Selective Validation

I find it irritatingly humorous when people quote some portions of the Bible as examples of why other parts of the Bible are invalid.

If you read The DaVinci Code or The Third Jesus, you'll find the authors using quotes from the Bible to invalidate the most important event recorded in the book... the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This amazes me... either the Bible is a valid point of reference or it is not.

Now, if you want to use passages in the Bible to analyze inconsistencies within the Bible itself, for example, that makes sense, but you cannot pick and choose the validity of the Bible as a reference.

That's like me examining the Constitution and referencing the first amendment in order to invalidate the second amendment.

I also find it irritatingly humorous when people utilizes discarded versions of writings similar to the those found in the Bible (Dead Sea Scrolls) and give them equal validity to the Bible.

That's like me finding an earlier version of the Declaration of Independence that stated "all Massachusetts born men are created equal" and arguing that it has equal contextual weight, even though the entry was discarded and ignored.

Just because a document was written during the same time frame about the same subject does not mean it is equally valid as the final, approved document. If I find a writing from the time of Moses stating Moses was also a circus clown doesn't make it accurate.

Obviously, when putting together the Bible or the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, some discernment over accuracy, validity and continuity had to be taken into consideration.

Things aren't discarded by some grand conspiracy... they're discarded because they're simply not good enough.

So, next time your hear arguments utilizing Biblical quotes skewed to attack the divinity of Jesus Christ, ask them to explain themselves. Their response will more than likely be irritatingly humorous.