Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!

[oldbadger]

The gospel accounts don't agree with each other, or so it seems to me.

For example: Why did the Gospel of Mark tell of the 'Temple clearance' happening in the last week of his mission when the Gospel of John tells us that it happened in the first weeks? ........most strange.

...............and more to come.

[TRANSPONDER]

3. Do you abide by the Bible's story? Do you support and agree with these stories as the true origins of human beings? Do you believe that donkeys and snakes talked? And most relevant, Do you agree with the sort of judging and punishing asserted by the Bibles God?



Yes, sure, I believe that people can hear snakes and donkeys talking....sure. But that depends upon what they've been drinking, smoking or injecting in themselves.

I feel that you might just be kidding; however, since GOD exists and since the Bible has been inspired by GOD, and since GOD created everything --- then I see no reason under GOD's sun, why if GOD so chooses to allow an animal to communicate with a human that it cannot happen. Perhaps it was telepathic... I don't understand why people want to limit GOD's abilities. If one doesn't believe in GOD, then don't believe. However, to make light of miraculous events as silly, seems rather redundant of those who choose not to believe that the CREATOR is real. Without GOD there are no miracles, but then prove how life originated by making some biological life of your own. Until then, that's the atheist's own miraculous belief.

We can't do that...yet, though if we did, I know what the response would be (I have seen it). "Just because you can do that in a lab. doesn't mean it happened that way". But this is why abiogenesis vs. Creation remains two hypotheses. But abiogenesis has a mechanism and at least supportive evidence. Creation has only a faithclaim, based on an old book full of errors, contradictions and things shown to be wrong.

The case for miracles, prophecies, answered prayers, or any divine intervention is not validated. Evolution - theory is. Even creationists accept micro - evolution. (Analogy, they accept a plane can fly from Newark to Chicago, but deny a plane can fly from Houston to Seoul). Essentially, they destroy their own case.

So the way it looks is that there is no good evidence for miracles now, and thus no miracles then. Evolution has Some evidence now, and also decent evidence for evolution in the past. The origins of life are unknown (or unproven) either way, but that is evidence of nothing one way or the other. It is 'An Unknown'. It is the usual Theist fallacy to think that Goddunnit is the logical and evidential default unless Evolutionists can turn rats into bats in a laboratory.

No, the burden of proof falls on the Creationists to show why a god should have dunnit, even before arguing about which god it was.

[LittleNipper]

3. Do you abide by the Bible's story? Do you support and agree with these stories as the true origins of human beings? Do you believe that donkeys and snakes talked? And most relevant, Do you agree with the sort of judging and punishing asserted by the Bibles God?



Yes, sure, I believe that people can hear snakes and donkeys talking....sure. But that depends upon what they've been drinking, smoking or injecting in themselves.

I feel that you might just be kidding; however, since GOD exists and since the Bible has been inspired by GOD, and since GOD created everything --- then I see no reason under GOD's sun, why if GOD so chooses to allow an animal to communicate with a human that it cannot happen. Perhaps it was telepathic... I don't understand why people want to limit GOD's abilities. If one doesn't believe in GOD, then don't believe. However, to make light of miraculous events as silly, seems rather redundant of those who choose not to believe that the CREATOR is real. Without GOD there are no miracles, but then prove how life originated by making some biological life of your own. Until then, that's the atheist's own miraculous belief.

We can't do that...yet, though if we did, I know what the response would be (I have seen it). "Just because you can do that in a lab. doesn't mean it happened that way". But this is why abiogenesis vs. Creation remains two hypotheses. But abiogenesis has a mechanism and at least supportive evidence. Creation has only a faithclaim, based on an old book full of errors, contradictions and things shown to be wrong.

The case for miracles, prophecies, answered prayers, or any divine intervention is not validated. Evolution - theory is. Even creationists accept micro - evolution. (Analogy, they accept a plane can fly from Newark to Chicago, but deny a plane can fly from Houston to Seoul). Essentially, they destroy their own case.

So the way it looks is that there is no good evidence for miracles now, and thus no miracles then. Evolution has Some evidence now, and also decent evidence for evolution in the past. The origins of life are unknown (or unproven) either way, but that is evidence of nothing one way or the other. It is 'An Unknown'. It is the usual Theist fallacy to think that Goddunnit is the logical and evidential default unless Evolutionists can turn rats into bats in a laboratory.

No, the burden of proof falls on the Creationists to show why a god should have dunnit, even before arguing about which god it was.

As a CHRISTIAN, I accept the uniqueness of everything (even down to a blade of grass but in particular every human that ever lived (even for a moment in time) is/was unique. However, such doesn't make one any less human.

[TRANSPONDER]

3. Do you abide by the Bible's story? Do you support and agree with these stories as the true origins of human beings? Do you believe that donkeys and snakes talked? And most relevant, Do you agree with the sort of judging and punishing asserted by the Bibles God?



Yes, sure, I believe that people can hear snakes and donkeys talking....sure. But that depends upon what they've been drinking, smoking or injecting in themselves.

I feel that you might just be kidding; however, since GOD exists and since the Bible has been inspired by GOD, and since GOD created everything --- then I see no reason under GOD's sun, why if GOD so chooses to allow an animal to communicate with a human that it cannot happen. Perhaps it was telepathic... I don't understand why people want to limit GOD's abilities. If one doesn't believe in GOD, then don't believe. However, to make light of miraculous events as silly, seems rather redundant of those who choose not to believe that the CREATOR is real. Without GOD there are no miracles, but then prove how life originated by making some biological life of your own. Until then, that's the atheist's own miraculous belief.

We can't do that...yet, though if we did, I know what the response would be (I have seen it). "Just because you can do that in a lab. doesn't mean it happened that way". But this is why abiogenesis vs. Creation remains two hypotheses. But abiogenesis has a mechanism and at least supportive evidence. Creation has only a faithclaim, based on an old book full of errors, contradictions and things shown to be wrong.

The case for miracles, prophecies, answered prayers, or any divine intervention is not validated. Evolution - theory is. Even creationists accept micro - evolution. (Analogy, they accept a plane can fly from Newark to Chicago, but deny a plane can fly from Houston to Seoul). Essentially, they destroy their own case.

So the way it looks is that there is no good evidence for miracles now, and thus no miracles then. Evolution has Some evidence now, and also decent evidence for evolution in the past. The origins of life are unknown (or unproven) either way, but that is evidence of nothing one way or the other. It is 'An Unknown'. It is the usual Theist fallacy to think that Goddunnit is the logical and evidential default unless Evolutionists can turn rats into bats in a laboratory.

No, the burden of proof falls on the Creationists to show why a god should have dunnit, even before arguing about which god it was.

As a CHRISTIAN, I accept the uniqueness of everything (even down to a blade of grass but in particular every human that ever lived (even for a moment in time) is/was unique. However, such doesn't make one any less human.

As has been observed before, every snowflake is supposed to be unique. However, that doesn't make a snowflake special any more than a blade of grass, a pebble or a human, nor indeed any more planned, designed or created.

[oldbadger]

.

I feel that you might just be kidding; however, since GOD exists and since the Bible has been inspired by GOD, and since GOD created everything --- then I see no reason under GOD's sun, why if GOD so chooses to allow an animal to communicate with a human that it cannot happen. Perhaps it was telepathic... I don't understand why people want to limit GOD's abilities. If one doesn't believe in GOD, then don't believe.

You've got that wrong......all wrong. For a start I do believe in God because I am a deist.
But I don't believe that means that my ducks and I are ever likely to talk about the weather.

However, to make light of miraculous events as silly, seems rather redundant of those who choose not to believe that the CREATOR is real. Without GOD there are no miracles, but then prove how life originated by making some biological life of your own. Until then, that's the atheist's own miraculous belief.

You keep telling me stuff that is funny.
The rulling force here and everywhere else is mother nature.
I know that you obey her EVERY command, and even today you will be commanded to stoop down and empty your bowels, just as I will. Your every moment is given by her until the day that you shall die.
Now you know that is true.

[TRANSPONDER]

How often we end up with the "Who made everything, then?" apologetic. It's the Trump card, the atheist -stumper. The one argument they reckon the atheists can't answer. And as a Deist you may even think the ID argument has validity. That's ok, as an irreligious theist you and atheists are brothers.

Creationists think that hypotheses are invalid unless they can be proven in 'Real time' or 'In the laboratory'.If they don't see Life from non -life before their werry eyes, they won't accept it. Citing growth from seeds is invalid, for some reason. They may claim replication of a complex molecule into DNA has to be happening all the time or they won't accept it, but a resurrection not happening all the time does not apparently invalidate the Bible - claim.

But double standards and demands for yet more evidence, if evidence is produced (like fossil pre - Cambrian blobs pointing back to groups of cells as the origins not all 'kinds' made in one go as per Genesis) aside, even if the burden of proof/default hypothesis was reversed, and intelligent creation was the better hypothesis, it wouldn't get us to any particular god, which is why all ID arguments from Behe's IC to Lane - Craig's childishly simple and innately dishonest Kalam, fail, because even if they made a case for a Creator, it doesn't tell us which one.

Creationists know this, because after the Dover case, they tried to evade ID as a god - claim (religion not science) by saying the ID argument for a Creator did not say which one it was, though they 'believed' it was Biblegod. So their whole case fell over because they had lost a logical leg.

Not that we ever get to it, because we seem to get stuck at 'make mammoths from butterflies in a lab, or I win'; but 'Which god?' requires Biblegod to make its' case, and that requires Bible validation, and the Bible stands or falls by evaluation of the claims in it. That is why things wrong and contradictions in the Bible (1) is the only apologetic that matters and 'Who made everything, then?' is a futile argument.

Which Bible apologists can't see, because 'We believe the creator is the god of the Bible'.

They think not only that 'God' is the default hypothesis, but Biblegod is the default. Their entire argument is based ona false andd illogical premise. a prori god -faith as a given. This is why they have lost before they start but they can never see it.

(1) and in fact the gospels as NT trumps OT when needed. And the resurrection claim is the pivotal one. If that fails (and it does) Christianity and all the Abrahamic religions fail. Which is why to me, Gospel contradictions and the ones in the resurrection - accounts are the onyl arguments that really matter. All the others are irrelevant sidelines; Cosmic origins, morality or Genesis - literalism. All quite irrelevant.

[LittleNipper]

.

I feel that you might just be kidding; however, since GOD exists and since the Bible has been inspired by GOD, and since GOD created everything --- then I see no reason under GOD's sun, why if GOD so chooses to allow an animal to communicate with a human that it cannot happen. Perhaps it was telepathic... I don't understand why people want to limit GOD's abilities. If one doesn't believe in GOD, then don't believe.

You've got that wrong......all wrong. For a start I do believe in God because I am a deist.
But I don't believe that means that my ducks and I are ever likely to talk about the weather.

However, to make light of miraculous events as silly, seems rather redundant of those who choose not to believe that the CREATOR is real. Without GOD there are no miracles, but then prove how life originated by making some biological life of your own. Until then, that's the atheist's own miraculous belief.

You keep telling me stuff that is funny.
The rulling force here and everywhere else is mother nature.
I know that you obey her EVERY command, and even today you will be commanded to stoop down and empty your bowels, just as I will. Your every moment is given by her until the day that you shall die.
Now you know that is true.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! THE SUPREME RULING FORCE HERE IS GOD --- deist or not! And Balaam and his donkey didn't talk about the weather, and neither did the serpent and Eve.

[TRANSPONDER]

.

I feel that you might just be kidding; however, since GOD exists and since the Bible has been inspired by GOD, and since GOD created everything --- then I see no reason under GOD's sun, why if GOD so chooses to allow an animal to communicate with a human that it cannot happen. Perhaps it was telepathic... I don't understand why people want to limit GOD's abilities. If one doesn't believe in GOD, then don't believe.

You've got that wrong......all wrong. For a start I do believe in God because I am a deist.
But I don't believe that means that my ducks and I are ever likely to talk about the weather.

However, to make light of miraculous events as silly, seems rather redundant of those who choose not to believe that the CREATOR is real. Without GOD there are no miracles, but then prove how life originated by making some biological life of your own. Until then, that's the atheist's own miraculous belief.

You keep telling me stuff that is funny.
The rulling force here and everywhere else is mother nature.
I know that you obey her EVERY command, and even today you will be commanded to stoop down and empty your bowels, just as I will. Your every moment is given by her until the day that you shall die.
Now you know that is true.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! THE SUPREME RULING FORCE HERE IS GOD --- deist or not! And Balaam and his donkey didn't talk about the weather, and neither did the serpent and Eve.

So you are talking about one -off miracles? What would the serpent and the donkey talk about when they weren't acting out OT screenplay? Why not the weather? It has to be that they didn't talk normally (just as they don't now) unless God waved a magic wand and they talked - just for that story.

But then you'd expect Eve or Balaam to express some surprise. "Hey, last time I asked, you swore blind you couldn't talk!" But it is accepted in the story without a blink.

Of course we know, don't we, that they are tall tales or parables; fairy tales, and there is no good reason to accept them (or anything else in the Bible) as valid, unless there is some good reason to. like the Caesarea inscription validated Pilate. But nothing really validated Jesus. And the Gabriel stone rather undermined the 3 day resurrection claim as well.

104 guests.That's a bit better.

[oldbadger]

How often we end up with the "Who made everything, then?" apologetic. It's the Trump card, the atheist -stumper. The one argument they reckon the atheists can't answer. And as a Deist you may even think the ID argument has validity. That's ok, as an irreligious theist you and atheists are brothers.

Yes, deists are very close to atheism....we don't recognise theism at all. The dictionaries still have not figured that out!

Who is responsible for the whole of everything?.....I don't know nor care. All of the universe probably doesn't know either, and so there may countless universes,?

But theism needs to claim creation for its god's. While theism is about it it can also claim responsibility for all the carnage's, genocides, horrors and destructions for all time.

[LittleNipper]

.

I feel that you might just be kidding; however, since GOD exists and since the Bible has been inspired by GOD, and since GOD created everything --- then I see no reason under GOD's sun, why if GOD so chooses to allow an animal to communicate with a human that it cannot happen. Perhaps it was telepathic... I don't understand why people want to limit GOD's abilities. If one doesn't believe in GOD, then don't believe.

You've got that wrong......all wrong. For a start I do believe in God because I am a deist.
But I don't believe that means that my ducks and I are ever likely to talk about the weather.

However, to make light of miraculous events as silly, seems rather redundant of those who choose not to believe that the CREATOR is real. Without GOD there are no miracles, but then prove how life originated by making some biological life of your own. Until then, that's the atheist's own miraculous belief.

You keep telling me stuff that is funny.
The rulling force here and everywhere else is mother nature.
I know that you obey her EVERY command, and even today you will be commanded to stoop down and empty your bowels, just as I will. Your every moment is given by her until the day that you shall die.
Now you know that is true.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! THE SUPREME RULING FORCE HERE IS GOD --- deist or not! And Balaam and his donkey didn't talk about the weather, and neither did the serpent and Eve.

So you are talking about one -off miracles? What would the serpent and the donkey talk about when they weren't acting out OT screenplay? Why not the weather? It has to be that they didn't talk normally (just as they don't now) unless God waved a magic wand and they talked - just for that story.

But then you'd expect Eve or Balaam to express some surprise. "Hey, last time I asked, you swore blind you couldn't talk!" But it is accepted in the story without a blink.

Of course we know, don't we, that they are tall tales or parables; fairy tales, and there is no good reason to accept them (or anything else in the Bible) as valid, unless there is some good reason to. like the Caesarea inscription validated Pilate. But nothing really validated Jesus. And the Gabriel stone rather undermined the 3 day resurrection claim as well.

104 guests.That's a bit better.

I don't know what various kinds of animals communicate among themselves. In Eve's case, it's very likely everything was new to her. Yet, while Adam was still the only human, I do imagine that Adam interacted with animals and lovingly understood them. The world was still perfect and sinless. As for Balaam, an account of the event is given to reveal that GOD may willingly use one "ass" to educate another. The specifics of the event are not revealed...

[TRANSPONDER]

.

I feel that you might just be kidding; however, since GOD exists and since the Bible has been inspired by GOD, and since GOD created everything --- then I see no reason under GOD's sun, why if GOD so chooses to allow an animal to communicate with a human that it cannot happen. Perhaps it was telepathic... I don't understand why people want to limit GOD's abilities. If one doesn't believe in GOD, then don't believe.

You've got that wrong......all wrong. For a start I do believe in God because I am a deist.
But I don't believe that means that my ducks and I are ever likely to talk about the weather.

However, to make light of miraculous events as silly, seems rather redundant of those who choose not to believe that the CREATOR is real. Without GOD there are no miracles, but then prove how life originated by making some biological life of your own. Until then, that's the atheist's own miraculous belief.

You keep telling me stuff that is funny.
The rulling force here and everywhere else is mother nature.
I know that you obey her EVERY command, and even today you will be commanded to stoop down and empty your bowels, just as I will. Your every moment is given by her until the day that you shall die.
Now you know that is true.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! THE SUPREME RULING FORCE HERE IS GOD --- deist or not! And Balaam and his donkey didn't talk about the weather, and neither did the serpent and Eve.

So you are talking about one -off miracles? What would the serpent and the donkey talk about when they weren't acting out OT screenplay? Why not the weather? It has to be that they didn't talk normally (just as they don't now) unless God waved a magic wand and they talked - just for that story.

But then you'd expect Eve or Balaam to express some surprise. "Hey, last time I asked, you swore blind you couldn't talk!" But it is accepted in the story without a blink.

Of course we know, don't we, that they are tall tales or parables; fairy tales, and there is no good reason to accept them (or anything else in the Bible) as valid, unless there is some good reason to. like the Caesarea inscription validated Pilate. But nothing really validated Jesus. And the Gabriel stone rather undermined the 3 day resurrection claim as well.

104 guests.That's a bit better.

I don't know what various kinds of animals communicate among themselves. In Eve's case, it's very likely everything was new to her. Yet, while Adam was still the only human, I do imagine that Adam interacted with animals and lovingly understood them. The world was still perfect and sinless. As for Balaam, an account of the event is given to reveal that GOD may willingly use one "ass" to educate another. The specifics of the event are not revealed...

That's pretty evasive. You evade tackling whether animals can or could communicate with humans or whether (as the balaam example strongly suggests) God enabled a miracle to have the event happen.

But it's like this; while you can invent anything or indeed nothing much more than 'there is probably some explanation' -type evasions, the smart money is on that it is a made -up parable, because there is no much nonsense in the Bible and not only in Genesis, it is futile to try tom excuse the more absurd ones when can bet the day and night did not exist before the sun was made, the sun can hardly stop moving (that is the earth stops rotating) without dire consequences and so on throughout the Book.

Look, I know you think that denying everything and suggesting these was some unknown explanation, but the best case is the winner, not how much denial you can muster.