No Other Book as “Unique” as The Bible

The Holy Bible – God’s Word. There is no other book like it on the face of the Earth, both now or throughout history. It is unique in its continuity, its translations, its circulation, its survival throughout the ages, its teachings and its influence.

Here are some interesting facts that prove without a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is unique from all other books ever written.

  • Written over a 1,500 year span
  • Written by over 40 authors from just about every walk of life – kings, military leaders, peasants, philosophers, poets, tax collectors, musicians, statesmen, scholars, shepherds and even fishermen.
  • Written on three separate continents – Asia, Africa and Europe.
  • Written in three languages – Hebrew, Aramic and Greek.
  • Written in a wide variety of literature styles – historical narrative, prophecy, poetry, song, romance, law, biography, autobiography, satire, parable, allegory and even personal correspondence.
  • Addresses hundreds of controversial subjects and yet presents a single unfolding story – God’s redemption of humanity.
  • Despite having 66 books and hundreds of hundreds of verses, its one central character is the one true God represented through Jesus Christ.
  • More copies of the Bible have been circulated than any other book in history.
  • The Bible has been translated into more languages than any other piece of literature ever – over 2,200 languages at this present time.
  • Compared with other ancient writings, the Bible has more manuscript evidence to support it than any ten pieces of classical literature combined.
  • The Bible is the only book to contain hundreds of prophecies, some written hundreds of years in advance, that have been literally fulfilled. You do not see this in other books that claim “divine” inspiration including The Book of Mormon and the Koran.

In addition to these amazing facts and statistics, the Bible has had more influence on literature than any other book. Gabriel Sivan writes:

No other document in the possession of mankind offers so much to the reader – ethical and religious instruction, superb poetry, a social program and legal code, an interpretation of history, and all the joys, sorrows and hopes which well up in man and which Israel’s prohpets and leaders expressed with matchless force and passion.

Historian Philip Schaff, in The Person of Christ, describes the uniqueness of the Bible and the Savior:

The Jesus of Nazereth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed and Napoleon; without science and learning, He shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of schools, He spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, He set more pens in motion and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art, and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times.

While the facts above do not prove that the Bible is the Word of God, they do prove that the Bible is uniquely superior to any and all other books. As I am currently re-reading Josh McDowell’s most excellent book – More Evidence That Demands a Verdict, I will be putting together a series of posts in the very near future that provide indisputable evidence that the Bible is God’s Word and that Jesus is who He says He is.

Author: David Wallace

David Wallace is a search & social media marketer who lives in Anthem Arizona with his lovely wife. Interests & hobbies include all things Disney, roller coasters, musicianship and Christianity. Follow +David Wallace on Google + as well as Twitter.

Share This Post On

32 Comments

  1. To the non-believers, do not display arrogance along with your unbelief. For Jesus Christ himself has told us;

    John 6:44 (NASB)
    No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him

    So, it is not your choice, but God’s whether you shall believe or whether you shall be condemned.

  2. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

    and in the end we will know the truth…when we see god.

  3. I just found this site and was intrigued about what everybody was saying and thought that this could be a chance to share something with everyone.

    Okay first off even though the bible is continually being made; doesn’t mean that it’s not unique. How it is unique is the fact that there are no other books out there quite like the bible.

    Then saying how Christians pick out what they want to believe and not that’s bull if you say that you’re a Christian and only believe have of what the bible says just because those are what you agree with than you are not really a Christian.

    Then there is all this stuff about religion I hate to tell you, but Christianity is not a religion though many people see it as that way it’s not it’s a relationship with God.

    About the magical power deal where do you think magic comes from? There are only two kinds of powers in this world good and evil, where do you think they originate from? God and Satan. How can this be proven you ask me well I’ve seen it both ways and have experienced them both ways, then you ask well why haven’t I? Then the answer for that my friend is because you don’t believe you have no reason to and you do not want to. Jesus knocks at the door and waits for you to open it and Satan well he certainly is not going to worry about you because he already has you.

    Oh and as for the reason why not many historical books other than the bible mentions Jesus is because of mankind’s stupidity. They didn’t like the way that Jesus portrayed himself obviously Korinthian hasn’t read the bible. The way that they treated him was lower than dirt I mean they hung Him on the cross, why on earth would they want to admit there mistake they were very powerful people, they don’t want to let there subjects know that they were wrong.

    Diz that is very nice about what you said about Korinthian, but the matter of the fact is that you’re not helping Korinthian to get to heaven that way. I hate to tell you Korinthian, but although our God is a very loving and kind God He is also a very vicious God, and He will not hold back His anger forever. Think about the story of Noah and the ark did you know that they actually found the ark, but all evidence of the research was destroyed because other people didn’t want us to know.

    You know when it all comes down to it I would rather be living a Christian life with the belief that there is a heaven and a hell and when you die you go to either one or the other. My reason for this is simple because in the end if you find out that this is not true and you end up just not existing any more, as a flower, or just floating off into space it wouldn’t have mattered how I believed in the first place. But then you find that there is a heaven and hell and you only go one place or the other when you die then there is nothing that you can do about it.

    Here is a site which I had found that compare the bible to facts that have been discovered through the years after the bible had been written – http://www.creationists.org/foreknowledge.html.

  4. Sorry David, you’ve already spoiled the chance to debate me by hiding and being dishonest. I have not read your

    post, nor will I. If you want to have a serious debate, don’t jump in the middle of someone else’s just because you

    can’t handle one on your own. Thanks for reading though.

  5. @Korinthian – As I have stated in another post on this blog, I really feel it is pointless (at least for me) to debate you. However, for the sake of other readers, I’d like to touch on one point in your comment above.

    It regards your comparison of Lincoln to Jesus as historical figures. You said “like we didn’t have photographs of him, letters written by him, and living relatives” and obviously pointing out that we don’t have the same evidence that Jesus lived.

    However, the fact remains that we cannot know for certain that Lincoln lived either. In other words, there is nobody living today that can say, “Yeah, I know Abraham Lincoln. I can show him to you right now”

    With regard to your line of reasoning regarding whether Jesus lived or not, and then using that same line of reasoning for Lincoln, I think it might play out like this:

    1st Person: “Who is this a picture of?” (shows 2nd person a picture of Lincoln)

    2nd Person: “That’s Abraham Lincoln.”

    1st Person: “How do you know that?”

    2nd Person: “Because it looks like all the other pictures of Lincoln I have ever seen.”

    1st Person: “How do you know those are Lincoln?”

    2nd Person: Well, because everyone else thinks these pictures represent Lincoln.”

    1st Person: “And how do they know it is Lincoln?”

    You see how this can go round and round and round?

    Yes we have pictures, letters and documents indicating Abraham Lincoln lived. However, anyone could question whether those pictures, letters and documents are authentic or fakes.

    Do you see where I am going with this?

    The only thing we have for certain to know if anyone in the past has lived is by people who will document their existence. And plenty of people documented the existence of Jesus Christ, both in the Bible and out of the Bible. Josh McDowell’s book – “More Evidence That Demands a Verdict” has a chapter entitled “Jesus, Man of History” that shows several historians of that area that had no doubt that Jesus Christ was a real living person.

    In summary to say that Jesus Christ was not a historical figure simply because there is not “the evidence you would like to see” to confirm is to say that anyone who has been dead for over a hundred years may or may not have existed. No one can know for certain except to trust what historians and others have written about these people, including Abraham Lincoln.

  6. — I have numbered my arguments to keep the quoting to a minimum —

    tycho: “I wonder how a sect of zealots, following a lunatic named Jesus, could access & add “prophecies” to one of the Holiest objects revered by those persecuting them & eventually killing their leader.”

    (1) Who ELSE would have access to the book but people who wanted to propagate the religion? The “followers” of Elvis has made up all kinds of stuff about him and written books about it. We know there several “saviors” with alleged magic powers wandering around this part of the world at this time, did they all possess magic? Hardly, rather people made stuff up.

    (2) And tycho, before I go on about the stuff you wrote about going into every synagoge, changing the tanak, etc. I think I should clarify: I meant the fulfillment of the prophecies, not the original prophecies (sorry about being unclear about that). As an author I could fulfill any “real” prophecy found in the OT in any book I wrote. I hope that made more sense to you.

    “Now if they were concerned enough about this invented “fictional character” to have killed him why would they not
    have removed the bogus “added wisdom””

    (3) Did I say that the wisdom was bogus? Religions throughout the history have actually had good things to say, so good, in fact, that christianity borrowed from most of them. And if you do not see the point in having a religion without it being based in truth, you have not been paying attention to the history of religion (in the western world for instance) and the current political situation in the united states. Religion gives someone the moral high ground to do whatever they choose, it creates a “us vs them” mentality (which demontrably strengens the morals of the “us”) and does not require amy kind of critical thought to believe whatsoever. The saying “opium of the people” is old, but accurate.

    (4) Regarding the Tanakh, I do not know enough about it to comment, but I will make sure to find out more and get back to you. Making uninformed statements about things like that will only come back and bite me in the ass.

    Feel free to supply me with a link or two that you think would help. If you had particular chapter and verse numbers pointing to the text in question it would save me a lot of time.

    “I wonder if 2k years from now there will be any convincing evidence of Bill Gates existence.”

    (5) Do you really? I really don’t as there are people all around the world that knows about him instead of just a patch of land and a few shepherders in the middle east. Also Bill could raise a statue of himself and the teachings of Microsoft that would last longer than that, if he wanted. That is more than you could say about Jesus who went remarkably unnoticed despite his swine-killing magic powers and lectures among the people.

    “according to your view, nothing necessarily counts as evidence if it lacks rigorous scientific scrutiny of the facts & then drawing out their logical implications.” –

    Don’t put words in my mouth. Thanks. You have to consider the actual amount of evidence, as you should. Yet again, the most important man in the world (according to you) left so little contemporary evidence behind? Let me quote something:

    (6) “The most remarkable thing in the evidences afforded by profane history is their extreme paucity; the very existence of Jesus cannot be proved from contemporary documents. A child whose birth is heralded by a star which guides foreign sages to Judaea; a massacre of all the infants of a town within the Roman Empire by command of a subject king; a teacher who heals the leper, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, the lame, end who raises the moldering corpse, a King of the Jews entering Jerusalem in triumphal procession, without opposition from the Roman legions of Caesar; an accused ringleader of sedition arrested by his own countrymen; and handed over to the imperial governor; a rebel adjudged to death by Roman law; a three hours’ darkness over all the land; an earthquake breaking open graves and rending the temple veil; a number of ghosts wandering about Jerusalem; a crucified corpse rising again to life, and appearing to a crowd of above 500 people; a man risen from the dead ascending bodily into heaven without a concealment, and in the broad daylight, from a mountain near Jerusalem; all these marvelous events took place, we are told, and yet they have left no ripple on the current of contemporary history” —

    “You cannot know that 2k years from now, any facts testifying to Bill Gates existence will not be questioned. You assume they could not.”

    I assume no such thing. Stop with the strawmen, christian. Anyone could question anything, like christians have proved by questioning science they don’t understand.

    (7) And then you go on comparing Jesus to Lincoln, like we didn’t have photographs of him, letters written by him, and living relatives. Do you always ignore the amount of evidence in favor of a position or do you only do that when religion is involved?

    “One fact is as easily denied as a thousand when the mind is not open to facts.”

    (8) Yes, I am aware of this. This is the very basis of religion. Religion (faith) is not based on facts, but
    believing things despite of facts. But both christians and atheists alike can count.

    “I remind myself that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

    (9) You would have to, wouldn’t you? But the burden of proof is still on you. Absence of evidence might not be evidence of absence, but it also is a single mustard seed away from being nothing.

    “You suppose that if you were God you would have revealed yourself in such a manner that there would have been absolutely no doubt what so ever”

    (10) So why are you even trying to prove that anything in the bible is true? If God didn’t want to bother leaving enough proof (how dare you try to understand God’s mind, btw? Shame on you) that would (as it is) be quite an uphill struggle. God could have (according to you) provided solid unambiguous evidence of Jesus’ existance, but he didn’t even do that.

    (11) Your whole argument is kind of amusing since every christian will *Pounce* on anything that even resembles of proof of anything in the bible. Suddenly faith is not enough! It is only when there is a lack of it that you make excuses for an incompetent god (well, you make it at other times too, but let’s keep to the subject).

    “It does not follow that because God did not do it your way he did not do it”

    (12) But I bet lots of people would agree that it would make me appear smarter than the christian god. Why is he so insecure about people’s belief in him? What entity would be so starved for attention?

    “So, you have no empirical reason to reject them. All you have is generalizations founded upon your ordinary personal experience of a regular concurrence between particular causes & effects. You have offered no rational or logical argument for rejecting them.”

    (13) If this is how you think, which it is not. Why do you not believe in all religions? Why wouldn’t you believe everything anyone told you? Do you believe that David Copperfield used real magic to make the statue of liberty turn invisible?

    There is no reason to believe in magic, and every kid knows that. Common sense and lack of extraordinairy evidence win again. Next.

    Then you go on about an argument about how I have faith in things (like gravity) and how that is somehow similar to imaginary friends. I am sorry, but I have seen one work, not the other.

    “I ask you to consider this question, is empirical evidence complete?”

    (14) Nothing is certain to 100%.

    “Therefore, Science & the inductive scientific method is that which cannot fully disqualify natural anomalies (Miracles) as regular events.”

    (15) So the logical conclusion is that every ghost story, every UFO-sighting, every prophecy about the end of the world and every religious miracle ever supposedly observed is true? Do you live in such a world? Because I sure don’t. I feel silly answering this point because it feels like I have answered it a few times already, but I’m a patient guy.

    (16) How is your religion any more true than another religion?

  7. Korinthian,

    As a Christian, I appreciate your criticisms. They force me to dig deeper into what I profess to believe. Yet, when you say things like

    “Oh, and fulfilling prophecies? That’s easy to do as an author after the fact. I too could invent a fictional character based on Mithras and give him the wisdom of previous religions and have him fulfill whatever I wanted in my book. Hell, I’d even make it more spectacular (light shows, stars writing his name and the moon turning to cheese), but I would leave out things like giving the thumbs-up to slavery and eternal torture.”

    Non sequitur. Does not follow.

    I’m not sure if you’re being serious or not. Because . . . I wonder how a sect of zealots, following a lunatic named Jesus, could access & add “prophecies” to one of the Holiest objects revered by those persecuting them & eventually killing their leader.

    I mean . . . did they sneak into each & every home & Synagogue & add in these “prophesies.” Did the Pharisees, who loathed Jesus & his followers, assist them in adding these additions to their TANAKH, was it a small band of sympathizers?

    In any event these “prophecies,” this “wisdom of previous religions” added “after the fact” to give evidence to an invented “fictional character” remain in the TANAKH . . . the Hebrew Holy bible . . . the Holy Book of the people who are alleged to have killed by crucifixion said invented “fictional character” named Jesus.

    Now if they were concerned enough about this invented “fictional character” to have killed him why would they not have removed the bogus “added wisdom” which was designed to allow “him fulfill whatever” & rise in notoriety & fool the Jewish people.

    Me personally, If I were one of the High Priests, I would of definitely stopped the presses & recalled all the TANAKH’s these nutty rebels & their crazy leader had corrupted. Maybe I would have even destroyed these bibles removing any memory of this malignant cult’s poisonous propaganda . . . yet, they have not.

    You do not seriously believe that these two religions, set aside the question of if what they espouse is true or not, right now I am asking if you are suggesting that early Christians convinced Hebrew scholars to add heretical text to their holy bible just so it could lend credence to a fringe movement & make its leader appear to be the son of God. Which these scholars would then persecute & kill for making claims supported by extra biblical texts they permitted in the first place.

    It’s kind of weird. Jesus says . . . “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God. Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am. I and the Father are one.” And then just as the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God, Jesus winks & says under his breath remember the deal. Oh yeah! They reply.
    Anyway, you also say

    “. . . but the proof of Jesus as a historical figure are quite slim when considering extra-biblical sources. One would think people would have noticed him and written about him more if he was the son of god and could do raise the dead. Then if you find actual proof of a guy named Jesus living in the middle east 2k years ago, then there is still the chore of proving he had magical powers. Not that easy, is it? I don’t envy christian apologetics one bit.”

    I wonder if 2k years from now there will be any convincing evidence of Bill Gates existence. Now, according to your view, nothing necessarily counts as evidence if it lacks rigorous scientific scrutiny of the facts & then drawing out their logical implications.

    Now, you will not deny that in any court case each side has its scientific experts to interpret, support, & question the veracity of the facts presented by the other to the jury.

    This is because all facts & data are open to interpretation. Even the best evidence does not provide certainty that is not subject to error, but which is only highly probable at best . . . which beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence.

    You cannot know that 2k years from now, any facts testifying to Bill Gates existence will not be questioned. You assume they could not.

    Even now, all it would take to create a conspiracy theory questioning the existence of Lincoln is a relentless questioning of the facts surrounding him, their sources & their purpose.

    If the veracity of these facts, their sources & their purposes are denied as being biased by a connection to a mysterious & powerful group, who meet together to perform secret rituals & whose goal it is to control the minds of Americans, then any evidence supporting the actual existence of old Abe will be not considered as such.

    Sound familiar.

    One fact is as easily denied as a thousand when the mind is not open to facts.

    I remind myself that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    You say “One would think people would have noticed him and written about him more if he was the son of god and could do raise the dead.”

    Why? Why would one think that?

    You suppose that if you were God you would have revealed yourself in such a manner that there would have been absolutely no doubt what so ever . . . “light shows, stars writing his name and the moon turning to cheese.”

    This is a non sequitur! It does not follow that because God did not do it your way he did not do it

    You say “. . . there is still the chore of proving he had magical powers.”

    You would agree that inductive reason rests on the assumptions that natural events will occur in the future as they have occurred in the past, that the future will be similar to the past & that no logical, necessary connection can be empirically observed to exist between a cause & its effect.

    In other words, logical necessity is not matter or force which can be measured by scientific instruments. All that can be observed is one event being followed by another without any logical necessity. Therefore, cause & effect connections in natural events are based upon psychological states such as habit, custom, convention, expectation &/or hope.

    The only ground you have for dismissing miracles is your unprovable, untestable, unverifiable & unrepeatable belief that all scientific laws will hold in the future as they have in the past; or more accurately, in this case, that the past should resemble the present & the future.

    I’m assuming you haven’t done any experiments conclusively ruling out anomalous biblical events. You personally, were not there to observe, to test, to attempt to replicate or falsify Christ’s alleged miracles.

    So, you have no empirical reason to reject them. All you have is generalizations founded upon your ordinary personal experience of a regular concurrence between particular causes & effects. You have offered no rational or logical argument for rejecting them.

    As I stated above, if your rational argument is that today modern science has proven through the scientific method that all events are natural (effect) and are preceded by other events natural causes . . . all A’s are B’s, & that since all A’s cause B’s today, it is necessarily the case A has always preceded B in the past, then you assume, by faith & not by logical-empirical or demonstrable reasons, that things are now as they were in the past, also implying that the universe is ordered & contains a natural regularity or uniformity.

    Yet these assumptions, as well as the underlying propositions . . . all A’s are B’s, any thing A (Natural event) is what it is and is not something else Non – A (Supernatural event or Miracle); No thing A (Matter) can be both what it is & not what it is at the same time and in the same respect (Non Matter); & any thing A (verifiable) is either A (verifiable) or it is not; cannot be subjected to the rigorous methods of science that you impose on Christians.

    I ask you to consider this question, is empirical evidence complete?

    If so, then all knowledge is certain. If not, evidence is only partial & its knowledge only probable.

    Scientific evidence is incomplete & its knowledge uncertain . . . consider Induction, Conscience & Cosmology i.e., dark matter, & string theory.

    The history of science has shown it to be advancing, progressing & developing . . . Scientific evidence is therefore incomplete & its knowledge only probable.

    1. That which can only provide a partial & merely probable account of the universe & what are regular natural events is that which cannot fully disqualify natural anomalies (Miracles) as regular events.

    2. Science & the inductive scientific method are that which provide only a partial & merely probable account of the universe & what are regular natural events.

    3. Therefore, Science & the inductive scientific method is that which cannot fully disqualify natural anomalies (Miracles) as regular events.

  8. Korinthian,

    Was there a time in the long history of the universe when contradiction did not exist, or has it always?

    Now, I assume you hold that there are no transcendent, nonmaterial causes. The universe, not derived from, dependent upon, nor containing any supernatural, transcendent entities or beings, is the result of the chance motion of matter. It goes without saying, there are no souls, spirits, immaterial minds or forces to violate suspend or interfere with natural phenomena. The universe or nature being self-activating, self-existent, self-operating, self-dependent & self-explanatory is therefore all there is to reality.

    I’m also guessing that you must also hold that all phenomena can be explained only by scientific methodology. In fact, knowledge, all knowledge is obtained only by logical-empirical methodologies of the sciences and that all understanding, prior to and independent of sense experience such as intuition is rejected.

    And thus you must hold that mind is matter & therefore mental events (comprehensions, concepts & propositions) like ‘all men are mortal’, ‘a triangle is a three sided enclosed plane,’ and ‘there are no nonmaterial causes,’ are motion of matter, identical with neural physiochemical responses of the brain or mere effects of the body/brain.

    1. If all mental events are that which are motion of matter, identical with neural physiochemical responses of the brain or mere effects of the body or the brain.

    2. And all knowledge obtained by logical-empirical methodologies of the sciences including contradictions are that which are mental events

    3. Then, all knowledge obtained by logical-empirical methodologies of the sciences, including contradictions, are that which are motion of matter, identical with neural physiochemical responses of the brain or mere effects of the body or the brain.

    1. All brains are that which are necessarily subject to continuous random change in the course of natural novel rearrangement & reorganization.

    2. All knowledge obtained by logical-empirical methodologies of the sciences, including contradictions, is that which is motion of matter; identical with neural physiochemical responses of the brain or mere effects of the body or the brain.

    3. Therefore, All knowledge obtained by logical-empirical methodologies of the sciences, including contradictions, is that which is subject to continuous random change in the course of natural novel rearrangement & reorganization.

    1. All that which is subject to continuous random change through novel rearrangement & reorganization is that which excludes necessity (what occurs by chance cannot occur by necessity).

    2. Contradiction is that which is transcendent and by necessity false (not that which excludes transcendence & necessity).

    3. Therefore, Contradiction is not that which is subject to continuous random change through novel rearrangement & reorganization (what occurs by chance cannot occur by necessity).

    Or –

    1. All that which excludes transcendent necessity (what occurs by chance cannot occur by necessity) is that which is subject to continuous random change through natural novel rearrangement & reorganization.

    2. Contradiction is that which is transcendent & by necessity false (not that which excludes transcendence & necessity).

    3. Therefore, Contradiction is that which is not subject to continuous random change through natural novel rearrangement & reorganization.

    Anyway you look at it, in order for the proposition, ‘the bible is that which is contradictory,’ to be considered truthful, the terms must be meaningful.

    You can provide no meaningful foundation for the term contradiction.

    Now, you have already defined the bible as ‘that which is contradictory.’ And out of the hundreds of contradictions contained in the Bible, you have provided just a few examples to prove your argument which goes like this I am assuming . . .

    ‘Two propositions contradict each other when the truth of either one necessarily means the falsity of the other, and the falsity of either one necessarily means the truth of the other.’

    First, I would like to point out, that if no part of the Bible is that which contains truth, then, it cannot be self contradictory.

    A self contradiction, by definition is any statement or concept that both affirms and denies its basic meaning . . . ‘self caused,’ ‘causeless event,’ uncaused event, or ‘Jack is the only pathological liar you can trust to tell the truth.’

    If the Bible is that which has no meaning, then it is not that which can meaningfully either affirm or deny its basic meaning.

    Jack, who can utter nothing but meaningless, falsehoods, cannot be said to contradict himself unless he speaks a meaningful truth. Until then, all Jacks utterances are in fact, consistent & non contradictory.

    This is true of the Bible as well. If the Bible is nothing but contradictions, in order for it to contradict itself, it must not . . . contradict itself.

    So, in essence, what you are saying is either that some parts of the Holy Bible are true & others false or it is all false.

    If it is all false it cannot contradict itself. Yet, if only some of it is false then, some of it is true. If some of it is true, then it is possible that the part, the only part which is true, could be the part that says . . . “They (those who deny the truthfulness of the Bible) are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.”

    If this were the case, then once again the Bible could not be said to contradict itself. Only that man contradicts himself when he says there is no God.

    But, I think what you are arguing, is that the Bible is that which contradicts logical-scientific methodology, though your examples cannot establish this assertion.

    The difficulty for you now, however, is the term contradictory/contradiction. As shown above, if you claim & stand by your claim, that it is true that the Bible is that which contradicts itself, you must admit that some knowledge, intuition, understanding &/or comprehension is that which is transcendent, necessary & therefore prior to and independent of sense experience which is subject to continuous random change through natural novel rearrangement & reorganization.

    However, if you deny that contradiction is that which is transcendent, necessary & therefore prior to and independent of sense experience, then your claim, ‘Bible is nothing but contradictions’ is merely motion of matter in the brain, a mental event subject to continuous random change through natural novel rearrangement & reorganization.

    You therefore, both affirm and deny the basic meaning of contradiction. Possibly necessarily false!

    You affirm its transcendence & necessity to refute the Bible, as in . . . the revelation contained in the Judeo Christian Bible is now, has always been & will ever be that which is necessarily false. While at the same time denying the existence of universal & necessary, transcendent truths (contradiction), thus making all knowledge only probable, & your proposition a self contradiction.

  9. I hope to explain the apparent contradictions you’ve cited in another post. But first I would like to assert that these statements are not contradictions, as you state, but rather subcontraies.

    Contradiction, at least as I understand it, is a proposition which asserts something as being either true or false, but not both at the same time, and in the same respect.

    If, for example, one witness claims that Jones spent the night with his girlfriend & another says Jones went to a party, this cannot be a logical contradiction. For it is possible that Jones was somewhere else entirely say . . . Wal-Mart or with His family.

    1. Some (witness A) is that which claims Jones was at his girlfriends apartment before work
    2. Some other (Witness B) claims Jones was at a party before work & his girlfriend’s apartment after work.

    Now, if 1 is false – that Jones was at his girlfriend’s apartment before work, then 2 must be true – that he was at a party before work & his girlfriends after work.

    However, both can be true. Their inconsistency is not a contradiction but only contrariness or sub-contrariness because a contradiction requires a universal denial or affirmation. And as we can see according to this law of thought, the contradiction to 1 is . . . No (witness A) is that which claims Jones was at his girlfriend’s apartment before work.

    Proposition 2, in relation to 1, is logically positing some (witness A) is not that which claims Jones was at his girlfriends apartment before work. The logical contradiction to this proposition would be . . . All witnesses are that which claim Jones was at his girlfriend’s apartment before work. We know this is false on the face of it because there are other witnesses denying this.

    While working in social work, it was routine during investigations to receive two or more seemingly incompatible or inconsistent accounts of an event or series of events. It was a common mistake for new staff to assume these contrary reports were contradictions. They would get very excited thinking they had a slam dunk case. However, they had to be reminded that their case must protect the rights of the accused & stand up to rigorous examination in court.

    In order to do this, they could not rule out other possibilities or commit the error of false alternatives which derives from neglecting to differentiate between contradictories & contraries. It was vital during investigations to remember that contradictions exclude gradations & rule out any middle ground between two opposing testimonies &/or facts.
    To assume that when given two apparently different set of facts one must be true & the other false eliminates the possibilities of both being true or both being false. You don’t want the defense asking ‘Do the explanations you’ve provided exhaust all the alternative explanations?’; & poking huge holes in your case because you viewed the facts only as either black or white &amp, and assumed, without justification, too few alternative explanations for those facts. Facts are just simply facts until meaning & explanation is given to them.

    A credible witness is one who is competent to give evidence, and is worthy of belief. In deciding upon the credibility of a witness, it is important to consider whether the witness is capable of knowing the thing thoroughly about which he testifies. Was the witness actually present during the events or series of events? Is the witness honestly describing the events as accurately as he/she knows? Does the witness have any reason or desire to deceive, or suppress or add to the truth?

    For example, these are the snapshots of a day in the life of Homer Simpson recieved & reported by Kent Brockman, Bill & Marty of KBBL, Reverend Lovejoy, Arnie Pie, Lou & Eddie as described by the witnesses named below

    1. Marge reports that Homer is at work because she witnessed him leave the house as he does every weekday morning. Contradicts 2, 4, 5, & 6.
    2. Grimes reports that Homer, whose office is right next door, did not show up for work at the plant. Contradicts 1?
    3. Burns & Smithers report Homer was at work. Contradicts 2 & 6?
    4. Apu reports Homer picked up Lenny & Carl at the Kwik-E-Mart before the Duff man made his promotional appearance. Contradicts 1, 3, 5, & 6?
    5. Barney reports he saw Homer pick up Lenny & Carl at Moes after the Duff mans appearance at the Kwik-E-Mart. Contradicts 4?
    6. Otto reports he saw Homer with Fat Tony, Legs & Louie in Shelbyville. Contradicts 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5?

    Do these accounts all contradict one another? Are they mutually exclusive or can they be compatible & logically related?

    What if each witness provides a limited or incomplete snapshot that focuses on just one moment of a much larger series of events? Are the apparent inconsistent quality of these vignettes a sufficient condition to prove that no cohesive or unified panoramic can be formed by their combination?

    Absolutely not!

    Homer left for work as he always has (1 True). When he stopped at the Kwik-E-Mart for his doughnut & coffee, he picked up Lenny & Carl who told Him there was going to be a surprise party for him in Burns’ office when they got to the plant (3-4 True). Grimes remained in the control room next to Homers office diligently working away during the party (2 True). In the middle of the party Fat Tony, Legs & Louie persuade Homer, Lenny & Carl to sneak away for some fun in Shelbyville (6 True). Lenny & Carl picked up Moe in Homers car & followed Fat Tony, Legs, Louie & Homer to Shelbyville, passing Otto on the way. Some time later, they arrived back at Moes. After the Duff man made his promotional appearance, Barney arrived to see Homer honking his horn & Lenny & Carl exiting Moes to get into Homers car (5 True).

  10. Sounds like you are under the impression that the bible is inerrant? Did I get that right? What about Joseph’s differing lineages? Or the color of the garment the romans throw over Jesus?

    I’d be happy to know what you think about people picking and choosing from their bible, and how high a regard you hold for what is written in the old testament.

  11. @Korinthian – LOL. Yes the list you provided is quite extensive and as such, I have not even had an opportunity to go through it yet.

    However, as Dr. Gleason Archer, a man who taught for over 30 years at the graduate seminary level in the field of Biblical criticism, puts it:

    “There is a good and sufficient answer in Scripture itself to refute every charge that has ever been leveled against it.”

    It is funny how Seraph in his/her original comment in this post claiming that Christians “pick what they want to believe from varying extremes” did the very same thing in the examples I refute above.

    I would imagine many of the “contradictions” listed in the link you provided, Korinthian, are no different. I only wish I had more time right now to devote to looking into them. They might make a good series of additional blog posts along the lines of refuting the alleged contradictions of the New Testament. 🙂

  12. Do my contradictions next! And when you are done I have 194 more.

  13. @Seraph – Let’s look at what you presented:

    When the ministry of Jesus Began –

    A. You compared Mark 1:13-14:

    13. And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him.

    14. Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,

    Where does it say that “Jesus going into Galilee” is the “beginning of His ministry?

    to John 3:22-24:

    22. After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing.

    23. John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there ; and people were coming and were being baptized –

    24. for John had not yet been thrown into prison.

    Neither does this scripture indicate the starting point of Jesus’ ministry. So do they contradict? Hardly.

    B. Jesus Baptized and Tempted in the Wilderness –

    You compared Matt. 3:13-17 – 4:1-2:

    3:13. Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him.

    3:14. But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?”

    3:15. But Jesus answering said to him, “Permit it at this time ; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he permitted Him.

    3:16. After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,

    3:17. and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

    4:1. Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

    4:2. And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.

    as well as Mark 1:9-13:

    9. In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

    10. Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him;

    11. and a voice came out of the heavens : “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”

    12. Immediately the Spirit impelled Him to go out into the wilderness.

    13. And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan ; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him.

    to John 2:1:

    1. On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there ;

    2. and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.

    … assuming that John 1:35-51 is where Jesus is baptized (even though it does not say He was baptized here).

    The first two portions of scripture show Jesus being baptized and then fasting and being tempted in the wilderness for forty days whereas the second portion of scripture, which you say contradicts the first two portions, does not indicate Jesus was baptized at all but could have been another time Jesus and John the Baptist were in the same place. You only assume that Jesus was baptized in John 1:35-51 but it does not say that He was.

    In conclusion, both examples you provide show no contradictions whatsoever.

  14. There really are a lot of contradictions, and when I said I didn’t have time to put any down it was because I had to do something else, not because I couldn’t think of any.
    As Korinthian said, quite rightly, it’s very easy to find contradictions. You don’t even have to look for the big ones:

    Jesus begins his ministry after John’s arrest. Mk.1:13,14.
    Jesus begins his ministry before John’s arrest. Jn.3:22-24.

    # Immediately after the baptism, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:1,2; Mk.1:12,13.
    Three days after the baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana. Jn.2:1.

    The point I am trying to make (and the rest of you make very good points too!) is that this articles claim that the Bible is unique in its continuity is ridiculous and easily proved false. I have had dreams with more continuity.
    It is not, as you have said David, my ‘opinion’ on the matter. I think that anyone who has studied the Bible from, whether Christian, Atheist, or any religion from any creed or walk of life would realise that it really does not have continuity.

  15. Wow, Delaney, that was a handful! I can’t even spell Nietzsxes name, but you have him down pat.

  16. Bipolar2,

    Yes, yes, we are all familiar with Nietzsche, The Birth of tragedy . . . & the Apollnian & Dionyian spirits. So, what?

    You say, “What nonsense. Limited in history. Ignorant of the past. And of a future which can recapture what was best in our own western artistic, rational, and skeptical inheritance from Greece and Rome — joy in life itself, just as it is, despite its uncertainty, pain, and brevity. That stance toward reality which Nietzsche called “dionysian.””

    Hey bipolar2 . . . “What nonsense . . . ignorant of the past & of a future”
    What self contradiction. What hypocrisy on your part.

    A moment ago you proclaimed . . . “Nature is silent. There is no concept of truth in nature. (Indeed, there are no concepts in nature whatsoever.) Nature *knows* nothing.”

    And now here you are professing to know the truth & not keeping silent.

    Anyone truly familiar with Nietzsche can testify to the oscillating nature of his writings. His thoughts, like yours, were not only extremely vague & ambiguous they also changed with his mood.

    Contradiction was the only consistency to Nietzsche. But what need is there of consistency, clarity & reason when truth is relative . . . “Nothing is true, all is permitted.”
    Nietzsche & bipolar will decide who is master & who is slave, what is the intelligent structure and meaning of the Becoming process, what are master and slave morals.
    Your fusion of the Dionysian & Apollonian spirits evinces your naïve understanding of Nietzsche.

    It was because of his fanatical adoration for the Dionysian spirit, the will to life & power, that irrational impulse in humanity that accepts & craves ecstatic, spontaneous experiences & his loathing of the Socratic daemon, that inner voice which warned about the excesses of paganism and guided him to find the essences that make things what they are & which organized the monotheist & later the Christian individuals conduct in accordance with the essence, which are necessary and rational & operate everywhere for the best; it was Nietzsche’s antipathy for the refutation of pan/polytheistic paganism & the demise of the Greek tragic heroes by the Socratic quest for proportion, rationality, harmony, pattern & intellectual explanation that laid the foundation for Christian dogmatism that pulled his thoughts into a black hole of subjectivism & absurdities.
    Recall that Plato himself did not believe in the Olympian gods.

    In The laws, he tried to prove the existence of God, a monotheistic deity completely different from all the other gods in Greek mythology. And in fact in The republic he argues for excluding the poets from the ideal state because he fears that the citizens are inclined to believe their myths as if they were factually true, and he did not want that the people to be deceived.

    Nietzsche despised what Socrates & Plato loved . . . truth.

    You evince the same.

    You said . . . Nature is neither meaningful nor meaningless. Neither a source of comfort (natural theology) nor a source of despair (existentialism).”

    I am curious, if what you are saying is in fact true, why bother communicating it?
    I’m speculating here, but I suspect you are just putting us on . . . Right? Come on?

    You are really arguing . . .

    All that which is nature is that which is meaningless & not a source of comfort or despair
    Logic, mathematics & scientific laws are natural.
    Therefore, Logic, mathematics & scientific laws are that which are meaningless & not a source of comfort or despair.

    Come on!
    Start thinking for yourself & stop parroting the words of others.

    Here is the foolishness of your argument:

    Since all men are of the same species & share the same species specific property of rationality, if there were something common to all men, then that something would of course transcend all cultures.

    So, the argument goes like this . . .

    I.

    That which is common to all man is that which is natural to all men & transcends culture,
    Reason, manifest in logic, mathematics & scientific laws (A cannot be both A & non A at the same time & in the same respect; 2+2 = 4, the law of gravity) is that which is common to all men,
    Therefore, reason, manifest in logic, mathematics & scientific laws culture (A cannot be both A & non A at the same time & in the same respect; 2+2 = 4, the law of gravity) is that which is natural to all men & transcends culture.

    II.

    That which is natural to all men & transcends culture is that which is meaningful & a source of both comfort & despair.
    The application & use of reason in mathematics, science & justice in medicine, technology, law & education is that which is natural to all men & transcends culture
    Therefore, the application & use of reason in mathematics, science & justice in medicine, technology, law & education is that which is meaningful & a source of both comfort & despair.

    Bipolar, you & I both know that you do not live out this incoherent skepticism. If you want to have integrity & be consistent . . . live it out, or better yet, expose others or your loved ones to the logical consequences of your deep & profoundly flawed philosophy.

    For example, try this the next time a loved one gets very ill, instead of seeking the comfort of an emergency room doctor, who will use that which is natural or common to all good doctors in order to heal . . . reason, technology & medicine, say – Wait . . . I’m brilliant & of course I have a brilliant idea! Let’s go to a circus to seek out the healing comedy of a trapeze artist. We’ll travel via a dilapidated aircraft maintained by a beauty school drop out & piloted by an illiterate, blind, drunk, suicidal, terminally ill, old basket weaver. Or you could just argue . . . there is no meaning in nature one cure is as good as another, Arsenic will heal that severed limb & have you back on your feet again.

    Seriously, what kind of sense does this make?

    Put your body where your mind is! If there is no meaning . . . no truth in nature then, next time you are given a choice to cross a bridge designed completely without the application of reason, knowledge of physics, use of the latest in safety & stabilizing technology & a concern for justice; or another which a flimsy indifferent death trap, please be consistent in your philosophy & cross the bridge.

    Every day you deny the remarks you’ve made in this forum. In fact, the very act of attempting to persuade others of your beliefs, implies a presumption of a common nature shared by yourself & every other respondent to this post. Unless of course, you believe you’re the only one possessing reason.

    As regards, “Religions belong to cultures embedded in nature. And *cultures* are our distinctive human-all-too-human handiwork. Religions are obsolete, unnecessary cultural artifacts.” Two things:

    First, you confuse cause for effect. The woman carries & gives birth to the child she does not create or cause the child to be. There is someone else necessary . . . we call him father.

    Your rhetoric & references to the man who single handedly claimed to kill God does not in any way prove that God & religion is not the cause of culture. Man was created for fellowship.

    Second, you contradict yourself.

    If humanity has a “distinctive human-all-too-human handiwork” that would logically imply that man has a nature, a ground for explaining him; an essential characteristic essential to him, a natural endowment specific to him.

    Then your assertion, “Nature is silent. There is no concept of truth in nature. (Indeed, there are no concepts in nature whatsoever.) Nature *knows* nothing,” is simply false.

    You have posited a concept – “*cultures* are our distinctive human-all-too-human handiwork.” This concept must be grounded upon the belief, shared by yourself & most social anthropologist & social constructionists, that man has essential characteristic native to him, a natural endowment specific to him, “a distinctive human-all-too-human handiwork”. . . a Nature. That Nature, concerning your argument, is to create culture.

    Yet, this cannot be? For we have you denying this with this statement, “Nature *knows* nothing” & in contradiction to this you say, “Nature is neither meaningful nor meaningless.”

    How can the absence of knowledge be meaningful?

    Talk about having your cake & eating it too.

    This is your absurd logic testifying against you. In law we call it a hostile witness. And as the old saying goes ‘get the truth before the truth gets you.’

    Nature is that which *knows* nothing
    Man has a nature
    Man is that which *knows* nothing

    Man is that which *knows* nothing
    Bipolar is a man
    Bipolar is that which *knows* nothing

    How about this one . . .

    Nature is that which has no concept of truth.
    Culture is mans nature
    Culture has no concept of truth.

    Culture is that which has no concept of truth.
    Bipolar is that which belongs to the nihilists social construct culture
    Bipolar & his nihilists social construct culture is that which has no concept of truth.

    Finally, ** the universe evinces neither affect nor intellect **

    You, like your authority Nietzsche, are ambiguous & contradictory to the point of proving your argument true, at least, in respect to yourselves.

    If by universe you mean all that is, was & will be; the totality of existence in all its forms, then you must be included. Do you evince affect or intellect? It seems ironic that with a title like bipolar2 you would deny the existence of affect.

    By the way, if by affect you mean mood or emotion they are two different things. Though for some reason I don’t think you would care.

    In any event, are you just being ironic & cruel by mocking those who suffer from disabling mood disorders that evince dramatic alterations in mood & affect?
    Or do you acknowledge their suffering & that of so many others who struggle with the pain of mental illness.
    Of course you cannot acknowledge it because that would evince knowledge, affect & intellect & they does not exist . . . though there is the matter of these comments of yours evincing intellect; at least the intellect to get out of bed, feed yourself, turn on the computer & produce propositions via words, sentences & short paragraphs.
    But, perhaps you do not include yourself in the things which exist in the universe.

    Here is a little homework for you Bipolar2, go to your local hospice center & sit with the families & loved ones of the dying & use your non existent intellect to convince them of the non existence of there suffering.

    God Bless!

  17. @ Korinthian,

    Thanks for these written contradictions. I believed that you have read and analyzed the Bible in depth. And nothing against the teachings given by Jesus. Right? Therefore, I may say that you accept the Bible with the exception of a little something dug by somebody else.

    As for me, I do not compare my Bible to my Biology textbook. Quote: “I am not bother by those I do not understand, it is those I understood worried me”. For the “answers” you are looking for– wait till the day we meet Mathew,Luke and others. The only problem I afraid is that I may not find you there.

    God Bless You, Korinthian. Be there!

  18. Re: prophecies, no that is not what I am insinuating. Adding bits and pieces to a story (and the bible was edited) to fulfill prophecies is easy peasy. And I’d appreciate it if you could recommend me things to read that are readily available on the Internet instead of making me buy the books (I read Lee Strobel’s “Case for Christ” and was sorely disappointed in his poor excuses for arguments). I’m sure you wouldn’t want me to base arguments depending on you reading “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins.

    I did find some stuff on the books you mentioned though, commenting and debunking the stuff written inside.

    But again, I should mention that if it is in fact true that an extra-biblical source mention someone named Jesus, that is hardly proof of anything, wouldn’t you agree?

    Btw, Josephus is a disputed source that even if valid is very, very weak indeed. Here is a link with regards to the first book you mentioned, you might find it an interesting read: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

    I’d also like to mention that if you ever plow through the contradictions (NT) that I gave you, I can easily get you more, and that is not even counting the stuff in OT and discrepancies between OT and NT.

    I don’t know much about you, but I hope you are one of those christians who are actually willing to critically examine his faith.

  19. @Korinthian – Thanks for providing that link. I will read through it when I get a chance and then return here to comment. It may be some time as it is quite lengthy.

    Regarding your comment on prophecies, are you insinuating that all the prophecies regarding Jesus Christ were written after He was born? What about all the manuscript evidence we have that proves the authenticity of the Bible?

    Finally regarding your claim that the proof of a historical Jesus Christ is quite slim – you might want to check the chapter entitled “Jesus, A Man of History” in Josh McDowell’s book “More Evidence That Demands a Verdict” for starters where there is plenty of secular and Jewish evidence that Jesus Christ is a person of history.

  20. Sorry for the spam, but the proof of Jesus as a historical figure are quite slim when considering extra-biblical sources. One would think people would have noticed him and written about him more if he was the son of god and could do raise the dead. Then if you find actual proof of a guy named Jesus living in the middle east 2k years ago, then there is still the chore of proving he had magical powers. Not that easy, is it? I don’t envy christian apologetics one bit.

  21. Oh, and fulfilling prophecies? That’s easy to do as an author after the fact. I too could invent a fictional character based on Mithras and give him the wisdom of previous religions and have him fulfill whatever I wanted in my book. Hell, I’d even make it more spectacular (light shows, stars writing his name and the moon turning to cheese), but I would leave out things like giving the thumbs-up to slavery and eternal torture.

  22. Blanket statements eh? Fine: start dissecting this one with rationalizations: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html, if you want me to list all the contradictions, I will, but considering how many of them there are, I figured I’d do us all a favor by referring to google instead of listing 345876 pages of text in the comments. And regarding the sheep: you are the one who takes the bible seriously, not me. I stopped believing in fables when I was quite young. BTW, these math problems are quite challenging, I’m glad that it’s not biblical math, though.

  23. @Mark Stevens – You can’t be serious? Zero historically verifiable prophecies?

    Without going into all the prophecies recorded in the Bible, let’s just consider Jesus, who was a historical figure.

    Check out the post below which highlights 18 prophecies recorded before Jesus was born in which He “historically” fulfilled all of them.

    http://www.jesussite.com/blog/2008/05/26/jesus-fulfilling-old-testament-prophecies/

  24. @Korinthian – Again blanket statements with no proof. I don’t need to search Google to prove anything. Seraph was the one who made the statement that the New Testament contradicts itself and you agree. However, neither of you provide any examples.

    C’mon – if you want to have an intelligent discourse, lets look at facts and not opinionated statements.

    And as for the Bible calling Christians sheep – I have news for you: if you are not a sheep then the Bible calls you a goat. We are all refered to as sheep or goats. 😉

  25. @Seraph – Actually I have read the Bible very closely and you saying you “do not have time” to provide examples of your statement that the New Testament contradicts itself still does not negate from the fact that you made a blanket statement with no proof.

    I could take two copies of any classic literature – let’s say one is a hundred years old and the other is recently published, and say that they are not the same, but rather they contradict themselves. However, without comparing the two side by side and showing the differences, then my statement cannot be shown to be true.

    You probably cannot show me examples of how the NT contradicts itself because you don’t have any. It is most likely something you read or heard somewhere and in your sub-conscience believed it to be true. Just like the old fables, “don’t go swimming after you eat or you’ll get cramps and drown,” or “don’t go out with your hair wet or you’ll catch a cold.”

    If you are going to make a statement like you did, back it up with proof or real examples.

  26. If you haven’t found the contradictions in the bible you probably only think what your preachers tells you to think. There are plenty of examples on the Internet of these contradictions, but if google is too complicated for you to use, David Wallace, then I doubt there is any hope for you anyways. Jesus called you sheep for a reason.

  27. There are exactly zero historically verifiable prophecies.

  28. Nice post bipolar.
    You’re right though, David, I did not include any examples and I don’t have time to. All I will say is that if you saw my remarks and believed that it was not true because I provided no examples, and you yourself cannot think of examples, then you have not read the Bible closely at all.

  29. ** the universe evinces neither affect nor intellect **

    You’re using a mish-mash of middle eastern magical texts as if their introverted mythos and androcentric understanding of human nature weren’t too puerile to contribute to a planet-wide ethos.

    Neither nature nor humanity *say* anything about a superordinate, supernatural realm populated by divine law givers.

    Nature is silent. There is no concept of truth in nature. (Indeed, there are no concepts in nature whatsoever.) Nature *knows* nothing.

    Nature is neither meaningful nor meaningless. Neither a source of comfort (natural theology) nor a source of despair (existentialism). Both rooted in the same mistaken presupposition that *meaning* can be found by searching the heavens for gods or quarrying human inwardness for moral laws.

    Religions belong to cultures embedded in nature. And *cultures* are our distinctive human-all-too-human handiwork. Religions are obsolete, unnecessary cultural artifacts.

    Any specific religion reenacts and institutionalizes a cultic myth. It gets spread through custom and imitation, financially supported by mores and law, and enforced by intimidation and violence.

    Get away from xian mythology which (like other big-4 monotheisms zoroastrianism, post-exilic judaism, and islam) posits a moralized universal order which never did exist.

    All the *meaning* to be found in it derives ultimately from imperial propaganda starting about 5,500 years ago when the very first violent yoking together of disparate cultures occurred in what is now Iraq.

    You distant heirs of long dead Akkado-Sumerian militaristic, misogynistic fictions still crave an androcentric, hierarchical, moralized universe, now gone empty.

    What nonsense. Limited in history. Ignorant of the past. And of a future which can recapture what was best in our own western artistic, rational, and skeptical inheritance from Greece and Rome — joy in life itself, just as it is, despite its uncertainty, pain, and brevity. That stance toward reality which Nietzsche called “dionysian.”

    bipolar2
    © 2008

  30. @Seraph – And you have proof of this or are you merely stating your opinion? Without the facts, your statement that the “New Testament contradicts itself” cannot be taken as truth but merely as your own opinion on the matter.

  31. I really wouldn’t say that it is unique in its continuity. Maybe in its complete lack of continuity. Even within the New Testament it contradicts itself and allows Christians to pick what they want to believe from varying extremes.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *