Does the Bible contain any true information?

The genealogy of Mary which is recorded in Luke can be proved by going to 0ld testament and tracing the genealogy from Nathan. Luke was writing to people who knew Jewish laws and customs. They would know that a woman's name could not be used in genealogy as an actual link. A male in the family such as husband's name would be used in their place. It would have been unnecessary to stipulate something if it is already known. Luke was not writing a defense to skeptics, but merely recording according to inspiration in the times and customs he was living in.

Since none of that is relevant to your statement that the Bible says the earth is 7000 years old, I don't see the need to refute what Ussher (whoever) said. If the bible said and you said it did, you should be able to provide the chapter and verse it said it in.

revelette, So you admit you're not a student of the bible. If you had read the Wiki article on Ussher, he studied not only the bible but the history of the different cultures that influenced the immediate and surrounding areas. The bible was not the exclusive source for his conclusions. If you don't understand that, how can you admit being a christian who knows your bible?

There is no one or several verses in the bible that will show the earth to be 7,000 years old. You didn't know that?

It took biblical and history scholars to arrive at that figure, and most agree. What do you have? Zero.

You are scared, aren't you? That what you believed most of your life has been a lie.

I petty you.

Well, CI, you can pity me all you like, but the point is that you made a statement and you have not backed it up. No need to get bent out of shape about it.

My statement was supported by a bible scholar. You have shown nothing to prove otherwise. I'm not bent out of shape; you are scared to death that what you believed about the bible turned out to be false/untrue. Do you still pray to your god? Has he answered the tough questions for you? Amazing!

No, you can't trace any alleged geneology of Mary from the Old Testament, as the historical "information" in the Old Testament ends long before the putative Jesus would have been born. This is just an exegesis cobbled together by christians to reconcile the contradiction after the fact--and that's why i call it a dog and pony show. Your boy Luke wasn't a Jew, and he didn't live in a world which had made christianity the official religion, nor in which Judaism was common and familiar. It is sheer poppycock to claim that he was "merely recording according to inspiration in the times and customs he was living in."

If this alleged geneology of Mary can so easily be proven, why don't you cite for us here those portions of the Old Testament upon which your claims are based?

EDIT: I will accept that there was inspiration in this drivel--just not that there was any truth involved.

You make more claims, bundling the masses of christians into one package. Ignorant christians refute science. Ignorant atheists assert all creationists to believe the same thing.

Site examples please good sir.

Christians have emerged from the Jewish Torah; they all believe the bible to be the "word of god." There are ignorant peoples regardless of religious belief or otherwise. Please identify for us those "ignorant atheists who assert all creationists believe the same thing?"

You have asserted something that doesn't exist in the real world; all people's have different beliefs and understanding of the same religion, and practice them in different ways.

That derives from the simple fact that the bible has many different interpretations. Not all christians believe in "heaven."

That's a fact.

The reference to ignorant atheists was actually a jibe at your assumption based on your rebuttle that I believe what you think I believe. Thank you for clarifying that you do understand that there are in fact more than one belief.

As for your "credible source"
Bible scholars also believe that there is and isnt pergatory, that there is and isnt hell, that The kingdom of god is real, and it is only within each of us. Dependant on what you want to believe CI, there is a bible scholar for you. I am intrigued about the christians who do not believe in heaven, could you cite them for me? unless of course you mean those that have a different understanding toward the heaven teachings. That I know.

Regardless of what credentials whoever has done the research, if it doesnt make sense, then I shall not believe it until someone convinces me of the logic.

Could you help me with some research on this mr C.I, as my understanding is that you know your bible scholars, Does Ussher believe creation was finished or started 7000 years ago? Does he believe that each day of creation was a literal or symbolic 6 days?

It is worth noting that according to science, the creation account had to be completed in the exact order it was written for life to be sustained upon the earth.

Ill quote the creation account to make my point.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. full stop. There is nothing to suggest that this was part of the first day (eon) of creation, hence you cannot date the earth using scripture, any attempt is a brave assumption that the researcher knew how long each day was, and that this was the beginning of creation day 1. you can use bible chronology to work out the birth of adam, however there is no way of knowing how old adam was when eve was created.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
There is no reason that the earth cannot be exactly how old science says it is, although I understand science has it's deliberation over that too

Smiley wrote:

Therein proves that the bible is full of confusion, contradictions, errors, and omissions. So your belief in the bible is one in a few trillion? LOL How do you keep them all straight in logical order and common sense? Have you tried?
It must be a gargantuan task to keep it straight. Do you cheat or reinterpret some parts to make it fit your interpretation?

Religion and science are not all that different. Theologians and scholars all interpret evidence in thier own way. For everyone that interprets it differently, a new theory or religion begins. For every theory it will have its doubters, so will every interpretation of a scripture. The debates will continue for as long as the world spins.

I prefer to understand as best I can until I am shown to be wrong. By being malleable and open minded, I will find the best way to serve my God that I can. I have no cause to omit any scripture in order to validify any of my beliefs, nor any inclination to continue this delightful, but pointless interchange

You have a very basic and steriotypical atheistic view of not only theism, but theists. Its been a pleasure bantering, but unless you plan on some original content, our conversation here serves no purpose but for you to poke the bear. Practice makes perfect, so continue working on your technique, and one day you might just do yourself proud. All the very best In case you need something to keep yourself amused, I understand this would be to your liking
peace out

Your trying to compare science and religion belongs on the laffer curve. Science by its very nature seeks facts and truth; this is done through repeated experiments and research to show what is believed as fact can be shown by evidence that cannot be refuted by anyone.

Religion has many belief systems and believers. Have you ever watched people of other religions praying to their god(s)? They feel the same belief and emotion as any christian when they pray to "their" god. Religion is based on faith; not facts.

If that were so, the many contradictions, omissions, and errors in the bible would be rejected by anyone who understands consistency and logic.

The bible is not one of them.

As a matter of fact, the one religion that comes close to what I believe is a worthy religion is Buddhism. They don't try to convert others to their religion; it's more of a self-improvement tenent without the hangups of judging others to save their souls, and they don't discriminate against homosexuals or look upon other's sins.

A theory is an xplanation in which all the evidence fits and NONE OF ANY EVIDENCE REFUTES. The theory can be used to explain other unrelated phenomena .

Hardly religion. We can tear apart any assertion of Biblical religious "evidence" by fact and data,

This is neither malleable nor open minded. Your entire basis of reason rests upon the existence of a God who you claim intercedes in the physical world of this (and probably other) planets.

And that without one iota of proof. Amazing, isn't it?

First off, he is not my boy, he was merely a disciple who wrote the book of Luke and Acts.

Second, he was writing to people who were either Jews or newly converted Christians who in fact were aware of the traditions and the way genealogies usually were linked by the males in the family. The Old Testament genealogies were just as confusing as the ones in Matthew and Luke. Sometimes they used other males relatives for male relatives. Nevertheless, for reasons not stipulated Luke traced the linage through David son Nathan and Matthew used David's Son Solomon.

Luke 3: 31Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

Mat 1:6 and Jesse begot David the king. David the king begot Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah.

Actually I admit that I have wasted quite some time this morning on trying to find the genealogy of Nathan the Son of David. It is very confusing, so maybe not so easy to trace Mary's genealogy as I claimed the other day. Not saying others smarter than me haven't or can't do it, just that I am running out of time and I might not be smart enough to do it in the first place.

Actually, you've stumbled on the source of all the bullshit. Both "evangelists" want to show that your boy Jesus is descended from David--but they were not working together, so they both came up with dubious geneologies which don't agree. Believe me, i've read reams of bullshit from theistic apologists who never fail to leave a big gap in the sequence, and who never provide a shred of evidence that one was the geneology of Joseph and the other the geneology of Mary. Their claims have holes in them you could drive a truck through. Quite apart from that, the scripture nowhere says that either geneology is the geneology of Mary--it's only the apologists who worked up their act after it was pointed out to them that the geneologies contradict one another.

No, he was not a dïsciple (not of your boy Jesus, at any event), and it is alleged that he wrote th0se "books."

I assume by disciple you mean apostle sir

By disciple, i mean disciple. Of whom do you (or Revelette) allege that Luke was a disciple?