You do....Understand what Islam says about Jesus, right?

Muslims' belief in Jesus is vastly different than a Christian's belief in Jesus. One believes he is the messiah, and son of God. The other believes he is simply another prophet of God. Why would you believe that someone that has that faith will publish books that would attack his own religions' beliefs about that person?

Like I said, it'd make as much sense as a Christian proclaiming that Mohammed is Allah's prophet, and that Jesus isn't the Son of God. They're conflicting religious viewpoints.

A simple Wikipedia search on Jesus in Islam would agree with this statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

Just read a bit. You'll understand why both religions' beliefs of Jesus are heavily conflicting with one another.

I am not being prejudiced against Muslims by stating this simple fact. No Muslim believes the way I do about Jesus. If they did, they really couldn't be considered Muslim, because it would negate their own prophet's declaration about the nature of Allah. Likewise, taking a Muslims' account of the nature and lack of divinity of Christ would fully negate the core components of what a Christian believes. They are mutually exclusive. Yes, both believe that Jesus existed, but their belief on his nature are heavily divergent.

If you can't understand this, then I really have nothing else to say to you. These statements aren't an attack against Muslims. I respect their right to believe differently about Al-Isa than I do. But I'm not going to agree with their viewpoint, because I do believe its wrong as a Christian - because if I did take their viewpoint on the nature of Al-Isa, then I would no longer be a Christian.

The fact that you are lumping the bible in one big catch-phrase goes to show how much you know about it.

The book is written by various authors, in many different languages under various litterary types. The gospel accounts themselves are of varying degrees of historical method.

It just goes to show that, no matter what information you present, the bible will always be seen as material that must prove itself, when it really proves itself. I mean, even if the flood were untrue (which I seriously doubt), the gospels hold each other up together very well even historically speaking.

1@bold. You can't say that. If I report you you're going to get banned, and I want to talk. Stop pegging me in a pigeonhole. What does it matter what religion I believe, I don't have an agenda, I simply trust more the bible than the naturalistic sources you trust. I'm not gonna report you this time but seriously stop.

2@No science backing intelligent design. Do you realize that creation.com is a site filled with a plethora of scientific articles using modern science to explain what they believe to be biblical phenomenon which can be explained by science? In other words, they try to hold the bible accountable to modern-day science. It's not pseudo-science I've gone over this with you a million times. Have you even read some of their articles?

3@Contradictions. I went through your list and there were not many NT ones. The contradictions of the NT I skimmed over were "Scarlet" rather than "Purple" for Christ's robe, or "Vinegar" versus "Wine with myrrh", stuff that makes the sources even MORE credible as these are eye-witness accounts.

And again, I asked for other historical texts that support each other as much. You still haven't provided any.

4@Evolution keeps changing its tune. Are you seriously saying that evolution got it right the first time and didn't change since Darwin?

What were talking about here are CONTRADICTIONS in the NT. What we are not talking about is whether the Bible can count properly. With that said, Matthew 1:17 CLEARLY states that it counts the generation of Daid twice:

¹⁷ Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.

Whether you think that is silly or not is irrelivant, as there is no CONTRADICTION because the passage of scripture tells us how it is made up those 42 (not 41) historical (not necessarilly counting) generations. What you should now go and do, is to find out what is the SIGNIFICANCE of counting David's generation twice

2: Have you ever read an actual scientific article? Not, a summary of an article on FOX; not a report of an article from a second-hand non-scientific magazine or website; not something posted on a forum, but an actual scientific article? Do you even understand what peer-review is? (no, that 'article' on creation.com, which simply resorts to accusations is neither a correct representation of peer-review, nor is it an unbiased critique of it) 

To know 'pseudo'-science, you must be able to understand 'actual' science. Science does not tell you the truth. Science employs reason in order to present empirical facts, as we understand and interpret them right now. Science is in many circumstances an (informed) opinion, and quite often its findings are very precise and narrow, and open to re-examination. Science 'facts' can be re-established (or disproven) by conducting independent experiments or research, and these new tests/re-evaluations can be performed by anyone who has a firm grasp of both theory and methodology of the topic at hand. The methodology implemented has to be explained, verified and defended in each and every academic article published.

3: There are contradictions in nearly every historical book. History was not always a science, and in fact even today's historiography struggles to become a science (I would know, as I have studied the field at postgraduate level). There are attempts to implement scientific checks and rigorous peer-review but the fact remains that history is a difficult beast and verges on the point between being an elaborate art-form, and a true scientific topic with appropriate methodologies. What makes you think that 'history' of so many thousand years ago is able to stand rigorous review and analysis? We are barely able to 'argue' the history of Cold War from a scientific/historiographic perspective, let alone be able to verify the historicity of a book that is marginally 'historical' in the first place. Humans have always told stories of the past. The methodologies they used to pass them on have always been questionable, and even today there is huge debate among historians on what constitutes correct methodology in their field. Mythologies from everywhere tend to have historical information that we can extract. Yet, of all the mythological texts, it is the Bible that people most often try to prove or disprove its' historicity.

4: There is no right or wrong in science. Only new information and experiments that may amend or overturn the past. Science does not come from the same place. Not all scientists agree on everything. Science is a process, not a result. Science does not tell or try to tell you 'the truth'. Science is a rational procedure, it is not infallible and may indeed change over time. Freud was still speaking of 'female hysteria', and of course modern psychology completely rejects this concept and notion. This does not invalidate neither Freud nor modern psychology. The diference of science and religion is that science is actually made by thousands of people, with different agendas, different opinions, different backgrounds. Their research is published and is available for any other scientist to review, comment or dispute. If a scientific article is ground-breaking, it will be cited more often, leading to new edits, changes and improvements -- by the original author or team of authors, or by an altogether different team. A new team may even succesfully dispute and negate previous research. Nothing is set on stone.

Religion would instead try to defend the inclusion of 'female hysteria', and attempt to interpret the meaning behind the use of the term. The problem here being, of course, that 'old information' is always interpreted in light of 'new information', in such a way as to always maintain the validity of the old information. It is this forced interpretation that causes all the trouble. Religion is not a science, exactly because religion is infallible.

You can write a PhD on the historical mistakes of science and the philosophy of the scientific method, and it would still be a scientific piece of work, open to peer-review and discussion. Science is not infallible, and it is not a single, unified position on the cosmos. It is merely our current understanding of tiny, extremely particular aspects of it, as we have interpreted from experiment, rational thinking and observation. It is always a case of 'what we know now', based on all available information.

It doesn't count David twice and it doesn't count Abraham and you're not counting Jeconiah twice based on your approach either. You're not understanding the from and to business here.

From 6 oclock to 7 oclock is 1 hour, but you're telling me that I must count 6 as an hour and 7 as an hour giving from 6 to 7 being two hours. We're not counting hours. We are counting FROM an hour to the nth hour (or generation to the nth generation).

So the person who wrote Mathew clearly counted wrong.

Matthew 1:17 counts David in two generations. This is because Matthew 1 not only lists the geneology of Jesus but also list HISTORICAL periods in the jewish ancestry. As I said before, the book of Matthew was written for Jeewish sensibilities, so while the geneology of Jesus is important, it is also more imporrtant for JEWS to undertsand the geneology's historical context. You don't just read the words on the page of the Bible, you also need to understand their significance, i.e. the geneology of Jesus might also be a historical account of fact when Israel was taking into captivity. Plus I'm surre there is some prophesy being fullflied in there if you can take the time to study WHEN they went into captivity.

Anyways, here is how the geneology goes.

1. The history of Israel from Abraham to David: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and brothers, Perez (and Zerah), Hezron, Ram, Amminadob, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, and David. That’s 14 generations from Abraham to David. We don’t count Zerah as he is the same generation as Perez.
2. From David to deportation to Babylon: David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah. That’s 14 generations. Notice that the passage says: “from David to the deportation.” Therefore, David is considered the first generation in the deportation.
3. From Babylon to the time of Jesus: Jeconiah, Shealtial, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Elikim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eljud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus. 14 generations.

They all have an answer when you take the time to look at them. It's just that most hearts are rebellious so the first reaction is to say "It's FALSE!". Hopefully if there is a sensible ear and we put in the hard work, all this stuff can be cleared up. I'm pretty sure a response page with simple and outlined responses to these contradictions exists somewhere.