Pericles ...you have become tediously boring with your waffle!

The reason is to alert Christians that their preachers are not telling them the truth and to question their churches. Is questioning false teachings wrong? Is teaching falsehoods unChristian?

I am quite happy for them to have faith but they should also be told honest things not falsified ones! Jesus admonished the Pharisees for wrong teachings! Mark 8:15

They do want honesty don't they?

Now enough!

Daviy - I agree entirely.

The reason I use biblical quotes to debate is so that Christians can read those verses and see how the notion that the bible is "God's Word" is a false teaching! If religions fib about this what else do they fib about?

Anyone with a reasonable mind would see quite simply Jesus' empowering of Moses laws in Matthew 5:17-20 and then reading some of Moses ugly laws proves it is very fallible and in error! Either that or Jesus is not what the Churches sell! Is it wrong for churches to tell fibs or even half-truths about God?

Once they realise that their Bible contains errors they can get back to developing their faith & spirituality rather than religion. The problem is they just can't let go of these old books.

They must be true they are old...lol

They don't seem to evaluate what they are taught and they don't seem to understand that dishonesty from preachers would be sinful in the eyes of their Lord and leaves Christians ill-informed. Jesus allegedly said Beware false prophets...wolves in sheeps clothing. Matthew 7:15.

Are these preachers the false prophets Jesus warned us all about?

So your final question

"To all you Christians out there. Make your choice. Is the Bible true or false?"

is a very significant one and one that cannot be ignored.

I am staggered that we never hear from all those Bible toting preachers out there. Surely they should be correcting us if we are wrong as part of their ministry!

OR could we be right?

"But it does beg the question - Why don't the churches tell their people that the calendar is out? The dates allegedly have a lot to do with alleged prophecy." -OP2

Because Jesus' place in history may have more to do with the coming the Jewish fourth millenium, in relation to the Jewish messiah and the Jewish End Time, than Christianity. Also, Churches deem themselves the custodians od Knowledge (and Lies). I can recall a slide show on the true Shrourd of Turin. Afetr forensic science showed in to be a fake, the Catholic Church said it made no claims to its authenticity and held it a fake since the Middle Ages. Incistency - that is the Church for you.

If Jesus was born under Herold the Great, one needs to note that Herold was dead in 1 CE. According to Thiering his physical birth was 7 BCE and his spiritual birth (Bar Mitzvah) was 6 CE.

You still haven't given an answer, OP2.

Let's all agree that there are inconsistencies in the Bible.

Why is it so important to you, that you rub every Christian's nose in the minutiae of the Bible, like some over-zealous puppy-owner undertaking house-training?

>>The reason is to alert Christians that their preachers are not telling them the truth and to question their churches.<<

That's not a reason. Priests are not historians, OP2.

They tell stories. Draw lessons. Provide guidance.

They have - and their congregation has - little interest in the precise dates of this event, or the exact translation of that passage.

>>I am quite happy for them to have faith but they should also be told honest things not falsified ones!<<

I'm sure that they are eternally grateful that you permit them to have their faith. But I suggest that the idea of rewriting the Bible so that it only contains the parts that you are happy with, may not go down so well.

>>So your final question "To all you Christians out there. Make your choice. Is the Bible true or false?" is a very significant one and one that cannot be ignored.<<

On the contrary, it should be totally ignored. "TRUTH!", as you so succinctly described it in an earlier post, can exist in the whole, for those who believe, without checking off every last detail. They are, after all, histories written by men.

Presenting yourself as the self-proclaimed arbiter of what is right and what is wrong is simply the height of arrogance.

Heck, I'm not even religious, and I find your whining questions offensive, and your tone of voice insufferable.

Pericles Go away!

<<Presenting yourself as the self-proclaimed arbiter of what is right and what is wrong is simply the height of arrogance.>>

You are correct, look in the mirror, and stop!

<<You find my tone of voice insufferable>> OMG Pericles you need a psychiatrist you are hearing things...lol

Why don't you go and make up a few more statistics...lol

Daviy

That was most interesting about the correct translation of the Greek.

Not only are there problems with his birthdate there are problems with his death.

Already we have seen that the calendar is wrong. As 6BC was the most likely birth date of Jesus then the length of Jesus' ministry may also be affected. Based on biblical accounts we know that the crucifixion was on the 14th day in the Jewish month of Nisan. Whilst many Christians believe that Jesus was crucified on a Friday there is some debate that suggests he may have been crucified on a Wednesday, Thursday or a Friday. Some scholars believe it is more likely that he died on a Wednesday and rose in the evening of the following Saturday. The only years that the 14th fell on a Friday in Nisan during the time of Jesus were the years 27AD, 33AD and 36AD (Note : These years are from our modern calender not the correct calendar that indicates Jesus was born in 6BC). Some scholars have said it is possible for the 14th of Nisan to also have fallen in the year 30AD depending on the date of the new moon but this cannot be proved one way or the other.

Pontius Pilot was appointed Governer of Judea in 26AD and committed suicide in 36 AD so this doesn't help in our search for the real date. All three years 27AD, 33AD, and 36AD are still possible and so we just don't know in which year Jesus died or how old he was at the time of his death. Add to this the error in the calendar and the calculations as to the year of his death are further complicated

Is it my imagination, OP2, or are you becoming a little more aware of the proper tone of voice to use in discussions like these?

Could it be that my constant nagging is having an effect?

Compare and contrast your perfectly reasonable and rational contribution here:

>>That was most interesting about the correct translation of the Greek...<< et seq.

...and your previous posturing:

>>The reason I use biblical quotes to debate is so that Christians can read those verses and see how the notion that the bible is "God's Word" is a false teaching! If religions fib about this what else do they fib about?<<

There is a significant difference between a sober analysis of available historical information, and your personal determination that because there are challengeable and/or controversial verses, the entire religion should be thrown out of the window.

The writers of the Bible did not have your access to Google, OP2. They did not have the same tools with which to check dates and times. Nor did they have recording devices, or reporters' notebooks with ballpoint pens attached.

It is one thing to discuss the various possibilities that a historical analysis of the Bible present. It is entirely another to start with the premise - as you did - that because there are disputable facts in the Bible, Christianity is a crock.

>>Infallibility, inerrancy and God's word are often used to describe the Bible. Christians, generally believe at least one of these things, many believing all 3. So if Jesus' own words contain errors, then aren't all 3 wrong?<<

If you are going to turn over a new leaf as indicated in your last exchange with Daviy, you won't have any argument with me. But while you continue to insult Christianity with your string of non sequiturs, I'll continue to contribute my observations.

The Bible was not 'written.' It was compiled. The OT compiled from a compromised selection of old documents. The NT is largely a selection of letters from Paul to various sources without the answers to those letters being included.

Imagine selectively taking the posts from one person from OLO, pick anyone, and putting them together in a book without any reference to the other posts, and then claiming them to be the undisputed word of God. If you examine the NT that is exactly what you have except it was the letters of Paul instead of a selective OLO person.

Using this method you can end up with a self fulfilling prophecy that proves any political agenda you want.

The System was that the Bible was written in Latin. If a practitioner asked the priest a question the priest could open the Bible and tell the partitioner whatever he liked and claim it was the word of God. Tyndale ended that by translating the Bible into English and was burnt at the stake as a result. The Bible was about (and still is to some) control and manipulation.

There is the old problem of people saying the want the truth but what they really want is a truth they will like. If you want truth you must be prepared for the possibility that you will not like the truth you will find. It you want to know the truth abut the Bible stop arguing about what is in it and look at where it came from.

It did not come from God, nor is there anything about its birth that can stamp it as infallible.