And it actually does matter that these stories were taken from another culture because The Sumerian culture was polytheistic in belief. You can't steal someone elses history and claim it as your own when the structure of the religions are totally different. First it was polytheism, but now we'll repackage it as monotheism. It's just plain lies. See how this might be a problem ? The creation of the old testement was taken from all regions and acient stories of the neighbouring countries of that time. And if you actually did some reading outside of the Christian cirlces you'd be astonished as to how many stories are not just similar, but identical."

Don't worry, I did do the reading, and I know what the claims are. You just said that both religions are different in terms of how many gods they believe in, so how can one steal from the other if they are different backgrounds. I can also tell you that this is not deemed fact, that is why I said that "you can argue it if you want" because this has never been deemed as what happened in the academia world. I said what I said earlier because these cultures wrote what happened from what they recorded and then attribute it to their religion. This is showing that these events actually happened, because of what they recorded to be similar or the same. It's not a matter of who copied who, which I doubt anyone copied from anyone, but what they are recording.

"I disagree with you fundamentalist Interpretaion of some of the texts i wrote. You've said before that you (Christians) take everything in the Bible as the Infallible Inspired Word of God. So why Interpret when you only have to read and compare words to see what I'm talking about."

My "fundamentalist Interpretation"? You mean my literal interpretation? I only interpret things literally when the it is needed to be interpret literally. For example, when Jesus said that He is the door, we do not literally think He is a piece of wood with a knob on it. Know the context of the verse, and you would know how to read that verse.

Note that whenever you read something, your mind is already interpreting what you are read. But we have to understand what the words actually say, or what the author intended for the words reading. What you call "interpreting" is for us to understand what the author is trying to say. If you don't do that, you will find unrealistic "contradictions." That is why Context is soo important.

Also, you got to understand that in the Christian community there are two views on the infallible Word of God: 1. Word of God as Inerrant, which means that the Bible is without error, and 2. Word of God as just plain infallible, which means that the Bible is without error on the things of God and spirituality, but may not be accurate within the science and history. I am on the Biblical Inerrancy side.

GE 1:12,16, Plants began to grow before there was sunlight.

"I'm sure most of humanity, particulary the scientific community might have something to say about it.Once again you're not reading for what is written, you're Interpreting."

You are talking about contradictions in the Bible, not how it compares to science. You got to remember that in this context, we are involving the supernatural (God creating the world).

GE 6:4, There were Nephilim (Giants) before the Flood.
GE 7:21, All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood.
NU 13:33, There were Nephilim after the Flood.

I just realized something...what is "NU" that you are referring to?

GE 2:17, Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5, Adam lived 930 years.

"Your explaination for this one had nothing to do with comparing these texts. God said he would die if he ate the fruit. He ate it and didn't die. He lives to 930 years. Thats a contradiction."

Yes it did. You need to understand what this means when God said that "you will surely die". Yes, his body would physically rot away, but at that point, Adam and Eve are "spiritually dead" and they are separated from God.

1SA 17:50, David killed Goliath with a slingshot.
1SA 17:51, David killed Goliath (again?) with a sword.

The first says David killed Goliath with a sling shot, David had no sword in his hand.
The second says David killed and cut off Goliaths head with a sword. Two different deaths by different weapons.
You cant see this as a contradiction ?

ok I reread the verses and looked through the versions, and you're right that it wrote that. I guess this is just their way of saying that David struck him with a sling and he died at that point. And then he cut his head that made it apparent to both camps of armies that Goliath is dead, especially when they are back-to-back verses. I remember the books of Samuel to be in chronological order. We know that he is dead when he slinged the rock at him.

MT 2:15, 19 & 21-23, The infant Christ was taken into Egypt.
LK 2:22 & 39, The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.

Ok...now you trying to find contradiction...Matthew recorded it and Luke did not. It's just as simple as that. Note that Matthew did not say when the magi came and when did Jesus leave to Egypt. Luke, on the other hand, wrote that Jesus was brought to the temple to be blessed on the eighth day since birth. I'm surprised you did no say something like, "why doesn't the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John have the Birth of Jesus in there?" Because they did not record them.

GE 11:9, At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world.
1CO 14:33, Paul says that God is not the author of confusion.

If you read the entire story of the tower of Babel, their pride was on themselves and not towards God, so as punishment, God cause them to have different languages. When you look at the rest of the Bible, God's punishment tends to create chaos and confusion, but that is because they sinned against God. It is their sin that is the cause, and God's punishment to be the effect.

Paul is talking about orderly worship, at this verse more specifically, the order of prophets prophesying, and that God would not give different messages to different people at the same time to cause confusion of worship at that time. These are two different contexts...one is punishment of sin, the other is worshiping God. And what Paul says is that God would not confuse for the purpose of confusing people. This goes to the same idea that God would not lie about Himself.

All sins not forgiven
(Matthew 12:31-32) - "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come."
(Mark 3:29) - "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.

All sins forgiven
(Acts 13:39) - "and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses."
(Titus 2:13-14) - "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; 14who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds."
(1 John 1:9) - "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

You've mentioned the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit before. Do you know what the "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" mean? Let's look at the context of what Jesus is saying what Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit mean:

20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."

22And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub[c]! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons."

23So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. 28I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

30HE SAID THIS BECAUSE THEY WERE SAYING, "HE HAS AN EVIL SPIRIT." (Mark 3:20-30)


So if something is of the Holy Spirit and you were to continually not believing that it is from God, God would not forgive you. When does "continue" ends? When you die. So if one continually not believe to death, then God would punish you. And this would make sense, because Jesus is the atoning sacrifice of one's sins. I think this next verse says it all: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” (John 3:36) When one does not believe in Jesus, he is rejecting God's gift of redemption, which means that person must take up the fine that must be paid for his sins, which no one can do. That is why, without Jesus as the substitute, the person would not be forgiven.

http://www.gotquestions.org/blasphemy-Holy-Spirit.html

In short, believe through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, one will be saved and forgiven. If reject God's gift, one would not be forgiven and would perish.

NOTE: Anyone else can correct me if I'm wrong about these things.

Golvellius : Here's an interpretation of Genesis that actually agrees with science. You might find it interesting, this fully explains your question about plants and photosynthesis. http://godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

tonetone714 : The Bible interprets itself with itself.

oobla37 : "Romans 10:9-10 says “That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation”. This is telling us how to get justified through faith, but when looking through the Bible, it can be discovered that in James 2:24, 26 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” and “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead”. Does the Bible contradict itself? The answer is no. James is saying that if you say you are a Christian, then there had better be some good works shown or your faith is false, so good works are simply an addition to our faith. James says this because the devil believes in God, he has faith, but the faith he has is useless. Romans is saying that justification by faith is a step in the right direction, but we also need to remember that we need to live a good Christian life also."

I wouldn't say that the Devil "believes" in God in the same sense that a Christian believes in God. A Christian believes he is a sinner and needs to repent and believe in the Lord, Jesus Christ. The Devil doesn't acknowledge any such need. Arrogantly, he is a God unto himself, even rejecting the notion that he is defeated. I would say that in this context, "awareness" is a better word than "faith." Yes, the Devil is "aware" of who Jesus Christ is, but he refuses to accept His sovereignty.

There is no need to live a good Christian life. To quote one website, salvation is not gained by faith, but then maintained by works. However, Romans 6:1-2 says, "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" Having faith without works is like believing in a certain diet but not following it. It's impotent, for all intents and purposes, useless. I personally take "works" to mean all good fruits, inside and out, thoughts and deeds. Not just for instance, helping an old lady cross the street.

What I'm saying is, faith without repentance is false. Repentance is central to believing in Jesus. A real Christian, who has been living in sin, will always come back to repentance if his experience with the Holy Spirit was real. Just like David! If we fail to produce good works after we repent, (or good fruit), the concept of the new creation...the intention of creating life in abundance in accordance with his will is a failure. We fail ourselves. We do not "justify" our faith to ourselves. The trick is to realize this before we waste a lifetime propped up by His grace alone.

We can live a lifetime as Christians without ever ridding ourselves of sin...and we all will to some degree. It'll become easier to deal with sin, but temptation will always be there. No-one can fully achieve the perfect character of Jesus. The existence of sin does not cancel out the existence of faith. However this is not a license to sin. Repentance must exist within the heart of a Christian, or else they have missed the point of Jesus' message and they CANNOT have a relationship with Him. Jesus will NOT have a relationship with you unless you recognize that you are a sinner.

To sum up, I think James is looking at from all angles. He's not saying that we NEED works in order for our salvation to be real, or that we don't. He's saying that these concepts need to be tied together in order for "Christ"-ians (followers) to fully live within the true definition of the word.

Guys, I can disprove Christianity in a paragraph. Ready?

If Noah's Ark is proven to be false, that renders the rest of the scripture it was written in (idk if it was Levictus or Genesis or whatever)false. Since all Christians believe in all Christian scripture (if they don't they're not real Christians), then it can be said if Genesis or the Bible is disproved, all of Christianity is disproved. Noah's Ark can easily be proven false guys.

1. That flood reached the highest of mountains, even Everest. But at a certain height near the peak of Everest, there is too little oxygen to support life for even 30 minutes. This is called the Death Zone. The story goes that Noah was up there for 200+ days....

2. The flood erased all civilization from the Earth. However, there were people that marked each passing day in cave drawings. Before and After the event of the flood, the markings kept drawing themselves. Strange huh?

3. The number of species on Earth is in the billions. Noah couldn't have fit all of them on his boat. How do we have all these species today? If he took one of each animal, you say, then they would have just evolved into today's creatures. Wrong, evolution occurs over millions of years, not thousands.

4. All religion is false. There is no doubt about this. It has been disproved time and time again. The existence of god, however, is a different story.

Not exactly a paragraph. Sorry! !--INFOLINKS_OFF-->

Savenko87 : First 3 points: Wait...if you are arguing against religion and not God, why is it not possible that this is a supernatural event? Meaning that why couldn't God made sure that Noah, his family, and the animals would remain alive in the ark?(I'm not arguing directly)

4th point: "All religion is false. There is no doubt about this. It has been disproved time and time again"

This seems more like a premise or a statement rather than an argument. In fact, since you are saying that Christianity is a religion, and your statement is an argument, it's still circular reasoning, basically you are saying "All religions are false, therefore Christianity is false"...which isn't proving anything...

Savenko87 : While your first claim about the mountains-deal is "scientifically accurate" coinciding with the various true-and-false Noah's Ark expeditions, the Bible, including Christianity, contains numerous events which are supernatural. Now, while you are categorizing Christianity as just another religion, can you see the distinction of Christianity in this link?
http://www.gotquestions.org/religion-spirituality.html

The concept given there, "True spirituality is possessing the Holy Spirit of God as a result of receiving salvation through Jesus Christ. True spirituality is the fruit that the Holy Spirit produces in a person’s life: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22, 23)", is the most significant evidence to a Christian.

I can tell you first hand, before I became a Christian I was heavy into drugs and a criminal lifestyle. I always thought Christians were lunatics...and that they were unnecessarily over-zealous about their God. But it was at a time 8 years ago in my life which God orchestrated a series of events to bring about my attention; He was wanting me to surrender. I hit rock-bottom, and I had nothing more to lose or gain, so I accepted God's invitation.

In short, I am definitely not that drug addict thug I was 8 years ago. Not because of some organized religion, or because of counseling or support groups, or whatever, but because I've received the Holy Spirit of God into my life and rely on His guidance and support in my daily life. I can definitely say that God has produced within me those characteristics of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control; these characteristics are the antithesis of my life 8 years ago before I received Christ (not some church or group, but God).

Crawldragon : If you haven't spent years studying genetics (I have), it is easy to see where you would think this to be true. But it is not. Inbreeding is a way of breeding that in the short and long run, results in LESS diversity. It is true that if you have 2 people who have dozens of children, and those children inbreed with each other and have dozens of children, and so on, you do end up putting more PEOPLE into the gene pool. What you do not do, however, is add more GENES into the gene pool. Remember that a lot of our traits are based of of dominance, recessive, incomplete dominance, co-dominance, etc. When you are breeding using only partners who are in your direct gene pool, the recessive genes will thin out with each generation. Eventually, every single offspring will end up homozygous dominant for each trait in their genetic code, resulting in absolutely no diversity. Many insects reproduce by inbreeding specifically to have a uniform colony with no diversity.

This is also assuming that humans are like insects in that they can effectively produce offspring each generation that can reproduce as well. The way the human genome is set up, the closer relation you are to your partner, the more likely it is that during chromosomal crossovers during meiosis I, they will crossover incorrectly. This often causes anneuploidy conditions in the chromosomes. For humans, this is often fatal during fetal development. Those who live past fetal development are often unable to reproduce. So having this many people inbreeding like this would lead to very few surviving to reach the reproductive age.

*edit* My attempt to make this thread organized and easy to read has failed, particularly using the tab button to create uniform paragraphs. I am sorry about this, and if you find it hard to read than please let me know and I will try my best to fix it. I would try to correct it now , but I have just spent close to 2 hours creating this post due to references and research. Again, I apologize for this but I just don't have the patience right now to fix it.


There are many contradictions in the bible, so I will show you some verses that contradict each other.
Some people are giving examples of how science contradicts the bible, such as Savenko87 saying there is no oxygen at the tops of mountains so Noah couldn't live their for 200 days. Although I personaly believe these are true, this isn't an example of the bible contradicting itself, and as I mentioned, is science contradicting the bible.

So here are some passages that show the bible contradicts itself :

   1. Jesus' Lineage
         * Matthew 1:17 claims that there were 28 generations from David to Jesus
         *Luke 3:23-31 claims there were 43 generations


   2. Jesus' birth and early child hood
            Important events and themes present in Matthew's account of Jesus birth and childhood are non-existent in Luke's birth narrative.
          
            * On of the major differences is that Matthew dates Jesus' birth around 4BC when King Herod was still alive, while Luke says it happened                during the "census of Quirinius" which happened about 10 years after King Herod's death.


            * Matthew's gospel says Mary and Joseph take Jesus to Egypt shortly after child birth. In Luke's account they do not go to Egypt, and                         instead they go to Jerusalem so Mary can complete the rite of purification. After the purification is done, they go to Nazareth and stay                      there (except yearly visits to Jerusalem for a special feast) until Jesus is grown up.


            * In Matthew, Jesus received treasures from wise men but in the Gospel of Luke  there were no wise men and Jesus and his family are                      very poor.

            Some scholars believe the differences in  Matthew and Luke are because Matthew was trying to appeal to Jews while Luke was trying to             be favorable to Gentiles.  I am just scratching the surface of this subject I suggest you check out
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_of_Jesus#Critical_analysis for a more indepth look into this subject or just read the two                                      gospels and see for yourself.


   3. Matthew talks about a prophecy that wasn't actually a prophecy
     
         *Matthew 2:14claims that these words of Hosea, "out of Egypt I called my son," were fulfilled with Joseph and Mary coming out of Egypt                  with  Jesus ; which is a complete misunderstanding  of what Hosea is saying. The son that Hosea is referring to is not Jesus, but symbolic            of Israel and not a prophecy.  Lets take a look at the two verses.
  
            Hosea 11:1-2 "When Israel was a child I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more I called them, the more they went from                                        me; they kept sacrificing to Baals, and burning incense to idols. "

            Matthew 2:14 "And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of                                        Egypt have I called my son. "


  4. Jesus says his family didn't acknowledge him as a prophet  but Matthew and Luke say other wise.

         *Mark 6:4 "But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

            Matthew 1:19-21 "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away                                           privily.  But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying,                                                       Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy                                                      Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

            Luke 1:30-33 "And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.  And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy                                           womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.  He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest:                                     and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:  And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for
                                    ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

         There is no mention of Jesus' parents honouring him , but an angel comes and  tells them that he is divine. As Jesus said in mark, he got no           honour from his kin our house. I tend to believe what Jesus said and not what his apostles said.


   5. Crucifiction and Resurection
       
         There is a lot of contradictions between different accounts in this topic, and I could have just made a post just about this and it would be                sufficient enough for me. Hope I don't miss anything.

         * In the Gospel of Matthew, he claims the two theives crucified with Jesus mocked him , while Luke says only one of them mocked him.     
              
               Matthew 27:43-44  "He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.  The thieves also,                                                    which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth."
     
               Luke 23:39-43  "And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.  But the                                                 other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?  And we                                                    indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.  And he said unto                                                    Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.  And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day                                           shalt thou be with me in paradise."


           *There are many differences about the resurection ,such as, was there an earthquake, was the tomb guarded or not, when was
            the stone removed from the tomb, how many angels were floating about, etc.

            Matthew 27:62-66 claims that  the tomb of Jesus guarded under the orders of Pilate, so that his disciples could not steal his body. Only                the Gospel of Matthew says that it is guarded, in other Gospels , Pilate basically allows the disciples into the tomb.
     
            Matthew 28:1-11 says two women, Mary Magdalene and another Mary went to the guarded tomb of Jesus, that a great earthquake                          occurred and that an angel descended from Heaven and rolled the stone away that was sealing the tomb and sat upon it. That Pilate's
             guards were frozen with fear as the angel tells the two women that the body of Jesus is not in the tomb, that he has risen from the dead,                  and instructs them to tell the disciples that Jesus will see them in Galilee.

            Mark16: 1-8, unlike Matthew's account of two women going to a guarded tomb, has three women going to an unguarded tomb: Mary                      Magdalene,Jesus' mother and Salome. In Mark's account there is no earthquake, and there is no angel seen descending from Heaven to             roll the stone away. There are also no guards frozen in fear as an angel speaks to the woman. When the women arrive at the unguarded                tomb, the stone has already been removed and they wonder who has removed it? They look inside the tomb and see a man dressed in                white, he tells them Jesus is resurrected and to go tell the disciples that they will see Jesus in Galilee.

            The only thing Matthew and Mark seem to agree on is that some women were told to tell the disciples that Jesus would see them in                         Galilee. This conflicts with what Luke and John claim, for in their accounts the disciples are not told to go Galilee to see Jesus, they see                 him in Jerusalem instead.

            Luke 24:1-53 has more than two other of  tagging along with Mary Magdalene to an unguarded tomb. And like Mark's version there is                   neither earthquake or angel descending from Heaven to roll the stone away . The stone has already been removed, but unlike Mark's                      account of the women seeing one man, they instead see two men dressed in white cloth when they entered the tomb. Instead of telling                    them to go to Galilee the two men say "He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee,  that the                   Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise."


            John 20:1-19 disputes the claim of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb with other women. In his version she                went alone, while it was still dark, rather than in the morning light that is claimed by Matthew and Mark. In John's account of the event, the                tomb is not guarded and there is no earthquake when Mary goes there. When John's Mary sees that there is no one inside the tomb, she             runs and tells Peter that someone has stolen the body. Luke claims Mary and the other women had told Peter and the other apostles that             the two men in dazzling white clothing in the tomb had said that Jesus was resurrected.



There is undoubtedly contradictions within the bible, some of them are open for interpretation such as my fourth point, but others like my fifth point are, for the most part, irrefutable. The fact that there are many contradiction doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus isn't real or a God, but it does mean that there are errors within the bible and it loses credibility. So much for the bible being 'the word of god'

If you want to refuse my points, please do so but also please explain why. Also, if you would like to hear more contradictions I would be happy to show you some, or give you links , or tell you some books that cover the subject well.