I find it really interesting to study the Bible... not necessarily content-wise, but the history of how it was written, by whom, and why. Over 40 authors, from 40 generations, written over a period of 1500 years. How could it have NOT been written with divine guidance?

This question came up earlier, but I don't think anyone ever attempted to answer it.

If YOU and YOUR FRIENDS had to write an instruction book for life in the year 2007, how well do you think the lessons would translate in the year 4007? What would people say about your 'wisdom?' How could it be possible to write a book today that would even be around in two thousand years??

One other question: If you don't believe in God, how do you think the men who authored the Bible figured out what to write? And how did they keep the project going for 1500 years in a time with such limited means of communication, travel and knowledge?

What do you think?

:)
SMW

Bible Facts – The Books of the Bible

The Old Testament has 17 Historical, 5 Poetical, and 17 Prophetic books in it.

The 17 Historical Books are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.
The 5 Poetical Books are: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon,
The 17 Prophetic Books are: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

The New Testament has 4 Gospels, Acts, 21 Epistles, and Revelation in it.

The 4 Gospels are: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
The 21 Epistles are: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude.

Bible Facts – Miscellaneous Facts
The Bible contains 1189 chapters.
The Old Testament has 929 chapters and the New Testament has 260 chapters.
The longest chapter in the Bible is Psalm 119, and the shortest is Psalm 117.
The longest verse is Esther 8:9, and the shortest is John 11:35.

The Bible was written:

over a 1500 year span (from 1400 B.C to A.D. 100)
over 40 generations
over 40 authors from many walks of life (i.e. - kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, statesmen, scholars)
in different places (i.e. - wilderness, dungeon, palaces)
at different times (i.e. - war, peace)
in different moods (i.e. - heights of joy, depths of despair)
on three continents (Asia, Africa, and Europe)
in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek)

In the year 2007, the Bible remains the best-selling book in the world.

What do you think?


That "the Bible" is a collection of only some of the gospels, compiled by groups of powerful men for purposes of their own.

Sure it has a lot of good wisdom in it, but so do the Gnostic gospels.

I'm actually taking a course right now at school called The Bible as Literature. We look at the writing of the Bible, when different parts were written, which parts are definitely historical, and the literary symbolism and themes. It's really a very interesting class. I'm in the middle of writing an essay about how the Myth of the Fall affects our perception as a culture. of things like guilt, sex, time, innocence, experience, and sin. (us meaning the western world and any societies in which Christians, Jews, and Muslims have a majority)

I'm writing my culminating assignment for the class, a research paper, on the book of Esther.

Theres plenty of people who hear voices in their head that claim to be God....
I'm in the middle of writing an essay about how the Myth of the Fall affects our perception as a culture. of things like guilt, sex, time, innocence, experience, and sin. (us meaning the western world and any societies in which Christians, Jews, and Muslims have a majority) Sounds interesting. I wrote one based on the myth of the 'fall' that was a justaposition with the myth of the "discovery" of America. You know, naked, ignorant, 'higher power,' the whole sctick. Not on the computer I have ATM otherwise I'd post it.

I'm actually taking a course right now at school called The Bible as Literature. We look at the writing of the Bible, when different parts were written, which parts are definitely historical, and the literary symbolism and themes. It's really a very interesting class. I'm in the middle of writing an essay about how the Myth of the Fall affects our perception as a culture. of things like guilt, sex, time, innocence, experience, and sin. (us meaning the western world and any societies in which Christians, Jews, and Muslims have a majority)

I'm writing my culminating assignment for the class, a research paper, on the book of Esther.

Hey DF I took that course... interesting and challenging...

Over 40 authors, from 40 generations, written over a period of 1500 years. How could it have NOT been written with divine guidance?

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here.


One other question: If you don't believe in God, how do you think the men who authored the Bible figured out what to write?

Any of various ways that are used by authors to write books today. Fiction writers use their imagination, history writers do research etc. I would imagine the same holds true for the authors of the various books of the Bible. It's really difficult to speculate on the motives of an unknown author.


And how did they keep the project going for 1500 years in a time with such limited means of communication, travel and knowledge?

What do you think?

I think it's unlikely that the Bible you read today is the result of a "project" that spanned 1500 years. The authors probably had different motives than those who compiled the original works into the first Bible, and the various editors, translators and publishers over the years have all added their personal touch to the book.

Lovely sig pic 500. :rolleyes:

Hey DF I took that course... interesting and challenging...
It's very interesting but so far not very challenging. Then again a class that's a combination of an english class and a history class... That's my best subject combined with my favorite subject. Plus since I'm considering a conversion to some sort of Christianity I find it even more interesting.

If YOU and YOUR FRIENDS had to write an instruction book for life in the year 2007, how well do you think the lessons would translate in the year 4007? What would people say about your 'wisdom?' How could it be possible to write a book today that would even be around in two thousand years??

If one were to write a book that would be around for thousands of years, I would be guessing it would have to be a very good account on human nature. The WAY people work, not so much as to what they do. The best example I can think up of is Aesop's Fables, Sun Tzu's "The Art of War," and another written by a Japanese Samurai titled "The Book of the Nine Rings." ALL have to do with pointing out the way people work. Again, this is a guess and an example.

I believe that the Bible has been around for as long as it has because it does two things.

First off, the Bible provides "answers." How did the world come about, why there's disease, why we Baptize children, and other things that I'm able to think of on the spot but are no doubt there, dammit.

Secondly, the Bible does provide hope for those who believe. There IS a God, he loves you, he is looking out for you, he protects you,he gave us his only Son who died for our sins. If you believe in God and let Jesus into your heart, you're soul will be allowed into his Kingdom where eternal life and happiness await you. A lot of people are comforted by that hope and they find comfort in their own lives by reading the Bible and finding parallels in their own lives to what people had to endure in Biblica times.

Something like that, dammit.

It's very interesting but so far not very challenging. Then again a class that's a combination of an english class and a history class... That's my best subject combined with my favorite subject. Plus since I'm considering a conversion to some sort of Christianity I find it even more interesting.

Well glad you are finding it interesting if not challenging. You are very bright so I am sure you will sail through it.

Question for you DF... how can one convert unless one is called? Just curious... Do you feel called to convert? I do not know if you will understand what I mean or if it is clear. If unclear I will try to reword it so that you know where I am coming from with the question.

If YOU and YOUR FRIENDS had to write an instruction book for life in the year 2007, how well do you think the lessons would translate in the year 4007? What would people say about your 'wisdom?' How could it be possible to write a book today that would even be around in two thousand years??



Just ask the followers of L. Ron Hubbard.

I don't follow Scientology or Dianetics, but I think it's interesting how one guy could write a book and in just a few years it has become both gospel and religion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard

Just ask the followers of L. Ron Hubbard.

I don't follow Scientology or Dianetics, but I think it's interesting how one guy could write a book and in just a few years it has become both gospel and religion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard
Sparky, don't ever buy any books from those Scientology folks. I bought one in the 80's and I'm STILL on their mailing list!! Actually, it was a pretty good book on child-rearing called Miracles for Breakfast. Not worth 30 years of receiving flyers in the mail - which I'm sure my postman spreads rumors about over coffee breaks. (well, maybe not)

Good news is... L. Ron has a very limited, although faithful, audience. Doubt his name will still be thrown around a few centuries from now, much less a few thousand years.

:)
SMW

Very interesting responses, y'all. And DF, I do hope you'll share some of what you're learning in that class.

Even if one doesn't believe in 'divine inspiration' behind the writing of the book -- it's still a fascinating example of something that's endured throughout the ages.

40 generations of authors. Amazing.

:)
SMW

I'm actually taking a course right now at school called The Bible as Literature. We look at the writing of the Bible, when different parts were written, which parts are definitely historical, and the literary symbolism and themes. It's really a very interesting class. I'm in the middle of writing an essay about how the Myth of the Fall affects our perception as a culture. of things like guilt, sex, time, innocence, experience, and sin. (us meaning the western world and any societies in which Christians, Jews, and Muslims have a majority)

I'm writing my culminating assignment for the class, a research paper, on the book of Esther.

That sounds very interesting, DF. Hope it goes well for you.

:)
Kimi

If YOU and YOUR FRIENDS had to write an instruction book for life in the year 2007, how well do you think the lessons would translate in the year 4007? What would people say about your 'wisdom?' How could it be possible to write a book today that would even be around in two thousand years??

One other question: If you don't believe in God, how do you think the men who authored the Bible figured out what to write? And how did they keep the project going for 1500 years in a time with such limited means of communication, travel and knowledge?

What do you think?


Simply put, I think the authors of the Bible, and those they worked for, were simply looking for a way of control in times where control was easy because most people were ignorant. The book was easily perpetuated by the church as means of continued control over the people.

...in times where control was easy because most people were ignorant.

LOL... not that we'll ever know this, P, but don't you think people in the year 4007 will be saying the same thing about US? Or are we as smart as the human race is ever gonna get?

;)
SMW

Simply put, I think the authors of the Bible, and those they worked for, were simply looking for a way of control in times where control was easy because most people were ignorant. The book was easily perpetuated by the church as means of continued control over the people.


You make it sound like church is this big organization that keeps people on a choke collar. Its the people in the church that help keep it going. You should try it sometime. I promise you they won't whip you if you choose to leave.

:rolleyes:

Not to mention using a term like 'the church' makes it sound like there's only one. There're as many different kinds of churches as there are different kinds of people.

Not to mention using a term like 'the church' makes it sound like there's only one. There're as many different kinds of churches as there are different kinds of people.


:thumbs:

I'm glad I dont have a struggle in belief. Reading what some of these people say....makes my head hurt.

I guess that just comes back to what peace truly is.

Actually, biblically speaking, there really is only one church. The bible does use the term "church" in reference to individual congregations, but more often it uses the term in reference to all believers - regardless of which local congregation they are a part of. According to Paul, the "church" is the mystical "body of Christ", of which Christ is the "head". It refers to all those who are spiritally united with Christ and share in His Life.

Thanks for your input. Guess people who lived in that age would be amazed at how many different kind of places call themselves 'churches' today, eh?

:)
SMW

LOL... not that we'll ever know this, P, but don't you think people in the year 4007 will be saying the same thing about US? Or are we as smart as the human race is ever gonna get?
No, the ignorant population has just shrunk.
Phyrex should have worded that better so as not to shortchange our ancestors. People weren't stupid or really ignorant, they just had limited resources. Religion has always been just a way to fill in the gaps of what can't be explained by physical means. If they couldn't find a physical reasoning for what somethig was, it was attributed to god. Gravity stopped being attributed to god with Aristotle's half assed explaination.

You make it sound like church is this big organization that keeps people on a choke collar. Its the people in the church that help keep it going. You should try it sometime. I promise you they won't whip you if you choose to leave.
Are you unaware of the history of the Catholic church? Protestantism isn't as old as the bible, you know.

You're right, BBlob. In fact, the move away from the Catholic Church was indeed a tumultuous time in history.

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

German reformer and founder of the Lutheran church
Martin Luther.

Luther is the most famous of all the reformers, for he is credited with initiating the Protestant reformation on October 31, 1517 when he nailed his now famous "95 Theses" objecting to the Catholic indulgence doctrine to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany.

Martin Luther was originally a Roman Catholic monk and scholar who soon found himself objecting not only to the abuses in his Church, but more crucially, to some of its doctrines, or teachings. After the publication of his "95 Theses," Luther found himself in more and more trouble with Church authorities so that by 1519 he finally broke with the Church and went on to write and preach and through these activities, continue the work of the Reformation.

Theological premises

Luther finally came up with three main premises, which are also accepted by many other Protestant groups. Christians should believe in:

Justification by faith (it is through faith only that Christians will be saved, not by Good Works as the Catholic Church maintained)

The primacy of Scripture (the literal meaning of the Bible should be preferred to any traditional or learned readings, and anything not specifically grounded in Scripture was to be rejected)

The "priest-hood of all believers" (ordained priests were not the only ones who should be considered members of the "true spiritual estate," so here Luther did away with the priesthood, though many Protestant groups still use ministers or pastors to lead others)

Simply put, I think the authors of the Bible, and those they worked for, were simply looking for a way of control in times where control was easy because most people were ignorant. The book was easily perpetuated by the church as means of continued control over the people.

That could be. I dont see any evidence supporting it, but that doesnt mean there isnt any.
I know the King James was writen the way it was writen because the nobles of the time talked that way.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: And why are there so many contradicitons in the bible? There is so much contrary evidence against the historical accuracy of the bible that the term"biblical archaeology" has now been discarded in professional archaeology! And people are still gullible enough to believe it is inspired by some devine being!

nothing written 2000 yrs ago is gonna hold well now. especially when a lot of books written were banned, forgotten, or buried and not allowed into the bible accepted by the church. remember it was a bunch of power hungry assholes who decided what got printed and what got buried.

nothing written 2000 yrs ago is gonna hold well now. especially when a lot of books written were banned, forgotten, or buried and not allowed into the bible accepted by the church. remember it was a bunch of power hungry assholes who decided what got printed and what got buried.
I guess the part that puzzles me is how a bunch of 'power hungry assholes' were able to maintain control of what got into the Bible and what didn't... for 40 generations! Must've been the Kennedy's earliest ancestors?

:)
SMW

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: And why are there so many contradicitons in the bible? There is so much contrary evidence against the historical accuracy of the bible that the term"biblical archaeology" has now been discarded in professional archaeology! And people are still gullible enough to believe it is inspired by some devine being!
Maybe because there are so many contradictions in LIFE?

Can you give me an example of contrary evidence that can be PROVEN?

No one has any idea what the world will be like in 4007 SMW. Just like those that wrote the Bible 2000 years ago knew what the world would be like today. Hell, no one knew what the world was going to be like 100 years ago today. The people that wrote the Bible, had no idea what audience they were going to be writing to in the future, so they wrote for the audience they had at that time. Most, and by most I mean 99% of people were not learned people. They lived only to grow their crops, heard their sheep and lived day to day. The smart ones wished to control these people, and it seemed to work pretty well up until the industrial revolution. It's true that Christianity is so ingrained into the the world now, but I think thats it most simply a matter of popularity.
Christianity to me, seems like the preferred religion. You have the right to choose your religion, at least in this country, why do people choose Christianity over other religions? It's the best one, thats why. They could just as easily be letting Allah or Buddha into their hearts as much as Jesus. But Christianity got lucky, they spent hundreds of years waging wars on all non-believers, and they came out on top, and very wealthy. And money was everything then as it is now. They powers that be used this power to perpetuate Christianity to all corners of the globe.

[QUOTE=smartmouthwoman]I guess the part that puzzles me is how a bunch of 'power hungry assholes' were able to maintain control of what got into the Bible and what didn't... for 40 generations! Must've been the Kennedy's earliest ancestors?

Do I detect a note of irreverence.Well ya can't blame the Catholic Church.
Little Joe Kennedy Jr. OR Joseph Patrick Kennedy II the eldest son
of Robert F. Kennedy was a Congressman in Mass. from
1987-1999.He went off the deep end after his 1st Wife {Sheila Rauch}
said things about him.Apparently the Kennedy's have enough clout,
moola and backing to have even the Vaulted Roman Catholic Church
Pull strings in Roman and declare the marriage Annulled,on a
mere technicality,therefore clearing the way for Little Joe to
have a divorce and carry On,like most Kennedy's and have
Womanizing sessions,as a matter of course.
If The Kennedy's can drum up a Bogus Annullment,then by golly
The Bible can be inspired by less than Prophets.

[QUOTE=smartmouthwoman]I guess the part that puzzles me is how a bunch of 'power hungry assholes' were able to maintain control of what got into the Bible and what didn't... for 40 generations! Must've been the Kennedy's earliest ancestors?

Do I detect a note of irreverence.Well ya can't blame the Catholic Church.
Little Joe Kennedy Jr. OR Joseph Patrick Kennedy II the eldest son
of Robert F. Kennedy was a Congressman in Mass. from
1987-1999.He went off the deep end after his 1st Wife {Sheila Rauch}
said things about him.Apparently the Kennedy's have enough clout,
moola and backing to have even the Vaulted Roman Catholic Church
Pull strings in Roman and declare the marriage Annulled,on a
mere technicality,therefore clearing the way for Little Joe to
have a divorce and carry On,like most Kennedy's and have
Womanizing sessions,as a matter of course.
If The Kennedy's can drum up a Bogus Annullment,then by golly
The Bible can be inspired by less than Prophets.
LOL, you're right Foolie... it was a tad of irreverence directed at the Kennedys. Shame on me, huh?

;)
SMW

The Bible is not inspired by God, and is not dictated by God, in fact, God has nothing to do with its creation, and the fact that a certain consistency is found in the books of the Bible is due to very effective editing and selection.
The outright lies, flaws, contradictions and absurdities that fill every page of the "good book" are proof positive that the book is the work of men, and largely ignorant uneducated crackpots at that.

If you like the New Testament, then you should thank Bishop Iraneus, who is largely responsible for the selection and editing of books that are in it out of hundreds of manuscripts, all with a loyal following and regarded as inspired that got the proverbial boot.

The NT canon was selected post 300 C.E or at least 270 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth and everybody who actually knew the guy in life.
By that time, Jesus had evolved from executed criminal and rabble rouser, to Messiah, to Savior, to God Man, to the 2nd person of the fictitious trinity.

There is a certain uniform dogmatic content of the books of the NT and it is important for students of the Bible, if they really want the truth, not just be spoon fed the same ol' same ol' claptrap from Bibliotaters.

There was a conscious choice by the Church in Rome to peddle to the general public a type of religion that best served the interests of the Roman Empire, now Christianized and Christianity now the State Religion backed up by Roman military might.

What religion would serve? A religion that made people strong, independent and courageous and was based on here and now practicality? Not hardly!

So another type of religion, one that turned otherwise intelligent human beings into lowly dogs, chattle who would suffer any abuse without complaint, who'd roll over and beg when kicked by their overlords, a new faith--and Pauline Christianity was perfect--that hated this world, sought for a fantasy pipe dream in some promised otherworld, and which destroyed a person's will, encouraged masochistic tendencies, and burdened the public with sin guilt. The old pagan religion of Rome never did this and was ineffective in turning the masses into subservient willless, mindless dupes of their Masters who knew the truth.

But the new reinvented religion of Jesus of Nazareth-- one which had NOTHING to do with the faith practiced by Jesus in his lifetime, which was Rabbinical Judaism, and represented a merger of paganism and Judaism and Platonism--, was too perfect in reducing the common rabble to mindless idiots and slaves of the State to overlook.

What books were selected? Those that promoted blind faith and instilled a readiness to bend the knee before POWER.

What books were rejected? Those, like the Gnostic texts, that were basically philosophical in scope, and encouraged the people to use their brains and reason. A Gnostic could think for him or herself. A Pauline disciple was enslaved. Hence Gnosticism became one of the first major heresies and the group of Gnostic Christians were destroyed man woman and child. Other groups that denied various ad hoc dogmas like the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, the Trinitarian nonsense, eternal damnation were soon to follow until only Pauline Christianity( that faith invented by a man obsessed with guilt, epileptic no doubt, couldn't have normal relationships with women, despised the female sex above all things, and masochistic beyond belief) remained the last "faith" standing.

The Old Testament canon does not go back as far as most people think, and internal evidence proves beyond the shadow of doubt that the current form of the Tanakh was after careful selection, editing and doctoring of texts finalized in the Post Davidic period, even in the Post Babylonian Period.
We have with the New Testament the same thing as in the New except that there were not a huge number of competing texts to reject. Instead, the old texts were reinvented, rewritten and editing to conform to Priestly dogmas and represent about as much authenticity or Plenary Inspiration by God as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Adolf Hitler's Diary.

And the text of the Bible itself is repetitious, poorly written and loaded with anachronisms, absurdities and tall tales. Not one Bibilical writer could compare with a Milton, a Dante, a Shakespeare, and instead were infantile writtings of men who despised the intellect and were more interested in promoting faith. The best written books in the Bible, in fact, the only TWO books worth saving out of an almost worthless collection of drivel are the books of Job and Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) both of a philosophical bent and well written. Isaiah does have some wonderful poetic touches, but unfortunately the book has been doctored, edited and been corrupted by additional authors putting their own ideas under the name Isaiah.

This leads to the final objection of the Bible as the Word of God, or any god.... None of the NAMED authors in the Bible except for some of the Pauline epistles are in fact the author that actually scribed the text.
What we have at best is a collection of random texts, none of which are authentic, written by anonymous scribes largely for propagandistic purposes, over many years. What in inspired about this?

The Hindu scriptures were written over a period of 2,500 years, comprise about 25X the material of the Christian Bible, and contain everthing from Epic poems to philosophical speculation to absurd mythology. The number of authors must run into the several hundreds and all of them are anonymous as well.

It was an "in" thing in the ancient days to write a book and pawn it off under the name of some major religious figure, prophet or holy man, thereby "stealing" his authority. The Hindus did it. The Christians did it. It was the way books were written back in the good ol' days.

But beyond all this, the primary reason an intelligent person whose reason is not totally impaired would reject the Bible, is that it purports to describe God, God's relationship with Man, God's Laws, God's Will and God is a total phantasm, the sum total of wishful thinking, the greatest lie of all time, and another supernatural monster who belongs with Fauns, Satyrs, Mermaids, Genies (Jin), Dryads, Devils, Angels, Fairies, Big Foot, Cyclops, Dragons and other assorted gobbledygoop from ancient mythology and fairy tales.
At least a Fairy Tale if well written can be good entertainment and is always understood as FICTION....but the fairy tales in the Good Book because they have caused men to murder each other in senseless wars are another thing.

There is nothing wrong with fairy tales, myths, and tales of the supernatural as long as they are promoted as the fiction they are and meant to entertain.
When fairy tales become the guidebook of a person, his society or entire country then trouble upon trouble will befall them.

A man or woman cannot base the rules of his life on fraud, lies and myths much less an entire country. Fantasy is sweet, but it is Science not Fantasy that is of primary importance. Science is not based on the revelations of some stupid god to a lunatic living in a cave, but is based on reason, the deductive process and hard evidence. Where speculative it is stated as speculative, where based on the preponderance of evidence, the evidence is presented and the chain of logic detailed so others can follow it exactly and see if any mistakes have been made.

Not so in propagandistic texts like the Bible. It was, until just a couple hundred years ago, a matter of believe it, or be murdered. It is based on Faith, not evidence.

In fact, as the church father Tertullian wrote "Credo quia absurdum est" meaning the more ridiculous a religious doctrine is, the more faith is required to believe it, and the more we ought to believe!

I say, like the men and women of philosopy and science.
"Credo quia verum est." I believe it because it's true. There is no other grounds to believe anything, including the Jamesian sophistry of believing things because they are useful!


Religion is viewd by the wise as false, the rabble as true, and the politicians as useful. Seneca the Elder

Good cut & paste job... now tell us what YOU think?

:)
SMW

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: And why are there so many contradicitons in the bible? There is so much contrary evidence against the historical accuracy of the bible that the term"biblical archaeology" has now been discarded in professional archaeology! And people are still gullible enough to believe it is inspired by some devine being!

That's simply not true, afinertouch5. The historical accuracy of The Bible is found to be supported more and more by archeology. Cities mentioned in The Bible are found, references to people mentioned in The Bible are found. Historically The Bible is pretty accurate, far more accurate than most books written at the time.

Good cut & paste job... now tell us what YOU think?Why do you think that's a cut and paste?

Why do you think that's a cut and paste?

I was wondering the same thing.

How can you say the bible is accurate? Were you there? If you don't know about all the contradictions in the bible you might want to read it again. But not from an apologist point of view but with an open mind. But that is probably to much for you to handle!That's simply not true, afinertouch5. The historical accuracy of The Bible is found to be supported more and more by archeology. Cities mentioned in The Bible are found, references to people mentioned in The Bible are found. Historically The Bible is pretty accurate, far more accurate than most books written at the time.

How can you say the bible is accurate? Were you there? If you don't know about all the contradictions in the bible you might want to read it again. But not from an apologist point of view but with an open mind. But that is probably to much for you to handle!

How can you say the big bang happened? Were you there?
To be honest, I'd say Frogger knows a great deal more about the bible then whats in it.
Historical information noted by scholars outside of the Christian religion.
Anyway you look at it, the history of the bible is recorded the same way for everyone and thats what Frogger knows.

Can you say the same?

Yes, he was quite a guy. His book ON the Jews and Their Lies proposed burning the Christ-killers' homes,synagogues,and schools confiscating their money(of course) and curtailing their rights and liberties. Oh yes, and he was cited by the Nazis as an authority on Jewish matters. What a nice guy!You're right, BBlob. In fact, the move away from the Catholic Church was indeed a tumultuous time in history.

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

German reformer and founder of the Lutheran church
Martin Luther.

Luther is the most famous of all the reformers, for he is credited with initiating the Protestant reformation on October 31, 1517 when he nailed his now famous "95 Theses" objecting to the Catholic indulgence doctrine to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany.

Martin Luther was originally a Roman Catholic monk and scholar who soon found himself objecting not only to the abuses in his Church, but more crucially, to some of its doctrines, or teachings. After the publication of his "95 Theses," Luther found himself in more and more trouble with Church authorities so that by 1519 he finally broke with the Church and went on to write and preach and through these activities, continue the work of the Reformation.

Theological premises

Luther finally came up with three main premises, which are also accepted by many other Protestant groups. Christians should believe in:

Justification by faith (it is through faith only that Christians will be saved, not by Good Works as the Catholic Church maintained)

The primacy of Scripture (the literal meaning of the Bible should be preferred to any traditional or learned readings, and anything not specifically grounded in Scripture was to be rejected)

The "priest-hood of all believers" (ordained priests were not the only ones who should be considered members of the "true spiritual estate," so here Luther did away with the priesthood, though many Protestant groups still use ministers or pastors to lead others)

How can you say the big bang happened? Were you there?
To be honest, I'd say Frogger knows a great deal more about the bible then whats in it.
Historical information noted by scholars outside of the Christian religion.
Anyway you look at it, the history of the bible is recorded the same way for everyone and thats what Frogger knows.

Can you say the same? You mean historical information from christian apologist? Many scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of Jesus. Did you know that? And if you think the history of the bible is recorded the same way for everyone then you are very ignorant. No first-century writer confirms the Jesus story. The bible is internally contradictory and contains historical errors. All those miracles and outrageous claims. And a lot of the bible is material borrowed from earlier pagan religions. Does frogger know that? Did you know that? :@@:

How can you say the bible is accurate? Were you there? If you don't know about all the contradictions in the bible you might want to read it again. But not from an apologist point of view but with an open mind. But that is probably to much for you to handle!

I've already read The Bible from cover to cover twice. In addition I have read biblical concordances and books on biblical history and archelogy. I have also studied The Bible and Bible history as formal courses of study at the college level.

I don't need some little pissant like you telling me to read it again, especially when it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about.

I've already read The Bible from cover to cover twice. In addition I have read biblical concordances and books on biblical history and archelogy. I have also studied The Bible and Bible history as formal courses of study at the college level.

I don't need some little pissant like you telling me to read it again, especially when it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about.:upyours:

About what I would expect from you. You made a false statement, were called on it and now are pissed.

That's okay though. I fully support your right to not know what you are talking about. However, I will continue to point it out though even if it ties your panties in a knot.

accurate? maybe. backed by archeology? sure. but people didn't live as long as they say in the bible. there are enough discrepancies in it. and it is also racist. "black" people, i forgot the name of the tribe of isreal, was a curse put upon them by "god".

how about letting all the books written be allowed into the bible? want another view of jesus? one that says he was NOT god on earth? he was merely a man who thumbed his nose at the system and government and got killed for it? no, can't have that. that would mean christians would be allowed to actually think.

About what I would expect from you. You made a false statement, were called on it and now are pissed.

That's okay though. I fully support your right to not know what you are talking about. However, I will continue to point it out though even if it ties your panties in a knot.
And what exactly was my false statement?

You mean historical information from christian apologist? Many scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of Jesus. Did you know that? And if you think the history of the bible is recorded the same way for everyone then you are very ignorant. No first-century writer confirms the Jesus story. The bible is internally contradictory and contains historical errors. All those miracles and outrageous claims. And a lot of the bible is material borrowed from earlier pagan religions. Does frogger know that? Did you know that? :@@:


While Jesus may not be backed up entirely, the story of King Herod is and it doesnt have any errors in it.
Did you know that?
As a matter of fact, there are Herod experts, who just happen to be Atheist, who agree with what the bible says about Herod.
So, no...
I dont mean Christian apologist.
Nice try though.

Ivan,

You are thinking of Ham, one of the three sons of Noah; Shem, Ham, and Japeth. Ham is considered the father of the Egyptians, Cannanites, and Ethiopians.


Concerning the extreme ages of people in the Old Testament, that isn't what we were talking about. We were talking about the historical and archelogical accuracy of The Bible. Archeology has tended to support The Bible. Ruins related to sites mentioned in The Bible have been found, even the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The accuracy of the settings in the Bible are often used as attempts to justify the accuracy of the miracles and other supernatural phenomenon in the Bible, which is an error of logic.

Settings and Plot are independent of each other and just because the former is accurate it does not indicate that the latter is true.

The settings in The DaVinci Code are all accurate to the detail as well, but the story is still fictional.

Dharma,

You're right. The fact that a site existed does not automatically translate into certain events having occured there. That is not what was being said. It was said that archeology had disproved the historical claims of The Bible and that biblical archeology was no longer considered valid.

That is quite a different thing than what you are saying and is simply incorrect.

You are completely wrong about my little critique of the Wholly Babble to be a cut and paste job. I am a professional writer who happens to surf the web and post quite a lot on various e-groups, message boards as well as personal websites. I'm aware that the majority of web browsers and posters are poorly educated and write in a colloquial style. However, the assumption that anything well written or involving sesquipedalian words is a cut and paste job is a bogus assumption on your part. Just because you are incapable of writing in such a style does not mean nobody can do it. Can you play Chopin's Etude no 23 on the piano? Probably not. However to assume nobody can play it because of your own inadequacies would be just plain silly. Same thing here.
And once again, instead of refuting anything written, you in effect said nothing at all.

And as far as the Bible goes, the "Good Book" blasphemes any God that might happen to exist beyond the worst blasphemies of the most virulent atheists.
If God damned anybody, it'd be the people who've made him (or her) out to be a cruel sadistic monster and nutcase!

I've already read The Bible from cover to cover twice. In addition I have read biblical concordances and books on biblical history and archelogy. I have also studied The Bible and Bible history as formal courses of study at the college level.
I'm completely in agreement with you on this. Pretty much the entire Old Testament is a history book that gives supernatural explanations to all the events. If you read between the lines a little and ignore the supernatural parts, you get a pretty accurate picture of what actually happened to the ancient Hebrews. So many of these events are corroborated by texts from ancient Egypt and the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians.

I don't know enough of the New Testament to comment on its historical accuracy though.

You are completely wrong about my little critique of the Wholly Babble to be a cut and paste job. I am a professional writer who happens to surf the web and post quite a lot on various e-groups, message boards as well as personal websites. I'm aware that the majority of web browsers and posters are poorly educated and write in a colloquial style. However, the assumption that anything well written or involving sesquipedalian words is a cut and paste job is a bogus assumption on your part. Just because you are incapable of writing in such a style does not mean nobody can do it. Can you play Chopin's Etude no 23 on the piano? Probably not. However to assume nobody can play it because of your own inadequacies would be just plain silly. Same thing here.
And once again, instead of refuting anything written, you in effect said nothing at all.

And as far as the Bible goes, the "Good Book" blasphemes any God that might happen to exist beyond the worst blasphemies of the most virulent atheists.
If God damned anybody, it'd be the people who've made him (or her) out to be a cruel sadistic monster and nutcase!

Do you really have to be so condescending?

I'm aware that the majority of web browsers and posters are poorly educated and write in a colloquial style.

That statement should win over most of us here on Allforums. :lolhit:

I think you will find that most of the posters here are far from "poorly educated" and have more to offer than on many forums. SMW probably assumed (incorrectly) that you were one of the many "one-hit wonders" that post a single cut-and-paste topic and/or response, and are never heard from again.

I lik beeg wurds, dey mak me feal gud two! ;)

BTW - Welcome!

Golly, gee, Nighthawk, pleeze use smaller words. I had a heck of a time understanding what you were trying to say. We dunderheads on the internet just ain't as edjukated as you are. Most of us get all our news from Archie and Veronica comics.

Well the story of King Herod does have many contradictions so you just show your ingorance claiming it to be totally true. And what Atheist make the claim that the story is totally true??

Well the story of King Herod does have many contradictions so you just show your ingorance claiming it to be totally true. And what Atheist make the claim that the story is totally true??

Oh...

You're one of those.
A "free thinker".
Cant say I'm surprised.

Look, I have debated with people like yourself in the past, very recently as a matter of fact. And they ignored any evidence I gave them. I mean "any" evidence. Didn't matter who it was from as long as I was using it it was unacceptable.
Honestly, I had no clue why the person even bothered to debate.

I would say, right from the start, if you knew as much as you claim to know, you would know the statement you made here in this post is incorrect.
To be as blunt as possible, because I really dont want to go through this crap again.
I'm going to give you a list of information, everything I found on line in the span of ten minutes on King Herod.
Its information that isnt from Christian resources. None of it.
You take a gander and let me know where any of it is different from what the bible says.
If, after looking at it all you can do is sourt out what has a remote chance in making your claim true. Dont expect a responce.
I refuse to debate with people who grasp at straws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/e-h/herod.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/856784.html

http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=211809

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0128_020128_KingHerod.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Grant_(author)

Ha, the first link you had listed says "the factual accuracy of this article is disputed!!! Of course it is. And I don't really give a dam if you want to debate me.

Did you even read the links you posted? I don't think you did because it goes against what you said that the bible was totally accurate about the story of Herod. Of course you have no need to debate because you know it all!

"the factual accuracy of this article is disputed!

Yeah, this is the dispute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Herod_the_Great#Disputed

Dumbass.

Dumbass is that what you are? I thought so. This link does not prove anything. There is no point in trying to debate you. Ok, if you would rather be called a christian apologist. Your links have proved nothing except your ignorance.

Gee, afinertouch, for someone who complains when the discussion gets a little rough you have quite a nasty streak yourself. Only 59 posts and you are already calling people dumbass. Way to win friends and influence people.

No, it was my fault. I was pretty rough on the kid from the start.
I am sorry afine, I shouldnt have called you a dumbass.

I'm a Christian, but not exactly an apologist. If you can present a reasonable and understandable explanation of your side of things, I will take what you say into consideration. Thats from anyone.
Quite often, when someone starts a conversation out with a statement like,
"Thats what apologist want you to believe" The instant they see a Christian, they'er already demonstrating a confined desire to learn themselves.

Just like youre saying I am leaving myself ignorant by simply being a Christian.
Youre doing the same by "not" wanting to be a Christian.

Sometimes facts are just facts and no one can avoid them. Try to keep an open mind about everything.

Gee, afinertouch, for someone who complains when the discussion gets a little rough you have quite a nasty streak yourself. Only 59 posts and you are already calling people dumbass. Way to win friends and influence people. Hmm, that's interesting Frogger. He called me dumbass first and you had nothing to say to him. :upyours: If you think I came here to make friends with you think again. The first time I ever posted in here and someone immediatly called me a coward you agreed with them and said they did it in a cleaver way. So what does that make you?

No, it was my fault. I was pretty rough on the kid from the start.
I am sorry afine, I shouldnt have called you a dumbass.

I'm a Christian, but not exactly an apologist. If you can present a reasonable and understandable explanation of your side of things, I will take what you say into consideration. Thats from anyone.
Quite often, when someone starts a conversation out with a statement like,
"Thats what apologist want you to believe" The instant they see a Christian, they'er already demonstrating a confined desire to learn themselves.

Just like youre saying I am leaving myself ignorant by simply being a Christian.
Youre doing the same by "not" wanting to be a Christian.

Sometimes facts are just facts and no one can avoid them. Try to keep an open mind about everything. Facts, what facts are you talking about? The links you posted contradicted what you were trying to say were total facts. And for you information I'm not a kid! But your apology is accepted.

Hmm, that's interesting Frogger. He called me dumbass first and you had nothing to say to him. :upyours: If you think I came here to make friends with you think again. The first time I ever posted in here and someone immediatly called me a coward you agreed with them and said they did it in a cleaver way. So what does that make you?

You're fine as long as no one gets carried away. Don't worry about Frogger, he's in no position to lecture anyone on manners. The poster who provoked you has graciously admitted a gaffe. Welcome to allforums. :)

:cool: You're fine as long as no one gets carried away. Don't worry about Frogger, he's in no position to lecture anyone on manners. The poster who provoked you has graciously admitted a gaffe. Welcome to allforums. :)

Facts, what facts are you talking about? The links you posted contradicted what you were trying to say were total facts.


OK, show me where.

OK, show me where. :slap:

I don't think you showed him at all... Just because people on Wikipedia are debating whether or not the article is accurate doesn't mean that it's inaccurate or contradictory.

You are completely wrong about my little critique of the Wholly Babble to be a cut and paste job. I am a professional writer who happens to surf the web and post quite a lot on various e-groups, message boards as well as personal websites.Given your online experience you should have realised a first post of prepared-type prose without any introduction or preliminaries would be indistinguishable from cut-and-paste hit-and-run.

But now that you have cleared that up, albeit in a rather uptight and defensive manner, a tentative welcome to allforums.

I don't think you showed him at all... Just because people on Wikipedia are debating whether or not the article is accurate doesn't mean that it's inaccurate or contradictory.. He said it was like it was fact and it's not.

. He said it was like it was fact and it's not.

Well, I suppose it can be seen that way. Maybe I should have made myself clear.
Wiki "Wiki being the site you have a problem with" is hardly ever questioned, while anyone can leave information on the site.
Sometimes that information is in question. So, there are open forums to discuss it.
Thats what you seen when the site said, "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed."

That doesnt mean that the information on the site isnt fact.
Actaully, when you look at the debate, it gives more information, which is helpful.
I dont mean to sound rude, and I hope you dont take offence.
I am really not trying to put one over on you and the entire point of this conversation isnt to win or come out ahead or to look good.

There are things in the bible that are highly questionable. You wont know what any of those are unless you are willing to keep an open mind.
There are points you can make and topics of discussion that no one would be able to argu with you because you would be right.
But you first need to learn to pick your fights.
This might be one of those moments, it might be a chance to understand something. To learn.
But you wont see it if youre looking to be right at any cost.

Well, I suppose it can be seen that way. Maybe I should have made myself clear.
Wiki "Wiki being the site you have a problem with" is hardly ever questioned, while anyone can leave information on the site.
Sometimes that information is in question. So, there are open forums to discuss it.
Thats what you seen when the site said, "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed."

That doesnt mean that the information on the site isnt fact.
Actaully, when you look at the debate, it gives more information, which is helpful.
I dont mean to sound rude, and I hope you dont take offence.
I am really not trying to put one over on you and the entire point of this conversation isnt to win or come out ahead or to look good.

There are things in the bible that are highly questionable. You wont know what any of those are unless you are willing to keep an open mind.
There are points you can make and topics of discussion that no one would be able to argu with you because you would be right.
But you first need to learn to pick your fights.
This might be one of those moments, it might be a chance to understand something. To learn.
But you wont see it if youre looking to be right at any cost. Ok, now let's here some of the things in the bible you feel are highly questionable. And saying that people will not be able to argue with me because I'm right. Well that is nonsense. Just because someone thinks they are right about something does not mean people can't still argue with them. Where did you ever get that silly idea?

Hmm, that's interesting Frogger. He called me dumbass first and you had nothing to say to him. :upyours: If you think I came here to make friends with you think again. The first time I ever posted in here and someone immediatly called me a coward you agreed with them and said they did it in a cleaver way. So what does that make you?

He wasn't the one doing the complaining about meaness on the board. You were.

What does that make me? It makes me someone who is not particularly impressed by you.

You're fine as long as no one gets carried away. Don't worry about Frogger, he's in no position to lecture anyone on manners. The poster who provoked you has graciously admitted a gaffe. Welcome to allforums. :)


At least I have never posted a PM in public forum without saying who it was from. You may have better manners but you are sorely lacking in the ethics department.

Ok, now let's here some of the things in the bible you feel are highly questionable.
Thats funny, you want me to go through the bible and point stuff out to you.

And saying that people will not be able to argue with me because I'm right. Well that is nonsense. Just because someone thinks they are right about something does not mean people can't still argue with them. Where did you ever get that silly idea?
Let me put it another way. Do trees have bark? Yes they do. You can argue that they dont and you might even be able to show me a tree that doesnt have bark.
But you would more then likely look pretty silly arguing it.

Yes, he was quite a guy. His book ON the Jews and Their Lies proposed burning the Christ-killers' homes,synagogues,and schools confiscating their money(of course) and curtailing their rights and liberties. Oh yes, and he was cited by the Nazis as an authority on Jewish matters. What a nice guy!


Luther's anti-Semitism is a huge black mark on his name. However, (and I am not apolgizing for his hateful rhetoric), but in this he was merely parroting the beliefs of the majority of European citizens of the age in which he lived.

However, the Catholic Church was at the forefront when it came to either forcibly converting the Jews, or burning them at the stake. See Torquemada, Spanish Inquisition, ad nauseum.

Historical footnote---both Hitler and Himmler were Catholic. Neither were practising Catholics to my belief.

Well Hitler certainly thought he was a good catholic. Imagine that!!!

He had zero respect for the Pope so no, he was not a good Catholic.

He had zero respect for the Pope so no, he was not a good Catholic. Well that is the subject of much controversy. And Hitler had ties with the Vatican. And why didn't the Pope speak out against the Nazis? But I totally agree with you that Hitler was not a good catholic!

He (Hitler) had zero respect for the Pope so no, he was not a good Catholic.

Au contraire.

They had a working agreement (http://www.ianpaisley.org/hitlerpope.asp), and were --in effect-- allies.

Neither the Vatican nor its German prelates ever condemned the principles and practices of the Nazi Government. Both Pius XI and Pius XII helped Hitler to attain power....and they made repeated efforts to contract an alliance with him.

Thats funny, you want me to go through the bible and point stuff out to you.

Let me put it another way. Do trees have bark? Yes they do. You can argue that they dont and you might even be able to show me a tree that doesnt have bark.
But you would more then likely look pretty silly arguing it.
And this is what you come up with? :bombout:

Thats funny, you want me to go through the bible and point stuff out to you.

Let me put it another way. Do trees have bark? Yes they do. You can argue that they dont and you might even be able to show me a tree that doesnt have bark. But you would more then likely look pretty silly arguing it.

And this is what you come up with?

Well, in looking for a reasoned argument, you really shouldn't get your expectations too high when dealing with a superstitionist.

Well, in looking for a reasoned argument, you really shouldn't get your expectations too high when dealing with a superstitionist.
Really? Would you say you've seen any "reasoned" arguments coming from us Christians, or are all our arguments unreasoned?

Well, in looking for a reasoned argument, you really shouldn't get your expectations too high when dealing with a superstitionist.


Maybe you should read exactly what was going on before you make uneducated remarks.
Then again I wouldnt expect to see a reasoned responce from a self proclaimed freethinker.

And this is what you come up with? :bombout:

What were you expecting, for a Christian to go through the bible and point out what can be argued?

Sorry if you want an education you need to do the research yourself.

What were you expecting, for a Christian to go through the bible and point out what can be argued?

Sorry if you want an education you need to do the research yourself.
And Inviolable seems to be one of those who can't answer a simple question but is quick to call you names. And still he is in denial about being an apologist. Seriously!

Maybe because there are so many contradictions in LIFE?

Can you give me an example of contrary evidence that can be PROVEN?
You will be amazed at how many contradictions are in the bible. :eek:

And Inviolable seems to be one of those who can't answer a simple question but is quick to call you names. And still he is in denial about being an apologist. Seriously!

Eh, ok.
I answered your simple question as nicely as possiple after I was admittedly very rude to you.
If it is beyond your comprehension thats not my problem.

I am what I am, Popeye! The sailer man!
At least I think for myself which is something you haven't been able to demonstrate, from the first post you made to the last post you left.
Unless that ability changes, don't expect any more kindness from me.

Oh yeah and the remark, "Some people are just beyond debating" nice touch considering you said you werent debating.

You will be amazed at how many contradictions are in the bible. :eek:
I'm rather curious...what is one of the strongest contradictions you've found while studying the Bible?

Eh, ok.
I answered your simple question as nicely as possiple after I was admittedly very rude to you.
If it is beyond your comprehension thats not my problem.

I am what I am, Popeye! The sailer man!
At least I think for myself which is something you haven't been able to demonstrate, from the first post you made to the last post you left.
Unless that ability changes, don't expect any more kindness from me.

Oh yeah and the remark, "Some people are just beyond debating" nice touch considering you said you werent debating.
Please show me where you answered my question? You can't. And also where did I say I was not debating? And when did you ever show me any kindness?

I'm rather curious...what is one of the strongest contradictions you've found while studying the Bible?
John 14:27.Peace I leave with you,my peace I give to you.(Luke 2:14:Acts 10:36 Matt:10:34. Think not that I come to send peace on earth:I came not to send peace, but a sword.(Matt.10:35:Luke 22:36 Does not sound like the prince of peace to me!

Please show me where you answered my question? You can't. And also where did I say I was not debating? And when did you ever show me any kindness?


Well, yes I have in trying to explain things to you as peaceful as possible and admitting that I was rude. But you dont seem too bright or your reality is completely off center with what is really going on.
Out of kindness I'll assume it's the later.


"There is no point in trying to debate you" Post #61

"And I don't really give a dam if you want to debate me." Post #58

So now that the debate question is out of the way I think I should ask what question it is you asked of me, that I havent yet answered.
Because I'm not quite sure your faculties are in order and I feel a need to clarify.
So if you could please tell me what the question is we could move along.

Am I too knew here to point out that this seems to have digressed completely away from the thread's topic? It seems to have become more of a personal thing.

To the original topic: when descibing the perceived wonders of Bible creation/consistency, etc.,are you assuming Moses as the author of, say, Genesis?

Eh, ok.
I answered your simple question as nicely as possiple after I was admittedly very rude to you.
If it is beyond your comprehension thats not my problem.

I am what I am, Popeye! The sailer man!
At least I think for myself which is something you haven't been able to demonstrate, from the first post you made to the last post you left.
Unless that ability changes, don't expect any more kindness from me.

Oh yeah and the remark, "Some people are just beyond debating" nice touch considering you said you werent debating. You said that you refuse to debate with people who grasp at straws=#57 But your still at it. Then you were rude and then apolgetic yet still somehow condescending. And I still stand by my statement that some people are beyond debating. Your response to my question was that you were not going to look it up in the bible for me. I did not ask you to look it up I asked you to answer my question. Duh!:@@: If anyone has a reading comprehension problem it's you!

John 14:27.Peace I leave with you,my peace I give to you.(Luke 2:14:Acts 10:36 Matt:10:34. Think not that I come to send peace on earth:I came not to send peace, but a sword.(Matt.10:35:Luke 22:36 Does not sound like the prince of peace to me!

These aren't contradictions, you have to look at them in the context that they are used.
John 14:27 is Jesus speaking to his disciples, it's the end of his ministry, he's about to be betrayed, the disciples are concerned, he's telling them; "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid?"

Acts 10:36 isn't speaking about world peace, if that was the case Christ failed immediately. Here the context is peace between man and God, look at more of the verse...Acts 10:34-36 "Then Peter began to speak: '"I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.'"

Matthew 10:35 has Jesus warning that accepting and following him will not necessarily bring peace to a man's family; bringing peace among family members was not his ministry on earth, conversely, many families will be torn apart because one has accepted Jesus as Lord of their life. This is demonstrated pretty well in a Muslim family, where if a child of said family accepts Christ that child could face death at the hands of his own family members. Most Jehovah's Witness families, if one of their own accepts the true Jesus, will reject that family member and treat him as if he were dead.
That's why it's important to bring verse 36-39 into the reading. I'm not going to bother typing it out, but you can check it out for yourself.

Luke 22:36 is basically Jesus telling his disciples that as they go out into the ministry they have to fend for themselves, (since he was going to be gone), where before (when Jesus was with them), as he sent them out, he told them to take nothing. Matthew 10:10-16

As for Jesus being the Prince of peace...he is. The peace he brings is between God and men. He has taken the wrath of God that is directed towards men, because of sin and our rejection of Him, and took it upon himself. Those who accept Christ, accept his sacrifice, and the free gift of redemption. Those who reject him face God alone, and alone give him an accounting of the life they have lived.

These aren't contradictions, you have to look at them in the context that they are used.True enough. Do you hold that there are no contradictions to be found in the book?

True enough. Do you hold that there are no contradictions to be found in the book?
Apart from some contradictions in the numberings of things, such as the numbers of men in a particular army, I've found none. The contradiction in numbers are usually the difference between the text containing a small dot above the Hebrew number or not. The dot may be missing from the text because of wear and tear.

I am, however, interested in claimed contradictions, I enjoy checking them out and finding the answer to the problem.

What about you?

I am, however, interested in claimed contradictions, I enjoy checking them out and finding the answer to the problem.
I love the book. Have pored over multiple translations from In to Amen. My great sadness is that, it seems to me, the wonder and value of the messages to be found therein are often lost due to an overly literalistic worship of the book itself.

There are many instances where careful reading may leave one to wonder at the editors commitment to consistency. I have read many efforts which attempt to explain away such problems, but they all leave me feeling like I'm hearing the OJ Simpson defense team.

By way of example, consider: where did Joseph, Mary and Jesus go after leaving Bethleham? Matthew and Luke share stories which appear at odds throughout the nativity narratives, but on this one issue they seem utterly contradictory.

btw, I do not feel that a literalistic reading of scripture is required or even really to be desired. So, my affection for the Bible is in no way diminished by the inconsistancies that many point out as a sort of death blow. Thanks for your response.