Is there a god?

[LeedsRhinos]

Is there a god? I mean look at all the different relgions around the world who all believe that THEY are right & the others are wrong. They can't all be right can they. Which is why in my opion it all rubbish.

[Merlin]

PAPPY: Thanks for the tip, Now I'm on another PC, I don't see the 'report this answer' anywhere!! Just goes to show - it depends on how you look at things. CLANAD: Thanks for the info - I didn't realize that there were so many versions of the NT. But as for the congruency of texts written 800 - 1000 after the event, you just know what I have to say as a cynic and sceptic (yes, I go the whole hog): redaction. But we, as individuals, only have the the Bible to inform us.

[I.R.]

Hi Merlin. What I do to get to the last page without scrolling thru all the Q's is to adjust the page address in the address bar. for instance, this page is question49388-10. the previous ones are -9, etc. Back to your question. The fact that the three accounts differ doesn't mean that the bible contradicts itself. It simply means that three witnesses reported the same event from different perspectives, but one was more detailed than the other two.

[I.R.]

Merlin, the "report this answer" doesn't appear on my posts either. I guess it's because I can't report myself. But I can see it on your posts.

[el duerino]

Clannad - I am a little confused. You think that because the bible has been copied correctly it holds true? Doesn't this ignore the thousands of factual innaccuracies and contradictory statements about gods nature.

[I.R.]

Factual inaccuracies and contradictions? Such as?

[Merlin]

IR I am personally not too conerned that the gospels don't agree on details because I take the view that they are to be interpreted and 'understood in a particular way'. What I am asking is this: if you say that the content of a book (any book)is historical fact to be read literally, and that book has four different versions of the same story (for whatever reason), then which of the four versions do you accept as fact. You can say that the stories are all valid in their way and taken together (or pick-and-mix from them) they then give the full picture between them. If you do this, though, you cannot also claim that the whole book is fact. That is the main question. But which one do you go for: physical contact and ascension or a different combination?

[Merlin]

And the follow-on questions would be: 1. If there was no physical contact, then the stories about Thomas touching the wounds are not true. 2. If there was physical contact, then JC was in human form; so what happened at ascension? 3. If he ascended in purely spiritual form, then the physical body must have been left behind in front of the witnessing apostles and it's incredible that there is no mention it. 4. If he ascended in physical form (I understand that this is the RC version), then how was his physical form compatible with the spiritual environment of heaven?

[Merlin]

....And which one do you take to be the most detailed? Being the most detailed does not necessarily mean being the most accurate. If one version of a story ends with "She said goodbye, shook the hands of three friends and left in an easterly direction with a smile on her face" and another says "She left without a word", how can you know that the one with most detail is the factually correct version?

[Merlin]

PAPPY. Some of your points I tend to agree with, some not, and some are eminently debatable. It may be OK not to know, but it is the biggest question than man can ask himself. Looking for the answer certainly makes my heart beat faster and now and then I get an 'Oh wow!' moment as another penny drops. Better than Tchaikovsky and The Matrix. It's a cheap pursuit that you can do anywhere and a good debate is more challenging than a game of chess. How do you exercise your mind?

[el duerino]

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ enjoy

[I.R.]

To borrow your own term, El D, absolute tripe! "over-skepticism", or something. Merlin, I've never actually considered those points you raised, I mean the points about what happened to the body. At times like this I wish God could just speak up and clear up all the confusion

[el duerino]

lol excellent. glad you read it through and didnt make a summary judgement based on your pre-existing beliefs about the bible.

[Merlin]

EL D: Useful in places, entertaining in others - I shall keep it in my favourites, thanks. BUT.... to be fair to the other side, it can't be relied on as a complete and factual reference 'cos there are major ommissions - See John 21 vv 24-25. Did JC ascend or not (V V IMPORTANT) - does this ambiguous passage refer to what he had already done (in addition to what's recorded), or what he then went on to do - because he was not dead and did not ascend? This bit is wrong in your reference so it is all tripe!!

[Merlin]

IR The specific points of detail are less important at the moment than the principle of whether the Bible can be relied on as a factual account. I think it would be a courageuos and beneficial step forward for you to reconsider whether the Bible is the factual word of God or whether it was produced by fallible human beings (maybe recording the word of God as they understood it and to the best of their limited ability) and should therefore be read with that condition in mind. It may not end there, but it would be progress!!

[Merlin]

IR: I know this is taken out of context, but maybe it will help: Luke 24,45 "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." That suggests to me that the apostles had problems understanding the scriptures properly because they were being read literally without an 'open mind'. JC told them how to read the scriptures and it follows from that that JC was advising them not to read the scriptures literally with mental blinkers. Hope it helps.

[I.R.]

Definitely, you cannot take most of the scripture literaly. Figurative speech, metaphors and the like. Even Jesus spoke mostly in parables. That is the problem with that site, they are so eager to discredit the bible, that they deliberately ignore the fact that some of the stuff they refer to are obviously not meant to be taken literally.

[Merlin]

IR Yes, it's easy to scoff. I know, I do it when I'm not being careful. Anyway; it looks like you�re ready to progress from the view that �all these facts are things learned from the bible�, �the Bible has no factual inaccuracies and contradictions� and �the Bible is the truth� and move forward to the view that �you cannot take most of the scripture literally�. Well done. Now when you go to the Bible for advice, you can still read all the opinions and options that are presented to you, but you are free to make up your own mind about what you believe. The Bible will no longer be confusing. For instance, you can accept the representation of genesis and the fall of man, instead of the literal story, and accept Darwinism as fact and still keep a belief in God the creator. There is no conflict there. (Maybe you were OK with that anyway and I�m being too presumptuous?)

[Clanad]

I'll just take a minute for a quick reply... El duerino... give me an example I can work with concerning "thousands of factual inaccuracies". I would have to agree with your assessment of being a "little confused". Recall, I did say this is going to take a while... I'm attempting to provide evidence that charges made by sceptics may not be true. One being that scripture is unreliable because of errors in copying. Merlin.. I'm not sure what you mean by "redaction". The examples I've given, more available if neccessary, indicate that the autographs as originated within 10 years of the events are, for all practical purposes, identical to the copies we have today and those copies are the same as examples provided at various times throughout the ages. One of the most important considerations in textual investigation concerns "Sitz in Leben".. i.e., does the person writing the document place the events and people in the correct setting for the time. It's interesting that no archaeological discovery has yet contradicted scripture. Granted, there are many areas of scripture for which archaeological has not yet been discovered, but that does not mean it does not exist. Look, all this is the beginning of an effort to indicate the scriptures are extremely reliable in their content. I'm not asking, at least at this juncture, for this fact alone to establish a basis for believing in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I suspect that Merlin and el duerino, and perhaps others are disaffected Catholics. I mean absolutely no disrespect, but my experience has been that those that have left the Catholic denomination are often the most resistant to reasonable discourse. I don't claim this is universally true, only my personal experience. I have my own theories as to why... but that's a subject for another discussion. More later...

[el duerino]

The earth was not made in 7 days . . . fact?

[el duerino]

No, I was not catholic. I went to a C of E school. I was atheist at 12. Please do not insult my intelligence by insinuating I am not open to reasonable discourse. I merely have yet to hear many reasonable affirmations as to why I should even consider an omnipotent being. An old book is really a rather tenuous link, dont you think?