Yeah, the Bible even admits that parts of it are difficult to understand (2 Pet 3:15-16), but just like with anything else, we’re admonished to work on the basics first. I mean, there are still lots of parts of it that are pretty clear, so the more complicated areas have to be defined based on the simpler parts we already understand. For instance, you don’t learn caluculus till you’ve mastered addition, subtraction, etc.

Unfortunately, a lot of people like to speculate about the more difficult areas without first mastering the basics. And whenever that happens, confusion and error are bound to occur. Honestly, I really think God wrote the Bible intending that we understand it. Sure, it takes a lot of study and careful consideration, but I think anyone can come to the truth when they honestly look for it. Actually, the Bible promises that in Matthew 7. But we’re also told that for those who aren’t interested in finding the truth, they’ll be able to pervert the Bible into what they want, and will even be able to convince themselves that they’re right (2 Thess 2).

Personally, I think that if someone sincerely studies and prays to find the truth, they’ll find it. And I think they’ll find that the Bible’s not really all that confusing after all, but fits into a cohesive whole.

This reminds me though of a point made by Marshall Bain (of whywontgodhealamputees.com fame). If the Bible is meant to be the divine word of God, why is it so confusing? Considering the importance of the message, there seems to be a lot of scope for misunderstanding. Metaphor is useful but personally I’d expect the direct approach to be more useful. i.e. “Don’t intentionally kill people unless you’re acting to prevent a human from unlawfully taking the life of another.”

Perhaps if there is a God, we need him to send us a newer testament. While this would clear things up a bit, I have a nasty feeling that he’s going to be using words like prolly, kk and lol. Argh.

This is a point I’ve never studied, but it wouldn’t surprise me if both names referred to the same individual. We see that in several other places in the Bible (as well as in our own experiences). For instance, Peter was also known as Cephas. Paul used to be Saul, Jacob was also Israel, Abraham used to be Abram. I don’t know if that’s the case here, but it’s certainly plausible.

Just because the passage in Matthew 27 isn’t recorded elsewhere, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Obviously, a lot of time has passed since then and there are many things that were written that we don’t have copies of today.

Finally, the passage you quote in Mark 24 is a difficult one, but it uses the same kind of apocalyptic language that was used in the minor prophets. Joel 2 is a good example. Many of the same things are talked about, but they are used as warnings to Judah to repent of their wickedness or they would be punished. Obviously, from history we know that these fantastic things have never occurred; they are only meant figuratively to show God’s impending judgment. Several other of the minor prophets use this kind of language as well for the same purpose. It’s supposed to be illustrative.

The lineage of Jesus seems to be an area where the Bible may be leading us astray.

Matthew 1:16 “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”

Luke 3:23
“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.”

One of these claims must be wrong since Jesus’ dad can’t have two dads.

Matthew 27:45-54 describes earthquakes and walking corpses being visible to many. It’s odd that this even wasn’t more widely recorded.

Mark 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:”.

It is not possible for the stars to fall from heaven. This is based on people thinking that the stars are tiny things floating in the sky above them. This contradicts the supposed scientific knowledge you claim the Bible to have. Also, they seem to believe that the moon generates it’s own light.

I disagree with your last paragraph. I don’t think the Bible would lead us astray in any area, not just theological issues. Now sure, there are times when it speaks metaphorically, and there may be things in it we don’t understand. But I still believe it all to be infallible truth, whether we completely understand it or not. God taught that he formed man and made him separate from the animals. Therefore, it is impossible for me to believe that we somehow came from apes. And the creation account of the Bible in no way matches what scientists theorize about the Universe’s formation. I think God created it exactly the way he told us.

I’m not trying to be offensive, but I think it’s very dangerous for us to compromise on some of the Bible’s teachings just to cater to modern day theories from men. We’ve got to be very careful of that. “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed…” – Romans 12:1-2. The wisdom of men is foolishness to God – 1 Cor 1

The discrepancies? “Infallible” to Christians doesn’t mean “absolutely, totally and scientifically accurate.” In traditional Christianity, infallible means that in theological issues the Bible does not lead us astray. In the theological message of all of the creation stories, there are two parts: One, God is the creator; two, God created out of love. It seems to me that one reason to include such diversity in creation stories is to indicate that, regardless one’s thoughts or accepted beliefs about the how of creation, God is behind it. If one accepts that teaching of scripture, one finds one more reason not to get worked up over discoveries of science, such as the age of the Earth and cosmos, or our ape ancestry.

In Genesis 2, we are told that God created the animals. We’re also told that God brought them before Adam to be named. We are not told that Adam was created first. Now, that’s something that we might assume, but seeing as how chapter 1 tells us that Adam was created after the animals, then we understand that God took the animals he had created and brought them before Adam after Adam was created. Pretty simple concept (Gen 2:18-20; 1:24-28). Either way though, it doesn’t really matter; there’s not much emphasis placed on it in the Bible, other than telling us those things happened on the 6th day.

I think Genesis 1 is supposed to be taken as an overview of creation. Gensis 2 goes back and gives the particulars about Adam’s creation and Eve’s creation. God creating 2 women for Adam would be a pretty significant part of the story, but that’s nowhere to be seen. Did God simply forget to include it? The simpler explanation for something is often the correct one. Inventing Lilith, while exciting, is much more cumbersome than the logical conclusion that Genesis 2 tells the same creation story but gives us a little more detail. The story of Lilith may be old, but there’s no point in holding onto nonsense just because it’s ancient nonsense.

Finally, I agree that an old universe doesn’t deny a creator. And I agree that God isn’t young – we’re told he’s eternal. But that doesn’t mean the universe has to be old. Personally, I don’t think it really matters how old the earth is, but I definitely believe in the Gensis account of creation. I think the 6 days of creation were 6 literal days. I think Adam and Eve were the first people on earth and it’s through their seed that we all got to be here. You think my fallacy is in blinding myself to physical evidence such as light-years and decaying atoms. I think your fallacy is in thinking God is limited by the very physics he created.

Don’t forget what 2 Thess 2:11-12 says:

And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

By the way, seeing as how you consider yourself to be a Christian, how do you account for the supposed “discrepancies” about creation? Is the Bible God’s inspired word, or is it fallible? And if it’s fallible, how do you know which parts are accurate?

Genesis 1 and 2 give a different order of creation — compare it yourself. In 1, Man is created last. In 2, Man is created before most or many other animals. The discrepancies between the order of creation have been topics of theological discussion for at least 3,000 years, giving rise to the story of Lilith, among other things (in Genesis 2 Adam is alone, and God must make a mate for him — well, what happened to the Woman who was created with Adam, at the same time he was created, in Genesis 1? In order to preserve the claim that the stories were literal, ancient commenters noted that Eve was Adam’s second mate, after Lilith, who was created in Genesis 1, was cast out of Eden.) I don’t mention Lilith to vouch for the veracity of the story, only to note that the discrepancies in the two creation stories were obvious thousands of years ago. It is a recent invention to claim Genesis 2 merely tells more detail, and its an invention that requires some severe bending of the actual texts of the two.

And old universe doesn’t deny a creator. I think it’s simple error to assume that God isn’t old (scripture says otherwise, for example). Creation itself shows age — the size of the universe, the ages of rocks (which are dated with God’s clocks, the most accurate clocks in the universe — decaying atoms). We must believe what it teaches, if we are to preserve the idea that God doesn’t lie. If we choose to believe in a young creation, it’s not God deceiving us. His creation shouts out the answers, some refuse to listen.

And as far as Genesis goes, where do chapters 1 and 2 contradict one another? It seems obvious to me that chapter 2 is merely a more detailed account of some of the things listed in chapter 1.

I agree that creation is another testament of God’s existence and power, as Romans 1 points out. I am amazed at the order to our universe and the myriad lifeforms that cover our planet. But I don’t think that any of that means our universe must be extremely old. God has given us ample evidence that a Creator exists, and he’s given us ample evidence that his word is complete and accurate and holds the secrets to our origin. So, I think we should believe what it teaches over what scientists propose. God has told us how creation occurred, and if we choose to believe something else, it’s not God deceiving us, we’re deceiving ourselves.