Timetospend

Agreed:
2 Peter 1:21
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
NASU

My hermeneutic is that the bible is inerrant (I thought that I answered this question for you before). I find following the Bible improves my closeness to God. I do not believe that I have tried to prove that the Bible is inerrant; even if it is inerrant, then it would be impossible to prove it to someone who does not believe in God.

My position is that God provide sufficient evidence that everyone is without excuse for the choice made. I understand that the official atheist position is that there is not enough evidence to prove that God exists.

I think that my answer to your last quote answers this. I would agree that God gives more information to some people rather than to others. Once someone sees God act in their lives, it is truly difficult to deny his existence despite theoretical ramblings to the contrary.

If you are still asking for opinion, it is my opinion that God defines good, and that the word is meaningless without some otherwise arbitrary starting point.

Not sure that I have time today, or exactly when, but at some point I will look for it.

Thanks,

000

The verse that says God is Love.

Then the other one that says Love is not jealous.

Then the one that says God is a jealous god.

I'm sure that's the most common one.

Johnny Skeptic

But if God has opinions, they have to be artitrary too. What makes God's opinions automatically right?

If God says that murder is wrong, and indiscriminantly kills people with hurricanes, and innocent animals, I am not aware of any credible evidence that that is necessary towards the achievement of worthy, fair, and just goals. Are you? It is not reasonable to accept the actions of any being who does things as questionable as God does without first knowing why he does what he does. In my opinion, it is not likely that a God would allow his only begotten Son to suffer and die for the sins of mankind, and then turn right around and injure or kill people who he just saved with hurricanes. What wold be the purpose in that? In addition, in my opinion, it it not likely that God would inspire James to write that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead, and refuse to give food to hundreds of millions of people who died of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine. Why do you suppose that God inspired James to write that?

At best, the God of the Bible is amoral or mentally incompetent. Many of his actions are punishable by life in prison or death under our legal system. Surely you would question the actions of anyone other than God who did what God sometimes does, but why? Is it your position that the good things that God does justifies the bad things that he does?

What makes your faith any more valid than the faith of deists?

angelo

Palm Sunday, was said to have occurred in mid March, according to Mark, Mathew and Luke. The problem is, it's too early in the year for any leafy branches to have appeared yet. Mid April- May would be the earliest when leafy branches were available. So his donkey must have rode on sticks and twigs, not palms.

JES

IMO, Christianity has always been about perfection (or at least the striving for it). So if one wants to show where Christianity is not perfect you look to two areas; the Bible and Jesus.

It’s fairly easy to show the Bible is not perfect. In addition to the scribal errors there are the passages that have been shown not to be part of the original manuscripts. The ending of Mark and John 7:5 – 8:11 are just 2 of many examples. Other examples are 2 Kings 19 and Isaiah 37; these chapters are exactly the same word for word. Did God inspire two different authors during two different time periods to write the exact same words? Or all the references to extra-biblical sources; ex. Book of Jasher found in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. Is this book inspired by God as well, is it perfect? Are we to believe that 2 different Biblical authors writing hundreds of years apart (the Christian contention being that the Bible is a collection of harmonious writings by different authors over a 1500 year period of time) used a non-canonical perfect book that must have also been updated over that same period of time by other people?

How about the perfection of Jesus? Here are 2 examples where, IMO, Jesus is shown to be imperfect. Mark 2:25-26 vs. 1 Samuel 21; in 1 Samuel 21 we find David on the run from Saul who wants to kill him. David goes to the high priest Ahimelech to get food and a weapon. Ahimelech recognizes David and wonders why no one is with him. David lies and tells him that David’s men are hiding and he needs food for them. In Mark 2, Jesus gets the story wrong saying that Abiathar is the high priest (Abiathar is Ahimelech son and doesn’t become high priest until after Saul had Ahimelech killed -
1 Sam 22:18-23). Jesus is also wrong in believing that David had men with him, David is obviously alone and doesn’t get ‘his men’ until 1 Sam 22:1. How does a perfect Son of God not know his OT history? The other example is John 18:20 vs. Matt 13:11-17; in John, Jesus is before Annas where he states that he has spoken openly and only taught in the Synagogue or Temple and that he never said anything in secret. Well there are dozens of examples of Jesus teaching on hills, in boats, etc. The Matthew verses have Jesus explaining why he teaches in secret parables; “"The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.” Liar, Liar, robes on fire.

I don’t know how any Christian can honestly state that the Bible is perfect and I think there is solid evidence that Jesus was not perfect either.

douglas

I know this has been mentioned before, but I think it's worth a deeper dive.

Mark says there are three people that go to the tomb. But who is Mary the mother of James? Could this be a different Mary then Jesus' mother, or was Mark trying to reinforce James position as Jesus successor? And who exactly is Salome? Jesus' sister, half-sister, or just one of his follower?

Here's Matthew's version...

Matthew, possibly unhappy with all the questions stirred up by Mark, strips Mary of her attachment with James and just calls her the "other Mary." Salome has disappeared. However, it seems clear that Matthew intends to show that only two people went to the tomb.

Now here's Luke...

Luke also includes Mary as the mother of James, includes Joanna, and also mentions "others with them." Why does Luke mention Joanna? Joanna was supposedly the wife of Chuza, an adminstrator to Herod Antipas. Is luke trying to add some legitimacy to the "empty tomb" story by including someone who is connected in some way to the Romans?

And now John...

John only mentions Mary Mag specifically but has Mary say "we don't know where they have put him" implying there were others present. Also notice how John has Mary going to the tomb when "it was still dark" while Matthew has them showing up at dawn. John presumable had the benefit of reading all three other gospels before creating his version, and probably decided to dodge the whole issue and just stick with the one consistent participant, Mary Magadalene, refer to the rest in generalities, and have it all happen under the cover of darkness.

The questions I've include in this post are legitimate questions that I'm searching for answers on. What I find frustrating is Christians who brush off these contradictions/differences as insignificant. Grow a brain! Rediscover your childhood curiosity! There is real meaning behind these differences, but you have to want to look and ask questions.

the Radio Star

The first one that I ever noticed was when Jesus contradicted Moses about "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." There's a current thread in this forum right now about another great one, Paul contradicting Jesus on faith verses works.

Timetospend

You have to have a starting place. Otherwise, you will end up making up your own definition.

If God is the creator of life, then it would be logical that he has the right to take it. If life belongs to him, then someone taking it would be wrong. For certain actions, the purpose is disclosed, but many times it is not identified as you suggest.

While greater specificity might exist, the ultimate purpose of God per the Bible is his glory:
Rom 9:21-23
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; 23 and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory
NRSV

You are entitled to your opinion concerning God. I do not agree with it, and I do not think that the Bible agrees with it. You want to put yourself in judgment over God, apparently trying to use the Bible as support. Yet, you ignore passages such as:
Ps 147:5-6
Great is our Lord, and abundant in power;
his understanding is beyond measure.
6 The LORD lifts up the downtrodden;
he casts the wicked to the ground.
NRSV

I could quote the last several chapters of Job, as they would be appropriate to answering your question, but will save you the trouble of having to skip over them.

According to selective reading. Not sure I need to comment on the rest of your note.

Thanks,

Timetospend

You indicated in a GRD thread that the lack of Christian response in this thread is indicative of some superiority being expressed in this thread to which Christians cannot stand. While I have made a few posts in this thread, I do not see a lot of value-added reasons to make more posts.

What do you want from the Christian community who believe that the Bible is inerrant? The purpose of this originating thread does not include discussion of these supposed contradictions or much that would be enticing for continuing discussion by Bible believers.

Anyway, I am perplexed as to what you want.

Thanks,

Johnny Skeptic

What I want all inerrantists to do is to go to the GRD Forum and participate in the thread that is titled "God is corrupt." I chose that thread because inerrantists believe that God inspired and preserved the originals because he has good character. If inerrantists cannot reasonably prove that God has good character, then they do have not a reasonable basis for claiming that God would want to inspire and preserve the originals.

By the way, an evil, amoral, or mentally incompetent God could easily inspire and preserve texts if he wanted to. Even if God inspired and preserved the originals, that does not necessarily mean that he has good character, only that he has power. It appears that the bottom line issue is God's character, the issue upon which all other issues depend.