About this forum:

Please note that this file contains selected comments taken from e-mails sent to Davis D. Danizier. This is intended to be a representative sample of correspondence. Not all e-mails are included; those most likely to be included are those that discuss the issues intellegently, not those who call names or who use excessive profanity. Submissions may be edited for space and relevance and extraneous or personal comments may be omitted, however the actual words selected for inclusion will be used exactly as submitted.
In most cases, Davis D. Danizier will have already exchanged correspondence directly with the writer and even if the writer has received a response from Davis D. Danizier directly via e-mail, it may sometimes take several days before the response is included in this forum.
Most recent additions are shown first.

Comments from correspondents are shown in BLACK.
Replies by Davis D. Danizier are shown in GREEN.

Notes:
1. While comments in agreement and disagreement are shown, this forum is a commentary on the article by Davis D. Danizier. The editors will try to present a balanced dialogue, but do not claim to be impartial and cannot ensure absolute objectivity.
2. Entries are presented in a dialogue format -- i.e., a series of related entries by a single writer are grouped together, along with Davis D. Danizier's replies to specific comments.
3. The entries included in this webpage are those specifically responding to the web page about the contradictions in the Bible. Other dialogue pages responding to other religious commentaries by Davis D. Danizier may be found as follows:

Commentary: Bible Contradictions, Flaws and Failed Prophecies - http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html
Forum: Discussion about Bible contradictions and flaws - this page

Commentary: Paul vs. Jesus - http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html
Forum: Discussion about Paul vs. Jesus - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3dpforum.html

Commentary: Bloody Human Sacrifice Mythology of Christian Atonement - http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html
Forum: Discussion about Christian Atonement Doctrine - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3daforum.html

Forum on General Christianity or Combining various topics:
Forum: Discussion about Bible - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3dxforum.html

Dialogue with JesusIsYahweh
JesusIsYahweh writes on 2-20-04:

I don't have time for a thorough response, so here a few brief reactions to your points.

1) Genesis shows that God made them "male and female". Therefore, homosexuality (and all other sexual sins, including heterosexual sins outside of marriage) are the result of the desires of the sinful nature after the Fall.

DDD reply: First of all, just because Genesis says something doesn't make it any more credible than the writings of ancient Greek or Roman legends.
Second, if god created Adam and Eve, he also created human homosexuals, as well as homosexual behavior in many animals.
Third, there is no logical connection between desire and sin. Sin is related to that which causes hurt to people, not that which makes them feel better. Eating good food satisfies a desire, but is not sinful; however, eating enough to make you sick causes harm and is therefore not good. Happy, joyous, affectionate sexual relations of a loving couple (gay or straight, married or not), is not sinful; however, if it is adulterous or incestuous or violent or forcible, those elements add harm and are therefore evil.

JY: 2) Your comments about Levitical laws show that you have MUCH to learn about the varioius laws of Israel. There were civil and ceremonial laws (food laws; circumcism; animal sacrifice; Passover) the were given to Israel ONLY and for a limited time. However, the UNIVERSAL laws were for all people of all times and places (which is why the GENTILES are mentioned in Lev. 18 & 20).

DDD reply: If you claim the Bible as your sole authority, then show me exactly where the BIBLE makes this distinction. I think you just made it up and claimed scriptural authority for it, which true Bible believers might call blasphemous. Please show me the exact verse in Leviticus that says any part of the Law only applied to Israel on a temporary basis. On the contrary, JESUS (whom you claim to call Yahweh) said that not one iota or one tilde (dotted "i" or crossed "t") would be changed in the law until EVERYTHING is fulfilled AND "heaven and earth pass away" (Matt 5:18). Have all the end time prophecies been fulfilled yet? Have heaven and earth passed away? Then according to Jesus, the full law should still apply.

JY: 3) If you think that Jesus was "inclusive" in the sense that He he did not condemn sin and call people to repentance, then you simply have not read the Gospels.

DDD reply: I didn't say anything like that. I did not say anything about Jesus not wanting people to repent and improve. On the contrary, I said he based in on their behavior, not their faith alone.

JY: Jesus does want to include ALL people in HIs Kingdom (so does Paul, who was selected by Christ as His witness), but this happens through repentance and faith. Those who cling to their sin and reject Christ are EXCLUDED from the Kingdom by their own choice. Finally, Jesus never mentions homosexuality because His Jewish audience already agree with the OT prohibitions. In addition, Jesus is also silent about incest, bestiality and rape (mentioned in Lev. chaps 18 & 20). According to your logic, Jesus would approve of these sins as well.

DDD reply: Jesus does not say that it is based on faith. Like his brother James, he says it is based on ACTIONS, but those actions may be motivated by faith, so faith is important. Paul, in contradictory contrast, claims that FAITH, APART FROM WORKS is the basis for justification.

JY: 4) Finally, there is no contradiction between Jesus and Paul. Those who assume this either do not understand Jesus or Paul or both.

DDD reply: I did not base this on assumptions. I cited very clear, very specific examples from Paul as well as from Jesus and his brother James. I went into great detail. Since you did not refer to a single flaw in what I provided, I have to assume you couldn't find any. My careful analysis stands completely unchallenged by you. I'll take that as a compliment.

JY: Read the book of Romans and Galatians and you will see that Paul rejoices in the Grace of God manifested in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for us sinners. The only people who end up being excluded from God's love are those who reject His Word and see no need for Christ (see I John 1:8-2:2).

DDD reply: I have read and carefully studied both these books. In particular, I analyze at great depth the context of Romans because it is so directly refuted and contradicted by Jesus' brother James in the examples I cite in my website, which you didn't seem able to respond to.

JesusIsYahweh coninues on 2-21-04:

JY: First, we share a different view of Scripture. By faith I believe it is God's unique revelation and that it is without error. Our different views of Scripture will obviously affect our interpretations. Presuppostions always come before exegesis.

DDD reply: But Moslems accept the Koran on faith and believe it to be without error. Faith obviously is a strong feeling, but does little to confirm the truth of something. And the Bible clearly is not without error. As I note on my cite, with many examples (and a link to hundreds more), the Bible is riddled with contradictions, factual errors and failed prophecies. Considering the time and conditions it is written in, it is really quite remarkable, and filled with much wisdom. But the human fallibility clearly shows throughout the collection of writings.

JY: Second, God made Adam and Eve "male and female", but their sinful sexual behavior (eventually including homosexuality among later humans) after the Fall was caused by their rebellion against God.

DDD reply: The Bible says they ate the forbidden fruit, and makes no mention of any sexual sin by Adam and Eve.

JY: So, homosexuality is NOT God's creation.

DDD reply: Homosexual behavior is widely observed in the animal kingdom, and many people are born with homosexual predispositions. I reject as wholly unjust and immoral any belief that says we are born with guilt for someone else's sins. If YOU kill someone, why should I hold any guilt for that; if my father commits crimes, why should I be held to account for that? This is a very primitive and unjust view of the nature of sin, and no person could seriously believe in a deity whose system of morality would allow such crass injustice!

JY: Third, you do not understand the Scripture's view of the human heart (desire) after the Fall. I don't have time to give you all the many texts, so here are just a few for your consideration (see Genesis 8:21, Psalm 51:5, Jeremiah 17:9, Mark 7:20-23, Romans 1:24 and 8:5, Galatians 5:16-24, Colossians 3:5, II Timothy 2:22, James 4:1, I Peter 2:11 and II Peter 2:10). Simply put, sinful actions flow from sinful hearts (which we ALL have since the Fall). And sinful desires are not merely defined as desires that may lead to actions that hurt other humans. Scripture is clear that sin is ultimately against GOD. Therefore, even if we never act on our desires (for example, lust), God still sees this as sin (see Matthew 5:28). In fact, even the GOOD things we do are seen as sin if they are done for the wrong reasons (personal glory; merit salvation; manipulate others, etc.). That's why St. Augustine once said that the virtues of the pagans are their greatest vices

DDD reply: I said sin would be that which causes harm to others. That would include other people, god, or even other creatures. But that does not explain how loving, affectionate, joyful relationships hurt other people ... or god. There is no basis for calling it a "sin." This is simple absurdity, the desire to impose guilt and a drab, joyless existence. I can't believe that the same god who would create joyfulness and affection and physical pleasure in sexual unions (of whatever kind) would also deem it sinful. Why do you believe in a god who is so cruelly sadistic in creating desires in people and then labeling them sinful. This is like a mean little boy who pulls the wings of a fly and sets it "free" to try to fly away. Please understand why I have difficulty believing in such a deity.

JY: There is no one verse that says in so many words: "here's a list of civil, ceremonial and universal laws" But a simple objective reading of Scripture as a whole easily leads to this conclusion (even Jewish scholars who do not accept the NT admit that this is what the NT teaches!).

DDD reply: You said that the Law was divided into various parts, such as civil, ceremonial and universal. You said that the Bible said the non-universal ones only applied to the Jews for a temporary time. I asked you for a reference and now you admit there is no such thing. I was right, you just made it up.

JY: Jesus fulfilled the Law when He said "It is Finished" on the Cross, and at that moment (check out the Gospels). the curtain in the Temple, in front of the Holy of Holies, was ripped in two. This is just one of the many symbols that show that the Temple and the sacrifices were fulfilled by Jesus (just read Hebrews, and this will be clear), as well as the many other ceremonial laws. And because Christ's finished work means that there is no more need for the theocracy of Israel, the civil laws of the OT no longer apply (which is why we don't stone people for adultery). But the universal principle of the 6th cmdt. on adultery still DOES apply, which is why Jesus, Paul and others condemn it (along with other sexual sins, such as homosexuality). Finally, if you check the Greek of Matt. 5:18 the point is that Heaven and Earth will not pass away UNTIL Jesus accomplishes His mission. Now that He has fulfilled the Law, we wait for the final consumation. But God is being patient because of His love for sinners (see II Peter 3:8-13).

DDD reply: According to Paul, yes.
According to Jesus, no.
In the contradictions between Paul and Jesus, you do not come down on the side of he whose name you claim to take upon yourself, but by the persecutor of his followers.
I'm no fan of the harsh Law of Moses, but while Paul clearly says what you claim, Jesus did not. Matt 5:18 does NOT say "until his work on earth is finished"; or "when I die on the cross..." It clearly says "UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY and until ALL THINGS are fulfilled. So I repeat my questions:
1. Have heaven and earth yet passed away (and if so, what am I standing on)?
2. Have ALL THINGS, including ALL the end times prophecies associated with "heaven and earth passing away" being fulfilled?
If not, then the conditions JESUS articulated have not been fulfilled and you are following Paul against the claims of Jesus. Perhaps Jesus could foresee the future and could see that someone like Paul would make such claims, and made it very clear that the Law was not to be touched ... not one dotted "i" or one crossed "t". And that includes all the dotted "i"s and crossed "t"s in the civil and ceremonial parts -- I don't see where Jesus delineated a distinction.

JY: You need to read the NT as a whole.

DDD reply: I have. Been there, done that. But we can also discuss specific aspects within the parameters of the big picture. If you say my context is in error, then specifically show me where. Your explanations do not so much show me errors of context, but rather try to go into convoluted logical permutations to explain why the Bible doesn't really mean what it most clearly says.

JY: Remember, Paul was selected by Jesus Himself and taught by Jesus Himself, and later Paul gave James (and others) the right hand of fellowship (see Galatians 2:9-10).

DDD reply: Paul never even met Jesus. He didn't convert until long after Jesus was DEAD. His story about the road to Damascus is pretty far fetched, especially when you consider how he subsequently "used" his "conversion" to undermine, oppose and thoroughly contradict Jesus' teachings from "inside."

JY: In addition, in Acts ch. 15 James, the Brother of the Lord (not the James, one of the original 12, who had been killed earlier), takes Paul's side in confessing that salvation is by Christ alone (which is what "Faith alone" means in Paul, for the faith God gives us [see Ephesians 2:8-9] clings to Christ) -- see Acts 15:12-21. Jesus clearly teaches that salvation is by His Grace through faith alone, and that good works naturally flow from those in whom Christ is at work.

DDD reply: Jesus never once says anything remotely similar to this. If you disagree, please cite chapter and verse.

JY: That's Jesus point when He says that a Good Tree bears Good Fruit (first the tree must be saved!).

DDD reply: The fruit is the product of the tree, as good actions or works are the product of a person.
In any case, I cited several specific instances where Jesus said that salvation was a direct correlation of works.

JY: In contrast, those who tried to impress Jesus with their good works (which flowed from an unconverted heart of self-righteousness) were rebuked by Him. See Luke 18:9-14. Jesus did not come to give a list of rules so we could cover up our sins with a few good works. Instead, He came to save sinners from their rebellion against God (see Matthew 20:28; also see I Timothy 1:12-16). Finally, James 2:24 does not contradict Paul. First, James makes it clear that good works can be done only by those who are first chosen by God in grace (see James 1:16-18). James teaches that first God humbles us with His law (for example, when He uses His word to convict a person of his/her sin of homosexuality) so that He can then lift us up by grace alone (see James 4:4-10).

DDD reply: That is not at all what those verses say. There is absolutely NO statement that "works" can only be done by those chosen by god in grace. None of those phrases are in those verses. You are just making up scripture as you go along.

JY: Therefore, James 2:24, properly understood, is teaching that those who are saved by faith in God's free promise of grace (see James 2:23 and Romans 4:1-12) will naturally produce works that give evidence of their salvation (and Paul agrees with this! See Ephesians 2:10; Romans 12:1-2; Philippians 1:6 and 2:12-13, and many more!).

DDD reply: James is saying nothing at all like this. The text speaks for itself. Your re-write does not accurately catch what James actually says, and twists the meaning of his statements around until they reach the point of opposition that matches Paul's. You join Paul in opposing and undermine Jesus, and perverting the words of Jesus into the opposite of what is clearly and explicitly stated.

JY: Simply put, the theology of Jesus and ALL the NT authors is a unity because God's Word does not contradict itself.

DDD reply: I have cited many examples of specific, direct, explicit contradictions on my "Bible Study" webpage at http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html. However, we agree that the perfect word of an omniscient and omnipotent deity could not contain contradictions, ergo the Bible is NOT the divine inerrant/infallible word of said deity.

JY: First, even though you offend by suggesting that the Incarnate Son of God might be open to bestiality, I will respectfully point out that your answer reveals that you struggle answering my question on this point. Jesus did indeed strive to include the prostitutes (by the way, they weren't hurting anybody, were they? They were, according to your logic, actually doing good by helping people fulfill their sexual desires) in His Kingdom, but He told them to REPENT first. They needed to agree with God about their sexual sin before they would see a need for Christ's mercy.

DDD reply: Now you are twisting my words. I did not say that the fulfillment of all sexual desires was good. In fact I specifically noted that where it involves harm such as violence, lack of valid consent or undermining established relationships (such as a married man going to a prostitute or committing adultery), that it would then be harmful, not because of the lust, but because of the harm.

JY: Again, Jesus' silence on homosexuality and bestiality, etc., only means that he didn't need to comment on these because the Jewish people agreed that these were obviously sins. However, when Paul (called and taught by Jesus!) goes to the GENTILES he does indeed deal with homosexuality.

DDD reply: No, it means we cannot state with authority what Jesus would say because he didn't say it. Many people believe he would have accepted the inclusion of those whose inborn sexual nature makes them outcasts, but we can state that as fact because he didn't actually say it, either way.

JY: You admit that you have had no formal education in the study of Scritpure.

DDD reply: Again you misquote me. Here is the exact quote from my bio page: "I am not a trained minister and have not completed formal theological or seminary studies. I do not consider myself to be a Bible expert." Note that I did NOT say I have "no formal education." I attended youth ministry education throughout high school, and I did take some seminary courses. As noted, I did not complete them. I definitely do not consider myself an "expert" or "scholar" by the standards of the many real experts and scholars who I have read, studied and whose books are on my shelves. By lay standards, I am fairly conversant on these subjects and prepared to explore them in a serious way.

JY: With all due respect, if you admit this, then consider the fact that there may be a WHOLE lot about the bible and the Christian faith you do not understand.

DDD reply: I'm sure there is, as on many other subjects. I am certainly no master of astronomy or physics, but I do enjoy watching NOVA, Discovery channel and particularly enjoyed Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." I am no great scholar of government or public administration, but I am well read and can discuss serious issues and vote with reasonable certainty that I am at least standing up for the values and choices I believe to be right. On all these subjects, I remain open minded to new information, but being open minded does not mean there is a hole in your head so every new idea is accepted without question. If shown to be likely true by careful examination, I am willing to change my views, as I have done at various times throughout my life.

JY: Just so you know, I have read the bible more times than I can count and study it in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek).

DDD reply: Congratulations. I have only read it a few times, certainly fewer times that the numbers I'm able to count to, but I didn't bother to count so can't give the exact number.

JY: I have a B.A. and Masters in exegesis and will soon finished my doctorate. I want to share this with you so that you may know that you are talking with someone who has some knowledge of Scripture.

DDD reply: Congratulations. I'm sure that ... if you are right ... that you should have no problem showing a Bible illiterate such as myself the error of my ways. On the other hand, if a neophyte such as myself can "stump the scholar," then it must mean that I am right because it certainly can't be due to my superior educational advantage.

JesusIsYahweh coninues on 2-22-04:

I have a wife and 3 children who need my attention the few evenings I am actually home

DD reply: I have a wife, but my one daughter is grown up and, even though I am a grandfather, it is considerably less demanding on a daily basis than fatherhood (I was a single father -- my first wife left when my daughter was a three-month-old infant and I raised her alone until I remarried during her teenage years).

JY: (plus my oldest daughter has autism, which is a MAJOR challenge).

DD reply: I have done quite a lot of involvement with the disabled, but only rarely with autistic children. Still, I have more first-hand experience than most who don't have a child of their own and I understand and appreciate your challenges.

JY: FirstIn addition I am also involved with some local services organizations (Kiwanis; "Room at the Inn" [we help house homeless families with young children]; and FirstLight [a ministry of love and concern for those who have UNwanted homosexual desires and want accountability, support and counseling] ). On top of all that I am working on finishing my doctorate, which requires much time. I am not suggesting that you are not a busy man or that you do not have other demands on your time. I am simply pointing out that I personally do not have adequate time to dialog with you on a regular basis (which I would love to do, however) nor do I have the time to give you thorough responses you deserve (especially if that means typing for hours on my laptop and then emailing you).

Having said that, if you don't mind being patient and maybe waiting for a few weeks between emails, I would still be willing to dialog with you. Just don't interpret a delayed response from me as lack of interest or inability to answer your comments/questions. So, if you are willing to keep up this dialog on that basis, let me know. Also, if I get to a point where I do believe I have time for this at all in any form, I will let you know so that you are not "left hanging".

DD reply: Take your time. I've been around for a long time and plan to continue for many years. If I hear from you in 2 or 3 weeks or 2 or 3 months, I'll understand. If I don't hear from you at all, I'll understand that, too :-)

JY: First, I did not say that Scripture doesn't have evidence regarding my views on the civil, ceremonial and universal laws of Israel. I merely stated that the Bible does not lay it out in a simplistic "school boy" manner.

DD reply: You were very specific in saying that "there were civil and ceremonial laws (food laws; circumcision; animal sacrifice; Passover) the were given to Israel ONLY and for a limited time. However, the UNIVERSAL laws were for all people of all times and places (which is why the GENTILES are mentioned in Lev. 18 & 20)." (your exact words.) Since you did not cite any authoritative source other than your reference to Leviticus, I assumed that was your source. Since I find no basis for this claim other than the desperate desire to reconcile a contradiction, I need a stronger authoritative basis than just your say-so, no matter how many degrees or brownie points you might have accumulated in institutions established to perpetuate the traditions and beliefs they want to perpetuate.

JY: Instead, this view of the law is the obvious conclusion of a serious study of the OT and NT in comparison with each other.

DD reply: What seems more probable is that someone is trying to rationalize the obvious contradiction between what Paul says (that the Law is fulfilled) and what Jesus says (that this won't happen until "heaven and earth pass away" and "ALL THINGS are fulfilled") which everyone knows hasn't happened yet.

JY: You made not comments on the verses I DID give you. Why? Once again, a good place for you to start (although there are many other texts that deal with this issue) would be to carefully read the book of Hebrews and consider what it says about the law and its relationship to Christ (especially chaps. 9 & 10).

DD reply: Not a single one of those verses adequately resolved this direct contradiction, and since I do not accept the authority of a book riddled with contradictions, factual errors and failed prophecies, I cannot accept it as a stand-alone authority. If you want to use the Bible as an authority, you either have to cite verses that specific resolve its own internal contradictions, or establish independently its merits as such.

JY: Second, I never said that sexual sin is what CAUSED the Fall. Instead, I said that sexual sin (whether of a hetero or homo nature), along with other sins of desire, thought, word and deed, is the RESULT of the Fall. As for blaming God for "original sin", now we're dealing with a totally different issue. Simply put, do we create God in the image we want (a God who appears to be "fair" to us) OR do we accept the One True God who chooses to reveal Himself to us? If God has spoken to us through HIs servants and IN PERSON (see Hebrews 1:1-3), then we should not be surprised that the nature of the True God is beyond our ability to comprehend (see the last few verses of Romans ch. 11). A "god" that fits our job description would not be god, but an idol.

DD reply: Even very small children can recognize obvious conditions of fairness or injustice, even though there may be many situations they do not understand. Similarly, even we puny humans do have some accurate perceptions of justice, and to believe that we are held in guilt for what someone else did obviously violates the most basic levels of that moral understanding. If you want to argue the contrary, you have to present a strong case to rationalize this seeming perversion of simple decency. If not, then you have to justify why the moral authority on which your justification is based has more credibility than the Islamic Koran (which I have also read ... and rejected) or the Book of Mormon (read/rejected that, too). Just because someone says their book is the Word of God isn't enough to make it stand out from all the other prophets proclaiming the authority of their holy books.

JY: Third, I DID give you several examples from the Gospels where Jesus teaches that salvation is a free gift given to sinners (and I can refer you to sources that treat countless others!), but you did not respond to those. Why?

DD reply: Not one of the Jesuit examples you cited was equivalent to the Pauline concept of salvation by "faith without works" of Romans 3:23 and others. I have no problem with the concept of salvation as a free gift; I would have no problem with the concept that Jesus comes down and teaches us the WORKS / BEHAVIOR / DEEDS of salvation and gives that to us freely, as an unearned gift, and even sacrifices his life in defiance of Roman and Sanhedrin dictatorships as the price of teaching that openly. But that is not the same as Paul's teaching that the free gift is "faith and not works," which is the diametric opposite of what was taught by Jesus and his brother James.

JY: As for my point concerning Jesus' words "A good tree bears good fruit", if you examine this teaching in context with the entire Gospel of Matthew you will see that "making a tree good" is one of many metaphors Jesus uses to express what Paul teaches in a more logical, systematic way (that we are saved by Grace expressed in Christ's work which we receive through faith, which itself is created by God who brings us to repentance and faith through His Word). Jesus makes a similar point in John 3:3-5, which is the point of James 1:17ff and the same point of PAUL in Titus 3:5ff. In addition, your comment about the text in Acts which records the resurrected Jesus appearing to Paul proves my point about our different views of Scripture leading to different conclusions. Obviously, if I quote a text that proves you wrong, you simply dismiss that text as being "made up" or in error. So, you pick what you like (and that's the "good" teaching of Scripture) and you reject what doesn't fit into your system. This is not a scholarly approach to ANY text!!!

DD reply: I strongly disagree. Do you have the slightest understanding of the gospel of Matthew? Were you sleeping during that course in Seminary? Of all the gospels, that of Matthew is the MOST centered on Jesus' doctrine of salvation by WORKS. In his first public teaching, the Sermon on the Mount (immediately after the baptism and temptation), Jesus talks about universal compassion for not only friends and neighbors, but also enemies (Matt 5:44). He ends the Sermon in Matt 7:21-27, the verses that IMMEDIATELY follow (and thus define) his metaphor of "good fruit" that you cited, by noting that merely professing faith or belief is insufficient and that only those who express that universal compassion in DEEDS or WORKS will be saved, while those who have verbally expressed faith alone will be commanded to "depart from me."

In Matt 22:36-40 Jesus responds to the inquiring lawyer that all the law and the prophets hang upon the Old Testament commandments to love god (from Deut 6:56) and love thy neighbor (Lev 19:18); in the Luke version (Luke 25-37) Jesus adds "this DO [ummm, the word "DO" suggestions actions or works] and you will live."

In his last general teaching before the last supper and the end of holy week, reported in Matt 25:31-46, Jesus gives his most explicit and specific description of the final judgment, made even more poignant by its juxtaposition as his final teaching before the final events of his life begin to unfold. This is very specific: those who DO DEEDS and WORKS to aid and comfort "the least of these" will be saved, and those who do not, will not. It is simple and unambiguous. And I do not believe you have cited one single verse that clearly states the contrary, but if you did, all you would do is provide me with another contradiction to add to my list since this pronouncement, and the whole CONTEXT OF MATTHEW, is so compellingly consistent and unambiguous -- and does not teach what you said it does.

JY: Fourth, your response to my comments on Jesus' words in Matt. ch. 5 about His fulfillmentof the Law show that you have a hard time understanding the logic of the text. The Greek syntax makes my point obvious, but even the English (properly translated) shows that Jesus point is that the Law will not be fulfilled until He completes His work, and THEN we can expect the destruction of the current creation. Just read this verse in the whle context of Matthew's Gospel and you will see what I mean.

DD reply: It does not say that at all. I have four versions of the Bible by professional translators, from the KJV to the much more modern NIV. These professionals are trained to interpret for context and subtle references to tense and affect, and not one of them renders anything remotely similar to your amateurish effort. Sorry, I'll stick with the pros. They unanimously agree that it says "until" heaven and earth pass away and all things are fulfilled that all these things will happen. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Good, professional interpretation is both an art and a science, and while I have resources such as Strongs and others to look up individual words, when looking at whole passages I'll stick with the pro's.

JY: By the way, you did not even bother to comment on my point about the curtain in the Temple after Jesus' words "It is Finished". If you really understood the theological significance behind this you would not even be challenging me on this.

DD reply: And there are a lot of my points that you skipped over, too. I skipped the ones I found to be the most ridiculous. The death of Jesus is not specifically linked to the statement in Matt 5:18 that I cited, and nowhere is this connection made except in the creative imaginations of those trying to find ways to make the Bible say things that it doesn't actually say. When Jesus says "it is finished" just as he dies, the most obvious context is that his mortal life is finished, which is what is being described. To conclusively assign any other meaning, it would have to be explicit, which it is not. You are really reaching here, and it just wasn't on the top of my list because, frankly, I didn't take it very seriously.

JY: Finally, (and I know you made other points which deserve answers, but I'm out of time) I plan to eventually read your web page concerning all these "errors, contradictions and failed prophecies". Once I do that, I will respond. But let me say this. Scholars who are truly respected in their work regarding ancient works, text criticisml, etc., even though they man not believe what Scripture teaches, will admit that Scripture is consistent with itself and contains no obvious errors.

DD reply: Were you in a Seminary or cloistered away in a monastery? I have numerous scholarly works, by highly credentialed writers with many more degrees than you have, who have no problem recognizing and dealing with the many obvious Bible contradictions and errors. Most of these began (like me) as "true believers" but while they retain their respect and fondness for the Bible, long ago abandoned any pretense of its internal consistency or inerrancy. If you want me to provide a list of names and credentials I can do that, but I have a hard time imagining that you don't already know many of the ones I'm referring to, and if you don't it seriously diminishes the credibility you claimed as a scholar.

JY: Many of the historical statements of Scripture have been proving true through recents discoveries. Other historical statements that haven't been proven true and not for that reason false. It simply means we have not found extra-biblical sources that confirm the same data. This should not surprise us since there are countless documents and other sources of data that have not come down to us from the past.

DD reply: On the contrary, the discovery of new Dead Sea Scroll texts, Nag Hammadi library and other ancient resources of modern discovery show just the opposite.

JY: Those who assume the bible is wrong simply because it makes supernatural statements show that they are not being objective by are judging Scripture within their philosophical matrix about reality. I would be more than happy to refer you to excellent works (by both believers and UNbelievers) that recognize the bible as THE most reliable ancient historical text that we have. The manuscript evidence alone concerning Holy Scripture so completely exceeds what we have availbe for other ancients works that there is no comparison (and yet these other secular works, for which there is far less evidence, are considered valid representations of the past). Therefore, I have found that those who denounce the reliability of Scripture either have not done their homework or have a negative agenda.

DD reply: My initial assumption, growing up as a "true believer" was that the Bible was true, not false. When I stumbled across contradictions and flaws, I assumed reasonable explanations and when even very learned people (like you) gave me nothing but doubletalk, I realized the real discovery I had come across was that the Bible is not, in fact, inerrant or infallible.

JY: Your arguements are far weaker than other liberal challenges of Scripture I have encountered from others and refuted. I'm sure you are wondering exactly how I will respond to the points you make. Well...as I have time, I will do my best. But, as I noted in my previous email, because of my time limitations, I will have to also refer you to other works that will share my views.

DD reply: Your saying so means nothing. When your schedule allows and you can provide some specific, I'll be all ears. Until then, my statements remain completely unchallenged by you.

JY: One of the contradictions/failed prophecies you metion is Matt. 24 where Jesus says that "This generation will not pass away until ALL of these things have taken place." I don't know what commentaries you've read on this text, but many wrongly (either due to their dispensational view of Scripture or just plain ignorance) exegete this passage. The "things" Jesus says will take place during that generation are ALL dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD (only after the verse about "this generation" do we get information about things eschatological). I don't have time to explain all the textual and doctrinal reasons for this correct view. so I'll recommed a great book called "Jerusalem and Parousia" by Dr. Jeff Gibbs.

DD reply: And by the time all of those "things" had taken place, and soon after all those "now living" were no longer living, but the second coming and "end times" still had not occured. The prophecy failed.

JY: Finally, your understadning of the Sermon on the Mount and its theological purposes is totally wrong. There are many who wrongly understand what Jesus is trying to accomplish. Very simply put, Jesus is trying to show his disciples (misled by the works righteous theology of the Pharisees) exactly what sort of righteousness would be necessary if one were to be saved by keeping the Law (which sinners can't do, because God's expectation is His own holiness--Matt. 5:48). In other words, the Sermon on the Mount is showing us that we CAN'T be saved by keeping the Law...

DD reply: Like Paul, you are saying the diametrically opposed opposite of what Jesus says in Matt 5:18. And in Matt 5:48, he commands us to be "perfect" which I assume means that he believes this is an achievable objective.

JY: ...because Jesus explication of the Law in the Sermon on the Mount makes it clear that NO PERSON can keep it.

DD reply: On its face this is an absurd statement, since a more direct reading says just the opposite, so you have to back it up. Your say-so is not adequate.

JY: That's exactly what Jesus is doing with the Rich Yough Ruler when Jesus says: "If you want to live, keep the commandments" (which Paul also quotes in Galatians ch. 3!). But what is Jesus doing? He is seeking to humble a prideful young man who comes to him with a work righteous question. Basically, Jesus is saying: "O.K. IF YOU WANT TO EARN YOUR WAY, GO AHEAD, DO IT! LET'S SEE HOW IT GOES."

DD reply: Not at all. That is not what Jesus, James nor I are saying. You are extrapolating things that are clearly not extant in the text. Jesus' or James' doctrine of salvation by WORKS is not inconsistent with the idea of salvation as a "free gift." The salvational concept exposed by Paul is that since Jesus has assumed our sins (ridiculous enough, see my atonement page), he is the one who sets the standard for accepting us for his free gift of salvation. Paul says that standard is acceptance by "faith without works" (contravening Matt 7:21-27). But since Jesus says salvation is by compassionate works toward the "least of these," even if one says that such works cannot "earn" salvation (any more than a mere profession of faith), why do so many accept the standard set by Paul and reject the standard set by Jesus? Jesus is not saying that compassionate works "earn" salvation, but that they are the criterion by which he deems satisfaction of the standard he has established, as the only one with the right to establish it (assuming acceptance of that role, which is a separate and questionable issue).

JY: The cultural view of riches is also important to understand. You see, the Pharisees interpreted riches as God's reward for obedience to His Law (an evil teaching which God refutes all the way back in the book of Job!). Even Jesus disciples still held this error, which is clear when they say: "WHO THEN CAN BE SAVED?" (You see, they admired that Rich Young Ruler who had supposedly earned God's blessing). But Jesus turns this evil work righteous view upside down! With man it is impossible. But with God (His Grace!), all things are possible.

DD reply: I stand by what I have written. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. And I'll hear from you when (or if) you have the time and ability to respond.

Dialogue with Nielsen
Nielsen writes on 10-22-03:

I am writing to ask you if you truly desire to understand the apparent discrepancies that you believe are in the Bible.

DDD reply: Please note that I feel my "desire to understand the apparent discrepancies that you believe are in the Bible" has been taken care of. I do understand, very clearly. The Bible is an important work of ancient wisdom, but it is the wisdom of its fallible human writers, writing from their primitive conditions. As a result, while it shows great wisdom, insight and intelligence, it also contains many contradictions, factual errors and failed prophecies, such as those I cited.

And by the way, the points I have cited are not merely "apparent discrepancies." They are clear and direct contradictions, in some cases on major points of theological doctrine. I have also cited errors of fact and failed prophecies.

N: If you sincerely would like answers to your questions,...

DDD reply: I no longer have questions. I provided answers for those who have the kind of questions I had in the past. However, just as I had an open mind at the time I went through the painful and traumatic process of reevaluating my literal belief in the Bible years ago, I still have that same open mind and if the evidence were to prove that I had erred in my analysis, then I would happily reconsider. However at this point all the evidence that comes along points to the inescapable conclusion that my current position is correct.

N: ...then I would be willing to provide you with historical and Biblical references that hopefully will help you see that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

DDD reply: With all respect, I believe that if you were really confident you could do that, you would just do it. What you are saying is a euphemism for "if I am willing to make a committment to acceptance on blind faith you could show me some convoluted, complicated explanations to explain why what the Bible plainly says (considering all aspects of culture, history and context) is not what it really means." Don't brag about what you "could" or "would" do. Been there, done that, and had enough of "coulda, woulda, shoulda." If you can do it, do it. If not, that's OK, I understand exactly why.

Dialogue with Dreamus
Dreamus writes on 10-6-03:

I would just like to hear what you have to say on this thought that I had. Deut 23:3 "No child of incestuous union may be admitted into the community of the Lord, nor any descendants of theirs even to the tenth generation" Maybe I need to brush up on the creation story but isn't incest unavoidable if the human race started with one male and one female.

DDD reply: I was unable to find a version that specifically referenced "incestuous union" in this verse, but in any case this would probably be dismissed in the case of the first few generations of Adam and Eve's children because the law had not yet been given, so not having been given yet would not apply to them.

However, all of the versions I looked at do cite in the first few verses of Deut. 23 various conditions in which descendants must be outcast "unto the tenth generation," including the innocent children of illicit sexual relations (which could include incest along with many other situations). In fact I cited this in my Bible web page as an example of illogical scriptures, because it is unjust to hold an innocent child responsible for what his father did, much less going back to ten generations of great-grandparents.

Dialogue with Steve
Steve writes on 5-17-03:

As to the linkage to the House of David, Danizier forget one very important fact. Joseph and Mary were cousins. No matter which side you use to trace it back you will still end up at the House of David.

DDD reply: Both Matthew and Luke explicitly state that the lineage shown is through JOSEPH, not Mary. But you have not addressed the substance of my point: that not one single name is the same between Joseph and Solomon, not even the same number of generations! It is completely contradictory! My point was NOT about "linkage" to the House of David or evidence of Jesus coming through the House of David, it was the fact that the genealogies are completely and totally inconsistent and contradictory! The fact that Joseph and Mary are cousins only strengthens my point ... if they are cousins, then they should at least have some common ancestry! The fact that Luke and Matthew come up with completely contradictory genealogies for Joseph is a specific, direct and explicit contradiction which proves that the Bible cannot be inerrant or infallible.

S: NEXT: From danizier's website: Matt 12:40 clearly says: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Please note it says THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS (the same as in Jonah 1:17 which it refers to). Yet ALL FOUR GOSPELS report that Jesus died on Friday evening and was resurrected on Sunday morning (at or before dawn, some more contradictions on this point), which would only allow less than 36 hours, not three days AND three nights. Danizier is not well informed on the calendar of the Jews and how days were counted. Sorry Danizier, but not every culture counts a day from midnight to midnight. The Jews considered the day was over at sunset.

DDD reply: I am very familiar with this point. You are the one who has missed what is in the Bible. When the Jewish writers write in the manner you describe, such as all the self-contained New Testament references to Jesus' death and resurrection, the term used is NOT "three days and three nights" but "the third day." By our modern reckoning, the third day would start from the next day (Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath), and go to Monday. Understanding that the Jews counted to include any portion of the first day is not a problem for the reference "the third day." My point was that the prophecy Matthew is referring to from Jonah 1:17 doesn't use that terminology. Instead of "the third day" it says "three days and three nights." This refers to a different (and inconsistently contradictory) period of time. As you note, Jesus died on Friday before sundown. Friday night to Saturday morning is ONE NIGHT. Saturday night to Sunday morning is ONE NIGHT. Jesus gets resurrected on Sunday morning. One and one is ... TWO. There were Two nights. There are also even less than two full days, but stretching things and including any part of any day that saw daylight, you could maybe get away with saying three days, but there is no possible way you can say there were both three days AND three nights. So Matthew's reference to makes Jonah a failed prophecy and the discrepancy with all other time indicators ("the third day") also make it a contradiction.

S: Jesus was nailed to the cross on what we would consider Thursday not Friday. His body had to quickly be taken down and place in a tomb even before it could be properly cared for because the new day Friday was about to begin that also marked the beginning of the pass over (a most holy of holidays that lasted for three days).

At the end of the pass over; three days later is when the body of Jesus could be taken care of. You know the rest of the story. Christ had arose and no body was found in the tomb. Thursday, Friday, Saturday, is indeed three nights. Sunday is when they found the tomb empty even though it had been guarded by Roman soldiers. Yes, I believe he's coming back like he said.

DDD reply: You have lost count of the days and the time references. The word "Friday" is not explicitly stated, however the date is clearly, specifically and unambiguously identified in all four gospels. Matt 26:17 (also Mark 14:12) identifies the Last Supper as the "first day of unleavened bread," which anyone with the slightest knowledge of Hebraic custom and history, would know is Thursday, and continues the chronology of events through the arrest, trial and crucifixion in hour-by-hour intervals, culminating in the death on Friday from the 6th to the 9th hour (Matt 27:45-46, Mark 15:33-34, Luke 33:44 and John 19:14. Just to make sure no one lost sight of the date, it is SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED as the day of Preparation, which is specifically described as the day before the Jewish Sabbath (which anyone with the slightest knowledge of Hebraic custom and history, would know is Saturday) in Mark 15:42 and Luke 23:54. For those who really have a hard time following this, the day after Thursday (first day of unleavened bread) and before Saturday (day of Preparation) is, um, Friday. John wanted to make it so clearly that he stated it THREE TIMES - in John chapter 19, verses 14, 31 and 42. Verse 31 specifically states that the body had to be taken down, not before Passover as you say without any support whatsoever, but before the onset of the SABBATH ... Saturday. The part you claim about "Passover" is not in the Bible. You just made it up. Go get your own Bible and turn to John 19:31 and read it for yourself. From Friday evening to Sunday morning is not three nights. Jonah and Matthew FAIL.

S: Danizier has not found any contradiction in the Word of God; he has only found lapses in his own knowledge.

DDD reply: You have addressed only two of the many contradictions, flaws and failed prophecies I identified. The Bible is indeed a cherished and important historical work. It is the incredible effort of ancient primitive people, giving us tremendous insight into their lives and ideals. But it is the work of fallible mortal humans, not the inerrant or infallible word of an omniscient deity.

S: It would take a lot of pages to show where he has error each step of the way in his logic; on second thought , perhaps it would only take faith.

DDD reply: Moslems tell me the same thing about their Koran. Just ignore the flaws and contradictions we can't explain and accept it on faith. Since you say the same about your Bible, neither of you has provided a better reason to disregard the clear, direct and explicit flaws in your holy books or to accept them as divine.

Dialogue with Keith
Keith writes on 5-13-03:

I respect that you have a right to your opinion. I accept that you have the freedom to exercise your liberty of free speech and expression. And I write these words calmly and without partiality; i regard you as intelligent and capable of thinking, and that you very well may be a good person, which I am not doubting.

DDD reply: Your tone was indeed calm and thoughtful, however I would be very surprised to find that you are truly impartial, i.e., that you are neutral on the subject at hand. There are few who are truly neutral, objective inquirers, though I could perhaps imagine some scholarly person studying the Bible for research purposes, looking at it from a fairly objective viewpoint whatever his beliefs about it might be.

K: HOWEVER, if you are to think that you are to understand God's Word, you are seriously mistaken. For how can you understand what the Lord has written. when you yourself do not belong to Him? Will He make his mysteries and word clear to those who try to kick against the truth? Of course not. For we come to understanding through salvation and teaching, through the leading and sanctification of the Holy Spirit.

DDD reply: Your flaw here is in jumping to some incorrect assumptions about my point of view. It is true that today I do not believe the Bible to be the inerrant/infallible word of an omniscient deity. However, when I first studied the Bible, it was as a true believer, seeking his word, and I merely stumbled across the contradictions, flaws, failed prophecies and other errors in the course of my studies. Since I read this "belonging to him," according to your views he should have "made his mysteries and word clear" since my seeking was sincere and devoted. At first I tried to seek answers from scholarly persons of like belief, and find my own ways of resolving this errors. But I found that the responses I got from respected, trusted elders in my own faith were no better than the answers I got from those I had argued or debated with, and I found my own self being tempted into rationalizing things or explaining them away in ways that I would not accept from those I preached to when they demonstrated some resistance. After much internal struggle, I came to realize that the path of both moral courage and intellectual honesty lie in recognizing and accepting the truths I had stumbled across, even though it meant giving up the social circles, support systems, and personal ways I identified myself. It was very painful, but I was able to follow that which was true. And if someone could show me where I am in error (I note you did not even attempt to address the substance of issues I raised on my sites), I would again have the moral courage to return to the roots I grew up in (and gee, wouldn't my relatives all breathe a sigh of relief!).

K: For you to think that you found contradictions, flaws, etc. is nearly laughable.

DDD reply: No it isn't. I found them, and I showed them to the world. They are real and substantial.

K: If I had the time, if I had the space and knew that you would read it objectively, I would prove you so wrong.

DDD reply: You had the time to write what you did. But you can't address a single point of substance. If you had the answers you would provide them. You would do so eagerly and with great relish. You start out this sentence with "if" ... but the real "if" is that "if" you had the answers you would prove me wrong. But you don't so you won't.

K: You just look at the word and say, "Oh, it says this, so that's what it must mean!" How foolish to think one can do that. If you had the Spirit, if you knew how to interpret the Scriptures, you wouldn't make such blind and fallacious assumptions regarding the Word of God.

DDD reply: Yes, "how foolish" for me to think that if God gave mortal human His Word as a roadmap, that we should have the nerve to think it would be clear, direct, and mean what it says.

And again you fail to recognize the fact that I sought help from scholarly and spiritual religious leaders who also could not "prove" me wrong, just as you can't. Just like you, they all finally come down to the claim that they can not "prove" it after all, but I have to accept it on faith. But since the Mormons and the Moslems and those of other faiths also tell me exactly the same thing, none has given me any reason to believe their claims that is better than what anyone else has offered.

K: I still respect you, and I sincerely hope that you respect me. But know that your understanding of the Scriptures is severely flawed.

DDD reply: Flawed or not, at least I had the guts to show my hand to the world. You didn't (or couldn't). And just telling me I'm flawed without being able to show me why just isn't very impressive.

Dialogue with Tom
Tom writes on 4-27-03:

Since I believe that Jesus was not looney, or a crackpot, I conclude He is who He said: God.( many references-you would beieve them. I doubt if you would look them up.

DDD reply: You have taken this point without attribution from Josh McDowell's book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict." My web pages have already established with clear evidence and specific examples that the Bible has many contradictions and flaws of human error. There is another alternative to the limited choices provided by McDowell (and you): Jesus wrote nothing; the gospel accounts were written decades later; whether they are intentionally false, the efforts of delusional followers, or simply embellished by time in an age when there were no photos or videos to aid fading memories (by primitive, superstitious people who believed in such supernatural events and would not resist including them in their legends) is not a conclusion I have to decide.

T: As I mentioned earlier [in the atonement dialogue], men must have faith in the ways of God. I don't understand His logic, but then i don't know all He knows.

DDD reply: So you have nothing to back up your position AT ALL, any more than all the other religions that come down to the same thing "take it on faith" (i.e., "trust me, but be sure to send in the contributions"). You offer nothing more than the Moslems, Mormons or others who can't justify their claims and require acceptance "on faith." I'm glad this works for you. It doesn't work for me, for reasons I explained at length which you again ignore.

T: Yet in your presentation there are holes that when given serious consideration cause the open mind to wonder what truth i will hold on to. For me i hold on to the Bible as true. For you, i'm not sure, but there must be something beside self. Self is so small, isn't it?

DDD reply: You jump to conclusions in your bizarre effort at psychoanalyzing me (someone you have never even met) and you fail badly. Of course there is something besides self! There is a whole universe of which I am a teensy part! And my position does not even rule out a deity! I have never claimed to be an atheist. But however much value and inspiration we gain from the Bible, it is the work of mortal humans, not the work of a perfect deity, because it is FULL of HUNDREDS of contradictions, flaws, factual errors and failed prophecies, not a single one of which you can specifically address!

T: Jesus Himself spoke of His death and resurrection. He knew He would die at Passover. He knew it was part of God's plan (His plan; not mine). Those subject to assination are surprised by their death. Jesus predicted it.

DDD reply: This is an absurd, silly statement. Most leaders who have been assassinated knew it was coming. In most cases, they just didn't know when, though some did. For example, one of Martin Luther King's most famous speeches (after "I Have a Dream," of course) was the one he gave in Memphis, Tennessee, on April 3, 1968. In case you're not good with history and dates, that is the night before he was assassinated the next day in Memphis. Here is what he said: "And then I got into Memphis. And some began to talk about the threats that were out. Or what would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers. Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountain top. I won't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land." And then the next day he was shot and killed on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel. There were also many predictions of the assassinations of Lincoln, Kennedy and Julius Caesar. And these are well documented. The predictions of Jesus' death attributed to him were written many decades after the fact. This is all part of the legend. All religions have myths and legends, but you don't take them seriously ... except your own. Sorry, not impressed at all.

T: Other mythologies may have spoken of men being raised from the dead, but none that i know about predicted it before their death. And according to the Bible Jesus was virgin born (sinless); another part of God's plan. What do you do with that?

DDD reply: The prophet/deity Mithra in the Zoroastrian religion (more than 500 years before Jesus) was also virgin born, and in fact many believe the story of Jesus' virgin birth was copied from this older legend.
And what is your point in saying "sinless" after "virgin"? Virgin just means someone has never had sex. It has nothing to do with sin, even in the Judeo-Christian traditions. Let me ask you: if a couple is MARRIED and conceives a child, are they still virgins? Obviously the child was conceived in sex, so they are not virgins. So the next question: is the child conceived by this MARRIED couple born in sin? The virgin birth has nothing to do with sinfulness, and is only part of the legendary mythology of magic and miracles.

T: I can give you specific references, if you desire to seek Him in all His fullness.

DDD reply: Baloney. No you can't. You can just give a list of books to read or websites to check out and hope that somewhere I'll find in there what YOU COULD NOT FIND: the answers to the HUNDREDS of contradictions, flaws, factual errors and failed prophecies that I have provided. If you could have provided this, you would have done it. You didn't, because YOU CAN'T.

T: There are many references, but all can be stopped with a simple statement that the Bible has contridctions.

DDD reply: Your references fail, or "can be stopped" not merely by the "simple statement" that there are contradictions, but by a specific and detailed list of actual examples. This is what I provided, and what you can't handle.

T: I have a book of difficulties but no contridictions.

DDD reply: Oh, please stop with these childish word games. You are trying, but failing, to make your point on semantics instead of substance. It doesn't matter whether you call them "difficulties" or "contradictions." When it says one thing in one place, and in another place it says something that is inconsistent, contradictory, or mutually exclusive, then the English term we use in the real world is "contradiction" and if you want to call it something else that is your problem. They are all still there. No one has to take your word for it or mine. Anyone can check my contradictions site for themselves and see the contradictions that are there. I guess for those who insist that the Bible has no contradictions, providing specific and direct examples of HUNDREDS is also a "difficulty" in addition to a "contradiction."

Tom continues on 4-28-03:

I picked a couple [from the contradictions file] that would not take much time. As you can see I don't see any contridictions. As I said anyone can hide behind apparent contridictions.

DDD reply: I have reviewed your simplistic response to the few contradictions you chose to respond to. In almost every case (one exception), YOU altered scripture by misrepresenting what is actually said, and/or interpreting it ways that simply do not match the context of the actual passages.

T (citing alleged contradiction example): >>God can / cannot be found by seekers.
Mt 7:8; Prov 8:17 / Prov 1:28
In Proverbs the author is speaking of Wisdom, not God

DDD reply: I agree with you on this one, and will delete this from the list. Since God is speaking (in Proverbs) and using the first person form, it could be argued that Wisdom is a metaphor for God, but it does not explicitly say this so I will agree that this one is not sufficiently unambiguous to remain. On the rare occasions when readers do convince me that I have included an item in error, I admit that and correct it. Congratulations for being one of the few to do that. However, you fail in your effort on each of the other items, and don't even come close. All it takes is ONE contradiction to PROVE that the Bible cannot be inerrant or infallible, since by definition to be inerrant or infallible means NO errors.

T (citing alleged contradiction example): >>God's attributes are revealed in his works / attributes cannot be discovered.
Rom 1:20 / Job 11:7; Is 40:28
Attributes are not deep things as mentioned in Job. I believe His attributes such as lovee and justness can be discovered, but His understanding is far past mine as the Isaiah says.

DDD reply: Attributes are qualities of being. The word does not differentiate between that which is superficial or deep. This is your own restrictive qualification to try to disregard the substance of a clear, unambiguous contradiction.

T (citing alleged contradiction example): >>Making of images forbidden / commanded.
Ex 20:4 / Ex 25:18,20
Only images of God forbidden; angels, horses, flowere ok

DDD reply: The restrictive definition exists only in traditional interpretation. It is not in the original scripture itself. YOU are changing the Bible to say that it approves of things that the Bible itself clearly does not say. What Exodus 20:4 says is: "Thous shalt not make unto thee ANY graven image, or ANY likeness of ANYTHING that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." (King James Version, but others show same meaning.) It is pretty comprehensive. It does NOT include the exceptions which YOU ADDED for your own convenience, changing the Bible, and setting yourself up higher than the Bible writer.

T (citing alleged contradiction example): >>Wearing of long hair by men sanctioned / condemned.
Judg 13:5; Num 6:5 / 1 Cor 11:14
Paul is not speaking of Nazarites, but of men. Not anyone could choose to be aNazarite by letting their hair grow.

DDD reply: But in order to be a Nazarite, one had to be a male. Since Paul did not make any exceptions to his statement, it contradicts the Old Testament provisions. If the Bible had been inspired by a perfect deity to be inerrant and infallible, an alert god might have caught this.

T (citing alleged contradiction example): >>Joseph's father was Jacob / Heli.
Mt 1:16 / Luke 3:23 Since Luke was tracing the lineage of Mary
through David, Heli is actually the father-in law. We know this because Joseph's
biological father was Jacob as recorded in Matthew.
Tom

DDD reply: But Luke says that Joseph's BIOLOGICAL FATHER was Heli, not Jacob. It is a direct contradiction. And no, it is NOT referring to "father-in-law." Wherever the Bible identifies prominent women and cites their relationship to their husband's families it uses the term "in-law." Do you have an online Bible? If so, do a quick search on "in-law" and see how routinely this is used throughout both Old and New Testaments to identify that relationship (e.g., Sarai, wife of Abraham, Ruth, and many others). Women are identified both as to their fathers in law and, for men, to their daughters in law, throughout the Bible. And when the lineage of a woman is identified it is her own ancestors that are cited, as in the case of Esther (see Esther 2:5-7; notwithstanding that Esther then married the King who would certainly provide her with a fine lineage of his own, if things were counted that way). Is Mary, THE MOTHER OF JESUS, less important than others such as Sarai, Esther or Ruth? If their in-law relationships or genealogies can be included, why not Mary's? And, can you find one single other example in the Bible where a lineage is cited through the woman but it says someone was the "father of" and gives her husband's name instead of her own? Since there are many examples to the contrary, and you are dealing with an unsupported claim regarding the mother of the single most important character in the Bible, I think you should be able to come up with some pretty good examples if you are going to explain why the Bible does not really mean what it says. And let me remind you that when professional translations are prepared, the interpretation takes into consideration the cultural differences that affect the meanings of what was said. Perhaps the scholars of the King James (almost 400 years ago) were not sophisticated to reflect these cultural implications; however I have reviewed the same passage in more recent updates (Revised Standard Version and New International Version) and all of them identify Joseph as the SON of Heli, and NOT that Heli was the father-in-law of Mary.

You can call these "problems" if you don't like the word "contradictions" but the fact is, based on the common usage of the English word "contradiction" -- i.e., two statements that materially oppose each other or are mutually exclusive factual representations, (with one exception) you have NOT resolved these clear, direct and unambiguous contradictions. But you have shown that you are willing to misrepresent the content of scripture to claim that it says things that clearly are not in the verses.

Dialogue with JHR
JHR writes on 2-3-03:

I think that most of the readers that respond to your site with hostility and ire are afraid that if they are compelled to realize that the Bible is indeed a flawed compilation, that this means that the bedrock of their beliefs is also flawed and consequently imperils the totality of their belief system. I have lived all of my adult life knowing that the Bible was an interesting history book, oftentimes enlightening and loving; oftentimes infuriating and cruel. This realization has in no way however, compromised my belief in Christ and Christianity. The basic tenets of Christianity - love, compassion, generosity and forgiveness- inform my life and I don't rely on the exact interpretation of this ancient tome to guide my actions or thoughts or beliefs. I don't know why people can't get this. I have really enjoyed visiting your site and intend to return often.

DDD reply: Depending on what you include with "Christian tenets" I could come close to agreeing with you. I believe Jesus' teachings (as attributed to him in the Bible as handed down to us) of universal compassionate love expressed through positive actions is the premier message of interpersonal success, whether in this life or any future life. But Jesus was a unqiue individual. The Bible prophets that preceded him taught a violent, oppressive, rigid, cruel doctrine of strict Laws and the persecution of those not of the chosen race. And the teachings of Paul, which became the basis for the "Christian tenets" of modern evangelical sects, completely reversed and undermined Jesus' positions -- teaching that behavior or actions are not the basis for salvation (directly contradicting Jesus) (see my website on this specific issue at: http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html), and teaching that Jesus' contribution to humanity was not in what he taught and gave us in life, but in his death, leading to a doctrine of atonement salvation rooted in bloody human sacrifice (see my website on this specific issue at: http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html).

Dialogue with Diane
Diane writes on 1-30-03 (from Australia):

Good work Davis, I loved reading it. God would be very pleased with you, why, cause you have written the truth, which is more than I can say about the Bible. I read somewhere that the Bible is the greatest Love story ever written. I believe the Bible to be the most destructive work that I have ever read and I've read about 500 books.

DDD reply: I agree there are many problems caused by the Bible, and many wars and atrocities have been committed in its name.

D: I believe that if the bible was banned the world would come to peace, let common since prevail.

DDD reply: I do not believe that censorship or the banning of ideas ever leads to more common sense. I believe that the truth about the Bible can only be revealed by reasoned discussion and by sharing enlightened perspectives, not by the very force and coerciveness that we criticize the Bible-worshippers for.

D: After saying all this I must admit that I believe in God, but the God I believe in is 'MY GOD", and my God tells me that He/She had nothing to do with the bible.

DDD reply: I do tend to believe in a "supreme being" or "higher power" but that is a belief, not an assertion of fact. I do not believe god can be proved or disproved, though the Bible can clearly be disproved. Belief is a conclusion based on an interpretation of indications taken together which don't add up to definite proof or absolute evidence. For whatever reason, if there is a god, he/she/it has chosen to take a mostly hands-off approach to his/her/its creations during this time of mortality on earth, with only occasional interventions.

D: The bible is Man's creation to gain power from the people.

DDD reply: I certainly think that is part of it. But also the Bible was created, beginning with Moses, as a means of presenting a codified system of laws, of putting in writing the beliefs and legends, and of trying to offer a primitive people's best explanations for a universe that was beyond their understanding. And then, of course, as religion and superstition has always done, it was used by the few against the many to gain and maintain power over them.

D: Times have changed the bible will crumble just like the churches, its only a matter of time.

DDD reply: The Bible will always have a place of historical importance, in helping us understand ancient history and how ancient people thought and felt, much like the mythologies of other ancient primitive peoples. But in time it will no longer be seen as a divine gift from deity. I do have to question your statement "crumble just like the churches" -- I don't know how the churches are doing over there in Australia, but on this side of the Pacific the churches remain extremely strong, and the more fundamentalist they are the stronger they are. Hell, they even managed to have their candidate appointed by the Supreme Court to become our president, even after he lost the election! Now they want a holy war (or Crusade) against Iraq! They are quite powerful here. It is really scary!

Dialogue with Steve
Steve writes on 1-3-03:

People need to do their own due diligence (about most everything!), ask the Lord for the gift of discernment and let the Holy Spirit guide them into a deeper understanding of what the truth really is. It is truly a life long journey.

DDD reply: We agree that individual, independent due diligence is required. I'm not sure about the Holy Spirit part, as people often use that as the excuse for relying on personal "hunches" which are often rooted in deeply-held beliefs rather than the due diligence of independent thought. However, seeking with meditation (or prayer of some type) to get in touch with the powers of the surrounding universe with an eye towards greater openness of mind probably can't hurt much.

S: As you mentioned, there are many evil forces which have corrupted the various versions and interpretations of the many available Bibles.

DDD reply: Well I'm not sure that is an exact quote from my commentary, and I'm not quite sure if that accurately reflects my views. I don't think that the contradictions and flaws in the Bible are the result of "evil forces" which have "corrupted" the texts. While I wouldn't rule out the possibility of occasional intentional manipulation of original texts, I do think it possible that such errors are more frequently the result of innocent errors in transcription or linguistic errors in the process of translation. However, for the most part the contradictions and flaws in the Bible simply reflect the differing opinions and perspectives of the differing human writers. The Bible was written by numerous different writers over a period of several thousand years. It is natural that, from time to time, they would express differing views, even if on the main they considered themselves in agreement.

The fact that human errors occur throughout the Bible, and that god certainly did not protect "his word" from additional errors of accident or of malicious intent, confirms that, however they got there, the Bible is full of many contradictions and flaws. This, of course, does not negate its tremendous value as a source of inspiration, wisdom, guidance and historical importance, when considered with the selectiveness and evaluation of "due diligence" you referred to.

S: In my opinion, one of the most damaging errors is the use of the word Jew. If one investigates this further, he/she is in for a huge surprise to find out the truth.

DDD reply: I don't find any merit in this line of questioning. The Bible is the historic, religious and political record of the Hebrew people, beginning with the accounts of Moses at the time the Hebrew slaves in Egypt came together as a nation, became independent, and settled in the lands of Palestine/Israel with the efforts to oust the indigenous people and setting up conflicts which persist to this day. At that time, the House of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (excluding Abraham's Arab descendants through Ishmael) was divided into 12 tribes, representing the 12 sons of Jacob (Israel). Following the Babylonian captivity, the account persisted through the tribe of Judah alone, and the term "Jew" (meaning of the House of Judah) is first used. Whatever happened to the other tribes, whether they were assimilated with their captors, the indigenous peoples or with the Jews themselves, from that point on the term "Jew" is used repeatedly throughout the Bible. This is consistent through all versions of the Bible with which I am familiar. Since I am not a linguistic scholar of ancient languages, I rely on the professional scholars who are, and since they ALL agree that there is some word in both the Hebraic and Greek source texts that refers to "Jew," and since it is also consistent with the known historical perspectives in which the Jews distinguished themselves from the indigenous peoples and later the Romans and Greeks, I don't see any basis for considering that there is a historical basis for doubting the intent of the word "Jew" to refer to the Jewish ancestral peoples as we know them.

And I am curious as to why you find the use of this term to be "one of the most damaging errors." Why do you find this reference so troubling?

S: For example, was Jesus really a Jew? Was the word Jew even a word that was used 2000 years ago?

DDD reply: Since this account which includes Jesus originated out of the Jewish community and is their own record of their own people, and the record consistently includes Jesus as part of that community, it seems incomprehensible to challenge the well-established conclusions that Jesus was clearly Jewish. And the record not only shows repeatedly that he was Jewish, but that he was a rabbi. Now whether that last part is literally true or was added through the decades of oral history between the time Jesus lived and when the first accounts were actually put to paper is uncertain, but it strains credulity to question his Jewishness. It would be far more credible (as many have done) to question the literalness of his very existence, but even if he is a character invented by his followers, the character they created is a JEWISH character.

S: All the contradictions about who are really the "chosen people", etc.

DDD reply: Actually, I don't recall offhand any of the contradictions on the specific point. In fact, as was common to many tribal customs of ancient, primitive peoples such as the Hebrews, mythology of being the "chosen people" was quite widespread. I don't believe there was any serious disagreement among the Jewish people that they considered themselves to be a "chosen" or favored people in the eyes of the deity they believed in.

S: These are just some of the hotly contested aspects of the Bible, and something that most clergymen will steer clear of. Why is that?!

DDD reply: "Most clergymen will steer clear of" anything that challenges the set of beliefs they happen to be promoting, or which encourage too much independence of thought (or "due diligence" as you described it). However, as to the specific points you raised in this message, I didn't find a serious basis for questioning the role of Jewish identity in the Bible accounts, so unless you can offer a sound basis for your conclusions, I don't consider these specific points to be valid, notwithstanding the many other points for seriously examining and questioning the claim that the Bible is the literal, inerrant/infallible "word of god."

S: Finally, don't get me wrong, I do not dislike someone simply because they have a different belief than I,...

DDD reply: Likewise. Since I came out of a strong Christian religious background myself, naturally I still have many close relatives and friends who remain strong believers. Not all of them are able to maintain rationality in a candid and open discussion of our differing views, and in such cases I refrain from doing so. In other cases, where there is sufficient maturity and open-mindedness, we can engage in vigorous exchanges of ideas without making it personal, and can maintain our close ties with mutual respect.

S: ...it's just that we all need to be cognizant of what another's possible agendas or purposes are.

DDD reply: My agenda is that I grew up as a Christian, encountered some reasons why I could not maintain my beliefs in an evangelical form of Christianity that maintains the Bible to be the literal inerrant/infallible word of god, yet continue to find much merit, wisdom and historical value in this compendium, much as I might find occasional flaws in any human writing, even though I don't consider it infallible nor the pronouncement of deity.

I have stated my agenda. Do you mind if I ask YOU what is YOUR agenda in trying to question the role of Jewish culture and identity in the book which is the record of the Hebraic and Jewish peoples?

Steve continues on 2-14-03:

There is no real "agenda", just that I think it is very important for everyone to do more due diligence than they are currently into issues whether political or "religous", since these ultimately tend to shape all of our lives - economically. For views on the importance of understanding the Jewish culture, please refer to the following links:
[several links provided in original e-mail]

For your information, I have no connection with [this website] other than I refer people to it, so they better understand some history and can further their search for their understanding of the truth. I personally use multiple resources to derive my own, and that is constantly being adopted the more I learn and discern.

DDD reply: I'll respond at two levels:
First, I never questioned the "importance of understanding the Jewish culture" so any website that encourages that is not relevant to what I wrote. Understanding the cultural context is absolutely essential, and one of the things I do thoroughly in my examinations of Judeo-Christian mythology. What I wrote was to question your very silly and inaccurate assumptions, and inquire about what "agenda" led you to these questions. For example, you asked if Jesus was really a Jew. All scholars agree on this, and the genealogies provided in both Luke and Matthew, however inconsistent and contradictory they are (as I cited), the one thing they both agree on is a Jewish lineage for Jesus. You then asked "Was the word Jew even a word that was used 2000 years ago?" Accounting for difference in language, of course, the answer as provided by all experts is a resounding YES. Use an online Bible with a search feature and do a search on the word "JEW." Many, many entries will be listed, from throughout both Old and New Testaments. So the professional translators agree that there was an equivalent word in use at the time the source texts of the Bible were written.

Second, I do not go on "wild goose chases" searching for things on other web pages. The few times I have done this I have not found anything. I am willing to entertain correspondence from those who read my site and wish to discuss it. I am not willing to engage in dialogues with the writers of other websites. If you find a great point in other books or websites you have seen, you are welcome to take the idea of the point and, in your own words, apply it to the specific point you wish to discuss. If YOU can't find anything specific that addresses the point you are trying to make, then why should I expect to?

Dialogue with Stillwaters
Stillwaters writes on 10-20-02:

I would like to respond to the following statement that you made in your artcle.

You said: "It (the Bible) is an important historical relic, and the original seed from which much of ethical theory in the Western world has developed, but its words must be discussed, analyzed and evaluated on their merits -- as the writing of men, not of God. It does not claim to be anything more."

Actually, the Bible does claim to be the Word of God--and not merely the word of man. God is said to guide its writers by means of the Holy Spirit.

DDD reply: No it does not. As you note, there are many statements to the effect that specific statements are from God, but there is not one single reference to the Bible, the collection writings originally created by individual authors separately and later compiled into a "biblios" being the Word of God.

SW: In many cases, the writers wrote things about themselves and about their own nation that were far from complimentary--yet, they wrote them anyway. Such is not typical of mere man-made histories. In fact, it is characteristic of autobiographies--even now--to record nothing embarrassing or degrading to oneself (or one's nation). But we would expect such an honest record if it was actually God writing things through men. On other occasions, the prophets would say and/or write things that they themselves did not understand--or things they themselves did not like. But they would write them anyway...which, again, is what we would expect if the Bible is the Word of God.

DDD reply: This statement would apply to many, many works which you would not accept as the "Word of God" on this basis alone. While many writers do seek to say only positive things about themselves and/or their nations, there are plenty of writings -- ancient and modern -- that reveal the imperfections of the writers or their people. This proves nothing except that the Bible utilizes literary devices common to many other works created by human minds and hands.

SW: Both, again, Old Testament and New Testament are filled with claims that it was God--not men--who spoke through these words. In the OT, the prophets (known as "mouths of God", Exod.4:16) would often preface their instructions with, "Thus says the Lord..." (Jeremiah 2:1,2; I Kings 12:22-24), or "The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me" (2 Sam.23:2).

DDD reply: This is the exact point I was making! When they claimed to speak for God they said so. If it were generally understood that this was ALWAYS the "Word of God" then we would not need to specify these claims when they actually did mean that. There is no question that the writers do sometimes claim to cite the words of god. But that is very different than claiming divine authorship. For example, I might write a book and quote someone repeatedly. That is different from claiming that the book I wrote (and which frequently quotes another speaker) is actually written by that speaker. I might write a book about George Washington and quote him extensively. I might say Washington "inspired" the book, and certainly claim that some of the words are his. That is different than claiming MY writing as the "Word of Washington" when he didn't actually write the book himself.

SW: Then, in the New Testament, we find the following clear claims to divine inspiration behind Scripture: 1) "All Scripture is inspired by God..." (Greek says, "God-breathed")...2)

DDD reply: I specifically addressed this scripture (2Tim 3:16). Paul, writing to Timothy, claims that the scripture established and accepted in his day, "the Law (Torah) and the Prophets (rest of the OT)" were "god breathed." At that time, he was just writing a letter to a colleague. There is absolutely NOTHING to indicate he believed he was compiling what would someday become "scripture" itself, nor is there any indication that he intends for that to apply to his own writings. On the contrary, he acknowledges his own work to have error, as when he wrote in 1 Cor 7:12 "But to the rest speak I, NOT THE LORD..." (emphasis added); and 2 Cor 11:17 "That which I speak, I speak [it] NOT AFTER THE LORD..." (emphasis added).

SW: Jesus, quoting OT Scripture, often spoke of it has having been revealed by God; quoting Exodus and Deuteronomy in Matt.15:4, He prefaced it with, "For God said..." 3) The Apostle Paul wrote, "the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment." (I Corin.14:37). 4) I Thess. 2:13--"when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God...". 5) "You should remember...the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles." 2 Pet.3:2. 6) "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Pet.1:21. So, while you might deny that the Bible is the word of God, you cannot deny that the Bible clearly claims to be the Word of God.

DDD reply: Again, this applies ONLY to the Old Testament, which was the only established and recognized scripture in the time of Paul and Jesus. They affirm their belief that the O.T. was the word of god, but there is no place that anything in the New Testament considers itself to be the word of god, or in any way equal to the O.T. Merely "quoting Exodus and Deuteronomy" wouldn't prove anything. I quote lots of sources, including the Bible, which I don't claim are divinely authored just because I cite them as source material.

SW: In fact, if it really is not the Word of God, then it can hardly be thought of as a good book, since it would be found deceptive at the most basic level.

DDD reply: I don't agree. I find many books that I consider good, valuable and worthy, including the Bible, even though they are not perfect or divinely authored. I believe the Koran and the Book of Mormon are intentional frauds. I do not believe this of the Bible. People lived in a different time. They perceived experiences differently. They tried to explain a complex universe beyond their understand, and when they felt hunches in their souls they believed god was speaking to them. They wrote for themselves, but they wrote as they perceived things, including legends handed down for generations (thousands of years between Noah and Abraham, not to mention from Abraham to Moses, when the first written account was actually produced) which got embellished in the many retellings. The fact that they are not always correct doesn't mean they are being intentionally deceptive. Today when we write accounts, we have pens, paper, computers, video cameras, etc., to make instant records. Just imagine how your memories of your childhood, or your great-grandparents childhoods, would be skewed if you didn't have all the written records, photographs and other media that we now take for granted. In ancient times, the accounts were handed down orally for hundreds of years (OT) before being written down. For the NT, the accounts of Jesus' life were written many decades after his death, which accounts for their many contradictions, inconsistencies and embellishments. But that doesn't mean the book is not good or worthy.

SW: But, it not only claims to be the Word of God; it also contains much internal evidence that it is just this.

DDD reply: Many fortune tellers cite examples of prophecies fulfilled. This proves nothing. But please note I also cited several examples of specific Bible prophecies in which the time of completion is included in the prophecy and which did not come to pass as prophesied with the time limit specified (and in fact have not yet come to pass at all). Existence of one single failed prophecy, contradiction or factual error is absolute proof that the authorship is not divine. I cited numerous such examples of all three.

SW: The many cases of fulfilled prophecy--specific prophecies made hundreds of years before their fulfillment--alone testify to God's being the Author of the Bible. For example, in Isaiah 44:28, God calls by name the Persian king who would--nearly 200 years later--free the Jews from Babylonian captivity and return them to Jerusalem in order to rebuild the Temple (which had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C.). As history bears out, this would be King Cyrus. But now listen to Isaiah the prophet, writing in 740 B.C.: "It is I (God) who says of Cyrus, 'He is My shepherd! And he will perform all My desire,' And he declares of Jerusalem, 'She will be built,' And of the temple, 'Your foundation will be laid.'" (Isa.44:28). Quite clear and specific, isn't it?

DDD reply: No, it is not clear or specific. It makes a general claim of something the Hebrews wanted to happen. Because they wanted it so badly, there is little doubt that when they had the means to rebuild the temple they would do so. This was a prophecy of something almost inevitable, at some future point; hardly a challenge. It would be "clear" and "specific" if it gave specific details: the name of the King in the original prediction; giving the exact year the temple would be rebuilt; telling more specific details about the times and people and situations leading to the temple being rebuilt. It has none of these. Like all the "prophecies" it is vague and open-ended. And even then, some of the prophecies failed, as I cited.

SW: Over 300 prophecies, in OT times, were written about Jesus Christ--some even 1000 years before He was even born.

DDD reply: There are many general prophecies of a messiah. There are none that are clear and specific references to Jesus, or that this messiah is otherworldy rather than being an earthly king who would liberate them from the Romans and restore the nation of Israel as the kingdom of David under one of his heirs to this temporal throne.

SW: For example, David, as a prophet portrays the crucifixion of Christ in vivid detail in Psalm 22 around 1,000 B.C. Here are a few excerpts from this prophecy (verses 14-18): "All my bones are out of joint...my tongue cleaves to my jaws...they pierced my hands and my feet...they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." At a time when crucifixion was practically unheard of, the Savior is described as having his hands and feet pierced--nailed. While Jesus hung on the cross, the Roman soldiers did indeed cast lots for his inner garment, after dividing His outer garment into four pieces. Such specific prophecies--made hundreds of years before their fulfillment--alone testify to a divine Mind that guided the prophets in their writings. So, again, not only does the Bible make strong, clear claims to be the Word of God, but it also makes good that claim by prophecy fulfillment.

DDD reply: Please cite the verse in Psalm 22 that states this is regard to the messiah.
Please cite the verse in Psalm 22 that states this is regard to a crucifixion.
You have cited some particulars which are echoed in NT accounts of Jesus' death. However there is no reference in Psalm 22 that this applies to Jesus, a messiah, or even a crucifixion. Is every reference to bones out of joint, pierced hands and feet, and gambling to divide spoils, all of which were very common in those times, going to be seen as a reference to something it isn't even talking about?

You pulled OUT OF CONTEXT a few items that parallel the reports of Jesus' death on the cross. Now let's look at some of the stuff in Psalm 22 that you did NOT cite:
verse 12: "Many bulls have compassed me: strong [bulls] of Bashan have beset me round." Where are the bulls at Jesus' crucifixion?
verse 16: "dogs have compassed me." Where are the dogs at Jesus' crucifixion?
verse 20: "Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog." Again, where are the swords or dogs at Jesus' crucifixion?
verse 21: "Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns." Where are the lions and unicorns at Jesus' crucifixion?

Every one of these verses I have cited is in the same paragraph division (verses 11-21) as the verses you cited. Nothing in this passage, or elsewhere in the psalm, indicates it involves a crucifixion or any reference to the messiah. You pull a few similar words out of context, but conveniently omit the many references that absolutely do NOT correspond to anything in the account of Jesus' death. This has no more to do with prophesying Jesus' death than the man in the moon, and trying to take it out of context and make it say something it clearly does not say is not honest.

And I do NOT accept your claim that there is even one solid, clear, unambiguous reference to Jesus in the Old Testament, much less 300 such prophecies. I do not think YOU are being intentionally dishonest, but in passing along what others have told you, accepting it uncritically, and perhaps because you want so badly for it to say what you want it to, the result is still something that is intellectually dishonest.

Stillwaters continues on 12-21-02:

I want to appeal to you to be a bit more fair and reasonable. You say there were no literal "bulls", "dogs," etc. around the cross of Christ. But surely you know what metaphors and similes are--and if you do, then why do you act as if you do not?
For example, 22:6 says, "I am a worm and not a man"--so, is this a literal worm talking? Of course not, metaphor is used here. 22:1 speaks of the attackers as opening their mouths "as a ravening and a roaring lion." In vs. 16, they are compared to scavenging "dogs." Continuing in vs.20, these evildoers are compared to a "dog," "lion's mouth," and "wild oxen." It's simply not fair or accurate for you to insist that these are to be taken as literal animals, rather than as figurative of the viciousness and power of these human attackers--especially when the text itself tells us (vs.16). I doubt seriously you would subject any other literature to such unfair treatment.

DDD reply: I understand a metaphor and simile. I can understand lions and unicorns as metaphors and can consider your comments reasonable and refreshingly reasonable in this regard. However bulls, oxen and dogs were common to the everyday experience of Jews and there is no reason to believe these references to be metaphorical.

SW: Also, in all fairness, you must acknowledge that the description of one having his hands and feet pierced is of a crucifixion.

DDD reply: Not at all. Most crucifixions, such as the two thieves executed alongside Jesus, were done by tying the condemned's hands and feet to the cross, not by nailing them. Surely you have learned that the two thieves were tied to their crosses while Jesus was nailed to his. This added cruelty by the Sanhedrin was special to Jesus, and did NOT imply a normal crucifixion. There are many ways in which hands and feet can be pierced without the implication of a crucifixion. NOTHING in Psalm 22 suggest that this torment is an execution, a crucifixion, or even that a death occurs. It merely talks about torment. Piercing hands or feet as a torment (which was NOT a normal part of crucifixion, as noted by the thieves being tied to their crosses), does not imply execution in any form, much less crucifixion.

And again I note that there is absolutely no reference whatsoever that this is a reference to the messiah, to a crucifixion, or even to an execution of any kind. You have simply found a reference to pierced hands and feet and the casting of lots to take someone's garments, and because you were so lucky to find a couple of elements noted in the crucifixion (ignoring all the elements that do not fit, or the statements that do not apply, or the very significant elements that are not mentioned at all) you jump at the chance to claim a prophecy of Jesus.

You claimed there are 300 prophecies in the Old Testament. I don't believe there is a single one that clearly and unambiguously refers to Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the New Testament. If the Old Testament truly foretold of the messianic Jesus, why would it have been so difficult for an omnipotent deity to simply proclaim a prophecy that unambiguously told of details of Jesus as would eventually be noted, while excluding items that did not apply to him at all ("metaphor" notwithstanding)?

SW: You cannot demand that the writer say, "nailed to the cross" before you accept it as crucifixion...especially, when this detail of having hands and feet pierced is accompanied by other details characteristic of crucifixion: namely, severe thirst (vs.15), burning pain throughout the body (vs.14), and ones bones being pulled out of joint (vs.14; typically when the cross was jarred into position, the bones were pulled out of joint).

Then, at the same time, this particular one being crucified was also subjected to all kinds of mockery--"Commit yourself to the Lord; let Him deliver him; let Him rescue Him, because He delights in Him"...the very words the mockers said of Jesus as He hung upon the cross (Matt.27:43). Then, afterwards, the Roman soldliers did indeed divide up His outer garment into four parts (splitting the seam), but then cast lots for Jesus' inner (seamless) garment (Matt.27:35)--just as this prophecy said would be done (vs.18). So, what is the probability that this series of details would be fulfilled in one individual?

DDD reply: The specific details of:
1. bones out of joint; heart like wax melted in bowels
2. strength dried up; tongue "cleaving" t jaws
3. casting lots to divide clothing if the afflicted happened to have good clothing

Gee, I think this would apply to just about any person who was either executed or merely persecuted and who happened to have some garments worth gambling for. This must have happened thousands of times in Jewish history. The fact that these details applied to Jesus, while many other details in the account did NOT, is certainly unremarkable and offers nothing of a messianic "prophecy" about Jesus.

SW: And, what is the probability that a mere human could predict all such details--1,000 years before the individual was even born?

DDD reply: "such details" occurred thousands of times. The fact that so many details did NOT apply to the present case, and that other details of the present case (messianic role, that it refers to a crucifixion, and many other specific details of Jesus' assassination) demonstrates this to be quite irrelevant as a prophecy of Jesus. But even if there were numerous successful prophecies (of which you have not actually provided one), this is something many fortune tellers have been able to do. But fortune tellers also have failed prophecies. The fact that your Bible also has FAILED PROPHECIES shows that, notwithstanding whatever other important moral and legal foundations it offers to modern civilization, on the point of prophecy it is no better than fortune tellers.

Stillwaters continues on 12-23-02:

I do agree that many crucifixions (if not most) in Roman times involved binding the hands and feet rather than nailing them. But, we're simply not told if this was the case with the robbers crucified with Jesus.

DDD reply: And most crucifixions did NOT involve "piercing" hands or feet. Trying to say that the reference to pierced hands and feet would be understood as crucifixion, without mentioning that a crucifixion is involved, is simply an effort to make these verses say something that they clearly, simply do not say or imply.

SW: Furthermore, the fact that crufixion did not demand nails does not lessen the likelihood that "they pierced my hands and feet" is a reference to crucifixion. What we must weigh out here is not the probablity that crufixion necessitated nails, but the probability that having hands and feet nailed is a reference to crucifixion.

First, I would like to know just what forms of torture involve simply piercing the hands and feet. In crucifixion, the hands and feet were pierced to help secure the person to a cross or stake. If mere torture is the intent--without attaching the body to a cross--then, it's a bit strange to just pierce the victim's hands and feet.

DDD reply: Nothing in the passage says that this was execution or torture. It does suggest suffering, and that there were tormentors. But there is no reference to execution, crucifixion or even death. Since piercing hands and feet was not usual to crucifixions, there is no reason to believe this description suggests it. Hands and feet would be more likely (and routinely) pierced by rocks during a stoning, or arrows when pursued by those wielding the weapons of the day, whether or not that led to death. Or, if there were intentional torture, a person could have been bound and restrained and simply had parts of their body pierced. This passage does not say. It most certainly does not say or imply any reference to crucifixion, messiah or even an execution -- all of which are rather central to what reportedly happened to Jesus on the cross.

But the most likely explanation of what causes the piercing is in verse 16, where it talks about being surrounded by evildoers and their dogs. You, of course, want to interpret this as metaphor, even though dogs were very common throughout Hebrew history and have many references throughout the Bible. What seems more likely is that since the reference to hands and feet being pierced is in the SAME VERSE AS THE DOGS, that the vision offered here is one of evil people sic'ing their dogs on this poor hapless victim, and the dogs attack and bite which pierces hands and feet, something that is very easy for the reader to envision as to exactly what is happening. It explains the pierced hands and feet, it shows that the dogs are literal, not metaphorical (which is plausible in a culture where people owned dogs), and explains what the verse means based on what it says, not on what you have to construe it to say.

It seems he is describing a robbery. Evildoers attack him, kill him with vicious dogs (and maybe use some of their cattle or oxen -- the bulls who could also use horns to pierce hands and feet) and steal his garments which they divide among them, usual to the operation of roadside bands of thieves.

SW: Second, there is a fuller picture here--with a number of details...all of which fit what actually did happen to Jesus as He hung upon the cross. One of your arguments has been that many details in Ps.22 don't fit. But I believe they do. Let's start at the beginning of the Psalm and go over them:

Vs.1, 2. fulfilled in Matt.27:46. "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" Taking upon Himself the curse of our sins, Jesus felt the anguish of separation from the Father, and so cried out with these very words.

Vss.3,4. Reassurance of the Father's faithfulness despite the extreme suffering Jesus is going through upon the cross.

Vss.6-8. Jesus is treated like a "worm," not like a man, as Jews and Romans "sneer" at Him and even say the very words quoted in vs. 8--"Commit yourself to the Lord; let Him deliver him..."

Vss.9,10. Recalling the Father's constant care from birth.

Vss.11-13. Those mocking and reviling Jesus upon the cross are compared to "strong bulls of Bashan"--powerful, ferocious beasts--as they "open wide their mouth" at Him while standing at the foot of the cross.

Vss.14, 15. Jesus' physical sensations of suffering while hanging upon the cross:
1) He has no physical strength left in His body--"I am poured out like water."
2) His arms and legs are out of joint--"all my bones are out of joint."
3) Unbearable heat of pain courses through His body--"My heart is like wax; it is melted within me."
4) Dehydrated, He feels His "strength (being) dried up like a potsherd."
5) With severe thirst--typical of crucifixion--His "tongue cleaves to (His) jaw."
6) The suffering of the crucifixion will be fatal--"You lay Me in the dust of death."
7) Stretched out upon the cross, His ribs protrude--"I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me;"
8) Furthermore, as He hangs upon the cross, He watches as the Roman soldiers "divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots."

Now, don't you see that every one of these details fits not only crucifixion--but Jesus' crucifixion--very well.

DDD reply: Several incidental, tangential references as to details common to many occurrences, happen to be similar. The core subject of the crucifixion, that it is about a messiah; that Jesus is that messiah, is crucified, and atones for sins as an otherworldly saviour is entirely missing. All aspects of the "big picture" are missing. Someone reading this alone, with no reference to the later New Testament texts, would not unambiguously come to the conclusion that this prophesies something like what is reported in the gospels about Jesus' ministry and death. Many of the other details can be interpreted or construed in some way to be "symbolic" parallels to what is written about Jesus' death, but you are very selective on what you want to interpret metaphorically and what you want to interpret literally, depending on what fits your preconceived notion.

SW: You said that "NOTHING in Psalm 22 suggest that this torment is an execution, a crucifixion, or even that a death occurs. It merely talks about torment." Go back to vs. 15--this will indeed be a fatal torment: "And you lay me in the dust of death."

DDD reply: I stand corrected. It does mention death. It does NOT mention execution, crucifixion or that this involves any messianic or atoning situation of any kind. Again, rather important details to be omitted.

SW: You further claim "that there is absolutely no reference whatsoever that this is a reference to the messiah." The people of Israel, ever since 2 Sam.7:12, understood that the Messiah would be a descendant of King David, and therefore, spoke of the coming Christ as "the Son (i.e., descendant) of David."

DDD reply: While I generally accept your conclusion that the Israelites understood that the Messiah (an earthly liberator to restore the throne of David on earth and in Israel, not an otherworldly saviour) would be a descendant of King David, the reference to 2Sam 7:12 says nothing to support this. This verse merely says that David will have many offspring and establish a great kingdom. It does not refer to the messianic aspect or the restoration of that kingdom lost to the Romans. And please cite the Old Testament verse that describes the coming Christ as "the Son (i.e., descendant) of David." Please be specific, or did you just make this up?

SW: They also recognized that David himself prophesied of the Messiah, using the first person pronoun. And, a clear indication that David was referring to the Messiah, and only to the Messiah, in a prophecy was when a certain event did not happen to David even though he used the first person pronoun. This is the case here in Psalm 22. Saying, "I" and "me", David speaks of having his hands and feet pierced. Yet, David never experienced such treatment. therefore, his reference was to the "Son of David," the Christ. Another example of this is found in Psalm 16:10, where David says, "You (God) will not abandon my soul to Sheol (realm of the dead); nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay." In other words, David was speaking of his body being resurrected before decay set in. However, David was not speaking of himself, but of the Christ--that HIS body would not be left in the tomb to decay. This understanding of Psalm 16 was especially evident when David's body did indeed remain in the tomb--not just for days, but for centuries (in Acts 2:29-36, the Apostle Peter makes this very point).

DDD reply: There is no reference in this passage to a messiah or to restoring the throne of David lost to the Romans. David writes in the first person. He uses the pronoun "I." There is no indication he is talking about Jesus or anyone else. You are right, this does not have any factual resemblance to the manner of David's later death. So it is either a failed prophecy, or metaphoric symbolism for his tortured anguish and deep remorse over his sins, similar to others of the surrounding Psalms.

SW: You dispute my claim that there are "300 prophecies of Jesus as the messiah in the Old Testament." What you are requiring here is for God to submit to your terms of communication, rather than you submit to God's. While the messianic prophecies might appear ambiguous and unclear to us as they employ various figures of speech, they were not necessarily so to Israel. Case in point: Micah 5:2--"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity." This prophecy of the Christ's being born in Bethlehem (written around 700 B.C.) might seem a bit vague to us. However, the Jewish leaders had no trouble at all recognizing this prophecy. Remember when Herod the Great got them together to ascertain the birthplace of the Christ, they turned right to Micah 5:2 and concluded, with no uncertainty, "in Bethlehem of Judea." See Matt.2:3-6 to read this account.

DDD reply: We agree this predicts that the messiah (an earthly liberator to restore the throne of David on earth and in Israel, not an otherworldly saviour) would come from Bethlehem (city of David). We do not agree that it refers specifically to Jesus. In fact, both Matthew and Luke went to great pains to try to explain how Jesus happened to end up in Bethlehem at the time of his birth, since everyone knew he was from Nazareth. Luke says that Rome called for a great census, requiring Mary and Joseph, of the House of David, to return to their ancestral home. It should be noted, however, that there is absolutely NO extra-Biblical support for any such Roman census. Matthew doesn't say why they were there. They just start out in Bethlehem, flee to Egypt for several years (not noted by Luke) and when they return they seem to end up in Nazareth.

In fact, the whole story of Jesus' birth shows that Matthew and Luke simply couldn't tell the same story.

First of all, they both want to show that Jesus is an heir of David. They each provide a genealogy to support this (Matthew chapter 1; Luke chapter 3). But they didn't use the same list. From the grandson of David to the grandfather of Joseph, not one single name is the same. Not even the same number of generations. Complete and contradictory inconsistency! Hardly worthy of the inerrant/infallible Word of God. Some have "explained" this by saying that Luke is the genealogy of Mary; such a claim acknowledges error, since Luke specifically states that it is the genealogy of JOSEPH [Luke 3:23], just like Matthew [Matt 1:16]. So, either there is a contradiction (Matthew says that Jacob is the father of Joseph; Luke says Heli is the father of Joseph, and from there back to Solomon not a single name is the same; not even the same number of generations), or Luke makes an incorrect statement of relevant fact.

Then, they tell completely different stories of the first Christmas. Most of the details are not direct contradictions, but completely different. Since I know you are so fond of the "big picture," don't you think it is funny that not one single detail of Jesus' birth is the same in Matt and Luke?

Examples of what is in Matthew, but NOT in Luke:
1. Angel appears to Mary (Annunciation)
2. Wise men from East bring gifts
3. King Herod kills all babies under age two
4. Joseph and Mary flee with Jesus to Egypt
Note: there is no manger, no shepherds, no Roman census, no travel to Bethlehem (they seem to just be there already) and no story of John the Baptist's birth.

Examples of what is in Luke, but NOT in Matthew:
1. Story of Zacariah, Elizabeth and John the Baptist's birth
2. Angel appears to Mary (Annunciation)
3. Decree of Caesar Augusts for a worldwide census (not historically supported)
4. Mary and Joseph travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem
5. Birth in a manger because no room in the inn
6. Shepherds and angels
Note: there is no wise men, no reference to Herod and no flight to Egypt.

The ONLY overlapping details are the angelic annunciation and that it happened in Bethlehem, which was needed to satisfy Micah.

Now c'mon, big-picture-guy ... don't you think that, aside from their 100% contradictory genealogies, that Matthew and Luke should have gotten at least a few of the really key details of this story the same? Or else, like Mark and John, just not tell it?

SW: Yes, we of the Western world would probably have wanted these prophecies to take a different form--straight and plain statements of fact, devoid of figures of speech. So, what are we going to do? Say, "O.k., God, since you didn't reveal these prophecies the way I think You should have, I refuse to accept them!"?

DDD reply: Yes, I do expect them to be sufficiently clear and unambiguous that, if it is really from god and not from some fortune-teller whose stock in trade is vagueness and ambiguity that can match any future outcome, that a person could read or hear the prophecy and get a very clear picture of exactly what is being described. If god can't do any better than a fortune teller, why should I believe that your claim of a deity is any better? It doesn't have to be the way I think they should be, but it should at least be clear and unambiguous. The accounts written after the fact are specific and clear. If the accounts before the fact are equally true, they should be equally understandable. Yes, if they can't show any difference from fortune tellers, "I refuse to accept them!"

Stillwaters continues on 12-24-02:

Picture a pack of dogs attacking an individual. Do they just go for (or, even mainly for) the hands and feet? Not at all. Rather, they bite and tear (not just "pierce") one's calves, hamstrings, and buttocks. And if the person tries to fend them off, they don't stick their hands out at the dogs, but instead crook their arms to protect their heads. No, this is not at all a picture of a pack of dogs attacking a person.

DDD reply: The verse does not say that the dogs go ONLY for the hands and feet. It says the hands and feet get pierced. It does not say that other parts of the body don't also sustain injury, or that the dogs don't also bite and tear. Whatever else happens, certainly in the course of a dog attack the hands and feet would get pierced. Admittedly the description doesn't include all the details of a fatal dog attack. But it includes far fewer details relevant to a crucifixion: i.e., it does not even mention that it was a crucifixion (at least it does mention the dogs); it doesn't mention a cross; it does not claim any reference to a messiah; it does not mention many of the ritual procedures attendant to executions on crosses. It DOES mention hands and feet pierced, but as we have already discussed, this was NOT usual to most crucifixions, in which the victims were tied to their crosses. So the likelihood of this referring to a dog attack, while imperfect, fits far better than a crucifixion. What is noteworthy, however, is how vague so many of these "prophecies" are. Just like modern fortune tellers, they leave their claims ambiguous enough so that no matter what the scenario, someone can find a way to construe their comments into the fulfillment of a prophecy.

SW: But the main point is, the text ITSELF here tells us that these dogs were actually people--"evildoers."

DDD reply: It says no such thing. It says he is surrounded by dogs. Then, in an entirely separate clause, separated by a colon in KJV, but a semicolon in the more modern RSV and NIV translations.

SW: You did not respond to the fact that Hebrew parallelism is used here--parallelism that explicitly identifies the "dogs" as people, "evildoers": The Psalm is written in poetic lines. The first line: "For dogs have surrounded me." The following--parallel--line: "A band of evildoers has encompassed me." Both of these lines are saying the same thing, but using synonyms or corresponding terminology. "Surrounded" corresponds to "encompassed." And, "dogs" corresponds to "evildoers."

DDD reply: I do not agree with you that this "parallelism" is a "fact" or particularly relevant for that matter. It is one possible interpretation, and I understand why you want to use it here, but I do NOT agree with you that it is "fact" or in any way obvious that it is what is intended. Most parallelism are used with obviously metaphorical references. It was common for dogs and humans to interact together, literally, not figuratively or metaphorically. It would not be uncommon for evildoers to have dogs, just as is done today.

SW: Furthermore, you did not deal with how literal bulls would attack by "opening wide their mouth" (vs.13). Bulls attack with their horns and possibly their hooves--but not with their mouths. Can you really envision a bull chasing (let's say) even a rodeo clown, trying to nip at him with its mouth? Bulls don't nip! Rather, they butt and trample.

But again, THESE "bulls" did indeed attack with their mouths--because they were people using their mouths to mock, ridicule, and spit upon the One whose hands and feet were pierced, as He hung upon the cross. Verse 8 details some of the very words they would use to attack Jesus--and, in fact, the VERY words they used (Matt.27:43).

DDD reply: But that is not at all what it says. You have misrepresented scripture (again). It does NOT say that they attack by opening their mouths. It says that this hapless victim (David, writing in the first person) is surrounded or "encompassed" by bulls with their mouths open. It does not describe this as the mode of attack, or even assert that the bulls attack this victim. The verse says nothing about working any kind of harm with their mouths. You or someone advising you simply made that up. What it says in verse 13 is "They gaped upon me [with] their mouths..." (KJV) Their mouths were "gaping." This means that their mouths were opened wide. It says nothing about harm, just that their mouths were open wide. In fact, the more modern RSV and NIV BOTH use the expression "open wide their mouths." It says nothing whatsoever about harm.
Even if this is the non-literal metaphor you suggest, it is not an unambiguous reference to Jesus, the messiah, or a crucifixion, none of which are remotely suggested in this passage. While you can retrospectively try to make it fit, it is an interpretation derived after the fact from what you know was written about the crucifixion; it does not predict with any unambiguous certainty that specific series of events. While I understand you want to interpret it a certain way and then feel inspired by that, please understand that as proof or evidence it offers NOTHING.

SW: So, here is an individual who would...1) Cry out, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (vs.1; which Jesus did, Matt.27:46)...2) Be mocked and ridiculed by His tormentors (vss.8, 12, 13; which they did to Jesus, Matt.27... 3) Suffer from His limbs be jolted out of joint (vs. 14; which typically happened in a crucifixion)...4) Suffer severe thirst (vs.15; which Jesus did, John 19:28)...5) Suffer the puncturing of His feet and hands (vs. 16; which Jesus did, as He was crucified)...6) See his bones protruding (vs. 17; which was the common experience of those crucified)...7) Watch His tormentors divide up His clothes among themselves (vs. 18; which Jesus did, Matt.27:35)...8) Die, from the severity of the torment (vs.15; which Jesus did).

Just "a couple of incidental, tangential references that happen to be similar"? I don't think so.

DDD reply: Think again. The passages contains NONE of the key elements of what you claim is foretold. There is NO references to a messiah. There is NO reference to an atonement (which, after all, is what you claim is the real event of import here). There is NO reference to a cross or a crucifixion. The few points of similarity are tangential in nature, and events that commonly occurred at the scene of a violent death. More importantly, many of the elements that ARE described here (the dogs, the bulls, and whatever the unicorns, worms, and other obvious symbols are intended to represent) do NOT occur in the reports of Jesus' death on the cross. The fact that you can find minimal similarities to these common items which parallel the reports of Jesus' violent murder is not the least remarkable. The fact that you are so determined to make this nonexistent link shows some measure of desperation.

SW: The people of Israel, ever since 2 Sam.7:12, understood that the Messiah would be a descendant of King David, and therefore, spoke of the coming Christ as "the Son (i.e., descendant) of David."

DDD reply: The messiah was believed to be an earthly "liberator" king to throw of the yoke of Roman oppression and restore the earthly kingdom of David. He would be of the lineage of David as an heir to the throne. There is no indication prior to the New Testament writings that this was meant to be an otherworldly saviour or redeemer or atoner of sins.

And please back up your claim that the people of Israel understood this the way you say they did. Back it up from Old Testament sources, or from later JEWISH commentaries, NOT from Christians interpreting what Jews meant, again by backing into them from the perspective of accepting the New Testament accounts. You may use any sources from the Old Testament, the Talmud, or from later JEWISH scholars such as Maimonides, or modern contemporary JEWISH writers to support you claim. In fact, it is not just me. No person looking at this from an objective standpoint, apart from Christian assumptions, reads these verses and foresees the coming of Jesus.

SW: You claimed that there is absolutely NO extra-Biblical support for any such Roman census.
To the contrary, Josephus (Antiquities, 1, 1) does indeed mention this census.

DDD reply: Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian (born Joseph ben Matthias), who became a Roman governor of Galilee (hence the Romanization of his name). He was familiar with Jewish legends and rumors. He was born circa 37 AD, after Jesus had already been killed, and lived until about 100 AD. His "Antiquities" that you reference was a 20-volume history of the Jews written after most of the New Testament writings were already in circulation, so he would likely be familiar with them. I do not have it in house so I cannot check your reference to see if it actually claims there was a census or merely comments on the writings in Luke, but will look it up at the earliest convenience. Since he wrote a history of the JEWS, it would not be surprising that he was familiar with their literature. So until I get the chance to look up the citation I will clarify my statement: there is no source outside of Luke or any general writings of the Roman Empire to document this alleged "census of the whole world" which would be a major event if it happened. Since the Romans preserved such extensive historical writings, the lack of any such reference undermines the likelihood that anything like this occurred on the scale claimed by Luke.

SW: You claimed that the whole story of Jesus' birth shows that Matthew and Luke simply couldn't tell the same story. This is a point I was trying to make earlier in our correspondence: you can't try to force your own paradigm upon the Bible writings. Your argument seems to be, "Matthew and Luke ought to be recording the same details of Jesus' birth--otherwise, they contradict each other."

DDD reply: That is not what I said. I specifically said that, except for the genealogies, there is no outright contradiction, but it seems improbable that they could agree on so few of the MAJOR details of what happened.

SW: But, think about it: if they simply recorded all of the same details, then why have four gospel accounts? Three would simply be redundant. Instead, you need to realize that each writer had a different target audience. Matthew was written primarily to the Jews...Mark, to the Romans...Luke, to the Greeks...and John (the exception) to all.

DDD reply: Why do you take my simple comment, blow it out of proportion and take it to the opposite extreme? There are four gospel accounts because four people wrote of four different perspectives of the same events, emphasizing and relating to differing aspects. No problem there. But please note that all four of them do tell the story of Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection, and in this regard, especially as to his death and resurrection, while they emphasize different aspects and report from differing perspectives, the major points are extremely consistent through all four gospels. This, of course, is because most of the writers actually were present through much of the latter events and knew what they were writing about. But the complete inconsistency (as distinguished from outright contradiction) between Matthew and Luke's birth accounts is very different, and suggests that they did not know about these things they didn't witness, and got their stories from completely different sources.

SW: Consider this illustration: Four reporters all attend the same football game. One will focus on the passing strategies of each team. Another will emphasize the running game strategies. The third will specialize on the defensive strategies. And, the fourth will cover the game in general. Of course, each report will vary from the others. But this certainly does not mean each is contradicting the other!

DDD reply: No problem here. That is not the level of difference between Matthew and Luke. All they have the same is the names of the teams playing and the final score. While differing sports reporters would emphasize different aspects and focus on a few differing details, they would mostly agree on the main points of what happened. Who led during which quarter. What were the statistics on passing, running, field goals, etc. How the game unfolded. Again, like what we see in the accounts of the death and resurrection, but very much UNLIKE what we see in the birth narratives.

SW: Another illustration: Over the past several years especially, many books have been written on Lewis and Clark and their journey west. Comparing the books, one will find differing details. In fact, if they such did not exist, then there would be no point in writing more than one book! But this doesn't mean they contradict each other.

DDD reply: But all the books agree on the main points: they left from a certain outpost in Missouri. They went to certain places. They were guided by the Indian woman Sacagawea. They split up for a time, rejoined, and eventually made their way to Oregon. Sure, they emphasize different viewpoints and even cover some differing details, like the way the four gospel writers cover the death and resurrection. But the main points are essentially consistent. This is NOT what we find in the birth narratives.

But you are again straying from the "big picture" here. You can cite ten or twenty prophecies, and even if you can find a few that actually came true, you haven't proved anything. Every fortune teller can cite examples of successful prophecies. I am noting that the examples you cite don't say what you claim they do, but even if they did, it would just mean either that some old prophet did have a gift for seeing the future (as some today also claim to have), or that he happened to get lucky once in awhile. The real problem for the Bible is the numerous FAILED prophecies, in which a specific time for completion was given, the time passed, and the prophecy was not fulfilled. Also, other direct contradictions (especially those between Paul against Jesus and James -- some of the most prominent figures in the Bible disputing the most central doctrine of religion: the nature of salvation -- which you promised to return to), clearly establish the Bible's human imperfections. And speaking of salvation, you have not even begun to address the serious issues I raised in my separate article on the atonement (http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html) which addresses what is absolutely the centerpiece of Christian teaching. You are dancing around the details trying (unsuccessfully) to chip away at minor issues, while the foundation of the entire religion falls apart around you. While I can agree that the Bible is important and inspirational and offers much of import, and I can share my deep affection for Jesus' teachings (only a few seem to pick this up, but some do), the one place where I truly differ with evangelical Christians is on the subject of Paul, who I believe undermined Jesus, and on the doctrine of salvation through atonement, which likewise undermines and directly opposes everything Jesus taught about what people must do to be saved. As we celebrate the occasion of Jesus' birth, we should honor him best by address the core issues of what HE actually stood for and taught, and I will be the one defending Jesus against Paul.

SW: Matt. 1 is a genealogy through David's son, Solomon, while Luke 3 is a genealogy through David's son, Nathan. This is why from this point on, they read differently. Yes, I admit that it's a bit confusing.

DDD reply: Then they are contradictory, because they both purport to be the genealogy of JOSEPH. He can't be descended from both Solomon and Nathan.

SW: However, 1) Many Christians of the early centuries (even back to the first century) identified Luke's account as that of Mary--such as Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, and Justin Martyr. 2) Jewish tradition, the Talmud, also stated that Mary's father was "Heli" or "Eli" (Lk.3:23) ...invoking great curses upon her for being the mother of Jesus...

DDD reply: Do you confer upon the Talmud or "early Christian writers" (whose works were considered BUT REJECTED from the canon of Bible scripture) to have equal status with the Bible? Do you claim the BIBLE to be the inerrant/infallible WORD OF GOD? If so, THE BIBLE SAYS that Heli was the father of JOSEPH (acutally, that Joseph was the Son of Heli). This is clear and unambiguous. It does NOT say that Mary was the daughter of Heli, or that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. When the Bible means "in-law" it says "in-law." Do a search on the word "in-law" and see how many references pop up! How much more so than in the genealogy of the saviour of mankind, the central figure in the entire Bible? Matthew and Luke offer genealogies of Jesus that are mutually exclusive and directly contradictory. The fact that you can offer non-Bible sources to show that Luke really meant something other than what he said merely means you are using non-Bible sources to agree with me that there is an error in Luke's account.

SW: 3) According to Jewish law, if a woman had no brothers, then her husband was the legal son of her father...which, then, would explain how Joseph could be listed as "of Eli," here in Lk.3:23. So, I'd say there is significant evidence indicating that Luke is the genealogy of Mary .

DDD reply: The law you are referring to was one dealing with inheritances, because married women were not allowed to own their own property, so to inherit the property a married woman with no brothers could have her husband considered as the son of her father for inheritance purposes only. This was NEVER applied in genealogies. Just because a man's wife had no brothers did NOT mean he lost his genealogical relationship to his own father. A man's genealogy was still recorded through the lineage of his actual father. Applying an inheritance regulation to this situation of paternal genealogy is intellectually dishonest. Please also note that professional linguists and translators are trained to take into consideration the cultural and social contexts that affect word choice in the source language, and translate in a way that reflects the differences in the target language. Yet I have never seen one single old or new translation that says that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, not even the NIV, which is not only one of the most modern and professionally-produced versions, but is also produced by an evangelical segment of Christians and tends to resolve issues of ambiguity in that direction. The Bible just does not say that Joseph is the son of Heli. This is one of the most perfect examples of how, in well-meaning and sincere desperation, good people twist the meanings of words that are actually in the book to make them say something exactly opposite of what they actually say. Better to go through these tortured mental gymnastics than to confront the reality that the Bible, for all its worth and value and social/historical importance, is a magnificent book produced by fallible mortal humans.

Stillwaters continues on 1-1-03:

The Jewish Talmud spoke of the Christ as the Son of David:

1) Babylonian Talmud, Sukka, 52a
2) Genesis Rabbah 44:8.
3) Pirke-de-Rave Eliezer, Sect. 28, vs.1
4) Rashi

Also, see Pseudigraphia, Psalms of Solomon. 17:1-51 and Messianic Florilegia (4QFlor) 1:10-13 (where quotes 2 Sam.7:11-14 and Amos 9:11, identifying the Messiah as the Son of David).

DDD reply: Your comments fail (so far) on two grounds:
First, you have merely offered a list of citations. We already know that you are willing and able to claim that citations say something that, when actually examined, they don't really say. You originally claimed 300 Bible references foretelling the coming of Jesus as the Messiah. When pressed, you could barely scrape together a small handful, and not one of them unambiguously said what you claimed they said, although someone who already believed Jesus to be the messiah could back into those verses and find some harmonious echoing, But there was NOTHING that clearly said that Jesus would be the messiah, or foretold any of the specific events of his ministry, teachings, or that he would be a redeeming or atoning sacrifice for others' sins. Therefore, now that you just cite references from other sources and claim they teach of a "Christ" or a "messiah" who is the "Son of David" is not convincing unless and until I can examine the actual words of the text by qualified neutral scholars (such as Jewish, not evangelical Christian, experts). Since I do not have these texts on my little bookshelf, either I can research these by going to sources that do have them, or I can trust you to provide not merely the references, but the actual words of the text (as translated by Jewish/Hebrew scholars) that support your position.

Second, references to a general messiah or "Christ" (Greek equivalent) are very different than showing predictions of Jesus' ministry. It is widely accepted that the Jews believed in the coming of a messiah, and that it would be a ruler restoring the rule of the House of David. The Jewish view of this is very different from that of evangelical Christians, and for the most part has nothing to do with an "eternal savior" or anything like an atoning sacrifice for sins, or any of the aspects of Jesus' teachings, rule or role as "god made man." Many Jews believed this "messiah" to be an earthly, mortal role in throwing off the rule of Roman oppression and restoring the Temple of Solomon and the House of David as the legitimate lineage of Hebrew rulers. In other words, it would be like the royalists (who still exist today) seeking to restore the lineage of Russian czars or French monarchy with their modern rightful heirs. It had nothing to do with eternal salvation or atonement or anything like that. The Jews of Jesus' time did not accept the view of a religious messiah, and had to be convinced that it really meant a ruler in the next world, and the early Christians were not able to convince most Jews of their view. So in addition to providing the actual text of these references (or waiting until I can get to it), you also need to show that these refer specifically to the Christian view of a messianic role and not merely the earthly view of restoring the House of David to the throne.

Stillwaters continues on 1-2-03:

Let's say I picked up one of John Grisham's works. And, I just let the book fall open to a particular page and sentence on that page. I then read the sentence, noting the references he makes to certain characters and to what they said.

I might easily conclude that little of what the statement says makes any sense. It would easily seem this way to me since I would have had no knowledge of the background of that statement and its references...background Grisham had been carefully laying down for possibly many chapters. Also, there would likely be many expressions Grisham characteristically uses that would make no sense to me, since I had not read the rest of the book (or any of his other books).

I would probably come away with more questions than I would with understanding of what the statement or paragraph says. Wouldn't this be true?

But, hopefully, I would recognize that the reason I could not make sense of the passage was because I had not read or studied the rest of this book. It would be highly presumptuous of me, on the other hand, to sit in judgment of the book...or to say that a statement in one part of the book contradicts a statement in another part of the book. Right?

DDD reply: That isn't a valid comparison. That's not how I read/studied the Bible. I read the whole thing. I had teachers, originally from within my Christian faith, but later a broad range of qualified scholars. Having read the complete book of Grisham, one might still discuss an isolated sentence or passage, staying faithful to the overall context. I believe I have done this with regard to the Bible. I believe you are trying to, but your pre-conceived conclusions force you to read into passages things that aren't there to make them conform to what you want so badly for them to say. And by the way, there are many contradictions within the writings of Grisham, or of Shakespeare, or even the writings of scientists and philosophers. Aristotle taught many points of "science" now proven utterly absurd, yet he is still regarded with great respect. People take these foibles in stride because they don't consider them to be the inerrant/infallible word of deity so a few flaws can be accepted accordingly.

SW: Yet, this is what I see you doing with the Bible books. You seem to think you can select various statements throughout the Bible and determine that they contradict one another...when you have no systematic knowledge of the Bible.

DDD reply: Don't be so evasively general. Cite which example of a contradiction you are referring to from the many specific examples I have cited (which you have never addressed), and let's look at the context and what it says. Preferably pick one of the more significant ones. If you have read the whole Grisham book and on one page he describes the hero as having brown eyes and elsewhere that he has blue eyes (and there is no account of some disguising change), then it is safe to say we've found another Grisham contradiction. Actually, there are lots of them but people don't get too concerned since we know he's just a human mortal who writes well.

SW: If it would be unfair to judge any of Grisham's books as being full of contradictions, due to my not having systematically read his books. But, wouldn't it likewise be unfair for you to judge the books of the Bible as having contradictions, not having systematically studied these books? (incidentally, in my experience, when one has a bone to pick with the Bible, they have usually had some bad experience early in life with a church or with a clergy person).

Throughout my life, I have always taken an analytical and critical approach to studying the Bible (as well as anything else I have read). Yet, as I have done so, I have come to realize more and more the oneness and consistently of the Bible books--even though the books were written over a period of 1400+ years by over 40 writers. Such oneness and consistency simply does not happen by chance.

DDD reply: I don't see the same "oneness and consistency." The book is riddled with contradictions and differing viewpoints. Look at how Paul consistently undermines Jesus and James, not just on specifics, but -- in context -- on the overall theme of salvation. The books of Moses present a very different worldview from the Jewish perspective after Babylonian captivity. The only consistency is in some basic fundamental views of deity and in a common cultural value. That there are so many contradictions and differences can be attributed to the diversity of personalities and cultural time frames in which the books of the Bible were compiled. It in no way demeans the importance or value of the Bible, but it does demonstrate the Bible to be the product of fallible mortal humans and NOT the divine, inerrant/infallible word of a deity.

Dialogue with Shelomo
Shelomo writes on 10-20-02:

You might find it of interest that in "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled", the Hebrew/Aramaic (which Jesus spoke) word `ad is not only used for "till/until" in time, but also for "in order to" do get something done. Thus, this passage should probably be translated "... one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, in order that all be fulfilled", which was the speaker's point. This does not, of course, contradict your point, but strengthen it.

shalom from Jerusalem

DDD reply: While I appreciate that your interpretation does, indeed, strengthen my position regarding the contradiction between Jesus and Paul, I do not have sufficient expertise in Hebrew (or Aramaic) to comment on whether or not you offer a superior translation. I do know that the texts from which the translations were done were in Greek, not Hebrew, so we do not know exactly what words or phrases or explanatory comments were spoken by Jesus in Hebrew or Aramaic that were later recorded as "until" in Greek. I also know that professional translators of each of the five Bible versions I checked this in are unanimous in their translation of this passage as sayng "until" and not "in order to." These professionals are trained to watch for subtleties and nuances of context, inflection and consider historical and cultural perspectives in deriving the full meaning of the words they translate. Since there is so much agreement among varying professionals (who are not always in such unanimous agreement in some other passages), for now I have to note that the best interpretation is the one that is in the New Testament versions being used.

However, with those cautions, I will say that you do raise an interesting point that readers might want to consider.

Shelomo continues on 10-21-02:

I assume that the translation "till/until" is the only correct one of the Greek, as you say. But it is clear that unless Jesus spoke Greek instead of the Hebrew and Aramaic of the rest of the local Israeli population, that he said "`ad", which was translated into Greek.

DDD reply: No, this is not at all "clear." It is certainly likely, but the fact is we do not have the record of what words or syntactical constructions Jesus actually uttered in Aramaic or Hebrew which caused those who wrote the words to use Greek equivalents of "till/until," in which a number of independent translators have unanimously agreed that this was the best rendition. As I noted, you raise an interesting point to consider, especially since it strengthens my position, but integrity demands that we present a balanced basis for distinguishing between what is known and what is a derivative conclusion.

S: Now if the translator was Paulist oriented, he would have to use the Greek word for "until" for sure.

Even if he was Jesusist (@;-), he might have translated "until", not noticing Jesus' fine point.

DDD reply: It is also possible that scholarly translators were knowledgeable in the linguistic abilities and not so much in theology. It may be that on this point at least some of them did not take a position, or did not consider it while engaged in this work, or simply worked from the content of the text.

As to the term "Jesusist ," probably a better construction is "Jesuit," as those in the Catholic order of "Society of Jesus" call themselves, notwithstanding they are probably more aligned with Paul than with Jesus.

S: It is interesting that a number of appearances of `ad in the sense of in order to in RMBM's Mishneh Torah were "corrected" in common printed editions by the editors to kedey, which says in order to, without the least ambiguity (I say this as the editor of an edition of Mishneh Torah from the Yemenite manuscripts).

DDD reply: Many words in many languages have more than one meaning, but in which the meaning is clear based on the context. Again, I have no expertise whatsoever in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek so I cannot comment on whether the original meaning was clearly "until" or could be ambiguous, and/or the accuracy or proficiency of the experts who, whether from the original utterances translated to Greek, or the Greek into English, unanimously agree on the use of "till/until" in this passage.

And again, while your claim does add strength to my position, I would also assert that my position is already very firm without this. Clearly Jesus stands up for the Law of Moses even "until" all things are fulfilled, whereas Paul asserts that the Law of Moses has served its purpose and is no longer extant, even though many prophecies and future events (the destruction of the temple, the last days, the end times, the final judgment) yet remained unfulfilled at that time. If anything, the fact that the ambiguity can be interpreted either way, and even accepting the weaker form the existence of the contradiction is still unassailable.

Shelomo continues on 10-22-02:

Thank you for your interesting comments on my letter, even if you do not agree with me. I did not intend to suggest that your viewpoint needs my help in order to have a good basis, but just thought my point supportive of yours: clearly Paul was denying the very foundation of Jesus' teachings and I have no idea why the two contradictory teachings have been thought to be consistent by the Church.

DDD reply: Please, please, please ... I did not say I don't agree with you. In BOTH of my messages I made comments to the effect that you made an important point that was worth considering, and that you proposed a very credible possibility. Where we differ is that you seem too eager to embrace as the only feasible probability something I see as a credible possibility. Please do not be victimized by "all or nothing" thinking, which pushes one's thoughts to extremes. The fact that I did not accept this as the only possible explanation is very different than rejecting it out of hand. I do appreciate your thoughtful comments and, as I said, I do think you have added something constructive and thought-provoking to the discussion.

Dialogue with Eedenha
Eedenha writes on 10-14-02:

I would like to say something. I do like to be logic, just as you say in your writings, but what you stated in your comments about the bible contradicting it self, I found out nnot to be true. I read your first explanation about man being created first and the animals after. But to me does not contradicts itself. In Genesis 1 it says clearly that the beast were created first. In Genesis 2 it doesn't say that the beast were created after Adam was created. Just because is in a verse after itsays that the man was created, it doesn't mean that the beast were created after Adam.

DDD reply: You are wrong. Just as Genesis chapter 1 gives a specific chronology, with each item created in sequence on specific days, so also Genesis chapter 2 gives a specific sequential chronology of the creation. The problem is that they simply are not the same and are, in fact, inconsistent and contradictory.

The sequence in Genesis 2 is very clear: God created...
1. Earth and heavens (Genesis 2:4)
2. Plants of the field (Genesis 2:5)
3. Water (Genesis 2:6)
4. MAN (Genesis 2:7)
5. Garden, trees and rivers (Genesis 2:8-17)
6. Animals (Genesis 2:18-20)
7. Woman (Genesis 2:21-25)

Your statement that just because animals are mentioned later doesn't mean they were created later is WRONG. It specifically states in verses 18-20 of chapter 2 that the REASON God created the animals was because the man, who already existed, was lonely and needed companions. And even though the animals provided companionship, none was an adequate "help mate" so, again because of his loneliness, God created and provided the woman (verses 21-25). This is very clear and very specific, and you are simply trying to make it say something different than what it says. The sequential time references are clear and consistent, and the explanations and reasons for the sequence make it clear that this was, indeed, the sequence.

E: I would buy better that the bible is correct in everything. Your explanation doesn't make sense.

DDD reply: Even without the above explanation, if you were completely right on this point, you have only addressed a single one of the contradictions, flaws and failed prophecies I identified (with an additional link to HUNDREDS more). It's not like I just found one flaw in the whole book; it is riddled with errors throughout. You gave a pitifully weak response to just one of them. The facts stand: the Bible is filled with many contradictions, factual errors and failed prophecies.

Dialogue with Julie
Julie writes on 7-16-02:

After reading your articles, I get the notion that you approached it with critical thinking and logical analysis. my questions to you are:
1. Are you still a Christian, believing and accepting that Jesus is only way to heaven? if yes, proceed to below questions. if no, what do you believe in today?

DDD reply: I have great respect for Jesus and his teachings as recorded in the synoptic gospels, but I believe his teachings were undermined by Paul who taught a salvation based on atoning blood and on faith without works, in complete contrast to Jesus' plain and simple teaching of salvation based on love for neighbors, enemies and "the least of these" expressed actively in our works and deeds. I believe that if everyone would follow the teachings of Jesus, we could find heaven on earth or wherever else our futures take us. That does not mean Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven. Even Jesus taught that the Samaritan, the despised non-Jewish pagans who lived on the west bank, could be the model of love for enemies in the parable of the "Good Samaritan" which was, after all, an answer to the lawyer who asked what it means to be saved. It seems then that if the unbelieving Samaritan is the model, that the unbelieving Samaritan who felt love and compassion for his enemy AND EXPRESSED IT IN DEEDS is also saved. Similarly, one could be a follower of the compassionate Buddha and live a life filled with compassionate deeds for others, and I believe Jesus' teachings clearly show that person would be saved (in contradictory contrast to Paul); one could be a follower of the Hindu Mohandas K. (Mahatma) Gandhi and live in compassionate actions towards others and Jesus (not Paul) would recognize his salvation.

J: 2. If yes, what gospel do you now believe in?

DDD reply: I do not believe that any of the gospels, or any of the Bible, is the inerrant/infallible Word of God. I believe it is the best efforts of primitive and ancient people to explain wonders and mysteries of a universe they did not otherwise understand. This does not mean it is "false" or a "fraud." There are many writers of science or philosophy whose works are quite brilliant, but may also contain some unintentional errors. Among the gospels, however, my favorite is the gospel of Matthew because he actually lived with Jesus on a daily basis, and more than any of the others his account captures the depth of Jesus' teaching on universal compassionate love actively expressed through works and deeds. Luke is a close second.

J: 3. Do you still read the bible like doing quiet time as taught by the Protestant church?

DDD reply: I do read the Bible, not just to challenge it but to learn from it and I often quote it for inspiration. I have not attacked the Bible. I believe that those who blindly worship the Bible as an icon instead of a living, breathing record written by fallible human mortals do much more to make it inaccessible to those who sincerely want to improve their lives and their spirituality.

Dialogue with Dane
Dane writes on 4-11-02:

You obviously no nothing about God. God even says in his word that only those who believe in him can truly understand his word. I want you to send as many questions as possible to me. If I can't answer them with a definite answer than I will admit that I am wrong. So just try. You can't begin to know how much God knows and how wonderful he is.

DDD reply: Your tone is rude and arrogant. It is not at all humble or christlike. You obviously know nothing about Jesus and are not one of the people who has responded to his call to "come follow me." I posted three extensive commentaries and additional resources on my website. You did not address one single point out of the many I made, but just come in here huffing and puffing with your insulting tone. You are not at all interested in a serious dialogue. If you were, you would have referred to the points I actually made (or at least picked one to start with) and addressed it. You did not. Probably because you can not.

When I cite the Bible I refer to exact chapter and verse, and usually quote at least a snippet of the actual text. If you are going to say "God says..." then please cite chapter and verse or you are just making up your own scripture and attributing it to god. True believers would call that "blasphemy." And by the way, if your god isn't capable of writing something that is understandable to potential converts who are not yet "true believers" then that doesn't speak much for your god's communication skills, but I don't hold that against Christianity because you just made it up and couldn't cite chapter and verse anyway.

D: Send me as many questions as possible and I WILL send you back the answers to all of them. Please, I'm not trying to be offensive but I want to show you that God works through his people.

DDD reply: You are not the slightest bit serious. If you were, you would have responded to the points I already made. You didn't. Because you couldn't. You say "just try" and I did try. I have posted my comments. You say I "can't win." Baloney. You didn't/couldn't respond to the points I already made. I already won. I do not need to send QUESTIONS because I have already posted ANSWERS. If you can find some error in what I have posted, feel free to bring it to my attention. If you can.

D: You can't win. I've got God on my side and he will not leave me.

DDD reply: He/she/it hasn't done much for you so far. If you feel you can actually carry on a serious dialogue with me, please review my web sites (listed at beginning and end of this forum) and select a point on which to initiate a conversation. If you can't, it's OK, I understand. Very clearly.

Dane continues on 4-12-02:

I am very sorry for acting the way i did before. I felt very angry that you thought that. I want to apologize greatly and hope that you will forgive me. I know it was wrong and God even tells me in James to be slow to speak slow to get angry and quick to listen.

DDD reply: Apology accepted. Your first message was pretty insulting, but it takes a big man to admit he's wrong and move forward. If you want to have a serious discussion we can do that.

D: But I found something that I wanted to point out to you. When you said "while others specify the need for works / good deeds (Matt 16:27, Revelations 2:26 & 20:12; 2 Timothy 4:14; Philippians 2:12; James 2:24-26)." I thought about it and looked it up and what God is really trying to say through this is that you need to be good but you don't get to heaven by this. He meant that if we all walked around being rude and and everything why would we be different than anybody else. So I wanted to tell you that and again apologize for being so rude.

DDD reply: You are correct that this is what PAUL is saying, but it is not what James is saying. Paul repeatedly talks about the good works Christians must do, but to Paul the good deeds are the evidence of faith while it is faith that is the mechanism of justification. In contrast, James disagrees explicitly and contradictorily. James says that justification is by DEEDS and NOT FAITH only. James stresses the importance of faith, but faith is important because it motivates deeds but it is deeds (according to James) which are the mechanism of justification.

Look at what James actually says:
2:18: "Show my your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works."
2:26: "Faith without works is dead."

And as to the MECHANISM of justification specifically, Paul says (Romans 3:28 and elsewhere) that justification is by FAITH and NOT WORKS. James in 2:24 says justification is by DEEDS and NOT FAITH only. In other words, BOTH of the men, Paul and James, agree that BOTH of the elements, faith and deeds, are necessary, but Paul says that faith (NOT DEEDS) is the mechanism and deeds are the evidence while James says deeds (NOT FAITH) are the mechanism and faith is the motivator. This is a direct contradiction. Please refer to my site on this subject for a more detailed examination showing that both men used exactly the same words, in exactly the same construction and even cited exactly the same example (Abraham) right down to citing exactly the same verse, and then coming to opposite and contradictory conclusions: Paul in Romans 4:1-4 that Abraham was justified by his faith and not because of his works, and James says in James 2:23 that Abraham was justified by his deeds, not his works. Again the contradiction is detailed, explicit and unambiguous. I understand why you feel you need to try to rationalize it away, but no objective person without a preconceived bias could read these two passages and not conclude that they are completely CONTRADICTORY.

Dialogue with Esther
Esther writes on 4-9-02:

Praise GOD for your critizim for you have done it after reading the "Holy Bible" It's my prayer through our Lord Jesus Christ that you may get the revelation to the scriptures, for without it you will be entangled in confussion, contradictions and eventually doomed to hell. Amen.

DDD reply: Thank you for taking the time to write with your comments. However I note that since YOU cannot find a single point on which I have made an error, you have offered me no reason why I should reconsider any of the information I have provided. All you could come up with was the empty threat that I would be "eventually doomed to hell." But you could not offer any reason why I should believe your threats, any more than you believe the exact same threats that Moslems make against YOU because you reject their holy Qu'ran. Are you afraid of their threats about YOU going to hell? Well, I'm not afraid of your threats either which are equally unsupported. Since you cannot defend your faith, the points I have raise continue to stand, UNCHALLENGED.

Esther continues on 4-12-02:

Rejection of God's Word Leads to Death [followed by lengthy litany of Bible verses quoted]

DDD reply: My position is that the Bible is NOT the "word of god." I proved my point by showing numerous contradictions, failed prophecies and other factual errors in the Bible. You could not even respond to a single one of the examples I cited, so if YOU could not find any error in what I posted, then it clearly proves that the Bible is the work of primitive MORTAL HUMANS trying their best to explain a universe they did not understand.

And your statement is a empty, meaningless threat -- a substitute for the fact that you could not address the substance of a single point I made. Just remember, the Moslems say the same thing to YOU: they claim that YOU reject the "word of god" (their Koran). Does this cause you to tremble in fear? Well, that's how much fear you inspire in me.

The Bible is not "god's word" any more than the Koran is, and certainly not just because you say so (or even if you think the Bible itself says so in the verses you cited) when you cannot even address a single one of the substantive issues I raised.

Dialogue with Art
Art writes on 3-8-02:

He are some not-so-empty words on the creation story(ies) in Genesis. 1 and 2: Gn. chapter 1 describes the six "days" (periods? stages?) of creation. Chapter 2 describes the creation of Adam and Eve and tells the story of their disobedience. To some people the two chapters seem to disagree in their chronology.

DDD reply: There is a reason for that. Both chapters describe the sequence of events with specific references indicating the order of that sequence, and they are different and contradictory.

A: If we believe there is no error in the "scriptures," as originally written, then there must be error in our interpretation. I believe there's a perfectly logical way of reading the two chapters so there's no disagreement.

Looking at chapter 1:

* On the first day God separated light from darkness and established day and night (verses 3-5)
* On the second day God created the firmament (verses 6-8)
* On the third day God provided dry land, vegetation, plants, and fruit trees (verses 9-13)
* On the fourth day God made the sun, moon, and stars (verses 14-19)
* On the fifth day God made birds and fishes (verses 15-23)
* On the sixth day God made cattle, creeping things, and beasts of the field (verses 24-25). Also on the sixth day, "Then God said, let us (God and helpers?) make man in our image ... male and female he created them." (verses 26-27)

Looking at chapter 2:

* Verses 1-4 tell us that God rested (on the seventh day) and appear to be the last sentences of the description of the creation process that is described in chapter 1. The second sentence of verse 4 continues, "In the day that God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up - for God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground - then God formed Adam ... ." Notice that we're told that Adam was created before there were plants and herbs. That would indicate that he was created before the third day described in chapter 1, and NOT on the sixth day when God made "man in our (their) image!"
* In verses 18-22 we read that God said, "It is not good that the man be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him. So out of the ground God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them; ... Adam gave names to all cattle, and the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him." Here we see that Adam existed before the birds and beasts, which were created on the fifth and sixth days described in chapter 1, indicating again he was NOT created on the sixth day when God made man in their image! And Eve was created after the animals that were created on the fifth and sixth days (after not finding a "helper fit for him.")

DDD reply: Well, chapter two doesn't talk about days, but it clearly gives sequential indicators (as you note) that are different from, and contradictory to, the sequence (in days) cited in chapter one.

A: Some say chapters 1 and 2 seem contradictory, and are two different accounts of the creation of the earth. But there's another way of looking at it. It appears to me that chapter 1 is a summary of what are generally referred to as the six days of creation. We're then told in chapter 2 that, early on, as the creation was unfolding, Adam and the garden of Eden were created and that Adam was in attendance while the rest of creation unfolded. So, Adam was created before the humans that were created on the sixth day. We have assumed that Adam, and then Eve, were the only humans directly created by God and that they are the humans referred to on the sixth day. But, if we don't make that assumption, there's no conflict in the two chapters. (Another thought: Was Adam included in the "Let us make man in our image ... ?)

DDD reply: Chapters one and two do not "seem" contradictory -- they ARE contradictory. Each gives a differing and mutually exclusive delineation of the sequence of creation, and they are NOT in the same order. The reason there is always "another way of looking at it" is because people are desperate to reconcile cherished beliefs, no matter how extensive the tortured mental gymnastics they have to go through. (It depends on what the definition of "is" is -- and get that intern out from under your desk, Mr. President ... "I did not have scriptural relations with that Bible!")

A: Apparently, other humans were created after Adam - on the sixth day. Adam was to be God's representative in ruling the earth, and he observed the creation of birds, beasts, humans, trees, vegetation, etc. Eventually he followed Eve's lead and surrendered his authority to Satan by disobeying a specific command of his Creator ..... and the rest is history!

DDD reply: Genesis one clearly states that god CREATED humans on the sixth day. If Adam was created sequentially at some earlier date, then why would this very relevant fact of creation be omitted (which omission would create the perception of a contradiction that would lead so many "astray")? If Adam was created previously, then humans would not be CREATED on the sixth day (that had already been done), but simply more would be added. What you are asking us to consider as possible is that Adam was created some time before the third day (but not listed in the sequence of creation) and that Adam and Eve and the whole garden story all happened before the sixth day, when humans were again "created" (uh, how can you "create" something that already exists?) Sorry, Art, but your explanation doesn't come close to flying. Very creative effort, but it doesn't come close to cutting it. All of your little "hypothesis" is purely of your own invention. Not a word of it comes from the Bible. If that is what the Bible meant, and if the Bible was the "inerrant" and "infallible" word of god, then the Bible would have said that. It doesn't. The rest is just your own imaginative attempt to explain why an obvious and direct CONTRADICTION isn't really so.

A: Hope to talk with you again. Keep an open mind.

DDD reply: I was born and raised a Christian, and my early readings of the Bible were based on the assumption that it was the true and literal word of god. I did, however, keep an open mind and when the evidence showed otherwise, I changed my views. You have exhorted me to "keep and open mind" but my question to you is: can you?

Art continues later on 3-8-02:

Create means to cause to come into existence. You can create several of the same type things at different times. Your understanding of the meaning of the word doesn't agree with dictionary definition. You mention "different and contradictory" events, but don't point out where they are. I'm afraid your analysis is too general and it appears that you have found the "truth" and there's nothing more for you to learn. When you deny that there SEEM to be contradictions and say chapters one and two ARE contradictory, you're pontificating. There's no room for discussion.

DDD reply: I think you are confusing "create" with "make" or "produce" or "manufacture." To bring something into existence, as you correctly note, suggests rather strongly that it doesn't already exist. The idea of being CREATIVE is to develop something new or innovative. But that goes beyond the point. Even if your idea is correct that something can be "created" over and over, the Bible does not say that this happened. You are simply inventing this hypothesis yourself (your own "creative" touch). The Bible talks about creation, and describes the parts of that creation in detail. It does not say that Adam was created on or before the third day and was with God through creation; that is simply your own fabrication. It does not say that the persons created on day six were other than Adam and Even, that is simply your own invention. And the purpose for that creative invention is to find a creative way to make the obvious contradiction go away. The simple fact is that one objective person with no pre-conceived biases reading Genesis 1 for what is actually in the text and another person with no pre-conceived biases reading Genesis two would come to differing and contradictory conclusions about the nature and order of creation. Perhaps you can believe that writings that can only be reconciled with convoluted inventions beyond what is in the text might be "god-breathed" but I happen to believe that an omniscient, omnipotent deity seeking to inspire his "inerrant/infallible" word could do a lot better job.

A: Your mind seems to have been closed and you will never admit the possibility that anything you have written is not 100% correct. If I come up with anything else that I think might be of some interest, I'll pass it along. You can do with it what you wish.

DDD reply: So you're going to make this a personal thing because you could not support the validity of a hypothesis that is wholly your own invention and not at all in the Bible, and which you concocted for the sole purpose of resolving a contradiction to satisfy your pre-conceived bias in favor of inerrancy. Let me remind you that I have already proven my open mind; I shared the same pre-conceived bias in favor of Biblical inerrancy, but after much trauma and soul-searching was able to change my views when confronted with the facts. Can't wait to see what you came up with on the contradictory genealogies.

Dialogue with Wes
Wes writes on 12-3-01:

Just a note about "cloven-hooved non-cud-chewing animals" (camels, etc.) from Lev. Ch. 11, camels ARE cloven-hoofed AND cud-chewing.

DDD reply: Thank you for taking the time to write with your observation. I do not have enough personal knowledge of camels to know about their cud and hooves. What I do know is that the Bible says in Lev 11:3 that permissible meats are from animals that both chew the cud and are cloven-hoofed, and that it further states in Lev 11:4 that the camel is NOT eligible because, although it does chew the cud, it "divideth not the hoof." Thus, if you are correct that the camel is cloven-hoofed, then Lev 11:4 offers another factual error in the Bible. (Looking at a picture in an encyclopedia, it does appear that either the hoof is divided, unless those are just very big toes protruding from an otherwise undivided hoof.)

Dialogue with Glenda
Glenda writes on 11-17-01:

I also was raised in the church, Christian Reformed to be exact, and have questioned its doctrine and the teachings in the Bible. Yet, I have this strong feeling of spirit that resides within me.

DDD reply: Certainly each person has the ability to experience the divinity that resides within and which derives from the infinite, whether that "infinite" come from god or the universe or our own souls. But since ALL religions are capable of generating the intensity of this powerful spiritual enlightenment (and thus the strong feelings adherents associate with their religion, which they assume no other could also generate), this is where we get the intensity of religious fervor which leads to ferocious religions conflicts.

G: I know that it is the ability to love that represents the spirit in each one of us, not whether we are Christian, Muslim, Morman or any other form of Religion.

DDD reply: I agree strongly. Love (or universal compassion) is the common bond that cements the key movements in ethics, values and moral beliefs. All of the major religions teach a strong adherence to compassionate love and mercy (yes, even the Koran). The teachings of Jesus and of Gautama Siddhartha (Buddha) are centered around them. The problem is that religious tyrants and extremists hijack selected imperfections in man-made scripture (however inspired some other selections may be), and claim an exclusive monopoly on "the truth" which they then use to deny freedoms and choices and rights to others in a most un-loving way that leads to violence and oppression and war.

G: In the last six years I have done reading about mythology, religion and history. The Joseph Campbell series was a huge influence on my decisions about the Bible and my realization that God resides in each one of us.

DDD reply: I too have a strong respect for the insights of Joseph Campbell, and share the belief that the capacity to experience the infinite (or the divine -- whatever form it actually exists in) resides in each of us.

G: I believe in the teachings of Jesus, Budha and other Spiritual Leaders that their teachings are a guide for all of us.

DDD reply: I believe in the spirit of what Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi and others have taught, but I also believe that none of them was wholly perfect (or infallible) and that there are imperfections in the teachings left behind by all of them. The mistake made by the religionists (of all denominations) is to deify the individual inspired teacher and set the (imperfectly recorded) record of their teachings as the infallible, inerrant word of god, so that they worship the icon of this figure and the icon of their holy book instead of carefully examining (and trying to practice) the substantial essence of their teachings. If you read my various web page, you will see clearly that I do not attack the person or teachings of Jesus. I respect the importance of the Bible and have a solid admiration for Jesus and his teachings. I do believe they were sadly compromised by the "apostle" Paul who distorted, undermined and contradicted Jesus extensively and turned the fledgling movement from one of practical compassion into one that his harsh and cruel and which supports slavery and the oppression of women.

G: What are the important influences that helped you come to the conclussions of this matter?

DDD reply: Like you, I grew up in a conservative and religious family. I was very active in youth ministry activities and responsible for bringing new "converts" into the "fold." I was an avid Bible student, reading as much as I could from the Bible and other commentaries. But as I read I found contradictions and questions. In the beginning I thought these were just due to my own lack of understanding and that there were simple explanations. But as I asked my ministers and other prominent religious "experts," I felt that the answers they provided were superficial, simplistic and completely unsatisfying. Certainly if I had been in dialogue with a non-Christian, I would not have accepted the answers until they would address the scope of my concerns. When I persisted with my questions (and why the initial answers weren't adequate) I was surprised to encounter defensiveness and even hostility. I began to consider that maybe my particular religion could not withstand the careful scrutiny that I felt it should if it were truly the "truth" and the "word of god." I gradually turned away from organized Christianity and read other works such as the Koran, Tao Teh Ching, Book of Mormon and substantial portions of Buddhist and Hindu writings. While I find some truth in all of them, I find none of them to be the "inerrant, infallible word of god." I do not believe that there is any one, single compendium of all such truth, but that there are bits and pieces we can find here and there if we broaden the scope of our gaze and look in many directions.

G: I am always looking for more information on this subject. I suppose I am always needing validation of my new found belief system. I am in conflict with, it seems, my family and most of America. Our history is my truth. It is ignorance to believe otherwise.

DDD reply: Me too. The good news for me, though, is that while the conservative Christian members of my family are disappointed in my rejection of their beliefs, they understand my sincerity and are supportive of positive energies in my activities with charities and in trying to contribute to the community; at least they recognize me as one who is trying to be a good person and we are at least able to have warm visits at family get-togethers (even if our discussions sometimes get rather "lively").

Glenda continues on 11-27-01:

I enjoyed reading your commentary on Human Sacrifice, Putting the Bible in perspective, and Paul vs. Jesus. Not having studied the Bible extensively, it was all important information for me to digest. Once again my basic instincts about the Bible and the teachings of organized religions are validated. I remembered clearly my Father telling me that the reasons Catholics and Mormons were on the "wrong" path was because doing good works was not what it was about. It is only about Faith. But then, this is the same father that lumps all black people and Hispanics into a category of lazy and on welfare. I remind myself that he knows what he was taught and that was a strict Calvinist upbringing. He also was taught not to question anything.

DDD reply: Yes, that was one of the early points that led me away from conservative Christian fundamentalism. I couldn't help but recognize the glaring differences between Paul and Jesus, and that in this disagreement, most churches came down on the side of Paul rather than Jesus. And as a result they were able to hold many beliefs and commit many wrongs that were totally opposite of Jesus' teachings, but which Paul allowed for.

G: I am wondering if you have ever heard of the Gospel of Thomas that was discovered in Egypt? A very good friend of mine does not remember where he read this but it referred to this Gospel as being left out of the bible for a reason. Thomas spoke about Jesus's message as saying that heaven or eternity is here on Earth but men will not see it. This being in conflict with the other Gospels, it doesn't surprise me at all that the men who compiled the contents of the Bible would have been selective.

DDD reply: Yes, I am very familiar with it. I have a copy of it. It was discovered in Egypt in 1945 as part of the Nag Hammadi library, a collection of Coptic-Gnostic texts. It is widely available now. The version I have is included as part of a book called "The Five Gospels" prepared by a panel of distinguished Bible scholars known as "The Jesus Seminar" (most of whom began as religious fundamentalists). This is widely available at most book stores or libraries. It consists almost wholly of brief sayings attributed to Jesus; it does not contain a biography of Jesus in the sense that the other gospels do. The main reason it wasn't included was because it was not known at the time the Bible was compiled.

G: I am also curious if you ever watched a program shown on television called "The Mysteries of the Bible."

DDD reply: Don't recall having seen this one.

G: It has been awhile and my recall is vague but it went something like this. There are many writings about Jesus in his youth and the years of his preaching before he is crucified. Twenty some years are missing and the theory is that he may have traveled to the Far East and studied in a Monastery. There is record of a Jesus in one of the Monasteries during the early 1st century AD. It is very possible that the Buddhist religion had a great influence on his teachings when he returned. Have you heard of this? It certainly seems possible.

DDD reply: I have heard this hypothesis before, though I could not point to a specific source. Having read extensively of both Buddhist and Christian writings, I consider this to be very plausible, but have not seen hard corroborating evidence to suggest that it actually is what happened (and I doubt that such evidence would still be available). As I see it this remains a fascinating speculation.

Glenda continues on 11-29-01:

Thanks for the tip on the Five Gospels. I remember reading about The Jesus Seminar six or seven years ago in the newspaper. I think I will treat myself to an early Christmas present. In what way has this work been useful to you?

DDD reply: I think it has helped me get a better concept of how differing pictures of Jesus fit together and was one more piece in the puzzle of de-mystifying the remote Jesus that has been filtered through Paul's unfortunate perspective. I also have to say that I read it only a few years ago, long after much of my current perspectives had already been developed and while I found it interesting I can't say it made much of a change in my thinking, just added some additional info. I would also say that I don't think conservative Christians should feel threatened by it either, whether or not they feel it should be added to the canon.

G: Is it difficult reading?

DDD reply: I see it as among the easiest reading in all the Bible (well, of course, technically it is not part of the traditional Bible). It is just a collection of sayings; a collection of simple "one liners." (Well, not all are one-liners but most are very brief.)

G: Personally, I find the Bible difficult reading; so with that in mind it may help you answer my question. Thanks for the info again.

DDD reply: Much of the "difficulty" of the Bible has to do with the antiquity of the language, which has more to do with using old translations. I recommend using a newer translation such as the New International Version (developed by modern conservative Protestants) or Today's English Bible, produced by Reader's Digest -- it is not widely used but is the one that makes the text most readable. The "Five Gospels" version of Thomas (as well as their compilations of the other four gospels, with commentary) is very accessible to the reader.

Another reason for the "difficulty" is that the Bible compilation represents many differing viewpoints of many differing writers in many varying times and settings. As I have pointed out, this has resulted in much confusion and contradiction. Also, it is often difficult for those not familiar with the cultural settings to understand the cultural context that colors the meanings. Since the Gospel of Thomas is written by a single writer and is not rooted in a narrative, it is easier to relate to than most similar works.

Before buying the book you might want to preview it in a library or book store, but if you are really interested in getting another view of Jesus that many scholars feel is independent from Paul, then it is worth looking at.

Dialogue with Stuart
Stuart writes on 11-4-01:

I really appreciate the effort put forth in producing these pages. It's great to have a place to go and get rational answers to such irrational biblical statements. I have a question I'm hoping you may have some insight into. Where in the bible does it mention, "go forward and conquer the world and all that lives therein" or, words to that effect ?
Could you shed some light on this ?

DDD reply: The closest thing I can think of is the command to "multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it," which appears in the Bible exactly twice: once to Adam and Eve at the beginning of the human race (Gen 1:28), and again to Noah and his family when they were supposedly the only human survivors after the Great Flood (Gen 9:7). The first passage (Gen 1:28) also adds the phrase (after the words "subdue it"): ..."and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." This phrase is missing from Gen 9:7. In both of these specific situations, there was a severe population shortage. Clearly the context is to build up the human species. Even those who believe the Bible literally would have to agree that this command has been obeyed. The earth is filled with people. Many today would argue that we have been not only fruitful, but way beyond that. The earth has been subdued. The earth has been conquered. Humans have "dominion" to the point of dominating the earth into oblivion. Today we need a new command to respect the earth and preserve it because its conquered remains will fail us if we don't.

Dialogue with Josh
Josh writes on 10-11-01:

isn't your entire "flaws and errors" section stuff you don't like? it doesnt seem to be contradictory?

DDD reply: Well, of course I was somewhat selective. After I clearly and specifically acknowledged that the Bible offers many valuable historical, philosophical and moral contributions of real value, it is true that in making my point that it also has some contradictions, flaws and errors that, yes, I did focus on examples of contradictions, flaws and errors since that is what I was talking about.

However, it doesn't seem you actually read my commentary, or you wouldn't have had to ask this question. I cited several direct contradictions (with a link to HUNDREDS more). In addition, I also cited several factual errors known (in light of modern knowledge) to be problematic but not known to the primitive but well-meaning people who compiled this work.

The contradictions I cited were explicit and direct, regarding contradictory creation sequences listed in Gen 1 vs Gen 2; direct contradictory statements between Paul and James about the role of faith or works in "justification"; and clearly incompatible and inconsistent genealogies of Jesus between Matthew and Luke. I also cited the actual scriptural references (chapter and verse) so you or anyone else could look it up for yourself. The contradictions are very direct: you would have to be wearing blinders not to see them.

So let me ask YOU a question:
1. How do YOU resolve the glaring contradiction in the creation sequences of Gen 1 and 2?
2. How do YOU reconcile the clearly incompatible genealogies of Jesus cited by Matthew and Luke?
3. How do YOU fail to see the direct contradiction between the basis of justification cited by Paul and James (not the fact that faith and works can be reconciled to each other, but that Paul says justifiction is by faith apart from works, and James says justifiction is by WORKS, and not by faith only)?

I'm betting you still have your blinders on, and you can't or won't answer these, just as you raised a simple question without actually addressing a single point of substance I had raised. You are living in a dreamland of denial.

Dialogue with Mr. Banks
Mr. Banks writes on 7-25-01:

the bible is it real or not

DDD reply: The Bible is real, valuable and important. I discussed that in my commentary. It is of legitimate antiquity, and shows the best thinking of ancient, primitive peoples. The ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian mythologies are also real and important, as are the ancient Hindu Vedic scriptures, but that does not mean they are the word of god.

MB: My name is mr. banks and i want to tell you that your views on the the bible are very wrong and, instead of trying to tell us that the bible is not all its says it is, maybe you should read it not under your own understanding but gods true word.

DDD reply: I have read the Bible. I read it as a Christian, but I found that while it has much value, it is NOT "god's true word." A perfect deity could not have so many contradictions, factual errors and failed prophecies. I gave specific examples. I notice that you were not able to address any of the examples I provided. If you can not find anything specific to disagree with in what I wrote, except that you just didn't like it, then I suppose that my examples stand unchallenged by you.

MB: wouldnt it be something when you got to heaven god said to you, you didnt trust my word, and now you will spend eternal life in hell. practice its rules and youll see how true it really is.

DDD reply: So, all you have to offer is cheap threats. Listen, my friend, have you read the Koran? I have. And my Moslem friends gave me the same threat, that if I didn't accept their book, I would burn in hell. But since neither of you can support the validity of your book and all you can do is make these childish threats, I am not impressed. I am not afraid of the Bible, the Koran or the Greek myths.

Dialogue with Christian
Christian writes on 7-11-01

It's interesting that this book of contradictions is not only the most popular book in the history of written text...

DDD reply: The Vedic scriptures (Hindu) are far more ancient than the Bible and have millions of adherents; the Koran is a few hundred years younger than the New Testament, but still quite ancient (1400 years) and has almost as many believers as the Bible. Antiquity is not the measure of scriptural truth. Nor is truth a popularity contest ... or if you think that's all it is, remember that there may be more people on earth today who believe the Bible than any other single competing scripture, but taken together there are far more people on earth who do not believe the Bible to be the word of god than who believe it.

C: ...but also written in such a manner that even a small child can see and understand it's truth's.

DDD reply: Baloney. No one understands its "truth" because it is impossible to decipher coherently due to its extensive network of contradictions. That is why there are so many different Christian denominations ... they all claim to interpret the Bible literally, and swear by its simplicity, but everyone who reads it gets a different conclusion as to what it means. This is different than most other books or even newspapers and popular magazines, in which many different people can read the same thing and understand it the same way. A child can grasp some Bible stories and a few simple concepts as interpreted to them by someone else. But few children could simply pick up the Bible, read it, and understand it the way you might want them to.

C: Friend my suggestion to you is that you stop looking for the problems with God's true and Holy word, and begin to look at how the truths in it apply to life.

DDD reply: Not only are you unable to read the Bible coherently, you can't even read what I wrote in my commentary. I wrote that the Bible is full of much wisdom, insight and also much historical value. But it is the work of ancient wise men, with mortal imperfections and weaknesses, NOT the word of god. I do find much value in it, as I do in the writings of the Hindus and the Buddhists (and to a lesser extent the Koran) all of which I have studied. I find value in all of them, as in the writings of many other learned scholars, but I do not accept any of them as being divinely authored. You are so BLINDED by your concentration on the flaws I identified that you can not SEE the positive comments that I included. I do look for the truths and valuable points in the Bible, but in a balanced perspective that also includes its imperfections. But I guess that's the difference. You admit to your BLINDNESS, while my blindness has been healed and I CAN SEE the truth.

C: Untill you find that all you really NEED is blind faith I'll do my best to hace enough for both of us. Thank you for your insight I'll continue to keep you in prayer. In Him, Blind Faith!

DDD reply: You do reveal the real nature of your position. You follow in blind faith. Just like the Moslems, the Hindus and the Buddhists. Blind faith. You are blinded. In my case, my blindness has been healed and I see the truth. I have been told exactly the same thing by Moslems and Hindus and Buddhists, that they simply turn their heads from the errors in their writings (or should I say, stick their heads in the sand) and pretend those errors just don't exist. You are no different than them. You have offered no reason why I should listen to you any more than then; you have not given any reason even why YOU insisting on BLINDLY following just because someone told you to.

C: P.S. Even though you doubt Him, He would have still hung and died the same painful death if you were His only creation!!

DDD reply: Actually, if you read all my pages, you would know how much appreciation I have for Jesus of Nazareth and what he actually taught. I do, however, strongly object to the mythology of bloody HUMAN SACRIFICE in which Paul undermined Jesus' teachings by turning him into a bloody human sacrifice. I addressed this fully on my page about the Atonement myth (http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html) and how it detracts from the actual teachings of Jesus.

Dialogue with Cathy
Cathy writes on 7-10-01:

I have been trying to understand the Bible for close to five years now. I am at a loss sometimes at trying to figure out how to live according to the commandments. It seems so many people or should I say churches just pick and choose what verses they deem most important (even if they are out of context) and then look at all the other people in the other religions and think that they are without hope. So many verses are taken literally, while others are ignored. For instance in I Cor.11 about headship, hair and coverings. There are so many different beliefs on this chapter, frankly I cannot understand it either considering how there were so many customs for both men and women in the Old Testament, Samson whose strength because of his long hair, the vows of a Nazerite, the issue of veils and such like....

DDD reply: Well, it is necessary to do this because they can't accept EVERYTHING since some parts disagree with others.

C: how is one supposed to come to an understanding whether there is a commandment requiring women to wear veils now, and if she doesn't then she should shave her head. Why would God make women incomplete and reliant on a hat for her salvation? Was Paul telling women not to cut her hair at all and her long hair would act as a veil? I have always been perplexed with this issue because I see many good women who have cut hair and do not wear veils that seem to be very good people.

DDD reply: The only conclusion is that all the contradicting statements could not have come from God, therefore some of the Bible was written by mortal humans. I believe we can look to the Bible to see what other people wrote and believed in ancient times, and consider some of the ancient wisdom, just as we would with any writer in old times or modern times. It is the varying opinions of the various Bible writers, not the inerrant/infallible "word of god."

C: After reading your articles, can you recommend any translation?

DDD reply: Most of the translations are pretty accurate, so it is best to pick one in readable language that you can understand. Some of my favorites include the NIV (New International Version) which is modern and widely accepted and Today's English Version, done by Reader's Digest press. I have a total of about five different translations. For old times' sake I like the traditional wording of the King James, but it is so old that many words and expressions are no longer contemporary or have changed meaning and some errors were made because translating skills were not yet perfected and some newer source texts have been found. Overall, in my opinion, the best and most objective translation (with accompanying analysis) is "The Five Gospels," translated by a panel of theological scholars, but this only covers the four gospels plus a new gospel of Thomas found in 1945 with the Nag Hammadi library in Egypt, a collection of Coptic-Gnostic texts, and does not include the whole Bible.

C: Are there translations that are not contradicting?

DDD reply: The contradictions are in the original source texts, not the fault of translators. Every accurate translation will have the contradictions. If it doesn't have the contradictions, then it would be because someone is trying to whitewash the blemishes; however, all popular translations do show the contradictions I have cited.

Prior dialogues:
To keep this web page to a manageable size, previous dialogues have been moved to a separate prior file which can be found at: [links to older dialogues will be added later]

We welcome feedback! Send e-mail feedback to: feedback.
Please note, be sure to include the word "FEEDBACK" somewhere in the title of your message to avoid having your e-mail deleted unread with all the other junk e-mail that is mass deleted. Please note, all e-mails or comments submitted become the property of Davis D. Danizier and Word Wizards and may be included in this forum.

This forum consists of selected e-mails representing views that both agree and disagree with the comments on this webpage, along with responses from the author when appropriate. Comments used will be quoted exactly (copied and pasted from e-mails) but personal or extraneous comments may be omitted in the interest of space and relevance.

To participate, send your e-mail comments to Danizier@aol.com (including the word "FEEDBACK" somewhere in the title) and then watch this space to see your comments as part of a current, topical discussion. Please include all comments within the text area of the e-mail. DO NOT SEND E-MAIL ATTACHMENTS. All messages that contain attached files will be deleted -- the e-mail text will not even be opened, much less the attached file -- it will be dragged straight into the "Delete" icon.

Please note that this file contains selected comments taken from e-mails sent to Davis D. Danizier. This is intended to be a representative sample of correspondence. Not all e-mails are included; those most likely to be included are those that discuss the issues intellegently, not those who call names or who use excessive profanity. Submissions may be edited for space and relevance and extraneous or personal comments may be omitted, however the actual words selected for inclusion will be used exactly as submitted (copied and pasted from e-mail messages).
In most cases, Davis D. Danizier will have already exchanged correspondence directly with the writer and even if the writer has received a response from Davis D. Danizier directly via e-mail, it may take several days before the response gets added to this forum.

Please note, only issues-related comments will be included. Irrelevant comments or personal insults will not be selected. If multiple participants make a similar point, only those that make the point most efficiently will be selected, and all e-mails or comments submitted become the property of Davis D. Danizier and Word Wizards and may be included in the forum at the sole discretion of Davis D. Danizier and Word Wizards.

The entries included in this webpage are those specifically responding to the web page about the contradictions in the Bible. Other dialogue pages responding to other religious commentaries by Davis D. Danizier may be found as follows:

Commentary: Bible Contradictions, Flaws and Failed Prophecies - http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html
Forum: Discussion about Bible - this page

Commentary: Paul vs. Jesus - http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html
Forum: Discussion about Paul vs. Jesus - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3dpforum.html

Commentary: Bloody Human Sacrifice Mythology of Christian Atonement - http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html
Forum: Discussion about Christian Atonement Doctrine - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3daforum.html

Forum on General Christianity or Combining various topics:
Forum: Discussion about Bible - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3dxforum.html

Return to main article (Bible Contradictions and Flaws) by Davis D. Danizier

Author Bio and Background and introductory overview of this series:
http://www.wordwiz72.com/danizier

Compiled Commentaries now available in Printed Booklet form:
All three of the commentaries by Davis D. Danizier have now been compiled into a single small 55-page booklet, along with introductory material and additional expanded material not included in the website versions.

This printed edition is a valuable resource for those who prefer to read a printed edition and maintain it for reference purposes, or to have as a handy guide when traveling or discussing issues with others. It is also in a convenient format for giving to others who may be of like mind, or who might be interested in considering a different view than what they have taken for granted for many years.

This printed edition of all three essays is available in booklet form (55 pages) for $9.25. (California residents please add 72 cents sales tax for total of $9.97) To order by telelphone call Word Wizards publications at: (760) 631-3696 To order by e-mail, send e-mail request to: Danizier Essays E-mail order MUST include all of the following information: Name (must exactly match name on credit card used) Address to which printed edition will be sent Credit card name (Bank Name and whether Visa or MasterCard) Credit card account number Credit card expiration date Telephone number to call if any questions about order Include in subject line of e-mail request: Order Danizier booklet [note, only Visa/MasterCard can be accepted, NO Discover or American Express at this time] Credit card will not be processed until order is sent.

We Accept Visa/MasterCard Orders

Invoiced through http://www.wordwiz72.com.

Go to Danizier bio and introductory page: http://www.wordwiz72.com/danizier

Return to Word Wizards home page

Return to Word Wizards free downloads for other articles that may be downloaded FREE!