About

303 thoughts on “About”

1. I like the new profile pic, Hayden!

   LikeLike

2. I don;t like it cause the kids look cuter than me. Which translates as Thank you Nate:)

   LikeLike

3. You guys really need to pay closer attention. I did not say one issue “at a time”, I said one question, and you have chosen. Continuing that thought, God has set this creation up to reward those that diligently seek him. (Heb. 11:6) I’m sure you know that already, but might need reminding based on what I have seen so far. If you’re not willing to diligently seek, you will find lots of things you can “assume”.

   Now you guys love to throw all your college education at me, the big words, the liberal professors, as if I would understand half that stuff. Fair enough, but we have scholars, too. So you want to go deep? You finally asked one good question. You’re not going to like the answer though, because you already alluded to it, and for some reason do not believe it could be true? (Even though there are many logical reasons as to why it is absolutely true!)

   Now why is that, that you “assume” it cannot be true? Why is it that you WANT to believe the worse about the Bible? Why is it that you assume it so much that you would tell others that the Bible is full of contradictions, when you are only assuming that? Is that what you learn from liberal professors? Just wondering how you became that way? Also remember, it is the original manuscripts that are perfect, not any translation, that is why we study long and deep. I will give you a Bible error, at the end if you like, however, you have not found one here. Neither is the end of I Samuel and beginning of II Samuel. That one is so easy I can hardly believe it is even brought up. The only errors I have ever found are very minor, and easily overcome by anyone following the Holy Spirit within. Yes, Christianity is supernatural, and we have a Spirit that guides us! Wooooo! Sorry, I get carried away sometimes. People don’t want to believe it, but the Holy Spirit enables us to understand God’s word. (I Cor. 2:14)

   To properly answer your question, I need some space. I would not do this if you did not ask me to. I also realize you will not be easy to convince, probably impossible, so I have to give real details, so at “maybe” you might see a “logical” pattern to the answer. So here we go.

   Your answer starts clear back in Genisis 3:15. Realize that “woman” was the last to be created, and the first to fall to sin. Sin entered mankind first through the woman. Satan came to the woman, the weaker vessel. He did not come to Adam, Eve came to Adam and he also fell. So when God hands out the judgements on this, there is a beautiful logic to it. He takes them in order of offense. First, the snake. Second, the woman. Third, the man. Now since the woman was the doorway sin entered through, so shall the woman be a source of redemption as “Salvation” shall also come through her! God loves to take Satan’s evil and turn it to good!

   Adam is given no credit for anything having to do with the salvation that is to come. He will sweat and work until the day he die, but unto the woman it is said that Her “seed” shall crush the head of the snake. (This is very important.)

   I Timothy 2:15 confirms that women will be saved through childbearing. What? If a woman has no children she can’t be saved? That would be a good one for you guys to try, however, if you read the whole thing it is clear that God is speaking of “THE” child (Jesus) that shall be born through MARY. Now I have said all this so that you will see that it is the geneology of MARY that is so important in the birth of Christ! (And you know where I am going, but hear me out.)

   If you know Jewish customs, you would know that they were not aware of the “virgin” birth, and would have been checking Joseph’s geneology. So, of course, Joseph’s geneology “appears” to be important, however, it really had nothing to do with the flesh and blood body of Christ. (Agreed?) Also, you would know that if the Pharisees and Saducees, (however you spell those words), could have disqualified Christ by his geneology, THEY WOULD HAVE!

   It is plain they couild not, not even by the geneology in Luke, that seems completely different from Matthew. Yes, completely different. That, alone, should be a major clue! Not even a man writing a fake book would make a mistake like that. The Jews were experts in geneolgy, yet found no ground to stand on! You also need to understand that the word “begat” does not always mean “birthed from”, it also can simply mean “direct descendant”, which is done many times in the Bible. People are skipped, for whatever reason, in several biblical geneologies. In Matthew’s case, God was fitting the relating the birth of Christ to the three major time periods of the Jewish people. Matthew specifically says these are 14 generations, meaning, fitted into 14 generations, of which David’s generation was a part of two time periods.

   I’m not going to spend any more time on Matthews account, because it is of Joseph, which satisfies the “step-father’s” linage, but MARY is the important one here, which if you recall, was kept rather SECRET!

   Even the words in Luke’s account should have alerted you that there was more here than meets the eye. The very way it starts out! “being AS IT WAS SUPPOSED?” Yes, SUPPOSED, but not true! Jesus was not the son of Joseph! And when you see a complete contradiction as to who the father of Joseph was? You ASSUME the Bible is contradicting itself? You only reveal your bias.

   The father of MARY would have been the first flesh and blood “male” that Jesus was actually related to by birth. That was Jesus grandfather. Luke most likely got the geneology direct from MARY. Her geneology is the most important, also fulfilling the scritpure that woman would be saved in childbearing, in fact, her childbearing is here to save us all! Jesus was the son (grandson) of Heli.

   Now for some reason you guys ASSUME none of this is true, even though it fits perfectly the context of all scripture, from Genisis to Revelation. It also fits Jewish customs perfectly. There is even more that could be said, but look how long this is already.

   If you want a true error, try Matt. 17:21. For some reason, some translators thought that prayer and fasting should go together, so they added that. Now fasting does increase the power of prayer, but it is not in the original manuscripts in that way. Most modern translations have corrected that error. here again, nothing that a little diligent study , with the help of the Holy Spirit, would have any problem overcoming.

   I have gone to a lot of trouble to answer this, I hope that proves my sincerity. I would not have done this had I not thought it to be worth my time. You wanted to know how I have tested scripture for 50 years? To give you one example, I asked you to read my latest article : “Spending Problem?”, and give me some feedback. Human Nature never fails to prove God’s word, of which you guys have proven again.

   LikeLike

4. Why is it that you assume it so much that you would tell others that the Bible is full of contradictions, when you are only assuming that?

   That’s not an assumption — it’s a conclusion based on a lot of research. If I’m wrong, I’d like for someone to point it out to me, and I’ve made it easy by linking to all the articles in my About section.

   That said, I appreciate you taking the time to answer William’s question.

   Now for some reason you guys ASSUME none of this is true, even though it fits perfectly the context of all scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. It also fits Jewish customs perfectly.

   I’m not so sure about that. As I mentioned in my article, we have writings of early Christians that were bothered by this discrepancy between Matthew and Luke. And Luke does more than just say there’s a relationship between Joseph and Heli, he says it like this:

   Joseph, the son of Heli

   And really, if this scenario answers the problem so well, why didn’t the gospel writers just spell that out in the first place? Why even give the appearance of a contradiction?

   You also referred to Matthew’s 14-14-14 division in Jesus’ genealogy, which we know is false when we compare it to Chronicles. In some ways, that problem bothers me more, because Matthew uses it as evidence to show that Jesus’ coming fits some divine pattern, when the pattern didn’t really exist at all — it was just an invention of Matthew’s.

   I do agree somewhat with your conclusion though — there are bigger and clearer discrepancies than this one. I think the conflicting accounts of when Jesus died is a better example. But the bottom line is this: there are many of these that we could point to, because the Bible is filled with them. And while it might be convenient to say that inerrancy only applies to the original autographs, that’s still problematic, because why would God go to the trouble of inspiring his word if he wasn’t going to bother keeping it accurate?

   To give you one example, I asked you to read my latest article : “Spending Problem?”, and give me some feedback. Human Nature never fails to prove God’s word, of which you guys have proven again.

   Sorry I haven’t been able to read your article yet. I will. I didn’t really understand your last sentence though…

   LikeLike

5. As I have said, you have your experts, and I have mine. This gets us nowhere. That is why I said I would do, ONE, just to prove the point. I gave you plenty of sound evidence, but we all get to choose the verdict. You have made yours plain. Now we go our separate paths.

   LikeLike

6. Sounds good. Thanks again for chiming in.

   I meant to add one other thing (not trying to stir this back up — just wanted to finish my thought). The two differing accounts in Matthew and Luke are precisely what we’d expect to find from two different authors, unaware of one another, who were trying to provide Jesus’ lineage independently. But when we try to say that both were equally inspired by the same Holy Spirit, we have to resort to all kinds of theological artistry. And yes, people can make up their own minds on which makes more sense.

   Thanks again for taking the time — I really do appreciate it and your sincerity. Take care.

   LikeLike

7. I just had to briefly jump in here. Cowboy writes: “Also remember, it is the original manuscripts that are perfect, not any translation, that is why we study long and deep.”

   I can’t count the many times I’ve heard this same (or similar) statement made by apologists and theologians. The usual comment goes like this: “The original statements were perfect and without error but through copy errors and translation this perfection has been lost.” Since there are no original manuscripts in existence, a statement like this is speculative at best..

   To me, this is just one more example of the way Christians continue to parrot what they have heard from the pulpit instead of doing the research to learn if what they have been told is truth.

   LikeLike

8. I guess I should have said original “language”. Translations must be made from the original language which we do have. Also, as said before, the errors are so small, that only someone not wanting to believe would even have any trouble seeing it. As with the supposed contradictions of the geneologies, that is a perfect example that it is not even a contradiction at all. Jewish scholars were unable to refute the bloodline of Christ. That alone should tell you something. But go ahead, have a hayday tearing apart something that cannot be proven one way or another. There are plenty who will “assume” that your biased assumptions are right. Assumptions can be dangerous ground to stand on. The evidence I see compels me to “believe” that God is right. I will assume he is right. Your faith assumes he is wrong. This is the biggest decision we will ever make in this life. I will consider the words that shall follow as you all having the last word. Have at it. If you want to hear more from me, you can read my stuff, which I already asked you to do on just one article. Very revealing about human nature. Perhaps I’m asking too much?

   LikeLike

9. cowboy, you crack me up. First you say the we “assume” but you’re the one making assumptions. Both Mathew and Luke say “through Joseph” and neither say anything about any part of it coming through Mary. To say that “the writer meant through Mary” is the assumption. I didn’t need liberal college professors to help point that out.

   Oh, and Mathew and Luke have three of the same names in them… how can that be?

   Then in your last response you go on to talk about how much evidence you have that those who don’t buy into are just intentionally rejecting truth – then you go on to say that there isn’t proof for either side… You know… I give up. If someone can just make up any imaginary fix to a problem they dont like, then there’s no point to the discussion. There is clearly a problem with the genealogies, and i suggest that any contradiction can be excused in the way you are excusing this.

   “they meant Mary, when they actually said Joseph.” “the first century jews didnt have a problem with it.” this is false since the first century jews and Christians both wrote about it, but even if not, let’s validate your claim by asking a first century jew… oh yeah, they’re all dead and cant be asked. and my favorite, “it’s too big of a contradiction to be a real contradiction…” that one speaks for itself.

   I mean, a true conservative would at least take the bible at it’s own word. maybe that spirit helps you see what god should have written instead of what ended up being written. It would be nice if he’d help the rest of out, since he’s not a respecter of persons and all.

   LikeLike

10. What I gave you came from Bible scholars. Go ahead, have a good laugh if that is how you see it. Your faith strikes me pretty funny, too. So looks like were all having a good laugh. Time to move on.

    LikeLike

11. Hayden,

    “I thought the idea that energey always exists contradicted this and that this was a working theory. Meaning that when we die we are still energy. For you that means you are dispersed into the univers but still energy for me it is I go to heaven, still energy. Wouldn;t this support that “nothing” cannot exist?”

    If energy always existed, then what does one need god for? Take for example the Big Bang. What was before the big bang? Nothing? Something? While Christian theology seems to believe nothing existed, which is what creatio ex nihilo suggests–creation out of nothing. And we know that something cannot come from nothing. So, how did it happen? A miracle of god is what theists claim. But if that nothing was not nothing, but something then the creation of the universe makes perfect sense, in physical terms, as the activity in empty space indicates. Here again, though, before the universe existed matter did not exist. So, could matter have created itself? Unlikely, but, before the universe existed what existed? Can nothing exist? Must have been nothing, right? If not anything did not exist, then the idea of God as a first cause is illogical and unnecessary. If the pre-existent universe was something then the big bang makes perfect sense in terms of the way in which natural phenomena operate. Something can come from something and does all the time. On the other hand, if it was nothing then the first cause idea seems to be much stronger. However, the idea of nothing existing must be granted because there was a period in which not anything existed and who is to say it couldn’t again or doesn’t in some area of life and death. Parminides said that nothing does not exist, but what was the pre-existent universe if not nothing?

    Let me try this:

    If I say that non-being or nothing cannot exist then the converse, that being or something must always be, must be true. However, a number of philosophers from Leibniz to Schelling to Heidegger were not sold on this idea of being–the idea that being was absolutely necessary did not seem obvious to them. So, if being is not absolutely necessary, then I don’t think it is at all unreasonable to say that nothing might exist in one sense.

    Regards

    LikeLike

12. cowboy, yeah, i agree. I’ll just add that maybe you should try putting more effort in your own understanding than you put faith in scholars. And why would you be so quick to criticize people for listening to college professors when you place so much stock in scholars yourself?

    LikeLike

13. …and which part of my “faith” do you find funny? I’d like to be honest and accurate, so if you see any holes in my position, i’d like to know what they are so i can correct them.

    LikeLike

14. Not criticizing professors except that you have your faith and I have mine. You have your teachers and I have mine. Each of us have proven nothing, and we end up back at faith. We are the same.

    LikeLike

15. Lets see, which is the most funny to me? The incredible complexity and fragile balance of life, and yet it was produced by a big bang sparked by nothing out of nothing, and then slowly evolved out of goo, but evolved fast enough to have babies and reproduce before it died off. Lets see, there is no possibiltiy that Luke’s geneology is of Mary, its just that the stupid writer didn’t check his facts, although he matched up with matthew on his other stories, he just got careless when it came to the geneologies, it could not be possible that it is intentional and holds a mystery you have not yet unlocked. Lets see, evolution is a theory but we speak of it as facts. Lets see, The end of I Samuel and beginning of II Samuel contradict, and it must be a contradiction because it is not possible that the second man was spinning a story in hopes of winning favor with David. lets see, a fetus is not a real person yet, although I thought the DNA sets who we are, the gene code that would be established in very early stages. Lets see, no one should judge each other, and yet man does not need a higher standard to create the laws for all men to be judged by. But I say who are you to tell me what I can or cannot do? Lets see, Matthews geneology plainly shows that the last generation of the Captivity is counted twice (in verses 11-12), but that could not possibly be the extra number for the 14 count we need. And last, but not least, as I have only named a few things off the top of my head, but perhaps the most funny of all is how after all our great SPECULATIONS, it still comes down to FAITH. LOL! Yes, FAITH! That silly concept that scripture is filled with! All things were created by words spoken in faith! And we still can’t get away from that! We are still stuck at WORDS and FAITH! How cool is that. This is too much fun. Don’t know if this answers your question, but it should at least give you some idea. Life is easy to create, it happens all the time. Lets go create some, and check back in a day of two.

    LikeLike

16. Hey Nate! Nan invited me over here to look at the comment thread based on a post I just put up about the Genealogy of Jesus. You mention that Matthew’s 14-14-14 schema is contradicted in Chronicles. Could you be more specific? I thought I did a good job of researching this thing and I read nothing about that particular bit. Of course, everything I read was “pro” in trying to explain away the differences…maybe that was my error. I, coming from the skeptic side, was so concerned to not bias myself with “con” arguments that I think I might have failed to consider an important con argument.

    Nan seems to make a good point. Yhwh is all powerful, all knowing, all etc, he can give his perfect revelation to the original writers…but he can’t inspire the translators to make an error free translation? I’m an American living in Europe and I can attest first hand to the difficulties of translation–even from one modern language to another. I would think that translating from a language of long ago to a modern language ERROR FREE would be the ultimate proof of god, b/c it cannot be done by humans (I am learning).

    Cowboy: I am only just learning of you from this comment thread…but I must say, for one engaged in the Theism/Atheism debate, you seem to have failed to define your terms. An atheist is one who does not believe in god or gods. Atheism is not a belief as Bald is not a hair color, as not collecting stamps is a hobby. True, an atheist can have a confirmation bias against the bible and not be intellectually honest enough to accept good evidence for the bible’s reliability. The quality of their arguments can revel that. However, even Saint Augustine (living like 400CE) had difficulties with the unmatching genealogies, and even he only gave a possible answer–for nearly 2000yrs this has been a question without EVIDENTIAL conclusion. Sure, there are ideas of how to reconcile the two lists, but there is no actual evidence to support it. If there was, there would be only one answer. But there isn’t.

    LikeLike

17. cowboy, not to be rude, but you’re an idiot. How else can someone prove a contradiction but by comparing two things that claim to be the same, but clearly are not? The only failure here, is in proving that they are not what they seem – a contradiction.

    And your latest post…. You seem to be assuming an awful lot about me, or you’re just rambling – i couldn’t tell. But I will say that the discrepancy in Luke and Mathew’s genealogy of christ through Joseph is not the only difference between the two accounts. maybe instead of rustling cows for christ, you should read his book, or the book that people said was about him.

    You could just give a good explanation for the differences instead saying that “if Luke meant joseph (which is what he said), it would be a contradiction, and since we know god is perfect and the bible is his book, then luke must have meant mary. Oh my, look how perfect the bible is…” after we juggle things around and make it say what it doesnt say and excuse logical problems that you would use to invalidate other religions.

    and what’s your point about faith? that since that’s all you have despite the evidence, and since that’s the case any faith should do? or is it that neither of have faith in god, since god hasnt told either of us anything or shown himself to either of us, but that our faith is in what men has told us and shown us, well, and I, at least, try to base mine in logic to some degree.

    But, yeah, the guys who wrote your flawed bible must be telling the truth and must be 100% accurate – does that really make the most sense? I mean, if you want to believe that, then cool, but is it really absurd that people are skeptical of those claims? be honest now.

    LikeLike

18. Hi eSell, thanks for stopping by!

    There are at least 5 names in 1 Chron 1-3 that Matthew leaves out of his list: Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jehoiakim, and Pedaiah. I’ve listed Amaziah, but it could be Ahaziah that’s left out. It’s hard to say because Matthew uses the name Uzziah… not sure which one he was referring to. The other main difference b/t Chronicles and Matthew and Luke is that the 1 Chron list goes on beyond Zerubbabel, but none of the remaining names match either Matthew OR Luke.

    And I completely agree with you about the translation thing. It makes no sense to me that God would have a vitally important message that means the difference b/t Heaven and Hell, that he would inspire all these different people to write out this message, but then completely abandon it when it came time to translate it and even decide which writings were legit.

    Thanks again for the comment, and I’ll be sure to check out your blog as well!

    LikeLike

19. We all seem to be stuck with words and faith. I can’t see that we’re any different in that regard. But I think I’ve said enough, and ready to bow out.

    LikeLike

20. People are always skeptical of what can’t be proven, and so, we each must decide for ourself. What do you think happens to you after you die? Are you completely mortal, or do you have an eternal part? What do you believe?

    LikeLike

21. Cowboy, there are things I’d like to believe. I’d actually like to believe there is a god who knew me intimately, loved me, and had prepared a place for me and my loved ones to live eternally after these bodies die – but i just don’t buy it. Despite what I want to be true, i just see it as wishful longing. I’m not sure what will happen after we die, but i suspect it will be a lot like it was before we were born.

    And I think people tend to act as if there are only two choices; either what the bible says, or evolution. This is a misconception. There are many choices besides those two, including “i just dont know.” Sort of like, “I may not know what it is, but i know what it isnt.”

    happy wranglin’ cowboy,

    William

    LikeLike

22. I love your answer. Simple honesty. This is where we find ourselves. As for me, I’ve decided to dabble in poetry again, and so my first return to poetry is in honor of the discussion we have had. If you like to see it, it is my top article right now. Happy trails!

    LikeLike

23. Wow, Nate. I want to start reading posts, but I got totally engrossed by this comment section. I will throw one thing out there for Ss and Gs: I actually don’t believe the pope is a good moral teacher. He may teach some good things, but anyone can do that. I do think he is leading people astray by teaching that he has something special that others don’t. Just wanted to point out that I do think that disqualifies him as good.

    LikeLike

24. Nate, although I am not an atheist, I am no longer a traditional Christian either. I have learned to accept doubt and be more inclusive as well. However, I live with my wife who continues to have her original Christian faith in spite of our disillusionment with the church. We haven’t attended church in two years, but now she is voicing that she wants to go back. We even recently started attending a marriage seminar at a local church and brought back memories about what I used to believe. It really makes me feel stagnated and uncomfortable just thinking about going back to that religious lifestyle. I have not shared with her about my spiritual journey, but I may have to eventually. I just hope I can continue to be supportive to her even though we may not agree on everything.

    LikeLike

25. Hi Noel,

    Thanks for the comment. I’m sorry to hear about the turmoil you’re having, and I definitely suggest talking to your wife about it. Those kinds of conversations are not easy, but it’s been my experience that limiting communication with your spouse is never a good thing. Hopefully, she’ll be able to see the honesty and sincerity of your convictions, which should help her sympathize with your outlook, even if she doesn’t share it. I’ve always appreciated the comments that you’ve left here and at other blogs that I’ve seen you on — it’s obvious that you’re searching for truth and trying to do the right thing. I’m sure it will be obvious to her as well.

    LikeLike