[randilover]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Luckily, my education has provided me with the flexibility to be able to move from the scientific definition of proof to the concept of historically accepted fact.

By the way, why would you want to try and scientifically prove that man landed on the moon ? What would your hypothesis be?

You made me laugh on this one.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

However, the existance of the historical figure Jesus Christ does not mean that the Bible (or even the New Testament) is a completely factual account. As far as I know there are no supporting accounts of the resurrection, or any of the other miracles. The virgin birth is not likely open to historical analysis.

If you take the Bible as a whole, this is true. However, don’t forget the Bible is a collection of books (66, by 44 different authors, I think), not one in and of itself. Therefore, you actually have 4 accounts of the resurrection if you count the gospels. There are other references in the other books as well. Don’t discount that fact based on the perception that to us in the West it is one book.

j/k

Originally Posted by smsmith40

AS far as the Biblical contradictions they are many and varied, below is a fairly full list, good luck explaining them all away.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

I will check some of these out, maybe I can lump them into catagories, however, I have to deal with the strawman conditions he puts up in the beginning. He kind of says defend them, only you can’t defend them this way because I don’t like these ways. Case in point, he talks about context (#3). Context is important. If I told you the in the Psalms it says, "There is not God," you’d stand up and cheer, exclaiming we told you so. If I put that verse in context, "The fool says in his heart, ‘There is not God,’" you’d sit back down. Right? See the next post for each of his arguments.

Second, the Bible is an Eastern document, and despite the fact that it may not seem right in our Western way of thinking, they did not care so much about necessarily getting the right order of things, or things you and I would deem important (like colors of robes). But the concept is there, that Jesus was wearing a royal robe since he was mocked as a king by the Roman guards. Or how they say they have two different accounts of creation and Noah’s flood. There was no problem for the Easterner to go back in the middle of a story and retell a particular part of the story to apply a different point. So there is not really a problem with saying God created man, taking a step back, and then going over how God created the animals in the next paragraph, especially to the Hebrew writer. Get what I am saying?

But I’ll take a look at the contradictions. Some of them are amusing.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

But frankly, I would expect the Bible to be full of inconsistencies, any collection of historical accounts will be. The Bible is an excellent historical source, but unless it is backed up or supported by other documents then the events it describes will not be accepted as historical fact, especially the more "unusual" events.

This is the same test that is applied to any other historical document,

I agree. I know in detective work, if they get the same story from a bunch of different witnesses, it’s more suspicious than if the stories are slightly varied, as conspiracy is a possibility. It’s one of the reasons why the Bible is considered reliable.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

The only events that should be accepted as "facts" from the book are those that can be verified from other sources.

Maybe, but that doesn’t discount what he is saying as true. Just because he says it and no one else does, does not mean that what he said was not true. It just means you can back it up with another source.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

As a historical document this is how I see the Bible, an excellent primary source. To use an example from the website above, Matthew (27:34) says that Jesus wore a scarlet robe to his trial, Mark (15:23) says it was purple, its a minor inconsistecy that doesn't bother the historian who can reasonably conclude that Jesus wore a robe to his trial. The only problem comes if you are trying to assert that the bible is NOT a historical document but is instead the infallible Word of God.

See above on this one.