This Is A Fair Question

[vorlon13]

I'd like to think the handling deadly serpents and drinking poison bit is true. Seems kinda cruel to put it in the Bible if it isn't . . . .

Why can't belief, if strong enough, provide perfect protection ?

[Minimalist]

It was added later.

Whatever moron wrote "mark" had a really shitty ending which just wasn't sexy enough for the later church asswipes.  In fact, they wrote about 4 separate endings for the supposedly "inerrant" gospel.

Such is what passes for "inerrancy" among shitheads.

[Succubus]

It was added later.

Whatever moron wrote "mark" had a really shitty ending which just wasn't sexy enough for the later church asswipes.  In fact, they wrote about 4 separate endings for the supposedly "inerrant" gospel.

Such is what passes for "inerrancy" among shitheads.

Aye. We ended up with the Directors Cut. They're never as good as the first release.

[Fake Messiah]

You’re the one that embraces a religion that advocates slavery. Who’s been had?

Bu but SLAVERY!..

Was there indentured servitude? yes, it was purely voluntary, you were not allowed to force someone in to servitude / slavery.

And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. - Exodus 21:16

once again

Yeah who wouldn't want to live like that:
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. --Exodus 21:20-21

Just imagine those little girls all wanting to be slaves:
"What do you want for 8th birthday? A pony?"
"No. I want to be a sex slave."

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. --Numbers 31:17-18

Now, let's say that Indentured servitude was almost always voluntary, except when it was applied as a criminal punishment or was the result of a rare illegal kidnapping. Slavery was completely forced and involuntary.
Indentured servitude is not same as slavery and as you can see Bible is clear that slaves are property. A slave was considered property and could be mistreated or even killed (because "punishment" for killing a slave was only if the slave was Jewish, but if it wasn't then even that little punishment was off) at the whims of the owner. Indentured servants were freemen who had the same rights as anyone else. Indentured servants had the recourse of the law to protect them from abuses. Slaves never had any recourses or protections.
Also Indentured servants are paid, even if it's in nothing more than remission of their debt. Slaves receive no recompense whatsoever.

[stretch3172]

I'm afraid it's barely even close to my analogy. Mine implied that we had the same type of experience, and our accounts would therefore be somewhat different yet consistent (assuming that we were both being honest). Yours apparently assumes that they are so radically different from one another that there would be no consistency whatsoever, which is just plain false. Only John differs significantly from the the others, yet it too is theologically consistent with the Synoptic Gospels.

Where is the theologically consistency here:

Miracles that aren't reported in the other gospels:
The changing of water into wine John 2:1-11.
Giving sight to a man blind from birth John 9:1-8.
Raising Lazarus from the dead John 11:1-45.
But then John says nothing about the birth of Jesus, his baptism by John the Baptist, or his temptation by Satan.

To repeat; if the gospels are true they should be the same. They are not the same, they are drastically different and cannot possibly be true.

Once again, I believe you've missed the point. the gospel authors need not include every single miracle and life event of Jesus to be "true." Aided by God, the biblical authors selected the details of their narratives intentionally to emphasize different theological aspects of Jesus' identity and mission. John's primary goal was to describe Jesus as the loving Bridge between mankind and God the Father, while authors such as Matthew and Luke emphasize His fulfillment of the OT prophecies and human nature, respectfully. There is no logical problem with their choosing to include and exclude certain specific details. They are speaking of the same person from different perspectives and with different points of emphasis.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would they need to be guided by god to select those narratives that, collectively, provide an internally logical theology even if they don;t provide an internally consistent narrative?  What would the actual difference be of them just..you know, doing that...without gods help?

[Succubus]

I think his true flag is now showing, stretch has dropped all pretence at being a researcher, what we have is yet another standard issue Christian apologist intent on spreading the good news.

[Czechlervitz30]

I have noticed The Bible is poorly written as well. I have noticed spelling errors, punctuation errors, and I noticed The Bible does not present any proof of the existence of God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. It is written in English which is not the original languages. Translating from one language to another often leads to mistranslations due to cultural differences. I think the only people who should be allowed to read The Bible are scholars who I have studied for at least a decade. Once they have done my version of studying they would through the book in the trash.

My personal version of studying and self education includes the following scholars and their work:
-John Allegro and all his work on the discovery of amanita muscaria and it's role in religion
-Reverend Robert Taylor's book The Devil's Pulpit
-Jordan Maxwell's work on sex worship and it's role in religion

I have studied the above work and have concluded that religion has been centered around sex, drugs, and astrology.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Jesus F.... Christ!  When will you ever learn what the damn Ten Commandments are?  THOU SHALT NOT STEAL is NOT one of the 10 damn commandments!

I'll play along, name the 10 commandments?

For the 100th time the Ten Commandments are found in Exodus 34:12-28  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...JV;NLT;KJV
It's important to know that because all of the biblical stories are based on one or more of the Ten Commandments.  Some stories show what happens when they are ignored and some show the benefits of obeying them.  You can't understand the biblical stories until you know what the real Ten Commandments are.  

The Ten Commandments are the easiest story to follow in the Bible because it's linear.  All you have to do is start reading from Exodus chapter 19 through Exodus chapter 34.  Get some paper and a pen and make your own notes as you read through those chapters.  Every few verses summarize what you've read.  And when you get to Exodus 34:28 you will understand what the real Ten Commandments are.

But if you don't want to do that then watch these videos and they will explain it to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NCuh34E1hs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkCJ8rb8Grw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u3z69YpLx0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36g3auOm9HA&t=1850s

So if you will at east take an hour to watch the videos you will gain a lot of useful knowledge and if you read from Exodus chapter 19 through Exodus 34 and take notes about what you've read you will increase your understanding of the fairy tale.  It's up to you.

[Huggy Bear]

You're just going to gloss over Exodus 20?

The 10 commandments are universal and apply to Jew and Gentile alike, how does the following passage as found in Exodus 34 apply to Gentiles?


"The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt."