h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

> Now the Bible is alleged to be an accurate account of events from the dawn of time onwards

An accurate account in what sense? A historical sense? Alleged by whom? I think you'll find that only a small number of creationists would say such a thing.

The Bible isn't meant to be a history book, it's meant to be a book about God's relationship with mankind.

Who said you had to believe it?

- Jordan

Uhhh... friend, what do you mean when it comes to Jeremiah 10:2-5? It's talking about idols. See, in verse 14 it says 'for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.' You know what that means? metal idol. It's even clearer in the NIV version of it. Here, look at this stuff:

verse 8 "They are all senseless and foolish; they are taught by worthless wooden idols."

verse 14: "Everyone is senseless and without knowledge; every goldsmith is shamed by his idols. His images are a fraud; they have no breath in them."

I think that this was meant in good humor, you knowing what it actually meant, but for the people who don't know a whole lot about the Bible, just give a nod to the humor in it. It's only meant to be a corny little joke among theologians who know about this kind of stuff. I think.

I'll reply to the circle question in 1 Kings. Here the poster makes the ever so common and short sighted use of mathmatics that will never allow him to be an engineer. He forgot to take into account the THICKNESS of the bowl. Read it again, carefully and in context, and you find that the numbers do in fact add up. If you still have problems with it, go back to your third grade teacher for a more in-depth explanation of how the inside diameter and outside diameter of a 3-d bowl are in fact different.

About the comment on how many horsemen David took. Again, my friend you show your ignorance of what you are reading. Do you know how many men rode in a war chariot? The correct answer is 10. Just as if you were talking about today's modern world you may leave out certain minor details you expect your reader to know(like the average car can only carry 4-5 people) somebody reading it 3,000 years later may need an explantion.

I will say this very slowly. There are NO contridictions in the Bible if you actually take the time to learn what you are reading. If you have trouble I suggest getting a NIV study Bible which will help explain these things.

On the incest issue. How else is mankind going to populate the Earth? DNA of Adam and Eve were different than ours in that they were not yet corrupt with bad genes. Which is the problem with incest today. Before you all go spouting off about the Word of God, do a little home work. There are plenty of people and sites out there to help answer any question you may have. Don't just assume it's not true because you don't understand. There is only one unforgivable sin listed in the Bible, blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

God Bless you all.

'DNA of Adam and Eve were different than ours in that they were not yet corrupt with bad genes.'

Bad genes?

And as for the circle question - does it really matter if the writer gave a figure that was one/thirtieth out or not? I mean, it's /one cubit/. I hardly think Jesus cared about the precise dimensions of the cross he was crucified on. 'Oh, no, wait! You have to cut a bit off the top here or I can't be the Messiah...'

Ho hum. Not intentionally being contrary, just posting rather quickly, s'all.

- Jordan

You say there is no contradictions but what about these:

In 2 samuel 24:1 it is said that God who moved (RSV: 'incited') David but the auther of 1 chronicles 21:1 says that is was Satan who provoked (RSV: 'incited') David to do such a dastardly thing.

Is it God or Satan which religion is the Devil synonymous with God.

Though you adressed the 700 hundred chariots with there 7000 men who fought in chariots, you did not deal with the fact that 2 samuel 10:18 says 40,000 horsemen and 1 chronicles 19:18 says 40,000 foot men.

Plus I have never heard or read about a chariot carrying 10 people. Though I will take your word for it.

1 kings 7:26 says 2000 baths while 2 chronicles 4:5 says 3000 baths for Soloman.

Did Soloman have 4000 stalls for horse or 40,000 stalls?
2 chronicles 9:25 vs 1 1 kings 4:26

Did saul enquire of the lord od didn't he?
1 samuels 28:6 vs 1 chronicles 10:13-14

Heaven, no man has ascended John 3:13 contradicts 2 king 2:11 Elijah ascended, and Genesis 5:24 Enoch ascended.

Did Jesus loose one of his disciples or not?
john 18:19 vs John 17:12

All are sinners 2 chronicles 6:36 and Whoerver is born of god doth not commit sin 1 john 3:9


What about john 1:18 vs Exodus 33:11

or 1 timothy 6:16 vs Exodus 24:10

and

Exodus 33:20 vs Genesis 32:30

and the goes on to show his (Gods) back parts to moses. see Exodus 33:23

Is god the fabricater of confusion or not?
1 corinthians 14:33 vs Isaiah 45:7 and 1 samuel 16:14 and 2 thessalonians 2:11.

Gods Omnipotence or not?

Mark 10:27 and Matthew 19:26 vs Judges 1:19

I really can't go on. I will let you answer these first and then move on to the others.

Thanks

Adib

> God's Omnipotence or not?
>
> Mark 10v27 vs Judges 1v19

Well... erm... "all things are possible with God for those who believe (paraphrased)" doesn't mean that everything goes right for those who believe, does it? Hence the word 'possible'. Otherwise it would have said "he who believes in God will get everything he wants", which is completely different.

> Did Jesus loose one of his disciples or not?
> john 18:19 vs John 17:12

I don't understand - what relevance does John 18v19 have to the question?

> Did saul enquire of the lord od didn't he?
> 1 samuels 28:6 vs 1 chronicles 10:13-14

In the first instance he did but with no response... in the second instance he did not. These two passages describe different periods of time - the first from when Saul attempted a seance after he attempted to inquire of the LORD, the second from when the Phillistines killed him and his sons after he did not inquire of the LORD during battle.

> Heaven, no man has ascended John 3:13 contradicts 2 king 2:11 Elijah ascended, and Genesis 5:24 Enoch ascended.

I'm not sure whether "taken by a whirlwind into heaven" and "taken away by God" are the same as "ascended" in the sense that Jesus ascended into heaven.

> What about john 1:18 vs Exodus 33:11

There is a difference between "God" and "the LORD". I think.

> In 2 samuel 24:1 it is said that God who moved (RSV: 'incited') David but the auther of 1 chronicles 21:1 says that is was Satan who provoked (RSV: 'incited') David to do such a dastardly thing.

Satan is under God's control. The author of 2 Samuel leaves it open to interpretation as to exactly how God 'incited' David - he could have used Satan to do so.

Some of your other questions are more interesting - like the "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace" in 1 Corinthians... I'd have to think about that more. I hope some of the other points I've tried to make have given you something to think about though.

Yeah it has. Actually I have not read the Bible in a long time. Better dust mine off a little I think. If I can tear my self from my Quran that is.

Adib

Right back to the very beginning of how this conversation started, someone saying that the article was 'rather cynical', well surely that was only said because this is the Bible we are dealing with? If someone were to write a story now and not say whether it were fact or fiction, an opinion that was 'cynical' would surely be accepted? Just because the Bible is a touchy subject people aren't allowed to think anything negative about it.

Seeing as you guys are so hung up on facts - the bible contains 66 books that all support each other and all say the same things. It strikes me that it is odd that so many people who have never met can say the same things. The Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy was written several times by Douglas Adams (who I'm presuming is consistantly the same person) and every version is different.
In addition prophecies span the entire bible and all the ones that were supposed to have happened have come true. ie. the birth of Jesus etc.
Much of the bible has scientifically proven to be true - they have found evidence of where Moses crossed the river, the creation of the universe fits exactly with Genesis (ie first there was matter and light, then there was the atmosphere and oceans, then there was plants, then came the moon enabling other stars to be seen and the creation of seasons, then there was animals, and finally humans came. I'm sorry if I can't count or something but that seems like 6 distinct time periods to me.
The only parts of the bible that do not have complete scientific back up are miricles for the obvious reason they are miricles and therefore supenatural - made by a supenatural being - and thus inconsistant with our scientific version of life, almost as though it were from a different dimension.

I am going to attempt to put my view forward on the matters that have appeared so far in this conversation. Starting from the beginning.
The first post I had difficulty with was 7 which was pointing out places where the bible says two different things.
In my bible both the accounts in samuel and chronicals say 7000 men so I'm not sure where Amon got the differences from.
His second quotes also say the same thing although it is harder to notice because they are in old English 2Sam 24:1 means that David turned against the Israelites and counted them. It is saying that David was not with the Lord which is the same thing as saying he was with Satan.

The other contradiction that is offered is 'an eye for and eye' and 'turn the other cheek'. to consider these we have to consider when they were written - any historian will tell you this is how to evaluate sources. The first quote was written after Jesus. People nowadays have the opportunity to go to heaven by believing in Jesus. Before then - when the first quote was written the only way to get to heaven was to live a fair life and offer up sacrifices to have your sins forgiven. People will never follow anyone with their hearts if they think that person is unfair In addition you would not believe in a God if his laws wanted you to do something that seemed immpossible. In the same way God could only show the people of the old testament that he was fair if he gave the fair rules that he found acceptable. When Jesus came he could astually show the people that it is possible to life a life by the law 'turn the other cheek' and therefore that law could come into existance.

I'm going to skip my chronology and jump to the reacurring proof of the existance of God theme. Now I believe it is entirely up to you whether you believe in God or not but I ask you to consider my points.
In post 38 I think it is written 'people invented God because they needed him' but i ask how they could inent the idea of a God if they didn't know he could possibly exist. If you kept some one in complete misery and never let them ever be happey or even know the concept of being happy could exist would they 'invent' the term. i don't think so because there would be no reason for them to presume that any other state could exist - they have never experianced it so why could their minds concievably immagine it. Now you may argue that if you kept that person in isolation they could immagine that there are other people in the same state as them and I agree but that is because it is something their minds can register - they exist why shouldn't somebody else? To get to my point - I don't believe that anyone could make up the existence of a supernatural power without seeing that power or seeing the action of that power.
in conjunction with this missionarys have travelled to areas of the world that have never met anyone from civilisation as we know it and discovered that these people already knew about God. They may have called him a different name but nether the less they believed he existed.

In post 35 Agonistes says something along the lines of 'because Jesus rose from the dead, death isn't a fact' implying that just because people don't rise from the dead very often doesn't mean it can't happen "naturally" or "scientifically plausably". However Jesus was an exceptional case. He wasn't an exception though because I along with most of the world firmly believe that a person can't come back to life, at least not without the aid of a miricle. But the bible and Jesus himself tells us that Jesus was God. Therefore he wasn't fully human and he didn't need a miricle. His human body may have gone a bit blue and been unable to tick any boxes an censors casking if it were breathing but God himself wasn't dead.
As to the existance of Jesus...
He either existed or he didn't. There is more evidence of his existance then of it not* and why would anone want to base a religion on a god that didn't exist - it would serve no purpose other than their brutal assassination. Yup makes sense to me.
Now if you're going to belive he existed yes I suppose you could go on about how he was just another man but he himself obviously thought otherwise. Either he was lying or he genuinly believed it but was maing it us ie. he was mad/delusional or it was true.
why would he want to lie if he would die for it and how could he be so evil as to live his entire life a lie yet teach people to love one another with all their hearts and honout truth to death? hmmm.
Now lets consider the mad ar dilusional version. Either way I'm sure you'll agree that no one be mad without showing it. He had a load of disciples with him all the time through his adulthood and lived with his parents when he was younger and while they might have covered up his insanity his disciples wouldn't. They wouldn't have followed him at the beginning and they certainly wouldn't have died for him if they thought he was blabbering on.
This leads me to conclude that there is a scrap of truth to his tales.

Finally I would ask - if anyone still has complete confidence in the non- existance of Jesus. Why would anyone 100s of years later who hadn't met himin the flesh want to go around telling people of his great works and die for their belief if they didn't think he existed?

*some of this evidence comes from the bible and you can belive the bible is fictional if you wish but that would mean you should question your morals - would you condem some one to death in a court just on what others said about them without even asking for their version of events. No. So why should you condem the believes of those in the bible without reading their beliefs first and using the bible itself as its own evidence.

Thankyou for reading this and i hope I've answered a few of your questions about what christians really believe. And maybe even made you think up some questions to ask me about some other wtuff. I intend to write some other stuff later.

I would recomend reading some C.S lewis and other christian books as they all reiterate what I have said and you don't have to believe it but everyone would agree that is is stupid to argue against something if you do not understand what that something is.

Really? Have you read them? And Proverbs is the same as Kings is the same as Revelation?



Give me an example; chapter and verse.



Whoever told you that? The light comes first, the sources of light later? Did you ever hear of Evolution?



Most of the early gods were nature gods, gods of wind and thunder and fertility, or the spirits of the ancestors. Their powers were self evident; exceptthat now we know that thunder isn't caused by a god, but by a physical process. Stimulate the temporal lobes of the brain with electromagnetic radiation, repetitive drumming or psychotropic drugs and people see visions and sense presences. Inventing Gods explained these things.



There is more evidence for the existence of the fairies at the bottom of the garden than not. People have written about them, everybody's heard of them, and there is no concrete evidence whatsoever that they don't exist.



Why? If someone's version of events doesn't stand up to scrutiny in a court of law, then that version is probably false. To say I shouldn't test someone's claims in that way would be an evasion of my responsibilities.

Noggin

As an interesting aside, I remember reading an article in (I believe) New Scientist some time ago, which states that the intervals between events such as the universe being formed, then the earth, then us etc do fit with biblical timing.

There was a particular length of time which was called "a day" which was (obviously) a few million or so years to make it work, though. Who says a day to God is the same as one of our days?

Sorry I can't remember more details, otherwise I would post them.

And speaking as someone currently exploring Christianity, then I would hesitate before comparing God to fairies!

The point about EM stimulation of the temporal lobes reminds me of the recent experiments to determine the origins of ghostly activities, where it was again pinpointed to variations in the local magnetic fields.

Just occurred to me. EM fields are all around us. And God is supposed to be all around us......and where do EM fields come from (apart from power cables and mobile phone masts!)?

I was merely pointing out that absence of evidence of absence is not a very good argument. There is no positive evidence whatsoever that the fairies don't exist. See my point?

If you feel that the Genesis account of creation fits with modern cosmology and evolution, why bother with it? Modern cosmology and evolution are more detailed, backed by more evidence, and don't require the postulation of an inexplicable entity.

Noggin

True. Was a very good argument, actually, even though there is no evidence either way. Evidence, though, can be a very subjective thing.

Though I do believe in the Elecric Drill Chuck Key Fairy. She comes to spirit them away from tool chests and drawers, where you know you left them.........that's why you can never find the things when you need them.

no but its very difficult to get evidence of absence. the only way i can think of currently is to get proof of something meaning that all alternatives are false.
to the fairy thing. Fair enough faries could or could not exist and God could or could not. However millions of people worldwide are christians and many more believe in the existence of a god but relatively few believe in the existance of fairies. There may be no proof of the non-existance of faries but equally there seems to be very few people who see proof of their existance. However with God a lot of people seem to see proof of his existance and enough of it to believe in. people don't believe in faries on the absence of evidence of its existance and similarly it is doubtful that so many people could believe in a God simply on (in their eyes) there being no evidence that he doesn't exist.
And many of those people, as im sure you'll agree, are normal and sane and people who others would consider worthy of going to for advice. Not random people who are prepared to believe in any odd thing on a whim.

That ones harder for me to explain because i think some of it you have to believe what the bible says for it to be true. For example several book sin the old testement prophesise the coming of Jesus and how he would come and how he would die and i could give you quotes for this but you would have to believe theevents in the new testament to see that as prophecies that have come true.
Another time is the one where God says he will protect his poeple from all those who try to opress them (i can't remember where or his exact words unfortunately but thats the general gist of it). I think that so far despite all th eopressors of the Jews and christians they continue - many historians have found evidence that the israelites were once slaves to the Egyptions and now the egyption race has fallen, christians have been punished by the Romans who no longer exist and Hitler had his anti-semitism but still those who love God continue. Hitler was a bit of an extreme case but the Egyptions weren't, it was acceptable to have slaves then and even today there are still people who live in similar conditions but the point is the Egyptions fell and the belief in God (i refain from calling it religion because I believe there is a huge difference nowadays)is still strong.

thankyou and our God bless you.

<
Really? Have you read them? And Proverbs is the same as Kings is the same as Revelation?>

no I'm sorry but i havn't read all of every book. I have read all of some of them and i have read some of all of them. i know its not quite the same but i still think it conveys the same message - God is love, he cares for his people, he wants a personal relationship with you and he wants to meet you face ot face one day and is prepared to work hard to get that. He wants you to grow up strong, and live in a perfect world without sining. (oh and generally being fruits of the spirit Gal 5:22-23)and so far I havn't found anyone who disagrees with me. Even mast athiests agree that if there was a God that would be what he would be like. (Although I'm not saying there's no one who thinks God is a heartless, cruel God but i don't see why he'd want to make us if he was.)

lots of love Lizza

You mention truth but you seem to be looking for the factual basis on stories like the Creation. There is a difference between the two. Fact has to be scientificaly and historicaly infallible whereas truth is governed by what people believe. Most of the events told in Genesis were written down thousands of years after they happened in the time of the Exidus.

The creation story mirrors the order that modern science says that the universe and life started. The heavens were created (space), light (stars and galaxies), water and land (the Earth), plants, animals, and humans. The timetable is a little off, but "one day is like a thousand years".

As to other Gospels, there are many that were not included for one reason or another: Thomas, Phillip, etc. The official bible that is in use today was cannonized or compiled by a group of relegious scholars. It is made up only of the books that they felt were relevant to define Christian beliefs.

Many of the contridictions mentioned come from the process of translation. The origional Hebrew scripture was copied into greek. After that came latin and then the many english versions. It was hand copied so many times that some mistakes were made. Scholars have tried to correct these but some are still there.

Lizza, I just read your post and would just like to say something in regard to it. If you were to read all the books of the Bible you would realize that God is not only love but many other things. He is just and will punish those that turn away too many times. He is giving; he is everything anyone could ever need. He is my all and also the all of many other people. He is.
Chauncey