Was at least the first life form created?

[rjh4 is back]

No sarcasm intended

But even if we do read the Bible from cover to cover and do our research and after our efforts discover that the Bible is a far more coherent work than we had otherwise suspected, what does this mean?

Surely it simply means that it is far more structured and well written that we thought. I still fail to see just because we have a beautiful collection of texts on our hands that you can make that leap from stories written down ages ago to a belief that they somehow have any basis in the real world and contain 'truths' that are divinely inspired.

No matter how much research anyone does it does nothing to lend any verisimilitude to the actual stories.

I see your point. So I will modify my suggestion. Instead of focusing on researching the entire Bible, etc., evaluate the New Testament alone and whether or not Jesus was resurrected. My opinion as to how to do the research in my last post would still apply. I think you will find that the New Testament claims that Jesus was/is God incarnate, He died to pay the penalty for sins, and rose again as evidence they He was/is God. If after researching this, you conclude that it is hogwash, Jesus did not live in history, die in history, and then in history rise from the dead, then reject it and the entire Bible and God altogether and then feel free to post that "Rjh4 is an idiot" . If you conclude otherwise, the truthfulness of the rest of the Bible will fall into place as the New Testament also says that Jesus quoted from the Old Testament which would then verify the truth of that. After all, the resurrection is the whole basis for Christianity and if that fails, it all does. See I Corinthians 15:13-19. I don't think it fails, but each person must decide for themselves.

I hope this is not considered preaching here because I think there is a rule against that. I am not trying to preach but I am trying to answer Darwinian's question regarding the veracity of the Bible.

(Yes, if you have already done the research and concluded that it is hogwash, you can post that I am an idiot now.)

[leo-rcc]

Okay, let me point out to you first that I have read the bible cover to cover twice in two different languages as I have also done with the Quran. I think to make a fair judgment on a religion and its text you should at least have looked at the scriptures.

And I do not share the idea that this is a coherent masterpiece and I am very much convinced that if in this day and age this book were to be presented for the first time in the same form, Christianity would never get of the ground. There are just too many scientific advances that would render the bible as outdated and it would take a serious re-write to make this book palpable for a minor sect, let alone a leading religion.

As for translations, that can be a problem.

There is a biblical scholar here in Holland that is arguing that Genesis is being translated wrong and it is not saying that God created the heaven and the Earth, but it separated them from each other. Now that is what I would call a significant difference. One implies God created it all from nothing, the other implies the heaven and the Earth are already there but needed to be moved from each other. Now judging on the translations I've read, I think the authors of the Bible were not saying "separated" but "created", as outlined in the rest of Genesis, even though "separated" would be at least more consistent with a big bang (though still wrong). I can reference you the article but it is in Dutch, I don't know if there is an English translation of the article yet.

I do have to say that even though the translations do differ, there is not that much difference in the context of the verses. The syntax between Dutch and English are different of course, but Noah's Ark still floats around with a load of animal in them no matter how you write it down.

I am not going to call you an idiot, just because you have come to a different conclusion than I have. But I do not share your view on the resurrection or any other miracle claims the bible has made. I find it quite hard to believe that the bible would make an entry on such a big deal and no other person from that time would have written that same thing down in another source like "Get this, there was this guy that got crucified by the Romans, and a couple of days later I see him walking down the street. Its amazing! He was dead for 3 days and he just got out of that cave and walked around the city. Best trick evah!"

[Eilonnwy]

I think that in doing the research that you should read the Bible in its entirety, research what people say are contradictions in the Bible, read the proposed answers for the issues and make a decision. Much has been written on both sides of this issue so if you want to make a reasonable decision, I think you need to consider both sides. On the Christian side, I would suggest the writings of anyone who set out to prove Christianity and the Bible wrong and ended up changing their mind. Josh McDowell is one author that I can think of that would fit this description and the book Evidence that Demands a Verdict. In fact, that book will also provide references to authors on the other side of the issue.

Without even getting into the specific contradictions of the Bible, the fact that apologists have to work so hard to write a book and clear up apparent contradictions seems to only testify to it's lack of cohesiveness.

[rjh4 is back]

I am not going to call you an idiot, just because you have come to a different conclusion than I have.

Thank you. I appreciate that and all your other comments.

I find it quite hard to believe that the bible would make an entry on such a big deal and no other person from that time would have written that same thing down in another source like "Get this, there was this guy that got crucified by the Romans, and a couple of days later I see him walking down the street. Its amazing! He was dead for 3 days and he just got out of that cave and walked around the city. Best trick evah!"

My question to you would be how many sources do you need? The Bible contains several eye witness accounts. Considering the times in which Christianity began do you think it is reasonable that you would get a Roman or a Jewish (I'm talking about the "official" Jewish religious leaders of the time) version of the events? The Jews wanted to keep the peace with Rome and wanted to keep control over the Jewish citizens. Why would they really write about something that would lend credibility to the new believers? And what motivation would the Romans have for writing about the resurrection? The Roman leaders wanted to be the only king and be worshiped as a god. If a Roman citizen wrote about the resurrection, would they not be risking their life? So there was a great incentive not to write about it. Also, there was a great incentive at the time not to believe. Yet so many did anyway because of the eye witness accounts of the events. Even at the time of Paul writing I Corinthians (see chapter 15:1-8) he says that the risen Jesus appeared to more than 500 at one time, the majority of which were still alive at that time. I submit to you that the only reason why Christianity grew was because of the witness evidence and the lack of a body. To me, all this witness evidence convinces me that it was a real historical event because there was such a great incentive for the people not to witness of this event if it were not true. Paul was stoned several time for his belief in the resurrection. So Paul was willing to subject himself to such treatment knowing that it was all a lie? Doesn't seem reasonable to me. Remember, Paul originally persecuted Christians and then had the risen Jesus reveal Himself to Paul. Paul's outlook changed radically and he was willing to subject himself to horrible treatment because of his witness. To me, that is a credible witness...one that can be believed.

---

Without even getting into the specific contradictions of the Bible, the fact that apologists have to work so hard to write a book and clear up apparent contradictions seems to only testify to it's lack of cohesiveness.

I disagree (big shock there, huh? ) I think it is more a result of the fact that we are dealing with ancient documents and it is sometimes difficult to determine what was meant by what was said if you do not know the times and culture of those to whom the documents were written or do not look for what was meant within that culture. Furthermore, clearly there are people who want to discredit Chrisianity and will, therefore, do things such as point out apparent inconsistencies when, in fact, there are reasonable explanations. (I am not meaning you here, so please do not take that last sentence personally.) (Please also do not take this as me saying that Christians always do that which is honest and true and are better than those who discredit Christianity. I do not think that.) I am merely suggesting that there are other explanations for the volumes written for and against apparent inconsistencies in the Bible than concluding that this is evidence that the Bible is incohesive.

[Eilonnwy]

My question to you would be how many sources do you need? The Bible contains several eye witness accounts.

That, in and of itself is false. Mark was written around 70ce, Matthew and Luke afterward, followed by John at the end. These are not eyewitness accounts.

The only other account to possibly have existed earlier than this is the Q Gospel, which we don't have (And if existed would more be a document of sayings rather than accounts of Jesus.)

So please, where are the accounts of Jesus by his disciples during his lifetime? Where are accounts between 33ce and circa 70ce. All that you have is Paul, and he is not an eyewitness. There is nothing.

And let's pretend there were eye witness accounts of Jesus's death and resurrection, that is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that Jesus died and came back to life. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[rjh4 is back]

And let's pretend there were eye witness accounts of Jesus's death and resurrection, that is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that Jesus died and came back to life. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It seems then you are saying that no matter how reliable the witness evidence was, you wouln't believe it anyway; that even if 500 or more eye witnesses testified personally to you and were willing to put their lives on the line for their witness, you still would not believe because "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". (I am, of course, extrapolating from what you said, especially for the second statement.) Am I correct?

Is there any evidence that you could think of that you would accept? Would you even accept it if you saw it yourself? (In print, the last two questions can come across as being nasty. I assure you that is not my intention. I am merely wondering.)

[Eilonnwy]

It seems then you are saying that no matter how reliable the witness evidence was, you wouln't believe it anyway; that even if 500 or more eye witnesses testified personally to you and were willing to put their lives on the line for their witness, you still would not believe because "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". (I am, of course, extrapolating from what you said, especially for the second statement.) Am I correct?

I'm saying that there is no eye witness testimony, and if there was it would not prove the resurrection, but it would be at least be a start. As it is we don't have conclusive proof that Jesus ever existed never mind died and resurrected. With that said, do I think Jesus never existed? I don't know. I've seen arguments that claim Jesus was a myth that morphed into a story believed to have historically happen. I don't know if I believe it. I'm willing to accept the premise that a man named Jesus probably existed and maybe was influential in some respect.

Is there any evidence that you could think of that you would accept? Would you even accept it if you saw it yourself? (In print, the last two questions can come across as being nasty. I assure you that is not my intention. I am merely wondering.)

I didn't take it as nasty, don't worry. First, I want to refer you to an article I wrote a while back to familiarize you with standards of evidence.

Now, as stated, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence. It's really hard to prove that a man came back to life 2 centuries ago when science was not as advanced as it is today. It's well known that people can even be buried when they're not really dead, only appear to be, and then "rise from there grave" so to speak.

As I have stated many times, I believe in the scientific method as the most reliable form of finding out what is most likely to be true. Eye witness testimony is so notoriously unreliable. You cannot accept what people claim at face value, you sometimes can't even accept what you see at face value, knowing how well our eyes and minds deceive us. I don't know that there is evidence that could convince me, given that the events happened so long ago and I don't know how it would be tested. If there was a scientifically sound method that could attempt to prove the resurrection, I would certainly consider it. If it happened in front of me, would I believe it? Depends. If it happened in front of me, I would want to ensure I wasn't being tricked or delusional myself. If there was reliable scientific evidence that a person was dead for a day and a half (Dying Friday afternoon and rising Sunday does not constitute as being dead for 3 days, I always thought that was silly), and that he came back to life, and all this was documented clearly...yes, I think I would believe it if it happened in front of me.

If Jesus came down himself and demonstrated to me through miracles that he died and resurrected, I might believe that too, though I would recognize the absurdity of trying to explain to others it happened, given they cannot test for themselves whether it happened, I am lying, or was delusional.

As it is, the evidence that does exist is bad or nonexistent, so it is completely absurd to assure people there is reliable eye witness testimony of the death and resurrection. There clearly is not, and I feel justified in believing that if Jesus existed, he probably did not rise from the dead.

[rjh4 is back]

@Eilonnwy

Thanks for your response. Relative to your article I had actually read it a few days ago when I came across it in something you posted to someone else. I also understand your position.

One thing I do not understand, though, from your earlier post. You said:

"Mark was written around 70ce, Matthew and Luke afterward, followed by John at the end. These are not eyewitness accounts...So please, where are the accounts of Jesus by his disciples during his lifetime?"

You seem to be saying that an "eyewitness account" would have to be an account written during Jesus' life. That doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that an "eyewitness account" is an account given by the person who personally witnessed the event. I don't see the relevance of when that account was put in writing, unless it was put in writing after the eyewitness was dead. Could you clarify this, please?

[Eilonnwy]

It matters when life expectancy wasn't that long and there is no evidence that suggests Mark, Matthew, Luke & John were eye witness accounts. All evidence points to the contrary. I actually soon plan to delve into this matter further, as a response to your question for an example about the Bible "crumbling under scrutiny". I just haven't had the chance to put the post together.

[Darwinian]

Jesus was born between the years 6 - 4 B.C. We know this because he was born during the reign of Herod and he died in 4 B.C.

It is generally accepted that Jesus was 33 when he died which would place it in the year 29 A.D. (assuming he was born in 4 B.C.)

Let's be kind and say that that Mark was 25 when Jesus died so that would place his birth at 4 A.D. We know that the Gospel of Mark was written on or after 70 A.D. so that would mean that he was 66 years old when it was written.

That doesn't sound too bad by our standards as 66 is still quite young, but, in the times of Jesus the average life expectancy was just 49! And don't forget that all the other Gospels were written later and so the other disciples would have been even older.

It's not impossible but the chances of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all surviving into their 60's and 70's at those times would be very unlikely indeed.

By todays standards it would be like 4 friends all surviving into their 100's and 110's and then committing their stories to paper and then expecting those stories to be accurate and we all know how memory behaves as we get older.