Sure. I mean, if that's the way you want to see it, I don't know that's it's worthwhile for me to continue. I think if someone wants to make the point that the Bible is full of contradictions, then the burden of proof is on that person to prove where those contradictions lie. I'm not out to convince you that it's true, just that no one should definitively say it's full of errors based on evidence like that. He can say, I choose to read these verses as contradictory instead of complementary...recognizing he has a bias against the Bible and that is coloring his lens...and I can say that I choose to read them as complementary rather than as contradictions, recognizing I am a "Bible-believer"... It may frustrate you that Bible-believing Christians have a convenient answer for every "error" :)...but we do have an answer. So....then it's up to you to take your pick. Either believe the Bible, or don't. :) If you have any specific questions about anything else from the article, please feel free to ask. I do love discussing the Bible...and I know I'm not the only one on the Hive. :)

Okay...Noah. The Bible (Old Testament especially) often repeats itself. Whether that's for clarity, emphasis, etc. I don't know. Probably it depends on the passage... God telling Noah to do something in chapter 6 and Noah doing it...and then repeating a part of that 'doing it' later on with more details...that's pretty typical of the storytelling style in the OT. So there's no contradiction there. And the second account adds the fact that the "clean" animals were to be taken into the ark by sevens. This isn't a contradiction. It's a storytelling style. Same thing with the getting-onto-the-ark repeats... And Noah & his family are on the ark longer than the rain rains bc they wait for the flood to go down before they get off. :) Any manuscripts that mention Elhanan killing Goliath (can't speak for which translations are among the 'many' the author cites) are a scribal 'typo.' That should be obvious since II Chronicles (a parallel account) tells us that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother. This is a great example of the type of variations between manuscripts. The vast majority are obvious scribal errors on really minor points (not major doctrines) that are easily resolved. Isaiah 51 (Rahab & the dragon and all) is very figurative. Very. On a cursory reading (haven't studied this passage recently :)) I would say the dragon is referring to Satan...not sure about Rahab. Doubt that's a name given to the dragon...but I could be wrong. "God plays with a sea monster Leviathan" is just such an irreverent and unscholarly statement, I hate to even answer it...but Leviathan is probably something like plesiosaur. If you read the actual description in Job, it fits very nicely with a huge water-based dinosaur. Same thing with 'behemoth' also mentioned in Job. And the KJV has some weird translations of Hebrew animal words. If they didn't know what animal it was, they just guessed, I guess. :) But the Hebrew manuscripts are still there for us to look at. No, the Bible does not support the idea of unicorns, etc. I don't know any Christian who believes that. :) Well, that's all I have time for tonight... Goodnight, Hive! :)

As to Creation, in Genesis 2, God makes a mist to keep the ground moist, bc there wasn't any rain as yet. That's not a contradiction to Him separating the "waters from the waters" and creating earth "in between"...and creating the seas in chapter 1. In Genesis 2, God plants a garden (the Garden of Eden) as a special place for Adam & Eve. That's not a contradiction to vegetation being created before sun/moon/stars in chapter 1. There is no contradiction between animals & plants being created before man in Genesis 2 and man being created after plants & animals in Genesis 1. This is just poor, poor writing. :( There is no contradiction between God creating Adam & Eve in Genesis 1, and the more detailed account of how He did it in chapter 2. That's just the Creation account. I can continue, but I'd better help dh with the laundry for now. :)

But you recognize that the confusion comes from not having read the actual text... A lot of people believe wrong things about the Bible (the wise men at the Nativity scene is one example) because they haven't actually read the Bible. I remember the first time I read the book of Exodus for myself and I realized some of the details I must have gotten from watching The Ten Commandments weren't there. :) I had this idea that Moses and Ramses were rivals...and that Moses' mother sent the basket floating down the river (instead of setting it in the bulrushes). :) But (to get back to the Nativity) that's different than saying that the stories contradict one another. When he says there's 'no manger' 'no frankincense, myrrh, and gold' etc., and those details actually are in the text... I just don't get it. (I mean, I do. Some people just are out to rip the Bible to shreds.) Some of the things he says about mistranslations are true. I'm not one to say the KJV is a perfect translation. :) Some of the things he says are just not true. The Trinity, for instance, is not stated explicitly in any single verse in the Bible. But that's not some big dark secret Christians are hiding from the rest of the world. :) We get the doctrine of the Trinity from the entire Bible taken as a whole. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each said to have created the world. Also, they are all involved in raising Jesus from the dead. And the deity of Christ likewise does not depend upon any single verse or passage. It is throughout the Bible, in both English and Greek. :) Yes, there were scribal errors and yes there are fragmented portions of Greek manuscripts that span a large period of time...but the differences between manuscripts constitute a tiny portion the whole, and the differences are minor - mostly obvious - not major doctrinal contradictions. Sorry if that was more info than you wanted. :) Anyway, I hope the article makes more people curious to actually read the Bible for themselves! :)

Interesting. I will have to do some reading about this...the idea of a manger in the living room? Even if, I don't see a contradiction between Matthew & Luke's gospel accounts. But I suppose this would make the 'house' theory possible. And the first article does imply that Jesus being born in a house negates the idea of a manger. Thanks for the food-for-thought. :)

Yes. This. Because that verse is from Matthew. And in the same passage, when Herod sets out to have Jesus killed via the deaths of all Bethlehem babies in the same age bracket, he orders all infants 2 years & younger to be killed. So there's plenty of time here for Joseph & Mary to have moved to a house. Doubt they spent very long in that stable. :)

Luke 2 says (three times) that Jesus was laid in a manger. While there is some question about the Greek word for "inn" (could mean guesthouse), there is no debate (that I know of) for the word "manger." And the Bible says that Mary laid Jesus in the manger "because there was no room for them in the inn." So whatever the inn/guesthouse was, that was not where Jesus was born. He was born in a place where the manger was readily accessible, hence the stable/Nativity scenes. I totally agree that a lot of traditional conceptions of the Nativity are unbiblical. But, once again, this guy's issue is not with "traditional" Christmas stories...he's out to demonstrate how the entire Bible is a farce because of supposed "obvious" contradictions like this one. And I just don't see where he's getting it from. :)

This. I was trying to figure out how to say that. Thanks. :) I would disagree that the article has a lot of facts...but I appreciate that you recognize the bias here. I agree that there are brands of Christianity that are anti-intellectual...we might disagree about which brands. :)

Okay, on second thought, I won't spend my evening debunking something that is no-contest. :) But if anyone has questions, I'm sure there are plenty of us here more than willing to try & answer.

I just lost the whole next post I was typing. :( I can work on it again after I put my kids down... Forty-two, this author has serious beef with the Bible - from cover to cover, not just the Christmas story. Anyhow...I'll try again later. :)

There are so many misstatements in this article it's going to be hard to get through. :( I'm halfway, and I've just got to stop to highlight this: Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem. His father, Joseph, had been planning to divorce Mary until he dreamed that she’d conceived a child through the Holy Spirit. No wise men showed up for the birth, and no brilliant star shone overhead. Joseph and his family then fled to Egypt, where they remained for years. Later, they returned to Israel, hoping to live in Judea, but that proved problematic, so they settled in a small town called Nazareth. Not the version you are familiar with? No angel appearing to Mary? Not born in a manger? No one saying there was no room at the inn? No gold, frankincense or myrrh? Fleeing to Egypt? First living in Nazareth when Jesus was a child, not before he was born? You may not recognize this version, but it is a story of Jesus’s birth found in the Gospels. Two Gospels—Matthew and Luke—tell the story of when Jesus was born, but in quite different ways. Contradictions abound. In creating the familiar Christmas tale, Christians took a little bit of one story, mixed it with a little bit of the other and ignored all of the contradictions in the two. The version recounted above does the same; it uses parts of those stories from the two Gospels that are usually ignored. So there are two blended versions and two Gospel versions. Take your pick. So...where in the Bible does it say Jesus was born in a house? I can't see where the author is finding his information...but it's certainly not from the Bible. The book of Luke tells the story of Jesus' birth in the stable in Bethlehem, of the 'no room in the inn', of Joseph & Mary living in Nazareth before His birth, etc. Matthew tells the details of the wise men visiting (possibly some years after Jesus was born b/c Herod orders his soldiers to kill all babies 2 years & younger), of Joseph & Mary fleeing to Egypt & eventually returning to Nazareth, etc. How are these details so obviously contradictory? What are "all the contradictions" I'm ignoring? I just find it so irritating that the author is lumping all "Christians" together, misconstruing what "we" believe and distorting what the Bible says, while trying to make the point that "we" do the same?!?! Okay. I'm calm. :)

So...dd is 'graduating' from kindergarten this year... She's disappointed at not having an official 'graduation ceremony' and all that...so I'm putting a list together of things we can do to make the end of school special for her. I've got the 'print-a-certificate' and 'go-out-for-ice-cream' and all that... I'm really wondering if anyone has any ideas for something I could have her actually perform (music, poetry, recitations, etc.). When ds6 graduated from K, he sang a bunch of songs with his class, read from the Bible, and they did a little play. We'll most likely be doing this at home for a small group of friends & family. Right now I'm thinking... Read from the Bible Sing a song? Play something on the piano Quote a poem? Curious what y'all are doing or have done with your K'er. :)

Merry Christmas, Hive! :)

My thoughts exactly.

Me, too. :) I am so not a fan of Hollywood... But I'm a bigger not-a-fan of North Korea. :)

So...now Sony is showing the movie... And NK has been experiencing internet blackout...

Thank you for answering. I think we agree. Only I have never considered an actual physical 'circumcision of the flesh.' I think I have always believed this to be more figurative. I see the flesh as a 'pull' towards sinful actions...the part of us that wants to rebel against God. Acc to Romans 6-8, the flesh and the spirit constantly war against each other...the one pulling me towards sin, and the other pulling me towards God. So, the Christian life is a continual choosing (a 'walk') of following one or the other of those 'pulls'.

My OBGYN told me it has to do with organs cutting off the umbilical cord - hence baby's blood supply. I was really scared about sleeping on back after this...but my mom was shocked (she's had 5) when she heard. Said doctors never told her anything about that. So...I do sleep on my back. And I've had four healthy babies. :)

I know you're not looking for cookies...but my kids have to make peanut butter blossoms every year (peanut butter cookie with a Hersheys kiss in the middle). That's the only real constant in this house. :)

This is very interesting. :) How do you see the difference between spirit & soul? Also curious how you figure in the idea of a glorified body after the resurrection? Is that something separate from the soul? (I believe the soul leaves the body in a sort of 'bodily form' at death...and then will be reunited with the body at the resurrection. Then God will glorify the bodies of those He has redeemed...)

Just a thought to stir the pot... :) The Hebrew & Greek words behind soul (in Koine Greek it's psyche) can mean many different things. Life, breath, wind, spirit, soul, etc. So (I believe) sometimes the Bible uses the word "soul" and it's referring to that immortal part of us that relates to the world around us... and sometimes it really is just talking about someone's physical life on this earth. The context is usually crystal clear about which definition to use. But this is where some tend to take verses out of context and misconstrue what's being said. I'd have to think to come up with an example...

We like this: http://www.southernplate.com/2011/01/slow-cooker-fiesta-chicken-rice.html Chicken breast cream of chicken soup corn black beans salsa taco seasoning rice cheese (opt.) It's simple - just dump & cook. I keep the ingredients on hand for a quick go-to crockpot meal.

Thanks, all! :) I'm not planning on starting this until after New Years (I'm not that crazy :) - and I don't have that kind of willpower). But I have a ton of ideas to go off of now. Breakfast is huge. I'll work towards sticking with eggs & oatmeal... And I like the idea of talking myself out of sweets until evenings. There's less chance of me binging on sugar after dh's home from work. ;)

Well... The person with a dead spirit can't relate to God at all. Yes, kind of like an on/off switch. No middle place mentioned in the Bible. Just that we are dead. And then God makes us alive. No, we don't have 'life' to catch God's attention... We exercise faith in Christ's substitutionary (for-me) death on the cross - and God regenerates (makes alive) our spirits. From that moment, I have been "born again", am a child of God/have a relationship with Him.