“The Holy Bible is inspired by God and free of error.”
The first issue to address is the source of biblical information. As shown in the bibliography, I chose to use the “New Revised Standard Version”, partly because the language is a little easier to follow and partly because it was a version already in my home library. I possess other versions of the text, as well, and frequently compare passages. To the point, there have been so many alterations and “versions” of the biblical texts developed over time, mostly to accommodate evolving languages, that choosing one over others can be a challenge. While the words may not be “exactly” the same as the version used by a reader of this book, the authors of the various versions generally tried to keep the messages somewhat consistent with the original texts. If you compare the scriptures referenced in this book to the same found in your favorite Bible, regardless of version used, the questions, contradictions and errors identified will still be valid.
Before you dismiss the analysis as simply an act of skepticism, consider this:
Skepticism is the engine that powers the machine of discovery.
That is not to say that everything challenged under skepticism is automatically false. Skepticism merely presses us to fully examine, test, and scrutinize every aspect, to insure the greatest degree of accuracy. If we simply accept everything we are told without question, aren’t we being gullible? If we challenge and question everything we are told, examine carefully, and draw conclusions based upon evidence, aren’t we being thorough? And if the examination establishes that which we challenged is actually the truth, does that not make us more confident in our beliefs? Skepticism is often viewed as a negative, because it challenges faith and the notion that faith should never be challenged. In reality it is very much a positive – inspiring scrutiny, exposing flaws, and guiding us towards logical conclusions and eventual truths. The greatest flaw of religion – and that refers to all religions, not just Judeo-Christianity – is the sense of absolutism. The book is held to be “absolutely” correct, beyond any question or doubt. But what then happens when man acquires knowledge that proves a certain piece of the book to be false or incorrect? The book isn’t designed to incorporate changes reflecting acquired knowledge, so the powers that be insist and demand that people believe the book, despite the evidence to the contrary. Historically, the church has gone to great lengths, including executing scientists who speak the new knowledge, to protect blind faith in the book. There is a very long list of Renaissance scholars who were abused, imprisoned, and/or executed for the crime of saying that the Earth is round, not flat. Yet we know today, beyond any doubt, that it was the church, not science, which was wrong. So goes the argument over Evolution science. Despite a rapidly expanding mountain of evidence in support of Evolution theories, religionists stand firm against the science, for no reason other than it challenges their ancient religious absolutes. So why can’t religion be fluid enough to incorporate the changes that result from acquiring knowledge and examining evidence? There is a real hazard to the church in admitting that the main text is not “perfect” or “divinely inspired”. Would people so freely become members of an organization that openly admits its primary and absolute text is replete with errors and contradictions? What of the sacrifices expected and demanded of said members? It is in the best interest of the hierarchy to maintain the myth in its entirety.
Science is the ship that sails us ever forward to the port of knowledge and truth. Religion is the anchor that steadfastly holds us back.
In the spirit of true science, all this book asks is that the reader use it as a guide to scriptural and scientific comparisons, and thereafter research, follow the evidence, observe the real world objectively, and form a personal opinion of faith and religion based upon a preponderance of the evidence, objective analysis, and acquired knowledge. The first and most relevant question that should be asked is:
Did God create man in God’s image, or did man create God in man’s image?
And as you ponder this question, consider the following:
The Bible makes it clear that all humans, beginning with the first two, Adam and Eve, had knowledge of the Judeo-Christian God, and that such knowledge was continuous throughout the biblical genealogies. How then does one explain the fact that evidence of monotheistic worship of the Judeo-Christian God can only be traced back about 4,000 years, while artifacts of Human worship dating thousands of years earlier show no evidence of any culture having knowledge of, or worshipping, the Judeo-Christian God, or even practicing monotheistic worship? How also does one explain the coincidence of other and much older religious beliefs, rituals, and practices being found in Judeo-Christian worship? Next time you hear someone declare “Christ is the reason for the season” regarding Christmas, take a moment to research the origins of all the facets of Christmas worship. None, including the decorated tree, Yule logs, or even the date of the celebration, have any root or origin in the New Testament story of Christ. Much to the dismay of Judeo-Christian practitioners, the evidence suggests that their religion is a composite, blending beliefs of many cultures into the one we know today. Even such familiarity is often unfamiliar, with some 3000 Christian denominations failing to agree completely on all the nuts and bolts of what it means to be a Christian.
From the earliest writings to much earlier symbolic art forms, it is clear that humans have always been determined god makers, having fashioned literally thousands of gods worldwide over millions of years of human evolution. It should be noted that humankind created all these gods for good and logical reasons. Or at least so it seemed to those doing the creating. The one element in life that Man could not provide for himself was protection from death and oblivion. He, therefore, concocted gods, souls, Heavens, Nirvanas and assorted Valhalla's to which he could escape after death, thus providing eternal life for himself and his family. In answer to the question earlier: Man has always created God(s), and given that Gods come and go while man continues, the who created whom is quite obvious.
If you examine the various books of the Bible closely, you will see clear changes in perceptions and focus as time marched on. The number one cause of conflict and contradiction between the books of the Gospel is none other than Father Time, himself. Since the books were not written in a single generation, and since perceptions and attitudes change with each new generation, it is logical that a collection of books written over many generations would have noticeable differences. As perceptions change, so does the religious model. And while the words of the book may be resistant to change, the interpretations of those words can change dramatically with changing perceptions. Any given passage is open to personal interpretation, and no two will see any object in the exact same view. Like all things in nature, religion evolves in response to changes in the environment, and science today has the religious environment in a constant state of action and reaction. This leaves the devout struggling to maintain sameness in the face of inevitable change. With that, I ask you to keep this question in mind as you read the book:
Why do Humans cling so dearly to the past and the familiar, and at the same time resist changes that are often so obvious and necessary?
Dissecting A Bible Announcement Page
