I don't care about bible contradictions.

[Drich]

Oh. So the divinely inspired authors don't agree with each other on events relating to the divine, and that doesn't bother you in the slightest.

I did not say the conflicts in scripture were not reconsilable, I simply point to the undeniable fact that they are there, and no they do not bother me. Why? because once one studies the scripture and the time in which these people lived, the 'conflicts' add to the authsenticity of the accounts recorded.

So to you and yours 'ultimate truth' falls in how many women went into the sepulcher? or what specific time of day Christ died?

Nice dodge, but the bullet didn't miss you: you admitted there are contradictions in the scripture you apparently (since you didn't bother to) can't be explained by the usual 'that's metaphorical'

again I was not asked to reconcile the account, if you want me to explain how this conflict is resolved then ask me to resolve it. As it was contextually written the conflicts were used to question belief. I answered accordingly.

Irrelevant. You are not god and do not claim to be all-powerful and all-knowing. Answer me, Dripsy: is your god capable of writing a book that would not contain contradictions?

Again God is alpha and Omega, He can do what ever He wants...

Yes, that and all the other absolutely pointless figures, like the unnecessarily detailed description of the ark for example

Unless it was found...

Or maybe you were reading deuteronomy (the book of the law)

Which DOES happen to be in the bible, doesn't it now?

Did you miss the point? Deuteronomy reads like a book of the law because it is a book of the law.. If you know it is a book of Jewish law then why the need to make mention of it?

Overinterpretation on your part....I was hinting at the fact that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts, not implying no one similar to the biblical Christ existed. And I don't watch the History Channel.

You do know the 'witnesses' for the most part were fishermen right? and that in that day and time only officals of the state such as a Tax collector (Matthew) and or priestly Scribe would have actually been able to write or record anything?
It was a common practice for a witness to have what they saw transcribed. So to say the gospels were not written by the eye witnesses is an empty charge.

It isn't? Ah, those pesky catholics implying the existence of objective morality must've been reading something else then....

Actually they read from decrees and the traditions of the church, not the bible to define their 'morals' or haven't you noticed a distinct lack of confessionals, rosaries, hail Mary's in the bible?

It's really very nice of you to be so self-incriminating, Dripsy, saves me a lot of trouble.

actually sport you will learn to tread lightly around obvious 'wins', as they tend to be apart of a greater truth that generally point to a lack of basic understanding on your part.

The point that I'm asking you to address is this: if god is perfect, why is the bible so imperfect?
[/quote]
Let's go for the obvious answer: "The bible is not God."

The bible is a set of instructions, not a text book. It's truths are found in following said instructions, and producing what has been promised. not in philosophical debate on whether the instructions are viable or not. In this God uses the bible and it's perceived 'imperfections' to filter out those who can follow simple instruction given by him and those who can not.

Again that what this life is all about the separation of those who want to be with God and those who do not. Our lives are filled with tools like this to help that process out. So that when we face our final judgement we will know in our hearts that our judgement is right and just