When the same literary, historical & scientific methods are applied to the Bible (just as any other work), it is amazing (miraculous) how well the Bible withstands the tests. Placed in the proper context, the Bible is not contradictory or confusing.

Lee Stobel, a former investigative reporter for the Chicago Sun/Times (and an athiest, no less) does an excellent job of providing context and perspective in his book "The Case For Christ." Whether a Christian or not, it's a book well-worth reading.

By this reasoning if you were to get up a little before dawn and walk for 15 minutes, and someone stopped you and said, "how long you been walking?" you could honestly reply, "A day and a night."
That's silly. THREE DAYS and THREE NIGHTS. The Bible is very clear. Besides, at dawn Jesus was already gone from the tomb (matthew 28:6).

Here are just a few more contradictions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRn0iuxkggI

And Lee Strobel! That man is a total fraud. He has made an ungodly amount of money duping Christians with his books.

Here is a site that discusses the Strobel's first book in some detail:
http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm

HE calls his book an "investigation" into the validity of Christianity, yet during this investigation he ONLY talks to believers, never to scholars who contradict his views. Can you imagine a courtroom in which only the defendant was allowed to testify and never the police?
How fair is that?

Supposed contradictions like this were not contradictions back then, which is why they were never brought up as a problem for the readers of the time. They understood what was meant, because they understood the various cultural idioms and literary devices in place at the time. It's only looking back at it from today where it raises questions.

I'd be more concerned about Jonah being in the belly of a sea monster, than the 3 day/night thing!

The genealogy of Jesus is recorded in two passages of the Gospels: Matthew 1:1–17[1] and Luke 3:23–28.[2] Each traces the ancestry of Jesus back to King David, to show his fulfillment of prophecy regarding the Christ.

Yet, the two genealogies are remarkably different from one another, and pretty much disagreeing completely on the lineage from Joseph, back to David.

So how can you say the Bible is consistent? This is just one of countless inconsistencies in the Bible (not to mention the things that are either irrational, or implausible).

It doesn't add up because this is the work of ancient man, no more. Today it looks dated and silly.

Moreover, the question then arises, why do both gospels seem to trace the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, when they both deny that he is Jesus's biological father?

Actually, RickY, even back in the 2nd century when there were so few written copies of the Gospels it was still noted that there were some glaring contradictions. The apologist Tatian even published a work known as the Diatessaron ("made from four") an attempt to harmonize the gospel accounts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron

And as far as that, "well back then you see things were different" argument it might fool someone who WANTS a simple answer but it doesn't bear scrutiny. I remember when I was a fundamentalist and used to parrot those phrases to explain obvious contradictions. For example, 2 kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2..."ah you see back then they had a different way of numbering, 22 could mean 42."
Yeah, right.

Back then, you could be a descendent of someone else, if someone in that lineage was not your biological father.

Back then, you could walk on water.

...yeah, right again.

Why do you guys even care?

I went through great lengths to explain why I care last week, but my comments were deleted.

Matthew's account traces the lineage of Jesus through his legal father, Joseph. Luke's account traces Jesus' lineage through his biological mother Mary. This is shown right off the bat when Luke says Joseph's father is Heli and Matthew identifies Jesus' father as Jacob. The Jerusalem Talmud indicates that Mary was the daughter of Heli (Haggigah, Book 77, 4). Therefore, Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. Luke could rightfully call Joseph the "son of Heli" because this was in compliance with use of the word "son" at that time. Both Joseph and Mary were descendants of David.So Jesus was a descendant of King David through his "legal" earthly father and biologically through his birth mother. The "discrepancies" in these genealogies have been exhaustively researched for centuries. It's unlikely anything said here will change anyone's mind.
Peace to all.

"Luke's account traces Jesus' lineage through his biological mother Mary."

Are you sure about that?

From Luke:

God
Adam
Seth
Enosh
Cainain
Mahalalel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah
Shem
Arphaxad
Cainan
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
Reu
Serug
Nahor
Terah
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Pharez
Hezron
Ram
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salmon
Boaz
Obed
Jesse
David
Nathan
Mattatha
Menna
Melea
Eliakim
Jonam
Joseph
Judah
Simeon
Levi
Matthat
Jorim
Eliezer
Joshua
Er
Elmadam
Cosam
Addi
Melchi
Neri
Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
Rhesa
Joanan
Joda
Josech
Semein
Mattathias
Mahath
Naggai
Hesli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Eli
Joseph
Jesus

Jubal,
Thank you for your comment, it is great to see someone post something that isnt for arguement sake. I found that imformation earlier. Thanks for reminding me of it. God bless you for your input.

RFTH -

Is this going to be a devotional site that helps believers and seekers to share and explore our faith, or is it going to be the Erik and JCO put down Christianity forum?

I'm losing the good feelings that I have had for the felowship that many of us want to share here.

Grant- I have never put down Christianity. When people make claims that are factually untrue I stand up for truth. I think Christianity is probably on the less malignant side of religion and there are many fine Christians whose faith has made a positive impact on society.
I like very much George Lucas's description of his faith as "Buddhist Methodist" and it might even be possible to describe ME as a kind of Christian atheist.

My experience certainly has been that when people say unpopular things and challenge religious leaders they tend to get crucified.

Instead of complaining to RFTH why not contribute something meaningful to the discussion.

The problem with the Internet is that it would take all evening to set a guy like Erik straight. Let me just give one example of many that could be offered.

It's simply irrelevant what he thinks about how time was reckoned in the first century; the issue is how the audience at that time understood this. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, tenth in the descent from Ezra, said specifically: "A day and a night are an 'Omah' ["a portion of time"] and the portion of an 'Omah' is as the whole of it" (J. Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and b. Talmud, Pesahim 4a.).

I don't want to take a lot of time to answer his audacious claim that I'm a "total fraud" because of how I've written my books. The point of "The Case for Christ" is that I myself had been an atheist and so for the purposes of this book I stood in the shoes of the skeptic and asked the questions that had hung me up on my own investigative journey. Obviously, I had studied the atheist literature; that's abundantly clear from the skeptics I quote. I didn't find their explanations particularly persuasive, and so I went to Christian scholars to see if they had adequate responses -- which they clearly did. (Incidentally, my entire book "The Case for Faith" is built around an interview with Canada's most famous agnostic.) I don't appreciate someone like Erik calling me names, but I've come to expect it in the world of the Internet. If he or others want to see how atheists and agnostics fare in formal debates with Christians, I'd suggest viewing William Lane Craig's trouncing of Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman, Christopher Hitchens, etc., etc.

Erik and JCO, I just wanted to again say that you are in my prayers every night. There's a reason that both of you can't seem to pull yourself away from this site even after you have said you're leaving. Don't get me wrong hearing the same arguments taken from the athiest websites you throw out grows wearisome. I'm not going to debate these things with you because arguing is what you desire, so I'm only reminding you I'm still praying for you.

Lee,
I greatly appreciate you taking time to make your clarifying comments to Erik and JCO. I was recently given your book "The Case for Christ" and look forward to reading it. Thank you again and God bless

What I am curious about is when was a healthy argument a bad thing?

What happened to intellectual pursuits and seeking after answers...seeking after the truth...seeking after God? If you don't agree with someone, it doesn't make your disagreement or their argument a bad thing. It is -- what it is -- a difference of opinion.

I don't think anyone is angry here. Are you?

And why place a comment option or a blog on a devotional if you aren't interested in hearing from people? Is God only about good thoughts and prayer requests? The Bible actually states that He is also a God of Wrath and Justice.

I suggest if an open discussion is offered, then allow it to be open without negating the value of argument and reasoning in the pursuit of God.

I think every Christian honors God in seeking after Him, asking questions, and having an open dialogue with others (Christians or Atheists). Let us not forget where Jesus chose to sit down for dinner and who he ate with, shall we? And how many people are saved each day by being heard and being argued with.

Getting down to the truth really does set us free, but we still have to get down to it.

I would really rather be at Jesus' table with sinners, then with Christians who had shut their mouth and ears to the pursuit of an open Christian, theological dialogue.

And who are we as Christians if we accept everything at face value, even from our Pastors?

Just food for thought.

Many blessings

David, when I was new on this devotion I felt exactly as you do and in fact for a couple of days one Easter I went back and forth with one of them(if memory serves me it was JCO). I thought that everyone else had moved on and that it was just he and I discussing the matter until some others suddenly started commenting on our comments. Anyway, I finally learned after a couple of years(lol) that they weren't interested in answers and loved stirring up arguments. I do occasionally here and there try to very briefly answer a question that I feel is sincere, but for the most part only remind them I'm praying for them. I'm difinetely not trying to disuade you from having conversations with them, but just be aware of their motives. I am concerned that it is discouraging for new or young christians or seekers to watch heated arguments. I think we need to be mindful that satan would love to use them for this purpose. I know from experience it is hard after a while not to show frustration or even anger. So anyway I just thought I'd explain why some of us that have been on here for several years are a little cautious about going back over and over the same arguments with them that we've already thorougly answered already. It shows they are not sincerely listening or wanting to know since they keep repeating the same questions and coming back with the same arguments over and over from atheist websites. I do sincerely care for them and like I said will be glad to answer a sincere question, but will not contribute to the stumbling of other christians in the process. Take care and God bless.

One more comment I wanted to mention is that I feel like we've all tried to answer Erik's and JCO's questions and now it's time to let the Holy Spirit do his job. We are not the ones that can convict anyone, only He can. God bless

Some have closed their ears and heart to the truth and would not listen to the truth if they were chained and anchored to a bridge, if we as God's children would just turn them over to Him and show love to them, then we have done our part. The Bible is not a book to be argued over. It is okay to debate, discuss and have intelligent conversations about but there comes a time to keep our thought to ourselves and let God do his work. I believe in science but for it to be a science it has to be truly proven, just as some say about the Bible. Not all sciences are proven, they are just accepted and then we have discussions like we have had on here before. I thank Lee for his input on this devotion and I hope everyone has a great day, after all God made it for us to enjoy, for those who don't believe in Him I guess you can enjoy it just because it is here.

I would just say again that I come to this site for inpiration and encouragement. Like CF, I tried "engagement" and I don't see the point anymore.

I look forward to the comments of all believers and seekers. I will just "fast forward" past the static.

Lee, If your still there, I enjoyed your book. William Lane Craig is the right guy for the job. Perhaps Erik and JCO can engage him at his website.

God bless you all.

David, I think everyone here would love an open, honest and objective argument about aspects of Christianity.

But that isn't what we have.

Instead what we have are a few people who have no honest interest in investigating the claims of Christ. There is a complete lack of integrity, objectivity, and reason in some people's "arguments." We have disingenuous people who comment here. Jesus didn't argue with disingenuous people, and neither will I.

I read a funny comment the other day by Vox Day, "Looking for logic and reason amidst the atheist fever swamp is a quixotic endeavor. They talk about being rational all the time for much the same reason that a starving person is obsessed with food."

Made me think of some of the comments here.

I so agree with Jerry. This site is called one minute daily devotions, not discussions. The intent is to build up and strengthen the believers and to worship God each day. It is not an open forum for dissection of RFTH's thought for the day. God Bless. Lindamarine

When we allow ourselves to get into vain arguments about things that no one is going to agree upon anyway we make others besides the Lord the "stars" of this website which is what a couple of people desire and satan wishes for that matter. Instead we should always keep the Lord the focus and center of this site.

David: thank you for your comments. Very well stated. I agree completely. Whether Christian or atheist we are (hopefully) all seeking after truth, and I think that requires dealing with difficult questions.

Grant: I understand and respect that you come here for devotion and not debate. I think we all need a kind of sanctuary and respite from the world occasionally, which is why I abide by my agreement with RFTH to limit the number of devotionals on which I write comments.

Austin: I would submit to you that I am more objective than most Christians, since I am willing to admit that I could be wrong, whereas Christians will not.

As for Lee Strobel- follow the money. He wants it. I do not. Even on my highly trafficked website (which I won't mention) I carry no advertising, sell no products and solicit no donations.

Austin mentioned disingenuous people- well let me show you what kind of a man this Strobel character is. This is just one example but it's his modus operandi, and you will find that his books are just an extended version of this:

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1144

This is supposed to be a debate between skeptic Michael Shermer and NT scholar Ben Witherington.
Strobel sets the tone by introducing Witherington as DOCTOR Ben Witherington, while referring to Shermer without his DOCTOR title (already trying to discredit him).
Then he gives Witherington almost a full 5 MINUTES to talk and only allows Shermer 30 seconds to respond. I know we disagree on a lot of things but does that seem fair to you? Does that seem right? Is that something an honest person would do, editing the video to make someone look bad?
I pointed this out on the video's "comments" section and my comment was deleted. All I did was ask why the skeptic was only given 30 seconds.
So that's the kind of person this Strobel is. Dishonest, disingenuous, fraudulent, and so terrified of opposition that he won't even allow an opponent to speak. Sickening.

Lee Strobel:
"The Case for Christ: How I went from being a non-theist to a straw man."

Ever sat in a courtroom where the judge says, "I'm familiar with the police officer's arguments. No need for him to testify."? Sounds like a mistrial to me. Would you buy a book from me that purported to be an investigation of Christianity, arrived at the conclusion that it was all bunk, and then defended it by saying, "well, I'm familiar with Christian arguments, so I don't really need to talk to them."

BTW: you are talking to a MAN here, not one of those hicks you con out of shekels with your endless "Case for" comic books.
Why don't you find real work like the rest of us?

And look for Bob Price's "The Case against the Case for Christ" coming soon. Written by an actual Biblical scholar.

The only thing I can say in Strobel's defense (and here I am being more fair to him than he is to people like me) is that my Christian media friend had lunch with him and said he seemed like a nice guy.

Erik - It's good to see you harass more than just our site. Sorry the conversation isn't as well received or desired :)

Lee (assuming you are real) - I am sure you do not remember me, but we had lunch when you spoke at Azusa Pacific University a few years ago when I worked for their office of Chapel Programs. As for your comment about it could take "all night" to have a conversation with Erik. Try 5 years! But just like CS Lewis and Sheldon Vanauken in the greatest book (in my mind) ever written: A Severe Mercy - I have faith that truth ultimately wins in the end. But honestly, you of all people should know being condescending to non-theists isn't exactly a helpful tone in the discussion. But Erik is right that given our short interaction I do talk positively about you in conversation with atheists/agnostics - which is much more I can say about many of the Christian authors I came across in my four years at that job.

Erik, for the most part most of us on this site try to be respectful toward you even when we might grow weary of your comments.We may occassionally even show some annoyance. The thing is if you want to retain any feeling of respect from us we would apprecitate you not attacking anyone personally or calling them names. I do not know Lee Strobel and have not read his book. Quite frankly I try to do most of my bible study from my actual bible. In your comments you called this man that you obviously disagree with and have the right to- a total fraud, dishonest, fradulant, terrified of opposition, con and basically accused him of being a dead beat by saying he needs to get a "real job". You say you want fair discussion. Nothing is fair about calling anyone names-not cool Erik.

CF: their is such a thing as righteous anger. Jesus often said some very hard things about people.
The truth is not always pretty.

Andy- it's ok. I'm used to be a voice crying in the wilderness.

Being annoyed and angry is one thing,calling someone names is another. Again if you want to retain our respect you'll need to refrain from the personal attacks, sarcasm and name calling-it's up to you... I'm moving on. Still care about you and praying every night. God bless

Christ Follower: tell you what- there is an easy way to get me to retract the things I have said about Strobel (including calling him a coward, which I have done previously)- there are numerous podcasts and radio programs where he could state and defend his beliefs without the aid of video tricks. I can think of three right off the bat:

(Former pastor) Dan Barker's FFRF podcast, (former pastor) Dr. Bob Price's Freedom of Inquiry podcast and The Infidel Guy podcast.

I am sure they would allow him as much time as he wanted. I have listened to many of these podcasts myself and they have always been fair and respectful to guests. I would gladly shut up if Strobel would appear on one of these and take questions from the audience.

But he won't do that. He only speaks to people fundamentalists who believe what he believes because he is afraid of real questions.