Apparent contradictions in the Bible

[geistkiesel]

I am franlky always a little suspicious of folks that contend their knowledge fo Greek and/or Hebrew is better than the team of folks that wrote the NASB Bible (the one regarded as the most accurate translation). A couple of dozen scholars of both ilks collaborated on this translation. I don't think the issue is whether the translation is accurate. The issue is more related to the intent of the writer, the nature of the audience, and the use of figurative, idiomatic or vernacular language.

 

If someone wrote that I was a "nut" in a canonized document, I am afraid one sect would believe I was hexagonal. chromium and threaded, and another sect would believe that I grew on a tree and was harassed by squirrels.

Biochemist,

Are yopu referring to some claim from myself of ancient Greek and/or Hebrew? I certainly have made no claims save a working knowledge of English, more than a little German and Spanish, a little French anda c0ouple of words in Sanskrit. I have no control now over what translators have carved form original copies, but the story does not turn significantly on interopretations that I consider at face vaklue to be the literal truth.

 

My analysis may change thngs significantly, or slightly, but I am comfortable with my current understanding of what went down in the Garden so long ago. It wasn't the Serpent that deceived Eve, it was Yaweh whio lied to her. Yaweh told Adam and Eve that if they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that on that day they would surely die. The Serpent told Eve that if she ate of the tree of knoweldge of good and evil that her eyes would open and she would become like god, and she would know good and evil. The serpent also told her that God knew she wouldn't die. God also made the parenthetical remark that thank goodness they didn't eat of gthe tree of everlasting life.

 

yes I beleieve the trees and their fruit are not metaphors and that gods main concern was one of maintaining control over the animals tending teh garden, which is why Adam anhd Eve were was brought to the garden in fiorst place. God did, after all, cloth them in fine skins as they sent them on their way and assumedly got someione else not corrupted with a god like state of mind to slave in his garden for his ends. Certainly Adam and Eve weren't in the garden to loll around and just "dig it". They were in the garden to work, period.

 

I understand the problem, but sometime one has to bend and just admit he or she understands what they understand, which is the way I go about things. I see no "nut " problem here, nor do I see extreme points of view looking at the mutual universal elephant. I also see no value, one way or the other, in puting all my nuts in one padded cell. When reading the bible, any version, the totality of the story does much of the laborious interpretation. For instance I have shied away from Revelation in the NT because everytime I attempt to crack it open I get a gooey jar of skippy peanut butter. I leave Revelation alone. Frankly, what I have read, and read about Revelation, I find I am not missing virtually anything of the story. If the author of that book wants to predict this and that, then I wish him/her/them god speed. I am not going to lose any sleep over it. Certainly I am unconcerned what some dead man , or live god, or tap dancing fast typing unicorn wrote the future was to be all about. If the sky starts raining bowling balls what wouild one want me to do about it anyway?

 

Like I said, sometime one has to put in her or his mind what they uinderstand and go on. If someone has another story to tell and it captures my interst and/or imagination I will give it a look at, a serious look at. I remember my family looking at me after a sunday school session where we were told of some miracle of J, and when I inquired of my family about how this could happen they , Mother and Grandmother, indicated that some of the stories re J are told in "storybook fashion". I wasn't told the story was true, false or neutral. I understood from that moment on that all the story-line was up to me alone to interpret, for myself, even as tender naive little boy. It took me a long time to understand the wisdom of my parents then who didn't stuff my head with

their

interpretation of what the books said, or what they meant. I truly weep with joy that I wasn't brainwashed by one of those near and loving to me who took advabntage of my love for them to carve me into a model suitable to their liking. They were satisified that I was in fact working on my mode, my "l project " myself.

 

Geiostkiesel;

[Erasmus00]

Unless you are able to read Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic you cannot possibly try to read the Bible in such a literal sense. The translations from those classic languages to English, even King James' English, makes it look as if all of it can be taken literally. I'm no Greek or Hebrew scholar, but I've been told by some who are that many of the phrases in the original languages are "picture words." Those languages do not lend themselves to a literal translation like we English speaking people crave. (Have you ever tried to translate a Spanish phrase into English in a literal way... it'll make you sound like you have a mental issue to people who know nothing but English)

 

I cannot speak for Greek or Aramaic, but its hard to directly translate Hebrew to English. This is especially true because a lot of the words in the bible are such that nobody remembers what they originally meant. The word for "formless and void" in genesis is one such word, as is the word translated as "of many colors" in the king james bible. Certianly much of the language is meant to be taken figuratively, not entirely at face value.

-Will

[geistkiesel]

There are a couple of folks in this forum who agree with you. I, personally, think that evolutionary theory includes such a broad array of ideas (some of which are nearly contradictory) that I find it hard to agree or disagree with "it", whatever it is. For example, I think natural selection is fine. Speciation by genetic drift is fine. Punctuated equilibrium is fine. I think speciation via mutation is very poorly supported. Am I an evolutionist?

 

But the Biblical evidence for alien manipulation is pretty thin. If you exempt the first 12 chapters of Genesis (whcih are extremely difflcult to interpret because of their age) the plain reading of the Bible does not lead to any statements of extraterrestrial influence.

BioCh,

Certainly there is no direct reference to the alien connection, but matters such a s Sumerian texts (clay), the unexplained acceleration of Sumaria, the "accelerated punctuated equilibria" of humans (what was the estimated acceleration of mankind from the scientific point of view? Was this not too extreme to be considered "puntuated equilibria"?);. Neandrathalls (the other short existent race name escapes me, European?); Annunnaki (Those who from heaven came to earth); The gaza pyramids; E.DIN (Hpme of the Righteous ones); En.KI (Lord of the Earth); Marduk; Epic of Gilgamesh (and the clay written stories paralleling Genesis); UFO sightings throughout history and much more lean me fairly certain at an angle pointing to the alien connection.

 

Regarding the sudden and accelerated appearance of mankind, you must have some slant on this?

 

Likewise the sudden appearance of a sophisticated Sumaria from basically rock chuckers and berry pickers in a few generations arriving at a sophistcated civilization with all the trappings: Law, medicine, eductation, religion, architecture, agricultrure, mathematics, trade, navigation astronomy do not gel in my understanding as arising by some fluke random disposition of mankind to collectively pull their heads out of their butts. These folks needed some serious assistance to pull this one off (hell they still need assistance (if you know what I mean?).

 

My main problem with a pure evolutionary model is there isn't enough time for all this to happen especially if one maintains a Darwinian model that all came from one single least complex cell. Not a batch of least complex cells, but one. I can see simple organic substances created in the goo by the multi-trillions where only a few survived to begin forming serious biological structures. I am hinting at a

parallel model of development

which doesn't requiire mankind splitting from monkeys; after all we all shared in the same bioliogical pool. Some bio-matter is just more similar to each other than other bio-matter.

 

I am not fearful that my distant uncle may have been an ape, nor would I deny the possibility of this as a reality. I just think that my distant uncle was lower than an ape, developmentally that is and would be better described as a jackass more than ape.

 

Geistkiesel

.

[Biochemist]

...Regarding the sudden and accelerated appearance of mankind, you must have some slant on this?...

If you are really interested, most of my thinking on this surfaced in a thread titled "punctuated equilibria theories". It is a pretty biochem-heavy thread, but you will probably get the picture pretty quickly.

Likewise the sudden appearance of a sophisticated Sumaria from basically rock chuckers and berry pickers in a few generations...

I agree that the Sumerians, the Myans, the Incas, the Egyptians and probably a couple others are pretty tough to figure out. Good phrasing- "rock chuckers and berry pickers".

...These folks needed some serious assistance to pull this one off...

I agree this is problematic.

...My main problem with a pure evolutionary model is there isn't enough time for all this to happen especially if one maintains a Darwinian model that all came from one single least complex cell. Not a batch of least complex cells, but one.

I do not believe in speciation via random mutation either.

...Some bio-matter is just more similar to each other than other bio-matter.

Isn't this a paraphrase of George Orwell ("some are more equal than others")? Where is Trotsky when you really need him?

I am not fearful that my distant uncle may have been an ape

Me either. Although I think I would prefer not to be too closely related to a slime mold.

[Biochemist]

Biochemist,Are yopu referring to some claim from myself of ancient Greek and/or Hebrew?

No. I was harassing Skippy.

...It wasn't the Serpent that deceived Eve, it was Yaweh whio lied to her.

Chuckles. To hold this this view you would have to assume that the author of Genesis was a moron. It is fair to suggest this is a minority position. The clean answer to your conundrum is that they did die that day. The more complex answer is that they started to die that day.

...Certainly Adam and Eve weren't in the garden to loll around and just "dig it". They were in the garden to work, period.

Are you saying that they were there to work even before the fall? That is a little at odds with the text. Innovative interpretation, however.

I also see no value, one way or the other, in puting all my nuts in one padded cell.

This is a pretty complex mixed metaphor to decode. But it sounds painful to me anyway.

...I have shied away from Revelation in the NT because everytime I attempt to crack it open I get a gooey jar of skippy peanut butter.

I really wish more folks would adopt your position. Hal Lindsay, for example.

...If someone has another story to tell and it captures my interst and/or imagination I will give it a look at, a serious look at.

The problem I have is that I think Christ actually rose. If true, it has implications.

[Skippy]

I am franlky always a little suspicious of folks that contend their knowledge fo Greek and/or Hebrew is better than the team of folks that wrote the NASB Bible (the one regarded as the most accurate translation). A couple of dozen scholars of both ilks collaborated on this translation. I don't think the issue is whether the translation is accurate. The issue is more related to the intent of the writer, the nature of the audience, and the use of figurative, idiomatic or vernacular language.

 

If someone wrote that I was a "nut" in a canonized document, I am afraid one sect would believe I was hexagonal. chromium and threaded, and another sect would believe that I grew on a tree and was harassed by squirrels.

I believe I said, "I'm no Greek or Hebrew scholar..." In fact, I made the exact point you did. A whole team of individual Hebrew and Greek scholars undertook the task of translation...then they got together and compared their individual notes and agreed on what the original text was if it had originally been written in English.

 

If you had been referred to as "a nut" in the Greek or Hebrew scripture, the translators would have taken into account more than just the two words in quotes above, a nut. As you state, a nut can be the compliment to a bolt, the seed of a plant or someone who is a little off center. In context, it would become clear which of those possible definitions for "a nut" the author intended.

 

Nice try though.

[geistkiesel]

The problem I have is that I think Christ actually rose. If true, it has implications.

 

Yes,

if

J was crucified and arose again, this would have some interesting implications. Even more significant would be that J wasn't crucified. The evidence speaks overwhelmingly to the latter here.

 

If you look at the the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John you see that Pilate declared J innocent of any crimes (in one of the books, Pilate even ordered J released after a "chastisement".), certainly innocent of any crimes against Rome , which was his only concern. Pilate was supposedly intimidated by the crowd screaming for J's death as they wanted Pilate to execute J for them. The reason given that the holiday coming prevented them, the Jew's power elite (so it says. I think everyone in on the scam) from executing J themselves. The Jews could have simply waited a couple of days and then whacked him.

 

Anyway after Pilate finally relents, supposedly intimidated by the crowd, a very unlike event. Pilate did not get the position as Roman Prelate because of personal timidity and fearful that, "Oh my gosh, they're mad at me." and with hand wringing whine, "What should I do?" Pilate was one viscious MF as would be any Roman prelate, commissioner, governor etc.

 

So Pilate agrees and J is taken to non-public place, probably owned by Joseph (Gesthemane?). J doesn't carry the cross which Pilate had carved the words "King of the Jews". A another man, Simon, carried the cross for J (the same one providing the sponge filled with what, Belladona?. There weren't witnesses, certainly no multitudes witnessed the event, as the women, Mary mother of J, Mary his wife and two or three other women, etc looked on from "afar". Joseph asked for J's body as he, Joseph had a new tomb, prepared for J. Quite suspicious. Anyway Pilate agreed (maybe some quid pro quo for the Roman unit conducting the "crucifixion" procedure as grease to insure the smooth running of the event?) , though this was certainly against policy as the Romans wanted the public spectacle of crucified bodies hung out to view as a warning to those who would mess with Rome. History does not show any evidence that Roman law or policy was such that they would free someione convicted of sedition to please the Jewish inhabitants as a "gift" from Rome, an indication that they, the Romans were really kind of good guys. Anyway, Pilate agrees, and is surprised that J is dead as it had been only a few hours since supposedly being strung up. He asked the centurion captain if J was already dead. The centurion answers in the affirmative. Some references have the average time to death for a crucifixion as approximately 3 days. Jesus lasts 9 hours? There was no historical evidence for any earthquakes or abnormal events.

 

The next day some of J's desciples saw him eating cheese and fish etc , pinched hm and spoke to him wondering what was happening. J gave an ambiguous reply. Dead? resurrected? BioCh, I would suspect very strongly that you do not treat your science and chemistry with the same kind of loose interpretation and acceptance of data as you are asked to accept from the good book. You don't periodically, or ever, treat a an experimental results that might seem "anomolous" as an exception to chemical law on the grounds that "maybe this is an exception to natural law", do you? You enquire, you read carefully between the lines, you do not accept results based on the popularity of the experimentor, the percentage of scientists holding any particlular belief about a matter under contest or consideration, do you? You do not make scientific conclusions based on your desires for a particular result to be true just because you may have held a contrary belief before you reviewed the evidence overturning what you had previously believed, do you?

 

This is very short account of what I conclude occured. J had an agenda which was to be recognized as the Kig of the Jews, descendant of the hose of David, even entering Jeruselem on the back of an *** as predicted in the OT. Of course death and resrrection was not an uncommon event in those times, and before and since, when a politician needed suport to enhance his position.

 

Lazarus was J's brother in-law so it wasn't a difficult matter to arrange a convenient "bringing another back to life", The wedding at Caanan was another. Questin BioCH: Who is responsible for providig wine at Jewish weddings? Did you say the groom? Right. J would have been looked at very stranmgely had he, a rabbi, not been married and at an eaerly age.

 

Question again: Whoorders servants around at social events? Guests? No. When Mary, Mother of J, ordered the servants at the wedding to do whatever J told them to do, who but the hostesss, or authority at the wedding, would do such a thing? Think about it. Nobody except the principal would order the servants such as Mary did.

 

I do not offer the above as prof of anything, but if Iwere ajudge and was asks to try someone, say Pilate, for killing J I would dismiss the charges. AS a juror, i would find no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt hat anyine was dead. This is especially so as the evidence shows witnesses had J walking around being j, eating, talking to hios desciples, etc.

 

If J "died for us [forgiving our sins]", what is the big deal? He certainly wasn't dead as the common folks then and today use the word "dead". The heaven described in the bible was a place one would want to be, not avoid. So what is the great sacrifice J made for mankind?

 

The bible is not contradictory. It tells the story of ap erson, J, designing his life in order to be recognized as King of the Jews, and he basically suicceeded. Those who talk of "original sin" ought to read the bible. Thee is no such attribute of mankind at least as stated by J. After healing the blind man and being asked by one of his desciples why the man was blind and "was he a sinner?", J responded, "No the man has not sinned, nor did his parents" ( I am paraphrasing slightly). Does this not show that not everyone is a sinner? Answer yes. Also, wasn't the blind man a stranger to the vicinity where this healing ocured? Didn't J meet the man outside the villiage boundanries? Ws this another 'setup'?

 

I think if people would start to understand that the truth read into the bible is 'truth' only as far as their acceptance of it is concerned.

 

BioCh, here is a question for you: How many people calling themsleves"Christian" are really followers of and obedient to, the word of J? Not many correct? Who among the multitudes read the bible? How many preachers actually preach Matthew 6:1-6? Here J, the Master and King tells the reader than when they pray , do not do so like the hypocrites who pray on the avenues and in the synagogue soi all can see how righteous they are? Who prays as J teaches, to "go into your room anad lock the door""? Who understands that the lord's prayer as stated by J was an example prayer to be performed in the privacy of one's room? How many preachers openly use the lord's prayer as tool for publ;ic oratory?

 

It isn't me who writes heresy here, is it? Compare what I have wrotten with any Pope you know. Who has ever seen, heard or witnessed Geistkiesel praying in public?, or even praying?

 

No, I trust in my interpretation that the book is what it is. OK, maybe it is "the word of God", but who, with a fraction of a scintilla of sanity wiould want to spend even a second in that god's presence? Much less listen to what he has to say? And even much, much less to spend eternity with the SOB? I say, if and when, the god of the old testament returns to our beautiful planet on his chariot in the sky, that we all process him as quickly and expediently as possible through a wood chipper.

Geistkiesel

[Southtown]

BioCh, here is a question for you: How many people calling themsleves"Christian" are really followers of and obedient to, the word of J? Not many correct? Who among the multitudes read the bible? How many preachers actually preach Matthew 6:1-6? Here J, the Master and King tells the reader than when they pray , do not do so like the hypocrites who pray on the avenues and in the synagogue soi all can see how righteous they are? Who prays as J teaches, to "go into your room anad lock the door""? Who understands that the lord's prayer as stated by J was an example prayer to be performed in the privacy of one's room? How many preachers openly use the lord's prayer as tool for publ;ic oratory?

True, good point. Every Christian could use such perceptory skills. But, are you trying to assess an original by analyzing a counterfeit?

 

No, I trust in my interpretation that the book is what it is. OK, maybe it is "the word of God", but who, with a fraction of a scintilla of sanity wiould want to spend even a second in that god's presence? Much less listen to what he has to say? And even much, much less to spend eternity with the SOB?

Me.

[Biochemist]

...Even more significant would be that J wasn't crucified. The evidence speaks overwhelmingly to the latter here.

You have an odd view of what "overwhelming" means. We ran a whole thread on this topic ("Is Jesus' resurrection plauisible?"- probably in the Philosophy forum- before we had a Theology forum) and you might want to read it. I am not surprised that some folks do not believe Christ rose. But it is absolutely untrue to say that the evidence against it is overwhelming.

BioCh, I would suspect very strongly that you do not treat your science and chemistry with the same kind of loose interpretation and acceptance of data as you are asked to accept from the good book.

You are probably correct. I am a lot tougher on things spiritual.

...You do not make scientific conclusions based on your desires for a particular result to be true ...

No, although that is all to commonly the way of science. You are, however, comparing experiment to history. There are indeed a number of real anomalies surrounding the resurrectrion events. Making them anomalies does not make them untrue. Christ's resurrection is certainly an anomaly.

...J had an agenda which was to be recognized as the Kig of the Jews, descendant of the hose of David, even entering Jeruselem on the back of an *** as predicted in the OT....

You might know that there are a number or folks on this site who do not believe Jesus ever existed. So, the very same evidence you are using to suggest that Christ had His own agenda is also used to prove that He never existed. Hmmmm.

Questin BioCH: Who is responsible for providig wine at Jewish weddings? Did you say the groom? Right. J would have been looked at very stranmgely had he, a rabbi, not been married and at an eaerly age.

I do understand the theories about Jesus being married. I think these are a bit of a stretch.

If J "died for us [forgiving our sins]", what is the big deal? He certainly wasn't dead as the common folks then and today use the word "dead". The heaven described in the bible was a place one would want to be, not avoid. So what is the great sacrifice J made for mankind?

Jesus fulfilled the "atonement" requirement as set forth in the OT. His death would have been required for such a feat. His resurrection was the power demonstration.

The bible is not contradictory. It tells the story of ap erson, J, designing his life in order to be recognized as King of the Jews, and he basically suicceeded.

Hey, we agree on something.

Those who talk of "original sin" ought to read the bible.

I think you are taking a narrow view of the doctrine of original sin. Frankly, I don't talk about it much, since it is quite confusing (I think). But the gospel passages (such as the blind mand in John 9) do not overturn the doctrine. The core of the doctrine is that we are born into sin before we ever commit one. Jesus was probably using "sin" in the sense that the Pharisees did, not in the sense that we typically do now.

... How many people calling themsleves"Christian" are really followers of and obedient to, the word of J? Not many correct?

Very true.

. ...I trust in my interpretation that the book is what it is. OK, maybe it is "the word of God", but who, with a fraction of a scintilla of sanity wiould want to spend even a second in that god's presence?

I am pleased that you take the time to read the book. I hope you continue to do so, even though you are not pleased with your view of the implications. The Bible does things to you (as suggested in Hebrews 4:12). I hope it keeps doing it.

[geistkiesel]

You have an odd view of what "overwhelming" means. We ran a whole thread on this topic ("Is Jesus' resurrection plauisible?"- probably in the Philosophy forum- before we had a Theology forum) and you might want to read it. I am not surprised that some folks do not believe Christ rose. But it is absolutely untrue to say that the evidence against it is overwhelming. You are probably correct. I am a lot tougher on things spiritual. No, although that is all to commonly the way of science. You are, however, comparing experiment to history. There are indeed a number of real anomalies surrounding the resurrectrion events. Making them anomalies does not make them untrue. Christ's resurrection is certainly an anomaly. You might know that there are a number or folks on this site who do not believe Jesus ever existed. So, the very same evidence you are using to suggest that Christ had His own agenda is also used to prove that He never existed. Hmmmm. I do understand the theories about Jesus being married. I think these are a bit of a stretch.Jesus fulfilled the "atonement" requirement as set forth in the OT. His death would have been required for such a feat. His resurrection was the power demonstration.Hey, we agree on something.I think you are taking a narrow view of the doctrine of original sin. Frankly, I don't talk about it much, since it is quite confusing (I think). But the gospel passages (such as the blind mand in John 9) do not overturn the doctrine. The core of the doctrine is that we are born into sin before we ever commit one. Jesus was probably using "sin" in the sense that the Pharisees did, not in the sense that we typically do now.Very true.I am pleased that you take the time to read the book. I hope you continue to do so, even though you are not pleased with your view of the implications. The Bible does things to you (as suggested in Hebrews 4:12). I hope it keeps doing it.

I can assume that the resurrection uis not a matter of historical or scientific proof, rather it is a matter of belief in you case. Is this a correct assessment?

 

The marriage of J does not perturb Jesus' position as a divinity, at least as I see it. J, being referred to as 'Rabbi' would have been seriously questioned, looked at, scrutinized with suspicion, had he not been married as was the custom at the time. The marriage celebration described must have been jesus' wedding.

 

Who is responsible for providing the wine at these events? The groom.

 

Who but a principal at the wedding would be ordering the servants around, such as Jesus' mother ordering the servants to do what Jesus told them to do? Why speculate here and suggest, that Mary was just a simple guest. When the party maitre' d' congratulated the provider of the wine for saving the best for the latter part of the party he must have been talking to Jesus, the one who provided th wine, correct? Would the bible lie to us? Is the bible playing mind games with the reader? Are we being giving the right to interpret as we see fit? Are we told that we must resolve any ambiguities as it is our personal desire to do so?

 

Otherwise, you are left with saying that Jesus, unbeknownst to anyone else, other than the servants, miracled the wine into existence and then let the "real" groom, another person who knew trhat he, the other person, didn't provide the wine, yet he was willing to take credit for saving the best for last. Does the bible allow this lie to be perpetuated?

 

When then did it become popularized that Jesus turned water into wine? How could the miracle be associated with Jesus? Would Jesus let the servants be the totality of the advertising of the event of the miracle? Could Jesus effectively just claim it as an event he brought about? This doesn't make sense, escially when the point of the miracles was to be known as the author of those miraculous events?

 

The marriage ceremony was Jesus'.

 

You are correct, the bible does things to me. It clears away the years of forced fog that was imposed on me from external sources, not just the religious sources at that. Jesus didn't die for us. That would have required what we refer today as a suicidal mind set. Jesus lived for us, if you will, and he probably lived to a ripe old age in Southern France most likely and probably had a substantial family he and Mary produced..

 

No where in the bible does Jesus emphisize the details of condition that Jesus was correcting with his 'sacrifice' which turns out to be other than a sacrifice. Doens't Jesus tell us that the way to eternal life is to love god with all one's mind, soul and heart? So what benefit does his suicide grant us? And suicide it was. Hell, the whole thing leading up to the last supper was known ahead of time. Jesus wasn't reading messages from god predicting that Judas was going to give him up,it was Judas' function to drop a dime on Jesus, to rat him out. It was planned! Jesus had an agenda remember? What better way to be known as devine than to rise from the dead? Jusus wasn't the first in history to use3 this little scenario to gain recognition as the biggest dog on the block, was he?

 

Geistkiesel[/indent]

[Skippy]

Yes,

if

J was crucified and arose again, this would have some interesting implications. Even more significant would be that J wasn't crucified. The evidence speaks overwhelmingly to the latter here.Geistkiesel

How can someone as learned as yourself have totally missed uncontroversial historical writers like Josephus who wrote about Jesus' being crucifeid? His writings have not been cannonized - so you will probably be more accepting of them.

[Biochemist]

I can assume that the resurrection uis not a matter of historical or scientific proof, rather it is a matter of belief in you case. Is this a correct assessment?

No. The history on the event is strong, although there are certainly a lot of folks who now contend that Jesus either 1) never existed, 2) was misinterpreted, or 3) was misquoted. Each of those theories are incompatible with each other, however. The historical support for Jesus is stronger than any ancient contemporary. If you want to mull the resurrection details check out the thread "Is Jesus' resurrection plausible." You will note that I did not change anybody's opinion in that thread. I did not expect to.

 

Paul did not question the resurrection (see I Cor 15), nor did he take it by faith. More importantly, Paul makes the point in 1Cor 15 that if Jesus did not rise, Christianity is meaningless. Absolutely meaningless.

 

Not a particularly vague chapter.

 

All of the apostles were dramatically changed as a consequence of seeing the risen Christ. It is pretty hard to explain their behavior if this was all a fabrication. Unless they caught a psychosis-schizophrenia virus from Christ, their behavior suggests they took His resurrection not only as fact, but as a basis for corroboration of other stuff He said.

 

If one does not believe Christ rose, it is pretty senseless (Biblically) to consider oneself a Christian.

[Biochemist]

...You are correct, the bible does things to me. It clears away the years of forced fog that was imposed on me from external sources...

I do sincerely hope you keep reading it. It is reasonable to expect that your theology will change after a couple of decades in it. Mine certainly has.

...Jesus didn't die for us. That would have required what we refer today as a suicidal mind set. Jesus lived for us, if you will...No where in the bible does Jesus emphisize the details of condition that Jesus was correcting with his 'sacrifice' which turns out to be other than a sacrifice.

Paul is much clearer on the mechanics of the propitiation/resurrection schema than Jesus was. Most of the book of Romans (at least through Romans 8) maps out the plan that God fulfilled in Jesus. Ephesians 2 is a good short course. Other verses/passages also capture it. Example: 2Cor 5:21- "He made Him who knew no sin be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

 

There is probably no more common theme in the New Testament. For good reason.

 

Hebrews is pretty good detail of the propitiation schema as well, although written more for the frame of reference of a Jewish reader

[Skippy]

I think you are taking a narrow view of the doctrine of original sin. Frankly, I don't talk about it much, since it is quite confusing (I think). But the gospel passages (such as the blind mand in John 9) do not overturn the doctrine. The core of the doctrine is that we are born into sin before we ever commit one. Jesus was probably using "sin" in the sense that the Pharisees did, not in the sense that we typically do now.

I agree that it is encouraging to hear when someone, anyone is reading The Bible, but reading it with a closed mind will not do anyone any good. Since geistkiesel is convinced that the Bible is a fictional book, he will find incongruencies where none exist.

 

My understanding of the concept of "Original Sin" is that we are all decendants of Adam and Eve and because of their sin in the Garden, eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, we all share in the predispostion to sin - Romans 3:23. I have two children, without being taught and before they could reason out that their mother or I had lied to them, they would lie when asked if they had done something bad. They would hit or bite when they didn't get their way. They would take something which didn't belong to them. It was up to my wife and I to teach them that those things were wrong, and later that those things were sins.

 

The religious leaders of that time were giving the best explanation they had for a child being born blind/deaf/lame/dead... it must have been the parent's sins because the child had not yet sinned himself. They were also making a stretch on the verses when God gave The 10 Commandments to the Israelites, "...for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me..." - Ex 20:5

[Biochemist]

I agree that it is encouraging to hear when someone, anyone is reading The Bible, but reading it with a closed mind will not do anyone any good. ...

I appreciate your point, Skip. But I really do think the Bible is special. When I am with a bunch of conservative folks, I usually describe it as "magic", becasue it tends to shake their trees a little bit. I think that anyone reading the Bible can be(and often is) moved by it, even if they are reading it for a hostile purpose.

 

Did you notice how there were a number of participants that started conversation in this thread by noting that the Bible is rife with contradiction (in various words)? I asked that they come back with examples. Other than the normal discusions about genesis 1-12, and the confusing (as opposed to contradictory) texts of Jesus Himself, nothing else has surfaced. My hope is that some folks actually looked at the book.

 

I look forward to hearing back form those folks in this forum.

[Skippy]

I appreciate your point, Skip. But I really do think the Bible is special. When I am with a bunch of conservative folks, I usually describe it as "magic", becasue it tends to shake their trees a little bit. I think that anyone reading the Bible can be(and often is) moved by it, even if they are reading it for a hostile purpose.

 

Did you notice how there were a number of participants that started conversation in this thread by noting that the Bible is rife with contradiction (in various words)? I asked that they come back with examples. Other than the normal discusions about genesis 1-12, and the confusing (as opposed to contradictory) texts of Jesus Himself, nothing else has surfaced. My hope is that some folks actually looked at the book.

 

I look forward to hearing back form those folks in this forum.

Jesus said, "unless you come as a child, you will not enter into the kingdom of God."

 

I agree that The Bible is special and reading it can change a person's life. My point is that geistkiesel is hostile to what he is reading because he is prejudiced against its message and premise. Therefore he will always find something wrong with the text - contradictory, illogical, questionable origins, supposed historical inaccuracies... the whole gamut. In my experience, most Bible teaching/interpretation errors are due to a lack of a willingness to stick to the text and/or stay true to the context.

[Biochemist]

Jesus said, "unless you come as a child, you will not enter into the kingdom of God."

 

I agree that The Bible is special and reading it can change a person's life. My point is that geistkiesel is hostile to what he is reading because he is prejudiced against its message and premise....

Maybe. But I suspect that God regards me as hostile sometimes as well. He seems to have been extraordinarily patient with me. Maybe He will grab GK. Stranger stuff has happenned. Paul was acting pretty hostile when God grabbed him.